EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 10, 2011 11:54:12 GMT -5
Guess what? Obama is now going to offer his debt-reduction budget this week. Way to lead, Mr. President.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Apr 10, 2011 13:41:42 GMT -5
Guess what? Obama is now going to offer his debt-reduction budget this week. Way to lead, Mr. President. Well, hopefully Obama's Medicare solution is better than the Republican's "If you're under 55, you don't get Medicare, but we'll give you a coupon (sorry...premium support) to try and buy insurance yourself"
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 10, 2011 16:21:58 GMT -5
Guess what? Obama is now going to offer his debt-reduction budget this week. Way to lead, Mr. President. Well, hopefully Obama's Medicare solution is better than the Republican's "If you're under 55, you don't get Medicare, but we'll give you a coupon (sorry...premium support) to try and buy insurance yourself" Yes, much better that we continue down the current path.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Apr 10, 2011 18:08:16 GMT -5
Well, hopefully Obama's Medicare solution is better than the Republican's "If you're under 55, you don't get Medicare, but we'll give you a coupon (sorry...premium support) to try and buy insurance yourself" Yes, much better that we continue down the current path. Yes, because apparently the only options are keeping something the exact same or blowing everything up. There shall be no middle ground...
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 10, 2011 18:29:06 GMT -5
Yes, much better that we continue down the current path. Yes, because apparently the only options are keeping something the exact same or blowing everything up. There shall be no middle ground... Like Obamacare?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 10, 2011 18:45:39 GMT -5
Yes, much better that we continue down the current path. Yes, because apparently the only options are keeping something the exact same or blowing everything up. There shall be no middle ground... If only someone had offered another alternative...
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Apr 10, 2011 19:45:44 GMT -5
Yes, because apparently the only options are keeping something the exact same or blowing everything up. There shall be no middle ground... If only someone had offered another alternative... Seems like another alternative is coming later this week, I'm sorry you're so offended that it's coming a whole week after the republican's plan.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 10, 2011 20:07:27 GMT -5
If only someone had offered another alternative... Seems like another alternative is coming later this week, I'm sorry you're so offended that it's coming a whole week after the republican's plan. I'm offended that it took more than four years for this "plan" to finally be loaded in to the President's teleprompter. If Obama really wanted to cut spending and address the fiscal problems facing the country, what's he been waiting for? Whatever he introduces this week is merely an attempt to co-opt this issue.
|
|
ksf42001
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 901
|
Post by ksf42001 on Apr 10, 2011 22:28:45 GMT -5
Seems like another alternative is coming later this week, I'm sorry you're so offended that it's coming a whole week after the republican's plan. I'm offended that it took more than four years for this "plan" to finally be loaded in to the President's teleprompter. If Obama really wanted to cut spending and address the fiscal problems facing the country, what's he been waiting for? Whatever he introduces this week is merely an attempt to co-opt this issue. So what exactly have republicans been doing the past four years that has been any different? Both parties have been speaking in generalities about SS/Medicare without any specifics. Ryan was the one exception when he released an even more ambitious plan a year or so ago, but I distinctly remember most of his compatriots distancing themselves from that very quickly. I'm personally hoping something like the Warner/Chambliss alliance wins the day and there's a rational discussion about the deficit, instead of nearly shutting down the gov't over abortion again, but I'm not holding my breath...
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Apr 11, 2011 7:29:08 GMT -5
I thought the timing of Ryan's plan was bad. I was wrong. It framed the debate of the current long delayed budget and has totally changed the debate in Washington. Since it was labeled as "courageous and straightforward" it has become the centerpiece for discussion and Obama - who was ready to just take pot shots at it and continue the same spending course - has now had to respond with his own new budget plan. I have seen a lot of things but I have never seen a President release a budget and then come back and say - well nevermind here is the budget I really meant. The debate has changed and I fully expect the Prez to say we need an entirely new tax revenue stream via a VAT tax plus some minor spending cuts. Hope so as we can then have a real debate on which way to go.
And after all the comments that we should have ideas that bridge the left/right gap and give something to both sides, I am surprised at the comments about Ryan's Medicare plan. Moves to private health care markets (right) but then says the government contributions are means tested and the wealthy don't get them. That has been a big mantra of the left for a long time and is in essence a big tax increase. I thought some on the left would at least acknowledge that.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Apr 11, 2011 7:43:11 GMT -5
I thought the timing of Ryan's plan was bad. I was wrong. It framed the debate of the current long delayed budget and has totally changed the debate in Washington. Since it was labeled as "courageous and straightforward" it has become the centerpiece for discussion and Obama - who was ready to just take pot shots at it and continue the same spending course - has now had to respond with his own new budget plan. I have seen a lot of things but I have never seen a President release a budget and then come back and say - well nevermind here is the budget I really meant. The debate has changed and I fully expect the Prez to say we need an entirely new tax revenue stream via a VAT tax plus some minor spending cuts. Hope so as we can then have a real debate on which way to go. And after all the comments that we should have ideas that bridge the left/right gap and give something to both sides, I am surprised at the comments about Ryan's Medicare plan. Moves to private health care markets (right) but then says the government contributions are means tested and the wealthy don't get them. That has been a big mantra of the left for a long time and is in essence a big tax increase. I thought some on the left would at least acknowledge that. Just a quick question for the Ryan budget supporters here. What incentive do private insurers have to provide affordable insurance coverage for the elderly? I know Ryan is a young guy, but does he forget why Medicare was created in the first place? In the end, the coupons offered by the Ryan plan will have to be obscenely large to make the premiums affordable for seniors, many of which are living off of Social Security and whatever they have left in their retirement accounts after the economy tanked in '08.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 11, 2011 7:50:11 GMT -5
Didn't Obamacare cut $500B from Medicare for seniors "many of which are living off Social Security and whatever they have left in their retirement accounts after the economy tanked in '08"?
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Apr 11, 2011 8:13:50 GMT -5
I thought the timing of Ryan's plan was bad. I was wrong. It framed the debate of the current long delayed budget and has totally changed the debate in Washington. Since it was labeled as "courageous and straightforward" it has become the centerpiece for discussion and Obama - who was ready to just take pot shots at it and continue the same spending course - has now had to respond with his own new budget plan. I have seen a lot of things but I have never seen a President release a budget and then come back and say - well nevermind here is the budget I really meant. The debate has changed and I fully expect the Prez to say we need an entirely new tax revenue stream via a VAT tax plus some minor spending cuts. Hope so as we can then have a real debate on which way to go. And after all the comments that we should have ideas that bridge the left/right gap and give something to both sides, I am surprised at the comments about Ryan's Medicare plan. Moves to private health care markets (right) but then says the government contributions are means tested and the wealthy don't get them. That has been a big mantra of the left for a long time and is in essence a big tax increase. I thought some on the left would at least acknowledge that. Just a quick question for the Ryan budget supporters here. What incentive do private insurers have to provide affordable insurance coverage for the elderly? I know Ryan is a young guy, but does he forget why Medicare was created in the first place? In the end, the coupons offered by the Ryan plan will have to be obscenely large to make the premiums affordable for seniors, many of which are living off of Social Security and whatever they have left in their retirement accounts after the economy tanked in '08. I think there is every reason to believe the markets will do it better than the government. If you look at government driven health care in Europe it is driven primarily to primary care for younger folks. Things like stroke and cancer are secondary concerns and subject to reduced funding versus primary care. Not totally illogical by the way. And in the US if you paid attention to Medicare Advantage programs which by and large had significant health management programs associated with them it is a pretty good model and example. These were essentially wiped out by Obama care and my parents for example have been told this is the last year for them in this plan that also included Y memberships for exercise as well as standard health care. That is what the Prez said he wanted but cut it off when his zealots said we had to have nothing but a fee for service Medicare program. But at its root I have a different world view than you. I do believe that markets will provide a better solution here and I would much prefer that an insurance company in a competitive market give me the options that allow me to choose what I need. I have a good idea what happens when governments try to manage/ration healthcare and I don't like what I see. In the end someone is going to ration care/spending and I would rather that be a market than a monopoly.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Apr 11, 2011 9:37:59 GMT -5
Just a quick question for the Ryan budget supporters here. What incentive do private insurers have to provide affordable insurance coverage for the elderly? I know Ryan is a young guy, but does he forget why Medicare was created in the first place? In the end, the coupons offered by the Ryan plan will have to be obscenely large to make the premiums affordable for seniors, many of which are living off of Social Security and whatever they have left in their retirement accounts after the economy tanked in '08. I think there is every reason to believe the markets will do it better than the government. If you look at government driven health care in Europe it is driven primarily to primary care for younger folks. Things like stroke and cancer are secondary concerns and subject to reduced funding versus primary care. Not totally illogical by the way. And in the US if you paid attention to Medicare Advantage programs which by and large had significant health management programs associated with them it is a pretty good model and example. These were essentially wiped out by Obama care and my parents for example have been told this is the last year for them in this plan that also included Y memberships for exercise as well as standard health care. That is what the Prez said he wanted but cut it off when his zealots said we had to have nothing but a fee for service Medicare program. But at its root I have a different world view than you. I do believe that markets will provide a better solution here and I would much prefer that an insurance company in a competitive market give me the options that allow me to choose what I need. I have a good idea what happens when governments try to manage/ration healthcare and I don't like what I see. In the end someone is going to ration care/spending and I would rather that be a market than a monopoly. My question though is why would there be a market for elderly insurance? The elderly are very expensive to cover because they need the most healthcare. Private insurance only works when you have large pools where the companies can balance their risk. How does the private market balance their. risk with the elderly population? The entire population is inherently risky to insure. Medicare Advantage is a completely different argument. MA programs do provide good ancillary services to traditional Medicare, such as the gym membership deal you mentioned, and some Seniors will admittedly lose these services under health care reform. The problem is that these plans cost the government more per person than traditional Medicare does. Seniors that want ancillary coverage to Medicare can still purchase certain Medi-gap coverage plans under health care reform. Meanwhile, Seniors on traditional Medicare are by and large happy with their coverage. Cutting MA programs was simply one step towards cutting costs and making Medicare more sustainable without gutting the program like Ryan's proposal does.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 11, 2011 9:43:03 GMT -5
All I am wondering is, if Paul Ryan's plan is so irresponsibly extreme and radical, as those like Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer would have us believe, then why is the President asking for a do-over on his budget proposal? Poor guy. All he really wants to do is go for long walks in the park, and here he is actually having to, you know, lead and run the country. I really wish we hadn't have forced this job on him. (OK, OK. Republican presidents have said that too, how they miss being a "normal person." It's unseemly no matter which party you are in. You wanted the damn job so much, so stop your bitchin'.)
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Apr 11, 2011 9:47:09 GMT -5
All I am wondering is, if Paul Ryan's plan is so irresponsibly extreme and radical, as those like Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer would have us believe, then why is the President asking for a do-over on his budget proposal? Poor guy. All he really wants to do is go for long walks in the park, and here he is actually having to, you know, lead and run the country. I really wish we hadn't have forced this job on him. (OK, OK. Republican presidents have said that too, how they miss being a "normal person." It's unseemly no matter which party you are in. You wanted the damn job so much, so stop your bitchin'.) The budget released by the President dealt with discretionary spending. The plan that the President will release later this week deals with mandatory spending. There was a conscious decision to separate out the debate over the two. If you want to argue that the President should have tackled mandatory spending in his initial proposal, I can understand that, but he's not asking for a "do-over."
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 11, 2011 10:21:57 GMT -5
And you're buying that, huh?
The President submitted a budget in February. He didn't submit an incomplete budget & say, "Oh, this is just part of what I wanted to do. I'll have more at some undisclosed date in the future."
The fact that he didn't include proposals for entitlement programs in that February budget earned him criticism from BOTH sides of the aisle.
Now, you can say that it was at THAT time, not since Ryan released his plan, that the administration decided to tackle the entitlement issues. It's more than a bit of a stretch, but you could say that.
But still, technically, I suppose you are right, in that Obama is not submitting a whole new budget this week (at least not as far as I know).
But whatever he proposes is going to change the budget he submitted in February. It would have to.
That's "do-over" in my book.
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Apr 11, 2011 10:36:08 GMT -5
All I am wondering is, if Paul Ryan's plan is so irresponsibly extreme and radical, as those like Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer would have us believe, then why is the President asking for a do-over on his budget proposal? Poor guy. All he really wants to do is go for long walks in the park, and here he is actually having to, you know, lead and run the country. I really wish we hadn't have forced this job on him. (OK, OK. Republican presidents have said that too, how they miss being a "normal person." It's unseemly no matter which party you are in. You wanted the damn job so much, so stop your bitchin'.) The budget released by the President dealt with discretionary spending. The plan that the President will release later this week deals with mandatory spending. There was a conscious decision to separate out the debate over the two. If you want to argue that the President should have tackled mandatory spending in his initial proposal, I can understand that, but he's not asking for a "do-over." That is simply not correct. The Prez submitted an entire budget as Prez's always do. He took a pass on any mandatory spending or entitlement spending reform. His budget was keep things as they are. For discretionary spending he took the baseline from the last couple of years where discretionary spending have been grossly inflated by the stimulus and other supposedly one time bills and build off of that. No attempt to return to pre-stimulus spending levels. The net effect was that spending levels were elevated to approximately 30% of GDP from a historical non-WWII level of about 20-22%. Unsustainable. Even in his budget were things like tax rates to support this level of spending were going to have to be jacked to something like 88%. Not widely reported but in his budget. The CBO said the economy (not the government but the whole US economy) was unsustainable under his plan. They did not see a way the economy would or could function 20 years or so from now. He thought he could sit on the sidelines and let the critics savage the tea party and Ryan for cold and heartless cuts to sacred government spending while he stayed above the fray through the next election - ala Bill Clinton before. Instead the tea party remains strong, Ryan was hailed as a visionary and Boener came off as the adult in the room in these negotiations. Throw in the fact there are enough Senate democrats who actually realize something has to be done plus his own slowly but consistently downward ratings and the Prez has had to reverse course. Embarassingly so IMHO. The debate is going to be between the Gang of 6 and their 4 +/- Trillion in cuts and Ryans 6+ Trillion in cuts. The Prez is going to try to get some face saving but really irrelevent (at least budget closing) tax increases on the wealthy or through a VAT. But he is trying to catch up to the train as it is leaving the station.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 11, 2011 12:04:27 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 11, 2011 12:16:08 GMT -5
I'm offended that it took more than four years for this "plan" to finally be loaded in to the President's teleprompter. If Obama really wanted to cut spending and address the fiscal problems facing the country, what's he been waiting for? Whatever he introduces this week is merely an attempt to co-opt this issue. So what exactly have republicans been doing the past four years that has been any different? Both parties have been speaking in generalities about SS/Medicare without any specifics. Ryan was the one exception when he released an even more ambitious plan a year or so ago, but I distinctly remember most of his compatriots distancing themselves from that very quickly. I'm personally hoping something like the Warner/Chambliss alliance wins the day and there's a rational discussion about the deficit, instead of nearly shutting down the gov't over abortion again, but I'm not holding my breath... You're right. Since the GOP controlled the House, the Senate and the White House the past few years, they should have done something sooner. My bad.
|
|