USA Politics

Interesting tidbit from politico

Should Obama win reelection next year, Americans would make not only his day but history as well: It would be the first time in 200 years — since Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe — that the United States has elected three two-term presidents in a row.
 
That is a little surprising, I would think though that she polls better than most other possible GOP candidates and is probably their best shot.  I do not think Djou is planning on running.
 
It looks like her numbers were pretty poor when she left office, and that probably hurts her. She can still win, I think, but I wonder if those sorts of numbers will dissuade her. Internal polling may show her as more favourable, but PPP is a pretty darn good polling station, even if they are theoretically aligned with the Democrats.
 
Hawaii would be an uphill battle, my thought is she is the only candidate (unless there is some darkhorse local with a bunch of cash that I do not know) that can make that race competitive.  She was elected state wide twice which counts for something.  If anything, the Dems would have to take her seriously  (ie spend money) versus most anyone else.
 
The Paul Ryan Medicare overhaul is amazing. I really want to say that I think he is looking at things from a unique aspect. He's taken what the Democrats did with regular health care and extended it to the seniors of the country. In essence, I think the concept is correct: if the USA chooses to subsidize private medical care and require buying in, this behaviour should be continued throughout someone's life. I haven't read the nitty-gritty yet, and I am very sure that there will be aspects I disagree with, but it is really a mature plan.

He's actually saying to people, "This is gonna suck for awhile. But we can make it work." I'm interested to see how the Democrats will respond.
 
LooseCannon said:
The Paul Ryan Medicare overhaul is amazing. I really want to say that I think he is looking at things from a unique aspect. He's taken what the Democrats did with regular health care and extended it to the seniors of the country. In essence, I think the concept is correct: if the USA chooses to subsidize private medical care and require buying in, this behaviour should be continued throughout someone's life. I haven't read the nitty-gritty yet, and I am very sure that there will be aspects I disagree with, but it is really a mature plan.

He's actually saying to people, "This is gonna suck for awhile. But we can make it work." I'm interested to see how the Democrats will respond.
Click to expand...


I have not read through it yet, but have followed Ryan for a while.  He does not just throw things out there for sound bites, his positions are usually well thought out and have the goal of fixing a problem versus delaying it.  Agree with him or not, he is the type of politician we need.  Sadly, the debate will come down to the usually sniping.
 
I've read more into it. The idea is a good one, the execution less so, but it's a good start point. I mean...if you're going to do a national health care system based on making people buy insurance (and helping them buy it), why also have a national single-payer system? Pick one or the other, you know?
 
Because we have a for profit healthcare system. Everyone wants to make as much money as they can. Doctors, healthcare facilities, pharmacuetical companies, medical research & development companies and health care insurance companies want to make as much money as they can. All of the groups I've listed whine and cry about how much they are not making. The doctors are the ones I feel bad for because they probably don't make as much as they used to, with the rise in malpractice premiums, cuts in payments and reimbursements, long term student loan payments, plus having to run a buisiness themselves, either in a solo or group practice, doctors really are'nt making the money they should.

The Federal Government's healthcare law is going to help subsidize the industry by helping lower income people buy private insurance. That in of itself explains your question LC. Federal tax dollars going into the hands of a private company. Everyone wants a piece of the Federal Pie. As far as the unconstitutional mandates and the penalty, I am wondering if it would be cheaper for someone who is young, single and healthy, to pay the penalty than to buy the insurance?
 
Hopefully not.

The way regulated healthcare industries are supposed to work is within a certain amount of profit based on signup. IE, a health care company makes a small amount of profit that can only be increased by offering a wider amount of coverage, rather than exploiting groups for as much as they can. That's how it works in Switzerland.

Right now, "Obamacare" (I HATE this label) requires Americans to get insurance. Most Americans already do, but those who don't will have to get it or get fined. The reason is to ensure people are buying in to the insurance, otherwise, the companies aren't going to go along. It doesn't work poorly if it's very well regulated. It would have been much better with tort reform.

Medicare is single-payer insurance. If you think single-payer is worse, then it's pretty clear Medicare needs to go the way of the dodo. I don't think that, I think single-payer is superior. However, the USA has to pick its own path, and a regulated industry is the current path. Having both? Well, you might as well just be paying twice for everything.

The Ryan budget is extremely optimistic in all its estimations, including a 4% drop in unemployment this year. It is written on dreams in a lot of cases, but I don't think it is intended to be passed in this version. It's meant to start a debate. Hopefully we see some movement, because Medicare does need to be reworked, at the least.
 
I have some thoughts on insurance, but do not have time to type them out right now .... found this on thehill.com , which is a nice summary of Ryan's proposals, which I pretty much agree with and find amusing the barbs that are being thrown at this already

Here are the details of Ryan’s blueprint:

• Spending caps: Establishes a binding cap on all spending to bring spending down to 20 percent of gross domestic product from the current level of 24 percent.

• Medicare: This part of the proposal is generating the most news — and controversy. It is based on the plan Ryan introduced with former Clinton budget director Alice Rivlin in November. Seniors after 2021 would choose from a “selection of guaranteed health coverage options” and receive government support payments to purchase coverage. Ryan calls it “premium support,” while Democrats label it a voucher system. Ryan argues that under a true voucher system, seniors would be using the government premium support in the open market, rather than under a set group of plans regulated by the government. The government support is capped, leading liberals to argue that if healthcare costs rise dramatically, seniors will be forced to make up the difference.

• Medicaid: The budget converts Medicaid to a block-grant system where the federal share of the program is capped. The GOP argues that giving states greater flexibility to administer the program and reducing red tape will lead to better care for patients. Liberals argue that states, constrained by balanced-budget amendments, will simply have to cut back on Medicaid. Cuts to Medicare, compared to the status quo, total $771 billion over 10 years.

• Social Security: The plan contains a trigger whereby once the Board of Trustees certifies that the program will not be solvent, the president must submit a reform plan to Congress. The legislation is subject to fast-track procedures and floor consideration within 60 days.

• Defense: The budget leaves it relatively untouched. Inefficiencies are reduced by $178 billion.

• Federal workforce: Ryan would reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent over three years through attrition and put in place a five-year pay freeze that also freezes step increases.

• Food stamps and housing aid: Converts food stamps to a block grant and makes it more contingent on work or job training. Housing aid is capped and also linked to work.

•Job Training: Ends dozens of competing programs to establish “career scholarships” program. Reduces Pell Grants to lower “tuition inflation.”

• Agriculture: Goes after direct farm payments and crop insurance, to save $30 billion. Ryan received immediate pushback from commodity lobbyists who are decrying the 20 percent cut to agriculture spending over 10 years. In a statement, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) emphasized that his committee, not Ryan, will be writing the 2012 farm bill.

• Energy: Assumes revenue from opening up drilling in Alaska, the Rockies and along the Gulf Coast. Ends subsidies for energy technologies the market does not support.

• R&D: Ends subsidies for applied research, while retaining some for basic research.

• Obama’s healthcare reform law: The single biggest savings item in the budget is the repeal of the healthcare reform law. The budget estimates this saves $1.4 trillion over 10 years. Democrats note that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that repealing healthcare reform would add $230 billion to the deficit.  The GOP is proposing to keep cuts to Medicare that passed as part of Obama’s bill, but to eliminate all spending associated with the program.

• Tax reform: Lowers the top individual and corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent by eliminating $1 trillion in annual tax earmarks. This is a major difference from the fiscal commission, which used such streamlining to raise revenue to reduce the deficit.

• Waste: Retains the ban on earmarks and goes after $100 billion in savings identified in a recent Government Accountability Office report on duplicative programs.
 
Yes he can! Obama is joining the fight vs the Republicans -who have their noses way too deep in the ass of the Tea Party- and their insane cutting plans. Time to stand up against the bullshit.

"This is not a vision of the America I know," he said.

