Tiberius Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Pure evil. Talk about war on the poor. Savagely slashing health care for the poor like this is cruel, mean spirited and wrong. I'm sure it will be wildly popular in the tea party, though. What the hell are those people going to do if they get, sick, injured or need information? Die? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/us/politics/paul-ryan-budget.html?hp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 I notice your Op-Ed didn't include any actual figures, budget line items, or even directly reference actual items within the budget. With that said, if you're voicing criticism, I assume you've read the budget proposal; given that your OP piece was even less informative than your usual links? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 When you say "die," do you mean Las Vegas craps table die or funny ha-ha the WH left four Americans to die in Benghazi so they could win an election die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Why do you guys take the bait. Let it die on the vine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Pure evil. Talk about war on the poor. Savagely slashing health care for the poor like this is cruel, mean spirited and wrong. I'm sure it will be wildly popular in the tea party, though. What the hell are those people going to do if they get, sick, injured or need information? Die? http://www.nytimes.c...-budget.html?hp "Or need information?????" I notice your Op-Ed didn't include any actual figures, budget line items, or even directly reference actual items within the budget. With that said, if you're voicing criticism, I assume you've read the budget proposal; given that your OP piece was even less informative than your usual links? Actually, I think that's an article, not an op-ed. Though with a Weisman article, it's an easy mistake to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 "Or need information?????" You know it's bad when even gatorman is going full gatorman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Pure evil. Talk about war on the poor. Savagely slashing health care for the poor like this is cruel, mean spirited and wrong. I'm sure it will be wildly popular in the tea party, though. What the hell are those people going to do if they get, sick, injured or need information? Die? http://www.nytimes.c...-budget.html?hp Die? Sure, what purpose do the poor serve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 Die? Sure, what purpose do the poor serve? What, I'm gonna change my own oil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 1, 2014 Share Posted April 1, 2014 What, I'm gonna change my own oil? I assume the guy changing your oil has a job and therefore is not considered poor in my book. He gets to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 (edited) I assume the guy changing your oil has a job and therefore is not considered poor in my book. He gets to live. mechanics that I know own houses in the suburbs and do not mooch off the gvt. They willl never get rich but they are able to provide for themselves and families and do ok. Maybe more poor people should strive to be mechanics. ... Edited April 2, 2014 by drinkTHEkoolaid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 I assume the guy changing your oil has a job and therefore is not considered poor in my book. He gets to live. According to what I've read, it's not changing the oil that is the problem. It's all the information gathering that has to be done prior to the guy changing the oil. Do you have any idea how fatal is to get information? Damn you, Paul Ryan! Damn you to HELL!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 My mechanic is a hair under 50, and is largely retired. He worked his as off for 30 years, planned well, and works part time as a training manager to cover his insurance. He works on the side because he's a grease monkey, and loves the work. Doesn't "need" the money. He's a millionaire thrice over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 (edited) Premium support for Medicare... Sounds like the ACA. Why not keep the ACA in place, and add seniors? i am sure private insurers would LOVE to have a bunch of high risk loss population. Premium support for Medicare... Sounds like the ACA. Why not keep the ACA in place, and add seniors? i am sure private insurers would LOVE to have a bunch of high risk loss population. Oh, and: Because Senate Democrats do not intend to even draft a budget this year, the Ryan plan will serve more as a political manifesto than a legislative roadmap for the 113th Congress. Lol- budgets are all crazy and time consuming.... Edited April 2, 2014 by B-Large Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 2, 2014 Author Share Posted April 2, 2014 Immoral Such a system would limit federal spending on Medicare, whereas today there is no cap on what the government pays. Ryan also wants to repeal major elements of Obama's health reform law, a move that would cut spending by an estimated $1.8 trillion. That's largely because he would repeal the new subsidies for Americans who buy their insurance on exchanges and he would repeal the expansion of Medicaid. But Ryan wouldn't repeal all parts of the law. He has said that he would preserve the law's spending cuts to Medicare, saving more than $700 billion. But instead of using those savings to fund insurance subsidies he would apply them to deficit reduction. http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/paul-ryan-budget/ Because Senate Democrats do not intend to even draft a budget this year, the Ryan plan will serve more as a political manifesto than a legislative roadmap for the 113th Congress. Lol- budgets are all crazy and time consuming.... From article posted above: On Wednesday, Democratic Senate Budget Chairman Patty Murray will put out her own 2014 proposal that is expected to contrast sharply with Ryan's. I notice your Op-Ed didn't include any actual figures, budget line items, or even directly reference actual items within the budget. With that said, if you're voicing criticism, I assume you've read the budget proposal; given that your OP piece was even less informative than your usual links? No, I just read the OP. I trust they have read it or something to do with it. I bet this will start you and Chef and Douchebag Tom on ten pages of idiocy. Edit: Aren't you the guy that said you read all of the ACA and Christies full report? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Immoral I'll leave it to you to explain how incrementally reducing the size and scope of government over a period of more than a decade, is immoral. No, I just read the OP. I trust they have read it or something to do with it. I bet this will start you and Chef and Douchebag Tom on ten pages of idiocy. Then you have no business commenting on the Ryan budget, as you have no idea what is actually in it, or how it works. You're just regurgitating the light on facts and figures drivel of a pundit. Edit: Aren't you the guy that said you read all of the ACA and Christies full report? The ACA yes; the bridge report, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 No, I just read the OP. Let's be honest. No one will ever confuse you for an original and independent thinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 I'll leave it to you to explain how incrementally reducing the size and scope of government over a period of more than a decade, is immoral. Because killing babies, grandma and poor people is immoral. Didn't you read that in Ryan's budget proposal? I'm of the camp we all have to go sometime and most of our challenges are due to overpopulation so I'm all for cullint the herd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted April 2, 2014 Author Share Posted April 2, 2014 I'll leave it to you to explain how incrementally reducing the size and scope of government over a period of more than a decade, is immoral. Then you have no business commenting on the Ryan budget, as you have no idea what is actually in it, or how it works. You're just regurgitating the light on facts and figures drivel of a pundit. The ACA yes; the bridge report, no. Oh, it's incrementally slashing people's health care, therefore its ok! They don't pull the band aid quickly, Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Oh, it's incrementally slashing people's health care, therefore its ok! They don't pull the band aid quickly, Wow! Yup. Ryan's budget proposal was one sentence. We will balance the budget by incrementally slashing people's health care only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 2, 2014 Share Posted April 2, 2014 Oh, it's incrementally slashing people's health care, therefore its ok! They don't pull the band aid quickly, Wow! No, it's incrementally reducing people's dependence on government; which we can no longer afford to provide, and puts us on a sustainable path. The reality is, that it would actually be immoral to continue to proceed with an expansion of services, or even the status quo, pretending that nothing was wrong, and kicking the can down the road, until we got to a point where collapse was inevitable, which would actually starve the sick, the elderly, and the infirm. If you have any true desire to have government services for these individuals, than the only moral way to proceed to to make those services solvent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts