Thursday night on Fox Business, John Stossel used about seven minutes of his show to host a "debate" between former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and an actor who impersonates President Obama.
This follows up a similar "debate" that Stossel hosted in April between the Obama impersonator and Rep. Ron Paul.
In Response to T. Paine's Medicare Conservative Style is Still Better
I think both plans need tweaking also. For the Republican plan, it is pretty easy. Since we are killing the sickliest and the most costly of patients, the deficiencies in the voucher plan will self-correct in true free market style. Those who can survive on vouchers will be the ones who are the most coherent and the healthiest otherwise, which is to say, the ones who least need them.
I think it is time for the Democrats to admit that we are not killing Medicare, but replacing it with something that will save those who are doing well enough to not require saving, and we are solving the problem of the remainder through survival of the fittest. Again, that is what a free market is, and the elderly are not above capitalism, and we should not let them be, since they are mostly in the way, anyway.
The Democrats need to admit that the Republicans are not proposing that we end Medicare. They are suggesting we cancel it. The Republicans feel that Medicare is dying, not by our hand, but by its own cost and inefficiency. They are not killing it. They are quickly stepping in and putting something else in its place so we will be ready when it dies. In order to accomplish this, they are stopping the flow of Medicare benefits. They are not killing it. It is dying already. They are stopping it. The thing we are putting in its place is a plan to help those who can survive without our help and to allow those who cannot survive without our help to die. This is a very traditionally Republican idea. It matches their tax code.
Republicans do not like entitlements. Governments have no place trying to keep their citizenry alive. Our government should not be a representative democracy. It should support free market entities, not people. We all agree on this. It is called capitalism.
So, Mr. Deming, I am tired of your partisan attacks on the Republican Party. I am always having to step in and defend them. God bless the GOP. They are the only ones who are trying to measure how much health assistance one can receive, not by how sick they truly are, and not by how much they truly need, but in vouchers. How much illness will the market bear? We should be doing the same thing. Vouchers are the future. Once vouchers decide who lives and who dies, we will all be a lot healthier. Poor people will not have long term illnesses anymore. All long term illnesses will be converted to short term, unless the patient is very wealthy. The Republicans are to illness, what Salk was to Polio.
The Republican plan, simply put, cures the problem of the poor suffering from long term illnesses. That is something these anti-American entitlements have not been able to do in almost a century.
Additionally, vouchers give the patients the ability to truly choose among a set of choices they could not possibility understand. What more could a man with failing health want? He gets to decide whether to take the congestive heart failure medication or continue dialysis. And unlike before, when he could have both, he now gets to try to find a way to work both into the budget, which is much better, because it is freedom and choice and we should respect him and grant him this for the rest of his life.
I just realized something: the elderly are really good at making complex budgetary decisions. From their nursing home beds, they could start a side business advising people on the most cost-effective path to good healthcare. Since they will be forced to learn how to do this if they are to survive, they will get really good at it. When I think of getting economic advice, a nursing home is always the first place that comes to mind. It is probably because we always hear the elderly complaining: “If only I could shop around and put my vast knowledge of medical procedure costs to good use.” Finally, we will get to stop hearing that complaint.
Nuggets of internet gold:
A friend sends a musical composition on Google's temporary application.
- T. Paine's Saving Common Sense has an amazing and wildly entertaining video proving that one single guy is every one of the Village People. The video is not even by Breitbart. Oh, do click on the link.
Lot's of folks in desperate financial circumstance. Not much attention or concern for them. Give them a thought, a prayer, a vote.
In response to Burr Deming's
Helping a Conservative Understand Medicare Termination
Mr. Deming, my friend, I had intended to do tons of research and give your posting the proper response it deserves. The time it would take for me to do this would necessarily result in that response coming sometime next week; therefore, with the little time I do have, I thought I’d give you the Reader’s Digest version of my rebuttal, sir.
First, I have great faith and respect for the “discerning minds” of our seniors. That is precisely why I am of the opinion that most of these great folks can indeed decipher which health care plan would be best for them and their newly received voucher. For those seniors that may not be able to discern as well as necessary and have no family or friend to be a responsible advocate for them, I think part of the new national health care plan needs to be a formal non-profit advocacy service available to help these folks discern which plan will best meet their needs.
As for your assertion that the Democrats’ cutting of $500 Billion helps save Medicare, well then I ask why stop there? Why not cut a full $1 Trillion? Surely that will cut ALL of the waste and profit of those unseemly and greedy corporate providers, sir.
I am sure you realize that fewer and fewer doctors and other medical service providers are even accepting Medicare patients anymore because of the simple fact that reimbursement of costs for those patients at best lets the doctors break even and at worst often times even fails to cover those costs. Even greedy rich doctors need to make a profit in order to stay in business!
I find your next assertion that the Democrats want to reduce costs and not benefits to be amusing. I think this is a wonderful idea. I do not see, however, how the Affordable Health Care Act accomplishes this though. The ultimate effect of this bogus law seems to be a boondoggle that will only help the insurance companies in the short term and then destroy our private insurance in the long run by eventually having everyone go to a single payer government option, which I suspect is exactly the point anyway. The huge disincentives provided in the law will only encourage more doctors etc to leave their practices and potential future doctors to never enter the field of medicine. How this helps reduce costs while maintaining benefits really escapes me. Further, if this Democratic plan is so fantastic, why is there the need for the Obama administration to continue to offer hundreds and hundreds of waivers to unions, large corporations, and lots of businesses in Pelosi’s congressional district to exempt them from having to comply with this egregious law? If it is so fantastic, why did congress exempt themselves from participating in the plan?
Next, I think the linkage of highways and parks is not congruous to the federal mandate that all citizens must purchase a service from a private business. Where a reasonable case can be made that highways are constitutionally authorized as they are needed for interstate commerce and potentially also for national and civil defense reasons, this is not so with health care. This pernicious law is not justified by Democrats citing the “good and plenty” clause either. If the federal government has the ability to dictate that American citizens MUST buy a product or service from a private business simply because of the fact that they draw breath, then where are the limitations on what the government can mandate? At this level and caliber, this truly is unconstitutional and unprecedented.
Lastly, if it makes you feel any better, I certainly don’t think that any savings recognized from any aspect of government services needs to be returned in the form of tax cuts right now. That said, considering that it was recently reported that now 47% of Americans pay no net taxes and indeed are often recipients of tax payer dollars, one wonders how long it will be before that number reaches 51% and thereby making the takers more common than the producers. If the voting goes that way too, our country is finally and irrevocably doomed. 49% of the nation is not going to keep working to support the other 51%. All of the class warfare rhetoric notwithstanding, the “rich” really are paying their fair share as I have demonstrated in the past.
Frankly, it was not the government’s business to ever get involved with providing health care to all seniors; however, now that so many seniors are now dependent upon the government accordingly, it is a system and a promise that must be fixed and kept. I don’t like the GOP plan and think it needs some serious tweaking. The Democrats’ solution is even worse though.
For the first time since his campaign saw a huge staff shake up, Newt Gingrich spoke to media outside his McLean, Va. home today, citing "strategic differences" between himself and the departed staff.
"We had a strategic disagreement about how to run a campaign," Gingrich said. "There have been very few campaigns that have been solutions oriented and that are oriented to every single American."
Here is the response of Democrats in Michigan:
Romney told the Detroit Free Press on Wednesday that "the Obama administration finally did what I told them they had to do" and essentially oversaw a "managed bankruptcy" for General Motors and Chrysler that Romney called for in the 2008 piece.
Reportedly, Mr. Romney's interview was continually interrupted as he checked to see if his pants had caught on fire. Okay, okay, I made that part up.
The Weiner saga brought to mind another chat room adventure from years back. Like Mr. Z, RobbieJ was an indignant Christian. He was especially vitriolic toward young women who disagreed with him, and therefore were fighting against the lord. His thesaurus must have gotten some wear. How many ways can a normal person find to call someone a garden utensil?
His thesaurus wasn't perfect. He tried to project a sophisticated image, using what to him were obscure words. He was often just a little off target. I resolved to make fun of his vocabulary. Unfortunately, RobbieJ offered a sort of prequel to the madcap episode of the Democratic gentleman from New York. During one of his rants at a young woman in chat, a startling photo appeared under his name. Evidently, he had hit the wrong key and a raw bit of pornography appeared. He quickly left the room. The photo was his last post for about a day.
When he came back, it was with an explanation. His computer had been hacked. His IP address had been stolen. His password had been taken. It had not actually been him in the room when the pornography appeared. The derision came from all directions. He was gone for weeks. We thought he would never be back. When he eventually returned he was as tenacious as Al Sharpton talking about Tawana Brawley. He definitely had been hacked. It simply wasn't him. It was some heathen liberal, probably a radical feminist.
I finally had an opportunity to brush off those aging files of ideas about Robbie. As he turned his anger on a young participant, I took my opportunity.
RobbieJ: How telling, the easily recognized cyber moron of this arena would jump out, like a mutant cerebral toad and word wart a response that would reveal what an insensitive deathocrat it is... reveals to those who value life how dismal the mentality of those who do not. How easily dismissible their particular type of skank euphoria.
BurrLand: So it turns out our friend RobbieJ is semi-back after all. We miss you, RobbieJ. We especially miss your colonful languish and your crutch phrases.
"What ever happened to you RobbieJ?" I used to larment. "What happened? Has the cat got your tumble?"
Oh, I know there was some minor increment, but if nothing else I wanted to say thanks for the mammaries. Yet you were gone.
Now that I find you hear, well, that's a different castle of fish. It just about knocked my stocks off. Those who glorifried in your debiture may yet end up with egg on their plate.
I encourtesy you to regard past incidentals as water over the damage. Some may think that you were caught red handled, but most folks always thought you would die with your boobs on.
Mr. Z makes a hornet effort to stir the poet, but you were always the room's bread and banter. You may feel dissolutioned, but I think you have bigger flesh to fry. Conservationists in the room knead you. You have a massage that resnots with many chatters.
We want you to be our fiend again. Pleads come back.
It was wonderful fun. And it was just beginning.
In response to Burr Deming's
What to Call Republican Medicare Planning
The elderly are not going to be able to find the best insurance deal with their health allowance. I could not do it, and I am a virtual genius. The voucher plan is being offered as a way to kill the entitlement the elderly feel they have to survive in America. The constitution does not enumerate any authority to congress to ensure any groups survival. The elderly are too feeble to recognize this fact. They have just enough mental capacity to decipher complex insurance manuals, and that about uses up their intellects.
I think we should simply kill Americans once they are no longer producing. We need to stop pretending we see them as anything other than a spent human. Once they are a burden, discard them. Generally in a free market, productivity is rewarded and those who are not productive don’t survive, which is how we like it. Keep the government out! A free market has no use for an entity that gobbles up resources without giving anything back, and we all want a free market, right? Besides, it is not like we abandoned these elderly pukes. They may not have enough health care to keep them alive, but that have something we never had: they have vouchers! Yes, vouchers! And the freedom to choose! O’ glory! They can now get as sick as their voucher will allow. Break a leg, elderly people, and on Uncle Sam’s dime; but make sure you only break a voucher’s worth.
Oh, and remember, elderly people, your voucher will go a long way if you are studious enough. Remember when you were in college and you were always uncertain about the most complex things you studied? Of course you don’t, your mind is failing. Well I will tell you what happened then. You got a bad grade. We are more tolerant with you now. Though the material, complex insurance billing and benefits, is far more complex, the good news is, you are not being graded at all. We know you would not do well if this were a test. Don’t worry. We are not concerned with you have well you do.
Goodbye, elderly people.
It was in a chat room a few years ago. A pompous, judgmental personality was busily condemning those who were not professed Christians. Of those who were Christians, many were condemned for not holding the right hatreds. "Apostasy" was a favored word.
Chat rooms are often dens of overstatement and bravado. Anonymity allows a level of daring that polite company might otherwise inhibit. His boasts were, at least in part, an attempt to goad his opponents into anger. For him, an insufferable persona was a weapon.
So I began posting. I asked him if he took full credit for his evident moral superiority. No, he responded, he was much too humble to accept full credit. I speculated how grateful he must be.
BurrLand: You must offer prayers of gratitude fairly often.
Mr. Z: I am grateful that I can pray in humility.
BurrLand: Not like others of inferior morality.
Mr. Z: yes, the inferior do resent my greatness.
And so I posted an obvious scripture from the Gospel of Luke:
He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and despised others:
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, `God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.'
But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, `God, be merciful to me a sinner!'
I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
What held my interest was Mr. Z's furious answer. It was as if my screen was about to be flecked from the inside with angry spittle. As a Christian, I had no right, no right at all, to use scripture for the unholy purpose of rebuking a fellow Christian.
I am reminded of that indignant reaction of years ago by a couple of appearances, both on television, by self-proclaimed Christian historian David Barton. Barton famously holds to the discredited belief that the founding fathers intended the United States to be an explicitly Christian nation. One famous tactic by the relentless Mr. Barton is the partial quote. He often quotes a passage written by John Adams which proves that Adams wanted Church and State to be intimately involved.
The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered, but by the Holy Ghost, who is transmitted from age to age by laying the hands of the bishop upon the heads of candidates for the ministry. ... There is no authority, civil or religious; there can be no legitimate government, but what is administered by the Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it; all without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words, damnation.
Well, there you have it. Adams really objected to any separation of Church and State! Right?
Except for one little detail. Adams was summarizing a view to which he was opposed. In fact he thought it was kind of silly. Two sentence Mr. Barton likes to leave out immediately follow the misleading passage he likes to quote. Adams laments that weak and ignorant people believe the view he just summarized, the view Mr. Barton says Adams believed. The weak minded, says Adams, believe it so much they would be willing to face the executioner's ax or be burned at the stake for what he regards as a silly artifact.
Although this is all artifice and cunning in the secret original in the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lie down their lives under the ax or the fiery fagot for it. Alas, the poor weak ignorant dupe human nature.
Mr. Barton does to the historical record what Andrew Breitbart does to video tapes of innocent people. The fellow, not to put too fine a point on it, falls short of the truth. On television, interviewed by Jon Stewart, he protested that he could not possibly be misleading anyone, because the original letter can be found on his website by anyone who looks enough to drill down to it. The interview was exceptional. For the most part, no mention of the inconvenient sentences are to be discovered in his public pronouncements.
But now he comes up with another tale. The founding fathers, he insists, rejected Darwin's theory of evolution. Oh my. It is true that some form of the idea of natural selection goes back to Aristotle, but it was not accepted or even widely discussed in scientific circles until the second half of the 1800's. That is because, until Darwin, scientific evidence simply hadn't been gathered. Mr. Barton insists a full Evolution vs Creation Science debate took place during original Constitutional deliberations.
Many of us oppose mixing up religion with government support for a simple reason that goes beyond Mr. Barton's parsing of words. It is simply unfair to use government to support religion. Religion should be voluntary. Period.
But the tolerance of some Christians for demonstrable falsehood is still jarring. The ethic seems to be that of my chat room buddy, Mr. Z. Christians should never call other Christians on the carpet when a lie is told in the service of the Lord.
In response to T. Paine's Bats vs. Nukes - A Fair Fight
Are you sure it was the Unarmed Man that defeated the Roman Empire? I seem to remember something about Goths and Vandals.
As for Mr. Deming's provocative methods, it's OK, because you were and I were intellectual rivals long before you were a twinkle in Mr. Deming's eye.
As for your bat and its use, I am impressed. It would have worked if I had nuke. It turns out I had nukes and your whole supply of bats is now part of a cloud of debris.
I am pleased as more Christians join the scientific debate and try to support their faith with scientific arguments. Their arguments are huge targets that they are ill-equipped to defend. To speak in terms of Mixed Martial Arts, it is like a boxer who has never heard of Jujitsu trying to out fight a well-rounded mixed martial artist. He lasts a few seconds. He would have a chance if the mixed martial artist would stand and box. The boxer hears of jujitsu, looks up a kimura. It is very technical and the theist cannot execute it, but he tries. The jujitsu artist is delighted as he tells the vanquished boxer that he should have stuck with boxing.
I know I have said this before, but Paul’s vision was a religion based on brotherly cultish love and faith. You cannot challenge it with reason, so it is indestructible. When we deviate from that plan, we run the risk of derailing a religion that has stood for a few thousand years. You cannot convert a successful faith into a successful science; moreover, you should not want to.
In response to T. Paine's In Defense of Ryan, Vouchers, and Truth
Our reliably conservative friend and contributor, the extraordinary T. Paine, poses several challenges.
The implications from the left and the scare tactics that have been employed though is to make the elderly and those approaching Medicare age think that the evil Republicans are doing away with government health care for the elderly altogether. We both know that this simply is not true.
Actually, I think most everyone believes those of us in our 60s and older are more discerning than you give us credit for. The charge is not that all government assistance is being withdrawn. It is that Medicare is to be terminated and a scheme of privatized individual vouchers be given in its place. Reliable medical care will be killed and seniors will be left holding a personal voucher, along with the insurance section of the yellow pages, and an encouraging pat on the back.
If the amount of money for these vouchers is insufficient in some cases, I would hope that the amounts could be adjusted accordingly.
Oh that it were true. Sadly, Republicans are counting on the inadequacy of what they are calling "premium support" to provide incentive to older folks. This will pressure us to dive into the intricacies of insurance provisions and medical procedures. The plan is that each senior will, in turn, pressure insurance corporations, mega-hospital facilities, physicians, and nursing homes to moderate their skyrocketing health care costs. The anticipated "market force" is not a force if the vouchers are adjusted upward as you, and I, and everyone except Republican policy makers will vainly hope.
Yes, Medicare as we know it will eventually end. If left alone, it will also die long before I come of age to partake in it too. (I am 45.) It must be reformed so as to keep the promise made to our seniors now and those that will be seniors in the future. Again, I say, I don't see a viable Democrat plan on the table to secure that necessary healthcare for our seniors regardless.
Actually, the $500 billion Democrats will be cutting, the beneficiaries of which are overly compensated corporations, is a beginning. You previously and unwisely hinged a major portion of your argument on the disprovable assertion that this would kill Medicare. At the same time, you counter-claim that Democrats have no plan to reduce costs. You are debating yourself. It is an interesting rhetorical strategy. Either way you win. In fact the point of the affordable healthcare program is to reduce costs for everyone. It doesn't go far enough, as I see it, but it does a better job than the GOP plan to eliminate Medicare until the end of time.
The Democratic plan will reduce costs without reducing benefits. The Republican plan is to reduce benefits and in the hope that putting extreme financial pressure on seniors will reduce costs. In fact, this difference is reflected in current positioning on the debt ceiling. Republicans insist they will demand massive, immediate slashes in Medicare benefits. Democrats say they will go along with cuts only to the extent that benefits are not reduced. Republicans say the Democratic position is unacceptable.
You made reference to the "un-constitutional 'Affordable Health Care Act.'" In actuality the reasoning of the one judge to so find would have outlawed highways, stop signs, ABMs, public parks, school buses, and most governmental activity. It was warped logic. That is one reason pretty much every other court has ruled in favor of the constitutionality. This may help you out of your confusion.
I especially liked this generously offered softball.
Further, I am curious what data you would cite as your proof that the cuts from this program would be going to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts, Mr. Deming. Perhaps there are specifics of which I am unaware; however, I am almost certain that any money saved in Medicare payouts would not be transferred to the rich. Such wealth redistribution would indeed be egregious, even though it is a tactic in reverse that is employed by the progressives continuously.
You are very kind to the owner of this aging mind. In return, I can help you find clarity. The basic context is here. The specifics are here. The core research and scholarly documentation is here. Yes, the reductions in benefits take the savings from seniors and put every penny and more into additional tax advantages to the fabulously wealthy.
In case the links are obscure, a chart from the prestigious Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, makes the data clearer, at least to folks like me. Youngsters like you with sharper minds might do without.
The chart takes the Congressional Budget Office base figures that Republicans start with, and plugs in the calculations Republicans themselves provide in their proposed termination of Medicare. They add in all other cuts as well. Medicaid, Head Start, medical care for sick infants, and the rest.
All the Medicare cuts go to the tax shifts, as you can see. When the massive slashes to little kids, veterans, and the economically impoverished are added in, it does bring the total to just a hair away from the zero mark. Medicare alone puts us all way under water. The extreme wealthy will have plenty of room to breathe.
Yes, it is egregious, to put it into your marvelously polite understatement.
I hope these documented, verified facts help you see how the Republican plan to eliminate Medicare fits into a larger scheme having nothing to do with solvency or debt reduction.
There is none so blind as he who will not see. Education is a wonderful thing, but only when young and agile minds are open. For an intelligent fellow like yourself, with so much life ahead, there may still be hope.
In response to Burr Deming's Jesus Catching the Wave
Ah Burr, you are exceedingly clever, sir! Mr. Myste, you of course realize what Mr. Deming is doing with his excellent and yet goading article towards us here, don't you?
Burr, let me start by saying that, like you, I am horrified at the thought of Christ "walking on driftwood" or other such nonsense to explain the miracle of him walking on water. If one accepts the premise that Christ is the second person of the Holy Trinity and therefore God, how small one's understanding must be of our Lord to think that the God that created all things and is beyond and outside of time could not possibly walk upon the Sea of Galilee simply by choosing to do so.
That said, there are absolutely mysteries of our universe that are becoming more and more understandable to our limited human minds where science does indeed explain what faith teaches us in the creation of all that is. Myste is correct that I have indeed argued that science and God are absolutely compatible and indeed one helps to explain the other often times. If I may be so boorish, here is a link to my blog on just such a topic: http://savingcommonsense.blogspot.com/2011/02/duality-of-god-and-science-in-creation.html Somehow, I was still unable to convince JMyste of the existence of a Divine Creator though.
As for that whole "love thing" that Christ teaches, well that was the very purpose of his coming to be with us on earth as fully man and fully God. He spoke of and taught us that we should indeed love our neighbor regardless of whether he is a Jew or Gentile, and I would submit that this absolutely applies to Muslims and gays as well. Indeed, are we not all creatures of God that are endowed with His divine spark, whether we each choose to acknowledge it or not?
Now, John Myste, I find myself chuckling at your analogy of a debate between Atheism and Christianity as being akin to one side having nuclear weapons and the other having a baseball bat. The thing is though, that if one takes that baseball bat and smashes the trigger mechanism of the nuke weapon, then Atheism is required to sit there and marvel at its magnificent piece of impotent hardware that might as well now be a coffee table while they are pummeled repeatedly by that bat of love about their head and shoulders.
I would submit to you that to the secular mind, one might initially find the sides of the debate to be even more unbalanced than nukes against bats though. You see one can have the most horrific weapon of mass destruction of all in one's possession and yet still be defeated by an unarmed man. Indeed, the most powerful force on earth at the time, the Roman Empire, was ultimately defeated along with sin and death, by the love of one unarmed man that gave his human life for us all. But of course, this is just my axiom and therefore not one to which you are subjected, my friend, despite the fact that is the God honest truth. :-)
Dang it, Burr! I regret not having had the time to respond to the first "damnable lie" posting and you broadside me with a follow up article! :-) Well, let me say that I certainly can understand your frustrations at the lawyerly parsing and semantics game being played by the Republicans, as I see this happening on both sides of the political aisle. Yes, I suppose from a technical sense, the G.O.P. is indeed ending Medicare in its current format. The implications from the left and the scare tactics that have been employed though is to make the elderly and those approaching Medicare age think that the evil Republicans are doing away with government health care for the elderly altogether. We both know that this simply is not true.
Again, I am not really a big fan of the current G.O.P. plan and I do agree with you that their plan does indeed involve vouchers, despite their loathing to call them such. That said, I fail to understand why vouchers are necessarily a bad thing. I think the plan needs to be better adapted, but I suspect they are on the right track. Seniors of sound mind or those that have family or other such advocates that can help them "shop" for the best healthcare bang for their subsidized voucher buck will be fine. I think that perhaps a non-partisan, non-profit advocacy group can be formed to help those other seniors that might need help in shopping and determining which healthcare package is best tailored to their needs. If the amount of money for these vouchers is insufficient in some cases, I would hope that the amounts could be adjusted accordingly. Regardless, free market solutions will always hold down costs through competition far better than government price controls. That is simply fact that history has shown us repeatedly.
As for the damnable lie of that advertisement, well it is indeed just that. It is scare tactic politics. It is well done and very effective though. Their casting of Nana in the role was brilliant, and the fact that she voted for Bass in the past makes her argument seem objective and non-partisan when that simply is not the case. Yes, Medicare as we know it will eventually end. If left alone, it will also die long before I come of age to partake in it too. (I am 45.) It must be reformed so as to keep the promise made to our seniors now and those that will be seniors in the future. Again, I say, I don't see a viable Democrat plan on the table to secure that necessary healthcare for our seniors regardless.
Further, I am curious what data you would cite as your proof that the cuts from this program would be going to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts, Mr. Deming. Perhaps there are specifics of which I am unaware; however, I am almost certain that any money saved in Medicare payouts would not be transferred to the rich. Such wealth redistribution would indeed be egregious, even though it is a tactic in reverse that is employed by the progressives continuously. The only current cuts in Medicare of which I am aware are the $500 billion dollars that President Obama and his Democratic minions withdrew in order to fund his un-constitutional "Affordable Health Care Act". I am sure you will inform me otherwise if I am indeed in error, my friend.
The very Americans that our government now, and this president, does not trust a to make decision on your health care plan. Those Americans risked everything so they could make that decision on their health care plan.
- - Rick Santorum (R-PA), Presidential Candidate, June 6, 2011
They were defending America from universal health care