Paul Ryan's Medicare Video

• Prescott

  Finally, an explanation from the author of the bill.
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJIC7kEq6kw&feature=player_embedded#at=55
• LJ

  

  Cliffs?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Interesting, but it doesn't get into the more precise details of the plan. Even though this wouldn't affect me because I'm in the older group, I'd still want to be sure the system was equitable for those who follow.
  
  If it truly is an insurance program along the lines of what Congress now gets, I can't see anyone complaining too much. But that's why I'd like to know more details.
• BGFalcons82

  

  The real key to controlling costs is to move the consumer of medical services closer to the provider. With the government intertwined with insurance companies providing the benefits, we'll never see costs under any pressure to come down. Ryan does make a great point in the video that most government-proponents miss out on: When prices are fixed, like they are thru Obamakare's bureaucratic panels, then doctors will pass along price increases to those NOT on Medicare. This would be everyone under 65. Therefore, just because the feds say they can control costs...they can't. Just like the 1970's when price controls brought us uncontrollable inflation and no growth.
  
  I agree with Writer that the video doesn't give good details of the Ryan plan; it does explain Obamakare's view of Medicare quite well.
• stlouiedipalma

  So if I heard this correctly, Ryan's future version of Medicare will be such that the patient will be able to determine coverage and care. There will be no "bureaucrats" to decide what is covered and what isn't. That sounds a little too good to be true, and my momma always told me that if it seems too good to be true it usually isn't.
  
  He conveniently skips the part where you will be given a voucher to purchase coverage. He throws around the plan Congress uses, but I have a feeling that someone 54 years old with a pre-existing condition will only be able to afford a plan with a $7500 deductible and limited 80/20 coverage once the deductible is met. Also, what happens 15 years down the road, when todays 54-year-olds are 69. How far will that voucher go then?
  
  Ryan and his fellow Republicans need to put a good face on this, because it is proving to be political poison. It's one thing to put a good face on it, but he needs to be a lot more specific with the details. Right now it looks to me to be spin control.
• Prescott

  If medicare is going bankrupt as has been reported, doesn't something have to done?
• BoatShoes

  Prescott;787532 wrote:If medicare is going bankrupt as has been reported, doesn't something have to done?

  
  Medicare is only going to go bankrupt if we accept that Paul Ryan's anarchist-libertarian Fountainhead-pornography fantasy supported by the catechism of perpetually and permanently lowering taxation further and further despite its already historic and unprecedented lows. We have a long term fiscal problem but we have $77 trillion of national assets that have been declared untouchable to ensure a dignified retirement for the elderly. Of course with those constraints medicare, in its current form, is on its path to insolvency...
• believer

  

  BoatShoes;787761 wrote:Medicare is only going to go bankrupt if we accept that Paul Ryan's anarchist-libertarian Fountainhead-pornography fantasy supported by the catechism of perpetually and permanently lowering taxation further and further despite its already historic and unprecedented lows. We have a long term fiscal problem but we have $77 trillion of national assets that have been declared untouchable to ensure a dignified retirement for the elderly. Of course with those constraints medicare, in its current form, is on its path to insolvency...

  We DO NOT have a tax revenue problem. We have a SPENDING problem.
  
  The only reason Medicare will be allowed to go bankrupt is to insure that ObamaKare takes root. Same corrupt, wasteful, inefficient and bloated government bullshit - just a different name.
• Ty Webb

  

  http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/06/01/majority_of_americans_oppose_ryan_medicare_plan.html
  
  http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/01/cnn-poll-majority-gives-thumbs-down-to-ryan-plan/
  
  The poll indicates that 58 percent of the public opposes the Republican plan on Medicare, with 35 percent saying they support the proposal
  
  74% of seniors oppose it even though it would apply only to those currently younger than 55, "suggesting that seniors are most worried about changes to Medicare even if those changes are presented as ones that would not affect existing Medicare recipients."
  
  54% of conservatives also oppose the plan, while Republicans are split, with 50% opposing and 48% supporting.
• QuakerOats

  And there is your problem Ty, when the majority finds that they can vote themselves the treasury, the end is near.
  
  I am becoming more convinced by the day that the incredible ignorance of the populace and massive dependency building in will indeed tip us over the edge, and it will happen in less than 4 years if obama is reelected.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;787761 wrote:Medicare is only going to go bankrupt if we accept that Paul Ryan's anarchist-libertarian Fountainhead-pornography fantasy supported by the catechism of perpetually and permanently lowering taxation further and further despite its already historic and unprecedented lows. We have a long term fiscal problem but we have $77 trillion of national assets that have been declared untouchable to ensure a dignified retirement for the elderly. Of course with those constraints medicare, in its current form, is on its path to insolvency...

  
  
  Astounding.
• Prescott

  The poll indicates that 58 percent of the public opposes the Republican plan on Medicare, with 35 percent saying they support the proposal

  I doubt that 58% of the public even knows who Ryan is and what his plan is all about.
• BoatShoes

  believer;787893 wrote:We DO NOT have a tax revenue problem. We have a SPENDING problem.

  
  I have provided evidence put forth by a blue blood conservative that demonstrates, a man who helped make tax reforms (that ran huge deficits no less) that spurred the strong economy of the 80's emerging us from the malaise of the Carter years, that we might indeed be pulling in less revenue than might otherwise be desirable especially considering the mounting debt that you decry. What do you do.
  
  You simply repeat "We don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem" which is the same thing other conservative robots are writing on all the other blogs and message boards; despite continuing to insist that we slash revenue even further. If we never had the Bush tax cuts (which I supported initially but that's ok because I"m a liberal and am OK with deficits from time to time) this spending problem you speak of would not nearly be as drastic.
  
  In fact this spending problem you speak of is largely the result of a slash in revenue a decade ago.
  
  Please look. The Recovery Measures: 75% slashes in revenue through the tax code; Bush Tax Cuts? Slashes in Revenue; The biggest "spending problem" adding to the deficit; necessary wars all conservatives (except paleo-conservatives like footwedge) supported at least for the last 10 years so I will grant you that.
  
  <img src="http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4c28e8027f8b9ad402570000/chart-of-the-day-bush-policies-deficits-june-2010.gif" />
  
  
  
  You can continue to repeat "we have a spending problem" darrr as it sounds cool when you say it I suppose but that doesn't get in the way of the facts my friend.
  
  Healthcare spending is on an inflationary trajectory but Paul Ryan's plan of saying they will provide vouchers will not hold down costs if we look at the evidence of such programs....medicare advantage, student loans, etc. Simply yelling we have a spending problem and offering no real solutions and continuing to cut taxes beyond historic lows is not a solution. But hey, you nothing of the real types of cost control measures embedded in Obamacare (which Newt wanted in the 90's lol along with you imagine based upon your sheep like repetition of the talking points) such as tying medicare expenditures to individual healthcare providers, etc.
  
  Now, I don't mean to be rude but look man...I have said that I can support the Bush tax cuts and the wars, but I've also said that deficit spending can be justified. You on the other hand, decry deficit spending....have even gone so far as to say it should never be justified and yet you support policy after policy that will continue to run deficits.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;788133 wrote:Astounding.

  
  If we take out my facetious description of Mr. Ryan....what did I say that is not true.
  
  True: This nation of united people under God has $77 trillion worth of good consideration as a whole that may be converted into legal tender to pay off debts.
  
  True: We have a long term fiscal problem
  
  True: The Republican Party is opposed to nearly any and all tax increases with many Republicans getting elected on promises to never raise taxes or being threatened to be primaried out of office by groups like the Club for Growth, etc.
  
  True: Taxation in the United States is at its lowest in History.
  
  You know, after the Civil War, after northern boys and southern boys spilled their blood over the fight for the character of this nation, Our Congress reunited and passed a national wealth tax to pay for the debt of that war, properly apportioned within the Constitutional contstraints. Think about that. Southern anti-federalists just got done spilling their blood for a Confederate United States and yet even after that much determination still, dixieland's Senators and Representatives agreed to a national wealth tax at the hands of the Feds. Yet today, it seems impressively less likely that any tax increase of such a humble and responsible magnitude could be passed. Perhaps back then the conservative anti-federalists still believed it virtuous to pay off your the debts you earned because that's the lot of it isn't it? We hear all this talk about not wanting to send debt to our grandkids but the reality is we could drastically pay it down right now....but Paul Ryan, and yes, his estranged libertarian fantasy, would rather Run Deficits for another 30 years!!!!!!!! and totally revamp medicare....just so we don't have to pay for the debts we've incurred. And this is the Responsible party.
• gut

  BoatShoes;788287 wrote: True: This nation of united people under God has $77 trillion worth of good consideration as a whole that may be converted into legal tender to pay off debts.

  That's fantastic. Too bad the debt is with the US govt and not the people holding all those assets. The govt seizing assets to pay off its debt is even more catastrophic than default.
  
  As for Laffer, even if we aren't at the optimal tax rates, it would still fall well short of covering the deficit. 20% - a historically high % - of GDP is only about 2.8 trillion.
• stlouiedipalma

  QuakerOats;788132 wrote:And there is your problem Ty, when the majority finds that they can vote themselves the treasury, the end is near.
  
  I am becoming more convinced by the day that the incredible ignorance of the populace and massive dependency building in will indeed tip us over the edge, and it will happen in less than 4 years if obama is reelected.

  
  Is this a chink in your armour? Now you say "if Obama is reelected". Never thought I would see that in print on one of your posts.