American Doctors for Truth release a new Obamacare ad

[hypocritexposer]

obama takes Granny for a walk


The Whole Truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PJ-p29xEM0s

 

[Anonymous]

Republicans to Propose Major Tax Reform Today

House Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, is set to unveil a proposed new tax code today that is certain to become a key issue--maybe the key issue--in the general election. It would reduce the current number of tax brackets from six to two, one at 10% and one at 25%, eliminate the alternative minimum tax, and reduce corporate rates. If enacted, it would be a godsend to millionaires, reducing their top marginal rate from 35% to 25%. At the same time, Ryan wants to eliminate Medicare in the sense that it pays doctor and hospital bills and turn it into a scheme in which the government gives each senior a voucher and tells him or her to use it to buy private insurance. However, it does nothing to prevent insurance companies from refusing to insure sick people and also nothing to prevent the companies from charging far more than the amount of the voucher.

Needless to say, the Democrats wildly oppose all of this and will campaign mightily against it. The proposal puts Romney in a bit of an awkward position, since he has to support his party's proposal. But the sight of a person who made $21 million last year campaigning on a platform of big tax cuts for the rich to be paid for by reducing the Medicare budget is not going to be pretty. Nevertheless, if this bill becomes topic A during the election, we may have an election that, for a change, is not about mudslinging, but about an idea--what is the role of the federal government in America?

Talk about taking Granny for a walk- sounds like Repubs want to kick them out into the alley to die...

 

[Mike]

Republicans to Propose Major Tax Reform Today

House Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, is set to unveil a proposed new tax code today that is certain to become a key issue--maybe the key issue--in the general election. It would reduce the current number of tax brackets from six to two, one at 10% and one at 25%, eliminate the alternative minimum tax, and reduce corporate rates. If enacted, it would be a godsend to millionaires, reducing their top marginal rate from 35% to 25%. At the same time, Ryan wants to eliminate Medicare in the sense that it pays doctor and hospital bills and turn it into a scheme in which the government gives each senior a voucher and tells him or her to use it to buy private insurance. However, it does nothing to prevent insurance companies from refusing to insure sick people and also nothing to prevent the companies from charging far more than the amount of the voucher.

Needless to say, the Democrats wildly oppose all of this and will campaign mightily against it. The proposal puts Romney in a bit of an awkward position, since he has to support his party's proposal. But the sight of a person who made $21 million last year campaigning on a platform of big tax cuts for the rich to be paid for by reducing the Medicare budget is not going to be pretty. Nevertheless, if this bill becomes topic A during the election, we may have an election that, for a change, is not about mudslinging, but about an idea--what is the role of the federal government in America?

Talk about taking Granny for a walk- sounds like Repubs want to kick them out into the alley to die...

"Opt" means it's optional you idiot.....................................

Ryan is putting forward a Medicare proposal based on one he hashed out with Sen. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon in January. Under this proposal, seniors can opt for traditional Medicare or receive government subsidies to buy private insurance. The subsidies will be indexed to changes in health-care costs and adjusted for the wealth of the individual senior.

 

[Steve]

Democrats suspect that Representative Paul Ryan proposed a tax overhaul in his 2013 budget to camouflage a politically foolhardy Medicare privatization plan. They have it backward: Ryan's Medicare proposal is getting better with each pass.

Ryan improved his plan in December when he teamed up with Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (proving that even a liberal Democrat can appreciate premium support). Their plan would have offered seniors a subsidy to buy private health insurance, only this time they could choose the traditional Medicare program. Still, benefits would be capped. But Ryan and Wyden would have allowed more generous increases in per-capita Medicare spending of 1 percent above the rate of gross domestic product growth, or about 4 percent if the plan were in place this year.

The 2013 budget that Ryan unveiled Tuesday picks up some important features, including the Medicare option, from the Ryan-Wyden plan. It would create a competitive-bidding process to determine the annual increase in the government voucher, forcing health plans and the Medicare program to compete for patients. The federal subsidy would be based on the second- least-expensive plan in each market. Ryan would means-test Medicare by subsidizing the poor more and the wealthy less. And beginning in 2023, he would increase gradually the Medicare eligibility age until it reaches 67 in 2034.

Those are all desirable additions. But Ryan 3.0 tweaks the GDP-plus-1-percent formula -- making it a less generous GDP plus 0.5 percent -- probably because the original formula wouldn't have bent the cost curve enough. Health care is the biggest driver of future budget deficits, and Ryan needed to be less generous in order to cut overall government debt. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, by 2030, spending on the average Medicare beneficiary would be $7,400 (in 2011 dollars) under Ryan's plan, 14 percent lower than what would be spent under current law.

In nine years OT may not need to worry about medicare.. but millions of Americans will,.. and acting now will secure at least some form of safety net by then...

 

[Anonymous]

Republicans to Propose Major Tax Reform Today

House Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, is set to unveil a proposed new tax code today that is certain to become a key issue--maybe the key issue--in the general election. It would reduce the current number of tax brackets from six to two, one at 10% and one at 25%, eliminate the alternative minimum tax, and reduce corporate rates. If enacted, it would be a godsend to millionaires, reducing their top marginal rate from 35% to 25%. At the same time, Ryan wants to eliminate Medicare in the sense that it pays doctor and hospital bills and turn it into a scheme in which the government gives each senior a voucher and tells him or her to use it to buy private insurance. However, it does nothing to prevent insurance companies from refusing to insure sick people and also nothing to prevent the companies from charging far more than the amount of the voucher.

Needless to say, the Democrats wildly oppose all of this and will campaign mightily against it. The proposal puts Romney in a bit of an awkward position, since he has to support his party's proposal. But the sight of a person who made $21 million last year campaigning on a platform of big tax cuts for the rich to be paid for by reducing the Medicare budget is not going to be pretty. Nevertheless, if this bill becomes topic A during the election, we may have an election that, for a change, is not about mudslinging, but about an idea--what is the role of the federal government in America?

Talk about taking Granny for a walk- sounds like Repubs want to kick them out into the alley to die...

"Opt" means it's optional you idiot.....................................

Ryan is putting forward a Medicare proposal based on one he hashed out with Sen. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon in January. Under this proposal, seniors can opt for traditional Medicare or receive government subsidies to buy private insurance. The subsidies will be indexed to changes in health-care costs and adjusted for the wealth of the individual senior.

So they make the decision to "opt out" - and 6 months or 6 years down the line they get a major disease and their insurance company drops them- or raises the rates to excessive amounts- what do you do then- kick them down the alley ?

The medicare system needs reforming- and this may be one way of reforming--if guarantees are put into effect not allowing the insurance companies to let folks fall thru the cracks or have to spend their last dollar to partake of the system...

 

[Anonymous]

Republicans to Propose Major Tax Reform Today

House Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, is set to unveil a proposed new tax code today that is certain to become a key issue--maybe the key issue--in the general election. It would reduce the current number of tax brackets from six to two, one at 10% and one at 25%, eliminate the alternative minimum tax, and reduce corporate rates. If enacted, it would be a godsend to millionaires, reducing their top marginal rate from 35% to 25%. At the same time, Ryan wants to eliminate Medicare in the sense that it pays doctor and hospital bills and turn it into a scheme in which the government gives each senior a voucher and tells him or her to use it to buy private insurance. However, it does nothing to prevent insurance companies from refusing to insure sick people and also nothing to prevent the companies from charging far more than the amount of the voucher.

Needless to say, the Democrats wildly oppose all of this and will campaign mightily against it. The proposal puts Romney in a bit of an awkward position, since he has to support his party's proposal. But the sight of a person who made $21 million last year campaigning on a platform of big tax cuts for the rich to be paid for by reducing the Medicare budget is not going to be pretty. Nevertheless, if this bill becomes topic A during the election, we may have an election that, for a change, is not about mudslinging, but about an idea--what is the role of the federal government in America?

And I agree with the author- that trying to change or cut Medicare is not going to be viewed cheeringly by the world of senior citizens- especially when its being done on the top of a tax cut for millionaires...

More fodder for the Dems and Obama in an election year....

 

[hypocritexposer]

Republicans to Propose Major Tax Reform Today

House Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, is set to unveil a proposed new tax code today that is certain to become a key issue--maybe the key issue--in the general election. It would reduce the current number of tax brackets from six to two, one at 10% and one at 25%, eliminate the alternative minimum tax, and reduce corporate rates. If enacted, it would be a godsend to millionaires, reducing their top marginal rate from 35% to 25%. At the same time, Ryan wants to eliminate Medicare in the sense that it pays doctor and hospital bills and turn it into a scheme in which the government gives each senior a voucher and tells him or her to use it to buy private insurance. However, it does nothing to prevent insurance companies from refusing to insure sick people and also nothing to prevent the companies from charging far more than the amount of the voucher.

Needless to say, the Democrats wildly oppose all of this and will campaign mightily against it. The proposal puts Romney in a bit of an awkward position, since he has to support his party's proposal. But the sight of a person who made $21 million last year campaigning on a platform of big tax cuts for the rich to be paid for by reducing the Medicare budget is not going to be pretty. Nevertheless, if this bill becomes topic A during the election, we may have an election that, for a change, is not about mudslinging, but about an idea--what is the role of the federal government in America?

And I agree with the author- that trying to change or cut Medicare is not going to be viewed cheeringly by the world of senior citizens- especially when its being done on the top of a tax cut for millionaires...

More fodder for the Dems and Obama in an election year....

You Dems. still can't figure out that cutting tax rates and expanding the base, increases tax revenue, can you?


What is 10% of $250, 000?

What is 8% of $320, 000?

 

[loomixguy]

Ronaldus Magnus did it after being elected in 1980, and it worked. JFK did it, too, after Old Pendejo's hero Ike took an eight year coffee break...

 

[Tam]

USA Today/Gallup Poll: Swing-State Voters Want Obamacare to Be Repealed
And, by a margin of 4 to 1, they think it's unconstitutional.

1:17 PM, Feb 27, 2012 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

A newly released USA Today/Gallup poll shows that, by a margin of 13 percentage points (53 to 40 percent), swing-state voters want Obamacare to be repealed. The poll included registered voters in 12 key states: Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, New Mexico, and Michigan. By a margin of 15 points (53 to 38 percent), registered voters in those state think it was "a bad thing" that President Obama's signature legislation was passed.

When asked how Obamacare would affect their family's "healthcare situation" in "the long run," swing-state voters said Obamacare would make it "worse," rather than "better," by a margin of more than 2 to 1 (42 percent "worse," to 20 percent "better"). That's not a great result for legislation that the Congressional Budget Office says would cost about $2.5 trillion (see chart) —or about $7,000 per American and nearly $30,000 for a family of four — over its real first decade (2014 to 2023) alone. That's a lot of taxpayer money to spend to make Americans' health care worse.

Moreover, by the overwhelming margin of 4 to 1 (76 to 19 percent), registered voters in these 12 states say that Obamacare's individual mandate is unconstitutional. Nationwide (not just in the swing states), a clear majority of Democrats — 56 percent — agree that the individual mandate is unconstitutional

Even the Obama White House admits that, without the individual mandate, Obamacare would be "cost prohibitive," "would lead to double digit premiums increases," and "would significantly increase the cost [of] health care spending nationwide." In other words, without its unconstitutional linchpin, Obamacare would be even more of a policy disaster (even if less of an affront to the Constitution) than it already is. That's why, without the individual mandate, Obamacare never would have been passed — and why, if the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate (as it should), it should strike down the whole thing.

But the American people need not rely on the Court to fix this disaster. They have it in their power to bring about repeal.