AARP: (Ryan) Budget Would Upend Vital Programs and Shift Costs to Older Americans

[Greenbeard]

I disagree. It at least brings a modicum of competition into the mix, which is the only way to reduce costs.

If a regulated health insurance exchange can slow the rise of health costs to below what Medicare is experiencing then why run on a platform of repealing them?

Because a free market can actually reduce costs. This is how you were able to buy that computer you're on for a fraction of what it cost in the past. Regulated markets like healthcare, health insurance, education, etc...their costs rise far in excess of the rate of inflation while producing shitty results.

Then why would a regulated health insurance exchange for seniors reduce costs? Didn't you just suggest that it would?

 

[Polk]

And that backing would be what?

$16 trillion isn't a big enough loan? Really?

You're right, it's not backed by anything, but currency never is. It's a legal fiction.

And I'd love to comment on this 16 billion number if I knew what you guys were referring to.

Currency has traditionally been backed by gold or silver. We were up until the early 70s.

It's 16 trillion, not billion, which refers to our national debt:

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

We're almost up to $140,000 owed by each and every taxpayer.

This isn't going to end well...

Even currency backed by specie is really a fiction. It doesn't have an objective value.

Sorry for the typo. Since we were talking about health care, I thought we were looking at a specific number, but just current general debt.

 

[Polk]

Are you under the impression that Medicare will remain viable without significant reform? Do you think a tax rate increase will fix it? Keep in mind the average American takes out three times what they pay into Medicare. How's that bode for the future?

I don't think our health care system as a whole is viable without significant reform. The problem is that no one is really proposing anything that will work. Ryan's plan doesn't reduce health care costs, it just shifts the burdens on the backs of seniors.

I disagree. It at least brings a modicum of competition into the mix, which is the only way to reduce costs.

Competition may make the cost of service lower, but administrative overhead would be that value and more. Just look at Medicare Advantage.

 

[eflatminor]

If a regulated health insurance exchange can slow the rise of health costs to below what Medicare is experiencing then why run on a platform of repealing them?

Because a free market can actually reduce costs. This is how you were able to buy that computer you're on for a fraction of what it cost in the past. Regulated markets like healthcare, health insurance, education, etc...their costs rise far in excess of the rate of inflation while producing shitty results.

Then why would a regulated health insurance exchange for seniors reduce costs? Didn't you just suggest that it would?

No, I did not suggest that.

 

[Polk]

I disagree. It at least brings a modicum of competition into the mix, which is the only way to reduce costs.

If a regulated health insurance exchange can slow the rise of health costs to below what Medicare is experiencing then why run on a platform of repealing them?

Because a free market can actually reduce costs. This is how you were able to buy that computer you're on for a fraction of what it cost in the past. Regulated markets like healthcare, health insurance, education, etc...their costs rise far in excess of the rate of inflation while producing shitty results.

Health care is not like a computer. If I don't have the latest iPhone, it's not going to kill me. Not having heart surgery if I need it will.

 

[eflatminor]

I don't think our health care system as a whole is viable without significant reform. The problem is that no one is really proposing anything that will work. Ryan's plan doesn't reduce health care costs, it just shifts the burdens on the backs of seniors.

I disagree. It at least brings a modicum of competition into the mix, which is the only way to reduce costs.

Competition may make the cost of service lower, but administrative overhead would be that value and more. Just look at Medicare Advantage.

If you believe government monopolies in any market result in lower costs than a free market, well, there really is nothing more to say.

 

[Polk]

If a regulated health insurance exchange can slow the rise of health costs to below what Medicare is experiencing then why run on a platform of repealing them?

Because a free market can actually reduce costs. This is how you were able to buy that computer you're on for a fraction of what it cost in the past. Regulated markets like healthcare, health insurance, education, etc...their costs rise far in excess of the rate of inflation while producing shitty results.

Then why would a regulated health insurance exchange for seniors reduce costs? Didn't you just suggest that it would?

I think you've giving him a run-around here. His preference is clearly to move to a voucher plan, then just drop the voucher eventually.

 

[eflatminor]

If a regulated health insurance exchange can slow the rise of health costs to below what Medicare is experiencing then why run on a platform of repealing them?

