1 Meh, I think we were all orgasmic that the Ted Kennedy throne went to one of the peasants. Well, so be it.

2 O-mobile gets stuck at U.S. Embassy in Ireland.

lulz

Great metaphor.

3 Another fight thread means more room for me.

S  T  R  E  T  C  H

4 In other news, I'm still dead and bloated.

5 But I do not think it requires us to change Medicare as we know it. We can work inside of Medicare to make it more solvent.

So pretty  yet so unbelievably stupid.

6 Politico is doing a line of hit jobs on Medicare today, and Scott Brown gave them an air of legitimacy. I understand why politicians don't want to touch the 3rd rail but how do they know how people will respond if they're not united in pushing-back the Dems? Brown is only reinforcing the Dems here.

7

I think most of us long ago resigned ourselves to a "we'll take what we can get" attitude towards MA Republicans.  (With the whipped cream and cherry of "OMG we hold Ted Kennedy's seat LOL.")

It's still disappointing, though.

8 Meh.  Dems will boot him as a point of what passes for honor for them.

Moral of the story:  If it seems too good to be true...

9

At least Brown didn't take a cheap shot at Ryan like Newt did (before he laughably claimed he didn't).

One possible mitigating factor in Brown's favor is that this is a free vote leading into 2012 (when Brown is up for a full term).

 

Pretending that there are other ways to solve the crisis is a cheap shot. It makes the proponent look like the guy who shoots holes in the boat to let the water out. That's certainly how it's going to be portrayed, using this as a bi-partisan sound bite.

10

The fraud is that the gubberment gave the People something that they never 'splained they would have to pay every dime of.

That's right. The beneficiaries don't understand that THEY are on the hook for every dime of their own benefits.

I'm too smart for this game...it's not fair nor much fun.

11 Brown is a JFK Democrat. Always has been. He was just the better of two evils when he was elected. This should come as no surprise to anyone.

12 And yeah, Scott Brown is a RINO, but we knew that when he was elected.  Is there a better option that can challenge him from the right next time?

13 In case the link at #2 is busted.

Odumbassmobile getting stuck.

14 At this point as long as the words Medicare and change are in the same sentence I am satisfied.  Reid's bullshit about how they are find for generations needs to get buried.

15 Scott Brown's job is to hold off the Conservative hordes.

16 Is there a better option that can challenge him from the right next time?
Posted by: NC Ref at May 23, 2011 11:45 AM (/izg2)

Yeah, you know who it is, "The Guy Who Would Loose To the Hardcore Lefty the Democrats Would Run".

Come on man, it's MassaFuckingChusetts.

You really think you're going to elect someone to the right of Scott Brown who is acceptable to conservative blog readers?

17 It's the northeast mentality.  They've been causing problems for the country since it's inception.  Why should they change now.  My thinking is that we should just let them have their own nation and then just sit back and watch them implode.

18 O/T:

At the end of their meeting, Kenny gave Obama a hurling stick, which looks like “a flattened field hockey stick,” according to the pool.

Holding the stick like a baseball bat, Obama said, “if members of Congress aren’t behaving, give ‘em a little paddle, a little hurl.”


What an ass.

19 11 Brown is a JFK Democrat. Always has been. He was just the better of two evils when he was elected. This should come as no surprise to anyone.     Is a JFK Demo the same as a Gabby Gifford Demo? Pray tell is there such a thing anymore? This is MA, where spending trillions in debt responsibly is conserdered conservative. See Romney. Enough said.

20 Medicare goes bust in seven years and this guy is talking about fraud/abuse.

21 Brown gives RINO's a bad name.

22 13 In case the link at #2 is busted.

Odumbassmobile getting stuck.

Posted by: logprof at May 23, 2011 11:47 AM (BP6Z1)

Did they remove Moochelle from the back seat to get over the hump?

23 And yeah, Scott Brown is a RINO, but we knew that when he was elected. Is there a better option that can challenge him from the right next time? Probably not. In Nov '12 the choice will probably be RINO or commie. I'll be holding my nose, but in the mean while, I won't be making phone calls for him.

24 Jesus, this Scott Brown fellow is an insufferable asshole.

25 I am okay with this.  Scott Brown is strategerizing his votes.  The Ryan plan isn't going anywhere.  Scott Brown knows that a R majority is coming in 2012 and when it does he wants to be able to say "I voted against that terrible Ryan plan but this new plan now in the new Congress, that I can really support!!!!"  It's good-cop/bad-cop.

26 But I do not think it requires us to change Medicare as we know it. We can work inside of Medicare to make it more solvent.

Ok....uh HOW?  Is it his assumption that 1/3 of the costs associated with medicare are due to Fraud/Misuse/Corruption and waste?  This statement without any kind of substance behind it resembling a substantiation is just BS pure and simple.  So, come on Rep. Brown just explain to us how in some kind of detail your plan to make Medicare solvent?

27 Breaking: Scott Brown Is A RINO

Heh.

He had better pull his head out of his ass when he gets a full term. On the other hand don't. I've decided to enjoy my front row seat at the epic event The Fall of Western Civilization. Just quit acting like your trying to help jerk. If the collapse is what you want, man it's your future, hug it!

28 I'm in a pessimistic mode today and my normal mode of coping, buying more ammo, is out.  The magazine is over full as it is.

Summon the meteors.

29 What a disappointment. He has completely forgotten why he won in the first place.

30

Odumbassmobile getting stuck.

 

There is some serious karma swirling around this shithead. Cosmic retribution is an ugly thing to watch. I wonder if Sparky directed anyone to check the tire pressure?

31 The real challenge for a guy like Brown will be what happens in 2013 if the GOP gets the Senate and/or the White House. What would Brown do if this were the policy of the majority caucus?

He'll be protected by the leadership, as usual...

...and the usual suspects will continue to tell us that the crap sammich is actually, if you squint your eyes up just right, tasty and nutritious, also as usual.

32 Odumbassmobile getting stuck.

This brought a smile to my face.

33 2 O-mobile gets stuck at U.S. Embassy in Ireland.

lulz

Great metaphor.

