Romney-Obama: Handicapping the Race

[New England and The Maritimes]

Well... no shit.

All I was saying is that considering adds are showing up in clearly Republican areas supports ASB's idea that Republicans are focusing on getting the base out to vote, instead of going after "independents"

Everyone has already decided on who they support. It would take a miracle to "shift" any significant group of people from one side to the other.

[Revolutopia]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444508504577595350022637244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

So you have concrete proof that Obama's plan will fail (coupled with big scary number like 716 billion), and speculation in response.

TMI, that's a speculative opinion piece...

Moreover, Ryan's plan also contains he 716 billion medicare savings that Obama implemented.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

TMI, that's a speculative opinion piece...

Moreover, Ryan's plan also contains the 700 billion medicare savings that Obama implemented.

Did you read the cited Medicare Actuary Report? I cited it in the next few posts.

Ryan's plan includes repealing Obamacare. He has to act on current law.

[Fradonia]

I can't see Romneys chances improving as he continues to make an ass of himself here, there, and everywhere (his "raincoats" comment comes to mind), and the fact is that kids my age, by and large, love the president. He gets on twitter and The Daily Show, he speaks our language and, most importantly, he is capable of evoking emotion, something Robomney is horrible at which continues to bite him in the ass.

Not trying to be a troll, (not even disagreeing with what you're saying, really), but isnt supporting and or voting for a canidate because he's "more affiliated with younger people"* kind of, well, ignorant of the actual issues?




* The man's 51, by the way.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I can't see Romneys chances improving as he continues to make an ass of himself here, there, and everywhere (his "raincoats" comment comes to mind), and the fact is that kids my age, by and large, love the president. He gets on twitter and The Daily Show, he speaks our language and, most importantly, he is capable of evoking emotion, something Robomney is horrible at which continues to bite him in the ass.

Not trying to be a troll, (not even disagreeing with what you're saying, really), but isnt supporting and or voting for a canidate because he's "more affiliated with younger people"* kind of, well, ignorant?




* The man's 51, by the way.

His age is irrelevant. He connects to younger audiences in ways Romney can't.

[The House of Petain]

I can't see Romneys chances improving as he continues to make an ass of himself here, there, and everywhere (his "raincoats" comment comes to mind), and the fact is that kids my age, by and large, love the president. He gets on twitter and The Daily Show, he speaks our language and, most importantly, he is capable of evoking emotion, something Robomney is horrible at which continues to bite him in the ass.

Not trying to be a troll, (not even disagreeing with what you're saying, really), but isnt supporting and or voting for a canidate because he's "more affiliated with younger people"* kind of, well, ignorant?




* The man's 51, by the way.

Though I'm supporting Obama, I do agree, the "he relates to us" comment is sort of silly and pointless. We don't need a President who invokes emotion (Reagan invoked emotion), who speaks a certain lingo, who uses twitter (da fuck, really? Did somebody really just list that?) or goes on the Daily Show.

We need a President who is best for America, not just the wealthy, but all of America. And that person, by his policies, is Obama.

[Revolutopia]

Moreover, Ryan's plan also contains the 700 billion medicare savings that Obama implemented.

Did you read the cited Medicare Actuary Report? I cited it in the next few posts.

Ryan's plan includes repealing Obamacare. He has to act on current law.

He might want to repeal the healthcare plan, but his plan includes the savings that the plan makes with medicare.

Posting from phone so posts might be sloppy

[Fradonia]

Not trying to be a troll, (not even disagreeing with what you're saying, really), but isnt supporting and or voting for a canidate because he's "more affiliated with younger people"* kind of, well, ignorant?




* The man's 51, by the way.

His age is irrelevant. He connects to younger audiences in ways Romney can't.

I'm assuming you agree with his positions on various issues?

[New England and The Maritimes]

His age is irrelevant. He connects to younger audiences in ways Romney can't.

I'm assuming you agree with his positions on various issues?

No, not really, but he represents the only thing between the opposition and destroying America for good.

[Fradonia]

Not trying to be a troll, (not even disagreeing with what you're saying, really), but isnt supporting and or voting for a canidate because he's "more affiliated with younger people"* kind of, well, ignorant?




* The man's 51, by the way.

Though I'm supporting Obama, I do agree, the "he relates to us" comment is sort of silly and pointless. We don't need a President who invokes emotion (Reagan invoked emotion), who speaks a certain lingo, who uses twitter (da fuck, really? Did somebody really just list that?) or goes on the Daily Show.

We need a President who is best for America, not just the wealthy, but all of America. And that person, by his policies, is Obama.

Well thank you for at least giving a reason as to why you're supporting him. I usually cant illicit a response from most of the people I ask...

[Fradonia]

I'm assuming you agree with his positions on various issues?

No, not really, but he represents the only thing between the opposition and destroying America for good.

Touche.

But, just curious, how exactly would the opposition destroy America?

I mean, that seems kind of harsh doesn't it?

[Silent Majority]

No, not really, but he represents the only thing between the opposition and destroying America for good.

Touche.

But, just curious, how exactly would the opposition destroy America?

You might want to take this to the Romney vs. Obama thread

/notamod

[New England and The Maritimes]

No, not really, but he represents the only thing between the opposition and destroying America for good.

Touche.

But, just curious, how exactly would the opposition destroy America?

I mean, that seems kind of harsh doesn't it?

This isn't the thread for this discussion.

[Fradonia]

Touche.

But, just curious, how exactly would the opposition destroy America?

You might want to take this to the Romney vs. Obama thread

/notamod

Oh. How silly of me. I usually try to follow the rules here. Sorry.



Now, to find that thread...

[Norstal]

You might want to take this to the Romney vs. Obama thread

/notamod

Oh. How silly of me. I usually try to follow the rules here. Sorry.



Now, to find that thread...

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=185075&start=6075

It's stickied dude.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Did you read the cited Medicare Actuary Report? I cited it in the next few posts.

Ryan's plan includes repealing Obamacare. He has to act on current law.

He might want to repeal the healthcare plan, but his plan includes the savings that the plan makes with medicare.

Posting from phone so posts might be sloppy

Because at the time, he planned on getting bipartisan support and getting it through the WH. If Obama calls him on it, it means Obama is calling attention to big scary number, and Paul Ryan can just say "You know what? Fine. I'll drop your cuts" and Obama's left holding the flaming bag of poo.

[Alien Space Bats]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg64228/html/CHRG-112hhrg64228.htm

That's the report being given and referenced in Congress.

The fact that the Ryan Plan's impact has been lied about so much destroys any Team Obama credibility in speculating. They now have to do what they do with the tax returns, which is play on fear of the unknown rather than "Mitt Romney doesn't pay taxes at all".

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... lenews_wsj

So you have concrete proof that Obama's plan will fail (coupled with big scary number like 716 billion), and speculation in response.

Again, the situation is nowhere near as clear as you make it out to be.

Republicans are simply not going to be able to ride the Ryan plan to victory under the claim that they're "saving" Medicare, while Obama and the Democrats are "destroying" it. As the spouse of a disabled person on Medicare, I'll be blunt: If Mitt Romney wins and the Ryan reforms are implemented, my wife will be dead in three years or less unless she happens to be one of the lucky ones who gets to have her Medicare benefits continue unchanged.

Why? Because without a guarantee of insurance coverage, or limits on what insurers can charge, she will either be denied coverage outright or rapidly priced right out of the market. After all, the typical multiple sclerosis sufferer on interferon therapy (i.e., one of the so-called ABC drugs [Avenix/Rebif, Betaseron, and Copaxone] - needs over $12,000/year of immunosuppresive injectables alone; add in costs for other pain management drugs, physical and occupational therapy, and occasional steroid treatments to knock back exacerbations, and you're easily looking at $18,000-$20,000/year in medical expenses.

Such individuals can only be profitably covered by insurance companies as part of a larger risk group, one in which MS sufferers are mixed in with non-sufferers in order to achieve cost-sharing; but from the get-go, the Ryan plan does everything it can to destroy group underwriting: It eliminates the tax write-off that employers get for providing group insurance, it forces Medicare recipients into the insurance market as individuals, and - when coupled with the current Republican opposition to insurance exchanges, it provides no other mechanism for MS sufferers (or any other high-risk, high-cost group) to avoid being underwritten for insurance at a premium very closely approximating their expected average annual medical expense plus a markup for the insurer's profits and overhead.

