Dems Opposing Medicare Bill=Stupid As Dirt

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
This needs to be discussed. Not that I mind, but how can the Democrats be stupid enough to oppose this bill? Surely, we all can see that if this passes (and it looks to) the Republicans are going to beat them to death with the issue during next year's elections.



Forget for a moment about any realistic objections to the bill. That's not the point. The AARP has endorsed the bill...and the Dems are going to come out against it? Please, someone pinch me.



I know there are serious issues with the bill for some of you...and I agree. But, politically speaking, can they be serious?
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 62
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    According to Paul Krugman, the Medicare Bill is A Trojan Horse for all sorts of bad things.
    Quote:

    What's going on? Why, bait and switch, of course. Few politicians want to be seen opposing a bill that finally provides retirees with prescription drug coverage. That makes a prescription drug bill a perfect vehicle for smuggling in provisions that sound as if they have something to do with improving Medicare, yet are actually designed to undermine it.



  • Reply 2 of 62
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    The AARP has endorsed the bill...and the Dems are going to come out against it? Please, someone pinch me.



    The AARP endorsement is a very big deal. But it looks as if the organization can literally profit from the bill. The Center for American Progress evaluates AARP's motivations:
    Quote:

    The American Association of Retired Persons this week endorsed the Medicare bill, raising questions about why the organization would ignore its previous conditions. A look into the organization's business practices, though, offers some perspective. As reported by many news organizations, AARP receives about $100 million annually in health insurance sales ? something sure to be enriched with the new bill. In a 2/19/02 Newsday article, critics even suggested that "AARP's substantial profits from the sales of Medigap and other insurance policies, drug company advertising in its magazines and investment schemes conflict with its interests on behalf of seniors." At that time, AARP President William Novelli, who also wrote the laudatory preface to Newt Gingrich's book on health care, "acknowledged complaints from members that AARP had been too timid in the political battles to defend Medicare." Having embraced the bill, the group will use some of that health insurance/drug industry revenue to finance a $7 million ad campaign to support the Medicare legislation.



    AARP responds to critics with Why AARP Says "Yes" to the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill. I'm scratching my head too.
  • Reply 3 of 62
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    According to Paul Krugman, the Medicare Bill is A Trojan Horse for all sorts of bad things.





    Wasn't he an advisor for Enron? Do we care what he has to say?
  • Reply 4 of 62
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    Wasn't he an advisor for Enron? Do we care what he has to say?



    Paul Krugman was an advisor for Enron. You can read about in what capacity he served them here. Now how that relates to his op-ed column on the current Medicare Bill is beyond my grasp. But what Krugman says is becoming universal among critics, including my home newspaper, The Scranton Times. In today's editorial, it warns about A Fundamental Shift in Medicare:
    Quote:

    In effect, backers of this bill are using short-term inducements in order to buy sweeping, long-term changes in the Medicare program. Those changes will move the government away from Medicare's original promise to provide basic health insurance for every older American. It will move the program away from social insurance and toward commercial insurance.



  • Reply 5 of 62
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    It probably is stupid politically to oppose this.



    But is it amazing to anyone else that we have completely and utterly given up any semblance of controlling government spending and worrying about paying-as-you-go?



    I'd personally rather that we dumped Medicare and Medicaid completely and just collected enough taxes to pay for universal coverage. I think it would help the economy because businesses wouldn't have to pay for it anymore, it would reduce the hellish complexity that exists now, and it would probably ultimately cost less than what we're doing now.
  • Reply 6 of 62
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    BRussell, you may be right. Costs in Canada are lower because paperwork is all but removed from the system. Here something like 25% of HMO costs are paperwork. That's useless. I read that a few years ago so maybe they've improved, but in Canada it was 2%. I have a feeling HMOs haven't gotten that efficient.
  • Reply 7 of 62
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    the AARP is endorsing the bill because a.) they actually get a significant amount out of its passage and b.) if you play the odds, g.w. will be back in office for another four years, so this may be the last time a deal comes along like this for a while, since it won't be necessary for another national election fodder.
  • Reply 8 of 62
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    you know, having come from canada (and having just had my wife in the hospital for a FAT bill after all was said and done), i definitely prefer the canadian way of doing things from a cost and efficiency standpoint.



    but i just do not think universal health care will EVER happen in the u.s. health insurance companies are such inertial juggernauts, and i have to think their elimination would cause near-catastrophic consequences, or such a ridiculous amount of legislation to make sure the money currently holed up with private companies doesn't disappear that it would take a massive new industry just to manage the transition.



    the answer to it all? marry canadian. dual-citizenship all the way around, and get all the benefits of both sides of the border. they're really not bad, once you get to know them. and get past the "america the bully" they like to shout in your face at the drop of a hat. some of 'em are even hot.
  • Reply 9 of 62
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rok

    the AARP is endorsing the bill because a.) they actually get a significant amount out of its passage and b.) if you play the odds, g.w. will be back in office for another four years, so this may be the last time a deal comes along like this for a while, since it won't be necessary for another national election fodder.



    How?
  • Reply 10 of 62
    Kenneth Lay of ENRON fame is a good buddy of G-Dub... should we ignore everything the President says? Major campaign contributor... party of the behind closed doors meetings with Cheney...



    We really should look into GW's raltionship with Enron... wasn't the Ranger's Field called Enron Park or something similar for a while?



    It's funny when a Republican tries to use Enron against an economist.
  • Reply 11 of 62
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    Kenneth Lay of ENRON fame is a good buddy of G-Dub... should we ignore everything the President says? Major campaign contributor... party of the behind closed doors meetings with Cheney...



    We really should look into GW's raltionship with Enron... wasn't the Ranger's Field called Enron Park or something similar for a while?



    It's funny when a Republican tries to use Enron against an economist.




    Not Exactly



    Fellows
  • Reply 12 of 62
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    This needs to be discussed. Not that I mind, but how can the Democrats be stupid enough to oppose this bill? Surely, we all can see that if this passes (and it looks to) the Republicans are going to beat them to death with the issue during next year's elections.



    Forget for a moment about any realistic objections to the bill. That's not the point. The AARP has endorsed the bill...and the Dems are going to come out against it? Please, someone pinch me.



    I know there are serious issues with the bill for some of you...and I agree. But, politically speaking, can they be serious?




    How can you expect anybody to take you seriously with a thread title like that, and an opening statement like this?
  • Reply 13 of 62
    nofeernofeer Posts: 2,422member
    makes no sense, since AARP has endorced the plan, dems have been trying to get the seniors through fear and misery predictions, with AARP behind the pres plan what are the dems agenda for scaring the seniors to their side---misinformation and create confusion about the plan.....predictions of doom and gloom. whether you're a dem or rep, the seniors need the legislature to get off there protected butts and help them out. give the seniors help
  • Reply 14 of 62
    The seniors seemed to be pretty pissed off without any coaxing.



    http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswi...tr1154283.html



    Angry and wet, AARP members try to burn cards

    Reuters, 11.19.03, 6:26 PM ET

    By Joanne Kenen



    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Members of the AARP, the influential lobbying group for the elderly, tried in vain to burn their membership cards Wednesday to protest against the group's endorsement of the Republican Medicare bill.



    A few dozen people in their 50s and 60s gathered in the rain outside the AARP's headquarters in downtown Washington and tried to burn their cards, but cut them up instead when the plastic coating would not catch fire.



    "I'm a healthy senior representing a lot of unhealthy seniors," said Genevieve Cervera, 64, part of the group bused in from several northeastern states for the protest, with its draft-card burning echo of the Vietnam era.



    Opponents of the legislation say its drug benefit is too skimpy and its market-oriented reforms will damage Medicare.
  • Reply 15 of 62
    Oh and I noticed this today.



    http://www.thehill.com/news/111903/nominee.aspx



    In a twist, GOP blocks Bush nominee

    By Geoff Earle



    The Senate is blocking another of President Bush?s judicial nominees ? but this time it?s Republicans and not Democrats playing the role of obstructionists.



    Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) last week sought unanimous consent to take up the nomination of Leon Holmes to a seat on the U.S. District Court in Arkansas.



    Pryor made the request after the Judiciary Committee reported Holmes?s nomination without recommendation on a party-line vote, meaning the panel took no position on whether he should be confirmed by the full Senate.



    But at least four centrist Republicans expressed doubts about Holmes, based on statements culled from some of his writings. The four are Arlen Specter (Pa.), Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (Maine), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas).



    Among Holmes?s judicial writings that have provoked controversy was one comment relating to a rape exception for a constitutional amendment banning abortion. He called the issue a ?red herring? because ?conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.?



    Specter, who sits in on the meetings in which GOP leaders plot strategies to move judicial nominations, generally opposes restrictions on abortion rights and often parts with party leaders on social issues. He is being challenged in a primary election by conservative Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).



    Hutchison, noting that Senate Republicans just finished a futile marathon anti-filibuster effort to overcome Democratic opposition to six Bush nominees to federal appellate courts, said, ?I will not ever stop a vote from coming to the floor. That?s what we talked about for 36 hours last week.?



    Pryor, who once practiced law with Holmes, a Republican, in Little Rock, noted that he has been ?languishing? on the Senate?s calendar for more than six months. Pryor said he is ?perplexed? as to why Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) hasn?t scheduled a floor vote on the nomination.







    THOSE DAMN OBSTRUCTIONIST REPUBLICANS! hehe
  • Reply 16 of 62
    Stupid as sand Republicans too?



    http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/...1114_1726.html



    WASHINGTON Nov. 14 ? Two Republican senators are seeking to shelter their states from part of an emerging Medicare bill, fearing their constituents could face higher premiums because of competition between traditional coverage and new private health plans for seniors, officials said Friday.



    While conservatives in the House push for as much competition as possible, GOP Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania have lobbied Republican leaders about the impact back home. Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona has expressed similar concerns, according to several officials.



    "I ... strongly protest the possible use of my constituents as a testing ground for premium support," Specter wrote top Republicans recently. He noted that Pittsburgh and Johnstown in his state meet the criteria for an experimental program under discussion, and added that those "who are negatively affected by this proposed demonstration must be indemnified."
  • Reply 17 of 62
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Click here to send a message to Congress! (Campaign for America's Future)



    My letter was sent to Sen. Specter, Sen. Santorum, and Rep. Kanjorski.
  • Reply 18 of 62
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,035member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Argento

    How can you expect anybody to take you seriously with a thread title like that, and an opening statement like this?



    And how can I take you seriously with you missing the point like this? Surely, you can see the possible political consequences for the Dems opposing this AS A PARTY with all their will.



    Once again, I am NOT attempting to evaluate the bill itself. It's not a personalized argument. I'm not making a judgement about the bill. Not at all. Separate youselves for a moment from your personal feelings about the bill and think about the overall political fallout for opposing it.



    And Shawn, your comments (or Krugman's) may be accurate. I'm not arguing that. Now though, all of a sudden the Democrats are taking the moral high ground and fighting for wha they believe in? Is that what you're saying?



    And btw, Krugman is one of the most left-wing columnists in America. He's insane.



    And we end with this:



    Quote:

    But what Krugman says is becoming universal among critics, including my home newspaper, The Scranton Times.







    I love how you just make shit up like that. "Universal"? Not even among "critics"....who do not comprise everyone, for your information.



    Any Democrat on this board should be very concerned right now for his party. If what is happening to the Dems now was happening to the Republicans, I'd be none too happy. The party has lost the White House, Congress, the majority of governorships, state bicameral legislatures, and suffered major defeats in the 2002 mid-terms. Then there was the severity of the Gray Davis defeat, with over 60% of California voting Republican. Now, we have the party that caved-in on the war resolution because they were scared of opposing it... coming out and opposing Medicare of all things? That's how it's going to play in the press.



    Houston, we have a problem.
  • Reply 19 of 62
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,035member
    I'd like to follow up by saying I am continually amazed by those of you who identify yourself as Dems not being able to recognize the problem.



    I suppose it's fun and easy to dismiss my attacks on the party because I'm a conservative. What you don't understand is that I'd love to see a viable Democratic party. But it's becoming less and less so...and mostly because of its leadership (McCauliffe, Pelosi, Gephardt, Kennedy, et al).



    Steps to fixing a problem:



    1) Admit there IS a problem. Some of you can't even do that.

    2) Identify the problem. The leadership has done #1, but not this.

    3) Take steps to change what is contributing to the problem itself.



    Almost NO ONE has done #3, save Zel Miller perhaps. The party is too Left for mainstream America, weak on national security, and doesn't present any ideas...just attacks. It also still favors high taxes and class warfare. Clinton's soccer moms are jumping ship, folks.



    Instead of sitting back and praying to God that the Dems beat the evil Bushies, why don't you try and do something about the utterly incompetent leadership of your party?
  • Reply 20 of 62
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    And Shawn, your comments (or Krugman's) may be accurate. I'm not arguing that. Now though, all of a sudden the Democrats are taking the moral high ground and fighting for wha they believe in? Is that what you're saying?



    It's about time. The Democrats have been a spineless bunch for years.
Sign In or Register to comment.