Posted by: logprof at May 23, 2011 11:43 AM (BP6Z1)

Link is kaput.

34

I'm gonna be honest. I can't wait for the medicare and SS collapse.

I'm in my 20s. Screw everyone else. I'm so sick of it.

Let the f*cker burn down. 

If you raise my taxes to confiscatory levels, fine, I'll quit my job and take a low paying laborer job, screw you people on SSDI and Medicare, that's why.

I'm not you're indentured servant and I don't plan on working my entire life for your retirement. You didn't plan for it, then you get whatever is coming to you.

We get the politicians we deserve. If the general populace of this country wants to be freeloaders, fine. The people producing should stop and let those freeloaders fend for themselves.

I'm so sick of this.

Paul's plan isn't even adaquate. It's the only politically palatable plan out there and it's being dumped on by our own party.

Why do I vote Republican again? Because the democrats are facists I guess, but I really wish the Republicans were Democrat-lite.

35 But that's an improvement over anything else we're going to see coming out of Massachusetts, so we'll live with it.

Yeah, he has a rating of 74 while the entire rest of the MA delegation is 0.  But that doesn't really tell the whole story. It is shit like this that hurts us. Jump in there and side with the enemy.

Enter into the worst lame duck session in history and trade off with the ME sisters and AK MooKow to break the holds on voting.

Yes we will live with it but I still say his election was mainly luck because the Dems in MA were caught off guard which will not happen again.

36 He has completely forgotten why he won in the first place.

What that the Dems forgot to campaign?

37 were=weren't

38 You really think you're going to elect someone to the right of Scott Brown who is acceptable to conservative blog readers?

Posted by: DrewM. at May 23, 2011 11:48 AM (WnQJ3)

Of course not.  Scott Brown is the best we can do up there until everything starts breaking down for real.

39

There is some serious karma swirling around this shithead. Cosmic retribution is an ugly thing to watch. I wonder if Sparky directed anyone to check the tire pressure?

Posted by: Sub-tard at May 23, 2011 11:53 AM (Q5+Og)

I think it was a gutsy call for Obama to put Moochelle in that car. Over half of his cabinet warned him that he could get high centered but he analyised the intellegence and made the gutsy call.

40 Odumbassmobile getting stuck.

Posted by: logprof at May 23, 2011 11:47 AM (BP6Z1)

Ah you fixed it already. Yea, that's pretty funny, you'd think the SS would've known about or seen that hump.

41 Scott Brown said he would vote for this proposal not too long ago, though he also said the vote would fail:

"The leaders will bring forward (Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's) budget, and I will vote for it, and it will fail," he said. "Then the president will bring forward his budget, and it will fail.

So he was for it before he was against it.

42 At least Brown is a Republican-INO.  Can someone explain how it is that Madcowski is listed as a Republican on the senate web page?  Didn't she, like, lose the Republican primary and run as an independent?

43

If you raise my taxes to confiscatory levels, fine, I'll quit my job and take a low paying laborer job, screw you people on SSDI and Medicare, that's why.

 

Ben, just declare yourself to be an illegal alien and you will find life in America to be profitable. Work, pay no taxes and remit the remainder to yourself. I would recommend an offshore account to receive you cash. Think Chile as a country worth investing in. Buy real estate that you can grow food on.

44 This is just purity BS , he's no more rino than T-paw..

45 Well, at least Brown is conducting himself better than Cynthia McKinney.  I know that's not much, but it's all I have. 

46

Another dumbass NE Republican.

Hope he didn't sign a long term lease on that DC condo.

47 Odumbassmobile getting stuck.

Hey if Obama would have installed the lowrider hydraulics like we said he wouldn't have gotten stuck.

Thinking crap up Americans wont.

48 I only wanted Brown for that one vote, as it turns out it didn't matter.  Nevertheless, the 33% of the time he is on our side is probably the best we can ask for from MA.

That said, this fraud and abuse statement is stupendously lacking in any thinking.  Its a throwaway line when you have nothing else to say because you have no ideas.  How about saying to stop fraud and abuse we could issue lump sum accounts that seniors can use any way they wish for medical care, that stops the fraud right there when individuals can choose and see "their accounts" and make better choices instead of a govt bureaucracy.

But no, pretty Scotty says we must work within a current system that is an abject failure.

49 Exactly what is wrong with having to pay a little higher co-pay or deductible in order to save the system? If he truly believed that there were other solutions other than kicking the can down the road I would give him a pass. Its hard to believe he does and in my opinion he is just pandering for votes. He needs to kill whoever touched him in his naughty parts so he can become a man again.

50 Cynthia McKinney

her nick name is Slugger

51 I wouldn't have voted for the Ryan plan either. Sucks to be you Tea Baggers...

52 Why can we never have a Republican candidate in one of the communist States like MA who runs way to the left, then once he is elected he shifts way to the right and screws over all the liberals?

Why is it always the other way around?

53

#52

It has something to do with voter preferences. Most of the time these people want to be re-elected.

54 Why is it always the other way around?

Because they don't want to be Palinized by the MSM

55

You really think you're going to elect someone to the right of Scott Brown who is acceptable to conservative blog readers?
Posted by: DrewM

 

I would have thought that by definition, finding someone who is to the right of Scott Brown would please conservative blog readers. But then, they don't determine who can win an election in Taxachooitz.

 

I would also note that in other threads, people including Ace condemend officeholders and candidates who refused to engage topics but instead deflected and spun. This is spin to the point of utter bullshit. This ponzi scheme cannot be saved by 'fraud and abuse'.

And please confirm something; weren't the cost savings he touts immediately negated by yet another 'doctor fix' bill? If so, then Brown is engaging in the same numbers game that the proponents of Obamacare used to ram this piece of shit down our throats.

56 Scott Brown is a pussy, but he's a better pussy than any Democrat.

57 But don't worry, the ex-governor of Massachusetts is a solid conservative.

58 But don't worry, the ex-governor of Massachusetts is a solid conservative.

Good Lord, trash bag, helium, some assembly required.

59

The Brown victory was important in that it was the first referendum on Obamacare.  His election forced Obamacare to be the legislatively ghastly abomination that it is.  The lack of reconciliation causes it to be more vulnerable to being overturned in court.  

Everything beyond that is RINO flavored gravy. 

60

Paul Ryan's plan will fix the problem. That's what the DC insiders are most afraid of.

 

61 Look at it this way, if Brown had ran way to the left lying his ass off, then shifted back to the right and screwed the Dems at every opportunity sure he would have lost the next election.

The Dems would win a 6 year term, then we can run another Republican liar who runs left then goes back to the right. Then we would get another 6 years.

So at least we would have a decent Republican in office there every other 6 year term instead of a liberal every damn year.

This is what the Dems do in States like VA. They run right and rule left. They lie outrageously every election.

62
Breaking: Martha Coakley is a baby-torturing shrew.

63 Privatizing Medicare is stupid.  I like Ryan, but his plan is unworkable.  Wastes tons of money and provides lots less real health care.  All of you blindly getting behind it and making backing Ryan's plan some sort of purity test must really wish for losnig the House back to the Dems in 2012.. cause that's exactly what's going to happen.

64 Is everyone from M ass a pussy?

65 Posted by: Blue Hen at May 23, 2011 12:04 PM (Gzv/o)

He's absolutely full of shit. But as I wrote, the real test is when the GOP might be able to actually do something. Senators, especially a guy like Brown who is up net year (and in one of the bluest states) simply isn't going to cast a vote that will hurt at the ballot box while doing nothing to change policy.

The House can take more risks because of the nature of running in fairly homogenous districts that Senators can't. The benefit of the House is they have finally changed the terms of the debate. The real test for the Senate will come when/if Republicans get control. I'm not confident a GOP Senate will act but we have to get one first and then see where we are.

The welfare state as we know it wasn't built in one election cycle, it's not going to be reformed in one either.  We don't have a lot of time but 2013 will be the real test, 2011 was never going to be.

66

I like Paul Ryan and think he is trying his best to deal with serious fiscal problems, but the political strategy here was horrible.

It is as if the Republicans leadership in the House didn't even bother to ask the leadership in the Senate how many votes could be gathered for the Ryan plan or even if the Senate Republicans were in support of the plan.

Senators are often more moderate because they have to win stateswide elections rather than districts. I'm not expecting many incoming Republican Senators in 2012 to campaign on the Ryan plan, but why should they have to if it is a political liability in an election that wasn't going to be passed before 2012 anyways?

Look what the Dems did with ObamaCare, they kept promising vague, popular, and untruthful things about health care (everyone should have insurance, pre-existing condition denial is bad, you can keep the health care you have, etc.), and then wrote a bill full of awful, unpopular things.

This is how you get legislation that might not be popular passed, and Medicare changes are not going to be popualr.

67

Paul Ryan's plan will fix the problem. That's what the DC insiders are most afraid of.

Posted by: Lemon Kitten

-----
No it won't.  It does zero to affect health care costs.  It does not address the costs of providing care, procedures, drugs, anything.

It may lower the government's contribution into Medicare temporarily.. that is until all the old farts start dying because they cannot afford to pay for their own care.. then the Dems will win back the House, Senate and Presidency for, oh.. roughly 20-30 years.

68

Paul Ryan's plan will fix the problem. That's what the DC insiders are most afraid of.

 

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at May 23, 2011 12:08 PM (0fzsA)

 

It's the fear of most center to left leaning congress people.  That congressional power will be dissapated and given back to the states or the people.  It's all a question of power and money.  I'm thinking that the system will have to be burned down to the ground before anything of substance will be done to correct it.  That time is drawing nigh. 

69 Posted by: Paper
.......
Exactly right.. But Ryan and the House Repubs didn't care how politically catastrophic this plan was.  They simply didn't care, because they felt they had to appease their Tea Party overlords by throwing them a symbolic bone that they knew had no chance of passing.

Now, all Repubs will have that hanging around their neck for the 2012 cycle.  heer stupidity.

70 Posted by: Blue Hen at May 23, 2011 12:04 PM (Gzv/o)

He's absolutely full of shit. But as I wrote, the real test is when the GOP might be able to actually do something. Senators, especially a guy like Brown who is up net year (and in one of the bluest states) simply isn't going to cast a vote that will hurt at the ballot box while doing nothing to change policy.

The House can take more risks because of the nature of running in fairly homogenous districts that Senators can't. The benefit of the House is they have finally changed the terms of the debate. The real test for the Senate will come when/if Republicans get control. I'm not confident a GOP Senate will act but we have to get one first and then see where we are.

The welfare state as we know it wasn't built in one election cycle, it's not going to be reformed in one either.  We don't have a lot of time but 2013 will be the real test, 2011 was never going to be.

Posted by: DrewM

 

You conflate 'taking risks' with speading the exact same lies that team Obama used? So there's no middle road here? Obama floated the fraud and abuse crap too. Obama and his friends are still saying that they spending, when in fact they pushed through the doctor fix.

71 I'm beginning to worry that the Ryan plan was political suicide, espeically given the fact that we never had a chance to actually enact it into law anyway.

72

Posted by: The Chicken

 

Begone sock.

73

Is everyone from M ass a pussy?

 

Yes.

74 Why can we never have a Republican candidate in one of the communist States like MA who runs way to the left, then once he is elected he shifts way to the right and screws over all the liberals?

The easy answer is that the commie states, like CA and MA, tend to have large commie majorities in one or both state legislative chambers.  That's a lot of heavy lifting for a  reform-minded "conservative" governor.  It's easier to cut a few deals with the Dem bosses than to get marginalized in a legislative-media pincer grip.

75

#65

Didn't mean to write just about the same thing at the same time.

The point about the welfare state is a good one.

76 Exactly right.. But Ryan and the House Repubs didn't care how politically catastrophic this plan was.  They simply didn't care, because they felt they had to appease their Tea Party overlords by throwing them a symbolic bone that they knew had no chance of passing.

Now, all Repubs will have that hanging around their neck for the 2012 cycle.  heer stupidity.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at May 23, 2011 12:17 PM (f9c2L)

 

I take it from your nic that you're from Chicago or admire it one way or the other.  Considering how you run shit in that city disqualifies you from saying anything about solving any problem. 

77 I'm beginning to worry that the Ryan plan was political suicide, espeically given the fact that we never had a chance to actually enact it into law anyway.
Posted by: Jeff B
......
Exactly what I've been trying to say.

We had the upper hand.. we had Obamacare to hang around their necks.  We had "Obama took 1/2 Trillion away from Medicare".  All that shit was ours ripe for picking for 2012 elections.  We had the elderly vote all on our side.

Now?  They got... "well, you guys try to take away Medicare!  You just want old people to die!"  and they will have "experts" testifying to that..

All we had to do is shut up and wait for 2012.. or say.. we started the revolution in 2010 - let us finish the job in 2012. something vague like that.  Make Obama the enemy.  But no..

78 Exactly right.. But Ryan and the House Repubs didn't care how politically catastrophic this plan was.  They simply didn't care, because they felt they had to appease their Tea Party overlords by throwing them a symbolic bone that they knew had no chance of passing.

Now, all Repubs will have that hanging around their neck for the 2012 cycle.  heer stupidity.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry

 

So we're supposed to believe that the same House that wouldn't take a penny away from Planned Parenthood abortions, Big Bird or Big Bird getting an abortion did all of that just to appease "overlords". And you got in a shot about 'purity tests' earlier. Congrats.

79 Posted by: Blue Hen at May 23, 2011 12:20 PM (Gzv/o)

There's simply very little upside in casting a vote that has no chance of changing policy but a very real chance of getting you beat in your next campaign.

Politicians (and from a technical standpoint, Scott Brown is a very, very good one) can do that kind of basic math.

Divided government is great for stopping new bad things from happening, it is not however conducive to big changes. Reworking Medicare is a huge thing. It's never going to happen with a divided Congress.

Again, I'm not saying Brown and the rest will definitely man up in 2013 but they might. Right now, it's the best we can hope for.

80

No it won't.  It does zero to affect health care costs.  It does not address the costs of providing care, procedures, drugs, anything.

It may lower the government's contribution into Medicare temporarily.. that is until all the old farts start dying because they cannot afford to pay for their own care.. then the Dems will win back the House, Senate and Presidency for, oh.. roughly 20-30 years.

Oh no!  Ryan wants to kill grandma!!!

Please.  He's simply talking about privatizing Medicare; the federal government bureaucrats have little incentive to control costs or increase efficiency.  Private providers do.

There's no magic wand with which anyone can lower health care costs.  Efforts like tort reform might help, but only a little.  Allowing insurers to compete nationally would help too.  In the end, though it all comes down to the old axiom "Fast, Cheap, Reliable- pick two".

81 71 I'm beginning to worry that the Ryan plan was political suicide, espeically given the fact that we never had a chance to actually enact it into law anyway.

Maybe. The difficulty arises in that voters likely would have punished the GOP for passing Medicare reform later (2013) without advertising they were going to do so this election cycle. Realistically, there is no good time or way to be honest about entitlements short of an absolute crash, by which time it will be too late. 

82

I take it from your nic that you're from Chicago or admire it one way or the other.  Considering how you run shit in that city disqualifies you from saying anything about solving any problem. 

Posted by: Soona
-------
Don't be an idiot.  I grew up there... now live in one of the most conservative Republican strongholds outside the city.  It's very easy to dismiss an argument by totally ignoring facts and painting the person with the politics of a city.  What an asshole.  And being an asshole disqualifies you from "saying anything about solving any problem."

83 OT somewhat, but not really: Someone in the previous thread mentioned that Paul Ryan gave a good smackdown of David Gregory on MTP. Essentially, Ryan told Gregory to take his NBC Poll and shove it. One half of me says too bad Ryan is not running for POTUS, the other half says we need him in the House. He has balls the size of Ted Kennedy's liquor cabinet.

84 There's simply very little upside in casting a vote that has no chance of changing policy but a very real chance of getting you beat in your next campaign.

Politicians (and from a technical standpoint, Scott Brown is a very, very good one) can do that kind of basic math.

Divided government is great for stopping new bad things from happening, it is not however conducive to big changes. Reworking Medicare is a huge thing. It's never going to happen with a divided Congress.

Again, I'm not saying Brown and the rest will definitely man up in 2013 but they might. Right now, it's the best we can hope for.

Posted by: DrewM.

 

Again.

Notice that I never said anything about voting. My only wish, fond, faint hope (whatever) is that he not employ the same damned lies that Obama uses. Is that too much to ask from the Wiley Coyote of Worcester? He likes being Senator. I got it. He is better than Coakley. Got that too. Why he has to endorse team Obama at the same fricking time would be a reasonable question though.

85

There's no magic wand with which anyone can lower health care costs.  Efforts like tort reform might help, but only a little.  Allowing insurers to compete nationally would help too.  In the end, though it all comes down to the old axiom "Fast, Cheap, Reliable- pick two".

Posted by: Hollowpoint
..........
Unfortunately, that's completely wrong.

Privatizing Medicare means killing old people.. that is exactly what it means.  The feds don't have the balls to limit benefits.  So Ryan's plan pushes them on to private plans that will by necessity, limit benefits.. leading to more sick, dead old people.

Private insurers cannot insure people any cheaper than the feds, except by limiting benefits - something the feds could do if it were politically expedient to do so.  It isn't.

86 >>>We had the upper hand.. we had Obamacare to hang around their necks.  We had "Obama took 1/2 Trillion away from Medicare".  All that shit was ours ripe for picking for 2012 elections.  We had the elderly vote all on our side.

>>>Now?  They got... "well, you guys try to take away Medicare!  You just want old people to die!"  and they will have "experts" testifying to that.

The big problem is now that every single candidate for the Senate or the Presidency is going to be forced to take a position on the Ryan plan.  And it'll be lose/lose, because if they express reservations the base will scream bloody murder (which is how we got ourselves into this mess to start with) and if they endorse it they'll probably lose the actual election because seniors will turn out to vote for the Democrat. 

You know what's inexcusable?  That I didn't see this blatantly obvious development coming.  I was all gung-ho and happy when the Ryan plan first came out.  I still like it on an ideological level.  But I'm pretty worried that we've fucked ourselves over in the only way that really matters, which is having the power to actually *make* these changes in 2012 (when we might have unified control). 

87 Scott Brown can write whatever he wants, he's going to get his ass beat in the 2012 elections no matter what he does.

88 There's only one way to fix medicare. Raise the tax, lower the compensation.

89 One of the problems we have (read: have always had) in 2012 is the complicit MSM. They will always talk about how Ryan wants to "privatize" Medicare, but will never talk about Obama raiding Medicare to pay for Obamacare. And with GOP candidates like T-Paw, who simply don't have the chutzpah to get in their face, well......you know how that movie ends.

90

#82

That is almost certainly right, but the difference in that case is that you lose after getting your policy in place rather than (at least potentially) losing without getting anything.

The Dems knew for a long time that their health care plans were going to result in electoral losses, and they didn't care. They also realized that the country was never going to agree with what they wanted to do, so they just kept repeating three or four 'popular' parts of the plan.

91

Unfortunately, that's completely wrong.

Privatizing Medicare means killing old people.. that is exactly what it means.  The feds don't have the balls to limit benefits.  So Ryan's plan pushes them on to private plans that will by necessity, limit benefits.. leading to more sick, dead old people.

Private insurers cannot insure people any cheaper than the feds, except by limiting benefits - something the feds could do if it were politically expedient to do so.  It isn't.

-------------

Well, that was a disasterous post.

92 I live in MA. If Brown didn't behave in a way that many would describe him as RINO, he would be toast come election time. I suspect this statement is more a hedge to keep the Dems from pulling in some power candidate. If and once he gets a real, full term, he will probably be more palatable to the conservative base. But to expect him to behave like a Bachman is a sure way to put another Dem in his seat. One need only look that the MA Statehouse to see (75% or more Dem). Perhaps the conservative purists prefer Dem domination in some regions, I don't know.

93 As a Canadian, I try to follow US politics as closely as time allows, and I find myself increasingly drawn to Monte's DOOM threads. Methinks he speaks the truth. I think youse guys are totally screwed. No-one wants to have new taxes but you REALLY need to raise more revenue somehow and it isn't going to be through 'growth'(because that ain't' happening), BECAUSE, no-one wants to cut anything drastically either. Everybody is so used to the 'free' lunches that they no longer have the will or the cojones to care what 'free' really means. Free does not equate to borrowed. Conservatives will be taken seriously on this issue when they start to publicly acknowledge that cuts PLUS tax increases are inevitable. Until then, you're in as much denial as the Krugman types. Oh well, it's interesting in a morbid way, watching the Titanic go down. Until you realize that the undertow is going to take you under as well.

94 Posted by: Blue Hen at May 23, 2011 12:30 PM (Gzv/o)

Just words.

Remember, he's talking to Democrats back in MA. He's simply talking their language.

Would I prefer he not? Sure. I'd also prefer Massachusetts (and other states) not be filled with idiots.

95

Another key principle is that seniors should not have to bear a disproportionate burden.

Yeah, let's just shove it on to our kids.

Immoral asshat.

96 >>>Maybe. The difficulty arises in that voters likely would have punished the GOP for passing Medicare reform later (2013) without advertising they were going to do so this election cycle.

But my entire point is that if they had waited until 2013 they actually might have been able to PASS Medicare reform at the very least.  They would have had a House and a Senate and hopefully the Presidency as well.  They could have passed it, taken a pasting at the ballot box in 2014, and at least told themselves what the Dems tell themselves right now: at least they accomplished a generational reform. 

That was never going to happen in 2011, so now we just ended up getting the worst of both worlds: no actual legislative accomplishment (it dies in the Senate), plus the pain of having tried to threaten seniors ANYWAY.  So we get raped in 2012 and have nothing to show for it.

See why that's bad strategy?

97

#89

We did do a pretty good job of getting that information out in 2010. It is probably the main reason why we won the midterms. People responded more strongly to the Medicare cuts than the new entitlements in ObamaCare.

98

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at May 23, 2011 12:28 PM (f9c2L)

 

Aren't we talking about Scott Brown,RINO?  When an area is awash in dubious liberal politics, there's a pretty good chance that it contaminates most everything else.  You're defense is weak. 

99 The big problem is now that every single candidate for the Senate or the Presidency is going to be forced to take a position on the Ryan plan.  And it'll be lose/lose, because if they express reservations the base will scream bloody murder (which is how we got ourselves into this mess to start with) and if they endorse it they'll probably lose the actual election because seniors will turn out to vote for the Democrat. 

You know what's inexcusable?  That I didn't see this blatantly obvious development coming.  I was all gung-ho and happy when the Ryan plan first came out.  I still like it on an ideological level.  But I'm pretty worried that we've fucked ourselves over in the only way that really matters, which is having the power to actually *make* these changes in 2012 (when we might have unified control). 

Posted by: Jeff B.

 

Bullshit.

MFM: Sen. Doofus, what is your position regarding the Ryan plan"?

Sen Doofus: Thank Heaven someone is finally talking about this. We've had nothing but lies, spin, bribes and scaremongering. To think that we've gone from a Congress that couldn't even be bothered to compose a budget, much less involve itself with the vital business of our country, to these first steps is important. What we need to do is ensure that all Americans are heard and that this new focus on the business of the people isn't allowed to falter.

MFM: Uh.. we're looking for a soundbite with which we can crucify you and/or Ryan...

Sen Doofus: My position is that I'm very glad to see a plan that can be aired during the daylight and that does not involve $500M in bribes. Aren't you?

100 90 #82 That is almost certainly right, but the difference in that case is that you lose after getting your policy in place rather than (at least potentially) losing without getting anything.

