Sunday, December 18, 2011

I'd Say Probably Around Six Seconds/As Long as it Takes For the Ink to Dry

What would be my answer to the question, "So, how long do you think that it will take for the Progressives in Washington and on the blogs to totally eviscerate the Ryan-Wyden Medicare Reform Proposal?"

11 comments:

Chakam Conservative said...

Unrelated:

How long will it take the media, both GOP and MSM, to post the headline, "Romney beats out Gingrich for second place in Iowa caucus!", now that Ron Paul is smoking them both in the stats?

Just sayin'.

w-dervish said...

Ron Paul has absolutely zero chance of being the nominee. Also, he's retiring, so thank goodness for that. Unfortunately we've still got one crazy Libertarian in the Congress. :(

Also, what the HELL is Wyden thinking?! Teaming up with Ryan to dismantle Medicare? How shameful.

dmarks said...

WD: I tend to agree. Ron Paul typically has support of low single digits of the national electorate. Anything higher is just an artifact, an illusion, of pre-primary politics.

So, what idea do you dislike of Ron Paul's the most, WD?

For me what comes to mind is his plan of stripping citizenship rights from children of parents who are suspected of certain crimes.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: what idea do you dislike of Ron Paul's the most, WD?

His idea to drastically cut government funding (and eliminate numerous federal agencies) by eliminating the personal federal income tax.

I actually agree with Ron Paul on a number of other things, primarily his vote against illegally invading Iraq.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

It's called working across the aisle to get things done, wd. Medicare is presently unsustainable and the fact that this compromise a) retains a public option and b) has a catastrophic care provision in it, it certainly looks like a good place to start to me.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

And you really need to learn to think outside the box, wd. These lazy, hackneyed, and unimaginative statist "solutions" of yours are a) bankrupting the country and b) woefully inadequate in an ever-so changing global economy.

w-dervish said...

You don't want to "work across the aisle to get things done" if the result is bad legislation (at least I don't). Also, it is my strong opinion that YOUR "solutions" are lazy, hackneyed, unimaginative and will bankrupt the country.

How could paying MORE for a private company to handle the formerly non-profit job on a for-profit basis possibly save money? I mean, COME ON! What you're arguing makes absolutely no sense!

Except for the fact that this "solution" will take more of our tax dollars and transfer them to large health care insurance corporations... which most likely explains why you think it's "a good place to start". That is the position a corporatist would take.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Dude, competition tends to bring costs down. And the fact that government is largely incompetent and has basically become one massive check-writer certainly doesn't help, either. A corporatist, huh? It's certainly better than a statist.

w-dervish said...

Will: A corporatist, huh? It's certainly better than a statist.

Not in my opinion. Also, not in the opinion of the majority of the American people. 77 percent of Americans supported (and I imagine still support) the public option.

I am hopeful that the 99 percent movement will be a catalyst for great change in this country. And it does not bother me in the least that Will is going to absolutely hate it when his beloved corporations aren't able to rape the average middle class consumer quite so much.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

"rape the average middle class" (as if the behemoth Federal government DOESN'T do that - denying claims at a HIGHER rate than frigging private insurance does) - atta boy, wd. And the frigging public option STAYS in this Wyden-Ryan plan, Clyde.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Wyden 2016! Are you with me, wd?