Rebuttal to Ryan?

Ryan is a sub-moronic Randite and congressional troll.

Republicans and even the idiot in question backed away so fast from (their) his own plan, wonder why you don't hear about it any more?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The bill takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits."

Guess I'm fucked when I get old.



• "Millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage (Medicare through a private insurer) will lose the coverage that they now enjoy."


Haha, old people get fucked to. Take that greatest generation, a bunch of bleeding hearts and illegal immigrants want some of your benefits that you earned over a lifetime of hard work building this country.

Why doesn't Obama come up with a plan for people without health insurance and leave the people who have it alone?
 
Aren't they just losing medicare advantage to get regular medicare? They're just getting rid of the program because it's stupid.
 
yeah and when jputah gets denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition (asthma or some shit) he won't come crying to bleeding hearts.

face it you pay premiums and then they cut you off when you need the help, thats not right! thats what obama is trying to change, but you seem to be ok with the status quo jputah, so be it.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Aren't they just losing medicare advantage to get regular medicare? They're just getting rid of the program because it's stupid.[/QUOTE]

Yep, but then again cons view funneling taxpayer money to profit making corporations as the only legitimate use of government power.
 
[quote name='IRHari']http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas

This is a decent list of valid Republican ideas that are included in the Democrats' healthcare plan. The Republicans failed to acknowledge/respond to them. Would ya kindly provide me with an answer? (Sorry I saw 'Ryan' and I'm in a Bioshock mood and...well you get the idea.)

It's called compromise.[/QUOTE]

That's a nice list, and I recommend people look at it. However, it does nothing to address the issues raised by Ryan on Thursday, which was the point of the article. I won't be surprised if nobody can answer; after all, the president and Congress have ignored these issues too.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']The bill takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits."

Guess I'm fucked when I get old. [/QUOTE]

If you were depending on Social Security, you've been fucked for a long time.
 
Because they aren't "issues" for the most part.

Most of it is BS as near as I can tell and even if they weren't and "fixed" right away I can guaranfuckingtee you Republicans still would not vote for it.

The current bill closes the donut hole for seniors, are cons happy voting against that?

Did prince ever make a worthwhile post in any healthcare thread?

Try reading the first comment in your own link, it links to a rebuttal:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/why-you-cant-discuss-health-care-the-gop
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='SpazX']Aren't they just losing medicare advantage to get regular medicare? They're just getting rid of the program because it's stupid.[/QUOTE]

medicare advantage plans are sooooooo much better than regular medicare. regular medicare is absolute shit. it doesnt even have coverage for an annual physical.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']If you were depending on Social Security, you've been fucked for a long time.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Social Security is the same kind of scam that Madoff ran. You'll have about the same odds of seeing your investment returned if you're 30-ish.
 
lol, elprincipe should've put his full name in the title, to make it clear its the dude who hearts tax cuts for the rich, not Rapture.
 
[quote name='IRHari']lol, elprincipe should've put his full name in the title, to make it clear its the dude who hearts tax cuts for the rich, not Rapture.[/QUOTE]

Holy shit, I thought of Andrew Ryan, too.
 
Yeah yeah, I knew what it was about, but also thought Andrew Ryan. It's too bad that it looks like one of the only Republicans in the room that used actual figures and actual arguments was basing his shit on a false premise.

Though at the same time I don't think it's unrealistic to think that any health insurance program won't be budget neutral, especially at the start. I just don't think that should be the primary concern anyway, I'd think any budget problems can be fixed later when those problems aren't so hypothetical vs. the current very real problems.
 
[quote name='IRHari']lol, elprincipe should've put his full name in the title, to make it clear its the dude who hearts tax cuts for the rich, not Rapture.[/QUOTE]

To be honest, I don't even know who you're talking about? Actor or something?

EDIT: ah, I see, Bioshock. Never played it.
 
[quote name='SpazX']It's too bad that it looks like one of the only Republicans in the room that used actual figures and actual arguments was basing his shit on a false premise.[/QUOTE]

Please explain what false premise you're talking about.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Please explain what false premise you're talking about.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking about this part of msut's link:

"The closest thing I've seen to a substantive rebuttal from the GOP has been from Paul Ryan, the right-wing rising star. Ryan objected that the Senate health care bill does not really reduce the deficit, because it raises taxes and reduces spending over ten years, but pays out benefits over just six. If that was true, it would be a sharp rebuttal to Obama's claim of reducing the deficit. And you could certainly design a bill like that. By spreading out the savings over a long time and delaying the benefits, you'd have a bill that technically saves money over a ten year window, but starts to lose money by year ten, and to bleed more red ink after that.
But it's not true. The benefits do phase in slowly, but so do the savings. The CBO finds that the Senate bill reduces the deficit in year ten. It would reduce the deficit by more than a trillion dollars in the next ten years."
 
8e686c74-9003-11de-8cef-001d09fec1ba_jpg_480x480_q85.jpg


"But I want it NOW!"
 
Yeah I don't wanna look ignorant here I knew it was about Paul Ryan b/c elprincipe was the OP and he gets engorged when talking about Paul Ryan.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Yeah yeah, I knew what it was about, but also thought Andrew Ryan. It's too bad that it looks like one of the only Republicans in the room that used actual figures and actual arguments was basing his shit on a false premise.

Though at the same time I don't think it's unrealistic to think that any health insurance program won't be budget neutral, especially at the start. I just don't think that should be the primary concern anyway, I'd think any budget problems can be fixed later when those problems aren't so hypothetical vs. the current very real problems.[/QUOTE]

lol... sounds like Social Security. Let's take the money from it now and worry about it later...
 
I have to agree with Ryan. We need to stop spending money on things that haven't been budgeted for. Whether it is the $500 billion to provide health care to everybody for 10 years or the $700 billion to kill people in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. Of course, I'm of the mind that we should tackle the biggest sources of waste first. Who is with me?
 
Well I was going to say something like FoC, but maybe not quite as sarcastic :p.

The CBO says it'll be neutral, but what if they're off? What if that $52 billion isn't there, what if it's $100 or $200 billion? Why is it that this has to be budget neutral from the outset or fuck it? If we quit blowing shit up we'll probably have some more money to spend on this.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well I was going to say something like FoC, but maybe not quite as sarcastic :p.

The CBO says it'll be neutral, but what if they're off? What if that $52 billion isn't there, what if it's $100 or $200 billion? Why is it that this has to be budget neutral from the outset or fuck it? If we quit blowing shit up we'll probably have some more money to spend on this.[/QUOTE]

Because the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act was budget neutral and totally not passed through via reconciliation.

Just like each year's Iraq/Afghanistan war budgets under Bush. They were budget neutral because of cuts to...uh, stuff. they weren't omitted from each year's annual budgets, either.

This is why we need to elect real conservatives in the fall. because they do...um, again, stuff.

(by the by, everything I said above is the opposite of what really happened - the same party that proposed and passed the POS Medicare Act of 2003 demands budget neutrality now? And some of you are dumb enough to believe that they care about fiscal responsibility? Budget peacocks indeed.)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Good point, guys! Wonder when our Commander-in-Chief will get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan...[/QUOTE]

Whenever he is allowed to.
 
I think the point is that their objections are bullshit. The examples show this, not that we should do what they do.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I have to agree with Ryan. We need to stop spending money on things that haven't been budgeted for. Whether it is the $500 billion to provide health care to everybody for 10 years or the $700 billion to kill people in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. Of course, I'm of the mind that we should tackle the biggest sources of waste first. Who is with me?[/QUOTE]
The Dems passed PAYGO even though the Republicans attempted to block it. It is the best possible step to checking unbudgeted expenditures.

I can't figure out why the conservatives (even the Rush and Hannity guys) didn't freak out over that.
[quote name='UncleBob']They>/i> did X, so we should do X.

"Change" indeed.[/QUOTE]
We don't live in a vacuum dude.
[quote name='elprincipe']To be honest, I don't even know who you're talking about? Actor or something?

EDIT: ah, I see, Bioshock. Never played it.[/QUOTE]
One of the best games of the decade. Go get it right now. We'll wait. Srsly. Killer game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
foc: He *is* the CiC. I'm not sure what could stop him from recalling the troops.

speedracer: What? We don't? See, I thought we did from all the people excusing one party's behavior because the other party did it too.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']speedracer: What? We don't? See, I thought we did from all the people excusing one party's behavior because the other party did it too.[/QUOTE]
This is a thread about Ryan's complaints. What is it you're complaining about?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']foc: He *is* the CiC. I'm not sure what could stop him from recalling the troops.[/QUOTE]

What happened to Kennedy when he closed the Federal Reserve?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Good point, guys! Wonder when our Commander-in-Chief will get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan...[/QUOTE]

I was saying the same thing four years ago.....
 
[quote name='speedracer']This is a thread about Ryan's complaints. What is it you're complaining about?[/QUOTE]

Even Bob doesn't know.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I was thinking about this part of msut's link:

"The closest thing I've seen to a substantive rebuttal from the GOP has been from Paul Ryan, the right-wing rising star. Ryan objected that the Senate health care bill does not really reduce the deficit, because it raises taxes and reduces spending over ten years, but pays out benefits over just six. If that was true, it would be a sharp rebuttal to Obama's claim of reducing the deficit. And you could certainly design a bill like that. By spreading out the savings over a long time and delaying the benefits, you'd have a bill that technically saves money over a ten year window, but starts to lose money by year ten, and to bleed more red ink after that.
But it's not true. The benefits do phase in slowly, but so do the savings. The CBO finds that the Senate bill reduces the deficit in year ten. It would reduce the deficit by more than a trillion dollars in the next ten years."[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I've had msut on ignore for a long time.

The quote you provide is from someone living in fantasyland. This is the fantasyland where (1) the federal government cuts $500 billion from Medicare; (2) the federal government doesn't count things twice with accounting gimmicks; and (3) the federal government actually accurately estimates costs (as we all know they have a pathetically poor record at this). And the taxes do come in immediately, or at least some of them, while most benefits phase in come 2014.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Yeah I don't wanna look ignorant here I knew it was about Paul Ryan b/c elprincipe was the OP and he gets engorged when talking about Paul Ryan.[/QUOTE]

Say what?
 
[quote name='speedracer']One of the best games of the decade. Go get it right now. We'll wait. Srsly. Killer game.[/QUOTE]

To be honest, I don't have a system that would play it, even if I did want to do so.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Aw man, triple post? We got the little plus things now for the quotes.[/QUOTE]

Sorry about that, sometimes I decide to reply to more stuff after I do a post.
 
[quote name='speedracer']This is a thread about Ryan's complaints. What is it you're complaining about?[/QUOTE]

The sum of the critics of Ryan seem to be "The republicans didn't care about spending before - why care now?".

So, pointing out the farce that is "They did X, we get to do X" goes right along with the conversation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top