Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Wow....Text walls of DNC boilerplate make me feel warm alllll oooover about socialistic bureaucracy and efficiency!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yet another con who advocated for a mandate.Obamacare is not a tax.That's how the administration defended it.when States challenged it as unconstitutional the administration said it was a tax and the government was well within it's rights to impose it as such.
I can't see how anyone can defend the administration forcing it's citizens to purchase anything.
Also if this thing were any good why are so many getting waivers excusing them from having to purchase Obamacare.
One of the most important topics in the country is healthcare. To be honest, I am not informed about both plans, and would love to have somebody inform me about the difference between the two.
What I do know, though:
Ryan Plan:
Voucher Plan (Go out and buy your own insurance?)
Won't touch anybody 55 and over
ObamaCare:
Insurance for all!
If I could get a Conservatives opinion, and a Liberals, that would really help me make a decision, or make me more informed about the issue.
One of the most important topics in the country is healthcare. To be honest, I am not informed about both plans, and would love to have somebody inform me about the difference between the two.
What are you asking for? Dry policy detail or the philosophical difference between the Republican and Democratic approaches to Medicare? The philosophical differences are fairly straightforward.
The GOP, in its budget, expresses a very clear desire to just get out. They no longer want to concern themselves with paying the medical bills of seniors, they don't want to have to deal with utilization volatility or provider costs, they don't want to have to worry about the quality of care seniors are receiving or their level of access. All the features that make Medicare what it is and guarantee seniors a health benefit are on the chopping block. Instead they want a privatized, voucher-based system designed primarily to limit federal financial obligations, not to guarantee access to high quality care for seniors.
The alternative vision for Medicare is one of a healthier budget picture through a healthier Medicare program: that is, improve Medicare instead of ending it. That's a big task with a number of components. It's improving the tools available to clinicians who treat Medicare patients to enable more effective and efficient delivery of health care (e.g. by offering Medicare-participating doctors and hospitals financial assistance to start using electronic health records with built-in clinical decision support tools and the ability to support quality measurement).
That means changing the way Medicare pays for care to promote value, and ultimately changing the way care is delivered to facilitate more coordinated, patient-centered care. That means tackling the alarming prevalence of medical errors by using Medicare to spearhead a national patient safety initiative.
It means tackling the drivers of Medicare cost growth--notably, chronic conditions--by encouraging community-based prevention, supporting states as they pioneer new approaches to providing care to the costliest beneficiaries (including giving those states new tools for embracing advanced models of primary care aimed at improving care for those high-utilization, high-cost beneficiaries), and transitioning enrollees from institution-based long-term care to community-based care where possible.
Perhaps more importantly than any single one of those moves is the effort to institutionalize a culture of reform within Medicare by creating an internal body with the authority and the mandate to test other new models of payment and delivery to improve care and slow cost growth.
The GOP proposal doesn't do anything like that; there's no effort to improve Medicare, the delivery of care to beneficiaries, treatment of the costliest conditions, quality, patient-centeredness. None of that is of interest to the GOP because they're not interested in fixing Medicare's deficiencies, they're interested in scrapping the program and leaving behind an inadequate privatized derivative whose function has nothing to do with improving care for the nation's elderly.
All of your lies aren't going to change my opinion about a program that was forced down our throats by people we know are lying to us.
Perhaps more importantly than any single one of those moves is the effort to institutionalize a culture of reform within Medicare by creating an internal body with the authority and the mandate to test other new models of payment and delivery to improve care and slow cost growth.
One of the most important topics in the country is healthcare. To be honest, I am not informed about both plans, and would love to have somebody inform me about the difference between the two.
What are you asking for? Dry policy detail or the philosophical difference between the Republican and Democratic approaches to Medicare? The philosophical differences are fairly straightforward.
The GOP, in its budget, expresses a very clear desire to just get out. They no longer want to concern themselves with paying the medical bills of seniors, they don't want to have to deal with utilization volatility or provider costs, they don't want to have to worry about the quality of care seniors are receiving or their level of access. All the features that make Medicare what it is and guarantee seniors a health benefit are on the chopping block. Instead they want a privatized, voucher-based system designed primarily to limit federal financial obligations, not to guarantee access to high quality care for seniors.
