Paul Ryan Plans to Phase Out Medicare in 2017

[Maxima1]

Did you guys even read the article and Ryan's quotes? He said nothing about phasing out Medicare. If he did, you'd see a lot more credible news sources than talkingpointsmemo.com run with it. The author of the article is speculating on what Ryan and republicans might do in the future:



There is absolutely no reason not to look at all options on how to balance the budget in the future.

They want to privatize SS and Medicare but screw the younger generation while grandfathering the voting old generation. That has been known for awhile.

You don't need to balance the budget. In fact, balancing the budget or getting surplus is bad when you're importing because then the private sector necessarily goes into debt. Government spending is net financial assets to the private sector. There is also no way for the US to default involuntarily. The US issued $95 trillion securities last fiscal year and redeemed $94 trillion. That's T-bill being rolled over every month tens of billions. When some idiot says a "fund" is out of money, they have no idea what they are talking about. The only constraint is inflation and resources available.

 

[Double Trouble]

They want to privatize SS and Medicare but screw the younger generation while grandfathering the voting old generation. That has been known for awhile.

You don't need to balance the budget. In fact, balancing the budget or getting surplus is bad when you're importing because then the private sector necessarily goes into debt. Government spending is net financial assets to the private sector. There is also no way for the US to default involuntarily. The US issued $95 trillion securities last fiscal year and redeemed $94 trillion. That's T-bill being rolled over every month tens of billions. When some idiot says a "fund" is out of money, they have no idea what they are talking about. The only constraint is inflation and resources available.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I think we need to pay more attention to how and how much we spend. That helps close the budget deficit and lifts the burden off future generations. One particular fund might not go under, but it just becomes a drain on the general budget. I don't see a problem with evaluating all our big spending to see where we can do better.

 

[bshole]

Did you guys even read the article and Ryan's quotes? He said nothing about phasing out Medicare. If he did, you'd see a lot more credible news sources than talkingpointsmemo.com run with it. The author of the article is speculating on what Ryan and republicans might do in the future:

There is absolutely no reason not to look at all options on how to balance the budget in the future.

So pillaging the rich is still on the table

 

[soundforbjt]

So pillaging the rich is still on the table

Don't forget the military!

 

[bshole]

Don't forget the military!

Use the military to pillage the rich for us? Interesting idea, I hadn't considered that option. Could work... could work...

 

[fskimospy]

Did you guys even read the article and Ryan's quotes? He said nothing about phasing out Medicare. If he did, you'd see a lot more credible news sources than talkingpointsmemo.com run with it. The author of the article is speculating on what Ryan and republicans might do in the future:

There is absolutely no reason not to look at all options on how to balance the budget in the future.

I mean his own website explicitly says he wants to replace Medicare with private insurance...

http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9969

 

[soundforbjt]

Use the military to pillage the rich for us? Interesting idea, I hadn't considered that option. Could work... could work...

Trump has plans to build up the military bigly. How better to train the troops? Gates, Cameras, Hired security.

 

[Ns1]

I, for one, look forward to seeing what the R's come up with, now that they are no longer encumbered by those pesky democrats.

 

[Jhhnn]

So pillaging the rich is still on the table

We can't hurt the lifestyles of the uber wealthy with taxes. Whether they take home $100M or $50M after taxes it just leads to tears on the balance sheet & nothing more.

 

[Jhhnn]

I, for one, look forward to seeing what the R's come up with, now that they are no longer encumbered by those pesky democrats.

First up, financial deregulation & the sweet, sweet gravy of tax cuts for the financial elite. After that, cornholio for the weakest among us to hold down deficits.

 

[Sunburn74]

Phase out medicare? Go for it. People get what they vote for. I just wonder if someone put 40 years worth of taxes into medicare, if they can get it back or if its lost forever. Probably the latter. but the GOP doesn't care.

 

[Meghan54]

I'm just curious...what health insurance companies does Ryan think are chomping at the bit to issue health insurance to people in the "unhealthiest" portions of their lives? The most costly portions of their lives in respect to health spending and needs. Does he think a company like Anthem, which is currently crying about the ACA and not enough profits, will enter a market where the pool of individuals lacks a large contingent of healthy persons, who will just pay premiums and rarely utilize benefits every year, to offset the spending requirements that the less healthy persons will need and give them the "necessary" profits?

 

[sportage]

One YUGE lie Ryan and his republicans are pushing is with claiming anything they do to SS and medicare will not involve seniors.
BULL SHET !!!!!
There is absolutely NO WAY this country could or would support a two tier SS system nor two tier medicare system.
Once they screw it up for those under 55, they will screw it up for everyone else.
They will have no other choice.

SS isn't much, but for a married couple over 75 it pays the bills and allows them to remain in their home.
The check comes in every month, and right on time.
With privatization... SS will be turned over to the stock market.
Your SS fund will be limited to the dollar amount available at the time it was invested.
The longer one lives, the smaller their remaining funds will become.
And a day will come when retirees completely exhaust all their money.
So there you are, 85 and no more checks coming in.
What do you do?
Well... I suspect the suicide rate among seniors to shoot thru the roof.
More and more millennials will find their elderly parents living with them.
People will in fact die in the streets, despite of what Trump promised.
And all this is assuming that greed in the stock market does not bankrupt every single retirement fund first.

 

[Sonikku]

One YUGE lie Ryan and his republicans are pushing is with claiming anything they do to SS and medicare will not involve seniors.
BULL SHET !!!!!
There is absolutely NO WAY this country could or would support a two tier SS system nor two tier medicare system.

I think they would. They fear the senior vote when it comes to dabbling with their social programs. Telling them they get a pass and the gravy train won't stop until it's their descendants turn to retire could mitigate the backlash. Setting the meltdown date for a couple administrations down the road effectively shields them the current one from the majority of the outcry. Passing the buck is part of the game in politics.

 

[K1052]

I think they would. They fear the senior vote when it comes to dabbling with their social programs. Telling them they get a pass and the gravy train won't stop until it's their descendants turn to retire could mitigate the backlash. Setting the meltdown date for a couple administrations down the road effectively shields them the current one from the majority of the outcry. Passing the buck is part of the game in politics.

It didn't work last time. The Democrats derailed that train back in 2011 when Ryan last tried to pull it out of the station. He can waive pamphlets as much as he likes but if he can be branded as cutting Medicare it's like handing the Dems a baton to bash him over the head politically.

 

[dank69]

I mean his own website explicitly says he wants to replace Medicare with private insurance...

http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9969

Yeah, but can you prove Hillary didn't personally hack in to his website and put that there to distract from the Vince Foster investigation?

 

[PokerGuy]

I, for one, look forward to seeing what the R's come up with, now that they are no longer encumbered by those pesky democrats.

If they had 60 votes in the senate, that would be true, but they don't. They barely have a majority in the senate, so they're going to have an extremely difficult time getting anything done. President Trump will be using a whole lot of executive mandates to do what he wants. Good thing our lefty friends have already indicated their support for that approach under the current regime, so they should be fine with it going forward as well

 

[fskimospy]

If they had 60 votes in the senate, that would be true, but they don't. They barely have a majority in the senate, so they're going to have an extremely difficult time getting anything done. President Trump will be using a whole lot of executive mandates to do what he wants. Good thing our lefty friends have already indicated their support for that approach under the current regime, so they should be fine with it going forward as well

The far more likely answer is that they will eliminate the filibuster as soon as it stands in the way of major legislation they want to pass.

 

[glenn1]

The far more likely answer is that they will eliminate the filibuster as soon as it stands in the way of major legislation they want to pass.

Proof of concept was already done by Harry Reid by eliminating parts of the filibuster. You were complaining about the filibuster when it was being used against your agenda before so obviously you should be happy it might be going away. That next time when you're in power it won't "constrain" your ambitions. Don't be like the New York Times in having your position on the filibuster be completely an exercise in utter partisan temporary convenience and happily flop back to supporting the filibuster once more.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...times-opposes-filibusters-when-they-frustrate

The above being said, I hope the GOP maintains the status quo instead of raising the stakes further in response to previous Democratic gambits.

 

[Sonikku]

It didn't work last time. The Democrats derailed that train back in 2011 when Ryan last tried to pull it out of the station. He can waive pamphlets as much as he likes but if he can be branded as cutting Medicare it's like handing the Dems a baton to bash him over the head politically.

The climate has changed. There is a Repulican in the WH now. The senate stands to get rid of the filibuster. And to top it all off, Trump could be scapegoated in a way an establishment president from the party could not be.

 

[fskimospy]

Proof of concept was already done by Harry Reid by eliminating parts of the filibuster. You were complaining about the filibuster when it was being used against your agenda before so obviously you should be happy it might be going away. That next time when you're in power it won't "constrain" your ambitions. Don't be like the New York Times in having your position on the filibuster be completely an exercise in utter partisan temporary convenience and happily flop back to supporting the filibuster once more.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...times-opposes-filibusters-when-they-frustrate

The above being said, I hope the GOP maintains the status quo instead of raising the stakes further in response to previous Democratic gambits.

How dumb are you? I support eliminating the filibuster so I am happy it's going away. I've told you this many times. And yes, I am happy that the next time Democrats are in power it won't stop major legislation from being passed.

Thank you for highlighting the very likely bald hypocrisy of conservatives though, who will almost certainly go from defenders of the filibuster to those who eliminate it. This is one of the many reasons I supported eliminating it before, which is that we all know conservative support for it was only as long as it was convenient.

 

[K1052]

The climate has changed. There is a Repulican in the WH now. The senate stands to get rid of the filibuster. And to top it all off, Trump could be scapegoated in a way an establishment president from the party could not be.

They still have midterm elections to worry about and the margin in the Senate is problematic. You think people like Flake and McCain are going to sign up publicly to anything that even has the allegation of a benefit cut to seniors? Nope.

 

[K1052]

Proof of concept was already done by Harry Reid by eliminating parts of the filibuster. You were complaining about the filibuster when it was being used against your agenda before so obviously you should be happy it might be going away. That next time when you're in power it won't "constrain" your ambitions. Don't be like the New York Times in having your position on the filibuster be completely an exercise in utter partisan temporary convenience and happily flop back to supporting the filibuster once more.

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb...times-opposes-filibusters-when-they-frustrate

The above being said, I hope the GOP maintains the status quo instead of raising the stakes further in response to previous Democratic gambits.

Actually no, he's been very consistent that the filibuster should be eliminated regardless of the party in power.