Ending Medicare Ryan-style Doesn't Save Any Money

[Greenbeard]

Apparently Romney has decided that he can't win a referendum on Obama and thus it's time to more explicitly hitch his wagon to the GOP's radical agenda to revive his campaign.

So it's worth taking a moment this morning to remember that his new Number Two's plot to voucherize Medicare and shift costs onto the backs of future seniors doesn't save any money. It's ideological drivel that doesn't actually solve any problems that haven't already been solved. Why not? Because per enrollee spending growth in the public health insurance programs has already fallen.

Medicare and Medicaid Spending Trends and the Deficit Debate | NEJM

With the per-enrollee spending growth in Medicare and Medicaid less than that in private insurance and close to the growth in GDP per capita, it's hard to argue that spending on either program, on a per-enrollee basis, is “out of control.” Rather, per-enrollee growth in both programs is near the target often advocated in debt-reduction proposals. Total spending growth, which also includes growth in enrollment, is faster than the economy's growth. But policies that are appropriate when the problem is per-capita spending growth differ from those that make sense when enrollment growth is such an important cost driver. Policy options such as premium support and block grants that entail indexing growth rates to some measure of economic growth will have a hard time achieving lower per-enrollee spending growth than is currently projected. CBO estimates suggest that both approaches may achieve savings for the federal government, but such savings shift Medicare costs onto existing enrollees and, in the case of Medicaid, onto the states as well.3

Rather than pursuing major restructuring of either program, then, we should continue adopting available strategies to contain costs within the programs' current structure, especially since many of those implemented in the past decade seem to be working, and many on the horizon appear promising.

I'm sure Ryan and his sidekick Mittens will defend their scheme by saying it's necessary. Unfortunately for them, that's demonstrably false. The alleged goals of their plan have already been achieved. Dismantling Medicare, throwing seniors into the private insurance market, and shifting costs back onto seniors isn't necessary for fiscal reasons, it's purely ideological.

I suspect we'll hear more about the folly of their ideological agenda in the coming weeks.

 

[jillian]

Apparently Romney has decided that he can't win a referendum on Obama and thus it's time to more explicitly hitch his wagon to the GOP's radical agenda to revive his campaign.

So it's worth taking a moment this morning to remember that his new Number Two's plot to voucherize Medicare and shift costs onto the backs of future seniors doesn't save any money. It's ideological drivel that doesn't actually solve any problems that haven't already been solved. Why not? Because per enrollee spending growth in the public health insurance programs has already fallen.

Medicare and Medicaid Spending Trends and the Deficit Debate | NEJM

With the per-enrollee spending growth in Medicare and Medicaid less than that in private insurance and close to the growth in GDP per capita, it's hard to argue that spending on either program, on a per-enrollee basis, is “out of control.” Rather, per-enrollee growth in both programs is near the target often advocated in debt-reduction proposals. Total spending growth, which also includes growth in enrollment, is faster than the economy's growth. But policies that are appropriate when the problem is per-capita spending growth differ from those that make sense when enrollment growth is such an important cost driver. Policy options such as premium support and block grants that entail indexing growth rates to some measure of economic growth will have a hard time achieving lower per-enrollee spending growth than is currently projected. CBO estimates suggest that both approaches may achieve savings for the federal government, but such savings shift Medicare costs onto existing enrollees and, in the case of Medicaid, onto the states as well.3

Rather than pursuing major restructuring of either program, then, we should continue adopting available strategies to contain costs within the programs' current structure, especially since many of those implemented in the past decade seem to be working, and many on the horizon appear promising.

I'm sure Ryan and his sidekick Mittens will defend their scheme by saying it's necessary. Unfortunately for them, that's demonstrably false. The alleged goals of their plan have already been achieved. Dismantling Medicare, throwing seniors into the private insurance market, and shifting costs back onto seniors isn't necessary for fiscal reasons, it's purely ideological.

