Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Pre-Convention Election Round-UpFollow

#127 Aug 15 2012 at 2:56 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,550 posts
Smiley: lol this sitcom gets better everyday!
#128 Aug 15 2012 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,518 posts
Along with cutting funding for NPR, which saved dozens of dollars.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#129 Aug 15 2012 at 3:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Debalic wrote:
Along with cutting funding for NPR, which saved dozens of dollars.

After someone visited NPR dressed like a pimp terrorist, it was their only option!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#130 Aug 15 2012 at 9:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Um... By "exactly the same thing they're getting now" I mean...

...you mean they WON'T be getting exactly the same thing now.


They wont be getting the exact same thing if we don't implement Ryan's plan either though. We're talking 16+ years in the future here Joph. Do you receive exactly the same TV programming today as you received 16 years ago? Do you wear the exact same clothes? Do you drive the exact same car? No? Guess what? Medicare will not provide the "exact same care" in 16 years, even if we don't change a thing in terms of funding or payment methodology, just as medicare doesn't provide the "exact same care" that it did 16 years ago.


The promise that they will receive care to meet their needs by using the available technology and medicine of the day will still exist though. Which is the important part. And btw, the status quo alternative doesn't do this. Unless we change something, there will be no money to fund any where near enough care in 16 years. That's the part you seem to be unable to grasp. Unless we start cutting the costs of medicare by a smallish amount today, we'll have to cut it drastically in the future. The Dems just want to ignore this and kick the can down the road and let those folks in the future worry about it and then complain when someone suggests that maybe we should do the responsible thing *today*. Shocking, I know!


Quote:
And I see nothing guaranteeing the exact same benefits -- in fact, if everyone was required to provide the exact same benefits, everyone would pick the cheapest option and shove their underwear full of government rebate checks.


You're getting caught up on "exact same benefits". When someone bids on building a building, there are requirements. How many floors, total square footage, basic facilities involved, etc. But within those parameters, each bidder can come up with a specific design that they think is best and the cost that they can bring that to the customer. The lowest bid is the guy who can build the building that was requested at the lowest price. That doesn't mean that a higher bid might be a design that the customer might prefer, or that includes extras he might be willing to pay extra for, but all the bids must meet the criteria requirements. Absent that you can't have a "lowest bidder" competition at all.

The point is that health care insurers will do the same thing here. They'll come up with packages that offer the required coverage, but may think that they can deliver it cheaper than someone else and thus can bid lower. Others may decide to over slightly better than the requirements figuring some might choose to spend slightly ore to get their pl,ans. In any case, it's competition, which doesn't currently exist. And yes, everyone can choose the lowest plan and pocket the difference. But some might want to "spend" that difference on extras, or even spend some additional money out of their pockets on even more. You're trying to invent possible problems while ignoring the problems that this solves.

Quote:
It would be ridiculous to ever choose Option #2 (or any other) because Option #1 gets you the same coverage as Medicare AND a free government check.


Then what's your problem? Seriously.

Also, your assumption is completely wrong. So no one ever buys food at any but the lowest priced restaurants? No one ever buys anything but the base model car? No one ever buys more than basic cable? You're seriously going to argue this bizarre point? Some people might want more than the basic coverage, and might just be willing to pay for it. Why is this such a hard concept to wrap your head around. It only happens around you every single day.

Quote:
Did this little fact fly past you when you blindly assumed that everyone would be at least as good as Medicare for coverage?
The previous CNN quotee wrote:
The first is that the proposal requires that the plans be "actuarially equivalent," but not that they provide the same coverage benefits

So, no, not "exactly the same". Not remotely. And crying "semantics!" won't make it magically true.


Ok. Tell me what you think that means and how that will magically make the low bid coverage insufficient for the needs of seniors. You're just speculating, aren't you? But can't we do that right now with the existing system? I mean, we could speculate that under the Dems plan (ie: no plan at all), medicare will drop payments for any of a set of things it provides for right now. We could speculate that it wont cover any of a number of procedures, hospital costs, etc. Again, what do you think "actuarially equivalent" means in this context? And how does that compare with how medicare determines coverage over time already?

You're complaining about things that aren't really changes to the system (actually just repeating such complaints voiced by others like a writer at CNN). But what they're really complaining about, and what the real change is, is that this would introduce a little bit of competition into the system. That's what the left hates. Their greatest fear is that something like the Ryan plan will be introduced and by golly it will reduce the costs while providing the same amount of service. Because then their decades long claims that the free market doesn't work, it doesn't benefit anyone but the rich, and that only government can save us all from it. The left is terrified that the bulk of "the people" will finally really see that the socio-economic policies of the left don't work, and those of the right do. That's why the get so shrill whenever something like this is proposed. Because their entire political strength rests on a population of people convinced (aka lied to) that conservative economic ideas don't work and if sufficient evidence is presented that they do, it would spell doom for them politically.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#131 Aug 15 2012 at 10:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Ok. Tell me what you think that means and how that will magically make the low bid coverage insufficient for the needs of seniors.

