Comments on: Republican’s Fake Medicare Plan Corrupts The Health Of Seniors

By: JWG

JWG — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:01:44 +0000

The group that did the analysis comparing Red/Blue to tax burden/subsidy, The Tax Foundation, explains the disparity:

By forcing taxpayers who live in high-cost, high-salary areas up into higher tax brackets, the progressive income tax code not only redistributes income from the prosperous to the poor, but from middle-income blue to middle-income red. Part of this redistribution is caused by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), once conceived by Democrats to catch rich tax avoiders, now rapidly eating away at the upper-middle class in blue states. Is this the progressivity that Democrats have been championing for years?

I "get the point" about taxation and federal spending very well. I also understand that most people will always vote for a program as long as they don't have to pay for it. So when we shout, "Make the rich pay more," we are guaranteed more government, more bureaucracy, and more inefficiency.

By: JWG

JWG — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:01:16 +0000

So, actually, the blue states continually vote to give entitlements to others .

This kind of analysis doesn’t tell us who is receiving the aid and who they voted for. Furthermore, Red/Blue is only based on the presidential election, but the congressional makeup is different. Likewise, state legislatures cannot be determined by looking at the red/blue divide.

so is every other economic powerhouse in the world

Er…I’m not sure who you think is an “economic powerhouse,” but the European nations are struggling.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:01:35 +0000

Name one country whose economy is rocking based on laissez faire
I’ll name two: Hong Kong and Singapore

Second, all the periods of greatest growth have been during progressive policies.
Now, you prove that one. See you later.

By: qkslvr_wolf

qkslvr_wolf — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:01:55 +0000

JWG: 2 points. First, Blue states tend to be donors to the federal system. They put more in then they back. Red states are receivers. They take more than they give. So, actually, the blue states continually vote to “give entitlements to others”. Not that I like blue state/red state mentality, but there it is. So, basically, you don’t get a point there.

Second, all the periods of greatest growth have been during progressive policies. We are a powerhouse because of progressive policies. And so is every other economic powerhouse in the world. Name one country whose econmy is rocking based on lassiez faire (or however you spell that french shit).

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:01:08 +0000

Cleo, the President of the United States is not the nation’s Chief Financial Officer. If we had left the original system of government alone, there would be far, far less need for this macro – and micro – economic management, that has created the disaster we call the national economy…

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 15:01:16 +0000

JWG, Farris;

Obviously, context is a meaningless concept to you.

By: JWG

JWG — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 15:01:14 +0000

I understand perfectly…every time the government gets bigger things get worse.

By: JWG

JWG — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:01:55 +0000

vote republican when it goes so clearly against their economic interests

It’s only in the “economic interest” of those who get someone else to pay for them. It’s easy to vote for additional entitlements for yourself when someone else will pay for it, isn’t it?

By: JWG

JWG — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:01:53 +0000

I wondering why this isn’t an excellent example of what happens when you add more governmental bureaucracy into a system?

By: SaveFarris

SaveFarris — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:01:47 +0000

STOP THE PRESSES! A Government program can’t solve everyone’s problems overnight?!?

Color me shocked…

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 12:01:49 +0000

Do you think republicans got you the ‘bad system’ which enables
you and your dependents to receive free health care? It contin-
ually amazes me how many americans vote republican when it
goes so clearly against their economic interests.

By: Semanticleo

Semanticleo — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:01:28 +0000

Frank;

Didn’t you say you and your wife were on Medical or Medicaid?
Your principled stand against the people who caught you in the
healthcare net boggles the mind.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:01:02 +0000

Your mind is easily boggled. You’ve never heard me say it was a good system. It has never been improved by either a Democrat or a Republican, since my wife got involved in it in about 1990

By: nursepam

nursepam — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:01:32 +0000

What about those folks who aren’t as blessed as yourself Frank? And don’t say it’s all because of your hard work.

My patients didn’t choose to be schizophrenic. My friend did not choose to contract multiple sclerosis. And my grandmother worked until she was 85. She lived until 92. She was a professional woman with 2 masters degrees who owned a home and had a pension plan. But she would not have made it without social security and medicare.

Yes the system needs to be fixed. No it isn’t all the fault of Bush and the republicans. But medicare D is a mess. And real people, through no fault of their own, will suffer. All because the Bush white house pushed through a shoddy plan without an appropriate period of implementation.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 06:01:20 +0000

nursepam, since you answered the question you asked me, why did you post it?
When you’ve got a better Medicare plan, let’s hear about. Just because LBJ threw a stick into a hornet’s nest in 1965, now you want to blame Bush for being unable to fix what’s been in free fall for 40 years.

And how do you now how “blessed I’ve been” — I don’t have a “bootstraps” story to tell… It’s just dumb luck. I’ve had plenty of hard times in my life. Years with benefits, years without.

How’s this:

I’m not eligible for Social Security, unless i work another 5 years — from now! And I’m nearly 60!

All right, so I’m not the “Richie Rich Republican” you thought I was, am I?

That’s right: No bank account, no CD’s, no IRA’s, no Roth’s — no house, one 11 year old car — nuthin’

By your measure, I should be a Democrat…

By: buma

buma — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 03:01:47 +0000

I figure I’ll be working until I’m 70, for the shear fun of it.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 03:01:42 +0000

I’m going on my third career — I hope to be out of Graduate School by 2007 (age 62). I’ll probably work until I’m dead. I’m not bragging, but if there was a tag attached to my diaper that said, “Make sure this kid retires with a pension,” it got removed. Do you still have yours?

By: randy

randy — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:01:44 +0000

The plan is a disaster and should be repealed. How many more years until it’s 1 worker for every retiree? I can’t wait to have my very own senior citizen to support.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:01:39 +0000

I think disaster is in the “eye – deology of the beholder.”
Clinton was somehow able to come out shining on the stage with every new idea. No matter how unworkable, how inefficient, how expensive, everyone thought it was just “mahvelous”.
Why should Bush try a new idea, which is now all of 18 days old (not counting holidays and weekends), and be subject to blurbs like

>> Josh Marshall: Bamboozlepalooza all over again
>> Save my grandma
>> PART D, AS IN DEBACLE

He and his cabinet are traveling around the country (with money that
could be used to assist those who are falling through the net of
incompetence and graft)

Everything he touches seems to turn to disaster.

All in 18 days. 18 days.

Even Reagan used to get 21 days to a month, before they went off on him.

By: Frank_D

Frank_D — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:01:27 +0000

Who knows, randy, that senior citizen may be you
Hehe