Paul Ryan Poll

[kentonio]

Most of us do it on our own time. We don't suck back 6 large for it.

Sure, you're a real community spirited type, that must be why you spray hatred for the world with every sentence.

Madelyn (that white ***** Obama tossed under the bus just before she died) was VP of the Bank of Hawaii for 16+ years. Yep, Barry O was raised on the streets of Harlem.

You really are a deeply unpleasant person, aren't you.

Sort of like Obama, who went to all the best schools and never paid a dime. I see.

Sure, they give scholarships to the super rich now.

[kentonio]

I've seen no evidence of that in your posts thus far.

I simply lack the words to fully express how little I give a **** what you think.

[Hauldren Collider]

I asked you a very simple question earlier, and you still haven't answered it:

"What do you think those poor people are going to do when the cost of their medical treatment overruns the value of the voucher?"

Incidentally the answer to keeping the system solvent is extremely simple, adopt universal healthcare.

Either pay the difference themselves, or recognize that we can't give everyone as much healthcare as they need. There isn't enough money.

Either way, someone is going to limit the healthcare that they get. It will either be prices, or the government mandating some treatments to be unavailable. I'd rather it be prices than the government. That lets people try to decide whether it's worth it or not.

[regexcellent]

You should care because not only is he smarter than you, he's asking the questions that need to be asked.

The answer for when health care overruns vouchers is obviously that people will have to pick up the tab. That is because this country has limited resources and the whole point of money is that it is an allocation of resources. Some people have more resources than others and that is a consequence of their work. If that weren't the case nobody would work. I don't know why I have to explain this to a so-called "conservative."

What we have now is infinite resources for people who ask for it, but those infinite resources don't exist, so the country is going bankrupt. That needs to be fixed. There is no way around this; the only way to prevent the bankruptcy of the country is to limit entitlements.

xpost

[DinoDoc]

I simply lack the words to fully express how little I give a **** what you think.

I wasn't the one claiming to have done research into the plan before deciding he was against it. I simply found the statement curious since you don't seem to understand basic facts of the plan.

[kentonio]

Either pay the difference themselves, or recognize that we can't give everyone as much healthcare as they need. There isn't enough money.

So basically, if they don't have a huge pile of money they should just die? That's what you're saying right?

Humour me a moment, say your family lose their money in another financial crash and then your parents or your brother get a serious illness. Would you happily sit back and watch them die when they could be saved with medical help they just can't afford? Would that seem like a reasonable outcome?

Either way, someone is going to limit the healthcare that they get. It will either be prices, or the government mandating some treatments to be unavailable. I'd rather it be prices than the government. That lets people try to decide whether it's worth it or not.

Here the only treatments that are not offered tend to be extremely expensive experimental treatments that carry no guarantee of success. If something is expensive but proven to be effective it is still offered. If a treatment is not offered, you still have the option to purchase it privately. How exactly is this a worse outcome than a system where people are just left to die when their voucher runs out?

[kentonio]

You should care because not only is he smarter than you, he's asking the questions that need to be asked.

There are many people in the world who are smarter than me. There are considerably more who are not. I can sleep quite comfortable knowing exactly where you and DinoDoc sit in that scale.

The answer for when health care overruns vouchers is obviously that people will have to pick up the tab. That is because this country has limited resources and the whole point of money is that it is an allocation of resources. Some people have more resources than others and that is a consequence of their work. If that weren't the case nobody would work. I don't know why I have to explain this to a so-called "conservative."

Conservatives don't leave people to die when there's absolutely no need for this to be the case. The word you are looking for is sociopath, and you fit that description perfectly.

What we have now is infinite resources for people who ask for it, but those infinite resources don't exist, so the country is going bankrupt. That needs to be fixed. There is no way around this; the only way to prevent the bankruptcy of the country is to limit entitlements.

I long for the day when the Republican party is taken back by people who aren't so retardedly stupid as to believe nonsense like that. You live in a world where universal healthcare has been in operation for three quarters of a century and has been proven in country after country to save money and save lives. Instead you'd rather leave poor people to die, and spend vast fortunes on futuristic military projects that are completely unnecessary and that are often obsolete before they are ever used.

I try and make allowances when talking to college students because often things that seem blindingly obvious to a child can quickly change when you get older and actually have to deal with the real world. It's commonly called growing up, and by the sounds of it you should probably try it.

[giblets]

Apparently if we don't adopt a voucher system we'll have no choice but to keep increasing spending on Medicare at a faster rate than the GDP grows forever and ever.

[regexcellent]

Unless you want some kind of rationing, yes. The voucher system also has the advantage of developing competition.

[Hauldren Collider]

Apparently if we don't adopt a voucher system we'll have no choice but to keep increasing spending on Medicare at a faster rate than the GDP grows forever and ever.

What do you expect Obama would say, and Kentonio would say, if we stopped doing just that? We'd be "cutting medicare" and "****ing the poor".

[giblets]

Why do we need vouchers? Just create some death panels and pull the plug on some grandmas.

[regexcellent]

Why do that when we could have vouchers?

[DaShi]

Why don't we start with the actual facts:

Medicare: Starting in 2022, the proposal would end the current Medicare program for all Americans born after 1956 and replace it with a new program (still called Medicare) which uses a voucher (which increases by general inflation, not healthcare inflation) and would increase the age of eligibility for Medicare:

Starting in 2022, the age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months per year until it reached 67 in 2033.

After 2022, the current Medicare program ends for all people who have not already enrolled. People already enrolled in the current Medicare program prior to 2022 would continue to receive the program. New enrollees after 2022 would be entitled to a voucher to help them purchase private health insurance.

Beneficiaries of the voucher payments would choose among competing private insurance plans operating in a newly established Medicare exchange. Plans would have to insure all eligible people who apply and would have to charge the same premiums for enrollees of the same age. The voucher payments would go directly from the government to the private insurance companies that people selected.

The voucher payments would vary with the health status of the beneficiary. For the average 65-year-old, payment in 2022 is specified to be $8,000, which is approximately the same dollar amount as projected net federal spending per capita for 65-year-olds in traditional Medicare in that year.

Each year, the voucher payments would increase to reflect increases in the consumer price index (average inflation) and the fact that enrollees in Medicare tend to be less healthy and require more costly health care as they age. They would not increase by the higher, healthcare inflation rate.

The voucher payments to enrollees would also vary with the income of the beneficiary. The wealthiest 2% of enrollees would receive 30 percent of the premium support amount described above; the next 6% would receive 50 percent of the amount described above; and people in the remaining 92% the income distribution would receive the full premium support amount described above.

Eligibility for the traditional Medicare program would not change for people who are age 55 or older by the end of 2011 or for people who receive Medicare benefits through the

Disability Insurance program prior to 2022. People covered under traditional Medicare would, beginning in 2022, have the option of switching to the voucher system.

Just a suggestion.

[giblets]

Why do that when we could have vouchers?

Why force everyone to buy private insurance when the government can just pay for the treatments.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Looks like Gallup thinks the Apolyton poll isn't going to cut it and decided to do one of their own. tl;dr version: his positives are somewhere south of Dan Quayle, but nobody cares about the VP pick anyway.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156545/Reaction-Ryan-Pick-Among-Least-Positive-Historically.aspx

Four in 10 Americans rate Mitt Romney's selection of Rep. Paul Ryan to be his running mate as either "excellent" or "pretty good," while 42% call the choice "only fair" or "poor." This even division is among the least positive reactions to a vice presidential choice Gallup has recorded in recent elections. Only George H.W. Bush's selection of Dan Quayle in 1988 generated a higher negative response, although it also generated higher positives.