Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The 46 year Republican war against medicare.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Swede Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 01:57 PM
Original message
The 46 year Republican war against medicare.

Last week, in a dramatic vote, the House of Representatives voted to effectively end Medicare by voting for Rep. Paul Ryans (R-WI) budget proposal. Under Ryans plan, the public health insurance system known as Medicare would be replaced with a system of inadequate subsidies seniors would use to purchase private insurance.

All but four House Republicans voted for Ryans plan. Since the vote, Republicans have been engaged in a major public relations effort where they are claiming they actually are saving Medicare by ending its status as public health insurance program and handing seniors over to insurance companies.

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/23/flashback-republica...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xmas74 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. I work with a woman,
staunchly Republican her entire life. Her husband is a (now) retired farmer and a long time member of our counties Republican Party. A couple of days ago we were on break at work and she brings this up. She stated that she will never vote Republican again after hearing them lie about something she's paid in on her entire working life. She also said that her husband is so upset he's talking about publicly leaving the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. They seem like the sensible, kind of Conservatives.
I am fortified to read of their awakening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xmas74 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. I don't know about that.
They are anti-choice (I don't like the term "pro life"), they have problems with gays and lesbians, they have-no point in listing. It's a very long list.

What they are upset about now is that they paid into something and now they could lose it. She said if not them then their children will lose it, after paying into it. She said that she and her husband view this as a service and that if it had been any other place backing out of a deal they could (and would) sue for breach of contract, possibly find out about prosecuting for theft. She was nearly in tears, talking about how she felt like they were trying to rob her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojeoux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #11
16. It must be confusing for them. Who to hate, who to believe.
Maybe they will start a new tea party. And that party will split in two and then again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xmas74 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Now that I could envision. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. Why did they add Part D then?
Was it an effort to make medicare insolvent sooner?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. It was a plan to "humanize" GW a bit (like the AIDS in Africa assistance)
He had a lot of "hardwerk" to do, and all of it ugly as sin.. Those two "efforts" were to make him seem not quite so evil, and of course neither was funded properly (and they knew it going in), so they could do it.

It was also a way to "use" some of the surplus, and to put dems who voted against it, on the ropes when the next election rolled around..

Republicans are very good at this sort of thing. What a lot of people forget, is that during the run-up time between the suggestion of the bill and the implementation, the RX companies were free to raise prices like crazy, so that the "discounts" would still mean that they were making as much as or more than ever
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. That's really irrelevant, given the latest House vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. Part D is a joke. It was plain and simple a giveaway to Big Pharma.
They don't even allow the government to use its bargaining power for lower prices with the Pharmaceuticals.

:mad:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Do you think we should get rid of it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wounded Bear Donating Member (665 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. No.....fix it....
Obama said he wanted this corrected in his big deficit reduction speech.

It's a odious requirement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. No. I think it should be fixed. The government should be allowed to bargain
for the lowest cost. They should get rid of the "donut hole". And it should be paid for with tax increases on the wealthy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Medicare isn't capped so you can't increase the wages to which it applies.
Are you suggesting they start tiering medicare taxes? Or do you want that as part of the federal budget which would then require funding votes every year?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Yes, I would prefer as you suggest a tiered medicare tax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. It's something to consider.
Personally I think the health care payment system is broken and is unfixable. I see no point in arguing for anything but single payer. But if you want to advocate a more progressive system for Medicare then more power to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madinmaryland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Well, put that way...
I would obviously prefer a single payer system paid for using a progressive taxation system where the wealthy pay a larger portion into the system. How would you suggest paying for a single payer system?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-24-11 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. I'd say it should be part of the income tax structure.
Maybe even partially funded by the estate tax. That really is the only place to recapture taxes that should have been paid but were subsidized by the Social Security surplus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
17. kr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 09:39 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC