I think the Supreme Court is giving Obama 3 days to get ready

[Guest]

for all the speeches we will be having to listen to which ever way they rule.
Maybe they gave him the immigration nut because they are going to upset his "most crowning achievement" as I heard it referred to today.

In this day and age of information leaks and back room deals does anybody really believe Obama has not been advised the out come to be announced?

I for one think that is the only reason the SC would make an announcement on the timing. Anybody wanna bet?

We shall see.

btk

[Guest]

His "most crowning achievement" was getting Bin Laden.

[Guest]

If The Affordable Care Act is overturned, will seniors have to reimburse the government for monies they received to pay for their meds? It's been reported that it's about $600.00 per person for anyone who finds themselves in the doughnut hole.

[Guest]

If it is overturned many people who thought they were against it will suddenly realize how very wrong they were. :doh:

[Guest]

When will Mitt Romney say anything original? He did not have any original thought on the Arizona decision; he did not have any original thought on Pres. Obama's "DREAM Act Light"; and "RomneyCare" was a blueprint for the Affordable Care Act complete with the mandate for paying. How can he be trusted with the office of President? Answer: He can't. A decent man but totally NOT PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL.

Is Obama presidential material? Answer: 100% YES.

[Guest]

If it is overturned many people who thought they were against it will suddenly realize how very wrong they were. :doh:
The POTUS' political opponents have been so bitterly against "ObamaCare", but without offering a better alternative, that people don't understand the problems that will result.

30-40 million people thrown back into the "uninsured" pool? They'll still get healthcare, but guess who'll pay for it? The rest of us will, with dramatically increased premiums. Medicare will move towards insolvency even faster. And Congress will continue to be unwilling to address the issue until after the next election...and the next...and the next.

The argument is that there's a better way. But who's going to come up with it, Congress? The same guys who couldn't agree on spending cuts and appointed a super committe of their peers, who coudn't agree on anything either? Mitt Romney? The guy who is proud of putting essentially he same plan into Massachusetts, but now says it's not a good plan for the country. OK Mitt, then what IS a good plan for the country? We all know we can't afford the system we had, and may have again if the Court rules as many wish they would.

This may be another prime example of being terribly disappointed when we get what we wished for.

[Guest]

Hey, who's give a rat's patootie if the whole idea of the government forcing you to purchase a product is patently unconstitutional?

The liberal elitists want it, and they know better than anyone and should be in charge of everyone's lives because they are just so brilliant and the rest of the country is filled with ignorant rednecks who don't even know how to come in out of the rain if you held the door open for them.

Don't all the ignorant unwashed masses know that government mandated healthcare is a human rights issue?

[Guest]

VK,

I do not understand you in your recent posts - especially this one. The meat of the post is excellent and makes a whole lot of sense.

The part I do not understand - correct me if I have you mixed up with someone else - is you say you are still going to vote for Mitt.

If there are such differences between Pres. Obama and Mr. Romney; you do not think that Romney has offered any positive alternatives to the plans offered by Pres. Obama; I cannot see your reason to vote Republican.

Ahhhhh; the question.................

It's been on the minds of more than you.

[Guest]

Hey, who's give a rat's patootie if the whole idea of the government forcing you to purchase a product is patently unconstitutional?

The liberal elitists want it, and they know better than anyone and should be in charge of everyone's lives because they are just so brilliant and the rest of the country is filled with ignorant rednecks who don't even know how to come in out of the rain if you held the door open for them.

Don't all the ignorant unwashed masses know that government mandated healthcare is a human rights issue?

It sure seemed as though Mitt Romney liked the idea of his State government forcing all the state residents to buy health insurance was a good idea. If he claims that a Democrat legislature forced it upon him, well, he was wishy washy at that point to go along with it and will be a wishy washy President if the "ignorant unwashed masses" (your words, RichieLion, not mine) vote him into office.

I want a leader such as President Obama with new and original ideas to help our country go forward. I do not want a wishy washy, say anything, just to go backward or have his wheels spinning and not able to do anything positive.

[Guest]

When will Mitt Romney say anything original? He did not have any original thought on the Arizona decision; he did not have any original thought on Pres. Obama's "DREAM Act Light"; and "RomneyCare" was a blueprint for the Affordable Care Act complete with the mandate for paying. How can he be trusted with the office of President? Answer: He can't. A decent man but totally NOT PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL.

Is Obama presidential material? Answer: 100% YES.

What we need is 50 candidates for president and pick them the same way we do Miss America, swimsuit, even gown and a short speech on what is their favorite subject. :laugh: Might even get a good one every now and then.

[Guest]

Hey, who's give a rat's patootie if the whole idea of the government forcing you to purchase a product is patently unconstitutional?

The liberal elitists want it, and they know better than anyone and should be in charge of everyone's lives because they are just so brilliant and the rest of the country is filled with ignorant rednecks who don't even know how to come in out of the rain if you held the door open for them.

Don't all the ignorant unwashed masses know that government mandated healthcare is a human rights issue?

Well said!!!! :D

[Guest]

Ahhhhh; the question.................

It's been on the minds of more than you.Like my vote for Obama in 2008, to me Romney is the lesser of two evils. If I didn't feel so strongly that all those who can vote should vote, this year's choices are so uncompelling that I might be tempted to just sit this one out.

I will be disappointed but not surprised if I'm voting for someone else in 2016. In fact if Romney is elected, unless there is an amazing turnaround of legislative productivity, consistent with my "never vote for an incumbent" ground rule, I'll probably be voting for yet another candidate in 2016.

[Guest]

Like my vote for Obama in 2008, to me Romney is the lesser of two evils. If I didn't feel so strongly that all those who can vote should vote, this year's choices are so uncompelling that I might be tempted to just sit this one out.

I will be disappointed but not surprised if I'm voting for someone else in 2016. In fact if Romney is elected, unless there is an amazing turnaround of legislative productivity, consistent with my "never vote for an incumbent" ground rule, I'll probably be voting for yet another candidate in 2016.

It's not that I don't believe you. It's just that except for saying that, your posted thoughts are as if you will be voting for Romney with similar hopes as if throwing a penny in a well, hoping your wish comes true and with little more expectation than that.

Other than that, you criticize Romney, his campaign and Republicans with abandon in your posts. I have trouble remembering any post where you called out a Democrat by name, especially Obama for any real criticism.

You seem unhappy with the State Of The Union in general, but not Obama or Democrats specifically. Republicans and their donors; you have plenty of anguish about.

It just seems all so incongruous to me.

[Guest]

for those who are currently so over whelmed with the benefits of Obanascare just keep in mind that only the tip of the ice berg has been implemented...children on parents insurance longer...donut hole "bonanza", etc.

The meat of the program does not hit until 2014 and beyond. In the mean time costs will be going out of sight in anticipation of the come tidal wave of increased population using the same care facilities of today.

For you to have parity with what you currently have as health care coverage you will see increasing monthly costs. In addition you may have to buy other supplemental coverage to stay even, hence more cost.

The other option that most will be confronted with is reduced coverage by their current provider(s)....longer waits for appointments.....dwindling stage of life priority death panel like impact).

