« Audio/video of Joplin tornado hitting convenience store | Main | Might be good to think before raising that red flag »

"We are leading in the House, we're not seeing this kind of leadership from the President of the United States"

Paul Ryan's answers to an obviously flustered David Gregory are spot on... and more than refreshing.  The man's got a bright future:


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/41625.

Comments (55)

A bright future, true, but ... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

A bright future, true, but only if he's got the guts to run for a major office and then the balls to win.

Staying in a safe district in the House and occasionally getting to spar with liberal journalists on Sunday talk shows (that nobody watches anymore) is a recipe for irrelevance over the long run. Newt Gingrich, anyone? Dennis Hastert? Tom DeLay? Dick Armey? Peter King?

The fact that Ryan so quickly ruled out a run at the soon-to-be-open Senate seat in Wisconsin bodes ill. Those types of chances to become a major player only come up perhaps 2x per decade and Ryan already blew one of them.

Every single GOP member is ... (Below threshold)

Every single GOP member is running from his Medicare-destroying plan when confronted by voters...and he has a bright future?

Lol.

Nice job by Ryan. And he an... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Nice job by Ryan. And he and every other republican have to keep bringing up the fact that more than 700 days have passed and we still do not have a budget. Even sycophants like Gregory can't lie and spin about that.

My only real complaint about the video was that stuck up biased bitch, Andrea Mitchel getting into it.

"and he has a bright future... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

"and he has a bright future?

Lol."


Yes. He's wealthy and has his own health care. Looks pretty bright to me.

Gregory - just another wate... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Gregory - just another water carrier for Obama.

Jim X, you have to stop rea... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jim X, you have to stop reading only MSNBC and other liberal sites. No one is running from it. Unlike your party, republicans are trying to do something to save the country. ww

Come now WW. We al... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Come now WW.

We all know it's more important to look out for your career versus the country. Right JimX?

No one is running from i... (Below threshold)
Chico:

No one is running from it.

Scott Brown is running from it.

Eric Cantor is running from it.

Newt Gingrich is running from it.

Ryan handed the Dems a dream issue - abolishing Medicare.

Chico,I am 53 and ... (Below threshold)
SER:

Chico,

I am 53 and trying to arrange my business interests so that I never need to take medicare. It is a bad deal that has trapped seniors into an "insurance" system that doctors do not want to accept. As someone (under 55) who will be affected by Ryan's plan, I support it completely.

I am 53 and trying to ar... (Below threshold)
Chico:

I am 53 and trying to arrange my business interests so that I never need to take medicare. It is a bad deal that has trapped seniors into an "insurance" system that doctors do not want to accept. As someone (under 55) who will be affected by Ryan's plan, I support it completely.

Ryan's plan is smoke and mirrors. No details. He hasn't specified what the amount of the "vouchers" will be. Or how he will force private insurance companies to cover broken-down old geezers.

Let's face it, if you're a 65 year old with emphysema, diabetes, lymphoma, or any other chronic condition, a voucher of $100,000 a year won't be enough for an insurance company to cover you.

Will the amount of the voucher go up as you get older and break down more, and to cover care for the inevitable fatal illness?

He's a bullshitter or an asshole, not sure which.

Republicans are running awa... (Below threshold)
Canuck Chuck:

Republicans are running away from Ryan's plan - as they should.

So who exactly is Ryan "leading" if nobody is following? Just a pack of sycophants and losers.

I read where 80% if Americans DO NOT want Ryan's plan for Medicare.

So where are the loud-mouthed teabaggers who kept saying Obama wasn't listening "to the people"?

Ryan's plan only effects th... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Ryan's plan only effects those 55 years of age and older. So right off the bat Chico is full of shit. Secondly, for the grown ups, this is the start of the negotiating. See where it goes. Thirdly, as always, the liberal wing of the democratic party is taking party over country while most conservatives and independents take the countries good over the party. That is leadership. That is why Obama doesn't get it. ww

Ryan's plan only effects... (Below threshold)
Canuck Chuck:

Ryan's plan only effects those 55 years of age and older. So right off the bat Chico is full of shit.

Oooh, big talk from a little mind. And you're wrong.

Ryan's plan effects everybody who is now under 55, not older - and it effects them when they reach Medicare age. The voucher system Ryan proposed has cost of living adjustments but everybody knows health care costs rise faster than the cost of living averages.

As a result...

Under current law, Medicaid pays the Medicare premiums — and in many cases, cost-sharing changes as well — for beneficiaries with low incomes, and also provides many poor Medicare beneficiaries with certain health and long-term care services and supports that Medicare does not cover or covers to a more limited extent. As part of its Medicare and Medicaid proposals, the Ryan budget plan would eliminate this supplemental Medicaid coverage, except for long-term care services and supports, and replace it with a medical savings account. Based on CBO estimates, this would result in a 65-year-old who lives at the poverty line (which would be $13,620 for an elderly individual in 2022) paying, on average, $4,700 more in 2022 than he or she would under the programs as they exist today. These higher out-of-pocket costs would consume about one-third of the individual’s total annual income, leaving little remaining for basic necessities such as housing and food. Seniors living below the poverty line would pay an even greater share of their income. As a result, many dual eligibles, who have the most significant medical needs among both Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, would likely end up forgoing needed medical care.

cite: http://www.cbpp.org/files/4-15-11health.pdf


Secondly, for the grown ups, this is the start of the negotiating. See where it goes.

It went nowhere. It's a non-starter, or as Newt Gingrich truthfully pointed out -- it's an attempt at social engineering through fiscal controls.

Yeah, threatening to kill off low-income seniors. Great negotiating point.

Yes. He's wealthy ... (Below threshold)
Yes. He's wealthy and has his own health care. Looks pretty bright to me.

Good for him as a non-politician, in that he has no chance of being affected by his policies. But as for his success in government, outlook not good.

Seriously, guys. I know you like what he's saying, but car salesmen say things we like to hear also. Take a look at the actual thing he's selling.

The plan increases costs for poor seniors. It attempts to get around current seniors' concerns, by starting in at 55 - so seniors now are okay, they just have to be willing to screw over their younger friends and their children.

Even if the seniors did go for something that cynical - their younger friends and children are supposed to agree to get the shaft once they're older?

Why would they POSSIBLY do that?

So then, how does Ryan's plan have even a remote chance of being popular with moderates and independents? Seriously.

Hence Ryan's very limited political future outside of the most extreme right-wing circles.

Sure is great watching our ... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Sure is great watching our resident liberals approvingly using Newt Gingrich to bolster their arguments.

Almost as amusing as seeing cbpp.org used.

Cbpp.org headed up by Bob Greenstein, former Clinton appointee, a member of Obama's transition team and even better, the man who lead the effort to enact the Food Stamp Act of 1977, generally regarded as our former worst president ever, Carter's, signature anti-poverty achievement.

No bias there, eh?

Hank, I am enjoying watchin... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Hank, I am enjoying watching the lame stream media using Newt as a barometer of all things right also. Even after Gregory's calling Newt a racist the week before, all of a sudden Newt is a "player". The hypocrisy and lack of reasoning from the left is telling. They don't even know they are taking their parties politics over the good of the country. Or maybe they do? ww

Chico,You wrote, "... (Below threshold)
SER:

Chico,

You wrote, "Let's face it, if you're a 65 year old with emphysema, diabetes, lymphoma, or any other chronic condition, a voucher of $100,000 a year won't be enough for an insurance company to cover you."

Since the medicare trustees wrote that medicare will be out of money by 2024 http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2011/05/23/gvsa0523.htm,

who will pay the hospitalization for the 65 year old in your example?

Maybe I missed that part of the president's plan and the democrat budget. Could you point it out to me? It might be under the heading "Death Panel." Just saying.

