$12,000 voucher?

[Zona]

AFter the 12k is spent, then what? Die?

its guaranteed issue so would cover all. Its so good to have a liberal morality bigot looking out for old folks

"its guaranteed issue"? Please help me out with this.

Ok, lets say your an obese person with diabetes who also had cancer (I only say this because I know someone on medicare in this situation). He is on disability and is 53.

He is supposed to got out and get insurance and not spend 12k (I heard it was 15k but whatever) for the year? If he does, then what? This is assuming he could even get insurance out in the market.

Seriously, what is the republican plan again? Vouchers? Really?

How well is this going over with older republicans? How do they feel about this? I understand the proposed crazy plan is to offer these vouchers to people under 55 but they paid into the medicare program their entire working lives. Again, how is this going for you guys?

What about the disabled? 12k a year for medical issues? Really?

 

[Brutus]

the principles are the same. Republicans want a uniform national or international market for health care and automobiles, not one where each state requires its own products and where competition is, in effect, illegal.

Indeed, so when you said "the preference is always for state control," you were a bit confused. Federal legislation is what you seek. That puts you in good company with the liberals.]

too stupid given that liberals use state control to limit rather than expand national competition. See why we are positive the liberal will have a low IQ??

too stupid!! 1) No one said it was a prime example. It is a modest example at best.

"is not a free capitalist market because it is mandated and managed by the government"[/i]?

modest because it is not as capitalist as Republicans would propose in the absense of liberal opposition

When BO denounces it he denounces it as a voucher plan because that is its most salient point.

He denounces it as a plan that leaves seniors without coverage in order to make the federal balance sheet look better. That's its most salient point.

12-15k plus inflation is suppposed to cover the projected cost. If not I'm sure it would be adjusted, although Republican competition might cut costs in half so it should never be an issue

its guaranteed issue so would cover all. Its so good to have a liberal morality bigot looking out for old folks

as I said the projections are supposed to cover the costs and can be adjusted if necessary. 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities does not guarantee health care either, but saving the system while cutting costs in half does.

 

[The Rabbi]

You'll have to clarify what you mean. The "level" of governance as I've been using it and as it's generally used refers to where the authority sits (e.g. at a federal level, a multi-state non-federal level, the state level, etc). That is, what is the scale of the decision-making authority held by whatever the governing body turns out to be.

When it comes to health insurance, many liberals and conservatives alike seem to prefer a federal-level governance.

I would prefer no governance above and beyond those that already govern any other contract or financial arrangement, which is all insurance is.

 

[Brutus]

What about the disabled? 12k a year for medical issues? Really?

the liberal has a very low IQ:

1) current system is immorally bankrupting our children

2) many of the very sick on Medicaid & Medicare can't find coverage now and must use emergency rooms

3) the Ryan Plan introduces competition so cuts costs in half and saves America from bankruptcy

4) The Ryan Plan creates an exchange so companies can't cherry pick. The disabled are covered.

 

[Zona]

What about the disabled? 12k a year for medical issues? Really?

the liberal has a very low IQ:

1) current system is immorally bankrupting our children

2) many of the very sick on Medicaid & Medicare can't find coverage now and must use emergency rooms

3) the Ryan Plan introduces competition so cuts costs in half and saves America from bankruptcy

4) The Ryan Plan creates an exchange so companies can't cherry pick. The disabled are covered.

How exactly are the disabled covered?


He gives the elderly vouchers and says go buy it yourselves and good luck. What the fuck are you talking about? "competition"? They wont be able to get insurance you fucking idiot. Who would insure them and what the fuck happens after the vouchers are depleted. Answer me that.

Why is it republicans are running away from a plan that kills medicare? You nuts had a chance and this is the shit you came up with....vouchers and tax cuts to the rich. Fucking brilliant.

