Search this Topic:
03/23/12 03:11 PM
BB Forum Moderator
03/23/12 03:13 PM
Everyone's favorite bigot
03/23/12 03:14 PM
WHERE DID MY PICTURE GO
03/23/12 03:15 PM
03/23/12 03:19 PM
He does look more like him. Why do those question marks pop up EVERYTIME I post a video along with an article!
03/23/12 03:22 PM
03/23/12 03:28 PM
03/23/12 04:10 PM
I would have yelled out "PRETEND IT"S THEWHITERABBIT AND HIS 10000000 COPY AND PASTE POSTS" instead.I think TWR is a chick, you fat queer blob
I would have yelled out "PRETEND IT"S THEWHITERABBIT AND HIS 10000000 COPY AND PASTE POSTS" instead.
03/23/12 04:24 PM
DelosWorld wrote:TheWhiteRabbit wrote:
WHERE DID MY PICTURE GO
He looks a lot more like President Palmer.
03/24/12 07:17 AM
Thinks astrology is real
03/24/12 08:32 AM
03/24/12 10:01 AM
Beefcake wrote:A nice explanation of the difference between the Democrat and Republican visions for the future of Medicaid/Medicare:
Ryan proposes a much-needed reform of Medicaidâ€‹â€”â€‹ending the open-ended federal/state funding structure that creates an enormous incentive for overspending and transforming the program into a federal block grant that would allow states the flexibility to pursue greater efficiency and provide more options to the poor. And most important, he proposes to transform Medicare into a premium-support programâ€‹â€”â€‹and in a way that draws an even more effective contrast with Obamaâ€™s approach than last yearâ€™s Republican budget did.
As with last yearâ€™s plan, none of Ryanâ€™s proposed changes would apply to current seniors and people who are now over 55. For people who retire more than 10 years from now, Medicare would become a system in which the government would provide a fixed amount per recipient each year to pay for insurance that each senior would choose from a menu of comprehensive options. Unlike last yearâ€™s proposal, however, the private insurance options would be joined by one government-run fee-for-service option resembling the current Medicare system, and the level of the premium-support benefit each year would be set by competitive bidding among insurers, rather than just by a predetermined formula fixed to inflation.
Spoiler [+]Both of these new elements would tend to make the transition to the new system more gradual and orderly, and to complicate Democratic efforts to scare voters about it. The fee-for-service option would have a version of â€śMedicare as we know itâ€ť compete for consumers in the new system on something like a level playing field with private insurers, while the competitive bidding system would combine the best elements of defined-benefit and defined-contribution coverage.
A defined-benefit system, like todayâ€™s Medicare system, is one in which the government commits to provide a certain set of benefits and then pays whatever they cost. This assures recipients of a guaranteed benefit but encourages cost inflation, since providers of care have a huge incentive to perform more services and thus earn more fees. A defined-contribution system, like the one Ryan proposed last year, would have the government provide a predetermined amount to individuals to spend on insurance. They would choose the coverage they wanted; if it cost more than the preset amount they would pay the difference, and if it cost less they would keep the difference. This would make consumers more cost conscious, driving providers to seek ways to offer quality care at lower prices, but it risks leaving beneficiaries with more out-of-pocket expenses if health costs still grow faster than the premium-support benefit.
Ryanâ€™s new proposal is a bit of both: The government would define the minimum insurance benefit to be provided to all covered seniors, based on the level of coverage Medicare now provides, and then there would be a process each year in which competing insurers would offer bids proposing to provide that (or a greater) benefit at the lowest cost they could. The level of the premium-support payment given to seniors would be set at the level of the second-lowest of the bids; poorer and sicker seniors would get additional help, while the wealthiest would get less. Thus, there would be a defined benefit, but payments to providers would not be open-ended. And there would be a defined contribution (with providers competing to win over consumers), but its value would be automatically set to a level that makes premiums affordable, since at least one option would always cost less than the government subsidy.
Because CBO refuses to score the effects of market competition, and a budget resolution has to be scored by CBO, Ryan had to back up his competitive bidding process with a blunt cap on Medicareâ€™s overall growth (CBO then simply scores the proposal as meeting the cap). To sharpen the contrast with Obama, he chose to just give CBO the same cap Obama proposes for the IPABâ€‹â€”â€‹keeping the annual growth of costs below GDP growth plus 0.5 percent. Both caps are of course just scoring conventions; they are goals, not reforms. They raise the question of how costs would be kept below the cap, and the differing answers to that question clarify once again the choice before voters this year.
On one hand are Obamaâ€™s 15 numinous know-it-alls, charged with setting prices, rationing care, and finding just the right balance between quality and access from Washington, and without the power to change Medicareâ€™s payment system. And on the other hand is a system that seeks efficiency by having 50 million consumers in search of the quality they want at the lowest price they can find pressuring 15 million insurance and health care providers to find innovative ways to meet their demands and make a good living. One involves sheer faith in expert managers, and the other involves using real economics to lift the burden of the oppressive fee-for-service system and enable a new era of innovation, efficiency, and quality in American health care. It is hard to imagine a clearer contrast for voters than that between the two visions of government, and of American life, at the heart of these two proposalsâ€‹â€”â€‹and indeed, at the heart of these two budgets.
03/24/12 12:33 PM
03/24/12 02:47 PM
03/24/12 02:49 PM
Caption this picture
03/24/12 02:52 PM
President Obama appears to be widening his lead against all Republican presidential hopefuls, including Mitt Romney, among voters in the swing state of Virginia, according to a new poll.The Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday shows Obama beating Romney, 50 percent to 42 percent, his biggest lead over the former Massachusetts governor in this election cycle.The Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday shows Obamaâ€™s approval rating sits at 51 percent. Forty nine percent of those polled say he deserves to be re-elected.â€śPresident Barack Obama has opened up some daylight in Virginia against his Republican challengers,â€ť said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. â€śHis margin over Romney, in the state where Obama has been struggling after his win in 2008, compares to a slight 47-43 percent lead in February.â€ťEven adding Bob McDonnell, the popular Virginia governor, to the GOP ticket as vice president does not help the Republicans carry the state, according to the poll. In a matchup of Obama and Vice President Joe Biden against Romney and McDonnell, the Democrats win, 50 percent to 43 percent.(â€¦)The president leads former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum 49 percent to 40 percent; former House speaker Newt Gingrich, 54 perce.nt to 35 percent; and Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) 49 percent to 39 percent.
President Obama now clears the 50% mark in support against his top two potential Republican challengers in the battleground state of Virginia.The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Virginia Voters finds the president leading former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by nine points â€“ 51% to 42%. It was a six-point race a month ago â€“ Obama 49%, Romney 43%. Four percent (4%) now prefer another candidate in the race, and four percent (4%) more are undecided.
03/24/12 02:59 PM
03/24/12 03:04 PM
03/24/12 03:07 PM
Share This Link
Message board courtesy of Survivor Sucks member support.
Benevolent dictatorship courtesy of Survivor Sucks Admin Idoits.
© 2016 Yuku. All rights reserved.