Paul Ryan!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chrish1975
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy said:
Based on what I’ve read, the initial Ryan budget plan did not include a fee-for-service Medicare option, but only a voucher program. The first revision of that plan included a Medicare option in addition to vouchers, but the voucher payout was based on the consumer-price-index which measures only general inflation, not health-care inflation. This would mean that over time recipients would likely have to pay more out-of-pocket expenses for their health care. I believe, but have not yet been able to verify, that further revisions of the Ryan plan have made allowance specifically for health-care inflation. Now, as I stated, this plan may work provided consumers are able to make wise decisions and avoid the pitfalls of the insurance industry’s often deceptive advertising regarding the quality of coverage of the health care they provide. Ryan did not explicitly state he wants to end Medicare, but I think one can rationally infer that his intention, and that of the GOP in general, is to ween people off their dependency on government entitlements in order to reduce the deficit and promote economic self-sufficiency.
Click to expand...
One thing to recall, it’s sort of wasted time talking about previous iterations of the Ryan budget and as I understand it’s the Romney plan that is being promoted by the ticket anyway.

I don’t think anyone wants to “end” Medicare, they simply want to put it on a more stable footing, consider the changes in lifespan, add a means test, and address some of the non-medical related costs of Medicare and medical services due to Obamacare.

Oddly the emphasis is on administrative issues (voucher system vs fee for service? single medical record for every person etc) instead of actual HEALTH issues that face us. The supposed idea was to “reform healthcare” but in reality it was simply a “reform” of the financial aspects; who pays and how much?

What should really cause one pause is looking at the demographic heading for the medical system, Medicare specifically. People are obese, have more diabetes, don’t exercise, etc and with advances in medical care, they are not only living longer but consuming huge resources. Only the doctors have brought up some of the issues that will make Medicare even more financially unstable in the future.

On a long term basis we are going to need more doctors, not fewer, and focusing on how little we can pay them is hardly going to inspire someone to go into medicine.

Lisa
 
Hey guys!!! I’m back. I’m sure I was dearly missed 😃 Last time I was here, I got owned because I am not efficiently learned in the complexities of tax law regarding Swiss bank accounts. Some here seemed to be very confident in that area and defended Romney quite profusely. I decided I better get more informed before opening my big mouth. So, that’s what I did. And what I have found in within the last few days has been very interesting. It made me wonder why these certain people so well informed in this area failed to reveal the true reason Swiss bank accounts are so attractive. I’m quite sure it’s not soley the stability of the currency as was explained to my “small mind” as Romney put it for even asking about it and was insinuated by some in this forum. I just can’t figure out why they defend someone who is so shady about his wealth. He blatantly refuses to release more than one year of returns. And of that one year, he refuses to disclose more details of his net worth that makes it more difficult to see if everything really was on the up and up. Something about “Confidentiality Disclosures”. Let me add a quote from his own father, George Romney on why he showed so many years of his returns, “One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show.” I am not an expert, I want to know the truth so please correct me if I’m wrong. Now, show you some info I have gathered on the subject of “Off Shore Accounts”…

For one, if anyone is interested in why Swiss Bank Accounts are so attractive, it is no simply because they are stable!!! They are considered tax havens because they gaurd the identities of their clients and their money. There are loopholes that skirt tax laws. Offshore finance evading taxes via tax havens.

Switzerland, Bermuda, Luxumbour, Cayman Islands…these are jurisdictions with virtually no tax and virtually no compliance. There are confidentiality laws that will have you put in jail for even asking for information on these accounts.

Blind Trust is an interesting word I learned about. I believe there is a clip of Romney speaking out against Blind Trusts several years ago saying they’re really not “blind”. Well, I can see what he means now. His blind trust were held by his wife and personal lawyer. Hmm. There is not proof that his blind trust were blind because we have no paper work provided by him to prove anything.

These are some interesting names I encourage research on:

Bain Fund, Sankaty, Solamere, Elliot Associates.

Some more words to think about:

Hedge Fund Kingmakers, Super PAC donors, Blocker Corporations, Unrelated Business Income Tax, 2009 Swiss Bank Account Amnesty, Switzerland’s International Tax Evasion Dispute. Tax Haven USA plan *criminial foreign money and the tax law that benefit foreign money that Americans cannot take advantage of., Leveraged Byouts, Financialization, “Feeder” tax havens.