"They want to give people like me a $200,000 tax cut that's paid for by asking 33 seniors to each pay $6,000 more in health costs? That's not right, and it's not going to happen as long as I'm president.

"The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America.

"There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13067836
 
We'll see how it shakes out .. let the class warfare begin!

Until evey dime that does not need to be spent is not being spent, I really have a huge problem with raising the taxes on anyone.  Many of "people like me" that earn over $200K are actually small  businesses under the tax code, rasing taxes on them is a really bad idea.
 
I think letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a good idea and start. US taxes are the lowest they've been in a very, very long time; for the expenditures the public demands (seriously, try to cut Medicare, see what happens), the taxes need to be higher.

I've looked over the budget a few times these past few years, and while I agree there is some waste, there is not really 1.5 t. in waste, unless you really do consider Medicare waste. I don't. Wasteful in spots, sure, but the idea of removing the whole thing? No. Revenue has to increase, and sometimes you have to increase taxes to increase revenue.

Cutting taxes doesn't really work to increase revenues. Reagan cut taxes and had to raise them several times. Both Bush and Obama have only cut taxes.
 
LooseCannon said:
I think letting the Bush tax cuts expire is a good idea and start. US taxes are the lowest they've been in a very, very long time; for the expenditures the public demands (seriously, try to cut Medicare, see what happens), the taxes need to be higher.

I've looked over the budget a few times these past few years, and while I agree there is some waste, there is not really 1.5 t. in waste, unless you really do consider Medicare waste. I don't. Wasteful in spots, sure, but the idea of removing the whole thing? No. Revenue has to increase, and sometimes you have to increase taxes to increase revenue.

Cutting taxes doesn't really work to increase revenues. Reagan cut taxes and had to raise them several times. Both Bush and Obama have only cut taxes.
Click to expand...

I really do not think tax rasing will go very far in this Congress nor in the next one.  I suspect the focus on the next few years will be what to cut and how to cut it.  I doubt anyone expects a balanced budget in the next several years, but the gap needs to start to close.
 
I read a really interesting thing that suggested that as long as Congress does nothing, the budget will balance as the wars in Afghanistan/Iraq end, Obamacare starts to reduce the deficit as projected by the CBO, the Bush tax cuts hit their sunset in 2012 as expected, and the recovery continues. Thought that was an interesting suggestion.

I don't think tax hikes will happen. I think the Bush tax cuts will end, as they were intended to end when 2012 ends. Obama will still be the president then regardless and will likely veto any attempts to pass an extension. Seems the Dems are gonna dig in their heels on this one.
 
LooseCannon said:
I read a really interesting thing that suggested that as long as Congress does nothing, the budget will balance as the wars in Afghanistan/Iraq end, Obamacare starts to reduce the deficit as projected by the CBO, the Bush tax cuts hit their sunset in 2012 as expected, and the recovery continues. Thought that was an interesting suggestion.

I don't think tax hikes will happen. I think the Bush tax cuts will end, as they were intended to end when 2012 ends. Obama will still be the president then regardless and will likely veto any attempts to pass an extension. Seems the Dems are gonna dig in their heels on this one.
Click to expand...

I saw that, but that assumed no annual fix to the AMT which would effectively raise taxes pretty greatly on many people making $50K or more.  I also really question the CBO numbers, their long term projecting does not always have the greatest track record (which is expected as there are many factors which are guesses.)
 
Debt ceiling battle coming up. I think for all their rhetoric, the Republicans will cave. They will go after funding for Planned Parenthood and NPR again and probably will get it. I think it is bullshit because it is not addressing the problems the country is having. They need to cut spending, but they are going to have to raise some taxes. It is the only realistic way to even begin to deal with this giant clusterfuck. Government should start contraction and they could do it by way of attrition. It is all a big fucking joke. Democrats and Republicans are the opposite sides of the same coin.
 
I agree, cutting spending is great, but this does not get solved without more structural changes in the budgeting process/how we fund things and determine what we really should fund.  As one Senator said, $1.5T in the hole is not really all that much better than a $1.6T in the hole.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top