Just as a for example...the $500,000,000,000 (billion!) savings from Medicare that is supposed to offset the cost of Obamascare...where will it come from? who will make it happen? when does it happen? where does the money come from when this does not happen because it will not.
Those who support the program are not looking at the longer term ills that are built in and will manifest with future implementation.

The result will be that what ever we had before the bill was passed...no matter how bad it was....will be the best and lowest cost health care we ever had.

btk

[Guest]

And what happens to the 40 million people who would get health care under the Affordable Care Act if this law is overturned? The big losers here, besides the people currently without health care, will be the insurance companies that are counting on adding 40 million people to their rolls.

The world is waiting to hear what Mitt Romney's health care plan will be since he said he would "repeal and replace" the ACA. Hopefully, he has a big announcement as soon as this decision is announced on Thursday.

[Guest]

Hey, who's give a rat's patootie if the whole idea of the government forcing you to purchase a product is patently unconstitutional?....Oh, there'll be lots who will suddenly "give a patootie" when they find they got what others told them they should wish for. From today's Wall Street Journal...
Pharmaceutical companies will very likely cancel the deep discounts the bill required them to give seniors whose prescription expenses were in the "doughnut hole" of the Medicare prescription drug program.

Medical residents who got grants based on their agreement to practice in either low-income clinics or unserved rural areas will certainly lose that financial support.

The insurance exchange setup that was to permit and encourage health insurance companies to compete nationally gets disbanded. Insurance companies will return to competing only on a state to state basis, where it's common that one insurer tends to dominate each state. The reduced competition is projected to result in significant premium increases.


And of course 30-40 million people return to being uninsured. That doesn't mean they won't get healthcare--they will. It's just that they won't be required to pay for it. All if those who do pay for their health insurance will see massive premium increases as the result of healthcare providers passing along their costs of treating the uninsured on to those who are paying for insurance by increasing their charges to insurance companies.
ObamaCare is far from perfect. There are lots of improvements and changes possible. But if he Court overturns it, as expected, neither Congress or Romney has presented an alternative plan. Romney championed essentially the same plan as ObamaCare in Massachusetts, where it is widely popular and reportedly effective. But Romney has now eschewed his plan, responding to right-wing pressure, even though he has not presented any kind of alternative with any specifics for use nationally. Does he mean that healthcare isn't a national problem? That the states shoud be responsible for addressing he healthcare problems on a state-by-state basis? If that's his idea, he hasn't said so.

No, Richie, if the Court overturns ObamaCare there'll be millions of people who'll give a patootie. I know I will. And I suspect you will too, when you get that letter with the big premium increase. Or if you get really sick and require expensive treatment, that insurance cancellation notice.

You may get what you wish for. But I don't think you'll be at all happy about it.

[Guest]

Oh, there'll be lots who will suddenly "give a patootie" when they find they got what others told them they should wish for. From today's Wall Street Journal...
Pharmaceutical companies will very likely cancel the deep discounts the bill required them to give seniors whose prescription expenses were in the "doughnut hole" of the Medicare prescription drug program.

Medical residents who got grants based on their agreement to practice in either low-income clinics or unserved rural areas will certainly lose that financial support.

The insurance exchange setup that was to permit and encourage health insurance companies to compete nationally gets disbanded. Insurance companies will return to competing only on a state to state basis, where it's common that one insurer tends to dominate each state. The reduced competition is projected to result in significant premium increases.


And of course 30-40 million people return to being uninsured. That doesn't mean they won't get healthcare--they will. It's just that they won't be required to pay for it. All if those who do pay for their health insurance will see massive premium increases as the result of healthcare providers passing along their costs of treating the uninsured on to those who are paying for insurance by increasing their charges to insurance companies.
ObamaCare is far from perfect. There are lots of improvements and changes possible. But if he Court overturns it, as expected, neither Congress or Romney has presented an alternative plan. Romney championed essentially the same plan as ObamaCare in Massachusetts, where it is widely popular and reportedly effective. But Romney has now eschewed his plan, responding to right-wing pressure, even though he has not presented any kind of alternative with any specifics for use nationally. Does he mean that healthcare isn't a national problem? That the states shoud be responsible for addressing he healthcare problems on a state-by-state basis? If that's his idea, he hasn't said so.

No, Richie, if the Court overturns ObamaCare there'll be millions of people who'll give a patootie. I know I will. And I suspect you will too, when you get that letter with the big premium increase. Or if you get really sick and require expensive treatment, that insurance cancellation notice.

You may get what you wish for. But I don't think you'll be at all happy about it.

Nothing is free. The ObamaCare Bill is way too expansive and we haven't got into a fraction of it's mandates yet.

I think you misunderstand the will of the people. Some 70% of people in some polls are against this huge government power grab. They like some provisions in the bill, if asked, but reject the bill itself.

This is one of those things that needs to be buried, and then concerns on health care options can be worked on in manageable ways, and in limited fashion.

[Guest]

...your posted thoughts are as if you will be voting for Romney with similar hopes as if throwing a penny in a well, hoping your wish comes true and with little more expectation than that....
Well said. A pretty accurate description of how I feel.

The difference between you and me is that I've tried to provide specific reasons and examples of why I feel as I do. Others here state their beliefs and criticize the choices of others here by repeating ideological mantra and soundbites or pasting in links to reports or opinion by unbalanced sources, with little critical analysis and comparison of alternatives and the choices we've been presented with in this campaign.

[Guest]

I don't understand why everyone is so all fired up about obamacare.Other presidents have considered national health care programs. The problem with this one is not to give affordable health care to the people is all about control. And if it does go through in 20 years when it is broke you will look back and wish for some thing new. Population control is one motive. When we get grouped with China and Russia then you see where we went wrong. After the election if obama gets in all hell will break lose. This guy and his buddies are very dangerous. I'm not saying Romney will be much better, we can only hope.

[Guest]

I just know how we made it all these years without Obamascare. And now after less than two years in effect and without the major impacts implemented yet it gets touted as the savings grace of us all.

Experience and reality says.....BS!!

btk

[Guest]

I just know how we made it all these years without Obamascare. And now after less than two years in effect and without the major impacts implemented yet it gets touted as the savings grace of us all.

Experience and reality says.....BS!!

btk

Mitt Romney has a much better idea. End Medicare as we know it and replace that with a voucher system so you can go out in the open market and buy your own health care. The downside is insurance companies will once again be able to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions and drop you once you get sick, and they can put a limit on spending. Can't wait to see how this all works out.

[Guest]

Mitt Romney has a much better idea. End Medicare as we know it and replace that with a voucher system so you can go out in the open market and buy your own health care. The downside is insurance companies will once again be able to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions and drop you once you get sick, and they can put a limit on spending. Can't wait to see how this all works out.If 70% of Americans are against ObamaCare, as is frequently stated, I'd be willing to bet lots of money that not too many will be on board for this idea.

Let's see how it would work...no more Medicare, VA insurance or any other form of government funded health insurance whether you paid in for fifty years or not...then the government is going to give you a voucher and tell you to have at it, buy whatever insurance you want but don't come back for more if the insurance companies raise premiums above the voucher amount. But not to worry folks, the competition between the insurance companies will keep premiums affordable. And stuff like pre-existing conditions or policy drops? Competition will protect you on those fronts too. Like Gordon Gecko said in the movie "Wall Street"...greed is good.

Oh yeah, that'll be popular. And I'm sure that everyone will have implicit trust in the insurance companies not to raise their premiums above what can be afforded with the fixed amount of voucher money.

Let's see, since I retired in 1998, my health insurance premiums have just about tripled. If someone gave me a voucher that would cover my premiums back then, you figure how far under water and uninsured I would be now. That voucher idea doesn't sound to good to me.

By the way, that's the Paul Ryan proposal, isn't it?

[Guest]

If 70% of Americans are against ObamaCare, as is frequently stated, I'd be willing to bet lots of money that not too many will be on board for this idea.

Let's see how it would work...no more Medicare, VA insurance or any other form of government funded health insurance whether you paid in for fifty years or not...then the government is going to give you a voucher and tell you to have at it, buy whatever insurance you want but don't come back for more if the insurance companies raise premiums above the voucher amount. But not to worry folks, the competition between the insurance companies will keep premiums affordable. And stuff like pre-existing conditions or policy drops? Competition will protect you on those fronts too. Like Gordon Gecko said in the movie "Wall Street"...greed is good.

Oh yeah, that'll be popular. And I'm sure that everyone will have implicit trust in the insurance companies not to raise their premiums above what can be afforded with the fixed amount of voucher money.

Let's see, since I retired in 1998, my health insurance premiums have just about tripled. If someone gave me a voucher that would cover my premiums back then, you figure how far under water and uninsured I would be now. That voucher idea doesn't sound to good to me.

By the way, that's the Paul Ryan proposal, isn't it?

VK,

Once again, you are right on the money and absolutely right. YET, you continue to say you are going to vote for Mr. Romney. How can you write such intelligent posts as this and then say Romney is your choice? Of course, you can tell us whatever you want but then when you are in the voting booth, you can pull whichever lever and no one will know which you pulled.

Remember, Conservatives, your wife may be telling you that she is in agreement with your right-wing ideas but may be just saying that to avoid an arguement. When she is in the voting booth, she probably will pull the lever for Obama and women's equality - and will be cancelling your vote!chilout

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Villages Kahuna;512307]If 70% of Americans are against ObamaCare, as is frequently stated, I'd be willing to bet lots of money that not too many will be on board for this idea.
QUOTE]

I'd be willing to bet 95% or more of the 70% against it, couldn't tell you any specifics about the legislation beyond the sound bite opposition they have heard from limbaugh, hannity and their ilk. They know zero about how the legislation, or the ending of it, will affect them personally, much less anyone else.

[Guest]

I just know how we made it all these years without Obamascare. And now after less than two years in effect and without the major impacts implemented yet it gets touted as the savings grace of us all.

Experience and reality says.....BS!!

btk

Obamascare? Really? I actually thought you were above that kind of silliness.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Villages Kahuna;512307]If 70% of Americans are against ObamaCare, as is frequently stated, I'd be willing to bet lots of money that not too many will be on board for this idea.
QUOTE]

I'd be willing to bet 95% or more of the 70% against it, couldn't tell you any specifics about the legislation beyond the sound bite opposition they have heard from limbaugh, hannity and their ilk. They know zero about how the legislation, or the ending of it, will affect them personally, much less anyone else.

I disagree, but not totally ! Most polls have folks totally opposed to the bill itself, but align very well with many, maybe most, of the aspects of the bill, which is where I come down.

Why folks are so negative on it is HOW it was done......this country was totally lied to from beginning to end on this fiasco and that is what it turned into.

This bill can be a basis for a good health insurance bill, one that ACTUALLY ADDRESSES COST which is what we were promised but was NOT addressed at all...it can address tort reform which is connected to cost.

A bill that is openly discussed...let US, the populace see the debate as we were promised....too big of a bill for blackmail and backroom deals.

[Guest]

If 70% of Americans are against ObamaCare, as is frequently stated, I'd be willing to bet lots of money that not too many will be on board for this idea.

Let's see how it would work...no more Medicare, VA insurance or any other form of government funded health insurance whether you paid in for fifty years or not...then the government is going to give you a voucher and tell you to have at it, buy whatever insurance you want but don't come back for more if the insurance companies raise premiums above the voucher amount. But not to worry folks, the competition between the insurance companies will keep premiums affordable. And stuff like pre-existing conditions or policy drops? Competition will protect you on those fronts too. Like Gordon Gecko said in the movie "Wall Street"...greed is good.

Oh yeah, that'll be popular. And I'm sure that everyone will have implicit trust in the insurance companies not to raise their premiums above what can be afforded with the fixed amount of voucher money.

Let's see, since I retired in 1998, my health insurance premiums have just about tripled. If someone gave me a voucher that would cover my premiums back then, you figure how far under water and uninsured I would be now. That voucher idea doesn't sound to good to me.

By the way, that's the Paul Ryan proposal, isn't it?

That's the Paul Ryan Budget which Mitt Romney thinks is "mah-ve-lous".

[Guest]

VK wrote, "
Let's see how it would work...no more Medicare, VA insurance or any other form of government funded health insurance whether you paid in for fifty years or not...then the government is going to give you a voucher and tell you to have at it, buy whatever insurance you want but don't come back for more if the insurance companies raise premiums above the voucher amount. But not to worry folks, the competition between the insurance companies will keep premiums affordable. And stuff like pre-existing conditions or policy drops? Competition will protect you on those fronts too. Like Gordon Gecko said in the movie "Wall Street"...greed is good.

Oh yeah, that'll be popular. And I'm sure that everyone will have implicit trust in the insurance companies not to raise their premiums above what can be afforded with the fixed amount of voucher money.

Let's see, since I retired in 1998, my health insurance premiums have just about tripled. If someone gave me a voucher that would cover my premiums back then, you figure how far under water and uninsured I would be now. That voucher idea doesn't sound to good to me.

By the way, that's the Paul Ryan proposal, isn't it?"
__________________________

I would like to hear some like Bucco or RichieLion address the facts in VK's posting, which I think hit the nail on the head. They are always asking for a discussion of issues. This is a major issue.

If those are not the ideas in Paul Ryan's proposal and would not be the ones that Mitt Romney would support, what exactly does Romney support for health care reform?

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Villages Kahuna;512307]If 70% of Americans are against ObamaCare, as is frequently stated, I'd be willing to bet lots of money that not too many will be on board for this idea.
QUOTE]

I'd be willing to bet 95% or more of the 70% against it, couldn't tell you any specifics about the legislation beyond the sound bite opposition they have heard from limbaugh, hannity and their ilk. They know zero about how the legislation, or the ending of it, will affect them personally, much less anyone else.

