Send

The only Medicare killer is Medicare itself. It cannot continue unreformed. That's a simple matter of arithmetic.

Ryan's plan only affects people who are under 55. No one on Medicare now or close to retirement would have their benefits altered. Calling him the Medicare killer is fear mongering of the basest, most dishonest kind. It's exactly what's wrong with our politics.

If you don't like his plan of reform, fine. It's not perfect. But Obama and the Democrats have presented no plan at all, even though Obama promised one by the end of his first term back in 2008. Real leadership means proposing solutions to problems, not simply demonizing an opponent for demagogic gain.

Right, wake me up when the republicans come up with a healthcare plan. Jesus. Invictus have you bothered paying attention to what the gop has done since obama came to officeh. Theyve done nothing but demagogue and demonize. The house has sat on its hands for two years. Doctor, heal thyself. Anyway if repugs really cared about reforming medicare why do you oppose the medicare cost savings in obamacare. Your priorities never seem to be what theyclaim to be.

And yeah if the plan is to end medicare as an insurance program, thats killing it. Sorry if the truth hurts. Unlike death panels and birther nonsense, this charge is actually true. The idea that we have to kill it to save it is just garbage. Have funcarrying florida with ryan on the ticket.

ha republicans don't demonize opponents for demagogic gain.
HA
That's a good one!

The US has a quick and easy way of boosting the economy, let in 10 million more illegals who work for peanuts. That will get your economy going again but you have to get these people making things, not doing the gardening or cleaning, you have enough unemployed Americans to do those jobs and I'm guessing they could do with the exercise.
With healthcare why re-invent the wheel, the UK has a fabulous health service funded by the taxpayer and free to use at the point of need. If the UK can do it so can the brave Americans. Let's the make the USA a land fit for heroes, and the sick, disabled and dying.

The good thing about having Ryan on the ticket is that we'll know if politicians telling the country hard truths can win a national election or not. That's also the terrifying thing. I know most Americans aren't like Putin33, I can only hope most aren't like SantaClausowitz.

With Romney there's a chance our government's financial crisis will be sorted out. With Obama there's none.

It depends what kind of campaign you want to run:

Bland but historically sucessful - ' vote change'

Truthful - 'don't worry we won't keep our promises'

Attack - 'he said we can, but he proved he can't '

Target the poor 'we'll increase your benefit but almost as much as your taxes'

Target the rich - allow them to write their own slogans for a donation.

*Target the poor 'we'll increase your benefit by almost as much as your taxes'

"With healthcare why re-invent the wheel, the UK has a fabulous health service funded by the taxpayer and free to use at the point of need."

As someone who has to use that health service, I can assure you it isn't fabulous. Your service may be even more of a mess (lets face it, medicare is a joke), but don't think that the solution is to do what we do.

Attack - 'he said we can, but he proved he can't '
I like this slogan, we just need to turn it into a chant or set it to music. Romney is on the Rampage to Pennsylvania Avenue

Yes, the good old NHS may be better than the pitiful healthcare a lot of Yanks have to suffer, but it isn't good by any stretch of the imagination. Too many incompetent members of staff and too resistant to change.

the best thing about Romney is that you can curse him to hell and back without feeling slightly racist. That has to be a big plus in the States.

The NHS is far from perfect but it is a much loved intitution for a reason and it can be reformed to make it better, much better than staring from scratch.

Aye, the reasons being partly because we can use it to gloat that we're better off than the Yanks, but mostly because we simply don't know any better and we're constantly bombarded with pro-NHS propaganda from all the major parties. The NHS must be reformed to make it acceptable. Personally I feel we'd be far better off starting from scratch, but sadly we have to work with what we have.

Not sure I agree with people getting sex change operations or boob jobs on the NHS.
One thing I do know .... this would not work in private hands, the dedicated staff would not do what they do, or work as hard as they do to make some fat cats richer and richer. Some people may really struggle to understand this. For all you narrow minded ignorant capitalists organisational efficiency is about management, not ownership. There is waste within the NHS but it could not be down cheaper in private hands without serious reduction in quality and/or quantity of care.

The problem with healthcare in America is not quality, it's cost. The quality of care is the best in the world, but you can pay through the nose if you don't have good insurance.

We have private health care in the UK which is outstanding ...... but we also universal health care for all free at the point of need.
To measure the true wealth of a nation look how they treat the young, the old, the disabled, the poor.

As America is the most charitable nation on earth, that works for me.

@Nigee - You are a fool if you think public employees are so motivated. Here in the US, public employees are motivated just enough to keep their jobs. Government beaurocracy doesn't pay bonuses, is at the whim of politicians (your boss gets fired cause his boss changed at the last election and you may be out the door), and increases/promotions aren't based on merit, but on "time on the job" so there is no reason to work hard to get ahead.

No, private enterprise may be "working for the man" but the man gives bonuses and merit based promotions and, in the case of medicine, the doctor *is* the man. He works for his own business or as a partner in a partnership. Quality is *better* in the US. The problem is the insurance industry is so fucking corrupt and ties the doctors hands. *That* is what needs to be overhauled. Not the medicine.

We have a company in the UK called GSK, a pharmaceutical company, they give about US$500m a year in subsidised drugs to help the poorest people, they gave $10m to try and eradicate polio in Africa, part of an on-going campaign. That same year they subsidised the US healthcare system to the tune of over $200m.
Working hard to get ahead:
Person 1 is an economic educated who works 80 hours a week at minimum wage to try and make something of himself, trying to squeeze in study to get himself a better job
Person 2 is an investment banker, works 40 hours a week for a $2m salary and thinks he's worth every penny. A good part of that weeks work are corporate lunches and entertaining clients, all paid for with the company Amex.
Who is working their nuts off to get ahead, who is taking money under false pretenses. Capitalism isn't based on efficiency.......

"One thing I do know .... this would not work in private hands, the dedicated staff would not do what they do, or work as hard as they do to make some fat cats richer and richer. Some people may really struggle to understand this. For all you narrow minded ignorant capitalists organisational efficiency is about management, not ownership. There is waste within the NHS but it could not be down cheaper in private hands without serious reduction in quality and/or quantity of care."

Bullshit. Not least because there are non-profit medical organisations aside from the NHS.

Having had to go private for physiotherapy, and to a for-profit practise. I can assure you that the doctor I saw was far more interested in my health than my experiences with the NHS (with the exception of GPs, who were at the same standard)


Most people working in a hospital won't be thinking about whether or not they are making a "fat-cat richer". They will be thinking about how they could help their patient. Because doctors aren't misanthropic, on the whole.

Capitalism rewards working smarter not just working harder.

You can bust your butt 60 hours a week doing menial work but you aren't adding much value to a business. It's people who add value that are well compensated. People who add value usually have to work hard to get where they are at or to provide the level of value added to a company/client. Of course there are always exceptions (think Chelsea Clinton, and other silver spoons), but you can't find an exception and believe it is the majority unless you are intellectually feeble.

tj +1000000!

I work 40 to 60 hours a week, depending on the needs of my clients. I sometimes only work 20 or 30 hours of real work. I make a salary larger than the typical 2 income household in the US. I *am* worth what I make because the effort I put forth makes both my employer and my cleints more money in the end. But I work smart, not hard. When I'm busy I organize and work efficiently. Capatalism is efficient when looked at from "what makes my compnay money in the short *and* mlong term". And successful businesses know that taking care of their most successful workers and keeping them happy means their customers will stay happy and come back and bring new business with them.

The problem with the socialists like Nigee is they have a "I want ti even though I haven't earned it" attitude that makes them think their effort is worth the same as someone whose paid his dues in education *and* the workforce.

Now, I know everyone complains about fat cat CEOs and such, but these people make decisions that can make or break a company. And when they make a bad decision, their jobs are on the line too. At the same time, they didn't pop out of mommy;s womb as a CEO. They earned their stripes and got an education and worked their way to the top of the corporate ladder. Many of them started as owners of companies and may even have been the companies first and only employee for many years. Likewise, they are the ones whose financial status is at highest risk with the company. I see this add on TV about Mitt Romney making 20 million and paying 14% in taxes. The average Joe *thinks* he pays 25% but not all of that is taxes (social security for instance) and some of it is state and local taxes which isn't part of that 14% . With payroll taxes higher than capital gains taxes (for good reason, you can't lose money on an hourly or salary wage, but you have significant risk of losing your investments), his paying 14% (which put in perspective is $2.8 million) is very fair and probably not much lower as a percentage than the typical middle class American actually pays.

But this "give me give me" generation of "Occupy Wallstreet" bums expecting their government handouts don't grasp that they, too, could climb that ladder with an attitude adjustment and a realization that I and the others in the top 10% (not in the 1% but the top 10%) don't work just to give it all away.

CEOs are glorified bureaucratic directors, but yet nobody talks about paying, say, the Director of DHS millions of dollars, even if his job is much more complex and difficult. The do not add value, because they do not produce anything. You can't wax poetic about the 'meritocracy of capitalism' while defending lower tax rate on income that isn't earned - capital gains. People gain simply by virtue of having their capital somewhere. There is no labor whatsoever involved. No production at all. It's coupon clipping.

"I work 40 to 60 hours a week, depending on the needs of my clients. I sometimes only work 20 or 30 hours of real work."

ROFL. Way to make an argument for meritocracy there, buddy.

"But this "give me give me" generation of "Occupy Wallstreet" bums expecting their government handouts don't grasp that they, too, could climb that ladder with an attitude adjustment and a realization that I and the others in the top 10% (not in the 1% but the top 10%) don't work just to give it all away."

I guarantee you the 'bums' of Occupy Wallstreet work harder than your 20 hour work week just organizing a single protest. I really don't get you guys. You claim that protesters are lazy, yet you ridicule people who actually put their money where their mouth is when it comes to their political beliefs. Whereas you capitalism lovers just sit on your ass and bitch about Obama. You don't act upon your beliefs at all other than being greedy sociopaths.

"And successful businesses know that taking care of their most successful workers and keeping them happy means their customers will stay happy and come back and bring new business with them."

Which is why the most 'successful' corporations do whatever it takes to screw over their workers and deprive them of rights. I know of plenty of employers whose hardest working employees are the ones who get treated the harshest because people who work somewhere longer have to be paid more.

"They earned their stripes and got an education and worked their way to the top of the corporate ladder."

Or their mommy & daddy put them there. Nevermind that their education was the result of being privileged to begin with. I love how the poor are treated as if they're greedy moochers but yet all the rich are 'hard working'. None of them greedy. None of them did anything shady to get rich. None of them cut corners. None of them hurt other people. They're all heroes.

"No, private enterprise may be "working for the man" but the man gives bonuses and merit based promotions"

So does the public sector. In fact, competitive promotions are much more common than in the private sector. Explicit policies are put in place to this effect, in, for example, the State Department.