I suspect we'll hear more about the folly of their ideological agenda in the coming weeks.

well, if they're honest about what the GOP's mancrush really wants, then it will make for an interesting discussion.

if they aren't, it'll just be another rightwingnut shill's dream.

 

[Darkwind]

Apparently Romney has decided that he can't win a referendum on Obama and thus it's time to more explicitly hitch his wagon to the GOP's radical agenda to revive his campaign.

So it's worth taking a moment this morning to remember that his new Number Two's plot to voucherize Medicare and shift costs onto the backs of future seniors doesn't save any money. It's ideological drivel that doesn't actually solve any problems that haven't already been solved. Why not? Because per enrollee spending growth in the public health insurance programs has already fallen.

Medicare and Medicaid Spending Trends and the Deficit Debate | NEJM

With the per-enrollee spending growth in Medicare and Medicaid less than that in private insurance and close to the growth in GDP per capita, it's hard to argue that spending on either program, on a per-enrollee basis, is “out of control.” Rather, per-enrollee growth in both programs is near the target often advocated in debt-reduction proposals. Total spending growth, which also includes growth in enrollment, is faster than the economy's growth. But policies that are appropriate when the problem is per-capita spending growth differ from those that make sense when enrollment growth is such an important cost driver. Policy options such as premium support and block grants that entail indexing growth rates to some measure of economic growth will have a hard time achieving lower per-enrollee spending growth than is currently projected. CBO estimates suggest that both approaches may achieve savings for the federal government, but such savings shift Medicare costs onto existing enrollees and, in the case of Medicaid, onto the states as well.3

Rather than pursuing major restructuring of either program, then, we should continue adopting available strategies to contain costs within the programs' current structure, especially since many of those implemented in the past decade seem to be working, and many on the horizon appear promising.

I'm sure Ryan and his sidekick Mittens will defend their scheme by saying it's necessary. Unfortunately for them, that's demonstrably false. The alleged goals of their plan have already been achieved. Dismantling Medicare, throwing seniors into the private insurance market, and shifting costs back onto seniors isn't necessary for fiscal reasons, it's purely ideological.

I suspect we'll hear more about the folly of their ideological agenda in the coming weeks.

Too funny. Your own link provides backing for the Ryan plan, while convienently leaving out the fact that those over the age of 55 will not have to worry about this voucher system, while those under will be given a choice.

It is a much better plan than simply gutting medicare to the tune of 500 billion dollars for a pie in the sky healthcare plan that has done nothing more than increase costs and stifle business expansion.

Yeah, real good argument there skippy.

 

[peach174]

Dem's policy is future Seniors will not be able to see any Doctors or to be able to go to an emergency room.No health care at all.
Medicare is going broke and Dem's policy is rob Medicare of 500 billion in order to get 30 million people into their not affordable at all Health Care Plan.

You realize that Seniors do pay for Medicare as it is every month.
The voucher pays for quite a bit of that and future seniors will have a choice whether they want a private insurance or Medicare insurance.
I see no plan at all from the Dem's in how to keep Medicare going for the future generations of the country.
Something has to be done in order to keep Medicare and Dem's have done nothing at all about it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Apparently Romney has decided that he can't win a referendum on Obama and thus it's time to more explicitly hitch his wagon to the GOP's radical agenda to revive his campaign.

So it's worth taking a moment this morning to remember that his new Number Two's plot to voucherize Medicare and shift costs onto the backs of future seniors doesn't save any money. It's ideological drivel that doesn't actually solve any problems that haven't already been solved. Why not? Because per enrollee spending growth in the public health insurance programs has already fallen.

Medicare and Medicaid Spending Trends and the Deficit Debate | NEJM

With the per-enrollee spending growth in Medicare and Medicaid less than that in private insurance and close to the growth in GDP per capita, it's hard to argue that spending on either program, on a per-enrollee basis, is “out of control.” Rather, per-enrollee growth in both programs is near the target often advocated in debt-reduction proposals. Total spending growth, which also includes growth in enrollment, is faster than the economy's growth. But policies that are appropriate when the problem is per-capita spending growth differ from those that make sense when enrollment growth is such an important cost driver. Policy options such as premium support and block grants that entail indexing growth rates to some measure of economic growth will have a hard time achieving lower per-enrollee spending growth than is currently projected. CBO estimates suggest that both approaches may achieve savings for the federal government, but such savings shift Medicare costs onto existing enrollees and, in the case of Medicaid, onto the states as well.3

Rather than pursuing major restructuring of either program, then, we should continue adopting available strategies to contain costs within the programs' current structure, especially since many of those implemented in the past decade seem to be working, and many on the horizon appear promising.

I'm sure Ryan and his sidekick Mittens will defend their scheme by saying it's necessary. Unfortunately for them, that's demonstrably false. The alleged goals of their plan have already been achieved. Dismantling Medicare, throwing seniors into the private insurance market, and shifting costs back onto seniors isn't necessary for fiscal reasons, it's purely ideological.

I suspect we'll hear more about the folly of their ideological agenda in the coming weeks.

Too funny. Your own link provides backing for the Ryan plan, while convienently leaving out the fact that those over the age of 55 will not have to worry about this voucher system, while those under will be given a choice.

It is a much better plan than simply gutting medicare to the tune of 500 billion dollars for a pie in the sky healthcare plan that has done nothing more than increase costs and stifle business expansion.

Yeah, real good argument there skippy.

"will not have to worry about this voucher system"...

In other words, the voucher system is worth worrying about, but only future seniors will have to worry about it.

 

[Greenbeard]

Too funny. Your own link provides backing for the Ryan plan, while convienently leaving out the fact that those over the age of 55 will not have to worry about this voucher system, while those under will be given a choice.

Perhaps you're missing the point. So let me help you by stating it again (although it was already made explicitly): there is no expectation or hope that voucherizing Medicare will lead to lower per capita spending.

Pushing someone out of Medicare (3.1% growth per enrollee) and giving them a coupon for a private insurance plan (5% growth per enrollee) doesn't get long-term health spending under control. Assuming that the same number of older folks is insured, which I suppose isn't a safe assumption--Ryan may well leave some with no insurance at all.

All it succeeds in doing is shifting costs onto the backs of seniors, it doen't slow spending growth.

It is a much better plan than simply gutting medicare to the tune of 500 billion dollars for a pie in the sky healthcare plan that has done nothing more than increase costs and stifle business expansion.

Better than? The Ryan budget retains the ACA's cuts.

It's kind of hard to score savings for a plan using a 10-year budget window when you propose a plan that ostensibly doesn't take effect for 10 years. Unless you stand on the shoulders of giants and claim Obama's cuts as your own.

 

[Bfgrn]

Apparently Romney has decided that he can't win a referendum on Obama and thus it's time to more explicitly hitch his wagon to the GOP's radical agenda to revive his campaign.

So it's worth taking a moment this morning to remember that his new Number Two's plot to voucherize Medicare and shift costs onto the backs of future seniors doesn't save any money. It's ideological drivel that doesn't actually solve any problems that haven't already been solved. Why not? Because per enrollee spending growth in the public health insurance programs has already fallen.

Medicare and Medicaid Spending Trends and the Deficit Debate | NEJM

With the per-enrollee spending growth in Medicare and Medicaid less than that in private insurance and close to the growth in GDP per capita, it's hard to argue that spending on either program, on a per-enrollee basis, is “out of control.” Rather, per-enrollee growth in both programs is near the target often advocated in debt-reduction proposals. Total spending growth, which also includes growth in enrollment, is faster than the economy's growth. But policies that are appropriate when the problem is per-capita spending growth differ from those that make sense when enrollment growth is such an important cost driver. Policy options such as premium support and block grants that entail indexing growth rates to some measure of economic growth will have a hard time achieving lower per-enrollee spending growth than is currently projected. CBO estimates suggest that both approaches may achieve savings for the federal government, but such savings shift Medicare costs onto existing enrollees and, in the case of Medicaid, onto the states as well.3

Rather than pursuing major restructuring of either program, then, we should continue adopting available strategies to contain costs within the programs' current structure, especially since many of those implemented in the past decade seem to be working, and many on the horizon appear promising.

I'm sure Ryan and his sidekick Mittens will defend their scheme by saying it's necessary. Unfortunately for them, that's demonstrably false. The alleged goals of their plan have already been achieved. Dismantling Medicare, throwing seniors into the private insurance market, and shifting costs back onto seniors isn't necessary for fiscal reasons, it's purely ideological.

I suspect we'll hear more about the folly of their ideological agenda in the coming weeks.

Yes it is purely ideological. Russia has their Marxists, America has their Marketists. They are one and the same.

Health care does not fit, and will never fit into a 'free market' model.

The whole basis of a 'free market' is the buyer has leverage, i.e. he/she can take his/her business elsewhere. That works perfectly fine when the stakes are 'things' (cars or TV sets etc). But a person's health is not a 'thing', and the consumer's stake is their very life. An unhappy consumer can go buys a different car or TV. If a person has a life threatening illness and is denied coverage for treatment, WHAT leverage does that person have...take their business elsewhere IN ANOTHER LIFE?

 

[WillowTree]

Apparently Romney has decided that he can't win a referendum on Obama and thus it's time to more explicitly hitch his wagon to the GOP's radical agenda to revive his campaign.

So it's worth taking a moment this morning to remember that his new Number Two's plot to voucherize Medicare and shift costs onto the backs of future seniors doesn't save any money. It's ideological drivel that doesn't actually solve any problems that haven't already been solved. Why not? Because per enrollee spending growth in the public health insurance programs has already fallen.

Medicare and Medicaid Spending Trends and the Deficit Debate | NEJM

With the per-enrollee spending growth in Medicare and Medicaid less than that in private insurance and close to the growth in GDP per capita, it's hard to argue that spending on either program, on a per-enrollee basis, is “out of control.” Rather, per-enrollee growth in both programs is near the target often advocated in debt-reduction proposals. Total spending growth, which also includes growth in enrollment, is faster than the economy's growth. But policies that are appropriate when the problem is per-capita spending growth differ from those that make sense when enrollment growth is such an important cost driver. Policy options such as premium support and block grants that entail indexing growth rates to some measure of economic growth will have a hard time achieving lower per-enrollee spending growth than is currently projected. CBO estimates suggest that both approaches may achieve savings for the federal government, but such savings shift Medicare costs onto existing enrollees and, in the case of Medicaid, onto the states as well.3

Rather than pursuing major restructuring of either program, then, we should continue adopting available strategies to contain costs within the programs' current structure, especially since many of those implemented in the past decade seem to be working, and many on the horizon appear promising.

I'm sure Ryan and his sidekick Mittens will defend their scheme by saying it's necessary. Unfortunately for them, that's demonstrably false. The alleged goals of their plan have already been achieved. Dismantling Medicare, throwing seniors into the private insurance market, and shifting costs back onto seniors isn't necessary for fiscal reasons, it's purely ideological.

I suspect we'll hear more about the folly of their ideological agenda in the coming weeks.

well, if they're honest about what the GOP's mancrush really wants, then it will make for an interesting discussion.

if they aren't, it'll just be another rightwingnut shill's dream.

what is it that you think he really wants?

 

[Trajan]

Apparently Romney has decided that he can't win a referendum on Obama and thus it's time to more explicitly hitch his wagon to the GOP's radical agenda to revive his campaign.

So it's worth taking a moment this morning to remember that his new Number Two's plot to voucherize Medicare and shift costs onto the backs of future seniors doesn't save any money. It's ideological drivel that doesn't actually solve any problems that haven't already been solved. Why not? Because per enrollee spending growth in the public health insurance programs has already fallen.

Medicare and Medicaid Spending Trends and the Deficit Debate | NEJM

With the per-enrollee spending growth in Medicare and Medicaid less than that in private insurance and close to the growth in GDP per capita, it's hard to argue that spending on either program, on a per-enrollee basis, is “out of control.” Rather, per-enrollee growth in both programs is near the target often advocated in debt-reduction proposals. Total spending growth, which also includes growth in enrollment, is faster than the economy's growth. But policies that are appropriate when the problem is per-capita spending growth differ from those that make sense when enrollment growth is such an important cost driver. Policy options such as premium support and block grants that entail indexing growth rates to some measure of economic growth will have a hard time achieving lower per-enrollee spending growth than is currently projected. CBO estimates suggest that both approaches may achieve savings for the federal government, but such savings shift Medicare costs onto existing enrollees and, in the case of Medicaid, onto the states as well.3

Rather than pursuing major restructuring of either program, then, we should continue adopting available strategies to contain costs within the programs' current structure, especially since many of those implemented in the past decade seem to be working, and many on the horizon appear promising.

I'm sure Ryan and his sidekick Mittens will defend their scheme by saying it's necessary. Unfortunately for them, that's demonstrably false. The alleged goals of their plan have already been achieved. Dismantling Medicare, throwing seniors into the private insurance market, and shifting costs back onto seniors isn't necessary for fiscal reasons, it's purely ideological.

I suspect we'll hear more about the folly of their ideological agenda in the coming weeks.

'radical agenda', 'ideological agenda', yup, got the buzz words going early and you've got some gall, really. nothing obama does or did is either of those right?

the CLASS act, the forward pay, spend later huge cash cow has gone away, they pulled the plug on it becasue the enrollment cratered and I have asked you, oh, several times at least, what will replace it? not a word.


the revenue neutral mantra was and is, exposed as BS. Radical agenda indeed.


The Ryan-Wyden reform plan should be surfaced again and a debate had on its finer points, it wasn't perfect but their premium support plan has merit and they should go back at it together.




so how many iterations of throwing grandma grandpa off the cliff can you manufacture in 85 days, a lot I bet, have at it.

 

[peach174]

Too funny. Your own link provides backing for the Ryan plan, while convienently leaving out the fact that those over the age of 55 will not have to worry about this voucher system, while those under will be given a choice.

Perhaps you're missing the point. So let me help you by stating it again (although it was already made explicitly): there is no expectation or hope that voucherizing Medicare will lead to lower per capita spending.

Pushing someone out of Medicare (3.1% growth per enrollee) and giving them a coupon for a private insurance plan (5% growth per enrollee) doesn't get long-term health spending under control. Assuming that the same number of older folks is insured, which I suppose isn't a safe assumption--Ryan may well leave some with no insurance at all.

All it succeeds in doing is shifting costs onto the backs of seniors, it doen't slow spending growth.

It is a much better plan than simply gutting medicare to the tune of 500 billion dollars for a pie in the sky healthcare plan that has done nothing more than increase costs and stifle business expansion.

Better than? The Ryan budget retrains the ACA's cuts.

It's kind of hard to score savings for a plan using a 10-year budget window when you propose a plan that ostensibly doesn't take effect fo 10 years. Unless you stand on the shoulders of giants and claim Obama's cuts as your own.

You are quoting the Dems lies.
The voucher is for Medicare or private Insurance. They would have a choice.
You are not adding the rest of their plans that would bring the cost of Health Care down.
That is the basic part. Bring down the cost of health care.
The Dems plan does not do that at all.
The Dems plan is capping the payment to Doctor's and the Doctors can not afford that.

 

[Darkwind]

Too funny. Your own link provides backing for the Ryan plan, while convienently leaving out the fact that those over the age of 55 will not have to worry about this voucher system, while those under will be given a choice.

Perhaps you're missing the point. So let me help you by stating it again (although it was already made explicitly): there is no expectation or hope that voucherizing Medicare will lead to lower per capita spending.

Pushing someone out of Medicare (3.1% growth per enrollee) and giving them a coupon for a private insurance plan (5% growth per enrollee) doesn't get long-term health spending under control. Assuming that the same number of older folks is insured, which I suppose isn't a safe assumption--Ryan may well leave some with no insurance at all.

All it succeeds in doing is shifting costs onto the backs of seniors, it doen't slow spending growth.

It is a much better plan than simply gutting medicare to the tune of 500 billion dollars for a pie in the sky healthcare plan that has done nothing more than increase costs and stifle business expansion.

Better than? The Ryan budget retains the ACA's cuts.

It's kind of hard to score savings for a plan using a 10-year budget window when you propose a plan that ostensibly doesn't take effect for 10 years. Unless you stand on the shoulders of giants and claim Obama's cuts as your own.

I do understand the point, it is perhaps, you that has failed to understand the problem that staring everyone in the face. The purpose of the voucher system is to bring rising costs in line with acceptable growth. There has never been a plan to eliminate medicare (Unless you count the 500 billion dollars of de-funding that is obamacare) but a plan to stabilize and sustain it.

Also, the silly talking point of 'being pushed out of medicare' is disingenuous at best. No one will be 'forced' out of medicare. Fear mongering at its best.

 

[Trajan]

Apparently Romney has decided that he can't win a referendum on Obama and thus it's time to more explicitly hitch his wagon to the GOP's radical agenda to revive his campaign.

So it's worth taking a moment this morning to remember that his new Number Two's plot to voucherize Medicare and shift costs onto the backs of future seniors doesn't save any money. It's ideological drivel that doesn't actually solve any problems that haven't already been solved. Why not? Because per enrollee spending growth in the public health insurance programs has already fallen.

Medicare and Medicaid Spending Trends and the Deficit Debate | NEJM

With the per-enrollee spending growth in Medicare and Medicaid less than that in private insurance and close to the growth in GDP per capita, it's hard to argue that spending on either program, on a per-enrollee basis, is “out of control.” Rather, per-enrollee growth in both programs is near the target often advocated in debt-reduction proposals. Total spending growth, which also includes growth in enrollment, is faster than the economy's growth. But policies that are appropriate when the problem is per-capita spending growth differ from those that make sense when enrollment growth is such an important cost driver. Policy options such as premium support and block grants that entail indexing growth rates to some measure of economic growth will have a hard time achieving lower per-enrollee spending growth than is currently projected. CBO estimates suggest that both approaches may achieve savings for the federal government, but such savings shift Medicare costs onto existing enrollees and, in the case of Medicaid, onto the states as well.3

Rather than pursuing major restructuring of either program, then, we should continue adopting available strategies to contain costs within the programs' current structure, especially since many of those implemented in the past decade seem to be working, and many on the horizon appear promising.

I'm sure Ryan and his sidekick Mittens will defend their scheme by saying it's necessary. Unfortunately for them, that's demonstrably false. The alleged goals of their plan have already been achieved. Dismantling Medicare, throwing seniors into the private insurance market, and shifting costs back onto seniors isn't necessary for fiscal reasons, it's purely ideological.

I suspect we'll hear more about the folly of their ideological agenda in the coming weeks.

well, if they're honest about what the GOP's mancrush really wants, then it will make for an interesting discussion.

if they aren't, it'll just be another rightwingnut shill's dream.

Romney, is a rightwingnut ? really?


and honesty is hard to come by, like we are getting that now? between Fast and Furious, disparate impact, the coffee shoppe lobbyists klatch, NO budgets for 3 solid years, you really have to be living in another universe to play that card honestly.

 

[Greenbeard]

The purpose of the voucher system is to bring rising costs in line with acceptable growth.

Per enrollee Medicare cost growth is already "in line with acceptable growth." Indeed, it's slower than per enrollee private insurance cost growth.

Are you sure you understand this thread?

 

[jillian]

Apparently Romney has decided that he can't win a referendum on Obama and thus it's time to more explicitly hitch his wagon to the GOP's radical agenda to revive his campaign.

So it's worth taking a moment this morning to remember that his new Number Two's plot to voucherize Medicare and shift costs onto the backs of future seniors doesn't save any money. It's ideological drivel that doesn't actually solve any problems that haven't already been solved. Why not? Because per enrollee spending growth in the public health insurance programs has already fallen.

Medicare and Medicaid Spending Trends and the Deficit Debate | NEJM



I'm sure Ryan and his sidekick Mittens will defend their scheme by saying it's necessary. Unfortunately for them, that's demonstrably false. The alleged goals of their plan have already been achieved. Dismantling Medicare, throwing seniors into the private insurance market, and shifting costs back onto seniors isn't necessary for fiscal reasons, it's purely ideological.

I suspect we'll hear more about the folly of their ideological agenda in the coming weeks.

well, if they're honest about what the GOP's mancrush really wants, then it will make for an interesting discussion.

if they aren't, it'll just be another rightwingnut shill's dream.

Romney, is a rightwingnut ? really?


and honesty is hard to come by, like we are getting that now? between Fast and Furious, disparate impact, the coffee shoppe lobbyists klatch, NO budgets for 3 solid years, you really have to be living in another universe to play that card honestly.

no. romney isn't a rightwingnut. he just plays one on TV.

b/c that's what "the base" wants.

 

[Darkwind]

The purpose of the voucher system is to bring rising costs in line with acceptable growth.

Per enrollee Medicare cost growth is already "in line with acceptable growth." Indeed, it's slower than per enrollee private insurance cost growth.

Are you sure you understand this thread?

I do. Medicare is in trouble and will fail soon unless we continue to throw bad money after good. The cost growth is NOT in line with acceptable growth. The growth that exists is very much like the growth of Social Security. It is smoke and mirrors, propped up by deficit spending.

Address that before you go after some parsed out section of the entire program.

The Ryan plan is the best plan going right now that will extend and help medicare survive. It is not perfect, but it is much better than propping up medicare on the backs of people who won't have it available to them if nothing is done.

 

[Trajan]

well, if they're honest about what the GOP's mancrush really wants, then it will make for an interesting discussion.

if they aren't, it'll just be another rightwingnut shill's dream.

Romney, is a rightwingnut ? really?


and honesty is hard to come by, like we are getting that now? between Fast and Furious, disparate impact, the coffee shoppe lobbyists klatch, NO budgets for 3 solid years, you really have to be living in another universe to play that card honestly.

no. romney isn't a rightwingnut. he just plays one on TV.

b/c that's what "the base" wants.

so he wasn't one before he was one?


well said, of course obama doesn't have to do that, he already is one.... he would never do anything so craven as 'play to his base', right? well, wife killing gop candidates aside

 

[Bfgrn]

The purpose of the voucher system is to bring rising costs in line with acceptable growth.

Per enrollee Medicare cost growth is already "in line with acceptable growth." Indeed, it's slower than per enrollee private insurance cost growth.

Are you sure you understand this thread?

I do. Medicare is in trouble and will fail soon unless we continue to throw bad money after good. The cost growth is NOT in line with acceptable growth. The growth that exists is very much like the growth of Social Security. It is smoke and mirrors, propped up by deficit spending.

Address that before you go after some parsed out section of the entire program.

The Ryan plan is the best plan going right now that will extend and help medicare survive. It is not perfect, but it is much better than propping up medicare on the backs of people who won't have it available to them if nothing is done.

There is a very good reason cost growth is NOT in line with acceptable growth. We have a private insurance based health care system. It is a HUGE failure.

High health care costs
Who's to blame?

Health-cost trends shows that these players, in roughly descending order, contributed the most to rising costs:

Hospitals and doctors. Doctors and hospitals account for by far the largest share, 52 percent in 2006, of all national health spending. There's abundant evidence that some of that spending is unnecessary. Under the present system, hospitals and doctors earn more money by doing costly interventions than by keeping people healthy. And more medical care doesn't necessarily mean better care, according to research on Medicare expenditures by the Dartmouth Medical School's Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice.

Drug companies. Prescription drugs account for only one-tenth of total health-care expenditures. But drug spending has increased as a share of overall expenditures over the past decade.

Insurance companies. Health-insurance premiums have grown faster than inflation or workers' earnings over the past decade, in parallel with the equally rapid rise in overall health costs. Industry spending on administrative and marketing costs, plus profits, consumes 12 percent of private-insurance premiums.

Politicians and government regulators. Although the government directly controls only 46 percent of national health spending, many of its policies affect the bottom line of the health-care industry, for example, by setting Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors on which private insurers base their rates, or by regulating health insurance. Between 1999 and 2006, the health-care lobby spent more than any other business sector, according to a study by the Institute for Health & Socio-Economic Policy, a nonprofit policy and research group.

Lawyers. Malpractice-insurance premiums and liability awards account for less than 2 percent of overall health-care spending, according to a 2004 study by the Congressional Budget Office. Defensive medicine, the practice of ordering extra tests or procedures to protect against lawsuits, might add another few percentage points, according to some estimates.

Health-care consumers.

Health-care security, who is to blame for high costs

 

[NYcarbineer]

Too funny. Your own link provides backing for the Ryan plan, while convienently leaving out the fact that those over the age of 55 will not have to worry about this voucher system, while those under will be given a choice.

Perhaps you're missing the point. So let me help you by stating it again (although it was already made explicitly): there is no expectation or hope that voucherizing Medicare will lead to lower per capita spending.

Pushing someone out of Medicare (3.1% growth per enrollee) and giving them a coupon for a private insurance plan (5% growth per enrollee) doesn't get long-term health spending under control. Assuming that the same number of older folks is insured, which I suppose isn't a safe assumption--Ryan may well leave some with no insurance at all.

All it succeeds in doing is shifting costs onto the backs of seniors, it doen't slow spending growth.

It is a much better plan than simply gutting medicare to the tune of 500 billion dollars for a pie in the sky healthcare plan that has done nothing more than increase costs and stifle business expansion.

Better than? The Ryan budget retrains the ACA's cuts.

It's kind of hard to score savings for a plan using a 10-year budget window when you propose a plan that ostensibly doesn't take effect fo 10 years. Unless you stand on the shoulders of giants and claim Obama's cuts as your own.

You are quoting the Dems lies.
The voucher is for Medicare or private Insurance. They would have a choice.
You are not adding the rest of their plans that would bring the cost of Health Care down.
That is the basic part. Bring down the cost of health care.
The Dems plan does not do that at all.
The Dems plan is capping the payment to Doctor's and the Doctors can not afford that.

Seriously?

So if the 'new' Ryan plan is voluntary, and choosing the voucher would represent a huge out of pocket cost for the Medicare patient over simply staying in the current plan,

1. what idiot is going to choose the voucher?

2. what is the savings if no one wants the voucher, but just takes Medicare as is?

 

[peach174]

The purpose of the voucher system is to bring rising costs in line with acceptable growth.

Per enrollee Medicare cost growth is already "in line with acceptable growth." Indeed, it's slower than per enrollee private insurance cost growth.

Are you sure you understand this thread?

What part of capping Doctors pay are you not understanding?
Doctor's are not able to afford Medicare payments from the New Health Care bill.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where does the voucher money come from?