Because a free market can actually reduce costs. This is how you were able to buy that computer you're on for a fraction of what it cost in the past. Regulated markets like healthcare, health insurance, education, etc...their costs rise far in excess of the rate of inflation while producing shitty results.

Health care is not like a computer. If I don't have the latest iPhone, it's not going to kill me. Not having heart surgery if I need it will.

Then get thee health insurance. If you're pissed about the cost of health insurance, look no further than the government's meddling therein.

 

[Peach]

Massive tax giveaways for MULTInational corps, massive cuts to aid for disabled Americans. Ryan's "priorities" do NOT involve this nation.

 

[Polk]

I disagree. It at least brings a modicum of competition into the mix, which is the only way to reduce costs.

Competition may make the cost of service lower, but administrative overhead would be that value and more. Just look at Medicare Advantage.

If you believe government monopolies in any market result in lower costs than a free market, well, there really is nothing more to say.

It's not belief. We have real world case studies. The more open the health care market is in a country, the higher the costs. And that makes sense because health care is pretty different from any other good you can name.

 

[Polk]

Because a free market can actually reduce costs. This is how you were able to buy that computer you're on for a fraction of what it cost in the past. Regulated markets like healthcare, health insurance, education, etc...their costs rise far in excess of the rate of inflation while producing shitty results.

Health care is not like a computer. If I don't have the latest iPhone, it's not going to kill me. Not having heart surgery if I need it will.

Then get thee health insurance. If you're pissed about the cost of health insurance, look no further than the government's meddling therein.

I have health insurance. I was just set out an example. Without regulation, the only people who would be able to buy health insurance are people who don't really need it in the first place.

 

[beagle9]

Are you under the impression that Medicare will remain viable without significant reform? Do you think a tax rate increase will fix it? Keep in mind the average American takes out three times what they pay into Medicare. How's that bode for the future?

I wonder if God was worried about a budget or the numbers when creating the earth (or) was Jesus wooried when out on the boat with the men who couldnot catch fish for their people, when he told the men to cast their nets again, even into a lake where there was nothing before, yet the men brought up a multitude of fish that would feed the village and then some?

Why is it that we as a Christian nation in which we once stood as, are all of a sudden worried about where our next meal is going to come from, and threatening daily with these numbers that we just might be doomed? Maybe we should begin accepting the Lord back into our lives, and start looking back to him in prayer and within our works to get this mess straightened back out somehow?

Yes, that will fix Medicare...

Just speaking in general about our mindset in this nation anymore, where as all due to the mindset in which we are having these conversations in, it shows that we are lost, so no it won't fix our problems by what I was using as a mindset problem in which we have in this nation now, but if we were to change our mindset somehow, it would be a whole lot easier to fix these problems today.

Because we have abandoned the one who gave ease to our minds once, we have since created the mindset that we can't fix anything anymore without huge sacrifices involved, and it shows in these threads where no one seems to have the definitive answer that is needed to these problems, and they mock anyone who does try and help with these problems, and even when try and help in an honest way.

 

[Peach]

Luke Bush II before him, Ryan is PROUD to be a lapdog for foreign business interests.

 

[Greenbeard]

Then why would a regulated health insurance exchange for seniors reduce costs? Didn't you just suggest that it would?

No, I did not suggest that.

See:

I don't think our health care system as a whole is viable without significant reform. The problem is that no one is really proposing anything that will work. Ryan's plan doesn't reduce health care costs, it just shifts the burdens on the backs of seniors.

I disagree. It at least brings a modicum of competition into the mix, which is the only way to reduce costs.

Ryan's proposal is to create a health insurance exchange with guaranteed issue and some form of community rating rules, in which insurers are required to offer plans actuarially equivalent to a federally-defined benchmark plan. The value of federal subsidies to seniors is theoretically pegged to the 2nd cheapest plan in the exchange (although it actually isn't, as the value of the subsidy is artificially capped).

So I guess I'm confused as to what you believe: will such a system lower costs?

 

[GHook93]

I wonder what the AARP said about Obaminationcare and the $760 billion it cut from medicare? Oh wait they endorsed it because a liberal presented! AARP has lost all creditability and honor!

ahoy GHook93,

i think the Nixon-Heritage Foundation-Romney-Gingrich-Obama healthcare reform looks to achieve savings in the future, not actually "cut" spendin'.

i think the AARP be just conditioned to be terrified 'o the GOP, due to some grim rhetoric that our elder sailors hath picked up.

- MeadHallPirate

You have a point there pirate, but I also think it's lead by liberals and that moves them in direction they take rather than doing what is best for seniors, because Obaminationcare clearly wasn't that!

 

[MeadHallPirate]

If they pissed off white seniors, they'd have no shot at winning. So instead they lie to them and tell me that they'll protect Medicare.

ahoy Polk,

i don't think they be lyin', really.

them healthcare entitlement programs have the wind at thar back, matey - the risk 'o gettin' keelhauled at the polls be too great fer Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan to actually slash the programs fer folks 55 and over.

heck, by the time the real cuts they advocate be inflicted, both will be outta office.

it will be a real problem, i reckon, fer folks who be in thar late twenties and thirties. they'll be the ones payin' so our older sea dogs can enjoy thar entitlements....but the version them youngsters will see will be drastically reduced in scale.

'tis sorta dishonest, but smart politics, aye?

- MeadHallPirate

 

[MeadHallPirate]

I wonder what the AARP said about Obaminationcare and the $760 billion it cut from medicare? Oh wait they endorsed it because a liberal presented! AARP has lost all creditability and honor!

ahoy GHook93,

i think the Nixon-Heritage Foundation-Romney-Gingrich-Obama healthcare reform looks to achieve savings in the future, not actually "cut" spendin'.

i think the AARP be just conditioned to be terrified 'o the GOP, due to some grim rhetoric that our elder sailors hath picked up.

- MeadHallPirate

You have a point there pirate, but I also think it's lead by liberals and that moves them in direction they take rather than doing what is best for seniors, because Obaminationcare clearly wasn't that!

ahoy Ghook93,

i don't really see liberals, specifically, to blame any longer....at least not on this issue and not in 2012.

*chews on a piece 'o hard tack and muses*

in 2009, i made me way to a town hall meetin' hosted by congresswoman Sue Myrick(R). imma sure ye remember the time....a very spirited era 'o them "Obamacare" gatherings. i raised me lookin' glass to me eye and beheld an armada 'o very, very angry senior citizens, fer the rhetoric 'o the day was "OBAMA WILL CUT YOUR MEDICARE", and by god, them old folks were up in arms. i saw signs, ye know the kind, that proclaimed "Keep governmet out of medicare!!!".

in this day and age, both parties be pretty terrified 'o the senior vote, and any policy measure that proposes any reform 'o the programs that our eldest crave be fraught with peril, aye.

at the end 'o the day, i think it'll have to be Democrats that reform (and cut) them programs, in much the same way that it had to be Nixon that went to China.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

 

[whitehall]

You gotta know that AARP is not politically independent. It is an arm of the democrat party. Anyway, how is an "association of retired persons" qualified to give an opinion on something as complex as the health care issue? The freaking democrats (including the former House Speaker) who voted for it didn't even know what was in the 3,000 monstrosity.

 

[edthecynic]

You gotta know that AARP is not politically independent. It is an arm of the democrat party. Anyway, how is an "association of retired persons" qualified to give an opinion on something as complex as the health care issue? The freaking democrats (including the former House Speaker) who voted for it didn't even know what was in the 3,000 monstrosity.

Yeah sure,. everyone who doesn't parrot GOP lies is an arm of the Democratic Party.

 

[whitehall]

You gotta know that AARP is not politically independent. It is an arm of the democrat party. Anyway, how is an "association of retired persons" qualified to give an opinion on something as complex as the health care issue? The freaking democrats (including the former House Speaker) who voted for it didn't even know what was in the 3,000 monstrosity.

Yeah sure,. everyone who doesn't parrot GOP lies is an arm of the Democratic Party.

I'm serious. AARP's policies concerning the 2nd Amendment have nothing to do with the welfare and safety of senior citizens. They are anti-gun knee jerk democrat party policies. You can bet your ass-ets that AARP will never-ever -ever support a single republican politician. AARP is an arm of the democrat party but even if you think the AARP is independent they aren't qualified to argue with the V.P. candidate about health insurance.