You're kidding, right? I'm guessing that this is your way of hiding the fact that you have no idea what it means. That's okay, no one expects you to know more than you're told to parrot.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#132 Aug 16 2012 at 7:03 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,731 posts
I'm just glad gbaji isn't saying liberal every third word. I mean, he's using euphimisms in place of it the same way a white guy would say "n-word" and think no one knows what the intention is, but at least there is variety to it now.

Edited, Aug 16th 2012 9:04am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#133 Aug 16 2012 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Biden, Biden, Biden... and this wasn't even one of your good flubs. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#134 Aug 16 2012 at 9:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The outrage would sound more sincere coming from someone who hadn't switched to the Republican party and who wasn't actively campaigning for Obama's opponent.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#135 Aug 16 2012 at 10:10 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,731 posts
To his credit, at least he picked a moment when Biden was actually awake.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#136 Aug 16 2012 at 10:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Yeah, don't really buy the outrage at all, but I had to roll my eyes at the comment. I'm surprised it got into the speech (Biden going off script?) as it's just the type of thing an opponent likes to blow up into an issue.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#137 Aug 16 2012 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, the good news is that Ryan's selection has elevated the campaign to one of policy and ideas and not about scoring petty points over gaffes and personal attacks.

So thank God for that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#138 Aug 16 2012 at 3:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ok. Tell me what you think that means and how that will magically make the low bid coverage insufficient for the needs of seniors.

You're kidding, right? I'm guessing that this is your way of hiding the fact that you have no idea what it means. That's okay, no one expects you to know more than you're told to parrot.


That's funny given that based on your comments you're the one who doesn't know what it means. I'll give you a hint: "actuarially equivalent" does not mean "costs the same". To be fair though, based on the comment you quoted, the CNN author doesn't know what actuarial means either. And he's playing the same "exact coverage" semantic game you are. What I find amusing as **** is that you read that sentence in the CNN article and instead of dismissing it as the moronic (and intrinsically contradictory) statement it was, you quoted it as a core counterpoint as though it was some kind of brilliance in writing.


Seriously Joph. Learn what actuarial means, then think about how that fits into the context of health care delivered via insurance, and then re-read the CNN statement you quoted. It's laughable just how wrong it is. I'll even go beyond hinting (cause you'll never bother to learn what it means, much less admit how wrong you are): It means the the resulting total quantity of care the insurance company will statistically be required to pay for is equivalent to the amount of care that medicare statistically pays for over the same period of time relative to the number of people in the plan. That's what "actuarial" means. What it doesn't mean is that it will cost the same though. It means that on average, out of $5 million people, aged 65 and up, they will have to pay for X hip replacements, Y heart transplants, Z bottles of medication, etc over any given period of time. That's what the **** phrase means Joph. And that's exactly how I used it. How much it costs to provide those things, and therefor how much they need to charge based on that risk level, is variable (and what Ryan expects to reduce by introducing competition into the equation).


I'll ask again: What do you think it means? What do you think that the CNN author thought it meant when he wrote that? Because a statement like 'The first is that the proposal requires that the plans be "actuarially equivalent," but not that they provide the same coverage benefits' is either blatantly false *or* the person making the statement is taking extreme liberties with the phrase "same coverage benefits".

Edited, Aug 16th 2012 3:00pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#139 Aug 16 2012 at 4:23 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Here... learn to read: http://www.actuary.org/pdf/practnotes/health_partd_mar08.pdf

While the scope of the document is limited to select parts of Medicare, the gist of it may help you out.

Edited, Aug 16th 2012 5:24pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#140 Aug 16 2012 at 4:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Here... learn to read: http://www.actuary.org/pdf/practnotes/health_partd_mar08.pdf

While the scope of the document is limited to select parts of Medicare, the gist of it may help you out.


And? Didn't you teachers teach you that just pointing to a source doesn't mean anything? What about the information in that link supports your claim?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#141 Aug 16 2012 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Have you read through it yet?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#142 Aug 16 2012 at 6:09 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Have you read through it yet?


Wait!? So I'm supposed to read through it in order to show you how it doesn't support your point at all? It's your **** link Joph. Why don't you actually, you now.. read it and then tell us how it magically supports this claim that because the Ryan proposal only requires that care be actuarially equivalent, that this means that the low bid can just provide a bottle of generic painkillers and a 20% off casket gift certificate and call it a day.

Let's not forget that your claim is that the total quantity of care provided will not have to be equivalent to medicare, and therefore could be significantly less under the Ryan plan. Your argument in support of this claim is that the phrase "actuarially equivalent" doesn't mean that people get the "exact same care". Ignoring the absurd interpretation of that phrase (no two people get the "exact same care" from medicare today, right), we can assume you really mean that the coverage will not be equivalent.

Now show how this is really going to be the case. It's your claim Joph. Why not at least attempt to back it up?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#143 Aug 16 2012 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Ok, so you didn't read it. That's fine, but given that you've gotten so much wrong already, I can't see any value in continuing a conversation with one so willfully ignorant.

Also, you're the one who said "exactly the same thing". The fact that now you need to spin and jump up and down and holler about me using the phrase is pretty funny and all but I wouldn't think you'd want to keep using it as an argument. Unless your argument is not to take you seriously since you throw a giant fit when someone quotes you.

This must be one of those Republican moments like Senator Kyl has... "Not intended to be a factual statement".

Edited, Aug 16th 2012 7:15pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#144 Aug 16 2012 at 6:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Ok, so you didn't read it. That's fine, but given that you've gotten so much wrong already, I can't see any value in continuing a conversation with one so willfully ignorant.


Oh. I read it. Even the methodology section where it precisely spells out how you are wrong. I keep hoping that you'll actually read it and figure it out for yourself though.

Quote:
Also, you're the one who said "exactly the same thing".


I said they'd get the "exact same thing" (meaning health coverage equivalent to what they have now). You're the one trying to play semantic games with that statement. Yes Joph. It's going to be named something else, so it's not going to be exactly the same thing. And obviously, the intent is to introduce competition, so that prices will go down, so it wont be exactly the same in that respect either. But only a complete moron would interpret my statement in such a way as to insist that any slight difference invalidates it.


The bidding plans will have to provide the same coverage that medicare does. That is the "exact same thing" I was referring to. Thus, claims that Ryan's plan will somehow ***** over seniors are simply false. Worse case, nothing improves. Reasonable case, costs decrease by 10% a year. Best case, we find that medicare really is driving health care costs up even more than we think and it turns out that we can actually provide that care for 40-50% less than it currently costs us.


Quote:
The fact that now you need to spin and jump up and down and holler about me using the phrase is pretty funny and all but I wouldn't think you'd want to keep using it as an argument. Unless your argument is not to take you seriously since you throw a giant fit when someone quotes you.


You're going to a great lengths to avoid actually telling us how the link you provided supports your claim that coverage that is "actuarially equivalent" wont provide the "same coverage benefits". That's kind of a core part of your argument, isn't it? You'd think you'd at least attempt to defend it.

Quote:
This must be one of those Republican moments like Senator Kyl has... "Not intended to be a factual statement".


Uh... You're attacking me on a semantic issue that doesn't affect my argument at all. Meanwhile, you've made a statement which is factually incorrect and which forms the core of your position, and are doing everything you can to avoid facing that. Let's not forget that you are the one who is claiming that the plans bid on under the Ryan proposal will be able to offer less coverage than medicare. Yet the only support you've give for this claim is to insist that "actuarially equivalent" doesn't mean that the plan will have to provide the same benefit.

But it does, right? I mean, that's what the term actually means. It's how it's used in the Medicare plan D expansion document you provided. And that's what's so funny about this (and presumably why you're unwilling to actually talk about the issue itself).
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#145 Aug 16 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Oh. I read it. Even the methodology section where it precisely spells out how you are wrong. I keep hoping that you'll actually read it and figure it out for yourself though.

Ok, so do share. Quote precisely where it says I'm wrong.

Edited, Aug 16th 2012 8:03pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#146 Aug 16 2012 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,720 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Oh. I read it. Even the methodology section where it precisely spells out how you are wrong. I keep hoping that you'll actually read it and figure it out for yourself though.

Ok, so do share. Quote precisely where it says I'm wrong.

Edited, Aug 16th 2012 8:03pm by Jophiel

This isn't even remotely entertaining. If either one of you had actually read it, you should quote it and make your point already. This little game of NO U is just toddler'ish.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#147 Aug 16 2012 at 7:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I've walked Gbaji by hand through legislation and government documents before just to have him cover his eyes and keep chanting "No". I've no interest in doing it again.

You're certainly under no obligation to read the thread though. I wouldn't want you to feel otherwise.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#148 Aug 16 2012 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,882 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Oh. I read it. Even the methodology section where it precisely spells out how you are wrong. I keep hoping that you'll actually read it and figure it out for yourself though.

Ok, so do share. Quote precisely where it says I'm wrong.

Edited, Aug 16th 2012 8:03pm by Jophiel

This isn't even remotely entertaining. If either one of you had actually read it, you should quote it and make your point already. This little game of NO U is just toddler'ish.

Had you actually read it, you'd know it proves you are actually the toddler'ish one.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#149 Aug 16 2012 at 7:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
TirithRR wrote:
Had you actually read it, you'd know it proves you are actually the toddler'ish one.

It proves your mom is toddler'ish Smiley: mad
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#150 Aug 16 2012 at 7:21 PM Rating: Good
******
49,731 posts
Your toddler is mom'ish.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#151 Aug 16 2012 at 7:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,917 posts
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the person who presents a link as support for his position should actually provide something from the link that actually, you know... supports his position. It's Joph's link. I assume there must have been some reason he linked it and only he can tell us what that is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 74 All times are in CDT
Kavekkk, Anonymous Guests (73)