-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2011: Of Weiners, Boehners, Santorum, and Teabags
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
PhoenixDark
Banned
Diablos said:
Well she's half right then.
Souldriver
Member
That's surprising.Cubsfan23 said:
The heavy lifting in that report is from eliminating tax deductions. Not hard to see how that plays out. Eliminating tax expenditures -> Raising taxes -> dead on arrival in republican house.ToxicAdam said:
ToxicAdam said:
For all interested, awesome This American Life on this subject:
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/440/game-changer
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
PhoenixDark said:
Red Meat. A.K.A. his real policy beliefs.
Have I mentioned that ProPublica is incredibly awesome?besada said:
Yes. A lone-wolf poster wandered in here with the same inane drivel. He regurgitated the erroneous claim that Obama dropped $800 million on a trip to India. Of course, the claim was painfully preposterous. So we promptly refudiated him, and he has not poked around here since.Loudninja said:
jamesinclair
Banned
TacticalFox88 said:
This is fantastic.
I hope he holds the course when the hurricane bill comes in.
Black Republican
Member
"what happened to the brave jews?" - paul mooneyAveron said:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Averon said:
Yep. Same dude.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Obama couldn't smack down a first grader.Averon said:
I think the true story is that Obama got up and left the room like a child taking his ball away.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
The cost of raising Medicare's eligibility age from 65 to 67 years old.
By Sarah Kliff
Raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 from 65 would cost states and private payers about twice as much as it would save the federal government, according to this graph from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Paul Van de Water. The change would net the federal government $5.7 billion in savings if enacted in 2014. But it would also increase health care costs for many other health care payers, to the tune of $11.4 billion. You can see how that breaks down above.
Its little surprise that raising the Medicare eligibility age would shift costs to the private sector; someone would still foot these health bills. But how does the change suddenly double the cost of caring for the same group of seniors? That price difference likely stems from Medicares efficiency as a health delivery system. The program has consistently seen lower cost growth than private insurance plans.
As Ive written previously, raising the Medicare eligibility age would also be a blow to health reforms insurance exchanges, causing premiums there to rise. And heres more from Van de Water, who draws largely on a Kaiser Family Foundation report last month, on what else it would do:
●65- and 66-year-olds would face higher out-of-pocket health care costs, on average. Two-thirds of this group 3.3 million people would face an average of $2,200 more each year in premiums and cost-sharing charges.
●State Medicaid costs would rise as some of those who lost Medicare coverage (those with the lowest incomes) would obtain coverage through Medicaid instead.
●Employer costs would rise as more 65- and 66-year-olds whose employers offered coverage to their retirees received primary coverage through their employer rather than Medicare.
●All Medicare beneficiaries would pay higher premiums because the removal of 65- and 66-year-olds, who are typically healthier than the overall Medicare beneficiary population, would leave the Medicare beneficiary population costlier, on average, to cover.
######################
Great points, but what this really points to is that the Medicare age actually should have been lowered to 55 (if not lower).
This country takes so long to progress when the facts are so clear.
It was reported by multiple people that it was the GOP that walked away. Stop lying to yourself. It's not healthy.
By Sarah Kliff
Raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 from 65 would cost states and private payers about twice as much as it would save the federal government, according to this graph from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Paul Van de Water. The change would net the federal government $5.7 billion in savings if enacted in 2014. But it would also increase health care costs for many other health care payers, to the tune of $11.4 billion. You can see how that breaks down above.
Its little surprise that raising the Medicare eligibility age would shift costs to the private sector; someone would still foot these health bills. But how does the change suddenly double the cost of caring for the same group of seniors? That price difference likely stems from Medicares efficiency as a health delivery system. The program has consistently seen lower cost growth than private insurance plans.
As Ive written previously, raising the Medicare eligibility age would also be a blow to health reforms insurance exchanges, causing premiums there to rise. And heres more from Van de Water, who draws largely on a Kaiser Family Foundation report last month, on what else it would do:
●65- and 66-year-olds would face higher out-of-pocket health care costs, on average. Two-thirds of this group 3.3 million people would face an average of $2,200 more each year in premiums and cost-sharing charges.
●State Medicaid costs would rise as some of those who lost Medicare coverage (those with the lowest incomes) would obtain coverage through Medicaid instead.
●Employer costs would rise as more 65- and 66-year-olds whose employers offered coverage to their retirees received primary coverage through their employer rather than Medicare.
●All Medicare beneficiaries would pay higher premiums because the removal of 65- and 66-year-olds, who are typically healthier than the overall Medicare beneficiary population, would leave the Medicare beneficiary population costlier, on average, to cover.
######################
Great points, but what this really points to is that the Medicare age actually should have been lowered to 55 (if not lower).
This country takes so long to progress when the facts are so clear.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
It was reported by multiple people that it was the GOP that walked away. Stop lying to yourself. It's not healthy.
RustyNails
Member
He was also the same guy Obama chided during the healthcare summit for using props.Averon said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuygCN_tq8k&feature=player_embedded
Obama looked so much younger just 1 year ago :'(
brucewaynegretzky
Member
So I just saw an online ad soliciting people to sign a "right to work" petition. WTF? Who in their right mind signs a "right to work" petition. Unless you are high level management there is absolutely no reason to sign something like that. Who actually sees that and says "Yes I would like to sign away protections that I currently have and make myself worse off than I am right now."? What is this shit? I actually understand the premise behind "right to work" and I don't think its completely insane from a policy standpoint, though I certainly don't agree with it. What I don't understand is why any individual employee would sign it. There is absolutely ZERO incentive to do that. WTF.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Diablos said:
I doubt he'll be running on his looks. Although to be fair, it's not like he can run on his record either.
empty vessel
Member
mckmas8808 said:
Yes, with "lower" (and, specifically, 0) being the correct age. This data reveals the obvious, and what anybody who knows anything about health care already knows. That the more people on Medicare, the cheaper health care is (about half as much). This aligns perfectly with that knowledge.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
You're wrong. But who really cares.mckmas8808 said:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20079304-503544.html
Souldriver
Member
PhoenixDark said:
Seriously. I think some people should lean back for a second and realize the election is still 15 months away, and that much can happen until then. Some are already 100% sure of Obama's failure or re-election, and are hyperbolic, fatalistic or cynic about it.
empty vessel
Member
eznark said:
Goddamn, Kinky Friedman is a moron.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
ToxicAdam said:
And a real American is a cowboy.
Vicetrailia
Member
TacticalFox88 said:
Let's start cutting by getting rid of his worthless house seat.
That's bullshit.eznark said:
He's not more famous than Alan Veingrad.
Dude Abides
Banned
eznark said:
eudaemonic
Member
Gruco said:
This episode made me so angry... although I was already worked up over the idea that fracking and the earthquake in Colorado are related. But that's for another thread.
ToxicAdam said:
Was Joplin's disaster aid part of the debt ceiling deal? Nope. Cantor pulled that shit there as well.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Bulbo Urethral Baggins said:
Yeah my bad. I was thinking about the GOP walking away from the larger deficit cutting deal.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
eudaemonic said:
Hold on dude. No way that's true. I don't know the science behind that, but it just sounds off.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Mitt Romney Backs Away From Climate Change
Evan McMorris-Santoro | August 25, 2011, 8:58AM
Staring down a new rival who believes climate change science is partially some kind of international grant money shakedown conspiracy, Mitt Romney is stepping back from a view of climate change he outlined earlier this summer.
"Do I think the world's getting hotter? Yeah, I don't know that but I think that it is," Romney told a crowd in New Hampshire Wednesday, according to Reuters. "I don't know if it's mostly caused by humans."
Romney then tilted over and grabbed some of Rick Perry's Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)-endorsed ideas on the environment. That is, let's not spend a dime doing anything about it.
"What I'm not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don't know the answer to," Romney said.
Romney also said on Wednesday that he would make weaning the United States from imported energy from the Middle East a priority over reducing carbon emissions.
Still, using additional domestic nuclear, natural gas, and other resources could have a side benefit of cutting carbon emissions, Romney said. "My view is pursue a strategy which gets us into energy independence which has as a byproduct it gets us into less CO2 emitting."
He criticized a bill backed by President Barack Obama that would have capped carbon emissions and allowed polluters to buy and sell rights to emit carbon.
"I do not believe in cap and trade and I do not believe in putting a carbon cap" on polluting industries, Romney said.
This is a big change from the Romney of early June, who raised eyebrows when he went against Republican dogma and talked the talk of climate change.
"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors," Romney said at another New Hampshire stop in early June.
"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," Romney said at the event.
Perry's poll numbers are surging, and there are signs that he's taken Romney's mantle as the early frontrunner in the 2012 nomination contest. Romney's new opposition to doing anything actively to prevent climate change may be a sign that he's trying to skew farther right to grab some of that Perrymentum.
####################
Can we expect by the fall that Romney will completely jump ship and be endorsing tea party like language when it comes to Climate Change? I think so. Perry is really putting pressure on this guy to go further right.