As a result, whatever premium the government offers in lieu of Medicare becomes worthless; such individuals are simply not going to be able to afford today's expensive therapies unless they're being supported by spouses with a six-figure income - which blows 99% of these disabled individuals right out of the market at a stroke. Medicare then effectively becomes a subsidy for the very healthy, or the very rich, i.e., those who can afford to pay the high premiums that their illnesses and/or disabilities demand.

The Ryan plan's singular objective is to allow - indeed - to promote cherry-picking by insurance companies. Undoubtedly such behavior will benefit both insurers and healthy insureds; but it will absolutely devastate anyone who has any kind of preexisting condition, and especially those individuals with expensive ones. We can argue over whether this is a good thing or a bad thing from a public policy perspective - but that's not really the point, is it?

Politically speaking, the point is that the Ryan plan produces winners and losers when it comes to Medicare coverage; thus the political question becomes one of how we feel about letting people lose. If the attitude is "too bad, so sad, God screwed you, so get outta my face and drop dead", then the Republicans have a real shot at winning the debate; but if the attitude, is "Christ, that's horrible," the the GOP is going to get its ass chewed on the issue.

And since retail politics is often a battle of anecdotes, I'd be surprised if the GOP can come up with enough smiling faces to cancel out the plethora of horror stories the Democrats can dig up if they really want to.

[Revolutopia]

Because at the time, he planned on getting bipartisan support and getting it through the WH. If Obama calls him on it, it means Obama is calling attention to big scary number, and Paul Ryan can just say "You know what? Fine. I'll drop your cuts" and Obama's left holding the flaming bag of poo.

Really that is what you believe? That Ryan was trying to be bipartisan by including the "cuts" along with his voucher plan, god you are naive. He include them as they were recomend savings that help the system, not any thinking that Democrats would agree with his plan as along as they include those "cuts".

[Farnhamia]

Because at the time, he planned on getting bipartisan support and getting it through the WH. If Obama calls him on it, it means Obama is calling attention to big scary number, and Paul Ryan can just say "You know what? Fine. I'll drop your cuts" and Obama's left holding the flaming bag of poo.

Really that is what you believe? That Ryan was trying to be bipartisan by including the "cuts" along with his voucher plan, god you are naive. He include them as they were recomend savings that help the system, not any thinking that Democrats would agree with his plan as along as they include those "cuts".

You have to remember, the conservative definition of "bipartisanship" is something along the lines of "You do what we say."

[Norsklow]

You have to remember, the conservative definition of "bipartisanship" is something along the lines of "You do what we say."

Liberals call that PC.

I do not know Romney all that well. The little I remember from him goes back to Bush-Kerry ( I favoured Kerry and would do so again.

But I do know I want Obama tarred and feathered and ridden out of town.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

But I do know I want Obama tarred and feathered and ridden out of town.

Pray tell, why?

If it's a bunch of poorly-researched crap/outright lies by right-wingers, you all have to GIMME 20 DOLLAZ (NO WIFIN' IN THE CLUB) so I don't call up Slender Man and have him stalk everybody.

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg64228/html/CHRG-112hhrg64228.htm

That's the report being given and referenced in Congress.

The fact that the Ryan Plan's impact has been lied about so much destroys any Team Obama credibility in speculating. They now have to do what they do with the tax returns, which is play on fear of the unknown rather than "Mitt Romney doesn't pay taxes at all".

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087 ... lenews_wsj

So you have concrete proof that Obama's plan will fail (coupled with big scary number like 716 billion), and speculation in response.

Again, the situation is nowhere near as clear as you make it out to be.

Republicans are simply not going to be able to ride the Ryan plan to victory under the claim that they're "saving" Medicare, while Obama and the Democrats are "destroying" it. As the spouse of a disabled person on Medicare, I'll be blunt: If Mitt Romney wins and the Ryan reforms are implemented, my wife will be dead in three years or less unless she happens to be one of the lucky ones who gets to have her Medicare benefits continue unchanged.

Why? Because without a guarantee of insurance coverage, or limits on what insurers can charge, she will either be denied coverage outright or rapidly priced right out of the market. After all, the typical multiple sclerosis sufferer on interferon therapy (i.e., one of the so-called ABC drugs [Avenix/Rebif, Betaseron, and Copaxone] - needs over $12,000/year of immunosuppresive injectables alone; add in costs for other pain management drugs, physical and occupational therapy, and occasional steroid treatments to knock back exacerbations, and you're easily looking at $18,000-$20,000/year in medical expenses.

Such individuals can only be profitably covered by insurance companies as part of a larger risk group, one in which MS sufferers are mixed in with non-sufferers in order to achieve cost-sharing; but from the get-go, the Ryan plan does everything it can to destroy group underwriting: It eliminates the tax write-off that employers get for providing group insurance, it forces Medicare recipients into the insurance market as individuals, and - when coupled with the current Republican opposition to insurance exchanges, it provides no other mechanism for MS sufferers (or any other high-risk, high-cost group) to avoid being underwritten for insurance at a premium very closely approximating their expected average annual medical expense plus a markup for the insurer's profits and overhead.

As a result, whatever premium the government offers in lieu of Medicare becomes worthless; such individuals are simply not going to be able to afford today's expensive therapies unless they're being supported by spouses with a six-figure income - which blows 99% of these disabled individuals right out of the market at a stroke. Medicare then effectively becomes a subsidy for the very healthy, or the very rich, i.e., those who can afford to pay the high premiums that their illnesses and/or disabilities demand.

The Ryan plan's singular objective is to allow - indeed - to promote cherry-picking by insurance companies. Undoubtedly such behavior will benefit both insurers and healthy insureds; but it will absolutely devastate anyone who has any kind of preexisting condition, and especially those individuals with expensive ones. We can argue over whether this is a good thing or a bad thing from a public policy perspective - but that's not really the point, is it?

Politically speaking, the point is that the Ryan plan produces winners and losers when it comes to Medicare coverage; thus the political question becomes one of how we feel about letting people lose. If the attitude is "too bad, so sad, God screwed you, so get outta my face and drop dead", then the Republicans have a real shot at winning the debate; but if the attitude, is "Christ, that's horrible," the the GOP is going to get its ass chewed on the issue.

And since retail politics is often a battle of anecdotes, I'd be surprised if the GOP can come up with enough smiling faces to cancel out the plethora of horror stories the Democrats can dig up if they really want to.

Or, under Mr. Obama's plan (which cannot be changed and is already law), by 2019 15% of healthcare providers who continue to cover medicare are unprofitable anyway. Under the Romney-Ryan plan, your wife would probably be unaffected, if she's over 55. I like the theoretical argument, but alas, it doesn't pan out in reality. I can easily claim that because your insurer has to raise premiums to be able to take that risk, Po boy Johnny can't afford health care, and he dies from an easily treatable non-chronic condition. When, in reality, there are several options of recourse.

Your wife could "create" a "landscaping" company and get insurance through it. If your state bans groups of one, all states allow groups of two, so she "hires" you.

Have you tried checking if her professional group offers health insurance?

[The Mongol Ilkhanate]

Really that is what you believe? That Ryan was trying to be bipartisan by including the "cuts" along with his voucher plan, god you are naive. He include them as they were recomend savings that help the system, not any thinking that Democrats would agree with his plan as along as they include those "cuts".

You have to remember, the conservative definition of "bipartisanship" is something along the lines of "You do what we say."

Tell me, who were the sponsors of the Ryan Plan.

Paul Ryan, (R), and Ron Wyden (D)

[Zaras]

But I do know I want Obama tarred and feathered and ridden out of town.

Pray tell, why?

If it's a bunch of poorly-researched crap/outright lies by right-wingers, you all have to GIMME 20 DOLLAZ (NO WIFIN' IN THE CLUB) so I don't call up Slender Man and have him stalk everybody.

Why do you want Romney to win?

[Zaras]

You have to remember, the conservative definition of "bipartisanship" is something along the lines of "You do what we say."

Tell me, who were the sponsors of the Ryan Plan.

Paul Ryan, (R), and Ron Wyden (D)

Ah, yes, a complete nobody from Washington. So bipartisan.