Republican plan to eliminate Medicare

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I'd like to see some statistics on that pipe dream. The way Medicare is now it will only increase the abuse and cost.

Stats were discussed prior at the start of the healthcare debate in 2009. I agree, in this country owned by corporations, likely a pipe dream.

There is no way our current government would put the ability of all citizens to purchase affordable health insurance above the profits of private insurance companies. That was clearly the vote our reps made in 2010, can't see it happening now.

[Riot]

Dean Baker
Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

It's Time for Representative Ryan to Man Up
Posted: 04/ 4/11 11:04 AM ET

Congressman Paul Ryan is the new darling of both the Republican Party and the major media outlets. He has put forward bold plans for dismantling Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Congressman Ryan is prepared to tell tens of millions of workers that they can no longer count on a secure retirement and decent health care in their old age. In Washington policy circles, this passes for courage.

Outside of Washington, people have a different conception of bravery. After all, over the last three decades the policies crafted in Washington have led to the most massive upward redistribution in the history of the world. The richest 1 percent of the population has seen is share of national income increase by close to 10 percentage points. This comes to $1.5 trillion a year, or as Representative Ryan might say, $90 trillion over the next 75 years. That's almost $300,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

This upward redistribution creates the real possibility that many of our children will be poorer than we are. If Representative Ryan and his followers really cared about future generations, then we might expect him to push for policies that reverse some of this upward redistribution.

For example, we could break up the large banks (e.g. Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan) that operate with implicit government protection. This allows them to borrow money at below market interest rates and undercut their smaller competitors. By my calculations, the size of this subsidy to the largest banks is close to $35 billion a year, almost half the size of the long-term Social Security shortfall that concerns Mr. Ryan so much. If Mr. Ryan could man up a little, maybe he would have the courage to tell the big Wall Street banks that they will have to compete in a free market without this subsidy from the government.

It's not only the big banks that make Representative Ryan cower. He's also scared of the pharmaceutical industry. As a result of government-enforced patent monopolies, we spend close to $300 billion a year on drugs that would cost us around $30 billion a year. The potential savings of $270 billion a year is about three times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall.

Representative Ryan is a big fan of Medicare vouchers, however his voucher system does nothing to address our broken health care system while virtually guaranteeing that most seniors will not be able to afford decent health care. How about a voucher system that gives Medicare beneficiaries the option to buy into the more efficient health care systems in Europe and Canada, with the taxpayer and beneficiary splitting the savings? Well, that one could hurt profits of the insurance industry and major health care providers, so Mr. Ryan is against it.

We also could have freer trade in physicians' services. If we paid the same wages to our doctors as countries in Europe and Canada, it would save us close to $90 billion a year. While our trade pacts ensure that our manufacturing workers have to compete with the lowest paid workers anywhere in the world, our doctors are still largely protected. If autoworkers enjoyed the same protection as doctors, they would all make $150,000 a year and we would still be buying all our cars from GM, Ford and Chrysler. But the doctors' lobbies are powerful, so Mr. Ryan is not interested in this one.

How about reining in the excess pay of top executives at U.S. corporations? Our top executives not only get paid far more than ordinary workers, they also get paid far more than top executives at large successful corporations in Europe and Japan. The government sets the rules for corporate governance just like it sets the rules for union governance. While Mr. Ryan's friends have been anxious to use the heavy hand of government to weaken the power of unions to push on behalf of workers, they become timid when it comes to preventing corporate abuses. Suppose that the compensation of top executives had to be approved at regular intervals by shareholders, where only shares directly voted counted. (This means that mutual fund managers could not support big pay packages for their CEO friends in the name of the people for whom they are investing.)

How about reducing military spending to the same share of GDP as it was in 2000? The savings of 1.6 percent of GDP (at $240 billion a year) is more than two and a half the size of the projected long-term Social Security shortfall. But this would hurt the defense industry, so again Mr. Ryan is not interested.

The basic economic reality is very simple and everyone in Washington knows it. There is no way that future generations of workers will be poorer than the current one due to benefits like Social Security and Medicare. They could end up poorer if we continue to see the benefits of growth shifted to the top. The latter is the result of the corruption of politics in Washington. And at the moment, Mr. Ryan is the poster boy for that corruption. If he gets his way, your children and grandchildren can count on a very bleak future.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

that won't actually happen but maybe i'll get esophageal cancer. apparently it's the aids of atheists.

bitterness will make you sick

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

bitterness will make you sick

actually it only makes you bitter.

lucky for you no one really dies of smugness either.