Evan McMorris-Santoro | August 25, 2011, 8:58AM
Staring down a new rival who believes climate change science is partially some kind of international grant money shakedown conspiracy, Mitt Romney is stepping back from a view of climate change he outlined earlier this summer.
"Do I think the world's getting hotter? Yeah, I don't know that but I think that it is," Romney told a crowd in New Hampshire Wednesday, according to Reuters. "I don't know if it's mostly caused by humans."
Romney then tilted over and grabbed some of Rick Perry's Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)-endorsed ideas on the environment. That is, let's not spend a dime doing anything about it.
"What I'm not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don't know the answer to," Romney said.
Romney also said on Wednesday that he would make weaning the United States from imported energy from the Middle East a priority over reducing carbon emissions.
Still, using additional domestic nuclear, natural gas, and other resources could have a side benefit of cutting carbon emissions, Romney said. "My view is pursue a strategy which gets us into energy independence which has as a byproduct it gets us into less CO2 emitting."
He criticized a bill backed by President Barack Obama that would have capped carbon emissions and allowed polluters to buy and sell rights to emit carbon.
"I do not believe in cap and trade and I do not believe in putting a carbon cap" on polluting industries, Romney said.
This is a big change from the Romney of early June, who raised eyebrows when he went against Republican dogma and talked the talk of climate change.
"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors," Romney said at another New Hampshire stop in early June.
"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," Romney said at the event.
Perry's poll numbers are surging, and there are signs that he's taken Romney's mantle as the early frontrunner in the 2012 nomination contest. Romney's new opposition to doing anything actively to prevent climate change may be a sign that he's trying to skew farther right to grab some of that Perrymentum.
####################
Can we expect by the fall that Romney will completely jump ship and be endorsing tea party like language when it comes to Climate Change? I think so. Perry is really putting pressure on this guy to go further right.
mckmas8808 said:
Honestly, this is probably the most frightening thing about politics at the moment. Not specifially related to global warming, but rather what something like this represents. Here we have somebody running for the most powerful position on the planet, who is trying to tell his voters, "No, seriously. I AM stupid! I didn't MEAN to support all those scientists. I'm just like you! Honest injun!"
mckmas8808 said:Mitt Romney Backs Away From Climate Change
Evan McMorris-Santoro | August 25, 2011, 8:58AM
Staring down a new rival who believes climate change science is partially some kind of international grant money shakedown conspiracy, Mitt Romney is stepping back from a view of climate change he outlined earlier this summer.
"Do I think the world's getting hotter? Yeah, I don't know that but I think that it is," Romney told a crowd in New Hampshire Wednesday, according to Reuters. "I don't know if it's mostly caused by humans."
Romney then tilted over and grabbed some of Rick Perry's Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)-endorsed ideas on the environment. That is, let's not spend a dime doing anything about it.
"What I'm not willing to do is spend trillions of dollars on something I don't know the answer to," Romney said.
Romney also said on Wednesday that he would make weaning the United States from imported energy from the Middle East a priority over reducing carbon emissions.
Still, using additional domestic nuclear, natural gas, and other resources could have a side benefit of cutting carbon emissions, Romney said. "My view is pursue a strategy which gets us into energy independence which has as a byproduct it gets us into less CO2 emitting."
He criticized a bill backed by President Barack Obama that would have capped carbon emissions and allowed polluters to buy and sell rights to emit carbon.
"I do not believe in cap and trade and I do not believe in putting a carbon cap" on polluting industries, Romney said.
This is a big change from the Romney of early June, who raised eyebrows when he went against Republican dogma and talked the talk of climate change.
"It's important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors," Romney said at another New Hampshire stop in early June.
"I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that," Romney said at the event.
Perry's poll numbers are surging, and there are signs that he's taken Romney's mantle as the early frontrunner in the 2012 nomination contest. Romney's new opposition to doing anything actively to prevent climate change may be a sign that he's trying to skew farther right to grab some of that Perrymentum.
####################
Can we expect by the fall that Romney will completely jump ship and be endorsing tea party like language when it comes to Climate Change? I think so. Perry is really putting pressure on this guy to go further right.
Flip Flopney.
In some ways this guy reminds me of Nixon in that I don't think he actually has any unchangeable political principles that he operates from. (For the record I think that Nixon was a fairly decent president for not having a soul.)
empty vessel
Member
Oblivion said:
That's the power of political organization. A lot of time but especially money went into creating it. (More authentic movements will require mostly time, but the tea party was built from above.)
speculawyer
Member
That would be Palin or Bachmann.ToxicAdam said:
- Status