The alternative vision for Medicare is one of a healthier budget picture through a healthier Medicare program: that is, improve Medicare instead of ending it. That's a big task with a number of components. It's improving the tools available to clinicians who treat Medicare patients to enable more effective and efficient delivery of health care (e.g. by offering Medicare-participating doctors and hospitals financial assistance to start using electronic health records with built-in clinical decision support tools and the ability to support quality measurement).
That means changing the way Medicare pays for care to promote value, and ultimately changing the way care is delivered to facilitate more coordinated, patient-centered care. That means tackling the alarming prevalence of medical errors by using Medicare to spearhead a national patient safety initiative.
It means tackling the drivers of Medicare cost growth--notably, chronic conditions--by encouraging community-based prevention, supporting states as they pioneer new approaches to providing care to the costliest beneficiaries (including giving those states new tools for embracing advanced models of primary care aimed at improving care for those high-utilization, high-cost beneficiaries), and transitioning enrollees from institution-based long-term care to community-based care where possible.
Perhaps more importantly than any single one of those moves is the effort to institutionalize a culture of reform within Medicare by creating an internal body with the authority and the mandate to test other new models of payment and delivery to improve care and slow cost growth.
The GOP proposal doesn't do anything like that; there's no effort to improve Medicare, the delivery of care to beneficiaries, treatment of the costliest conditions, quality, patient-centeredness. None of that is of interest to the GOP because they're not interested in fixing Medicare's deficiencies, they're interested in scrapping the program and leaving behind an inadequate privatized derivative whose function has nothing to do with improving care for the nation's elderly.
Did you write that crap or was it supplied to you???
You know of course it's total BS.
I look at who offered Obamacare, what professionals say it's doing to them already, and what the Dems did to get it passed.
All of your lies aren't going to change my opinion about a program that was forced down our throats by people we know are lying to us.
No, it bends the incomprehensible semantics curve.Perhaps more importantly than any single one of those moves is the effort to institutionalize a culture of reform within Medicare by creating an internal body with the authority and the mandate to test other new models of payment and delivery to improve care and slow cost growth.
does this bend the cost curve?
We don't have to take your word for it because your words are an indecipherable melange of bureaucratic doublespeak.All of your lies aren't going to change my opinion about a program that was forced down our throats by people we know are lying to us.
The reason I provide links is so you don't have to take my word for it. Each of the reforms I mentioned is now law and you can read all about each one in detail elsewhere. But it seems instead you've opted for another approach:
All of your lies aren't going to change my opinion about a program that was forced down our throats by people we know are lying to us.
The reason I provide links is so you don't have to take my word for it. Each of the reforms I mentioned is now law and you can read all about each one in detail elsewhere. But it seems instead you've opted for another approach:
Either plan screws seniors. Obamacare draws funds from Medicare to finance it. With the Ryan plan, seniors will end up paying most of their medical costs as medical cost rise. And of course both plans have insurance companies in the driver's seat.
It doesn't matter what they say it means. It's how it's going to work that matters.
No matter whether reform or outright termination is proposed, we can always rely upon dishonest demonizing little weasel shits like you to run anyone and everyone who proposes any changes from the status quo into the ground.It doesn't matter what they say it means. It's how it's going to work that matters.
Indeed!
As I said above, there are two options: reform Medicare or end it. Those are the two approaches we're witnessing today......
It doesn't matter what they say it means. It's how it's going to work that matters.
Indeed!
As I said above, there are two options: reform Medicare or end it. Those are the two approaches we're witnessing today. I don't particularly want to end it, nor do most folks. That's the problem the GOP faces today.
Reforming Medicare, on the other hand, means changing things about the program. Some of those changes will be more effective at improving Medicare than others--that's the idea behind trying every quality improvement or cost control concept the health care field is producing and building on success.
I want Medicare to be reformed. I want to see efforts to improve care, improve health outcomes, and get a handle on costs. If you don't want to try for those things because you don't believe achieving them is possible and thus ending Medicare is the only option, that's your business (it seems to be a common sentiment on the far right). But that's a bit defeatist for my tastes.
Under the President’s budget, Medicare would simply grow itself right into bankruptcy. Unlike the Majority’s health care overhaul that cuts Medicare by nearly a half-trillion dollars to create a new entitlement, the Roadmap makes no change for people 55 and older. The Roadmap makes Medicare permanently solvent so that it can fulfill the mission of health and retirement security for today’s and future generations of seniors. The Medicare reforms provide future beneficiaries (those currently under 55) with health coverage options just like the program enjoyed by Members of Congress. http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=9847
No matter whether reform or outright termination is proposed, we can always rely upon dishonest demonizing little weasel shits like you, to run anyone and everyone who proposes any changes from the status quo into the ground.
Eat shit, commie punk.No matter whether reform or outright termination is proposed, we can always rely upon dishonest demonizing little weasel shits like you, to run anyone and everyone who proposes any changes from the status quo into the ground.
Next are you going to tell me about how you can just get lost in those dreamy Paul Ryan eyes? When will the world appreciate his brilliance?
Either plan screws seniors. Obamacare draws funds from Medicare to finance it. With the Ryan plan, seniors will end up paying most of their medical costs as medical cost rise. And of course both plans have insurance companies in the driver's seat.
Someone is going to have to get "screwed" one way or another to bring the US Government's finances into order and balance the budget along with bringing down medical costs. I really don't care for either plan, and don't feel sympathy for those under 55 who think they should get the same thing people right now who are getting medicare receive. They have to be willing to pay their own way and make some sacrifices.
I am a political independent, and really have no partisan bias in favor of either of those two proposals. I really like Ron Paul's less publicized plan the best, where he talks about funding medicare for the older generation through massive defense budget cuts and weening the system out over time by allowing the old who have paid into the system to get their money's worth while allowing the young like myself to opt out. The fact is, Medicare and Medicaid are boondoggles which have resulted in high deficits and higher medical costs. Medical Expenses used to represent 5% of GDP prior to 1965 and the inception of Medicare and Medicaid and now represent 16% of the GDP.
The fact is, when you subsidized the purchase of a service, you drive up the aggregate demand, thus you raise the price level.
The US Government does far to much, and really needs to be cut down to size. One thing I will give Rep. Ryan credit for is bringing about a national discussion on the issue.
No matter whether reform or outright termination is proposed, we can always rely upon dishonest demonizing little weasel shits like you, to run anyone and everyone who proposes any changes from the status quo into the ground.
Next are you going to tell me about how you can just get lost in those dreamy Paul Ryan eyes? When will the world appreciate his brilliance?
It doesn't matter what they say it means. It's how it's going to work that matters.
Indeed!
As I said above, there are two options: reform Medicare or end it. Those are the two approaches we're witnessing today. I don't particularly want to end it, nor do most folks. That's the problem the GOP faces today.
Reforming Medicare, on the other hand, means changing things about the program. Some of those changes will be more effective at improving Medicare than others--that's the idea behind trying every quality improvement or cost control concept the health care field is producing and building on success.
I want Medicare to be reformed. I want to see efforts to improve care, improve health outcomes, and get a handle on costs. If you don't want to try for those things because you don't believe achieving them is possible and thus ending Medicare is the only option, that's your business (it seems to be a common sentiment on the far right). But that's a bit defeatist for my tastes.
Eat shit, commie punk.No matter whether reform or outright termination is proposed, we can always rely upon dishonest demonizing little weasel shits like you, to run anyone and everyone who proposes any changes from the status quo into the ground.
Next are you going to tell me about how you can just get lost in those dreamy Paul Ryan eyes? When will the world appreciate his brilliance?
Under the Ryan plan, I'm one of the ones who will pretty much end up eating all the taxes paid in and I'm totally good with it.
I'm your worst nightmare come to life....Someone who can't be scared off by slimy little dirtballs like you.