Health Care tax hikes

[briansd1]

[quote=KSMountain]
Imagine that the rich-haters fully got their way. Imagine a society where everyone made exactly the same income. Why would anyone try hard at work? Why even go to college? How much innovation would there be?[/quote]

Who ever said that everyone should earn the same income?

Germany has socialized medicine and they innovate very well. You know… Mercedes and Porsche.

Taiwan has a single payer system and they innovate very well. In fact Taiwanese businessmen own the Chinese factories than make the stuff we import from China.

Korea has great innovative products and their products keep on getting better. Did you hear of LG cosmetics?

France has plenty of rich folks living luxurious lives.

[briansd1]

[quote=KSMountain]Here’s a little backup for the “retiring 50 year old hairdressers” claim:

[/quote]

I share your concern about pension promises being unsustainable.

In America those are mostly state and local government pensions.

The answer is simple. The localities that can’t pay their pensions will simply have to declare bankruptcy and stiff their creditors (pensioners) if they can’t raise revenue. The City of San Diego comes to mind.

But that’s a separate issue from national health care.

I’m against the federal bailout of underwater pension funds.

[briansd1]

[quote=KSMountain]Here’s a little backup for the “retiring 50 year old hairdressers” claim:

[/quote]

I share your concern about pension promises being unsustainable.

In America those are mostly state and local government pensions.

The answer is simple. The localities that can’t pay their pensions will simply have to declare bankruptcy and stiff their creditors (pensioners) if they can’t raise revenue. The City of San Diego comes to mind.

But that’s a separate issue from national health care.

I’m against the federal bailout of underwater pension funds.

[briansd1]

[quote=KSMountain]Here’s a little backup for the “retiring 50 year old hairdressers” claim:

[/quote]

I share your concern about pension promises being unsustainable.

In America those are mostly state and local government pensions.

The answer is simple. The localities that can’t pay their pensions will simply have to declare bankruptcy and stiff their creditors (pensioners) if they can’t raise revenue. The City of San Diego comes to mind.

But that’s a separate issue from national health care.

I’m against the federal bailout of underwater pension funds.

[briansd1]

[quote=KSMountain]Here’s a little backup for the “retiring 50 year old hairdressers” claim:

[/quote]

I share your concern about pension promises being unsustainable.

In America those are mostly state and local government pensions.

The answer is simple. The localities that can’t pay their pensions will simply have to declare bankruptcy and stiff their creditors (pensioners) if they can’t raise revenue. The City of San Diego comes to mind.

But that’s a separate issue from national health care.

I’m against the federal bailout of underwater pension funds.

[briansd1]

[quote=KSMountain]Here’s a little backup for the “retiring 50 year old hairdressers” claim:

[/quote]

I share your concern about pension promises being unsustainable.

In America those are mostly state and local government pensions.

The answer is simple. The localities that can’t pay their pensions will simply have to declare bankruptcy and stiff their creditors (pensioners) if they can’t raise revenue. The City of San Diego comes to mind.

But that’s a separate issue from national health care.

I’m against the federal bailout of underwater pension funds.

[Veritas]

[img_assist|nid=13055|title=Thomas Jefferson|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=150]

[Veritas]

[img_assist|nid=13055|title=Thomas Jefferson|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=150]

[Veritas]

[img_assist|nid=13055|title=Thomas Jefferson|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=150]

[Veritas]

[img_assist|nid=13055|title=Thomas Jefferson|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=150]

[Veritas]

[img_assist|nid=13055|title=Thomas Jefferson|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=400|height=150]

[briansd1]

[quote=KSMountain]Someone (maybe you) called Medicare and Soc. Security “bedrock” programs. Oh yeah? Bedrock programs that have no recognition of demographics or reality. Neither one of those programs are on fiscally sound footing. [/quote]

If you want to cut Medicare and put it on sound footing? Talk to the Republicans.

Yesterday, Republicans offered amendments to “protect the excessive subsidies paid for Medicare Advantage plans”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-health26-2010mar26,0,5620124.story

So who’s causing Medicare costs to escalate? Republicans. And who signed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 into law? That’s right George Bush.

Medicare Advantage, however, failed in its mission: prices shot up. Private insurers complained that they couldn’t compete with Medicare for the same amount of money Medicare spends. So Republicans systematically increased reimbursement rates, and now Medicare has to pay the average private plan 114 percent what it would’ve spent to cover that beneficiary itself. That’s helped the private plans provide better service (as you would expect), and now 23 percent of seniors are in an Advantage plan.

Democrats don’t want to eliminate the Medicare Advantage program. But they want it to live within the same budget that Medicare uses. Republicans argue that pulling back these payments will force some Medicare Advantage plans to trim their benefits. That may well be true. But it is an argument against ever eliminating government overpayments to any program. It is an argument, in other words, for waste and abuse.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/republicans_for_waste_and_abus.html

If you want good government, choose the party that’s best at POLICY rather than politics, sound bites, and coded rhetoric that inflame the passions of thugs and hoodlums.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/congress.threats/index.html?hpt=T1

[briansd1]

[quote=KSMountain]Someone (maybe you) called Medicare and Soc. Security “bedrock” programs. Oh yeah? Bedrock programs that have no recognition of demographics or reality. Neither one of those programs are on fiscally sound footing. [/quote]

If you want to cut Medicare and put it on sound footing? Talk to the Republicans.

Yesterday, Republicans offered amendments to “protect the excessive subsidies paid for Medicare Advantage plans”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-health26-2010mar26,0,5620124.story

So who’s causing Medicare costs to escalate? Republicans. And who signed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 into law? That’s right George Bush.

Medicare Advantage, however, failed in its mission: prices shot up. Private insurers complained that they couldn’t compete with Medicare for the same amount of money Medicare spends. So Republicans systematically increased reimbursement rates, and now Medicare has to pay the average private plan 114 percent what it would’ve spent to cover that beneficiary itself. That’s helped the private plans provide better service (as you would expect), and now 23 percent of seniors are in an Advantage plan.

Democrats don’t want to eliminate the Medicare Advantage program. But they want it to live within the same budget that Medicare uses. Republicans argue that pulling back these payments will force some Medicare Advantage plans to trim their benefits. That may well be true. But it is an argument against ever eliminating government overpayments to any program. It is an argument, in other words, for waste and abuse.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/republicans_for_waste_and_abus.html

If you want good government, choose the party that’s best at POLICY rather than politics, sound bites, and coded rhetoric that inflame the passions of thugs and hoodlums.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/congress.threats/index.html?hpt=T1

[briansd1]

[quote=KSMountain]Someone (maybe you) called Medicare and Soc. Security “bedrock” programs. Oh yeah? Bedrock programs that have no recognition of demographics or reality. Neither one of those programs are on fiscally sound footing. [/quote]

If you want to cut Medicare and put it on sound footing? Talk to the Republicans.

Yesterday, Republicans offered amendments to “protect the excessive subsidies paid for Medicare Advantage plans”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-health26-2010mar26,0,5620124.story

So who’s causing Medicare costs to escalate? Republicans. And who signed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 into law? That’s right George Bush.

Medicare Advantage, however, failed in its mission: prices shot up. Private insurers complained that they couldn’t compete with Medicare for the same amount of money Medicare spends. So Republicans systematically increased reimbursement rates, and now Medicare has to pay the average private plan 114 percent what it would’ve spent to cover that beneficiary itself. That’s helped the private plans provide better service (as you would expect), and now 23 percent of seniors are in an Advantage plan.

Democrats don’t want to eliminate the Medicare Advantage program. But they want it to live within the same budget that Medicare uses. Republicans argue that pulling back these payments will force some Medicare Advantage plans to trim their benefits. That may well be true. But it is an argument against ever eliminating government overpayments to any program. It is an argument, in other words, for waste and abuse.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/republicans_for_waste_and_abus.html

If you want good government, choose the party that’s best at POLICY rather than politics, sound bites, and coded rhetoric that inflame the passions of thugs and hoodlums.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/congress.threats/index.html?hpt=T1

[briansd1]

[quote=KSMountain]Someone (maybe you) called Medicare and Soc. Security “bedrock” programs. Oh yeah? Bedrock programs that have no recognition of demographics or reality. Neither one of those programs are on fiscally sound footing. [/quote]

If you want to cut Medicare and put it on sound footing? Talk to the Republicans.

Yesterday, Republicans offered amendments to “protect the excessive subsidies paid for Medicare Advantage plans”

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-health26-2010mar26,0,5620124.story

So who’s causing Medicare costs to escalate? Republicans. And who signed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 into law? That’s right George Bush.

Medicare Advantage, however, failed in its mission: prices shot up. Private insurers complained that they couldn’t compete with Medicare for the same amount of money Medicare spends. So Republicans systematically increased reimbursement rates, and now Medicare has to pay the average private plan 114 percent what it would’ve spent to cover that beneficiary itself. That’s helped the private plans provide better service (as you would expect), and now 23 percent of seniors are in an Advantage plan.

Democrats don’t want to eliminate the Medicare Advantage program. But they want it to live within the same budget that Medicare uses. Republicans argue that pulling back these payments will force some Medicare Advantage plans to trim their benefits. That may well be true. But it is an argument against ever eliminating government overpayments to any program. It is an argument, in other words, for waste and abuse.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/republicans_for_waste_and_abus.html

If you want good government, choose the party that’s best at POLICY rather than politics, sound bites, and coded rhetoric that inflame the passions of thugs and hoodlums.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/25/congress.threats/index.html?hpt=T1

[Author]

Posts