The Dems knew for a long time that their health care plans were going to result in electoral losses, and they didn't care. They also realized that the country was never going to agree with what they wanted to do, so they just kept repeating three or four 'popular' parts of the plan.

Though if it was enacted and Dems were overwhelmingly reelected as part of an effort to overturn it, that counts as a loss. I also think part of the problem is that the Rs haven't been more united in selling this. Budget Committee members, freshmen, and some other conservatives have been out there trying to educate but there's no overall coordinated effort in the media. Ryan and his allies were never going to win this by themselves because it is so controversial and Boehner should never have okayed this if he wasn't going to also say yes to a collective PR blitz. Even the conservative Republican Study Committee-- which pushed implementing Ryan's plan faster-- hasn't done much in the way of promoting reforming Medicare. Why not?

101 Brown is a JFK Democrat. Always has been. He was just the better of two evils when he was elected. This should come as no surprise to anyone.

Posted by: ahem at May 23, 2011 11:45 AM (bsZBb)

Scotty Centerfold should just keep his pretty boy mouth closed in case his "camp counselor" wants to shove some more choad into it.  It wouldn't be so fucking bad if he just quietly voted against it but this publicity whore has to suck everybody's cock at Politico while coming up with nothing as an alternative.  I have to think that the TPers who put him in are getting pretty fucking sick of him whoring himself out for the maximum amount of publicity, which includes that bullshit sexual abuse scam with which the stupid tard smeared every fucking counselor at his camp.

I don't hate him because he's a RINO; I hate him because he's a fucking idiot.  His whole act is self-serving bullshit; kind of like an east coast McCain.

102 Private insurers cannot insure people any cheaper than the feds, except by limiting benefits -

taking it from a moral and legal obligation to a "If I deny this I go to Aruba!"
situation is what is being floated here. I had some of the best private care insurance and still got out of the hospital with bill collectors on my ass.

103 Private insurers cannot insure people any cheaper than the feds, except by limiting benefits - something the feds could do if it were politically expedient to do so.  It isn't.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at May 23, 2011 12:31 PM (f9c2L)

Just like a private company can't ship items cheaper then USPS?

While there are obviously limits, privatizing services almost always reduces costs and/or increases services.

104 "It's not that Brown is a RINO that bothers me, that's a given, it's the cowardice. Brown proposes saving money through reducing fraud and abuse. " --- And what's wrong with that? There's so much waste and fraud....and let's not forget about the PORK....its the PORK too....so much PORK

105

Until he dropped out, Huckabee has run neck and neck with Romney in the primary polls. I remember a thread where no one knew a Huckabee primary voter. I don't know anyone who has supported Huckabee at any time.

That said, this is a big part of the Republican party (maybe as much as 25-30%). These older, socially conservative voters came out to support Medicare much more than to punish the Dems for new insurance subsidies for those under 65 or anything else in ObamaCare.

It is another tough political reality, but these voters are there, and you have to just completely talk around the issue to get anything done.

106

I don't hate him because he's a RINO; I hate him because he's a fucking idiot.  His whole act is self-serving bullshit; kind of like an east coast McCain.

Posted by: Captain Hate at May 23, 2011 12:39 PM (JV2am)

Indeed. I can understand picking fights with Palin, and voting with the hard left on things that were going to pass anyway, but the man relishes screwing over conservatives almost every chance he gets - what he did in the lame duck session was inexcusable.

107 I think youse guys are totally screwed. No-one wants to have new taxes but you REALLY need to raise more revenue somehow and it isn't going to be through 'growth'(because that ain't' happening), BECAUSE, no-one wants to cut anything drastically either.
Everybody is so used to the 'free' lunches that they no longer have the will or the cojones to care what 'free' really means. Free does not equate to borrowed.

Conservatives will be taken seriously on this issue when they start to publicly acknowledge that cuts PLUS tax increases are inevitable. Until then, you're in as much denial as the Krugman types.
Oh well, it's interesting in a morbid way, watching the Titanic go down. Until you realize that the undertow is going to take you under as well.

Posted by: Dougf

Nice Titanic analogy. So if we go faster, we'll somehow push the iceberg aside?

 

In a nutshell, this is why many conservatives are not in favor of tax increases:

1. We can't raise taxes for any great length of time, because the incentives to dodge/shelter monies increase. Examples: Sen John Kerry and the SS Deadbeat. Sir paul McCartney having his first wife's corpse declared American for tax purposes. Simply put: It won't fucking work.

2. We have absofuckinglutely no confidence that any new revenues collected will be used to service the debt. The state of Delaware is crowing that revenues are increasing again. They then immediately voted in a pay raise for state workers AND for state pensioners. As soon as they get it; they spend it.

108

2. We have absofuckinglutely no confidence that any new revenues collected will be used to service the debt. The state of Delaware is crowing that revenues are increasing again. They then immediately voted in a pay raise for state workers AND for state pensioners. As soon as they get it; they spend it

------------

They spend it whether they get it or not. This is pretty much on point. The Federal government spends regardless of their revenue, an increase in revenue to these people would simply mean an increase in spending.

109

#100

I'd guess that it has something to do with the politics I described above. Older voters are a very large part of the Republican coalition, and the only really solid Republican age-based constitutency.

Most of the people I've seen who have spoken up against his plan in the House and Senate or supported much different Medicare reforms are more likely to be in swing districts or districts with a higher percentage of older voters.

110 96 But my entire point is that if they had waited until 2013 they actually might have been able to PASS Medicare reform at the very least.  They would have had a House and a Senate and hopefully the Presidency as well.  They could have passed it, taken a pasting at the ballot box in 2014, and at least told themselves what the Dems tell themselves right now: at least they accomplished a generational reform...

I would honestly rather have this debate right now while we still can then trying to play clean-up afterward. For one thing, if America wishes to commit financial suicide, then I'd rather know now than later. Likewise, our politicians owe it to us to tell us the truth. People have a right to know the truth about entitlement programs and I'd say that, if people aren't willing to tackle them now, nothing is going to happen until it's too late.

Besides, it's too early to make a call about what will happen in 2012. If the economy is still in the toilet and going further downhill (which it likely will), I don't see him being reelected or the Rs losing control of the House. As it is, Ryan has been speaking in vague terms about what he wants to do, so the Dems don't have anything other than Mediscare. It's up to the Republicans to educate as to why IPAB is worse and to voters to recognize the same. Also, the Rs need to keep hammering the idea that premium support is a bipartisan idea from one of Clinton's panels.

111 We have absofuckinglutely no confidence that any new revenues collected will be used to service the debt. The state of Delaware is crowing that revenues are increasing again. They then immediately voted in a pay raise for state workers AND for state pensioners. As soon as they get it; they spend it.

Posted by: Blue Hen at May 23, 2011 12:45 PM (Gzv/o)

This is like that dumbfuck Poppy Bush violating his "read my lips" admonishment on taxes when he got rolled by the donks that really really promised they wouldn't increase spending if he increased taxes.  I guess there was a bit of irony in that he got tossed out by Clenis with his "it's the economy, stupid" because the increased taxes and spending sent the GDP right into the shitter.

I still don't think the fucking simpleton realizes how bad he got pawned and would do the same idiotic thing again.

112

While there are obviously limits, privatizing services almost always reduces costs and/or increases services.

Posted by: 18-1
......
^sigh^

Shipping packages, or providing a service or manufacturing a product is always done more efficiently by the private sector.

But what is the government's role in Medicare?  Do they provide one bandaid?  Do they provide x-rays?  Do they provide blood pressure meds?  No. 

All they do is pay the providers of all those items (and sometimes they deny those payments for one reason or another.)  Medicare IS an insurance company.  The problem we need to fix is that the premiums don't pay enough for the benefits Medicare is paying out.

When Ryan's plan give an private insurer $15,000 for Mr Smith's coverage for one year.  The private insurer will first take out how much profit they want to make - let's say $2000.   Then they will tell their actuaries, how much benefits can we provide for 100 thousand people just like Mr Smith with the average ailments.

The actuaries will say.. Ok.. no transplants.. no high-end drugs.. no life-extending surgeries after 86 yrs old.. etc.. etc..

And they will also tell the sales department: By no means sell a policy to anyone on dialysis.. and try to avoid diabetics, people with emphysema, etc..

I could go on.. but really.. must I?

113 109 #100 I'd guess that it has something to do with the politics I described above. Older voters are a very large part of the Republican coalition, and the only really solid Republican age-based constitutency.

Most of the people I've seen who have spoken up against his plan in the House and Senate or supported much different Medicare reforms are more likely to be in swing districts or districts with a higher percentage of older voters.

If that's true, then why do even the liberal polls show that older voters support Ryan's plan than younger ones? Ryan also had a point when he said that the framing of the question changes the answer. So many of these polls are employing language that says his plan equals cuts to Medicare when that simply isn't true. The same individuals who buy this are the ones who think this budget touches Social Security, which it briefly covers requirements for the president but doesn't prescribe anything further.

114 The Wall Street Journal:

"Republicans and Mediscare: Ryan's Medicare Critics Are ObamaCare's Best Friends"

115 I remember a thread where no one knew a Huckabee primary voter. I don't know anyone who has supported Huckabee at any time.

I knew a LOT of Huck voters. The damn preachers here actually told their congregations to vote for him.

116

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at May 23, 2011 12:52 PM (f9c2L)

 

So you're an all-out government-run insurance advocate.  I'm a big believer in free markets.  If the government would let the private insurers compete freely, we'd be surprised at how much cost would come down while at the same time quality of care would go up.  Have you ever stopped to think how this nation ever survived prior 1967 and medicare?  I remember those days.  And we got along very very well.

117 So, Chi-Town, just to be clear here, you're actually going with the talking point line that Paul Ryan is going to kill seniors. I have that about right?

118 No tax increase in modern history has EVER resulted in reducing the debt. They always spend more and ultimately the revenues go back down.

The record shows that tax increases make short terms gains in revenue and then decreases as the economy tanks and people find ways to hide money. Revenue in the long term always winds up being about 18% of GDP. The trick is to get GDP up so revenues go up. That requires a tax decrease.

119 Yet another Beltway Republican (as you said, being from Massachusetts requires you be a liberal/moderate Republican not a damn coward) who I'd never vote for even if I was dumb enough to move to Taxachusetts (living in NH for 6 years was close enough and then some), much less if the prick runs for president some day (and I bet he will).

It's a long list. It will get longer. (yawn)

120

Gee, another social liberal/fiscal conservative who is not fiscally conservative.  What a shock. 

121 I'm sorry, but Scott Brown is an idiot.  I am 53 years old and will be among the first to transition to the new Medicare.  I would MUCH rather negotiate and argue with an insurance company over my coverage and premiums than wait to die under the rules of the IPAB star chamber, which is surely what will happen if we do nothing and just accept the parameters of Obamacare and conventional Medicare with no other reforms.  I have 12-15 years to save and plan for my health care in my old age.  I can buy some long term care insurance now at decent rates if I don't want to worry about nursing home or in-home care when I get old. 

122

The Ryan plan at best is around 50/50 in polls. Even that is a bit suspect, because most people aren't following politics enough to even know what the plan entails. They are really just describing their general views on subsidy support for Medicare versus the status quo.

The highest support for the Ryan plan comes when you describe subsidy support and the status quo and give no negatives for either. The problem is that when you give the biggest negative for one against the other (fiscal crisis vs. cost-sharing to individuals), the support for the Ryan plan drops quite a bit. This is the problem. It doesn't appear to be a political winner in an election environment.

Republicans look at those numbers with fear because they have seen the history of entitlement reform. Support only goes down over time after a particular plan has been announced. Once you have an opposition party fully united against it (as well) for ideological and political reasons, even maintaining a level of support becomes difficult.

123 If I was a Republican media adviser, I would tell the Rs to go on the offensive and run constant ads about IPAB. Let people know that they either can either have freedom to choose their own plan or they can have the Dems' plan to strictly ration Medicare. Furthermore, tell them that this board of 15 appointees is going to become a part of ObamaCare. This isn't Mediscare-- it's real and it's what Obama has been proposing for some time now.

124 If I was a Republican media adviser, I would tell the Rs to go on the offensive and run constant ads about IPAB.

Posted by: Miss'80sBaby at May 23, 2011 01:22 PM (CLYmB)

Don't worry a thing about this.  Duke and Duke have put top men on it.  TOP.MEN.

125 That's right, Rich.  It's the only way to cut Medicare costs - pay out less benefits.  This is not some fucking intricately difficult equation here.  It's really simple.  Medicare currently pays out $XXX dollars for YYY amount of care - and that is ruining us financially.

Medicare's overhead costs are less than 5%.  Most private insurers have overhead costs (including profits) of between 15% and 35%.

Ryan wants to cut the total amount we now pay out and dole that out to private insurers who will provide less benefits.  The costs for an x-ray, or a test or an aspirin will not change. Ryan admits this himself - and also says seniors will end up paying much more out of their own pocket.

The problem is - there are millions of seniors on fixed incomes who share a happy meal at Mickey D's to save dollar.  They don't have the extra out-of-pocket funds.  They will simply go without.

126 122 The Ryan plan at best is around 50/50 in polls. Even that is a bit suspect, because most people aren't following politics enough to even know what the plan entails. They are really just describing their general views on subsidy support for Medicare versus the status quo....

I would like to see those poll numbers after they're shown the alternative to the Republican plan. Republicans collectively have been afraid to attack Obama over his plans for handling the collapse of Medicare while complaining that they knew it would be a losing issue. How do you know if you don't try? It's a vicious cycle/self-fulfilling prophecy in which many are too afraid to try so they don't tell the truth, then wonder why people don't understand.

127 If I was a Republican media adviser, I would tell the Rs to go on the offensive and run constant ads about IPAB. Let people know that they either can either have freedom to choose their own plan or they can have the Dems' plan to strictly ration Medicare. Furthermore, tell them that this board of 15 appointees is going to become a part of ObamaCare. This isn't Mediscare-- it's real and it's what Obama has been proposing for some time now.
Posted by: Miss'80sBaby
.......
While I agree we could have been pounding them about IPAB, Ryan's plan essentially does the same thing by moving people on to private plans that each has their own IPAB equivalent.

Once you embrace the fact that the only way to reduce Medicare costs is by denying benefits, you will see there is no difference.

The Republicans lost all their really good talking points against Obama when they embraced this Medicare plan.

128 I don't know if Brown is motivated by principle, which would make him a RINO, or by political calculation, which would make him a cold, calculating, run-of-the-mill politician. Either way, the effect of taking a stand on this issue that, largely, matches that of a Democrat will be to weaken his ability to defend and keep his seat in the Senate. The people of this State (oh, yes, I live here) will vote for the Democrat if they think the Republican is not substantively different. Brown won as much because Coakley sucked  and Democrats generally were held in contempt, as he did because of his own political duende. That is unlikely to be the case next time.

129 Chi town your fear that millions of Seniors will be harmed irreparably is the same rhetoric I heard about how much harm and catastrophe that would fall upon us if welfare reform passed. People like you are the reason we are in the situation we are in today.

130

When the Republicans turned their successful opposition to ObamaCare into a 2010 election victory, they didn't craft a complete plan to oppose it. All they did was put out some points as an alternative (selling across state lines, consumer-directed care) and hammered the specifics of the Democratic plan.

This is exactly what the Democrats are planning to do. They aren't going to put out a plan for Medicare solvency in the next year. They are just going to throw out some talking points (like Brown just did) and savage the Ryan plan using Gingrich's words among others.

This isn't a new strategy, which is why I question why the House did things this way.

131 Medicare IS an insurance company. 

Why does that matter? Do you think the government is efficient at providing this sort of service?

Looking at a comparable expense item, since the government has become an "education insurance" institution, tuition expenses have ballooned...

132 It is such cowardice to say stuff like, "Well something, sometime, somewhere "might" go wrong so I cannot support your plan and in its place basically I offer you nothing."

133 127 ...Once you embrace the fact that the only way to reduce Medicare costs is by denying benefits, you will see there is no difference.


Obama, Ryan, and Medicare Costs
The Rivlin-Ryan plan is what's in the budget.

IPAB versus premium support

The $6,400 Question

134 Medicare IS an insurance company. 

Why does that matter? Do you think the government is efficient at providing this sort of service?

Looking at a comparable expense item, since the government has become an "education insurance" institution, tuition expenses have ballooned...

Posted by: 18-1

 

Oh, it matters, in much the same way that public education and Catholic schools are both schools. One has to survive on its merits, and the other has the benefit of coercion. Medicare has higher compliant rates and righer refusl to pay rates than any of the private companies. There is no difference between propping up a failing public school system and keeping the Medicorpse alive.

135

#133

Another potential strength that Ryan had was that it was the Ryan-Rivlin plan and had some degree of bipartisan cover with that.

That is not true now. Rivlin has clearly distanced herself from the Ryan plan, and this is another thing the Republicans thought was going to be in their favor two months ago that just isn't there right now.

136

I think that the Republican Presidential candidate should not campaign on the Ryan plan but not say anything negative against it.

137 135 #133 Another potential strength that Ryan had was that it was the Ryan-Rivlin plan and had some degree of bipartisan cover with that.

That is not true now. Rivlin has clearly distanced herself from the Ryan plan, and this is another thing the Republicans thought was going to be in their favor two months ago that just isn't there right now.

She was for it before she was against it. I understand she took the plan in another direction than he did but a number of the basic ideas didn't change, is my understanding. So why the sudden change on her part, especially after she seemed to endorse this move after the budget was released, only to back-away a few days later? It appears she cares more about politics than actually following-through on ideas, though I guess you can anticipate that with even "reasonable" Dems these days.

138 Breaking: Scott Brown Is A RINO

Sure had me fooled...

139 twat brown was seen coming a mile away.  We all knew he was a joke.

140 If he could only get John McCain to waterboard him while John Kerry applied for another purple heart, we'd be set.