GOP Aiming to Cut $4 Trillion

Now THAT is a budget plan.

Republicans will present this week a 2012 budget proposal that would cut more than $4 trillion from federal spending projected over the next decade and transform the Medicare health program for the elderly, a move that will dramatically reshape the budget debate in Washington. ...

The plan would essentially end Medicare, which now pays most of the health-care bills for 48 million elderly and disabled Americans, as a program that directly pays those bills. Mr. Ryan and other conservatives say this is necessary because of the program's soaring costs. Medicare cost $396.5 billion in 2010 and is projected to rise to $502.8 billion in 2016. At that pace, spending on the program would have doubled between 2002 and 2016.

Mr. Ryan's proposal would apply to those currently under the age of 55, and, for those Americans would convert Medicare into a "premium support" system. Participants from that group would choose from an array of private insurance plans when they reach 65 and become eligible, and the government would pay about the first $15,000 in premiums. Those who are poorer or less healthy would receive bigger payments than others. ...

The proposal would also convert Medicaid, the health program for the poor, into a series of block grants to give states more flexibility. And it is expected to suggest significant cuts in Social Security, while proposing fewer details on how to achieve them. ...

Conservative activists who are familiar with the Ryan plan said they expect it to call for a fundamental overhaul of the tax system, with a 25% top rate for both individuals and corporations, compared to the current 35% top rate. It is expected to raise about the same amount of money as the current system, however. Lawmakers already are considering ways to accomplish that by reducing or eliminating some deductions and other tax breaks.

Some conservatives also expected the budget plan to tout a temporary tax change that would let U.S. multinationals bring home as much as $1 trillion in profits at a greatly reduced tax rate. That money currently is parked overseas, beyond the reach of U.S. corporate taxation.

...

GOP Budget Aim: Cut $4 Trillion From Spending - WSJ.com

The Republicans have been acting like pussies for some time, saying they want to cut the deficit but not cut anything that actually matters. This actually matters. Good for them for having some cahones and laying things on the line. This is a conversation America has to have.

First thing..cut everything for the poor. DO NOT TOUCH ANYTHING THAT WOLD INCONVIENCE THE RICH! Of course they wont mention cutting their benefits or pay. Of course they wont touch tax cuts for the rich.

Of course they wont even mention cutting the defense fund. Just cut everything that will touch the middle to lower class Americans. Its what they are all about.

How can a middle class or lower class person vote for a republican? Seriously, how?

Cut medicaid? Cut social security? Cut medicare? Really? But dont touch the millionaires. Don't touch big businesses. Don't make them pay taxes....oh no.
 
They try to privatize everything. Look how well that turned out for us with blackwater.

Damn there are a lot of people who are voting against their own self interests. Dumb asses.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but essentially the GOP (Paul Ryan) plan is to basically privatize Medicare?

It'll be interesting to see how often that term is used, not least because he seems to relying on a structure (i.e. "premium support" in an exchange with, one assumes, guaranteed issue rules) that in other contexts is derided as a "government-takeover."

Anyway, Medicare has already been partially privatized for over a decade. Unfortunately, the privatized portion costs significantly more per enrollee than the non-privatized portion.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but essentially the GOP (Paul Ryan) plan is to basically privatize Medicare?

It'll be interesting to see how often that term is used, not least because he seems to relying on a structure (i.e. "premium support" in an exchange with, one assumes, guaranteed issue rules) that in other contexts is derided as a "government-takeover."

Anyway, Medicare has already been partially privatized for over a decade. Unfortunately, the privatized portion costs significantly more per enrollee than the non-privatized portion.

I think one of the postulations that has to be made clear is the populace will swallow money moving from their hands to an insurer even if its gov. money given them for that sole purpose, but don't seem to abide it moving from them, to the gov. then to an entity.
 
We have just about the highest infant mortality of any industrial nation. Cutting medical benefits for the young mothers will only make this worst. Ain't America great?

Stop aborting babies.... theres a start on that issue.


Take that red herring and go cook it, I hear they taste great this time of year.

Old rocks is lying [quelle surprise]

Iceland has an infant mortality rate of .29%, America has a rate of .63%

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there are a vast array of industialised countries behind us.

Really?

List by the United Nations Population Division List by the CIA World Factbook
(all 2009 estimates)
Rank Country or territory Infant mortality rate
(deaths/1,000 live births) Under-five mortality rate
(deaths/1,000 live births)
1 Iceland 2.9 3.9
2 Singapore 3.0 4.1
3 Japan 3.2 4.2
4 Sweden 3.2 4.0
5 Norway 3.3 4.4
6 Hong Kong 3.7 4.7
7 Finland 3.7 4.7
8 Czech Republic 3.8 4.8
9 Switzerland 4.1 5.1
10 South Korea 4.1 4.8
11 Belgium 4.2 5.3
12 France 4.2 5.2
13 Spain 4.2 5.3
14 Germany 4.3 5.4
15 Denmark 4.4 5.8
16 Austria 4.4 5.4
17 Australia 4.4 5.6
18 Luxembourg 4.5 6.6
19 Netherlands 4.7 5.9
20 Israel 4.7 5.7
21 Slovenia 4.8 6.4
22 United Kingdom 4.8 6.0
23 Canada 4.8 5.9
24 Ireland 4.9 6.2
25 Italy 5.0 6.1
26 Portugal 5.0 6.6
27 New Zealand 5.0 6.4
28 Cuba 5.1 6.5
29 Channel Islands ( Jersey and Guernsey) 5.2 6.2
30 Brunei 5.5 6.7
31 Cyprus 5.9 6.9
32 New Caledonia 6.1 8.7
33 United States 6.3 7.8
 
Stop aborting babies.... theres a start on that issue.


Take that red herring and go cook it, I hear they taste great this time of year.

Old rocks is lying [quelle surprise]

Iceland has an infant mortality rate of .29%, America has a rate of .63%

List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there are a vast array of industialised countries behind us.

Really?

List by the United Nations Population Division List by the CIA World Factbook
(all 2009 estimates)
Rank Country or territory Infant mortality rate
(deaths/1,000 live births) Under-five mortality rate
(deaths/1,000 live births)
1 Iceland 2.9 3.9
2 Singapore 3.0 4.1
3 Japan 3.2 4.2
4 Sweden 3.2 4.0
5 Norway 3.3 4.4
6 Hong Kong 3.7 4.7
7 Finland 3.7 4.7
8 Czech Republic 3.8 4.8
9 Switzerland 4.1 5.1
10 South Korea 4.1 4.8
11 Belgium 4.2 5.3
12 France 4.2 5.2
13 Spain 4.2 5.3
14 Germany 4.3 5.4
15 Denmark 4.4 5.8
16 Austria 4.4 5.4
17 Australia 4.4 5.6
18 Luxembourg 4.5 6.6
19 Netherlands 4.7 5.9
20 Israel 4.7 5.7
21 Slovenia 4.8 6.4
22 United Kingdom 4.8 6.0
23 Canada 4.8 5.9
24 Ireland 4.9 6.2
25 Italy 5.0 6.1
26 Portugal 5.0 6.6
27 New Zealand 5.0 6.4
28 Cuba 5.1 6.5
29 Channel Islands ( Jersey and Guernsey) 5.2 6.2
30 Brunei 5.5 6.7
31 Cyprus 5.9 6.9
32 New Caledonia 6.1 8.7
33 United States 6.3 7.8


During the long debate over health care reform in 2009 and 2010, the advocates for the legislation made several key arguments, suggesting most of all that a health care financing system that covered a large number of the currently uninsured would be fairer — that a primary goal of health care reform was redistribution. This argument reflected the conclusions of a 2000 study by the World Health Organization, which made fairness the most important single aspect in its evaluation and comparison of health care systems around the world.

snip-

Critics of the U.S health care system also pounced on the U.S performance in measures of quality in the WHO study. Since we spend a far higher percentage of GDP on health care than other nations, we should get better results . It turns out that the results are better here than anywhere else in the world in many areas, including cancer survival rates. But the WHO study relied on life expectancy as the key surrogate for quality. Here, it appeared the U.S underperformed, with life expectancy a few years below that of other developed countries, and infant mortality a few points higher than in these same countries.

Not surprisingly, the comparisons are flawed here as well. As Scott Atlas, the author of the Commentary article, explains:

At its most egregious, the report abandoned the very pretense of assessing health care. WHO ranked the U.S. 42nd in life expectancy. In their book, The Business of Health, Robert L. Ohsfeldt and John E. Schneider of the University of Iowa demonstrated that this finding was a gross misrepresentation. WHO actually included immediate deaths from murder or fatal high-speed motor-vehicle accidents in their assessment, as if an ideal health-care system could turn back time to undo car crashes and prevent homicides. Ohsfeldt and Schneider did their own life-expectancy calculations using nations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). With fatal car crashes and murders included, the U.S. ranked 19 out of 29 in life expectancy; with both removed, the U.S. had the world’s best life-expectancy numbers.

Pajamas Media » WHO Study Used to Justify ObamaCare a Scientific Fraud
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top