Originally Posted by Riot

Stats were discussed prior at the start of the healthcare debate in 2009. I agree, in this country owned by corporations, likely a pipe dream.

There is no way our current government would put the ability of all citizens to purchase affordable health insurance above the profits of private insurance companies. That was clearly the vote our reps made in 2010, can't see it happening now.

The insurance companies would love medicare for all, especially at a 50%-70% coverage.

What they don't love is being punished for the short-sightedness of the democratic party in the 60's. Medicare happened on their watch. The chance to make it available to all was there and they didn't give a f.uck. They only cared about their voting base.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

actually it only makes you bitter.

lucky for you no one really dies of smugness either.

read a book....you can get sick if you are bitter. leads to alot of complications

I have no idea what you're talking about as to the smugness comment

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

The insurance companies would love medicare for all, especially at a 50%-70% coverage.

What they don't love is being punished for the short-sightedness of the democratic party in the 60's. Medicare happened on their watch. The chance to make it available to all was there and they didn't give a f.uck. They only cared about their voting base.

True about the 1960's.

The GOP Ryan budget plan wants Medicare eliminated completely in 10 years.

Obama has a historic second chance to engage on this. He passed on doing it last year, and the bullies figure they have his number still.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Riot

True about the 1960's.

Not really. The history of gov't provided health care is long and winding. The SSA website has a good summary. Here's the page on the post-WW2 period through the Truman years, which is when discussion of a national health care system was at its height:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/corningchap3.html

Highlights:

<In sum, the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill was the victim of a cautious Congress, massive resistance by a prestigious and vitally affected interest group, sympathy for the AMA's position from an imposing array of nonmedical groups, a lack of wholehearted support from some of the key proponents, considerable antipathy from the press, the rapid growth of private insurance, and, finally, of a hostile political climate.>

And:
<Years later, President Truman wrote: "I have had some bitter disappointments as President, but the one that has troubled me most, in a personal way, has been the failure to defeat the organized opposition to a National compulsory health insurance program. But this opposition has only delayed and cannot stop the adoption of an indispensable Federal health insurance plan.">

(Oh, Harry; you were such an optimist)

It's easy to credit our Presidents with dictatorial powers (and Shrub and Darth Cheney sure gave a good go at it), but laws are not written by Presidents; they're written by Congress. A President can push for an agenda (and Johnson was a bully and rammed a lot through, no question) but they don't govern by fiat.

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Not really. The history of gov't provided health care is long and winding. The SSA website has a good summary. Here's the page on the post-WW2 period through the Truman years, which is when discussion of a national health care system was at its height:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/corningchap3.html

Highlights:

<In sum, the Wagner-Murray-Dingell bill was the victim of a cautious Congress, massive resistance by a prestigious and vitally affected interest group, sympathy for the AMA's position from an imposing array of nonmedical groups, a lack of wholehearted support from some of the key proponents, considerable antipathy from the press, the rapid growth of private insurance, and, finally, of a hostile political climate.>

And:
<Years later, President Truman wrote: "I have had some bitter disappointments as President, but the one that has troubled me most, in a personal way, has been the failure to defeat the organized opposition to a National compulsory health insurance program. But this opposition has only delayed and cannot stop the adoption of an indispensable Federal health insurance plan.">

(Oh, Harry; you were such an optimist)

It's easy to credit our Presidents with dictatorial powers (and Shrub and Darth Cheney sure gave a good go at it), but laws are not written by Presidents; they're written by Congress. A President can push for an agenda (and Johnson was a bully and rammed a lot through, no question) but they don't govern by fiat.

Eh?

With the election of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, Democrats controlled both the Presidency and the Congress, claiming a 2:1 ratio to Republicans in the House and 32 more seats in the Senate. The Democrats in the House Ways and Means Committee shifted away from Southern Democrats, making the committee more sympathetic towards health insurance reform.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Eh?

With the election of Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964, Democrats controlled both the Presidency and the Congress, claiming a 2:1 ratio to Republicans in the House and 32 more seats in the Senate. The Democrats in the House Ways and Means Committee shifted away from Southern Democrats, making the committee more sympathetic towards health insurance reform.

Yes, but by then the focus on national health care had been limited to the elderly, as an expansion of Social Security, because it would be smaller in scope and because health care costs are the greatest cost for the elderly. So while I agree that yes, we'd be in much better shape if the government had had the foresight to institute national health care decades ago, it was pretty much a dead subject by the time 1960 rolled around, so it can't be blamed on Johnson or the Democratic-controlled Congress. Eight years of a Republican administration opposed to national health care between Truman and Kennedy, and a lot of lobbying from the AMA had long since done their work on any chance for national health care.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Not really. The history of gov't provided health care is long and winding. The SSA website has a good summary. Here's the page on the post-WW2 period through the Truman years,

Naw, we're talking the 1960's - Lyndon Johnson. The last politician - in every sense of the word - powerful enough to have gotten this done. At that point, even Republicans were in favor of social programs and helping the indigent, poor, elderly. Yes, I understand the AMA actions, etc. I think if Johnson hadn't also had to address civil rights and racism, he'd have gotten it done.

My hope is that, with so many states now looking to take advantage and implement advanced single payer systems under the PPACA (rather than taking the less-inclusive fed program) - people will see how well this works, and it will spread.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

that won't actually happen but maybe i'll get esophageal cancer. apparently it's the aids of atheists.

I have a personal interest in this, as I was born with my esophagus growing into my right lung(instead of my stomach). I spent the first two years of my life in Boston's Children's Hospital. No skin graft in 1962, they simply detached and stretched the esophagus, sewing it into my stomach. During those two years I had a lot of tears and pinhole leaks, and some pneumonia and extreme fever that got me some early Last Rites by a Catholic priest.

Used to run 5 miles a day, was an amateur boxer, etc, but two years ago(at the age of 46) everything began to unravel. I have near constant choking and coughing, and am experiencing the loss of the functioning I did have for the 44 years before. I don't have cancer, but I will miss eating. Seems the time to revert to being tube fed is coming faster than I thought

Sure could use my Pool 2 future wager exacta of The Factor/Astrology to come to fruition

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So what this is saying is that those of us still working will continue to pay for the Medicare for the older folks, but when we turn 65, won't get anything ourselves?

Wow. I wasn't aware I was so selfless.

You realize that's how the end stages of every Ponzi scheme goes, right?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

nobody should retire if all they have to fall back on is Social Security. Their own fault.

That is of course a realistic assessment, but shame on the government too with all their marketing of a near worthless retirement program. Well, they would say it is not a retirement program -- so then it's a supplement with decreasing value year after year. I'm only in my early 40's so I am peeved at being forced to pay into something that either won't be there at all in 30 years or will be about enough to buy one cup of coffee a week.

Everybody should save for their own retirement and keep their hands on their own money -- not the neighbor's next door.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Mike

I have a personal interest in this, as I was born with my esophagus growing into my right lung(instead of my stomach). I spent the first two years of my life in Boston's Children's Hospital. No skin graft in 1962, they simply detached and stretched the esophagus, sewing it into my stomach. During those two years I had a lot of tears and pinhole leaks, and some pneumonia and extreme fever that got me some early Last Rites by a Catholic priest.

Used to run 5 miles a day, was an amateur boxer, etc, but two years ago(at the age of 46) everything began to unravel. I have near constant choking and coughing, and am experiencing the loss of the functioning I did have for the 44 years before. I don't have cancer, but I will miss eating. Seems the time to revert to being tube fed is coming faster than I thought

Sure could use my Pool 2 future wager exacta of The Factor/Astrology to come to fruition

Mike: I am truly sorry to hear about your condition. I can't imagine what you're going through.

[Mike]

Thanks, Tim

Oddly enough, I started reading and listening to Christopher Hitchens just about the time that he was diagnosed with cancer. He earned his cancer(if you can say such a thing) thru heavy hard liquor consumption and cigarettes, whereas my condition was with me from the start. I never smoked (cigarettes) but have, being a good Irish-Catholic, drank my fair share of quality beer

I'm a single dad now(kids are 10 and 12), so I am worried about the possibility of fairly quick death due to aspiration pneumonia. But, I can do a lot of things to be healthier, and may live for another twenty years

BTW, that Astrology/The Factor exacta from Pool 2 pays about $7,000!

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Mike

Thanks, Tim

Oddly enough, I started reading and listening to Christopher Hitchens just about the time that he was diagnosed with cancer. He earned his cancer(if you can say such a thing) thru heavy hard liquor consumption and cigarettes, whereas my condition was with me from the start. I never smoked (cigarettes) but have, being a good Irish-Catholic, drank my fair share of quality beer

I'm a single dad now(kids are 10 and 12), so I am worried about the possibility of fairly quick death due to aspiration pneumonia. But, I can do a lot of things to be healthier, and may live for another twenty years

BTW, that Astrology/The Factor exacta from Pool 2 pays about $7,000!

If this were a poker site, I'd say you had a bad beat! Try to stay pro-active on cures or procedures that would alleviate some or all of your distress, and hopefully lengthen your life for a good, long period of time.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You realize that's how the end stages of every Ponzi scheme goes, right?

Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme. That's a right-wing propaganda point. Kind of like their one from this past election season about how the Democrats all voted to cut $500 billion from Medicare.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Riot

Naw, we're talking the 1960's - Lyndon Johnson. The last politician - in every sense of the word - powerful enough to have gotten this done. At that point, even Republicans were in favor of social programs and helping the indigent, poor, elderly. Yes, I understand the AMA actions, etc. I think if Johnson hadn't also had to address civil rights and racism, he'd have gotten it done.

My hope is that, with so many states now looking to take advantage and implement advanced single payer systems under the PPACA (rather than taking the less-inclusive fed program) - people will see how well this works, and it will spread.

Again, Riot, I have to disagree with you. Johnson didn't have the power to get an already dead idea through Congress- universal health care failed under Truman's administration. I'm not disputing Johnson was a remarkably effective bully, but the passage of the Civil Rights Act also benefited, frankly, from Kennedy's assassination. As did, unfortunately, the escalation in Vietnam. No one wanted to go against the wishes of the dead martyr. And, as Johnson said when he signed the Civil Rights Act, it cost the Democrats the South.

Johnson's big focus was on poverty, and health care, at the time, was more likely to impoverish the elderly than it was the younger population. Now, of course, it's likely to bankrupt people at all income levels other than the super-rich.

Johnson's a tough President for America to come to terms with. The last liberal President, one who really sought to alleviate the suffering of the poorest of the poor, but also the one who escalated Vietnam and sent thousands of boys to die, even after he knew the war couldn't be won.

Mind you, I still agree with you that universal health care would be cheaper and better for us. Vermont is apparently taking steps towards it.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Mike

Thanks, Tim

Oddly enough, I started reading and listening to Christopher Hitchens just about the time that he was diagnosed with cancer. He earned his cancer(if you can say such a thing) thru heavy hard liquor consumption and cigarettes, whereas my condition was with me from the start. I never smoked (cigarettes) but have, being a good Irish-Catholic, drank my fair share of quality beer

I'm a single dad now(kids are 10 and 12), so I am worried about the possibility of fairly quick death due to aspiration pneumonia. But, I can do a lot of things to be healthier, and may live for another twenty years

BTW, that Astrology/The Factor exacta from Pool 2 pays about $7,000!

Oh, Hitchens. I absolutely despise a lot of his political op-eds, but he says them so eloquently. And his writings on his cancer leave me bawling. He'll be a loss to discourse, for sure. The man can write.

Thanks for sharing about your own medical history, Mike. I think it reminds us all that good health is not something we earn; it really is a gift, and one that those who have it often take for granted. My mother did all the things you were supposed to- ate well, exercised, had kids before she was 30, etc. and yet she was dead of breast cancer at 35. You just never know.

I think we seek to assign blame for a person's bad health on his or her lifestyle because it relieves us of the fear that at any time something could go wrong with our own bodies. And lets us avoid the fact that all of us, at some point, will need health care, and maybe it's a really, really dumb idea to leave it up to private industry to make a profit off of the certainty that we will all become sick at some point.

And I'm glad you spent your time drinking quality beer. Life is too short to drink swill.