Ryan Medicare privatization helps Democrat win heavily Republican congressional seat

[Craig234]

New York's 26th district is one of the most heavily Republican in the nation, held by a Democrat 4 times since 1856, by Jack Kemp, usually won by the Republican in a landslide.

The Congressman who resigned after pursuing women with a topless picture cause a special election to be held today.

Medicare was described by observers as the leading issue in the election that originally polled for a huge win for the Republican, IIRC.

But the Republican candidate said she would have voted for the Ryan budget, and this made Medicare a huge issue, shooting her down in the polls.

She then started to backtrack, with some backtracking and some dishonest claims.

She changed to praising the budget but moderating her support; she ran ads claiming that it was the Democrat who actually wanted to cut Medicare, and that she was the candidate who wanted to save it. This is spin, claiming her support for destroying Medicare by ending it as a public program and replacing it with a private voucher that will leave seniors with a lot less coverage is 'saving Medicare'.

The Democrat won the election today, sending a message and fear to Republicans in congress who voted for the budget - and the Republican Senators who are going to.

It's good to see the American people (in polls) and in this district support the Medicare program and punish those who would greedily support yet another shift of wealth from the American people to the rich, and gutting a program for both economic and political reasons since Democrats get credit, as they deserve, for having passed Medicare.

Republicans should abandon their opposition to Medicare at least - even moreso support a move to a 'universal Medicare' single-payer system that costs a lot less.

But that's only good for the American people, not their base the ultra rich, so it's quite unlikely they'll end their 50 year battle against "socialized medicine".

 

[between]

...

 

[Zebo]

LOL idiots All Republicans have to do is STFU, it always takes a dem to truly put the screws to the little people. welfare reform, free trade, obama care, etc. I have 100% confidence budget realities will have Obama slashing medicare in his 2nd term as long as republicans just stick with low tax mantra. That's all they have to do.

In my observations A republican can never cut any social program. Dems will hang you with natural predisposition for public to believe you are cold hearted snakes..

 

[Mursilis]

LOL idiots All Republicans have to do is STFU, it always takes a dem to truly put the screws to the little people. welfare reform, free trade, obama care, etc. I have 100% confidence budget realities will have Obama slashing medicare in his 2nd term as long as republicans just stick with low tax mantra. That's all they have to do.

I'm 100% confident you're dead wrong. Obama will slash nothing. His concerns about the budget are only lip-service. It's deficit spending as far as the eye can see into the horizon.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Why is it so many other countries can afford health coverage for their entire population, but it's in perpetual immanent failure in the US when just covering those over 65? Are they using some unholy dark magic voodoo to make such a program work?

 

[Mursilis]

Why is it so many other countries can afford health coverage for their entire population, but it's in perpetual immanent failure in the US when just covering those over 65? Are they using some unholy dark magic voodoo to make such a program work?

I think they're just using deficit spending, not unholy dark magic voodoo, to make it work. Of course, you can't rely on either for the long-term.

Also, as an aside, any truth to the popular notion that Americans are unhealthier as a group than citizens of most other first-world nations?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I think they're just using deficit spending, not unholy dark magic voodoo, to make it work. Of course, you can't rely on either for the long-term.

Also, as an aside, any truth to the popular notion that Americans are unhealthier as a group than citizens of most other first-world nations?

The fact that the US ranks dead last when it comes to preventable death rates I'm sure lends some credibility to that belief. That and the fact that, what, 50 million Americans have no health coverage.

 

[Mursilis]

The fact that the US ranks dead last when it comes to preventable death rates I'm sure lends some credibility to that belief. That and the fact that, what, 50 million Americans have no health coverage.

Sure they do. What they don't have is health insurance, but they do have health coverage. Don't all ERs have to treat everyone who comes in, or at least stabilize them?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Sure they do. What they don't have is health insurance, but they do have health coverage. Don't all ERs have to treat everyone who comes in, or at least stabilize them?

There's a huge difference between access to emergency room treatment and access to long term medical care. There's really no comparison. Oh and try to get access to emergency care after hours...

 

[Darwin333]

Correct me if I am wrong Craig but if you look at what other countries pay per capita for universal health care shouldn't we be able to afford that with JUST what we currently spend on Medicare?

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Sure they do. What they don't have is health insurance, but they do have health coverage. Don't all ERs have to treat everyone who comes in, or at least stabilize them?

<Guy with no health insurance but health coverage> Boy my cancer sure is acting up, guess I'll run down to the ER for some chemo therapy.

 

[Vette73]

<Guy with no health insurance but health coverage> Boy my cancer sure is acting up, guess I'll run down to the ER for some chemo therapy.

<ER> Sorry sir you look stable, no chemo for you, get out. GUARDS!!!

 

[QuantumPion]

Why is it so many other countries can afford health coverage for their entire population, but it's in perpetual immanent failure in the US when just covering those over 65? Are they using some unholy dark magic voodoo to make such a program work?

A few possible reasons I'll just throw out there:

1) Our government is far, far, larger. And thus far more bureaucratized and inefficient.

2) European countries depend on our massive military spending so they don't have to.

3) Cultural differences in entitlement mentality. Europeans might more often have the mindset of using as few resources as necessary for themselves in deference to the common good, while the dependent class in America grabs as much as they can get because if they don't, someone else will, leading to ballooning costs.

4) They can't. Hence why many of the weaker economies are collapsing (Ireland, Spain, Greece, etc).

5) They can't. They are just deficit spending like we are (e.g. Japan). Sooner or later the whole thing will come crashing down if massive changers are not made.

 

[Craig234]

Correct me if I am wrong Craig but if you look at what other countries pay per capita for universal health care shouldn't we be able to afford that with JUST what we currently spend on Medicare?

I'd have to check the numbers for your question, but you're on the right track.

The private insurance is so inefficient and costly, we could cover everyone with a single payer program with no problem IMO.

Medicare overheard ~5%, private insurance ~30%, IIRC.

 

[Craig234]

<Guy with no health insurance but health coverage> Boy my cancer sure is acting up, guess I'll run down to the ER for some chemo therapy.

Ever seen the cost of ER treatment? Try a two thousand dollar bill for a 1 mile ambulance ride, for example, or thousands for basic ER care.

 

[Thump553]

A few possible reasons I'll just throw out there:

1) Our government is far, far, larger. And thus far more bureaucratized and inefficient.

2) European countries depend on our massive military spending so they don't have to.

3) Cultural differences in entitlement mentality. Europeans might more often have the mindset of using as few resources as necessary for themselves in deference to the common good, while the dependent class in America grabs as much as they can get because if they don't, someone else will, leading to ballooning costs.

4) They can't. Hence why many of the weaker economies are collapsing (Ireland, Spain, Greece, etc).

5) They can't. They are just deficit spending like we are (e.g. Japan). Sooner or later the whole thing will come crashing down if massive changers are not made.

1) Size of the government does not mean it is more bureaucratized and inefficient. And anyone who has dealt with just about any foreign government would laugh at the idea that the US government is less efficient.

2) What does this have to do with healthcare expense (unless you are arguing our healthcare expense crisis is driven by our military adventures-not true and all those expenses are single provider-the US government.

3) Hah! The French, need I say more? Also wouldn't the same apply if your healthcare was paid by insurance versus the government-especially because the vast majority of US workers pay only a tiny portion of their actual health costs out of pocket.

4) Those countries are collapsing due to banking induced real estate bubbles (Greece also probably had fraud in its budgetary figures).

5) Assuming you are correct, won't spending twice as much per capita on healthcare drive us over the edge sooner than the other countries?

 

[Ape]

I'm 100% confident you're dead wrong. Obama will slash nothing. His concerns about the budget are only lip-service. It's deficit spending as far as the eye can see into the horizon.

I agree with you there, he will have no choice but to raise tax's on everyone to pay for his insane policies. He has no intention of cutting anything buy defense and those cuts, compared to the massive amounts spent on nanny programs with not be enough.

 

[Craig234]

A few possible reasons I'll just throw out there:

Guesses that are all wrong.

1) Our government is far, far, larger. And thus far more bureaucratized and inefficient.

Government doesn't need to get more 'bureaucratized and inefficient' with size. That's ignorant ideological parroting. Look up 'economies of scale'.

Look up the overhead of, say, Social Security. Compare it to the overhead of privatized retirement plans.

The moon landing was a huge project, did that make it less efficient?

2) European countries depend on our massive military spending so they don't have to.

Wrong. That has to do with their budgets, but nothing to do with their cost per capita in healthcare versus quality, etc.

3) Cultural differences in entitlement mentality. Europeans might more often have the mindset of using as few resources as necessary for themselves in deference to the common good, while the dependent class in America grabs as much as they can get because if they don't, someone else will, leading to ballooning costs.

More speculative ideology. Guess that explains why Americans are such library obsessives overwhelming the resources, checking out everything constantly.

4) They can't. Hence why many of the weaker economies are collapsing (Ireland, Spain, Greece, etc).

Wrong again. They've afforded it for a long time; the economic problems you mention are not from healthcare, they're from things like the financial industry causing problems, including Goldman Sachs' schemes. Nothing to do with being able to afford healthcare in their normal situation.

5) They can't. They are just deficit spending like we are (e.g. Japan). Sooner or later the whole thing will come crashing down if massive changers are not made.

Wrong again. First, most countries are not deficit spending to the degree we are. Second, the efficiencies they have are efficiences regardless of their budget issues.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

IMO the real problem with the health care debate is no one seems to want to enter it honestly and factually. Fear and lies abound instead whether you want to argue it's do to corporate interests or an entitlement mentality.

Until that can happen the debate will never get anywhere and the nightmare will go on. People want to argue that it's the best system in the world but there's a reason why other country's populous refute the notion of switching to a US styled system overwhelmingly (over 90% in Canada for example).

 

[Matt1970]

Ever seen the cost of ER treatment? Try a two thousand dollar bill for a 1 mile ambulance ride, for example, or thousands for basic ER care.

And then some.

 

[fskimospy]

A few possible reasons I'll just throw out there:

1) Our government is far, far, larger. And thus far more bureaucratized and inefficient.

2) European countries depend on our massive military spending so they don't have to.

3) Cultural differences in entitlement mentality. Europeans might more often have the mindset of using as few resources as necessary for themselves in deference to the common good, while the dependent class in America grabs as much as they can get because if they don't, someone else will, leading to ballooning costs.

4) They can't. Hence why many of the weaker economies are collapsing (Ireland, Spain, Greece, etc).

5) They can't. They are just deficit spending like we are (e.g. Japan). Sooner or later the whole thing will come crashing down if massive changers are not made.

I have to say that almost none of your points actually address costs in health care (2, 4, 5), and the ones that do are baseless speculation. (1,3) I know it's an article of faith that socialized medicine couldn't possibly be better, but at this point the evidence is pretty overwhelming that it is. What's it going to take?

On the topic of this election, this is a pretty big swing. According to Nate Silver, in an ordinary election this is a district that the Republican candidate should expect to win by about 12 points in, but in the circumstances we were in here, including an accounting for third party candidates, the Democrat would still have won by about 3 points in a head to head race.

I'm sure there are a lot of local circumstances at play there, but in a shift that large it's pretty likely there are some national level issues at play as well. In particular it looks like the polling is saying that support for Ryan's plan played a significant factor. Let this be a lesson to Republicans, if you're going to accept voter backlash for messing with health care, at least get something for it instead of just voting for an extreme right wing wish list that won't ever become law.

I bet some vulnerable Republicans are pretty pissed at having to vote for that piece of shit right now.

 

[matt0611]

Why would this even matter? Not like Obama would have signed it anyway.
Even if he did, it wouldn't effect people for at least another 10 years.

 

[fskimospy]

Why would this even matter? Not like Obama would have signed it anyway.
Even if he did, it wouldn't effect people for at least another 10 years.

Because it tells people what policy preferences Republicans have, and they didn't like them? Why would you elect more people who attempt to do things you don't like?

 

[matt0611]

Because it tells people what policy preferences Republicans have, and they didn't like them? Why would you elect more people who attempt to do things you don't like?

If that particular policy preference wouldn't make a difference in actual policy I don't see how that would be the most important issue.
But the american people are some of the most gullible people on the planet, so this really shouldn't surprise me.
They're in for a rude awakening down the road. Thats for sure.

 

[fskimospy]

If that particular policy preference wouldn't make a difference in actual policy I don't see how that would be the most important issue.
But the american people are some of the most gullible people on the planet, so this really shouldn't surprise me.
They're in for a rude awakening down the road. Thats for sure.

I'm sure it wasn't the most important issue for voters as a whole, but for voters in the middle who switch back and forth it sounds like this was a big enough reason for a lot of them to vote the other way. When a party almost unanimously votes for a policy, that's a pretty strong indicator that such a policy is what they want to enact if given the power to do so. If you don't like that policy, that's a good reason not to vote for them.

Sure it was just pandering to the ultra right this time, but a voter would have to be awfully dumb to see a vote like this, vote Republican anyway, and then if the Republicans actually got the power to pass something like this and did so, say 'oh jeez, I thought they were just kidding!'. That's why this move by the Republicans was so dumb, it looks likely that they will pay a significant political price in House seats and perhaps in the presidential election, and they didn't even get any actual policy they want out of it. They gave up something for nothing.