Off Shore Tax Havens are shrouded in secrecy and lack transparency. They skip around taxes, disclosures, and regulatory requirements. This is why they are attractive.

Also, please research these investors for Romney: Robert Maxwell (very interesting story) and Eduardo Poma.

I also learned a little about “carried interest” and taxing profit share as “ordinary income”. Now the problem I have with Romney is he is a billionaire getting away with paying his fair share whether legal or not and betting against the U.S. dollar while running for president.

The fact is if your income in from work (if you work for a living) you are going to pay twice as much in income tax as someone who gets their money from wealth. And the worker also pays payroll taxes on top of that. AND…under Romney’s plan he would pay even less.

I will thank you for respectful responses…I’m hear to learn and have learned much while here.
 
_Abyssinia said:
There is a moral obligation to vote for a pro life candidate over a pro abortion candidate, regardless of party affiliation. Church teaching says 2 of the most serious sins in society are abortion and euthanasia. Immigration, health care, tax, economy are not proportionate enough to justify voting for a pro abortion candidate. Consider that 1 million plus babies are killed a year
Click to expand...
I never said anything different. I only said while one cannot vote for an avid pro-abortion candidate, there is not a corresponding obligation to vote for a republican pro-life candidate.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I never said anything different. I only said while one cannot vote for an avid pro-abortion candidate, there is not a corresponding obligation to vote for a republican pro-life candidate.
Click to expand...
Yes but one might hope you care enough about your country to vote. Given there are choices, some simply non-starters due to their pro abort stance, others may have some positions that are of concern, it would be hard to believe they were all so unnacceptable that you couldn’t vote at all. It’s not a case of say Obama versus another pro abort. There are pro-life candidates in the race.

I also implore you and others sitting on the fence to consider that every vote against Obama is a vote FOR the weakest among us. I truly cannot conceive of anyone so self absorbed that they can’t possibly cast a vote for the sake of others.

Lisa
 
I voted on this poll a while back but didn’t comment. That said, I support Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney.
 
Has anyone commented on the supposed voter fraud allegation stuff yet? Just wondering.
 
LisaA said:
One thing to recall, it’s sort of wasted time talking about previous iterations of the Ryan budget and as I understand it’s the Romney plan that is being promoted by the ticket anyway.

I don’t think anyone wants to “end” Medicare, they simply want to put it on a more stable footing, consider the changes in lifespan, add a means test, and address some of the non-medical related costs of Medicare and medical services due to Obamacare.

Oddly the emphasis is on administrative issues (voucher system vs fee for service? single medical record for every person etc) instead of actual HEALTH issues that face us. The supposed idea was to “reform healthcare” but in reality it was simply a “reform” of the financial aspects; who pays and how much?

What should really cause one pause is looking at the demographic heading for the medical system, Medicare specifically. People are obese, have more diabetes, don’t exercise, etc and with advances in medical care, they are not only living longer but consuming huge resources. Only the doctors have brought up some of the issues that will make Medicare even more financially unstable in the future.

On a long term basis we are going to need more doctors, not fewer, and focusing on how little we can pay them is hardly going to inspire someone to go into medicine.

Lisa
Click to expand...
I think doctors should be well paid, and they receive too little compensation from the providers of Medicare. That link between the doctor, the hospital, and the insurance company is at the heart of the health-care delivery problem, I believe. Those who complain about excessive government regulation should also look at the stranglehold of the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical companies on the practice of medicine, which neither Obamacare nor the Ryan plan addresses. This often results in patients’ taking too many unnecessary medical tests as determined by the requirements of the insurance companies in order for physicians to be compensated. There is also an issue involving the transfer of medical records, especially when patients go from one hospital to another. For-profit corporations and medicine are not a very good mix.
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
**As disappointing as the Obama presidency has been, we can’t afford to continue taking from the poor children in order to increase the net worth of the billionaires. It is wrong morally. It is bad economic policy. **

Yes, we should keep electing and re-electing those who vote
to KILL the pre-born Children (56 million and counting so far, in the USA alone).

Listen and listen good:
HITLER had SUPERB social justice policies. Soon after his taking power, NEARLY EVERYBODY had a job. There were huge new healthcare programs, increasing (drastic) in education spending. Cheap cars made available for all the masses of people.
Social welfare and job training programs.
Yup. All this. AND it was WONDERFUL too.
…of course, one had to be willing to accept that one was receiving all these good
social justice programs AT THE EXPENSE of the COMING MURDER of 6 MILLION
JEWS and 6 MILLION others, including tens of thousands of our priests and nuns,
millions of Catholic laity and protestant laity too who denounced the government’s murderous racist plans and agenda,
but well, JUST LIKE THOSE in America who KEEP voting for proAborts using
“Social Justice” as a mantra as an excuse for it,
the Germans couldn’t be bothered with little problems like THAAAAAAAAAT
when there was a nation to rebuild and poor people who needed (Nazi) government help,
which they GOT, too. Most Germans LOVED the Nazi regime: the economy BOOMED, people were working, great medical care, the poor were being rapidly elevated out of poverty.
But the cost was KNOWINGLY and WILLFULLY voting these people into office when they before-hand bragged that they were going to wipe out the Jews (mass murder, just like abortion) and
even get rid of the Catholic (and other) Church(es). As Hitler screamed,
“avay vith Incense and Holy Vater !!”.

Keep voting for these proAborts. They are bringing the wrath of God down on this nation
and when God allows, or CAUSES, our economy to collapse, and millions of us to be thrown out of work and starving, as a judgement on this nation and the people who supported those whom they KNEW were going to pass and keep legal, these murderous things and perversions, then many of us are going to remember who it was that helped
cause us to needlessly suffer this judgment. Many people are going to be very embittered about it, too. That is inevitable.

This needs to be made clear:
a nation whose people believe in electing people who legalize, or keep legal,
the mass killing of the preBorn, and who believe in electing people who enshrine
other moral perversions and wickedness into law,
is a nation whose people do not DESERVE to have social justice, good welfare programs,
help for the elderly (who also vote for these wicked things – gray hair is NO excuse).
In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II the Blessed, himself, said exactly what I have just
said in THIS paragraph.

It is estimated that 900,000 children would be thrown into poverty by Paul Ryan??
WHO is doing this “estimating”??? I remember when President Reagan was in office.
I am poor, to this day, but Reagan was a TERRIFIC president. But not to hear the media tell it !! Oh no, to hear them tell it, half of America was starving to death, the streets were full of homeless (“street”) people BECAUSE of Reagan’s policies, etc etc etc, people are dying! people are dying !! people are dying !!! ---- all of this was gross exaggeration and pure political propaganda. It was NOT TRUE. It wasn’t true THEN, and it isn’t true NOW (that Republican policies will throw us poorer folks out into the streets). It is not true.

The “street” people, for the most part and this is fact, are mentally ill people.
They USED to be in hospitals, not on the street, but they didn’t LIKE being in there,
whether good or bad hospitals, they didn’t LIKE being in there. So liberal activist groups got laws passed requiring that they all be released. So they were. And these policies are still in effect. You CANNOT forcibly take these people into homes for care. You cannot.
And they DON’T want to go, for the most part. I know. I worked in downtown Miami for 22 years. Most of these folks are NOT normal. They are ill. But help IS available, but they DON’T want it. They DO want the Free Meal at Camillus House and the Miami Rescue Mission, but MOST (not all by any means) of them DO NOT WANT to be off the streets.
They will TELL YOU so. And the shelters, government funded for 50 years now,
are awful. They’re clean, but put these mentally ill people in there, and other people, who are dangerous as well as mentally-ill, prey on the nonviolent shelter residents and rob them and beat them up. So many of them refuse to use even the shelters and instead sleep under the bridges. They often HAVE relatives right here in Miami-Dade County,
but WON’T go to them for help, and in some cases, their relatives (who CAN help them) REFUSE to help them. Claiming that “Republican Policies” are in any way a significant cause of all these social problems, is a damned lie, and I am sick of hearing liberal polemicists, who hide their pro-abortion and pro-Sin beliefs and intentions BEHIND the guise of being in alliance “for the common good”, make me ill. The Bishops need to start excommunicating our church’s apostates instead of tolerating and - worse - coddling them and buddying with them.
Click to expand...
That was quite a rant. So were back to the old Obama/Hilter comparisons. As if he invented abortion or forces women to murder their children. I recall Bush was pro-life, what did he do about abortion? What guarantees you Romney’s going to do anything. He’s not even really pro-life he just says he is to get our vote. Don’t anyone say the left is hateful and demeaning or whatever without remembering these types of rants from the extreme right also. I always remember that beautiful display by tea party rallies with posters that had Obama portrayed as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose. I felt so sorry for him, that was totally uncalled for and out of hand.
 