 

[Brutus]

What about the disabled? 12k a year for medical issues? Really?

the liberal has a very low IQ:

1) current system is immorally bankrupting our children

2) many of the very sick on Medicaid & Medicare can't find coverage now and must use emergency rooms

3) the Ryan Plan introduces competition so cuts costs in half and saves America from bankruptcy

4) The Ryan Plan creates an exchange so companies can't cherry pick. The disabled are covered.[/QUOTE]

How exactly are the disabled covered? He gives the elderly vouchers and says go buy it yourselves and good luck. What the fuck are you talking about?

as I said a liberal will have a low IQ and not be able to understand:

1) vouchers are for 12-15k (that is cost now including disabled and 99 year olds in ICU)

2) Ryan creates an exchange through which you must sell insurance. To sell in the exchange you must cover everyone!!!!That means no cherry picking!!!! Not to confuse you but this is called "guaranteed issue."

"competition"? They wont be able to get insurance you fucking idiot.

no need to be embarrassed, you're a liberal and a morality bigot

Who would insure them

every company that wanted to sell insurance

and what the fuck happens after the vouchers are depleted. Answer me that.

vouchers don't get depleted at least not on this planet. This is earth, by the way!

[
Why is it republicans are running away from a plan that kills medicare?

if some are it would be because there are many liberal's without the IQ to understand how capitalism gave us the highest standard of living in human history.

You nuts had a chance and this is the shit you came up with....vouchers and tax cuts to the rich. Fucking brilliant.

and now perhaps even a liberal can understand? How many liberals have
the opportunity to be spoonfed as I just did for you. Do you have the character to profit from your experience??

 

[Greenbeard]

1) vouchers are for 12-15k (that is cost now including disabled and 99 year olds in ICU)

The average voucher would be $8,000 under Ryan's proposal. The result being that beneficiaries are put into private plans that cost more than Medicare and they're expected to cover a larger portion of those (now larger) costs. Or as CBO put it very simply:

To summarize, a typical beneficiary would spend more for health care under the [Ryan] proposal than under CBO’s long-term scenarios [traditional Medicare] for several reasons. First, private plans would cost more than traditional Medicare because of the net effect of differences in payment rates for providers, administrative costs, and utilization of health care services, as described above. Second, the government’s contribution would grow more slowly than health care costs, leaving more for beneficiaries to pay.​

That's not a bug, that's the point of the proposal. Ryan's proposal isn't aimed at decreasing costs, it's about shifting them to seniors.

2) Ryan creates an exchange through which you must sell insurance. To sell in the exchange you must cover everyone!!!!That means no cherry picking!!!! Not to confuse you but this is called "guaranteed issue."

I'm not aware of any requirement that an insurer must offer products in in Ryan's Medicare exchange as a condition for continuing to offer insurance products to the non-elderly population.

Last fall, a guaranteed issue rule was instituted for a very limited market: the market for child-only health insurance policies. Citing fears of adverse selection, several insurers in different states threatened to stop selling child-only policies. Some states have responded by legislating that insurers who wish to offer any health insurance products must also offer child-only policies. In the case of child-only policies, insurers feared an unfavorable risk profile due to adverse selection; for a pool of seniors (eventually, the 67 and over crowd), a similar problem exists because such a pool is essentially a high-risk pool all by itself. So are you suggesting that Ryan intends to do the same thing for his Medicare exchanges, requiring insurers to cover the elderly if they want to sell policies to non-seniors outside of the Medicare exchange?

vouchers don't get depleted at least not on this planet.

They do, however, fail to cover even the majority of the costs of a private plan for seniors (CBO estimates they'll cover about 39% of the cost of a standard plan in 2022, a proportion that shrinks with time).

 

[Zona]

no need to be embarrished, you're a liberal and a morality bigot

See the above post that destroys every one of your talking points...

and
see what you wrote here.

Nuff said.

 

[Brutus]

1) vouchers are for 12-15k (that is cost now including disabled and 99 year olds in ICU)

The average voucher would be $8,000 under Ryan's proposal. The result being that beneficiaries are put into private plans that cost more than Medicare and they're expected to cover a larger portion of those (now larger) costs. Or as CBO put it very simply:

To summarize, a typical beneficiary would spend more for health care under the [Ryan] proposal than under CBO’s long-term scenarios [traditional Medicare] for several reasons. First, private plans would cost more than traditional Medicare because of the net effect of differences in payment rates for providers, administrative costs, and utilization of health care services, as described above. Second, the government’s contribution would grow more slowly than health care costs, leaving more for beneficiaries to pay.​

That's not a bug, that's the point of the proposal. Ryan's proposal isn't aimed at decreasing costs, it's about shifting them to seniors.

too stupid and perfectly liberal of course. As useful as CBO is , it is not allowed to tell you that a significant capitalist element in health care will cut the cost of health care in half at least. Did you notice that Americans are the richest people on earth because they have capitalism and can afford everything? Where they don't have it, i.e., health care, they are very poor!!!! Did you notice how rich the Chinese got when they switched to capitalism??? See why we are positive the liberal will have a very very low IQ??

Ryan creates an exchange through which you must sell insurance. To sell in the exchange you must cover everyone!!!!That means no cherry picking!!!! Not to confuse you but this is called "guaranteed issue."

I'm not aware of any requirement that an insurer must offer products in in Ryan's Medicare exchange as a condition for continuing to offer insurance products to the non-elderly population.

MSNBC:The Medicare redesign Ryan is proposing resembles one he offered with Alice Rivlin, a Democrat, an Obama supporter, and former budget director in the Clinton administration.

Replacing open-ended Medicare payments
The plan would replace the current open-ended system of Medicare payments with one in which the federal government would subsidize people to purchase insurance. In health insurance jargon, this is called “premium support.”


Ryan would set up a system called “the Medicare exchange” in which beneficiaries would choose an insurance plan they preferred.

His summary of the Medicare proposal said, “Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.”

Under his plan, poorer and sicker people in Medicare in future decades would be more heavily subsidized by the taxpayers than would wealthier and healthier retirees.

The premium support payments would grow annually at the GDP growth rate, plus one percent. This would mean that Medicare spending would grow much more slowly than under the current system.

Ryan would apply his plan only to those who turn age 65 in 2022.

So are you suggesting that Ryan intends to do the same thing for his Medicare exchanges, requiring insurers to cover the elderly if they want to sell policies to non-seniors outside of the Medicare exchange?

Ryan plan has nothing whatsoever to do with non senoirs

vouchers don't get depleted at least not on this planet.

They do, however, fail to cover even the majority of the costs of a private plan for seniors (CBO estimates they'll cover about 39% of the cost of a standard plan in 2022, a proportion that shrinks with time).

please show the quote or admit to being a liberal liar

 

[Brutus]

See the above post that destroys every one of your talking points...

Please show one point that was destroyed or admit to having a liberal IQ. Thanks

 

[Greenbeard]

too stupid and perfectly liberal of course. As useful as CBO is , it is not allowed to tell you that a significant capitalist element in health care will cut the cost of health care in half at least.

You think an exchange structure will cut health spending in half? If only the CBO were allowed to tell us that. The Affordable Care Act (er, "ObamaCare") would've received perhaps the most exciting score in history, not to mention it would've had a price tag that's several hundred billion dollars cheaper.

The good news here, then, is that the ACA has all but solved our national health care cost issues by creating exchanges. That's a relief--thanks for the heads up!

His summary of the Medicare proposal said, “Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.”

That does answer my question, thank you. Insurers are not required to participate in the Medicare exchange at all. Which, again, raises questions of whether Medicare exchange participation faces the same problem as child-only policy market participation.

They do, however, fail to cover even the majority of the costs of a private plan for seniors (CBO estimates they'll cover about 39% of the cost of a standard plan in 2022, a proportion that shrinks with time).

please show the quote or admit to being a libewral liar

The "proposal" here refers to Ryan's suggestion.

 

[Flopper]

The voucher amount is roughly equivalent to what Medicare spends today. Most seniors buy medigap coverage already.
The myth is that we can continue funding Medicare at current levels. Even Obama's budget does not call for that. With his cuts there will be insufficient funds to cover all claims. What is his solution? Panels of experts to figure it all out. Doesn't that make you feel better?
The result of that of course is that we will get death panels and rationed care.

There is no way the average senior could purchase the equivalent Medicare coverage for $550/mo. Between 65 and 85 you can expect the average health care cost to increase by a factor 5. A $6600 voucher is laughable.

 

[rdean]

What about the disabled? 12k a year for medical issues? Really?

the liberal has a very low IQ:

1) current system is immorally bankrupting our children

2) many of the very sick on Medicaid & Medicare can't find coverage now and must use emergency rooms

3) the Ryan Plan introduces competition so cuts costs in half and saves America from bankruptcy

4) The Ryan Plan creates an exchange so companies can't cherry pick. The disabled are covered.

How exactly are the disabled covered? He gives the elderly vouchers and says go buy it yourselves and good luck. What the fuck are you talking about?

as I said a liberal will have a low IQ and not be able to understand:

1) vouchers are for 12-15k (that is cost now including disabled and 99 year olds in ICU)

2) Ryan creates an exchange through which you must sell insurance. To sell in the exchange you must cover everyone!!!!That means no cherry picking!!!! Not to confuse you but this is called "guaranteed issue."



no need to be embarrassed, you're a liberal and a morality bigot



every company that wanted to sell insurance

and what the fuck happens after the vouchers are depleted. Answer me that.

vouchers don't get depleted at least not on this planet. This is earth, by the way!

[
Why is it republicans are running away from a plan that kills medicare?

if some are it would be because there are many liberal's without the IQ to understand how capitalism gave us the highest standard of living in human history.

You nuts had a chance and this is the shit you came up with....vouchers and tax cuts to the rich. Fucking brilliant.

and now perhaps even a liberal can understand? How many liberals have
the opportunity to be spoonfed as I just did for you. Do you have the character to profit from your experience??[/QUOTE]

Wow. What can you say to someone who is delusional?
And he laughs at normal people. Insane.

 

[Brutus]

too stupid and perfectly liberal of course. As useful as CBO is , it is not allowed to tell you that a significant capitalist element in health care will cut the cost of health care in half at least.

You think an exchange structure will cut health spending in half?

too stupid!!! Not an exchange structure, but CAPITALISM: people shopping with their own money!!!! Business locked in deadly competition!!!! Why do you think 120 million starved to death in the USSR and Red China: no one had an incentive to work harder and better. See why we are positive a liberal will have a low IQ?

If only the CBO were allowed to tell us that. The Affordable Care Act (er, "ObamaCare") would've received perhaps the most exciting score in history, not to mention it would've had a price tag that's several hundred billion dollars cheaper.

no idea what you are talking about. BO care is socialist and would yield a soviet result!!

The good news here, then, is that the ACA has all but solved our national health care cost issues by creating exchanges. That's a relief--thanks for the heads up!

who said BO exchanges would solve anything??


MSNBC:
His summary of the Medicare proposal said, “Health plans that choose to participate in the Medicare exchange must agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking and ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.

That does answer my question, thank you. Insurers are not required to participate in the Medicare exchange at all. Which, again, raises questions of whether Medicare exchange participation faces the same problem as child-only policy market participation.

too stupid!!! If they did not participate the vouchers would be increased. THere is no reason to assume they would not participate.

They do, however, fail to cover even the majority of the costs of a private plan for seniors (CBO estimates they'll cover about 39% of the cost of a standard plan in 2022, a proportion that shrinks with time).

please show the quote or admit to being a libewral liar.

The "proposal" here refers to Ryan's suggestion.

too stupid and perfectly liberall!!

1) CBO admits its numbers are highly speculative

2) majority of costs????? You're Chart say 39% versus 42%!!!!!! See why we are positive a liberal will be very very slow??

 

[Brutus]

Wow. What can you say to someone who is delusional?

of course if delusional the liberal would not be so afraid to give his best example for whole world to see!! What does your fear tell you about liberalism?

 

[Greenbeard]

Not an exchange structure, but CAPITALISM: people shopping with their own money!!!!

If they did not participate the vouchers would be increased.

Ah, so the key here is "people shopping with their own money," unless of course most seniors can't afford to pay what private insurers charge them (prompting some potential market exits by insurers), in which case "the vouchers would be increased." Well, shucks.

But this gets right to the heart of the matter. Ryan calls for the value of the voucher to be set administratively, meaning it does end up fairly susceptible to political forces. And so we either have draconian cuts that push significant costs onto the backs of seniors, or we see politics push up the value of the vouchers. We have, of course, already seen this happen with Medicare Advantage plans, which ended up costing about 115% of the costs of a traditional Medicare plan despite promises that partial privatization would lower costs.

But if that happens, we've got a problem. Traditional Medicare is cheaper than the private plans that would be offered in Ryan's exchange. So if we're going to convert to a system that costs more for equivalent coverage, and we end up opting against throwing seniors under the bus and instead cover the costs of their Medicare exchange plan, we end up spending more on care for the elderly under the Ryan proposal than under current Medicare.

You're Chart say 39% versus 42%!!!!!!

The relevant bit here is the light blue portion of the bar: "beneficiary's share of costs." They end being on the hook for 61% of the baseline private plan in 2022 (growing to 68 percent by 2030). Under the alternative scenarios, the beneficiary's share is less than 30 percent of the baseline private plan's costs. The reason for this is that traditional Medicare is cheaper than private Medicare exchange plans (and, indeed, the costs for traditional Medicare grow more slowly). Meaning that seniors are on the hook for significantly more money under the Ryan proposal (even though, as you correctly note, in 2022 the federal government is still paying roughly the same thing in either case).

Unless of course this system proves politically unsustainable and the government is forced to take your suggestion and raise the value of the voucher. In which case, now it's the federal government that's on the hook for more and more costs (relative to the costs of traditional Medicare, may it rest in peace).

 

[Brutus]

Not an exchange structure, but CAPITALISM: people shopping with their own money!!!!

If they did not participate the vouchers would be increased.

Ah, so the key here is "people shopping with their own money," unless of course most seniors can't afford to pay what private insurers charge them (prompting some potential market exits by insurers), in which case "the vouchers would be increased." Well, shucks.

too stupid and liberal!! The voucher amount should be about double what's needed since its based on current socialist costs.

But this gets right to the heart of the matter. Ryan calls for the value of the voucher to be set administratively, meaning it does end up fairly susceptible to political forces.

too stupid and perfectly liberal!!! Now its 100% political!!

And so we either have draconian cuts that push significant costs onto the backs of seniors, [/quote

too stupid!!! Capitalism is what Red China switched to to save 20 million or so from enmasse liberal starvation!!!

or we see politics push up the value of the vouchers. We have, of course, already seen this happen with Medicare Advantage plans, which ended up costing about 115% of the costs of a traditional Medicare plan despite promises that partial privatization would lower costs.[/quotes]

too stupid!!! Capitalsm is about less politics!!

But if that happens, we've got a problem. Traditional Medicare is cheaper than the private plans that would be offered in Ryan's exchange.

too stupid!! China switched from socialism to freedom because 60 million starved to death and you want to switch to socialism. See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?

So if we're going to convert to a system that costs more for equivalent coverage, and we end up opting against throwing seniors under the bus and instead cover the costs of their Medicare exchange plan, we end up spending more on care for the elderly under the Ryan proposal than under current Medicare.

people can afford 100 times more in a capitalist system. Now the idiot liberal knows why most of the world has switched!!

You're Chart say 39% versus 42%!!!!!!

The relevant bit here is the light blue portion of the bar: "beneficiary's share of costs." They end being on the hook for 61% of the baseline private plan in 2022 (growing to 68 percent by 2030). Under the alternative scenarios, the beneficiary's share is less than 30 percent of the baseline private plan's costs. The reason for this is that traditional Medicare is cheaper than private Medicare exchange plans (and, indeed, the costs for traditional Medicare grow more slowly). Meaning that seniors are on the hook for significantly more money under the Ryan proposal.

too stupid, the liberal liar implied the CBO guess of 42% was a majority and significantly different from 39%

too stupid!! China switched because capitalism makes everyting very ver inexpensive