Maybe we could do the enlightened "single payer" system like they have in the U.K.:
http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/health/s/1421402_two-patients-died-after-waiting-in-ambulance-outside-full-oldham-hospital-unit

"all of a sudden Newt is a ... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

"all of a sudden Newt is a "player"

Yep... Trying to make him their official Mc Cain rino pick for 2012.

Canadian bacon-"So... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

Canadian bacon-

"So where are the loud-mouthed teabaggers who kept saying Obama wasn't listening "to the people"?"

Say dumb ass you are not American so kiss off.

"we're not seeing this kind... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

"we're not seeing this kind of leadership from the President of the United States"


Apparently Paul missed it? Barry does his best leading on his way to the back nine.

Chuck, as soon as you use t... (Below threshold)
John:

Chuck, as soon as you use the term teabagger you are done. You might want to stop getting your news from comedy central.

The fact that Rya... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:


The fact that Ryan so quickly ruled out a run at the soon-to-be-open Senate seat in Wisconsin bodes ill. Those types of chances to become a major player only come up perhaps 2x per decade and Ryan already blew one of them.

I don't really agree with this, Tsar. I look at his not running for the vacant WI Senate seat as a good thing for 4 reasons: 1.) I think he thinks he can make the most impact as chairman of the House Budget Committee, which he's clearly embracing. 2.) By not running for the seat, he doesn't look like or come across as a self-interested political opportunist, and I think that's a really good thing. 3.) And even if he did run, the left would use the "he was the one who wanted to kill seniors!" screed, likely making him almost unelectable. 4.) The WI public union would have pulled out every character assassination weapon they had; and that controversy too much of recent history to be forgotten by the WI independents. So I don't believe he "blew" by not running.

On a separate note, Ryan also knew he was handing the left a political and rhetorical baseball bat by "ending Medicare" when, in fact, that's NOT what his plan calls for at all. That hasn't stopped the flow of ignorant rhetoric and comments from people who clearly haven't read one word of Ryan's plan. (Chico and jim x's are proof of that here.) This is why Ryan's on the talk show tour defending his plan, which, in my biased opinion, he's done an admirable job—even if, in the end, his plan "fails." Which will be a shame because I don't think most people in the country really understand what dire straits Medicare and Medicaid are in.

If the Democrats had ANY fiscal sense, they'd back his plan, but they don't. Their "plan" is their "plan" for everything, making them sound like frakkin' parrots, "Squaaaaawk! Tax the rich! Squaaaaaaak! Raise taxes on the rich! Squaaaaaaak!" Fail.

Looks like McConnell isn't ... (Below threshold)
warchild:

Looks like McConnell isn't going to whip the vote on this in the Senate. Everyone who is for this needs to call their senator and demand they support Paul Ryan.

I have a serious question f... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

I have a serious question for any lefty who posts here who parrots the statement that Ryan's proposal will end Medicare. If the opposition is not successful Obamacare appears to be inevitable. Does that not also mean the end to Medicare as well? If so then it is really Paul Ryan's proposal versus Obamacare? Anyone?

As a "lefty who posts here ... (Below threshold)

As a "lefty who posts here who parrots the statement", i.e. presents the facts, I have a serious answer for you.

1. "Obamacare", AKA Health Care Reform, does NOT mean the end to Medicare.

2. But even if HCR *did* mean that, that doesn't mean that Ryancare is the only alternative.

3. The best option that would work would actually be *expanding* medicare to cover all Americans, while still allowing individuals to purchase any insurance they want. But that option was not pursued. Which is part of why it makes me chuckle whenever I hear Obama referred to as "Socialist".

2. But even if HCR *did*... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

2. But even if HCR *did* mean that, that doesn't mean that Ryancare is the only alternative.

Exactly WHAT plan have the Dems presented and proposed that fixes Medicare and Medicaid and makes them financially solvent (or at least close to it)? Answer: Nothing. So, "Ryancare" (cute) IS the only alternative as of right now.

3. The best option that would work would actually be *expanding* medicare to cover all Americans, while still allowing individuals to purchase any insurance they want. But that option was not pursued. Which is part of why it makes me chuckle whenever I hear Obama referred to as "Socialist".

Sounds good when you say it, but it's a fiscal fairy tale. The gov't option of Medicare would always be the less expensive and more desirable option/route to choose for consumers, thus, with everyone opting into the program, increasing Medicare's liabilities and massively adding to the its debt and our national debt. In one aspect of Ryan's plan, it ends Medicare for the wealthy (though I don't know where that line is being drawn), something I would think would make Dems positively giddy, all while STILL providing health care coverage to those who need it most and who need it most: the middle class on down to the poor who already covered by Medicaid (AKA: the original intent of both programs.) Do you really want to extend coverage to the "rich"? I doubt that; I don't.

"Answer: Nothing. So, "R... (Below threshold)
Canuck Chuck:

"Answer: Nothing. So, "Ryancare" (cute) IS the only alternative as of right now."

Wrong. It's not an alternative. It's a non-starter. It will NEVER go anywhere.

House GOPers voted for it (not one Repub voted against it) and they will pay the price in their next elections. Killing off Americans to keep low taxes for the rich is not an alternative. I know that disappoints, but 80% of Americans are against Ryan's plan.

Ryan wanted this to be a starting point for negotiations. Instead the Democrats are using it against him and his GOP pals. Hoisted on his own petard. I'm reminded of Mohammed Ali's "rope a dope" - instead Obama roped the GOPers into thinking they could ask for anything as a starting point. Well, this one is gonna leave a mark.

High points for the WH and Senate Dems who are deftly using Ryan's plan to frame the Repubs and Gingrich's own criticism as well (how dare he speak the truth!)that correctly characterizes Ryan's plan as moronic social engineering.

Ryan may have lost the House in 2012 with this one. Great leadership, there. Leading the Dems right back into the House majority.

Un-fraking-believably stupid move there....

Killing off Americans to... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Killing off Americans to keep low taxes for the rich is not an alternative.

Nice! Ignorance and hyperbole in one tidy little sentence. I've noticed you're adept at spewing every single Dem talking point ad nauseam. You lack what your party does: ideas of your own.

For the last couple of years, we've heard the GOP called "The Party of No" and "The Party of No Ideas." Now, Ryan presents ideas and what happens? The Dems become the The Party of Reelection Politics and DoNothings. Hoozah! That's gotta make you feel good!

Congrats canuck shmuck in ... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

Congrats canuck shmuck in knocking off chico as the biggest loser tonight!

"Now, Ryan presents idea... (Below threshold)
Canuck Chuck:

"Now, Ryan presents ideas and what happens? "

80% of Americans tell Ryan to take a long walk on a short pier. That's what happens,

Booyah - that's Republican leadership for you.

The funniest part is that Ryan wasn't serious about the plan -- it was just a negotiations starting point.

And then every single House Repub voted to approve it. Why? Are they crazy? 80% of Americans say YES, they're crazy.

Think about that -- propose something you know won't work and then embrace it. Nicely done, House republicans.

I hope the Dems do nothing for the next year on this -- and just let Ryan and the GOPers slowly twist in the wind.

Stings, don't it...

The gov't option ... (Below threshold)
The gov't option of Medicare would always be the less expensive and more desirable option/route to choose for consumers, thus, with everyone opting into the program, increasing Medicare's liabilities and massively adding to the its debt and our national debt.

Only if they aren't paying for it.

But if people are paying in the same amount as they are to private insurance companies via a mandate, then we'll have the same level of care minus the insurance company cut. Since insurance companies add no value and are making billions.

Basically the same health care that every other first-world nation offers its citizens. For which they offer more coverage at about half the taxpayer cost.

And if people want to opt-out of medicare and pay private companies for their insurance instead, they can do that too.

As for Ryan's plan ending medicare for the wealthy - so what? I see no problem with any innocent persons benefiting from a program, whether they're rich or poor.

Canuck and his party....do ... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Canuck and his party....do nothing as the country sinks under, the weight of Dem policies...my that leadership! What is Canuck going to do when the money is all gone?

Answer: Nothing. S... (Below threshold)
Answer: Nothing. So, "Ryancare" (cute) IS the only alternative as of right now.

Nope, sorry. For something to be an actual alternative, it has to work. Think about it. Is the alternative to losing your house to a fire, exploding it instead? No. The same thing with Ryan's ludicrous plan.

I honestly can't believe it even made it outside his office. But, that's the power the Tea Party holds. The GOP are in quite a position - they have to pay lip service to irrational demands from their base, and hope the moderates and independents outside don't hear it.

But, they are.

"What is Canuck going to do... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

"What is Canuck going to do when the money is all gone?"


Blame Bush of course.

1. "Obamacare", AKA Health ... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

1. "Obamacare", AKA Health Care Reform, does NOT mean the end to Medicare.

I thought ObamaCare meant the elimination of Medicare Advantage, a very popular program with seniors.

2. But even if HCR *did* mean that, that doesn't mean that Ryancare is the only alternative.

Probably not and good dodge because you know your statement #1 is questionable. I get a sense that Paul Ryan would be quite open to other programs that are fiscally sound. I think you are confusing him with Obama who seems unwilling to tolerate any compromise on HCR other than those waivers his administration arbitrarily doles
out.

3. The best option that would work would actually be *expanding* medicare to cover all Americans, while still allowing individuals to purchase any insurance they want. But that option was not pursued. Which is part of why it makes me chuckle whenever I hear Obama referred to as "Socialist".

How does expanding Medicare become more fiscally responsible than the current program? I also thought the long term goal of HCR in the eyes of Democrats was to place limits on the luxury of being able to purchae any insurance you want.

In other news Biden told do... (Below threshold)
retired military:

In other news Biden told donors to keep him in mind for 2016.

LOL.

I thought ObamaCar... (Below threshold)
I thought ObamaCare meant the elimination of Medicare Advantage, a very popular program with seniors.

Well, from what I know that's actually not the case. HCR would actually only remove one gov't subsidy of Medicare Advantage, which has been proven not to be cost effective.

http://www.cleveland.com/medical/index.ssf/2009/09/health_care_fact_check_medicar.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

So removing some funding from some area of Medicare involving subsidies to private insurers is not the same as destroying Medicare.

Probably not and good dodge...

Well if I'm probably right then how is it a good dodge? : )

As for me, I have the opposite feeling. I think Ryan may be starting to look for a way off the ledge he wound up on, but any more reasonable proposal will probably be unpopular with his base. Which is why he and the congressional GOP felt comfortable voting for it - until they started listening to people outside their base AND a lot of people INSIDE their base who depend on Medicare. And who don't want it messed with.

How does expanding Medicare become more fiscally responsible than the current program?

Because the current program pays insurance companies who THEN pay doctors and hospitals; for which the insurance companies add billions in cost for providing no actual service.

"and he has a bright future... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

"and he has a bright future?

Lol."


Yes. He's wealthy and has his own health care. Looks pretty bright to me.

4. Posted by Sep14 | May 23, 2011 1:00 PM | Thanks for voting! Score: 2 (8 votes cast)


I detect a green eyed monster amongst our trolls.

Wrong. It's not an alter... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Wrong. It's not an alternative. It's a non-starter. It will NEVER go anywhere.

House GOPers voted for it (not one Repub voted against it) and they will pay the price in their next elections. Killing off Americans to keep low taxes for the rich is not an alternative. I know that disappoints, but 80% of Americans are against Ryan's plan.

Well, we know at least one Canadian who's opposed to it. But seriously, why do you care at all, much less so passionately, if you're not American?

For my part, I couldn't care less what Canada does. If Canada decides all Canadians are to be treated by vets on a first come-first served basis, that's OK by me. None of my business.

Yet you weigh in here on American issues that presumably do not affect you at all. Why?

Nope, sorry. For somethi... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Nope, sorry. For something to be an actual alternative, it has to work. Think about it. Is the alternative to losing your house to a fire, exploding it instead? No. The same thing with Ryan's ludicrous plan.

The first sentence, sorry, is deeply intellectually retarded. And the rest of your post(s) aren't much better. Are you normally this poor at arguing a position.(Hint, hintL: that's rhetorical.)

"Yet you weigh in here on A... (Below threshold)
Sep14:

"Yet you weigh in here on American issues that presumably do not affect you at all. Why?"


The liberal in him makes him stick his nose in others business. Just like Barry in Labia if you must know.

The first sentence... (Below threshold)
The first sentence, sorry, is...

Sorry, you're entire response is severely intellectually developmentally disabled.

Especially if you think arguing by putting down the argument actually resolves the argument in your favor. You do realize that the argument can't have it's feelings hurt, right?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're typically not this terrible at arguing a position. 'Cause otherwise, that's really kind of surreal.

Your expressed subjective opinion of my posts notwithstanding, do you have any actually substantive criticism to offer?

Such as, any actual facts I've gotten wrong. Or, any logical steps within my arguments you disagree with.

You know, those pesky things.

Well, we know at least o... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Well, we know at least one Canadian who's opposed to it. But seriously, why do you care at all, much less so passionately, if you're not American?

Maybe because misery loves company? I'm an American citizen with Canadian resident status. I have Canadian Medicare, but why do you think I maintain my BCBS policy in the U.S.? Because Canadian healthcare SUCKS! Most Canadian's are supportive of Canada's brand of socialism because they know no better. So, they allow their government to spend, spend, spend. But, the tide is turning even here. People are waking up as demonstrated by the last election. Sooner or later common sense prevails when it becomes apparent that the policies of socialism just don't add up to a brighter future. Do you want to see America's future? Look at the stagnant economies of the socialist countries of Europe. Sorry, Libs. Capitalism works and maybe, someday, America will return to her roots. I hope she does so before it's too late.

Well, we know at l... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:
Well, we know at least one Canadian who's opposed to it. But seriously, why do you care at all, much less so passionately, if you're not American?

Socialism/Communism is all about the elimination of choice in favor of the common good. If other alternatives exist any where they most be crushed. That why one size fits all almost all (well you elite need to have things better for them).

Ryans plan allows the average American the opportunity to have the same fully funded plan that congress has. His plan starts the process of protecting us from another bubble that will have horrific affects.

Just like the housing crisis where people warned congress disaster coming and they attacked and called people all kinds of name until the bubble burst and people were out of their homes we are seeing the same thing unfold. Republican are to blame because of instead of fighting they backed down. Ryan need to stand his ground and keep fighting against the stupidity of group think.

Clay"Because Canad... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Clay

"Because Canadian healthcare SUCKS!'

Shhhhh dont tell Hyper that. He may get upset

Such as, any actual fact... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

Such as, any actual facts I've gotten wrong.

Dave D said:

How does expanding Medicare become more fiscally responsible than the current program?

You responded with:

Because the current program pays insurance companies who THEN pay doctors and hospitals; for which the insurance companies add billions in cost for providing no actual service.

Only the ignorant and uneducated get their Medicare paid through the likes of Blue Cross or Blue Shield. They offer even less access to doctors and provide less coverage than Medicare. (Though supplemental insurance many seniors find beneficial.) Moreover, the market percentage of people who opt for this type of coverage is incredibly small (4-5% of the market). But overall, doctors bill Medicare directly; no private insurers are involved. So your "billions in cost" claim is at best insignificant and greatly exaggerated.

So, you're not factually wrong, but factually deceptive.

And insurers DO provide an actual service; it's called risk management, allowing people access to services they might not otherwise be able to afford.

Only the ignorant ... (Below threshold)
Only the ignorant and uneducated get their Medicare paid through the likes of Blue Cross or Blue Shield. They offer even less access to doctors and provide less coverage than Medicare. (Though supplemental insurance many seniors find beneficial.) Moreover, the market percentage of people who opt for this type of coverage is incredibly small (4-5% of the market).

