Talk Radio Cannot Do This Alone (Rush:'...sell the Ryan plan')

Rush Limbaugh Online 5/25/2010 page Transcript ^ | 5/25/2010 | Rush Limbaugh

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I can’t answer for the Ryan plan as I don’t read legal language. And I’ve not seen much except the libs explanation of Ryan’s.”

Very simple, they give you a cash credit that you can use to help pay for private insurance. And what would the ‘insurance market’ look like for you when you are 75+?? Take the problems those at 55 have getting insurance when unemployed and multiple by 50. Aging and living means becoming more amd more sick and disabled.

If this was actually made law (which it will never be), as soon as it was signed the sponsors would immediately start warning us to save every penny or suffer dire consequences in the 10 years or whenever we turn 65. That is the given rational of the 10 years delay.

Think I imagine this? Last night I got a tangle with a couple of STRONG supporters who first said the dire predictions were all lies(Rush says that here too) and that it saves seniors, but once pressed argued that if you are 75 and are paralyized with a stroke and dont have the $ 0.5-1M required to live in a nursing home that you should expect to be just left to die, and it was both morally correct, and necessary because the current approach is stealing and unaffordable. They definitely got mad that I would put them on the spot with this very common example which makes things look more grey than white. They know what the plan is about and what the talking points are.

That point is the obvious is true and voters know it. My point, just tell me the truth. That is my #1. Dont try to sell me silly talking points, I cannot be misled. I couldnt on Obama-care and I wont on this.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Think I imagine this? Last night I got a tangle with a couple of STRONG supporters who first said the dire predictions were all lies(Rush says that here too) and that it saves seniors, but once pressed argued that if you are 75 and are paralyized with a stroke and dont have the $ 0.5-1M required to live in a nursing home that you should expect to be just left to die, and it was both morally correct, and necessary because the current approach is stealing and unaffordable.

I saw that dialog. I couldn't figure out if Fred was an adult (he made some good points) or a two yesr old ("Please go drink your Kool-Aid over at DU").

But I'll play Devil's Advocate. Suppose we continue with the government in charge of health care (in fact more in control by the time Obama is gone). Will there be enough money to pay for all this? If not, then those seniors will be out of luck. Without controlling entitlements, taxes would have to go up, the private sector ruined and unable to help anyone. Down that path, it might be even worse for the seniors.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”But I'll play Devil's Advocate. Suppose we continue with the government in charge of health care (in fact more in control by the time Obama is gone). Will there be enough money to pay for all this? If not, then those seniors will be out of luck. Without controlling entitlements, taxes would have to go up, the private sector ruined and unable to help anyone. Down that path, it might be even worse for the seniors. “

Come on DDfD , you are very smart and knowledgeable too hanging around me :) but I will answer anyway since this topic gets me going like Obama-care did, You know medicare is ALREADY broke and being paid by the Federal reserve printing money. You know a private citizen cannot do that. So many (age matters) seniors themselves will still be better off with with death panels than being thrown into the alley when paralyzed by that stroke if they dont have a huge amount of savings.

Is everyone else better off in that case? You know the answer to that, I dont have to tell you. But because of that Ryan has to sell a plan of helping people when they are young by abandoning them when they get old which his plan really does, that is a tough sell.

My # 1 issue is tell the truth about both scenarios. And one important truth is no elected president of either party would ever sign this particular proposal into law if it got that far. That is the bottom line, and it is why I suggested a more realistic alternative that would not have sunk the R party before it started.

[garandgal]

Regarding your excellent “analogy” of being thrown over the side of the boat with only ten years to prepare.

I’ll have a bit more time than that...but I tell you, it is REALLY ticking me off. I have ALWAYS had private health insurance...my parents taught me that it was the responsible thing to do, so I purchased it even when I couldn’t afford it, beginning when I took my very first job out of College.

I figured it out one time; I have paid well in excess of $100,000 for my insurance (while using virtually no services)...and that’s just MY portion. Of course I have paid the Medicare Tax since my first job at age 17. Part of the idea of giving up this money during your healthy earning years, is that when you need the services as declining health sets in, said service will be there for you.

Instead, it now appears that every deadbeat in the Country, both legal and illegal has been, and will continue to be cared for, while those of us who have paid the bills for all of these years will be left destitute.

I am actually leaning towards a more sinister motive (not to sound too tin-foil-hattish). I cannot really think of a better way to relieve the terminally stubborn and hard-working middle class of its remaining assets, than to do something like this.

I have written a rather snarky “marketing plan” that deals with the issue from that point of view. You would probably enjoy it.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Here is a question I don't think anybody is asking: How did we survive for 200 years without nursing homes busting the federal budget? I think part of the reason is that families used to take care of their own to a much greater extent than they do now. Families still do that in many cultures. I can hear you thinking, “We can't go back to those days.” But what are we going toward now?’