Exactly. :grumpy:

[Guest]

VK wrote, "
Let's see how it would work...no more Medicare, VA insurance or any other form of government funded health insurance whether you paid in for fifty years or not...then the government is going to give you a voucher and tell you to have at it, buy whatever insurance you want but don't come back for more if the insurance companies raise premiums above the voucher amount. But not to worry folks, the competition between the insurance companies will keep premiums affordable. And stuff like pre-existing conditions or policy drops? Competition will protect you on those fronts too. Like Gordon Gecko said in the movie "Wall Street"...greed is good.

Oh yeah, that'll be popular. And I'm sure that everyone will have implicit trust in the insurance companies not to raise their premiums above what can be afforded with the fixed amount of voucher money.

Let's see, since I retired in 1998, my health insurance premiums have just about tripled. If someone gave me a voucher that would cover my premiums back then, you figure how far under water and uninsured I would be now. That voucher idea doesn't sound to good to me.

By the way, that's the Paul Ryan proposal, isn't it?"
__________________________

I would like to hear some like Bucco or RichieLion address the facts in VK's posting, which I think hit the nail on the head. They are always asking for a discussion of issues. This is a major issue.

If those are not the ideas in Paul Ryan's proposal and would not be the ones that Mitt Romney would support, what exactly does Romney support for health care reform?

Since you mentioned me, I will respond.

Ryan's budget was put forth as a beginning.....was made very clear it was NOT a final product. On the vouchers, they increase as with COLA,not as you guys are stating it....fear is that COLA will not keep up with health costs and THAT is the reason we need some legislation to control health costs, which Obamacare does not even address or come close to. They may or may not work

You guys are jumping on a proposal that was doomed from the start because of the senate....always was pegged to begin discussion but that never happened.

Talking about this right now is not really a good undertaking for a number of reasons...first of all you are already misrepresenting it (vouchers and you dont mention how they do increase in value..probably just forgot) and the entire health cost situation will need to be reworked totally unless the SCOTUS allows it to stand as it is.

I know you want to jump on Romney and the Repubs....thats fine..that is what you want to do, but this is not the time. You havent heard anyone asking about the Presidents plan in immigration he announced..like HOW do you enforce it, etc. It is all election year verbage. BUT.....Ryan tried to address costs...he actually spoke to the committee that the President appointed and then totally ignored.

If you want to hammer away it, have at it...its up to you and again, do not allow facts to deter you, but then that does not seem to ever be a worry.

Already we have blown a hole in VK s little rant....the voucher does not have a forever amount attached to it. It does increase so misrepresentation already..you can check it if you wish but those are the facts.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120626/OPINION01/306260051/0/sports0204/?odyssey=nav|head

Let me say a few things if you dont mind because you are correct...I do enjoy discussin issues and unlike you folks I have no axe to grind with anyone (my problem is and has been always with only Obama and his character).

I have posted already on this thread that the overwhelming majority of americans oppose this Obama care, HOWEVER, if you look at the parts of it, they overwhelmingly support the parts. The parties are not that far apart...the problem is and is with the american people HOW THE BILL WAS put together...the lying...the fact that it does not even address at all COSTS, which was what we were all told it was all about.....it does not address tort reform whch again we were told was VITAL. I supported the plan Obama presented during the primary and general election for gosh sake.

THEN...he played politics....he did blackmail to get votes...he sold out to the insurance industry and thus had to actually make up things to pay for it...I mean it is funded literally with what ifs, and maybes.

It needs to be put together correctly...

"This is, of course, a trick question. That paragraph describes both the Affordable Care Act and Ryan’s proposed Medicare reforms. The insurance markets in both plans are essentially identical. And for good reason.

The Affordable Care Act was based on two decades of Republican thinking about health care. The basic structure was first proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989, first written into a bill by Senate Republicans in 1993, and first passed into law by a Republican governor by the name of Mitt Romney in 2005.

We need to put it together without all the crap he put in the bill to sell it....without selling out we can have great health care bill.

You folks just want to beat on Romney...that is what you do but you can only do it on this issue if you pick out little stuff and leave things out as you did already and VK did.


PS...my post 26 addressed this also but it is ignored because no good slams in it

[Guest]

I doubt if anyone wants to really learn about the Ryan plan... but just in case somebody actually wants to know something..

"Last time around, it was Ryan’s Medicare proposal that got the most attention—and, over time, that caused Republicans the most political grief. Instead of preserving the traditional government insurance program, Ryan had proposed that, starting ten years from now, the government would give seniors vouchers with which they could buy private coverage. He promised to keep the old program in place, for seniors who were already on it, and he promised to regulate the private market so that all seniors could still get coverage. But, over time, the value of the voucher would likely have diminished relative to the cost of medical care—producing the huge budget savings Ryan wanted, in part to pay for tax cuts, but also leaving seniors exposed to much larger medical bills. The Congressional Budget Office determined that, by 2022, the typical senior 65-year-old be responsible for two-thirds of his or her medical costs.

Ryan has stepped away from that plan, although not by as much as you may have heard. He’s still calling for turning Medicare into a voucher program that would not make the same guarantees of benefits, for example. The difference is that traditional Medicare would remain as an option for seniors, even beyond the next decade. He also envisions the voucher growing a little more rapidly. That, combined with newly revised projects that suggest the cost of health care is growing less rapidly than anticipated, would likely give seniors more protection than the first Ryan budget did. In these respects, it's similar to the bipartisan Medicare framework Ryan put together with Senator Ron Wyden, the Democrat from Oregon.

But Ryan's new plan would still leave seniors more vulnerable than they are now—and more vulnerable they'd be even under Obama's latest, most aggressive proposal for cutting Medicare cuts. Chief among the reasons: Even the new Ryan vouchers wouldn't guarantee access to a set of benefits. If costs rise faster than the value of the vouchers, as they very well might, seniors would have to make up the difference themselves.

Still, it’s not the Medicare population that takes the biggest hit this time. It's the Medicaid population. For starters—and this was the very first thing Ryan mentioned at his press conference—Ryan would repeal the coverage expansions of the Affordable Care Act. This is old news, I know. But few people seem to appreciate the impact. Take away the Affordable Care Act and you take away insurance from the 30 million people who are supposed to have it come 2014, when the law goes into full effect. About half of them are supposed to get that coverage from Medicaid.

Now throw in Ryan’s proposal to convert Medicaid into a block grant, under which the federal government would no longer guarantee insurance coverage for everybody that meets eligibility standards. Instead, the government would simply write checks to the states, for predetermined amounts, and let them figure out how best to spend the money. To generate the savings his budget needs, he’d reduce the value of those grants over time, relative to health care costs and current projections.

"Ryan claims that, given the freedom to innovate, states will find more efficient ways to stretch their dollars. But Medicaid already costs less, apples to apples, than private health insurance. And even to the extent states could find new efficiencies—and I'm willing to believe that at least some could—those wouldn’t be enough to replace the dollars Ryan wants to take out of the Medicaid system. Ryan proposes to reduce the program’s funding by more than $800 billion over the next decade, above and beyond the reduction that comes with repealing the Affordable Care Act. According to the Center on Budget, the result would be funding 22 percent below what it is now. (See figure at left.) And the cut would grow over time. “Another way to look at it,” says Edwin Park, of the Center on Budget, is that “in 2040, measured as a percentage of the economy, Medicaid/CHIP spending will be half the levels they are today—when there is no coverage expansion and not taking into account aging of the population and rising health care costs.”

Altogether, the CBO says, spending on Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and subsidies for private insurance would be nearly 75 percent lower in 2050 than projected under current law. (See figure below, from the CBO report.) Let that sink in for a minute: Ryan wants to reduce the government’s investment in helping people get health insurance by three-quarters. It’s impossible to know exactly how such a cut would play out, at least right now, but when the Kaiser Family Foundation asked the Urban Institute to project the impact of last year’s block grant proposal, it determined that between 14 and 27 million people would lose insurance.

Could such a proposal ever get through Congress? Probably not. Those numbers are as fantastical as the one on discretionary spending. But Ryan's willingness to endorse such plans says something. As Ed Kilgore and Ezra Klein observe, the decision to shift the burden of cuts so that the poor feel relatively more of them is no accident. The Republican base these days is disproportionately white and old, which means it’s more willing to tolerate cut to programs that seem mostly to benefit non-white, non-old people. In fact, left-wing polemics about Ryan’s insensitivity to the poor—like the one you are reading, for example—may not bother the base that much."

Jonathan Cohn: The Stunning Immorality Of Paul Ryan (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/101901/paul-ryan-budget-health-care-medicare-medicaid-poor-tax-cut-wealthy/)

My suggestion is that if you REALLY want to know things, read and not the political slanted crap.....because you guys that come on here and make false claims make yourselves look silly !

You have to read it all and keep it in context. The sites are slanted and bias and there you will only have what your party wants you to have

AND remember NOTHING is perfect but if the lying and backroom stuff stops things can get done

[Guest]

Can you elaborate? :kiss:

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Villages Kahuna;512307]If 70% of Americans are against ObamaCare, as is frequently stated, I'd be willing to bet lots of money that not too many will be on board for this idea.
QUOTE]

I'd be willing to bet 95% or more of the 70% against it, couldn't tell you any specifics about the legislation beyond the sound bite opposition they have heard from limbaugh, hannity and their ilk. They know zero about how the legislation, or the ending of it, will affect them personally, much less anyone else.

You stereotype a lot lately. You don't know what tens of millions of people read, listen to, believe, think, or how they mark their ballot all alone in that little booth.

[Guest]

VK,

Once again, you are right on the money and absolutely right. YET, you continue to say you are going to vote for Mr. Romney. How can you write such intelligent posts as this and then say Romney is your choice? Of course, you can tell us whatever you want but then when you are in the voting booth, you can pull whichever lever and no one will know which you pulled.

Remember, Conservatives, your wife may be telling you that she is in agreement with your right-wing ideas but may be just saying that to avoid an arguement. When she is in the voting booth, she probably will pull the lever for Obama and women's equality - and will be cancelling your vote!chiloutMy decision is based on a simple set of reasons, really. President Obama has proven a terribly weak leader and a total failure at leading or manipulating or in any way achieving progress within the Congress. That's an amazing statement when he had the majority for two years of his three and one-half in office. Yes, I know the Republicans blocked much of what he wanted to do because his party didn't have a cloture-proof majority in the Senate. But other presidents accomplished far more with less political "ammunition" than Obama had for at least half his first term.

With that as background, I have reached the conclusion that the bitter hatred for Obama by the Republicans will not abate if he wins a second term, but will probably even worsen. A dysfunctional Congress will become even more bitterly divided, very likely dragging the U.S. population with them to the far right and far left sides of social and fiscal ideology. The newfound ability of moneyed interests to continue the negative/attack ad advertising campaign enabled by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision could very well continue well beyond the actual election of a president and new Congress. Maybe it's an overstatement, but our very culture potentially could be threatened.

Romney is a new face, one who has proven to have some capability to navigate in a hostile political atmosphere. While he claims to be a far right conservative, much of his personal and political history says otherwise. I would be hopeful that like many politicians before him, he is saying what he thinks is necessary to appeal to enough voters to get elected, particularly those on the far right fringe of the Republican Party. There is some evidence of that in his rather dramatic and surprising change of positions on important issues. If he is elected, I would hope he would quickly veer towards moderation, while attempting to pull both the far left and far right more towards the middle with him to govern the country.

The situation in our national government can't get much worse than it is now, although I think it might if President Obama is re-elected. The GOP can almost certainly not be successful enough to gain the key cloture-proof majority in the Senate. So in the worse case scenario, if Romney proves to be yet another weak leader the Democrats would still have to political power, even as a minority in the Senate, to block whatever ultra-conservative legislative agenda the GOP might attempt to push thru the Congress, even if they had the majority in both houses. The situation would be very similar to what happened to Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America". He was successful in pushing a huge number of bills thru the House, most of which died an inglorious death in the Senate because the majority GOP in the Senate couldn't declare cloture.

I'll admit that's a pretty awful reason for voting for a candidate for president. But I'm afraid another four years with Barack Obama in the White House may do more damage to the country than Romney and even a majority GOP in both houses could possibly accomplish. In the worse case scenario, we'll have another chance to elect someone possibly more capable and inclined to lead in 2016.

Buggy, I hope that explains why I've concluded as I have. You may not agree, but I hope it provides a better background when I begin or enter discussions of issues here.

[Guest]

I doubt if anyone wants to really learn about the Ryan plan... but just in case somebody actually wants to know something..

"Last time around, it was Ryan’s Medicare proposal that got the most attention—and, over time, that caused Republicans the most political grief. Instead of preserving the traditional government insurance program, Ryan had proposed that, starting ten years from now, the government would give seniors vouchers with which they could buy private coverage. He promised to keep the old program in place, for seniors who were already on it, and he promised to regulate the private market so that all seniors could still get coverage. But, over time, the value of the voucher would likely have diminished relative to the cost of medical care—producing the huge budget savings Ryan wanted, in part to pay for tax cuts, but also leaving seniors exposed to much larger medical bills. The Congressional Budget Office determined that, by 2022, the typical senior 65-year-old be responsible for two-thirds of his or her medical costs.

Ryan has stepped away from that plan, although not by as much as you may have heard. He’s still calling for turning Medicare into a voucher program that would not make the same guarantees of benefits, for example. The difference is that traditional Medicare would remain as an option for seniors, even beyond the next decade. He also envisions the voucher growing a little more rapidly. That, combined with newly revised projects that suggest the cost of health care is growing less rapidly than anticipated, would likely give seniors more protection than the first Ryan budget did. In these respects, it's similar to the bipartisan Medicare framework Ryan put together with Senator Ron Wyden, the Democrat from Oregon.

But Ryan's new plan would still leave seniors more vulnerable than they are now—and more vulnerable they'd be even under Obama's latest, most aggressive proposal for cutting Medicare cuts. Chief among the reasons: Even the new Ryan vouchers wouldn't guarantee access to a set of benefits. If costs rise faster than the value of the vouchers, as they very well might, seniors would have to make up the difference themselves.

Still, it’s not the Medicare population that takes the biggest hit this time. It's the Medicaid population. For starters—and this was the very first thing Ryan mentioned at his press conference—Ryan would repeal the coverage expansions of the Affordable Care Act. This is old news, I know. But few people seem to appreciate the impact. Take away the Affordable Care Act and you take away insurance from the 30 million people who are supposed to have it come 2014, when the law goes into full effect. About half of them are supposed to get that coverage from Medicaid.

Now throw in Ryan’s proposal to convert Medicaid into a block grant, under which the federal government would no longer guarantee insurance coverage for everybody that meets eligibility standards. Instead, the government would simply write checks to the states, for predetermined amounts, and let them figure out how best to spend the money. To generate the savings his budget needs, he’d reduce the value of those grants over time, relative to health care costs and current projections.

"Ryan claims that, given the freedom to innovate, states will find more efficient ways to stretch their dollars. But Medicaid already costs less, apples to apples, than private health insurance. And even to the extent states could find new efficiencies—and I'm willing to believe that at least some could—those wouldn’t be enough to replace the dollars Ryan wants to take out of the Medicaid system. Ryan proposes to reduce the program’s funding by more than $800 billion over the next decade, above and beyond the reduction that comes with repealing the Affordable Care Act. According to the Center on Budget, the result would be funding 22 percent below what it is now. (See figure at left.) And the cut would grow over time. “Another way to look at it,” says Edwin Park, of the Center on Budget, is that “in 2040, measured as a percentage of the economy, Medicaid/CHIP spending will be half the levels they are today—when there is no coverage expansion and not taking into account aging of the population and rising health care costs.”

Altogether, the CBO says, spending on Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and subsidies for private insurance would be nearly 75 percent lower in 2050 than projected under current law. (See figure below, from the CBO report.) Let that sink in for a minute: Ryan wants to reduce the government’s investment in helping people get health insurance by three-quarters. It’s impossible to know exactly how such a cut would play out, at least right now, but when the Kaiser Family Foundation asked the Urban Institute to project the impact of last year’s block grant proposal, it determined that between 14 and 27 million people would lose insurance.

Could such a proposal ever get through Congress? Probably not. Those numbers are as fantastical as the one on discretionary spending. But Ryan's willingness to endorse such plans says something. As Ed Kilgore and Ezra Klein observe, the decision to shift the burden of cuts so that the poor feel relatively more of them is no accident. The Republican base these days is disproportionately white and old, which means it’s more willing to tolerate cut to programs that seem mostly to benefit non-white, non-old people. In fact, left-wing polemics about Ryan’s insensitivity to the poor—like the one you are reading, for example—may not bother the base that much."

Jonathan Cohn: The Stunning Immorality Of Paul Ryan (http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/101901/paul-ryan-budget-health-care-medicare-medicaid-poor-tax-cut-wealthy/)

My suggestion is that if you REALLY want to know things, read and not the political slanted crap.....because you guys that come on here and make false claims make yourselves look silly !

You have to read it all and keep it in context. The sites are slanted and bias and there you will only have what your party wants you to have

AND remember NOTHING is perfect but if the lying and backroom stuff stops things can get done
Thanks for posting this, Bucco. It presents some statistics that people who just blindly embrace the Ryan proposal almost certainly don't know.

And it matches my own personal experience with healthcare premiums. A long, long time ago the bank I worked for in Chicago announced that it would generously and finally fund the healthcare insurance for retirees with monthly additions to their retirement payments amounting to $300 per month. The bank would then stop paying the retiree healthcare premiums, avoiding the future risk of increasing preiums from the insurance companies. At the time, the monthly premiums were about $175. It sounded like a generous offer at the time. The premiums increased to more than that amount within 3-4 years. By the time I retired early, I was paying over $1,000 a month until I turned 65 and qualified for Medicare. And now I pay a multiple of that amount for a supplemental policy.

The Ryan voucher program is a terrible idea. I hope enough people read enough to realize that rather than just voting the way their partisan "soundbite-makers" or the political attack ads tell them to. But even if they don't I can't imagine that this plan will ever see the light of day in a Congress concentrated on re-election. A voucher program really would be a politically-fatal "third rail".

Now let the criticisms of the "left leaning Congressional Budget Office" begin.

[Guest]

Let me preface my remarks with the fact that some folks continue to ignore the limits of nature. It may feel good but it is beyond the government's reach to provide everything to everybody. Secondly Obama gained support of Pharma and the health care providers because he promised them a big payout in the form of 100% participation in his plan that would eventually become a single payer plan.

Certainly there is not a perfect plan but the existing health care system with some modification was very doable. Instead Obama chose to throw out the baby with the bath water as he did with some of his other pet projects. In his haste to control he ignored the nations priorities and we are all suffering for it.

There have been sound suggestions by a number of learned people in how to handle our healthcare system without radical changes.

I believe it was Ddoug who p;ointed out in an earlier post that the real impetus of this plan will roll out in 2014. Hmmm after the election...wonder why?

The CBO has already found that a number of projected estimates are already shown to be well understated.

ObamaCare will be a disaster. We need to keep the present system and modify it to be more workable. a final thought there continues to be a shortage of doctors, especially primary care doctors exacerbated by an aging population needing more care. Just what do you think will happen with a claim of providing serivces to so many? Rationing will occur and guess what old timers when they do their quality valuations whee on the totem pole do you think we will sit?

[Guest]

Thanks for posting this, Bucco. It presents some statistics that people who just blindly embrace the Ryan proposal almost certainly don't know.

And it matches my own personal experience with healthcare premiums. A long, long time ago the bank I worked for in Chicago announced that it would generously and finally fund the healthcare insurance for retirees with monthly additions to their retirement payments amounting to $300 per month. The bank would then stop paying the retiree healthcare premiums, avoiding the future risk of increasing preiums from the insurance companies. At the time, the monthly premiums were about $175. It sounded like a generous offer at the time. The premiums increased to more than that amount within 3-4 years. By the time I retired early, I was paying over $1,000 a month until I turned 65 and qualified for Medicare. And now I pay a multiple of that amount for a supplemental policy.

The Ryan voucher program is a terrible idea. I hope enough people read enough to realize that rather than just voting the way their partisan "soundbite-makers" or the political attack ads tell them to. But even if they don't I can't imagine that this plan will ever see the light of day in a Congress concentrated on re-election. A voucher program really would be a politically-fatal "third rail".

Now let the criticisms of the "left leaning Congressional Budget Office" begin.

No criticism here....non partisan issue for me. Important and Ryan had the guts to profer something to publicly discuss, although it will never BE DISCUSSED.

The voucher system is not as bad as you make it...certainly no worse than the Obamacare method of paying...BUT, it needs work and discussion.

I will not jump on anyone case for getting something out there to be considered. It was done in the light of day and you and others have a chance to critique. Cannot say that about the current bill.

Not perfect...absolutely !

On this forum, it has been dismissed out of hand by those who wish gridlock. I posted it, warts and all, because getting tired of the misinformed posting things that are just not true.

[Guest]

Bucco and Rubicon, I'm certainly not embracing ObamaCare, far from it. On numerous occasions here I've referred to it as a "Rube Goldberg bill". It was the product of virtually everyone getting what they wanted included in the bill. As was widely reported the day after the Affordable Healthcare Act was passed, "the champagne corks were popping on K Street".