Just to be clear, above you're talking about Medicare Advantage specifically, right? Because that's the "current program" that I'm talking about - the part of the larger program of Medicare. My apologies for not being more specific.

That misunderstanding may explain the next part of my argument to you, which you argue against below:

But overall, doctors bill Medicare directly; no private insurers are involved. So your "billions in cost" claim is at best insignificant and greatly exaggerated.

I'm referring to Medicare as a whole replacing the bulk of private insurance. That's where "the billions in cost" comes from. The billions that insurance companies get just for being in between patients, their doctors and their hospitals, and leeching money from all three angles.

And insurers DO provide an actual service; it's called risk management,

Which is a service easily provided by government, without taking additional money from those who can't afford it. Which is what is done in every other first world country. And again, those who prefer private insurance can go that route instead.

The jim x's of this world w... (Below threshold)
ATTILA:

The jim x's of this world won't be happy until medicare/soc sec/welfare/ totally bankrupts the country. The left will never willingly give up their gubmint nipple.

The ATTILA's of this world ... (Below threshold)

The ATTILA's of this world won't be happy until they realize their fantasyland, where societies can grow and compete without providing basic support for their least fortunate. The Right they represent will never willingly admit it's a still a nipple when *they* suck on it too.

Which is to say, they will never be happy, because their fantasyland of zero taxes = prosperity has never been real anywhere, ever.

But that's fine. It's their choice to be unhappy in fantasyland, and no one can make that choice for them.

The fantasy land of the wel... (Below threshold)
ATTILA:

The fantasy land of the welfare state is about to jump up and bite the jim x's of the world right in the butt big time.

The fantasyland of the corp... (Below threshold)

The fantasyland of the corporations-are-always-right state already jumped and bit everyone right in the butt.

That would of course be the Bush tax cuts that did nothing but squander the Clinton surplus, AND the financial deregulation which laid the groundwork for the Great Recession.

Just so ATTILA knows what to ignore because it doesn't exist in fantasyland.

You're not leading in NY 26... (Below threshold)
marco polo:

You're not leading in NY 26.

How's throwing granny off the cliff working for ya now?

OK, seriously now.... (Below threshold)

OK, seriously now.

Consider that the way you view the world causes you to picture Ryan as a great leader.

Now consider that his great leadership is already costing the GOP votes, because America doesn't want his plan. To the point where an easy GOP win became an upset.

Now add to this that Reid forced the Senate to vote on where they stand with Ryan's plan. All Democrats opposed it, and all but the most moderate GOP voted for it.

How do you think that's going to play out in the upcoming elections?

I suggest you consider that this might show your initial conceptions are innacurate.

Jim, you seem very concerne... (Below threshold)
John:

Jim, you seem very concerned about votes and elections and re-elections. The problem is the country is going broke, in a big ass hurry. Obama, Reid, Pelosi have no answer for that, none. They don't address the issue the Obama budget got ZERO votes yesterday. Your solution is to take one of the programs that's causing the problem and expanding it, how the hell does that work? So yes Paul Ryan's approach may end up being unpopular, Obama's approach wil end up breaking the bank and causing these programs to implode leaving seniors with what? Typical political approach kick the can down the road and let some other slob give the people the bad news.

John, you seem very concern... (Below threshold)

John, you seem very concerned about the country "going broke". i.e. running deficits, when Democratic and liberal policies are on the chopping block.

Paul Ryan's solution is unpopular for a very good reason - it's a terrible, no-good, nothing-solving, problem-much-worsening.

My solution is to do what every other first world country has done - which has in every single case resulted in more health care for more citizens for less cost.

If you are truly concerned about the US "going broke", then that should be a solution you support. Since there is no logical reason why something that has worked in other first-world nations won't work in the US.

Especially if you truly believe in America. I do, and I think that because we are Americans, we can probably do it much better.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy