The Paul Ryan Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
You know one thing I dont see being asked that I wish people would start is this. If the Paul Ryan PtP does such great things for medicare/caid then how come people 55 and older are being grandfathered in under the old system? If it offers people a better system at a cheaper cost then why are we waiting around like 15 years to implement it fully? I mean I know we all know the answer to this(because its an inferior system and they dont want to face political backlash)but still why is this question not being asked?

So far I have only seen 1 person even come close to asking that question and it was sadly a little old women at a town hall meeting. Her Republican congressmen was reassuring her that dont worry mam your over 55 so you will get the same medicare plan others have for generations. Her response was "So just because I am grandfathered in under the old system means I am not supposed to care that you are giving my kids and grandkids an inferior system?".
 
[quote name='Clak']And this ties into what I said earlier. We want everything but don't want to pay for it. People complain about the cost of education, the cost of health care etc. but if you tell them that to do something similar here would require the raising of taxes, they'd kill you. Now of course in that article it also mentions that Germans are paid more (and work less for it to boot), so we'd have to somehow get our overlords employers to raise pay too.

I can't help but think that the American sense of individualism has screwed us. I think that being so cut off from the rest of the world has left us with the sense that our way is the only way and the rest of the world are fools. Well, wouldn't you like to work less, get paid more, and know that things like health care and education are taken care of? Of course not, this is America dammit.[/QUOTE]

Agreed completely 100%. My wife has a coworker that comes in complaining about how Obama is turning is in to a socialist nation all the time. I told my wife to explain to her first off what socialism is and then explain to her the statistics that show that while they only pay 10-30% more in taxes then us for the most part that they receive great healthcare, education and even in some cases services like day care for that. My wife actually did and it shut the lady right the hell up. My wife said she just sat down with the poutiest brattiest look on her face she had ever seen and did not say a single word.

Going hand in hand with Americans thinking our way is right and just is the fact that people are woefully ignorant and when presented with facts either clam up or show themselves for the loud mouth idiots they are ;)
 
[quote name='Clak']That's good, but education is only one slice o' the pie.[/QUOTE]

...the first one you just so happened to specifically mention...


[quote name='depascal22']If you look at the bottom of the chart, those numbers include public and private institutions. Of course we spend a lot of money on education if you include all the exclusive prep schools across the country....[/QUOTE]

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
Current expenditure per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools:
2006-07 9,683

Compare that to Germany's number posted earlier that included public and private institutions as well...
 
Isolation comes at a price. We're at least passively isolationist in practice, physically we're very much isolated. It causes the same problem you get when a person is surrounded by nothing but yesmen. The person (nation in this case) gets the impression that all their ideas are genius. And it isn't to say some aren't, but our ideas aren't really challenged much by alternatives. For most other countries in the world they can look next door for ideas on ow to solve issues, all we've got is Canada and Mexico, and we're convinced that Canada is the new USSR. Now sure, we don't have to be physically close to a place to adopt/adapt their way of doing something, but it's not an issue if we can, it's an issue of if we will. For us to really change things here would require a change in the way Americans think, and we're a stubborn bunch.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']...the first one you just so happened to specifically mention...




http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
Current expenditure per pupil in fall enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools:
2006-07 9,683

Compare that to Germany's number posted earlier that included public and private institutions as well...[/QUOTE]
Looking for another boogie man, bob? You really look far too much into...well everything it seems. Next thing you know you'll be insinuating that my paragraph structures point to something.
 
Look, dude - I'm not "looking too far" into anything. You posted three things that people "complain about the cost of" but fixing would require us to raise taxes - 1) Education, 2) Health Care, 3) "Et cetera". Obviously, that third one can't be addressed, the second one I'd agree with you on, but the first one (i.e.: fifty percent of your statement) is flatly incorrect.
 
I wouldn't criticize Bob for looking far into anything. He's successfully managed to navigate a US dept of ____ "fast facts" website.

Saying he looks too far into something is like saying someone has really mastered using "American FactFinder."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I wouldn't criticize Bob for looking far into anything. He's successfully managed to navigate a US dept of ____ "fast facts" website.[/QUOTE]

I think the take-away here is the fact that you can use a "Fast facts" website to easily see the truth behind the "WE NEED TO SPEND MORE IN EDUCATION" BS.
 
Bob, if I'd meant for education to be taken on it's own I would have typed it as such. You're missing the forest for the tree here.
 
[quote name='Clak']Bob, if I'd meant for education to be taken on it's own I would have typed it as such. You're missing the forest for the tree here.[/QUOTE]

A) You did, else you could have included it with the "etc." part of your statement.
B) Doesn't matter, raising taxes/more money isn't what our educational system needs - which is what your statement said. Are you backtracking now and saying that we don't need to spend more money on education in order to achieve what other countries have?
 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/paul-ryan-responds/2011/05/19/AGALwkCH_blog.html

I know it's BS, but somehow or another his response on item #1 actually makes sense.

For #2 - it's really weird though highly refreshing to hear a republican admit that regulation and oversight can indeed be good things!

#3 - Why don't the (R)'s understand that increasing the amount of people paying into insurance with the ACA reduces the risk (more money in by volume reduces money in by margin etc...)? Instead of calling it what it is (a whole new system with two groups) they call it "raiding" medicare? It's one of those glorious misdirections of politics that dumb people actually buy into.

#7 - Wow, I actually want to shoot someone right now... So if the foreign govts are choosing which drugs and what types of care are available, isn't that what insurance is doing now? Has Paul Ryan ever heard of a denied claim? He also completey dodges the actual question; why is it that "socialized" medicine in foreign govts is more effecient and costs less per patient?
 
[quote name='nasum']http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/paul-ryan-responds/2011/05/19/AGALwkCH_blog.html
#7 - Wow, I actually want to shoot someone right now... So if the foreign govts are choosing which drugs and what types of care are available, isn't that what insurance is doing now? Has Paul Ryan ever heard of a denied claim? He also completey dodges the actual question; why is it that "socialized" medicine in foreign govts is more effecient and costs less per patient?[/QUOTE]

It depends on how far government is going to go when they are choosing the types of care/drugs that are available.

If a private insurance company says "No.", one does, to some extent, have the option of switching companies or paying out of pocket.

If the government goes too extreme and says "No.", you may not have any other options (short of going out of the country - which is why some people come here).
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It depends on how far government is going to go when they are choosing the types of care/drugs that are available.

If a private insurance company says "No.", one does, to some extent, have the option of switching companies or paying out of pocket.[/quote]
Only the ones that can afford it.

If the government goes too extreme and says "No.", you may not have any other options (short of going out of the country - which is why some people come here).
Click to expand...
Only the ones that can afford it.
 
to be more clear, it's what types of drugs and care are available for coverage. This is the same thing that insurance companies do. Also, someone flag down a Canadian on the forum and have them tell us how their health care is so awful... Do recall that a Canadian can purchase supplemental private insurance that covers things that the govt healthcare/insurance won't (plastic surgery, gastric bypass, gender reassignment, etc...) and it is indeed very affordable because the risk pool is extremely limited as most are fine and dandy on regular care.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']It depends on how far government is going to go when they are choosing the types of care/drugs that are available.

If a private insurance company says "No.", one does, to some extent, have the option of switching companies or paying out of pocket.

If the government goes too extreme and says "No.", you may not have any other options (short of going out of the country - which is why some people come here).[/QUOTE]

It's amazing - people who have absolutely no faith in the government as a watchdog suddenly think that in the healthcare arena the government will be more tight with it's money then a corporation.

Boy howdy the right has you wrapped around their pinky.
 
I'm just stating the possibilities, not my own opinion.

But let's look at abortion. A valid, legal, medical procedure. Yet, the Federal Government won't pay for it. Let's look at a future where our medical facilities are government owned and operated (like police). Will they be able to perform abortions? Will the religious right still be fighting against tax dollars being used toward them?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm just stating the possibilities, not my own opinion.

But let's look at abortion. A valid, legal, medical procedure. Yet, the Federal Government won't pay for it. Let's look at a future where our medical facilities are government owned and operated (like police). Will they be able to perform abortions? Will the religious right still be fighting against tax dollars being used toward them?[/QUOTE]
Bob you befuddle me.
 
In order to have achieved government owned and operated hospitals, I imagine that the right, religious or otherwise would have to be very marginalized for it to be politically possible. Ergo, you could probably get an abortion there, because they would not have the clout/ability to have banned it.

Por ejemplo, you can get an abortion through NHS. There are still private hospitals in those countries though, if it were the case that you couldnt get something done through the regular system. What you cant get though, is for profit primary insurance, private or otherwise. There are plenty of elective for profit insurances available though.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']In order to have achieved government owned and operated hospitals, I imagine that the right, religious or otherwise would have to be very marginalized for it to be politically possible.[/QUOTE]

True.

But it is something to consider. Just because the party of your choice is in power now, it doesn't always mean they will be... and all the power you surrendered to the government while your party was in control? Now the other party has it.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']In order to have achieved government owned and operated hospitals, I imagine that the right, religious or otherwise would have to be very marginalized for it to be politically possible. Ergo, you could probably get an abortion there, because they would not have the clout/ability to have banned it.

Por ejemplo, you can get an abortion through NHS. There are still private hospitals in those countries though, if it were the case that you couldnt get something done through the regular system. What you cant get though, is for profit primary insurance, private or otherwise. There are plenty of elective for profit insurances available though.[/QUOTE]

Abortion was and can be banned in systems that are entirely private, so this is an inane tangent that you probably shouldn't have responded to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top