DeSanto said:
That was quite a rant. So were back to the old Obama/Hilter comparisons. As if he invented abortion or forces women to murder their children. I recall Bush was pro-life, what did he do about abortion? What guarantees you Romney’s going to do anything. He’s not even really pro-life he just says he is to get our vote. Don’t anyone say the left is hateful and demeaning or whatever without remembering these types of rants from the extreme right also. I always remember that beautiful display by tea party rallies with posters that had Obama portrayed as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose. I felt so sorry for him, that was totally uncalled for and out of hand.
Click to expand...
I suppose this is uncalled for as well:

http://www.orbwar.com/protest/P1011358.jpg
 
meltzerboy said:
I think doctors should be well paid, and they receive too little compensation from the providers of Medicare. That link between the doctor, the hospital, and the insurance company is at the heart of the health-care delivery problem, I believe. Those who complain about excessive government regulation should also look at the stranglehold of the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical companies on the practice of medicine, which neither Obamacare nor the Ryan plan addresses. This often results in patients’ taking too many unnecessary medical tests as determined by the requirements of the insurance companies in order for physicians to be compensated. There is also an issue involving the transfer of medical records, especially when patients go from one hospital to another. For-profit corporations and medicine are not a very good mix.
Click to expand...
I believe “Obamacare” does actually deal with some of these issues. Sharing records between doctors to prevent unnecessary test and corresponding to more efficiently treat patients.
 
meltzerboy said:
I think doctors should be well paid, and they receive too little compensation from the providers of Medicare. That link between the doctor, the hospital, and the insurance company is at the heart of the health-care delivery problem, I believe. Those who complain about excessive government regulation should also look at the stranglehold of the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical companies on the practice of medicine, which neither Obamacare nor the Ryan plan addresses. This often results in patients’ taking too many unnecessary medical tests as determined by the requirements of the insurance companies in order for physicians to be compensated. There is also an issue involving the transfer of medical records, especially when patients go from one hospital to another. For-profit corporations and medicine are not a very good mix.
Click to expand...
ComputerGeek25 said:
I suppose this is uncalled for as well:

http://www.orbwar.com/protest/P1011358.jpg
Click to expand...
exactly. if you read my entire quote you would see, I’m pointing out the left and right are doing this! two wrongs don’t make a right.
 
DeSanto said:
I believe “Obamacare” does actually deal with some of these issues. Sharing records between doctors to prevent unnecessary test and corresponding to more efficiently treat patients.
Click to expand...
Not according to a few people I know, but neither does the Ryan plan. The record sharing is a separate issue, one of structural mismanagement and lack of coordination between hospitals. The unnecessary tests often result in multiple and redundant billings, which may be necessary more for the doctors to be adequately compensated by the insurance companies than for the patients’ welfare.
 
meltzerboy said:
Not according to a few people I know, but neither does the Ryan plan. The record sharing is a separate issue, one of structural mismanagement and lack of coordination between hospitals. The unnecessary tests often result in multiple and redundant billings, which may be necessary more for the doctors to be adequately compensated by the insurance companies than for the patients’ welfare.
Click to expand...
What’s not according to people you know? the record sharing is part of the Obamacare plan, I believe. That was the issue I was referring to. Not accordig to some people because the plan has not been totally implemented yet, but they have already began setting up the new system just not put into action yet.
 
DeSanto said:
What’s not according to people you know? the record sharing is part of the Obamacare plan, I believe. That was the issue I was referring to.
Click to expand...
My point is that the unnecessary medical tests are not the result of lack of record sharing. They are the result of what physicians are mandated to do by the insurance companies in order for the former to get paid what they deserve, and it is also an incentive for physicians to make more money.
 
qui_est_ce said:
Honest effort at open discussion. 🤷 Then please explain why the number of food stamp recipients went up under Obama? Please explain why he can’t get the employment numbers to a reasonable rate?
Click to expand...
I was under the impression we were hit by a huge recession and millions of people lost their jobs, no fault of their own. I think that would explain the food stamp increase. and as much as I know you would love to, you can’t put that on Obama. Now as far as today’s job rates, they’re going up albeit not fast enough as the instant gratification this generation is used to and maybe it would have been a lot faster had we had some willingness to work together in congress. Sorry, I don’t mean to assume your view in Obama, I just realized i did that, my bad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top