McCains plan to win critical state of Florida

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

McCains plan to win critical state of Florida

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:19 pm

Those old sunshiners want Mavericky we will show them Mavericky. Lets cut 1.3 trillion from Meidicare Medicaid.
heh-heh heh-heh.
Below from the Wall Street Journal
C.B.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122315505846605217.html

John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs.

The Republican presidential nominee has said little about the proposed cuts, but they are needed to keep his health-care plan "budget neutral," as he has promised. The McCain campaign hasn't given a specific figure for the cuts, but didn't dispute the analysts' estimate.

In the months since Sen. McCain introduced his health plan, statements made by his campaign have implied that the new tax credits he is proposing to help Americans buy health insurance would be paid for with other tax increases.

But Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Sen. McCain's senior policy adviser, said Sunday that the campaign has always planned to fund the tax credits, in part, with savings from Medicare and Medicaid. Those government health-care programs serve seniors, poor families and the disabled. Medicare spending for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30 is estimated at $457.5 billion.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the Medicare and Medicaid changes would improve the programs and eliminate fraud, but he didn't detail where the cuts would come from. "It's about giving them the benefit package that has been promised to them by law at lower cost," he said.

Both Sen. McCain and his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, have recently sought to refocus on health care. The issue once ranked at the top of voters' domestic concerns, but has in recent months been eclipsed by energy and the economy.

Sen. McCain charges that the Obama plan, which would create a government-run marketplace in which people could buy coverage, would lead to government-run health care. Sen. Obama charges that Sen. McCain's plan would leave many people unable to get insurance.

Sen. Obama's campaign turned up the volume in a major push on health care over the weekend with two days of attacks from the stump, four new television advertisements, a series of health-care events across the country and fliers to voters' homes in swing states.

Sen. Obama is focused on Sen. McCain's plan to offer a new tax credit of $2,500 per person and $5,000 per family toward insurance premiums. This would allow people to buy health coverage on the open market, where they may have more choices and might look for a better bargain.

In exchange, the government would begin taxing the value of health benefits people get through work. If an employer spends $10,000 to buy a worker health insurance, the worker would pay taxes on that money.

"It's a shell game," Sen. Obama told an outdoor rally of 28,000 people Sunday in Asheville, N.C. "Sen. McCain gives you a tax credit with one hand -- but raises your taxes with the other."

Sen. McCain's plan actually would lower taxes for most people. But that means the plan wouldn't pay for itself, because it cuts certain taxes more than it raises others.

The federal government imposes two taxes on wages, generally: an income tax, which funds the government's general operations, and the payroll tax, paid for by employers and employees, which funds Social Security and Medicare. If Sen. McCain were to apply both of these to the value of health benefits, he could fully pay for his new tax credits. That is what aides have in the past suggested he would do.

In April, when Sen. McCain gave a major speech about his health plan, Mr. Holtz-Eakin, the senior policy adviser, said the tax provisions alone were budget neutral -- meaning that health benefits would have to be subject to both income and payroll taxes.

Campaign officials have regularly implied since then that the tax plan was a wash. In the vice-presidential debate last week, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin described Sen. McCain's proposed tax credits and said: "That's budget neutral. That doesn't cost the government anything, as opposed to Barack Obama's plan to mandate health-care coverage and have this universal, government-run program."

Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the campaign never intended to apply the payroll tax to health benefits. That means that most people would see a net tax cut, contrary to Sen. Obama's assertions. Only those with very rich benefits packages are likely to see a net increase in taxes. But it also means that Sen. McCain must fill a huge budget hole -- which the campaign says will come from cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank, estimates that the McCain plan would cost the government $1.3 trillion over 10 years. The plan would allow as many as five million more people to have insurance, it estimates.

Mr. Holtz-Eakin said the plan is accurately described as budget neutral because it assumes enough savings in Medicare and Medicaid spending to make up the difference. He said the savings would come from eliminating Medicare fraud and by reforming payment policies to lower the overall cost of care. He said the new tax credits will help some low-income people avoid joining Medicaid. The campaign also proposes increasing Medicare premiums for wealthier seniors.

Sen. Obama also would rely on some Medicare savings to pay for his health-care plan, which would offer subsidies to help consumers pay for premiums. The Tax Policy Center estimates that his plan would cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years and cover 34 million more people.

Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA


Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:11 am

This is why we don't take you seriously. You are so clueless about the fraud in your believed programs. People just don't think stealing from the government is stealing. That is why so many people lie on their tax returns. The same applies to all the government social welfare programs. Fraudulent medicare claims are not really stealing because it from the government. Then people like you demonize those that try to improve these programs. Sadly it works, but at what long-term cost to the country?


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16045685
It doesn't sound sexy, but amid the bikinis, beaches and palm trees of South Florida, one of the most popular and lucrative crimes now is Medicare fraud


http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-10-05-home-health-fraud_N.htm?csp=34
Miami-Dade County is on track to cost Medicare a projected $1.3 billion for home health care services this fiscal year, up 1,300% in just five years, government data show.


There is also a great article about how elderly, especially in Florida, schedule procedures they do not need so they can hang out an socialize with other elderly. Why not? It doesn't cost them a penny and it beats sitting home alone. When it's free, there is massive waste. I'm surprised at how many people are shocked by that.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16195
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby Pacific Fisher » Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:18 am

I think the retired folks in Florida will take the McCain/Palin threat to their Medicare, Medicaid pretty seriously.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:43 am

I agree because your guys are not honest about what is going on. There is massive fraud and abuse in this and virtually every progrem they support. Do they not care? Do they not know? I'm not sure which it is or which is worse.