It is not that we are unwilling to go back it's that there is NO WAY back. Remember the 1970s classic Willy Wonka where the four grandparents lived on the two beds in Willy's living room? That will never be again. My grandmother who lived till 101 happily hand-washed our clothes and hung them up on the clothesline, after making her own soap, until she had to be taken care of. That woman longer exists in the USA.

But you miss another key factor that I call ‘When man's Utopia turns to hell”. In the 1970s and 1980s people died younger, they ate more meat, smoked and there were no drugs for diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. You just died. Now you live longer on the average but with impairments mentally and physically that require someone nearly 24-7. And everything is more expensive now. And the aging are soon outnumbering the young (relatively speaking.)

Back in the early 1990s Sam Donaldson was making the case that stopping smoking would save the government medicare and medicaid money. George Will made the point that if people lived longer that it would cost the government more not less, and asked he asked Sam where the money will come from to take care of them. Donaldson replied :”We will FIND it someplace.” I knew we were screwed then.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Instead, it now appears that every deadbeat in the Country, both legal and illegal has been, and will continue to be cared for, while those of us who have paid the bills for all of these years will be left destitute. I am actually leaning towards a more sinister motive (not to sound too tin-foil-hattish). I cannot really think of a better way to relieve the terminally stubborn and hard-working middle class of its remaining assets, than to do something like this.”

I appreciate your personal situation stories, but please try not to overboard with paranoia for your own sake. Medicare is a huge problem that eventually has to be taken care of, but I warned in comments here in January that if Republicans tried to cut entitlements before serious cuts in discretionary spending, like things you always suggest, that they would doom themselves. And they did.

Late last year Obama and Chris Mathhews both were telling House Republicans they must propose entitlements cuts to fix the deficit to set them up for an ambush:
Flashback 2010:Obama critical that Republicans/Tea Party are NOT for entitlement cuts

Then Ryan did what they asked and Obama and Matthews used it to destroy Republicans. I could see it coming, I warned about it here, I dont know what they were thinking.

Did you see that AH who attacked me last night for not drinking his Koolaid?

[sickoflibs]

RE :"I saw that dialog. ...... (he made some good points) ?'

Great points in a vaccuum. It's always easy mentally to look at all issues as either all pros or all cons so life appears simple as black or white, until your white gets slaughtered in the election like 2006 and 2008 and ???. after which sometimes some people wake up and ask questions, the sign of a true subversive.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

It's always easy mentally to look at all issues as either all pros or all cons so life appears simple as black or white, until your white gets slaughtered in the election like 2006 and 2008 and ???. after which sometimes some people wake up and ask questions, the sign of a true subversive.

I do have concerns: That the GOP will stick with the Ryan plan but be unable to defend it, and will put Obama back in office, perhaps with leftist majorities in congress and new Wise Latinas in the SCOTUS eventually. On the other hand, surrender to Obamacare also leads to disaster.

(he made some good points)

I did not mean by that, that everything he said was correct. In fact, Some of his statements were immature, some of them just won't work politically, and most of it was presented as "black and white" as you described.

However, I thought he was correct that without entitlement reform, spending and borrowing continue out of control, and seniors (and everyone else) are going to suffer anyway. Although he certainly could have made a better argument, I think you would agree with that.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Late last year Obama and Chris Mathhews both were telling House Republicans they must propose entitlements cuts to fix the deficit to set them up for an ambush: Flashback 2010:Obama critical that Republicans/Tea Party are NOT for entitlement cuts Then Ryan did what they asked and Obama and Matthews used it to destroy Republicans. I could see it coming, I warned about it here, I dont know what they were thinking.

I agree.

"You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" - but only slightly less well-known is this: Never be the first to propose entitlement reform!

[Marine_Uncle]

I have been laying low for the past few days. Just doing quick checks at FR without logging in.
Your analysis is honest and accurate as far as I am concerned.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” Back in the early 1990s Sam Donaldson was making the case that stopping smoking would save the government medicare and medicaid money. George Will made the point that if people lived longer that it would cost the government more not less, and asked he asked Sam where the money will come from to take care of them. Donaldson replied :”We will FIND it someplace.” I knew we were screwed then. “

LOL!!

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I did not mean by that, that everything he said was correct. In fact, Some of his statements were immature, some of them just won't work politically, and most of it was presented as “black and white” as you described. However, I thought he was correct that without entitlement reform, spending and borrowing continue out of control, and seniors (and everyone else) are going to suffer anyway. Although he certainly could have made a better argument, I think you would agree with that. “

I appreciate you following up and playing Devil's Advocate giving me a chance to debate/answer those points without the childish insults. He obviously is drinking the Koolaid that we are all on the SS Ryan plan ship together and we must defend it using any means required, by saying anything, and make believe what we see is not there, and if we dont we must be the enemy of everything good. Fortunately I havent run into many of those here on this, most were civil and willing to think about stuff.

I remember drinking some Republican Koolaid back under that last president, what-his-name ? I havent seen him in a while, and it tasted pretty bad when I threw it up years later. I have seen this all before, sorry it's so soon again.

[sickoflibs]

So they all take a suicide pack to vote for this bill, then afterward some of the more naive ones realize that this is not as popular as they (apparently) thought it would be . But now they have to live with a vote on a bill that they knew they couldnt get signed into law, especially since its a non-binding resolution.

I saw a Republican house member on Hardball yesterday defending the proposal, he said exact words :” No one over 55 will be affected by it”. So you got a medicare reform deficit reduction bill where only those over 65 get medicare, but he says no-one over 55 will be affected by the bill. Think that will work?

Then you got the defenders like the one I found trying to make the argument that it will help those over 55 not hurt them. They argue that the future senior (potential Republican voter) will be better off even if he has a stroke without a lot of money , and is (hypothetically) thrown out into the street to die, because Obama has such diabolically evil plans for seniors with his deficit reduction medicare death panels that it(not passing this into law) would be much much worse for them. But dont worry, no-one over 55 is affected by the plan so support it if you are in that lucky/unlucky group.

This appears to be their argument, meanwhile Boehner is cooking up a deal with Obama that they have leaked involves medicare. How ya think that will sell?

One thing about Pelosi, she never forced unpopular suicide votes on her members until her party took both the WH and both houses of congress and could get big things passed into law, as she did. What if she made them all vote for Obama-care in mid 2007?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

So you got a medicare reform deficit reduction bill where only those over 65 get medicare, but he says no-one over 55 will be affected by the bill. Think that will work?

You wrote "he says...." but it is true that those over 55 would stay on the old plan (according to this bill that will not become law). I'm not sure whether you meant:

1) that he was incorrect, or

2) that what he said was true, but that it's a preposterous argument because the Ryan Plan is unacceptable.

In my opinion, chances are slim to none of any fiscally responsible entitlement reform becoming law in the next couple of years, although they might pass something that claims to be such. And politicians who propose entitlement reform are a great risk of giving their opponents a terrible political weapon (that's why Obama's COMMISSION ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND REFORM used retired politicians like Simpson).

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

One thing about Pelosi, she never forced unpopular suicide votes on her members until her party took both the WH and both houses of congress and could get big things passed into law, as she did. What if she made them all vote for Obama-care in mid 2007?

Let me think..... It would be like Boehner in 2011?

[sickoflibs]

RE :” So you got a medicare reform deficit reduction bill where only those over 65 get medicare, but he says no-one over 55 will be affected by the bill. Think that will work?
You wrote “he says....” but it is true that those over 55 would stay on the old plan (according to this bill that will not become law). I'm not sure whether you meant: 1) that he was incorrect, or ...”

He actually said :”No one over 55 will see any changes under this plan”, LOL hey that will be me when I retire. No he didnt say “No one CURRENTLY over 55 will see any changes under this (medicare reform) plan”. Shows what pile of crap they threw themselves into.

My only guess is Boehner let them do this because he needs their votes on the real compromise bills that we wont like that will actually be law.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

No he didnt say “No one CURRENTLY over 55 will see any changes under this (medicare reform) plan”.

That's what I took it to mean: those currently over 55, and I think most people took it that way, but I can understand that what he said might be ambiguous.

I'll repeat what I have said before. Since it does mean "those currently over 55," some of those who would "miss the boat" will see it as unfair, since they would be paying for the boat, and the interest on the boat.

My only guess is Boehner let them do this because he needs their votes on the real compromise bills that we wont like that will actually be law.

Perhaps to escape the trap that Obama set for the GOP (wait until they propose entitlement changes, then pounce)! Makes sense.

[dalebert]

I’m sorry but until congress(dem and pubs) want to talk real cuts in Government spending I wont listen. They made the mess and now want us to pay for them to make a bigger one. anything to Keep on Spending.

[GailA]

Mediscare: The Surprising Truth

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576345732775990392.html

What does this mean in terms of access to health care? No one knows for sure, but it almost certainly means that seniors will have DIFFICULTY finding doctors who will see them and hospitals who will admit them. Once admitted, they will enjoy fewer amenities such as private rooms and probably a lower quality of care as well.

Snip

Of greater political interest is the House Republican budget proposal, sponsored by Mr. Ryan. This proposal largely MATCHES the new law’s Medicare cuts for the next 10 years and then provides new enrollees with a sum of money to apply to private insurance (premium support). Even though the CBO assumed premium support would increase with consumer prices (price indexing), the resolution that House Republicans actually voted for contains no specific escalation formula. A natural alternative is letting premium support payments grow at the annual rate of increase in per-capita GDP (GDP indexing).
......................................................

STIL NO FIXES FOR THE PROBLEMS (PALM GREASING OF DONORS) THAT HAS BEEN BUILT INTO MEDICARE FOR THE PAST 40+ YEARS in either plan. Just all cut and gut in both plans.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Yeah ;-)