What I am against is throwing the bill out, either by repealing it as Romney says he'll do or by Supreme Court decision tomorrow, without having a well thought out and debated comprehensive alternative. The Republicans want it repealed. Several states' attorneys general sued to have all or part of it thrown out because of expense being shifted to the states. That's the case the Supreme Court will decide tomorrow.

But even with the groundswell of people saying they don't like the program, NO ONE HAS PROPOSED A LEGITIMATE, WELL THOUGHT OUT, INTERNALLY CONSISTENT ALTERNATIVE!

There's no question that our healthcare system is inefficient, ineffective and unaffordable. That was the reason for ObamaCare in the first place. So someone tell me how throwing it out or having the Court throw out important parts if it without any kind of reasonable alternative is good for the country? Either will be great political fodder, but after whatever happens, we will still be left with the same problem, the same unsustainable situation the existed before the bill was passed a couple years ago. And a Congress who has little or no prospect of agreeing with one another enough to come up with a replacement!

[Guest]

Bucco and Rubicon, I'm certainly not embracing ObamaCare, far from it. On numerous occasions here I've referred to it as a "Rube Goldberg bill". It was the product of virtually everyone getting what they wanted included in the bill. As was widely reported the day after the Affordable Healthcare Act was passed, "the champagne corks were popping on K Street".

What I am against is throwing the bill out, either by repealing it as Romney says he'll do or by Supreme Court decision tomorrow, without having a well thought out and debated comprehensive alternative. The Republicans want it repealed. Several states' attorneys general sued to have all or part of it thrown out because of expense being shifted to the states. That's the case the Supreme Court will decide tomorrow.

But even with the groundswell of people saying they don't like the program, NO ONE HAS PROPOSED A LEGITIMATE, WELL THOUGHT OUT, INTERNALLY CONSISTENT ALTERNATIVE!

There's no question that our healthcare system is inefficient, ineffective and unaffordable. That was the reason for ObamaCare in the first place. So someone tell me how throwing it out or having the Court throw out important parts if it without any kind of reasonable alternative is good for the country? Either will be great political fodder, but after whatever happens, we will still be left with the same problem, the same unsustainable situation the existed before the bill was passed a couple years ago. And a Congress who has little or no prospect of agreeing with one another enough to come up with a replacement!

VK: Why do people continue to speak of our present system being inefficient ,ineffective and unaffordable. Compared to what? We have a health care system now that provides for the majority of Americans, a system that is innovative and can well equip doctors and hospitals all over the country. we have people from every country in the world traveling
here for specialized care.

The so called uninsured can and do find care when needed.

My daughter coordinates care via a very famous hospital in New York for children up to the age of 6. Ask her about the countless number of poor and not so poor families whose children get special care on the taxpayers dime. And I'm speaking of care in the hundreds of millions.

As I stated in a previous post here we do not need a new system of health care we just need a tune up on the present system.

When someone talks of our present system being broken they have bit on the usual political bait and the pols continue to reel them in.

Look for those magic political words that keep taxpayers/voters off guard "fair" "compassion", etc because what it all adds up to is give me more money and more power. When is it going to stop? It will not stop until taxpayeres/voters wise up and face the fact that politicians are their enablers .

[Guest]

Bucco and Rubicon, I'm certainly not embracing ObamaCare, far from it. On numerous occasions here I've referred to it as a "Rube Goldberg bill". It was the product of virtually everyone getting what they wanted included in the bill. As was widely reported the day after the Affordable Healthcare Act was passed, "the champagne corks were popping on K Street".

What I am against is throwing the bill out, either by repealing it as Romney says he'll do or by Supreme Court decision tomorrow, without having a well thought out and debated comprehensive alternative. The Republicans want it repealed. Several states' attorneys general sued to have all or part of it thrown out because of expense being shifted to the states. That's the case the Supreme Court will decide tomorrow.

But even with the groundswell of people saying they don't like the program, NO ONE HAS PROPOSED A LEGITIMATE, WELL THOUGHT OUT, INTERNALLY CONSISTENT ALTERNATIVE!

There's no question that our healthcare system is inefficient, ineffective and unaffordable. That was the reason for ObamaCare in the first place. So someone tell me how throwing it out or having the Court throw out important parts if it without any kind of reasonable alternative is good for the country? Either will be great political fodder, but after whatever happens, we will still be left with the same problem, the same unsustainable situation the existed before the bill was passed a couple years ago. And a Congress who has little or no prospect of agreeing with one another enough to come up with a replacement!

A few comments....first of all, I read recently and sorry no link as I do not recall where, that the WH has been working on back up plans. Good for them if that is the case.

WHAT A WONDERFUL opportunity for our legislators to get back some respect. THIS TIME, lets do what we were told would be done...lets discuss it in public for all to hear. I know this is NOT going to happen, but nice thought anyway.

I would think the SCOTUS is smart enough to know what is happening and the import of this to many people, thus I see no big panic scene being created no matter how they decide, but if our government gets a second chance at this and blows it again...WOW. COSTS, TORT REFORM, HOW WE PAY FOR IT....

[Guest]

From rubicons post: ..."We need to keep the present system and modify it to be more workable."

During the Obama care ram it through and we will read it later days....this was suggested several times without ever being addressed. Now why would that be?

The system, with it's flaws has been doing the job long before the Clintons. Remember it was Hillary's top priority. Anybody remember why it never flew?

The much more practical approach to fixing the broken parts of an already working system that everybody was familiar with would at least leave us all with what we know. The Obama care, git er done bill is still being defined. The costs are still unknown, but even Obama's budget gang used to say it would cost way more than projected. Funny how that cry from within has mysteriously gone silent.

The old adage of the devil you know is much better than the one you don't. And for all those who continue to rail about how much better off we are already....why? Because some kids can stay on the policy? Because pre existing conditions are not a problem? Because they filled in a little piece of the donut hole?

These can all be estimated as to their cost. The cost of these pied piper bread crumbs will be lost in the rounding of the costs of the pieces of the bill (of goods sold!) that go into effect in 2014.

Just another political charade that the majority by the way were against.....and most recent polls still show a majority against.
Never mind that noise...it is just we the people expressing what we did not want......and see what impact that had on Obama's crowning achievement!

btk

[Guest]

VK: Why do people continue to speak of our present system being inefficient ,ineffective and unaffordable. Compared to what?....Compared to what? Compared to virtually every other developed country in the world. There are numerous studies done each year by international, non-partisan, unimpeachable sources.

Inefficient? Now understand that I'm talking about our entire healthcare system, not just Medicare/Medicaid. U.S. healthcare cost are now about 17% of GDP and growing both consistently and dramatically. Some estimate that our healthcare costs will consume 25% of GDP by 2050. Healthcare costs are rising far faster than the incomes of U.S. citizens. That's the very definition of inefficiency.