They wanted to force lenders to lend to unqualified home owners. Did they not know or not care that these borrowers would not be able to pay back the loans?

It's a recurrent theme. You don't solve a problem, but you get a dependent class that is scared for their financial well being. Is it on purpose or an accident?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16195
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby Pacific Fisher » Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:58 pm

McCain does not need Florida anyway, right?
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby brucetonbottombandit » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:35 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:I agree because your guys are not honest about what is going on. There is massive fraud and abuse in this and virtually every progrem they support. Do they not care? Do they not know? I'm not sure which it is or which is worse.

They wanted to force lenders to lend to unqualified home owners. Did they not know or not care that these borrowers would not be able to pay back the loans?

It's a recurrent theme. You don't solve a problem, but you get a dependent class that is scared for their financial well being. Is it on purpose or an accident?

There is massive fraud and abuse in every gov't program, period. Ever hear of the no bid defense contracts given to Cheney's Dyncorp.
brucetonbottombandit
hunter
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:18 am
Location: Tennesse

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:29 pm

brucetonbottombandit wrote:There is massive fraud and abuse in every gov't program, period. Ever hear of the no bid defense contracts given to Cheney's Dyncorp.
I don't know about the specific thing you are referring to me, but you agree with me. That is why I am for as small a government as possible.

Do you agree that the only logical conclusion is to keep the government as small as possible because we know that a large fraction of the money will go to those that lie and defraud the taxpayers?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16195
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby rmh » Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:14 pm

I think he meant Halliburton, maybe DynCorp is a subsidiary. Hate to break it to anybody but sometimes no-bid contracts are a necessary evil because only one company has the capability to do the work. This is true for government contracts as well as private industry and I have experience in both venues.
2013 Totals
1 2003 Ford Focus (harvested by a 6 point whitetail)
1 1991 Chevy Lumina (harvested by a PT Cruiser)
rmh
hunter
 
Posts: 1710
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: On the Chesapeake

Postby GroundSwatter » Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:31 pm

I agree about the no bids. There are lot of companies that low ball gov't contracts, and if they do happen to get it and aren't able to deliver, its just a waste of time and money.

As for people abusing the system. I personally am tired of social security. I'm young enough that I would much rather put that money into my own retirement plan. But wait, I just can't opt out of it because the need me and 4 other people to pay one person that is collecting it.

Welfare is another sham.

But taking advantage of the gov't is a hobby in this country, so let it ride I suppose.
It's a fact that 70 percent of the people who purchase heavier tackle do so with the categorical I just lost a huge snook! Einstein Hairdo.The other 30 percent have either Tarpon Fever or are sporting a hand cramped into a claw from a deepwater grouper.
User avatar
GroundSwatter
hunter
 
Posts: 3643
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: GTMO from NE Texas

Anyone else notice?

Postby DuckDuckGoose.... » Tue Oct 07, 2008 8:18 pm

After the facts came out the original poster Pacific Fister never had a good response?
# of times able to get out hunting.. 1
Duck totals:
Mallards:
Wood Ducks:
Mergansers:
Bufflehead:
DuckDuckGoose....
hunter
 
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2006 11:53 am
Location: Southern Maine

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Oct 08, 2008 8:37 am

GroundSwatter wrote:I agree about the no bids. There are lot of companies that low ball gov't contracts, and if they do happen to get it and aren't able to deliver, its just a waste of time and money.
It doesn't work that way. If you don't deliver, you don't get paid.

Most contracts are NOT determined by the lowest cost. There are many factors that are used to award the contracts. First, can they actually deliver. Do you buy anything based purely on the lowest cost? Somethings, but not much. The same is true for government contracting.

No bids make sense if there is only one firm that can deliver. Halliburten was in this position. I don't think I even heard another firm claim that they could deliver. What they didn't want the money?

How the government loses in government contracts is they don't live up to their end. A contract goes both ways. The general way that the government wastes money on big contracts is they say they want X. The contractor submits a proposal to deliver X. Then the government decides they would like to change some thing about X. Well, now the contract has them where they want them because they have to renegotiate the contract and the contractor is holding all the cards.

I have actually seen contracts where the winning bidder clearly bid low because the had no doubt that they would not have to deliver on the original contract. Sure enough, before long the government was coming back with a bunch of changes and the winning bidder turned a money-losing contract into a profitable contract. Friends of mine were at the losing company. They were complaining that there is no way the winning contractor can make a profit with their proposal. There was a very obvious way. They just didn't understand the game.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16195
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Anyone else notice?

Postby Pacific Fisher » Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:36 am

DuckDuckGoose.... wrote:After the facts came out the original poster Pacific Fister never had a good response?


Sorry Duck,

So much Republican malfeasance, so little time.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby Brydog » Wed Oct 08, 2008 10:22 pm

I'm surprised you even bothered to waste your time with a response PF.
These R Loyalists are a waste of time and votes ! :no:
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
~Stephen Roberts
User avatar
Brydog
Banned
 
Posts: 4941
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 1:00 pm
Location: Lake Isabella Michigan, Houghton Lake Michigan


Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests