May 20, 2011

Rush to Newt: "What did you apologize to [Paul Ryan] about?"

And Newt said, referring to what he had said on "Meet the Press" using the phrase "social engineering" to describe an aspect of Ryan's Medicare proposal:
Because it was interpreted in a way which was causing trouble, which he doesn't need or deserve, and was causing the House Republicans trouble. One of my closest friends -- somebody I truly, deeply respect -- e-mailed me and said, "You know, your answer hits every Republican who voted for the budget." Well, my answer wasn't about the budget. I promptly went back and said publicly, and continue to say: "I would have voted for the Ryan budget. I think it's a very important first step in the right direction," and I have consistently said that from the time that Paul first briefed me on it weeks before he introduced it -- and I've been talking with Paul Ryan about budget matters for the last four years.

131 comments:

Bob Ellison said...

"Some of my best friends are conservatives."

Scott M said...

Cue Garage dressed as Ryan pushing an old woman in a wheelchair over a cliff.

Sixty Grit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freeman Hunt said...

Walking it back, walking it back.

traditionalguy said...

Newt again is firmly standing by his fickle judgements about Ryan's reforms. Translate: It is all about Newt all of the time...and that is the opposite of an effective leadership style.

Rumpletweezer said...

Newt is clearly a loose cannon on the political landscape. Paul Begala on Imus yesterday thanked Newt for giving the left a soundbite that says Ryan's plan is even too radical for Newt Gingrich. If Newt couldn't even see that trap coming and how his response would be used...sheesh. I don't have the vocabulary to fully describe how stupid this was.

Christopher in MA said...

I wish I were as smart as Newt thinks he is.

Hell, I wish I were even half as smart as Little Black Jesus thinks HE is.

gerry said...

Newt blew it way back in '94 with his ethically-questionable and politically-stupid book-hawking. He destroyed conservative momentum then; he'll do it again.

Newt: please go away.

AllenS said...

Newt ranks way up there on the sleeze factor sliding scale.

nevadabob said...

"Newt again is firmly standing by his fickle judgements about Ryan's reforms."

What Paul Ryan proposes to do is to cut the Social Security you've been promised and paid for all you life and to cut the Medicare you've been paying insurance premiums for all your life.

Now that we're getting old and starting to draw on these insurance plans ... they want to fuck us over?

How is that in my interest, precisely? Why would that make me want to vote Republican?

Why would any senior voter slice their own wrist just because some previously no-name House backbencher proposes to eviscerate the very programs we've all been paying for all our lives now that it comes time for them to fucking pay up?

Paul Ryan's plan is fucking stupid because no senior is going to vote for any Republicans who advance it.

Cut foreign aid, cut payments to the fucking Egyptians and Syrians, cut out NPR and arts funding, and payments to liberal colleges that have $23 billion dollar endowments they're sitting on. Then come talk to me about cutting my fucking Social Security check and maybe we'll talk about it. But not until then.

Republicans are morons who apparently have no grasp of elementary demographics and if they advance this stupid plan they deserve to be booted from office.

garage mahal said...

RyanCare isn't ending Medicare and replacing with coupons. It's called Premium Support!

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

He could have just campaigned, pushed conservative ideas, lambasted Obama at every turn and then when the time was right step down and throw his support too anybody else....

But noooooo!

Scott M said...

@Garage

You missed your cue.

Rumpletweezer said...

nevadabob--

So the democrats made promises that are increasingly impossible to keep and you blame the republicans. You're a genius.

nevadabob said...

They're paying city lifeguards $200,000 a year, but Paul Ryan thinks the real problem is my grandmother's Social Security check.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/20/lifeguard-pay-200g-riles-california-beach-city/?test=latestnews

Paul Ryan hasn't proposed capping the pay of a government worker ... but he wants to cut Medicare that we've been paying for out the ass for all our lives?

Paul Ryan hasn't proposed cutting NPR funding or arts funding, or funding for Saudi Arabian Muslim terrorists ... he wants to fuck over mom and pop on their retirement.

Boston cops are being paid $200,000 a year and retiring on 7-figure pensions at age 55 ... but Paul Ryan thinks the real problem is your frail grandfather receiving the insurance payout he paid INTO all his life.

Fuck Paul Ryan right up his ass. Any Republican who signs on to this plan should be bent over.

bagoh20 said...

Newt is going for the 2012 McCain slot as the Democrats preferred Republican candidate.

But, times, they are a changing.

rhhardin said...

What Paul Ryan proposes to do is to cut the Social Security you've been promised and paid for all you life and to cut the Medicare you've been paying insurance premiums for all your life.

As the lifetime increases, so must the retirement age, lest you run out of workers.

As for medical care, send train retirees to give it. Then their number doesn't matter. It all scales.

Like when a disaster strikes a population that is not a victim class, they all pitch in and there's no problem. There are always as many helpers as victims.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

They're paying city lifeguards $200,000 a year, but Paul Ryan thinks the real problem is my grandmother's Social Security check.

And the “they” is CALIFORNIA, not Paul Ryan…and the problem IS Granny’s SS Cheque…we can’t afford to pay granny what we promised her…well we can, but we can’t afford to pay YOU what we promised you…so your choices are, take less (either via inflation or via cuts in the program) OR reform it. To support SS as it currently stands requires your children and grandchildren to pay about a 70% tax rate? Do you really think they will? And why do you wish to beggar THEM, even if they could or would pay?

Finally, Ryan’s plan does NOT AFFECT THOSE 55 AND OLDER.

Try reading something other than Talking Points Memo for your information.

nevadabob said...

"So the democrats made promises that are increasingly impossible to keep and you blame the republicans."

What promise exactly is it increasingly impossible to keep?

Keep in mind, they're still paying lifeguards and cops $200,000 a year and Republicans are not proposing to do thing one about that. Harvard (Democrat heaven) gets billions in federal funding even though they sit on a $30 billion endowment.

My point is that Republicans haven't spent one day cutting real fat in our federal or state budgets ... they haven't spent one second eliminating these exorbitant government pay scales ... but they jump right in trying to cut Social Security?

Why start there when it will only lead to Republican defeat at the polls? Seems an odd place to start, no? And had you ever heard of Paul Ryan before now? Nope. Where'd he come from all the sudden ... just when Republicans were taking back power from Democrats?

Why should senior voters cast ballots for idiots who want to cut the senior's Social Security check?

Rumpletweezer said...

nevadabob--

Sorry. I thought for a moment there that you might be a sentient human being. My mistake.

nevadabob said...

And the “they” is CALIFORNIA, not Paul Ryan ..."

Paul Ryan could propose a law capping all state government employee's pay at $150,000 a year (or that state would see a compensatory reduction in federal funding).

There are lots of ways Paul Ryan could eliminate $200,000/year lifeguards in California but that's not what he sees as the problem.

He wants to cut your grandmother's food money instead. He sees your grandfather, who paid INTO the system all his life, as the problem now that it's time for them to fucking pay up.

Again, I ask: Why would I vote for anyone advancing a plan to cut my insurance payout that I've been paying INTO for all of my adult life?

The fact of the matter is that the Ryan budget isn't going to do anything but get Republicans back out of office.

NPR is still getting billions. Why haven't we cut that first? Obama just promised Egypt $3 billion. Why haven't we cut that first?

AllenS said...

nevada,

Are you aware that these past two years with Democratic party in control of the House, Senate and Executive branches of this country, that there was no increase in either Social Security or Veteran benefits? Also, how many Republican office holders are there in California? Not enough to change anything. Wake the fuck up.

DADvocate said...

Newt has crashed on take-off. I never gave him much of a chance, not likable enough for beginners.

His campaing put out this bizare press release yesterday. John Lithgow did a hilarious dramatic reading on Corbet last night.

“The literati sent out their minions to do their bidding,” Tyler wrote. “Washington cannot tolerate threats from outsiders who might disrupt their comfortable world. The firefight started when the cowardly sensed weakness. They fired timidly at first, then the sheep not wanting to be dropped from the establishment’s cocktail party invite list unloaded their entire clip, firing without taking aim their distortions and falsehoods. Now they are left exposed by their bylines and handles. But surely they had killed him off. This is the way it always worked. A lesser person could not have survived the first few minutes of the onslaught. But out of the billowing smoke and dust of tweets and trivia emerged Gingrich, once again ready to lead those who won’t be intimated by the political elite and are ready to take on the challenges America faces.”

garage mahal said...

Finally, Ryan’s plan does NOT AFFECT THOSE 55 AND OLDER.

Even McConnell and the Repub leadership isn't whipping the Senate conference supporting Ryan's budget plan. And there is a vote next week. Ouch.

nevadabob said...

"Also, how many Republican office holders are there in California? Not enough to change anything. Wake the fuck up."

California receives about $20 billion a year in federal funding that Paul Ryan and the Republicans now control.

Why hasn't that been cut yet? Why cut Social Security FIRST?

Syria gets billions every year in federal aid and they're murdering their population. How come that didn't get cut FIRST?

Before we cut our OWN?

Answer that question, Allen. Why are we cutting OUR OWN PEOPLE first, but still giving BILLIONS to Muslims overseas?

Shouldn't we cut THAT first and THEN talk about Social Security?

J said...

8:33.

Right on.

Most of the AA hillbillies are small business types--bait shop owners, pizza parlor managers, Amway salesmen-- who simply don't want to pay health care premiums for their employees (or anything). They most likely have some little IRA or pension scam for retirement--so who f-ing cares about 30 years of that commie SS? Lets just axe it, bubba.

Ryan's not just wrong. He's an zombie-imbecile, like a dyslexic Ayn Rand on crack. F**k even the divine Miss Ayn would most likely object to the TP posse comitatus politics (Rand said she wasn't a libertarian per se, IIRC--voted for JFK as well, and hated Reagan. Rand wanted the DoD budget cut--the real culprit).

Patrick said...

Nevada Bob,

If you really think that the US Congress can limit what the State of California pays its lifeguards, or any other STATE employee, then you are probably not able to read this comment.

If you really think that Republicans in state legislatures are not trying to control State Employee salaries, then you must have been on Mars for the past three months.

Jeff said...

The comment above from nevadabob about "NPR getting billions" didn't sound right, so I expended a few clicks and found the following at Wiki:

"In 2010, NPR revenues totaled $180 million, with the bulk of revenues coming from programming fees, grants, contributions and sponsorships.[14]According to the 2009 financial statement, about 50% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations for programming and distribution charges.[14] Typically, NPR member stations receive funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, state and local governments, educational institutions, and the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal, state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities.[14][15] While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR’s overall revenues.[14]"

Scott M said...

John Lithgow

Lemmy isn't god, John Lithgow is.

ET1492 said...

Newt is serious about fixing our nation's biggest problem, the fact that he's not president...

Roger J. said...

I certainly agree that Newt is a meglomaniacal idiot--with a little less melanin that the current POTUS, also a meglomanical idiot.
Narcicissm seems to a major issue among most politicians.

nevadabob said...

"If you really think that the US Congress can limit what the State of California pays its lifeguards, or any other STATE employee, then you are probably not able to read this comment."

Here's how they can: Pass a federal law eliminating all federal transportation grants that goes to any state which pays a lifeguard more than $35,000 a year.

It's fucking retardly simple to control what California spends on lifeguards if you are able to think outside the box, dude.

We already have a law that limits all transportation money to any state that does not have 21 as a drinking age. Result: Every state raised their drinking age.

States will do ANYTHING to get that road money and other federal money because they have to have it. And so the way you control state spending is to attach strings to federal spending.

Nevertheless, you're missing the larger point: We still pay foreign governments about $50 billion annually. Why should we cut OUR OWN PEOPLE FIRST ... before we have even cut one dollar going to foreigners?

Paul Ryan and the Republicans haven't spent one moment thinking about how to eliminate $200,000 a year cops in Boston. They've jumped over that to cutting our own people's Social Security checks and using that money to send overseas to Muslim terrorist countries.

That's wrong for America but it's an easy problem to solve: Vote out Republicans.

J said...

Newt scares the bait-shop republicans. Not to defend the freak but he realized that even Reagan protected medicare . A bit above the likes of Ryan, Palin, or Mittens

Jed, f**k that egghead Newt. He insulted our boy Ryan, and like ....joined the stinkin' marians as well. A socialist marian, trying to tell us what to do!

AllenS said...

Here's how they can: Pass a federal law eliminating all federal transportation grants that goes to any state which pays a lifeguard more than $35,000 a year.

What on earth makes you think that this so called law will pass? Do you actually think that Republicans can pass any law, and are in control of every aspect of this government? Also, why not call out John Kerry and pressure him the same way?

Wake up? I guess it's hard to wake up from a coma

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Paul Ryan could propose a law capping all state government employee's pay at $150,000 a year (or that state would see a compensatory reduction in federal funding)..

Good to see Federalism is alive and well….As others have said, Nevada no one can be this dim….

nevadabob said...

"In 2010, NPR revenues totaled $180 million ... "

You're missing the larger point Jeff. The point is that we haven't cut that money out yet whatever its amount.

Ryan wants to keep wasting money on a radio program that only helps Democrats, but instead cut Social Security?

How does that plan make me want to vote for Republicans? They seem too fucking stupid for me to vote for them since they want to keep the spending that helps Democrats, but cut granny's food money.

My point is that Ryan and the Republicans haven't started cutting ANYTHING yet that's benefiting Democrats or foreigners. They've completely skipped that step conveniently and jumped over to cutting our own people's seed money.

Wrong. For. America.

And this plan will ONLY result in Republicans getting the fucking boot, deservedly.

Robert Cook said...

Newt did the unforgivable...in a moment of rare honesty, he spoke frankly and lucidly in public about his party, and the lunatic faction of his party--which has metastasized since it was a "fringe" and is now the body whole--has gone screeching and poo-flinging apeshit, rather as if one had told Captain Queeg, "You're crazy!"

Of course, his attempted walkback is simply ludicrous. No wonder so few politicians ever tell even a semblance of the truth in public...it's sure to kill their careers!

nevadabob said...

"What on earth makes you think that this so called law will pass? Do you actually think that Republicans can pass any law ..."

What makes you think they can pass a cut to Social Security?

They haven't even PROPOSED a law that would limit spending of the sort that benefits Democrat Party members.

Haven't even proposed it.

Yet, they're proposing to cut Social Security and they think they can get that passed?

Senior voters won't stand for it, dude and they shouldn't. The solution to this stupid plan is to punch any Republican advancing this argument in his fucking throat.

Metaphorically speaking that is.

J said...

Why don't the TP balanced budget heroes take on the DoD--which accounts for over 60% of the entire Fed budget. Maybe because they work for defense contractors (as do most demopublicans). Then most DINOs, such as Nevada refuse to address the DoD either.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Yet, they're proposing to cut Social Security and they think they can get that passed?

Though I am speaking to a brick wall, they ARE NOT CHANGING SS FOR ANYONE OVER 55.
And onto Nevada’s great stratgery of limiting Federal funds, how about the Fed’s passing a law regulating the pay of Division I football coaches to no more than 150K per year, upon pain of Transportation Fund cuts? Whilst we’re at it, I think the Fed’s ought to mandate a “Living Wage” for all persons’, not less than $20 per hour, upon pain of losing Transportation Funding…See how much fun Social Engineering from DC can be?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Nevadabob is either a Moby or an extremely stupid person. But I repeat myself.

As a person who is going to be applying for Social Security next year and will be eligible for Medicare in three more years, I'm very much in favor of Ryan's plan.

First of all, any proposed changes will not affect anyone over the age of 55.

I would be in favor of receiving a subsidy or being given the option towards medical insurance coverage instead of being FORCED off of individual insurance and into Medicare.

Medicare is not free you know. Part A which covers practically nothing is. Part B requires about a $95 per month premium and still has deductibles. A medicare sup plan will cost about $125 a month for a full coverage plan. None of these cover long term care either.

A subisdy to allow me to pick the coverage that I need and tailor it for my own PERSONAL needs. Since it would also reimburse my doctor at a decent rate, I would be able to actually SEE a doctor when I need one.

Social Security should be gradually ratcheted up to a later age since we are living longer and healthier and working longer.

Social Security should also be means tested. Warren Buffet doesn't need to get a subisdy for life. If I were to be means tested and receive a reduced SS amount that would be only fair and proper because it would save the system for those who truly need it.

If a person does decide to opt out of SS....there should be a lump sum to reimburse for some of the money paid in.

SSI, the welfare arm of SS should be completely severed from the system and eliminated as a federal program.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)



The Small Pathetic Voice demonstrates why it gets laughed at routinely…the DoD budget is NOT 60% of the Federal Budget….so far Nevada can’t read and neither can The SPV, they just want to spout talking points.

garage mahal said...

Though I am speaking to a brick wall, they ARE NOT CHANGING SS FOR ANYONE OVER 55.

Why not?

J said...

Of course, his attempted walkback is simply ludicrous.

yeah Newt sounded nearly reasonable for a day. Then the old Gingrich the compromiser returned. It's just about sound bites--they're following scripts.

J said...

9- 29. fuck you Joey Kissinger. You don't know fuck about politics, satanist. Say small in the street, yid, and yd be....DOA.

that's the proper response to the Amway salesmen of Aynhouse.--WASP-zionist demons

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"Though I am speaking to a brick wall, they ARE NOT CHANGING SS FOR ANYONE OVER 55. "

Why not?

Speaking to another brick in the wall.....

Because people who have reach the age of 55 generally don't have the time to change plans, generate larger savings needed to supliment retirement due to reduced Social Security payments. To jerk the rug out from under them at the 'advanced' age of 55 is wrong.

TIME.

When you are younger and you know that the security blanket is not going to be there, you can really start a savings program.

Many people won't do that because they are too short sighted (stupid) and will end up poor and elderly....but....Not. My. Problem. They were warned.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Why not?


Politics AND morality…changing SS for those on it would be political SUICIDE, and changing its operation when it’s too late to benefit (55 and older) is IMMORAL…IF you planned your retirement on SS and you haven’t the time to benefit from the change, then it’s wrong to inflict the change upon you. Is this difficult to grasp Garage? There is a difference between being a 18 y.o. entering the labour market and learning that you will be required to invest 6.5% of your income into a private SS Account, and being 55-60 and being told that your SS contributions will be generously refunded and you can now invest them as you see fit…At 18 Compound Interest becomes your friend, at 55 much less so.

J said...

The one being laughed at is you, Joey Ksssinger. That you have the support of the Ahouse pizza parlor TP doesn't mean jack.

an exorcism for Paul Ryan! yeah make it happen

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)




The Small Pathetic Voice has been reduced to its usual rantings, though, right now, they are all in English, not some sad barely comprehensible mish-mash of Spanglish….It becomes obvious why its blog has so few comments, one can only imagine what silly things the SPV says, and who could be bothered to waste that time to be bothered?

NotYourTypicalNewYorker said...

Speaking to another brick in the wall.....

LOL!

AllenS said...

DBQ,

I'm on my third year of Social Security. I didn't complain when there was no automatic COLA. Something must be done. I don't want to impose this burden on younger generations.

nevada is an idiot. If you're from Nevada, Bob, may I suggest you turn your attention to the politicians from your own state.

Now go fuck yourself.

roesch-voltaire said...

It is interesting that after the folks in Wisconsin learned of Paul Ryan's plans for SS and Medicare, his town hall meetings did not go well, the party bosses suggested that Ryan, the presumed next senator, not fun in 2012. I think at least on this occasion Newt was honest.

Phil 3:14 said...

What Paul Ryan proposes to do is to cut the Social Security you've been promised and paid for all you life

Said another way:

I paid into SS all my life and I deserve to get every dime I paid

Yes, you'll get your money back and then some.

But if you say As it should be, its a retirement INVESTMENT

I'd say its a pretty lousy investment portfolio.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

It is interesting that after the folks in Wisconsin learned of Paul Ryan's plans for SS and Medicare, his town hall meetings did not go well, the party bosses suggested that Ryan, the presumed next senator, not fun in 2012. I think at least on this occasion Newt was honest.



Do you mean the practically DOZENS of protestors at his town halls?

Phil 3:14 said...

As for Newt. He is and has always be radioactive.

He needs to stop listening to the voices in his head and start listening to his Republican constituency.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

He needs to stop listening to the voices in his head and start listening to his Republican constituency.



Those voices ARE “his Republican constituency.”

Robert Cook said...

The reason the proposed slashing of SS will not touch anyone 55 or over at this date has nothing to do with not wanting to pull the rug out from under people too old to begin alternative savings programs--how much better than a 55 year old can a 54 or 53 year old pile up alternative savings in the time remaining in their working lives?

It is entirely a cynical attempt to undercut public outrage. Those 55 of age or older now are more likely to be intimately interested in this policy discussion, and those in this cohort who are not idiots will vehemently oppose what the RepubliCons propose. They're counting on those younger than 55 to be less attentive to the matter and less likely, therefore, to rise in concerted opposition to the proposed changes.

In short, they hope to co-opt those whose opposition they most fear, in order to win public approval by default, (i.e., as a result of the inattentive apathy of those who don't see themselves as near to having to depend on SS to stay housed and fed).

Titus said...

There has been so much fun in Newt's first week officially announcing his candidacy.

What stands out to me as the two most hilarious issues, is his love for Mama Mia and his cell phone that plays Dancing Queen when it rings and his PR Flacks response to the "dustups".

Titus said...

It would kind of suck if you were 54 though.

Original Mike said...

"Because it was interpreted in a way which was causing trouble, blah, blah, blah."

I watched the Gregory interview of Gingrich live. Gingrich is full of shit with this misinterpreted line.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

--how much better than a 55 year old can a 54 or 53 year old pile up alternative savings in the time remaining in their working lives?

Not much....but you have to start somewhere.

Reasons I'm glad I no longer work in the financial advisory industry.

1. People over 50 and even in their 60's who haven't saved and expected me to work miracles to create a luxurious retirement for them. Sorry......you waited too long.

2. Young people who just won't wake up and realize if they don't start NOW, in their 20's they will be fucked when they are 60.

They just won't listen. Now they are on their own. Adios.

This is why we MUST reform Social Security and make people be responsible for their own lives. Quit subisdizing everything!!!!

Original Mike said...

"It would kind of suck if you were 54 though."

I'm 55. I am desperately hoping they let older individuals choose the new system. I do NOT wanted to be in the rationed care plan.

G Joubert said...

What Paul Ryan proposes to do is to cut the Social Security you've been promised and paid for all you life and to cut the Medicare you've been paying insurance premiums for all your life.

Now that we're getting old and starting to draw on these insurance plans ... they want to fuck us over?


If you're over 55 there are no changes under the Ryan plan.

edutcher said...

Newt wanted to differentiate himself from the rest of the field and he succeeded. He has succeeded himself right out of the field.

nevadabob said...

They're paying city lifeguards $200,000 a year, but Paul Ryan thinks the real problem is my grandmother's Social Security check.

Lifeguards don't make up a third of the Federal budget.

J said...

Most of the AA hillbillies are small business types--bait shop owners, pizza parlor managers, Amway salesmen-- who simply don't want to pay health care premiums for their employees (or anything). They most likely have some little IRA or pension scam for retirement--so who f-ing cares about 30 years of that commie SS? Lets just axe it, bubba.

Kos should send these people over here sober and with some idea of how the economy actually works.

Or who provides the bulk of the jobs

PS Social Security goes back to 1935 which, since J can't do math any better than history, is 76 years.

Titus said...

The best way to have retirement savings, if you are "unable" to save during your youth, is to have parents leave behind a minimum of 2 million dollars to you in addition to a paid piece of property.

Alex said...

What Paul Ryan proposes to do is to cut the Social Security you've been promised and paid for all you life and to cut the Medicare you've been paying insurance premiums for all your life.

Promised by venal politicians. Not by ME.

garage mahal said...

If you're over 55 there are no changes under the Ryan plan.

Not true. The donut hole the ACA took care of would be wiped out by the Ryan plan.

AllenS said...

donut hole?

Original Mike said...

"The best way to have retirement savings, if you are "unable" to save during your youth, is to have parents leave behind a minimum of 2 million dollars to you in addition to a paid piece of property."

Shit, even if you save you can't use it because Medicare docs can't accept additional payments for something Medicare won't pay for. I think the only option will be to go to another country (right now India, in 10 years maybe China) to get hte care you won't be able to get here.

AllenS said...

See, there is a good time to put the question mark outside of the quotes.

"donut hole"?

Robert Cook said...

"This is why we MUST reform Social Security and make people be responsible for their own lives. Quit subisdizing everything!!!!"

Only fools assume Social Security will suffice to provide them the level of comfort they enjoyed during their working years. Social Security is merely a cushion, a safety net of sorts that provides retired working people with at least a basic monthly stipend so they may, at least, avoid penury.

Those proposing the eradication of Social Security--termed, neatly, "reform"--are interested only in forcing senior citizens into the clutches of the same thieves and swindlers who caused the recent financial collapse, who persist in their thieving, unpunished and enjoying remuneration unknown even to kings of old, even as their victims are bankrupted and made homeless. The money put into Social Security is lusted after by these Orcs of finance as Central Park and other public spaces in NYC are coveted by the real estate developers: they hunger after this pool of wealth which they do not presently own or control, and they will not rest until they have taken it.

J said...

10: 19:
Lets hear your defense of Jefferson Davis again, Edutchski, great Darwinist intellectual and prevaricator. This isnt about yr little Politics of Accounting and the bottom line, trash.

Im sure you don't know the specifics of the New deal from yr nazi officer bunker posters.

Scott M said...

The donut hole the ACA took care of would be wiped out by the Ryan plan.

The HSA I've been successfully and economically using for years will be wiped out by the ACA.

There. Fixed it for you.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

The HSA I've been successfully and economically using for years will be wiped out by the ACA.


We have to take from you for the common good…..

garage mahal said...

The HSA I've been successfully and economically using for years will be wiped out by the ACA.

Not sure what you're reading to come to that conclusion, but I would be curious to see it.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Not sure what you're reading to come to that conclusion, but I would be curious to see it.



Uh because it’s true, IIRC…..

J said...

10:19.


Grazi, Edu the Evolutionist! Worthy of reiterating:

Most of the AA hillbillies are small business types--bait shop owners, pizza parlor managers, Amway salesmen-- who simply don't want to pay health care coverage for their employees (or anything).
They most likely have some little IRA or pension scam for retirement--so who f-ing cares about 30 years of that commie SS? Lets just axe it, bubba (that's 30 years, as in one worker's approx. contribution, Edu-stein)


Touched a nerve, Edu?

Scott M said...

Being directly impacted by it, Garage, believe me, I've read up on it. HSA's don't exist in a vacuum. Regardless of political stripe, the other HSA users I deal with are equally concerned about it, for very good reason.

edutcher said...

J said...

Grazi, Edu the Evolutionist! Worthy of reiterating:

Most of the AA hillbillies are small business types--bait shop owners, pizza parlor managers, Amway salesmen-- who simply don't want to pay health care coverage for their employees (or anything).
They most likely have some little IRA or pension scam for retirement--so who f-ing cares about 30 years of that commie SS?


Lets just axe it, bubba (that's 30 years, as in one worker's approx. contribution, Edu-stein)

Touched a nerve, Edu?


Aside from showing J to be a moron again? Not my nerves.

Most workers, assuming summer jobs from high school, would be putting in close to 50, but J has yet to get out of rehab, so he knows not of work.

And he ought to read the initial proposal for SocSec. It was never intended as a pension, but as a supplement for all those IRAs and retirement plans

(if anything Social Security is the scam)

As I say, Kos has to start sending over these people sober and at least marginally informed.

Making idiots of them is getting to be so easy it takes all the fun out of it.

garage mahal said...

Uh because it’s true, IIRC….

I don't think it is, and if you have something to show othwerwise by all means...

AllenS said...

I'm still trying to figure out the donut hole aspect of all this.

garage mahal said...

Google "donut hole Medicare" to find out what the donut hole is. Then google "donut hole Medicare ACA" to find out how the ACA closes the donut hole. Then google "donut hole Medicare ACA Paul Ryan" to see how Ryan's plan would close it.

Original Mike said...

"The HSA I've been successfully and economically using for years will be wiped out by the ACA."

Most HSAs are high deductable, economic plans insuring against catastrophic illness (you know, insurance). They will not meet the plan requirements of ACA and will disappear. This is by design.

garage mahal said...

They will not meet the plan requirements of ACA and will disappear. This is by design.

Link?

Original Mike said...

I don't have time to educate you garage.

garage mahal said...

It ain't there, that's why you don't have the time.

Alex said...

Can anyone explain to me the moral obligation of an employer to provide HEALTH CARE to employee? I mean it's one thing to throw it in as a fringe benefit to attract talent, but????

Joe said...

Sorry Garage it IS there...

Original Mike said...

No, I truly don't have the time right now to argue with someone who is not arguing in good faith.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)





Here's an interesting nugget from John Fund in today's WSJ on who will suffer under Obamacare:
Health Savings Account (HSA) holders. Eight million Americans, according to the Treasury Department, are covered by plans with low-cost premiums and high deductibles that are designed for large, unexpected medical costs. Money is also set aside in a savings account to cover the deductibles, and whatever isn’t spent in one year can build up tax-free. Nearly a third of new HSA users, according to Treasury figures, previously had no insurance or bought coverage on their own.

These policies will be severely limited. The Senate plan says a policy deemed “acceptable” must have insurance (rather than the individual) pay out at least 76% of the benefits. The House plan is pegged at 70%. That’s not the way these plans are set up to work. Roy Ramthun, who implemented the HSA regulations at the Treasury Department in 2003, says the regulations are crippling. “Companies tell me they could be forced to take products off the market,” he said in an interview.

If an insurance plan must pay for 70 or 76 percent of all health care costs, it would be next to impossible for it to qualify as a high-deductible health plan. No HDHP, no HSA contribution.
The only hope a plan would have would be to do the following:
• Have a deductible no higher than the HDHP minimum ($1150 single, $2300 family in 2009)
• The out of pocket limit would have to be an identical amount
• The plan would have to cover all allowable preventive care on a first-dollar basis (annual physical, prenatal and well-child, immunizations, smoking cessation, weight loss programs, and early screening services)
Any HDHP which is this generous would have very little premium savings relative to a tradtional health insurance plan. If the typical HDHP today shaves about 33 percent off your premium, a plan like this might only shave off about 10 percent. There would be very little incentive to get an HSA-qualified insurance plan.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)





So if you’re going to get picky about it Garage, No, ObamaCare does NOT “outlaw” HSA’s, but it makes them financially untenable for provider and user…..Just like the move to end 401(k)’s doesn’t outlaw them it removes the tax benefits for having such a plan…..

Original Mike said...

Thanks, Joe.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Thanks, Joe.




I’ll be by to get my pound of flesh dood…being a Jew and all…

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Can anyone explain to me the moral obligation of an employer to provide HEALTH CARE to employee? I mean it's one thing to throw it in as a fringe benefit to attract talent, but????





Because your employer exists ONLY to provide you with a job and benefits…and don’t start on all that clap-trap about “profits” and “value to the share holder” stuff.

Michael said...

J: "Why don't the TP balanced budget heroes take on the DoD--which accounts for over 60% of the entire Fed budget."

Check your numbers, you are off by a bit. 860 Billion represents 22%, not "over 60%."

Aridog said...

J said...

Say small in the street, yid, and yd be....DOA.

That's the proper response to the Amway salesmen of Aynhouse.--WASP-zionist demons ...


Wow.

I'm fairly new here and tend to be verbose. However, THAT remark defies response ... even from blabber mouth me.

Except: Wow

Scott M said...

Except: Wow

Aridog,

There's some conjecture about whether or not he's just a poorly-coded Turing test.

Mike K said...

My point is that Republicans haven't spent one day cutting real fat in our federal or state budgets ... they haven't spent one second eliminating these exorbitant government pay scales ... but they jump right in trying to cut Social Security?

Do you read ? Or just listen to leftist demagoguery ? You sound like a moron.

garage mahal said...


So if you’re going to get picky about it Garage, No, ObamaCare does NOT “outlaw” HSA’s, but it makes them financially untenable for provider and user…..


Link! There has to be a reason or a source for your conclusion?

Mike K said...

It is interesting that after the folks in Wisconsin learned of Paul Ryan's plans for SS and Medicare, his town hall meetings did not go well,

Like your comment, the Democrats and union officials (Like the one Ryan recognized who had changed shirts) made a concerted attempt to Astroturf his town halls, pretending to be constituents. He handled it well and your final sentence is a lie. No surprise.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)







http://www.americanshareholders.org/obamacare-kill-hsas-a2840

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)







But of course, “these” people are not the “right” people so you can ignore that link Garage, as I’m sure you will…..

Phil 3:14 said...

If you're over 55 there are no changes under the Ryan plan.

Not true. The donut hole the ACA took care of would be wiped out by the Ryan plan.


Garage,
If you believe Medicare can continue in its present shape and form, then you're calling its trustees liars.

The outlook for Medicare, however, could be worse than the sobering estimate implies. In their annual report, the trustees warned that their projections were based on "debatable" savings assumed under President Obama's health-care reforms, known as the Affordable Care Act.

No one can be honest about that and address it honestly or one can claim wonderful savings by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse and improving the efficiency of the system.

garage mahal said...

But of course, “these” people are not the “right” people so you can ignore that link Garage, as I’m sure you will…..

Yea, sorry that link was published almost 1 year before the ACA was finalized and signed into law.

Here are the only changes I could find.

Increase in additional tax on distributions from HSAs not used for qualified medical expenses

Distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed drug or insulin

Original Mike said...

"I’ll be by to get my pound of flesh dood…being a Jew and all…"

Good. I could afford to lose 5 pounds.

garage mahal said...

But of course, “these” people are not the “right” people so you can ignore that link Garage, as I’m sure you will…..

That link was published a year before the ACA was passed and signed into law

The changes I could find are:

An increase in the tax penalty on HSA early withdrawals

Expenses incurred for over-the-counter (OTC) medications without a prescription

Original Mike said...

Use your fucking head, garage. The ACA sets plan requirements. Those requirements do not allow high deductibles. HSAs are built around high deductibles. That's how they are affordable. They insure against the big expenses, you pay the small stuff out of pocket. You know, insurance.

Sheesh.

garage mahal said...

Instead of guessing what the ACA plan requirements would allow, I actually went to a few HSA websites and checked the directories. Nothing anywhere on what you, ScottM, or Joe described. Sheesh is right.

Look for yourself. here is an example

If you have Kaiser, you are grandfathered in if you enrolled before March 23rd 2010.

garage mahal said...

Instead of guessing , I actually checked some HSA directories. Nothing about what you, ScottM, or Joe spoke of was mentioned anywhere. Sheesh is right.

Blogger keeps eating the link, but I checked an actual plan from Kaiser Permanente, and if you are enrolled with them, you are grandfathered in if you signed up before March 23rd 2010, and there are no changes whatsoever. You are allowed to have dependents on your plan, now, due to the ACA.

Change in Kaiser Permanente for Individuals and Families plan offerings
The four copayment plans shown in this packet ($10/$20 Copay Option, $20/$30 Copay Option,
$30/$40 Copay Option, and $40/$50 Copay Option) are no longer available for new sales.

• Members who enrolled in these discontinued plans prior to March 23, 2010, have
grandfathered coverage and may maintain their plan coverage as shown.
• Members who enrolled in one of these four copayment plans after March 23, 2010, do
not have grandfathered coverage. They will be notified of any plan changes as well as
other plan options prior to their annual renewal.

Changes in coverage
Please note the following changes to all Kaiser Permanente for Individuals and Families plans
(grandfathered and non-grandfathered):
The following changes are effective October 1, 2010, for all plans:
• Dependents can now be covered on your policy until they turn age 26.
• The preventive care package for all plans has been expanded to include a total of eighty
(80) preventive services specified by PPACA. These preventive care services are available
for no charge and are not subject to the medical deductible.

The following change is effective January 1, 2011, for all plans:
• Non-prescribed over-the-counter (OTC) medicine/drugs will no longer be qualified as
eligible medical services under any health account (such as health savings accounts).
Insulin is the only non-prescribed drug exception

Alex said...

garage - you do not have a right to health care. Kapich?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Use your fucking head, garage.

All in all he's just another brick in the wall.

Quit beating your head against it. You won't educate the brick and you only hurt yourself.

garage mahal said...

All in all he's just another brick in the wall.

Much easier to lie and shriek that "OBAMAKKKARE is going to kill my insurance plan!"

Well, I just pasted something that pretty much destroyed that argument.

You have anything? No, didn't think so.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)







ObamaCare is not FULLY implemented until 2014, Garage…HSA’s are on the way out…they will not meet the definition of acceptable coverage, or inorder to do so they will be as expensive as “insurance” and hence their appeal will fade.

Simply saying ObamaKarrrre is Teh Awesome is no better a way to argue…..

Original Mike said...

"Quit beating your head against it. You won't educate the brick and you only hurt yourself."

Good advice.

garage mahal said...

…HSA’s are on the way out…they will not meet the definition of acceptable coverage, or inorder to do so they will be as expensive as “insurance” and hence their appeal will fade.

Must be news to people that run HSA plans then. They've completely missed this Revelation. They don't seem to know anthing about it.

Right wing blogs are eating your brains, time for a vacation.

Serious question: Don't you feel really stupid arguing something you haven't researched? And then when you're shown you're wrong, you continue to argue it anyway? That's almost a definition of insanity, isn't it?

Alex said...

Right wing blogs are eating your brains, time for a vacation.

and you wonder why nobody can take you seriously.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Serious question: Don't you feel really stupid arguing something you haven't researched? And then when you're shown you're wrong, you continue to argue it anyway? That's almost a definition of insanity, isn't it?






I have researched it dood/doodette….you just don’t like the answer you got….their continued existence is dependent upon the definition of acceptable coverage…and by most definitions to be deemed acceptable they’d lose any competitive advantage with “insurance”.

Rightwing blogs are eating our brains…dood/doodette you’re heading towards Small Pathetic Voice/Jeremy Land there…I know it’s been tough, Walker wins, the Fleabaggers lose, Prosser is in, Kloppenburg out, but breathe, “This too shall pass.” First you say to ScottM Prove it…then link it, so you get some proof AND a link and you STILL kvetch and then hurl some insults…my conclusion you lost and just admitted it. Thanx.

Scott M said...

I'll put it simply, Garage, after watching you post over and over again. The CEO at the company that's running my HSA sent out a notice two months ago stating that they would be unable to comply with all of the bureaucratic requirements of ACA and that they would not be renewing any policies after Jan 1, 2012. You can spin that any way you want, but the company I've been using, quite successfully for years, is no longer going to be offering services.

Furthermore, I've talked to the owners of my company on many separate occasions about this very subject. It is their opinion that after the law goes into affect, they (small company, less than 100 employees) will not be offering employer-funded insurance any longer.

Where does all that leave me? You can copy and paste all you want. The reality of it is...where does this leave me?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)

Where does all that leave me? You can copy and paste all you want. The reality of it is...where does this leave me?






In a better, more humane and just place, where Donald Berwick (Who has insurance for LIFE) can dictate just how much medical care you truly need….

Scott M said...

Not that you particularly care, Garage, past scoring rhetorical point on a blog, but I have struggled for years to get where I am as far as my families finances are concerned. I'm cost-conscious, and make the best/most effective decisions when it comes to health care. Urgent care instead of the emergency room, preventative measures and healthy living for my family, etc. I don't run health care bills, but instead pay things off asap.

In other words, I'm not a burden to my employer (where I don't participate in their insurance) and I'm not a burden to any other tax payers. ACA is going to end that. The tax-payer that made good life choices and takes personal responsibility for his family's well-being is going to get screwed.

garage mahal said...

Where does all that leave me? You can copy and paste all you want. The reality of it is...where does this leave me?

Not sure who your HSA is administered by, but I would check into finding someone else.

Original Mike said...

"The tax-payer that made good life choices and takes personal responsibility for his family's well-being is going to get screwed."

No kidding. I can not exagerate how angry I am over this whole fucking debacle.

Scott M said...

As much of an answer as I expected. It doesn't jive with what you found click-clickity, so somehow I must be wrong or those I relied one in good faith (which worked flawlessly for years, mind you) must be wrong.

For the record, within two days of receiving that notice, I tried to find replacement service. Nobody available for anything like what I had set up. I was told repeatedly that they had already adjusted their offerings based on the requirements of the ASA.

Were you born callous or did you become that way?

garage mahal said...

Who runs your plan?

Scott M said...

The same one that's been doing it for years.

garage mahal said...

Just odd they would cite the ACA as the sole reason to cancel your policy when there doesn't seem to be much if anything the ACA effects HSA accounts. Aside from early withdrawl changes and OTC meds, I couldn't find one thing how the ACA changes HSA accounts. I checked several HSA providers and they didn't mention anything about the ACA either.

Scott M said...

Oh, I'm sure one or more of the board has massive gambling, whoring, and drug debts to pay off. They found a way to liquidate to get the books in shape, so they took it.

You know what evil bastards those capitalist profitmongers are...

Original Mike said...

You've had it explained to you, man. The law doesn't say HSAs are prohibited. The law specifies plan requirements that are at odds with the structure of an HSA. Thus, HSAs will disappear. It's really very simple.

garage mahal said...

The law specifies plan requirements that are at odds with the structure of an HSA.

Since there seems to be literally nothing on the internet that squares with this statement, I'll wait for confirmation.

AllenS said...

LOOK! Over there! Donut Hole!

Blair said...

I'm not sure there's really any way of cutting Social Security other than by cutting Social Security. These folk who think it can be done by some other means, or by someone other than the Republicans, please tell us what fairy-dust politicians from pixie-land with accomplish this feat?