Lie of the Year 2011: 'Republicans voted to end Medicare'

Nice....you might be able to afford that $6500, but many seniors cannot. I guess they are just collateral damage in the Republicans grand plan.

Social Darwinism = Randroid thinking = Social Darwinism....

I have to thank the Righties for proving it over and over again...

"I've got mine...Sorry you don't...It's because you didn't work hard enough...Screw you."

Rinse and repeat...

You keep rinsing and repeating your same talking points, but the FACT is that old bats like yourself won't be affected by any of this, even if Romney was to support every idea of Ryan's 100% (which he hasn't).

CritiKalBill wrote: You keep rinsing and repeating your same talking points, but the FACT is that old bats like yourself won't be affected by any of this, even if Romney was to support every idea of Ryan's 100% (which he hasn't).

Conservatives keep regurgitating that same point....only it ignores the fact that we old bats actually care about future generations. It's not just about what we will get, it's about what the future of this country looks like.....and with Republicans in charge the future looks mighty bleak for seniors.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Every senior incurs in excess of $6500 a year in medical services Dog? Really? Have anything to back up that claim?

Where did I make that statement? Don't post lies for me to rebut, try honesty instead. Under the Ryan plan, the "vouchers" will be insufficient to cover the private health insurance that Ryan is attempting to force future Medicare recipients to purchase. According to the Congressional Budget Office, those recipients would have to pay $6500 annually to pay the premiums since Ryan's vouchers will be woefully insufficient. Since you have stated that you will be one of those individuals, you will be paying $6500 out of pocket for those premiums.

You obviously didn't read my previous link.

Ryan updated his Medicare plan in 2012 and that over $6000 difference no longer applies. The CBO report was from an earlier plan.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/no-end-to-end-medicare-claim/

Easy to see why Romney/Ryan appeals to so many of the Randroids and sociopaths here on 285:

Romney's Pitch To The Mean-Spirited
In Romney's America, Welfare Is for Losers

Mitt Romney would like you to know that he thinks poor people are con artists who don't want to work, and he is intent on protecting you, the taxpayer, from underwriting their depraved lifestyle.

In a Romney administration, the social safety net would be reduced to a few basics: dumpster-diving at mealtime, pavement-dwelling at sleep time and prayer in the event of illness.

These are the unavoidable takeaways from the fact-free campaign commercial Romney aired last week that accused President Barack Obama of a devious plan to undermine the Clinton-era welfare reform. Clinton famously imposed time limits on welfare benefits while requiring that recipients work. Now, according to the Romney ad, Obama is quietly plotting to "gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-s-g ... f=business

Of course, the part about "gutting welfare reform by dropping work requirements" has already been labeled "pants-on-fire"/false by three different fact-checking organizations, but that won't stop him...

RMoney/Ryan: for those that love rich white dicks.

archer wrote: Nice....you might be able to afford that $6500, but many seniors cannot. I guess they are just collateral damage in the Republicans grand plan.

What a grandiose presumption on your part archer. I'm not able to afford two houses in two different States. I am more likely to be one of the seniors who you claim would be collateral damage in the Republican's grand plan. And if my later years are more difficult so that the posterity's are made more easy, that is a price that I am willing to pay. I would rather I suffer the consequences of the bad fiscal policies of my generation than pass the burden to those who come after me.

That's what the collectivists don't get. They would rather keep all the buggy whip manufacturers in business rather than allow new technologies to destroy some enterprises while creating and expanding others. They would rather keep throwing ever increasing amounts of cash down the drain of poorly conceived social programming than allow better programs to replace them. The current form of MediCare isn't necessarily by default the best form for it to have; just because the "progressives" came up with it doesn't mean that it can't progress further.

Without the "Doc fixes", which completely erase any of the promised "savings", doctors are going to start refusing to accept new MediCare patients just as more and more of them have started refusing to accept new MediCaid patients as a result of the inferior compensation that program offers. The last such fix added $200 Billion to the cost of MediCare over ten years - the next one will add even more. Unless something is done by the time my nieces and nephews reach retirement age, the funding for MediCare won't even cover 70% of the program's cost according to the 2012 actuarial report - which is premised on a sustained economic growth rate in excess of any seen on average for at least the last 20 years if not more.

Competition, not subsidy, is what keeps prices competitive and goods and services affordable.

I haven't heard one Democrat idea yet on how to pay for Medicare in the future. Not one.

Here is a test question: When you reach 65 and sign up for medicare, what percent of the expenses does your typical lifetime payroll contributions and $100/month premium pay for of the total 100% Medicare costs? Just curious who has any idea of this, most people probably think its close to 100%