Romney opens 5 point lead over Obama

[TakeYouToTasker]

WorldTraveller:

 

The changes won't apply to those people who are 55 and older today...

"After the plan failed to get a single Democratic vote, Ryan made key changes, working with Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat. The revised plan gives seniors a choice between the current system and the voucher program, and it would not affect people who are over 55. The cost to the average Medicare patient are less than his previous plan, an average of $800."

 

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...as-on-medicare/

 

 

"Choice between current system and the voucher program"

 

The only change for those choosing the existing program is the age which goes up to 67. So if you are referring to that, which you weren't then you could make an argument.

 

"The 2013 proposal provides workers currently under the age of 55 (beginning in 2023) a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee for service option on a newly created Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium payment to either pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior. This was based on a plan developed with Democrat Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon."

 

This is from the same Wiki article I posted above, and the medicare voucher system I outlined in my above post illustrates the new means testing for citizens 54 and younger which Adam and I have been trying to point out to you.

[WorldTraveller]

WorldTraveller:

 

The changes won't apply to those people who are 55 and older today...

 

 

"The 2013 proposal provides workers currently under the age of 55 (beginning in 2023) a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee for service option on a newly created Medicare Exchange. Medicare would provide a premium payment to either pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior. This was based on a plan developed with Democrat Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon."

 

This is from the same Wiki article I posted above, and the medicare voucher system I outlined in my above post illustrates the new means testing for citizens 54 and younger which Adam and I have been trying to point out to you.

 

I don't know how else to tell you, you have a choice to stay with the existing program as is or go to the voucher/premium support plan. By the sounds of it, you weren't aware of that choice. You keep bringing up the voucher as the only choice, that's simply not the case. I would suggest you google up Paul Ryan's path to prosperity site there you can learn a little more about it. I'm glad we are having this discussion, so other people who by chance are reading this can actually learn the facts about the plan. 1) those over 55 not affected at all. 2) those under 55 can stay in the existing Medicare system OR go to the voucher/premium support plan.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I would appriciate it if you could provide a link to an official website or Wikipedia entry highlighting what you are referencing. Thanks in advance.

[WorldTraveller]

When I get to work and off this iPad I will. But I did just link you that choice from the CBS website. That wasn't good enough? In any case tomorrow I will.

[TakeYouToTasker]

As a rule I try not to incorporate media outlets into my understanding if it's avoidable, instead prefering to look at the actual legislation or pre-legislative proposal myself.

[WorldTraveller]

As a rule I try not to incorporate media outlets into my understanding if it's avoidable, instead prefering to look at the actual legislation or pre-legislative proposal myself.

Well... I mean you did link Wikipedia .

[TakeYouToTasker]

Yes, but I've read the Ryan Plan myself, and found that the Wikipedia article covered the highlights we're discussing here very concisely and directly. If you had asked for a .pdf I would have provided it for you.

[WorldTraveller]

By the way, I recorded the Ryan Brit Hume interview which was being aired on Bret B's show on fox and during their round table discussion, they mentioned the exact same point I did, which was if you are under 55 you have the choice to stay on traditional Medicare. It's also on Ryan's path to prosperity PDF pages 52 -55

[TakeYouToTasker]

That information will do nicely. Thanks for taking the time.

[Rob's House]

This is all speculative, and I refuse to deal in the emotional claptrap of a bias driven narration. The bare facts are that the Obama administration has diverted more funds into the hands of large corporate interests and directed more Supply-Side deficit spending than all of his predecessors combined.

 

And truth be told? While horrid to contemplate, if forced to make a choice, I'd likely choose a socialist economy over a neo-mercantilist for no other reason than in a socialist economy the corporate looters are at least forced to pay for the infrastructure, while both actively work to strip away the wealth of the population.

What does that mean? And please explain this supply-side deficit spending tie in to Keynes. I understand some "supply siders" think the short-run cash infusion sparks growth, but I wasn't aware that this was the prevalent theory associated with the topic. I'd like to hear your take on this.

 

As far as the bit on speculation, virtually everything we're discussing here is speculative. Using the standard you've set forth, if one's wife were to come home with bloody panties and loose kitty you would assume she's not been !@#$ing another guy as long as she denied it because that would be speculation

 

And as far as your neo-mercantilism bit, I already said that might well be true, & I agree it can be equally or more destructive. I don't understand what you're arguing about. It's all taxonomy. Some would label the collusion between business & government you call neo-mercantilism as fascism. The point is the guy wants a top down economy with government running the show. To predict how that will evolve is necessarily speculative. But the people who claim it's "extreme" to call him a socialist aren't sitting back chortling and musing over the conflation of the terms "neo-mercantilist" & "socialist".

Stop being obtuse, you've demonstrated you're far smarter than this in my brief posting history. Regardless of age, if you've worked in America you have forcibly paid into an "insurance pool" your entire working life based on the promise and guarantee that you would receive a benefit at the age of 65. Now the promise and guarantee of that benefit has been removed, but the money spent on them is gone.

 

This has nothing to do with my positions on Medicare, or if I think the Ryan Plan is a good thing, but rather is based on the premise that good arguments aren't made by handwaving away inconvenient facts.

Are we to assume the value of their contribution is greater than what they'll receive from the voucher program?

Edited August 15, 2012 by Rob's House

[TakeYouToTasker]

What does that mean?

It means that I have perceived there to be an emotional bias on your part in relation to this single topic (the application of a lable), and you seem to want him to be a socialist because it's an easier barn to hit the side of, and when you're discussing this with others, it's a term they understand to be "bad". The truth is, that he isn't. He's a "bad guy" for the exact same reason President Bush was a "bad guy", and their policies are bad for those exact same reasons as well. The "socialism" charge is an invention of the powers that be, put in place to perpetuate the divide and conquer polotics that have made the Warners, Mellons, Chases, Morgans, et al. kings in an era of democracy.

 

Are we to assume the value of their contribution is greater than what they'll receive from the voucher program?

I'm not sure where you're going here. Can you please clarify? Edited August 15, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[Rob's House]

It means that I have perceived there to be an emotional bias on your part in relation to this single topic (the application of a lable), and you seem to want him to be a socialist because it's an easier barn to hit the side of, and when you're discussing this with others, it's a term they understand to be "bad". The truth is, that he isn't. He's a "bad guy" for the exact same reason President Bush was a "bad guy", and their policies are bad for those exact same reasons as well. The "socialism" charge is an invention of the powers that be, put in place to perpetuate the divide and conquer polotics that have made the Warners, Mellons, Chases, Morgans, et al. kings in an era of democracy.

No emotional bias at all. That assumes that my assessment of him comes from wanting him to be a bad guy rather than from what I have learned of him from his words & actions. It is possible to personally dislike a man for his personality & values without being biased. Put differently, my bias is a product of my assessment of, not the other way around. And broadly speaking, "socialist" or "Marxist" is a close enough description of a guy hell bent on income redistribution that I don't think it's unfair to apply it. Certainly it's open to the kind of debate you're presenting here, but as I explained, yours is not the argument coming from the other side. And were I to use esoteric language to describe him, I might be slightly more accurate, but most people would have no idea what I was talking about.

I'm not sure where you're going here. Can you please clarify?

You mentioned the under 55 crowd would lose what they'd paid into the system (unless I misread). I've not seen the numbers, but it seems they could potentially get a return on that investment whose value is equal to the value of the money they put in depending on the value of the voucher & how long they live.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Rob's House

[WorldTraveller]

Rob I would suggest that you read the path to prosperity from Paul Ryan, he has a PDF and you can cut right to the Medicare section. There you will read it for yourself and know what's in it as opposed to hear other people's interpretations

[Rob's House]

Rob I would suggest that you read the path to prosperity from Paul Ryan, he has a PDF and you can cut right to the Medicare section. There you will read it for yourself and know what's in it as opposed to hear other people's interpretations

I'll check it out. Thanks

[TakeYouToTasker]

No emotional bias at all. That assumes that my assessment of him comes from wanting him to be a bad guy rather than from what I have learned of him from his words & actions. It is possible to personally dislike a man for his personality & values without being biased.

No, you misunderstand. I don't presume that you "want him to be a bad guy", I observe that you correctly assess him to be a bad guy, but because you are the type who (admirably) shares those views to convince others, you have chosen language which you know will help you. You want him to be "socialist" because socialism is a useful boogyman you can use, and while he exhibits a few socialist traits and influences, it isn't an apt descriptor.

 

You mentioned the under 55 crowd would lose what they'd paid into the system (unless I misread). I've not seen the numbers, but it seems they could potentially get a return on that investment whose value is equal to the value of the money they put in depending on the value of the voucher & how long they live.

I'm still reading the new .pdf. I'll give you my final position on this tomorrow when I've had a chance to finish.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Edit: I get frustrated when people mislabel him because I'm not interested in fighting with Democrats and Republicans every four years and having them shout past me anymore. I'm only interested in the meta-discussion about what the system they both actually represent is, and hopefully someday tearing it down, so I never have to have this conversation again. In order to do that, I have to convince other bright people like yourself to make the correct argument, which you're so damn close to making anyway.

Edited August 15, 2012 by TakeYouToTasker

[Adam]

"After the plan failed to get a single Democratic vote, Ryan made key changes, working with Oregon Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat. The revised plan gives seniors a choice between the current system and the voucher program, and it would not affect people who are over 55. The cost to the average Medicare patient are less than his previous plan, an average of $800."

 

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...as-on-medicare/

 

 

"Choice between current system and the voucher program"

 

The only change for those choosing the existing program is the age which goes up to 67. So if you are referring to that, which you weren't then you could make an argument.

 

Now I could be wrong, but under the current system, aren't people getting back more than they put in?

[Rob's House]

 

No, you misunderstand. I don't presume that you "want him to be a bad guy", I observe that you correctly assess him to be a bad guy, but because you are the type who (admirably) shares those views to convince others, you have chosen language which you know will help you. You want him to be "socialist" because socialism is a useful boogyman you can use, and while he exhibits a few socialist traits and influences, it isn't an apt descriptor.

There's some truth in that. But my main concern is the inclination to dismiss out of hand the possibility of extremism in our leaders. That's why in many ways I have more respect for liberals than for those moderates who, for whatever reason (I assume to comfort themselves or feel superior for being so much more reasonable than the rest of us, but who knows why) automatically reject the possibility that an American President could be a dangerous individual. At least the liberal sees potential for abuse. Sure, we (people who take a side) are more inclined to give our guy a pass & see the worst in the other guy, but at least we're concerned about and aware of the potential for tyranny. The dupes that roll their eyes because "it couldn't happen here" are the most clueless of all IMO.

 

Edit: I get frustrated when people mislabel him because I'm not interested in fighting with Democrats and Republicans every four years and having them shout past me anymore. I'm only interested in the meta-discussion about what the system they both actually represent is, and hopefully someday tearing it down, so I never have to have this conversation again. In order to do that, I have to convince other bright people like yourself to make the correct argument, which you're so damn close to making anyway.

I understand that & I appreciate your insight.

[WorldTraveller]

 

 

Now I could be wrong, but under the current system, aren't people getting back more than they put in?

Sick people are

[TakeYouToTasker]

There's some truth in that. But my main concern is the inclination to dismiss out of hand the possibility of extremism in our leaders. That's why in many ways I have more respect for liberals than for those moderates who, for whatever reason (I assume to comfort themselves or feel superior for being so much more reasonable than the rest of us, but who knows why) automatically reject the possibility that an American President could be a dangerous individual. At least the liberal sees potential for abuse. Sure, we (people who take a side) are more inclined to give our guy a pass & see the worst in the other guy, but at least we're concerned about and aware of the potential for tyranny. The dupes that roll their eyes because "it couldn't happen here" are the most clueless of all IMO.

I'm not sure. I think those who fervently defend either the Red People or the Blue People are just as bad, because they blindly believe that the opposing color is the problem, while at the same time refusing to realize that the guy the Red People march out and the guy the Blue People march out are both actually Purple People.