Ineffective? There are certain things that U.S. healthcare does very well. We are at the cutting edge of cancer treatment and certain specialized surgeries. But the overall health of Americans lags that of many developed countries. We are more obese. Our life expectancy is among the worst of the developed countries. U.S. infant mortality rates are also in the lower third of developed countries. Much of those results may be due to the fact that around 30% of our population has no healthcare insurance. We are the only developed country that does not have healthcare insurance programs covering all of their citizens. ObamaCare did mandate coverage for the vast majority of Americans, but as you know that may be reversed as the result of either legal decision or political action.

Unaffordable? We spend more than double on healthcare than the next most expensive developed country, almost $7,600 per year for every single American. And I noted above, we don 't get results that are as good. Healthcare costs have been rising at about 10% a year in recent years, while personal incomes have been flat to down. Again, if that continues, it's the definition of unaffordable.

As further background, I'd recommend reading the following paper authored by two very knowledgeable and non-partisan researchers under the sponsorship of The Urban Institute.

www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411947_ushealthcare_quality.pdf

[Guest]

The researchers referenced in the above post in connection with a study they did, indeed are writing for The Urban Institute.

I see no reference to either one of them claiming to be nonpartisan politically (I'm assuming that's your "nonpartisan" reference).

I'm just wondering how you came to the conclusion they they were.

Not a big bone of contention, but just curiosity.

You can go off on a righteous fit if you want, but this is an honest question.

[Guest]

The researchers referenced in the above post in connection with a study they did, indeed are writing for The Urban Institute.

I see no reference to either one of them claiming to be nonpartisan politically (I'm assuming that's your "nonpartisan" reference).

I'm just wondering how you came to the conclusion they they were.

Not a big bone of contention, but just curiosity.

You can go off on a righteous fit if you want, but this is an honest question.
A combination of two things. From its beginnings about fifty years ago, the Urban Institute has prided itself on being non-partisan. I'm not aware that the quality of their research has ever been criticized for serving one position, ideology or another.

In the mid-1960s, President Johnson saw the need for independent nonpartisan analysis of the problems facing America's cities and their residents. The President created a blue-ribbon commission of civic leaders who recommended chartering a center to do that work. In 1968, the Urban Institute became that center. Since then, their research subjects have broadened considerably, taking on a far broader and more international flavor.

When I was working, I actually had the opportunity to participate on a nationwide study of urban renewal. The participants reflected a broad group of elected officials, public officials as well as architects, developers, investors and bankers serving the real estate industry. (I was invited to participate as a banker.) So I know first hand of both the quality and independence of their research.

The other reason for my conclusion regarding their independence was simply reading the article. There is no suggestion of a partisan position in either the author's choice of research sources or the conclusions they reached.

[Guest]

His "most crowning achievement" was getting Bin Laden.

And he didn't even need the SEALS. What a man!

[Guest]

It's my opinion that no one keeps their personal beliefs from influencing what they write, or more importantly, what they write about or what evidence they choose to submit or not submit in an essay.

I didn't see any obvious bias, but I was just curious about your blanket statement about their partisanship.

[Guest]

And he didn't even need the SEALS. What a man!

His most crowning achievement.....saying "Yes, OK, go for it" (paraphrasing)

If that's the crowning achievement for these past 4 years.......whew

[Guest]

The point lads is a POTUS has no crown, no anointment or divine right of kings. Therefore NO crowning achievements. That is only in the eyes and minds of the worshipers.

[Guest]

The point lads is a POTUS has no crown, no anointment or divine right of kings. Therefore NO crowning achievements. That is only in the eyes and minds of the worshipers.

Indeed.

[Guest]

And he didn't even need the SEALS. What a man!


barf Junior Bush:jester: had the same opportunity to use the Navy Seals but just never had the "intelligence" to find bin Laden.

[Guest]

barf Junior Bush:jester: had the same opportunity to use the Navy Seals but just never had the "intelligence" to find bin Laden.

Oh, please enlighten us on the steps Obama took to improve the military intelligence complex in the aftermath of the Bush Presidency.

[Guest]

barf Junior Bush:jester: had the same opportunity to use the Navy Seals but just never had the "intelligence" to find bin Laden.

Oh, please enlighten us on the steps Obama took to improve the military intelligence complex in the aftermath of the Bush Presidency.

Oh wait a minute, your comment was just a cheap joke. I thought you posted serious for a second there.

my mistake.

[Guest]

Oh, please enlighten us on the steps Obama took to improve the military intelligence complex in the aftermath of the Bush Presidency.

It's a military secret, RichieLion. :1rotfl::1rotfl: But obiously, even for you, it worked!

[Guest]

Oh, please enlighten us on the steps Obama took to improve the military intelligence complex in the aftermath of the Bush Presidency.

Thought it was a Pakistani MD who helped get Osama Bin Laden through tracking DNA patterns.
Pakistan Rejects US Criticism of Jailed Doctor Who Assisted in Bin Laden Hunt (http://www.voanews.com/content/pakistan-rejects-us-criticism-of-jailed-doctor/940505.html)

[Guest]

when reading thread I keep reading 30 to 40 million without ins.That is false 12 million of those are illegal and another 8 to 12 million have plans where they work but elect not to purchase.This was brought up when obama first was elected.But when a lie is repeated over and over it begins to be accepted as the truth.

[Guest]

OBL kill would have eventually happened regardless who was in the WH and that it was a priority to do so.

Those magic words we all hate....it happened on his watch....

yes he gets the credit....NO it was not because of his initiative, only following through because it had vote gaining/regaining/maintaining potential......just another all about me agenda item.

btk

[Guest]

What does any of this have to do with the Supreme Court decision today or The Affordable Care Act? Perhaps you should change the title of the thread to 'Why we hate President Obama'.

[Guest]

yup I guess we strayed off topic....but in good political conscience it is related.

And oh by the way just because we do not worship or support Obama it does not mean one hates Obama. It must be this phraseology makes some of you fell good....why else the flawed notion?

btk

[Guest]

for all the speeches we will be having to listen to which ever way they rule.
Maybe they gave him the immigration nut because they are going to upset his "most crowning achievement" as I heard it referred to today.

In this day and age of information leaks and back room deals does anybody really believe Obama has not been advised the out come to be announced?

I for one think that is the only reason the SC would make an announcement on the timing. Anybody wanna bet?

We shall see.

btk

Yes.....we shall see.....oh, i guess we did see. :MOJE_whot:

[Guest]

for all the speeches we will be having to listen to which ever way they rule.
Maybe they gave him the immigration nut because they are going to upset his "most crowning achievement" as I heard it referred to today.

In this day and age of information leaks and back room deals does anybody really believe Obama has not been advised the out come to be announced?

I for one think that is the only reason the SC would make an announcement on the timing. Anybody wanna bet?

We shall see.

btk

You would have lost......

[Guest]

Yes.....we shall see.....oh, i guess we did see. :MOJE_whot:

Very interesting decision though. It sounds like Chief Justice Roberts put a context in it-- by allowing the law through the Tax Power rather than the Commerce Clause-- which fits in well with the Republican election campaign strategy.

I do applaud Chief Justice Roberts for showing some Judicial Restraint though on not siding with those Justices who would have struck down the law.