POLL: Republicans Oppose Paul Ryan’s Proposed Changes To Medicare

[Greenbeard]

The Romney-Ryan plan changes nothing for those already on Medicare

Of course it does. It immediately re-opens the donut hole, eliminates a number of preventive benefits, and slashes a major medical aid funding stream that supports millions of low-income Medicare beneficiaries.

Those 54 and younger will have a choice to remain on traditional Medicare, or accept a voucher to purchase their own plan in the private market.

A choice that was not present in the approach that was supported with virtual unanimity by both House and Senate Republicans last year.

We're to believe that come January the current crop of GOP Congressfolk will opt for the more moderate approach they pitched to make it through an election year? Forgive my skepticism.

 

[SniperFire]

It's questions like this that make me think the point hasn't sunken in yet.

Under Romney-Ryan, there is no Medicare benefit anymore. The guaranteed Medicare benefit is replaced by a coupon for an Anthem plan.

That's the point of their approach.

LOL

Who told you that, Pelosi?

If you can defend Romney-Ryan, do. But to not even know that the entire point is to end Medicare's status as a guaranteed benefit plan? The federal government would no longer be on the hook for the costs of a guaranteed set of medical benefits, seniors would; instead of a defined benefit, they get a defined contribution to put toward an Anthem or Aetna or whatever plan. Hence "savings" for the feds (though not for seniors).

I just don't get it. If you don't understand--or want to understand--the concepts behind the debates of the day, what appeal does spending leisure time on a political discussion board have for you?

You are an idiot. You claimed a voucher program was involved. There is none. You are talking about the House plan, not Romney's plan.

Get your facts straight before posting.

 

[Greenbeard]

You are an idiot. You claimed a voucher program was involved. There is none. You are talking about the House plan, not Romney's plan.

Great point!

Medicare is reformed as a premium support system, meaning that existing spending is repackaged as a fixed-amount benefit to each senior that he or she can use to purchase an insurance plan.

-- mittromney.com

You were saying?

 

[SniperFire]

Hey, Linkwhoreta, how about a link or a quote from Ryan's or Romney's economic plan that calls for cutting SS or MC?

It's questions like this that make me think the point hasn't sunken in yet.

Under Romney-Ryan, there is no Medicare benefit anymore. The guaranteed Medicare benefit is replaced by a coupon for an Anthem plan.

That's the point of their approach.

Good point!

'Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it'

Medicare


You were lying?

 

[IGetItAlready]

Fact: Republicans, among others, are sick to death of Obama and his clearly intentional attempts to bring America to her knees.

 

[Greenbeard]

'Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it'

Finish the thought. "...however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option."

The defined benefit is gone. You get a defined contribution toward a health plan. If you believe that moderation is still a possibility for today's GOP (and I do not), then a public option will exist in the exchange and the defined contribution can be put toward that.

But the days of a defined medical benefit underpinning the nation's safety net for the elderly would be over.

 

[Lakhota]

Wendell Potter: Ryan is a 'dream come true' for health insurance industry

As someone who worked nearly two decades as a health insurance executive, I know that Mitt Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running-mate is a dream come true for my former colleagues—and a potential nightmare for just about everyone else in America under the age of 55.

For years, the insurance industry has contributed generously to candidates who want to hand over the Medicare program to private insurance companies. That’s exactly what Ryan’s so-called “Path to Prosperity” would do. It would end the Medicare program as it has existed for almost half a century—a program that guarantees access to affordable care for senior citizens—and replace it with a scheme in which beneficiaries would be given “premium support” to help them buy coverage on the private market. Yes, the traditional Medicare program would continue to be a choice under the 2012 version of Ryan’s plan, but it would have to compete with private insurance companies. And because, under Ryan's plan, insurers would be able to cherry-pick the healthiest seniors, the traditional Medicare program would likely be unable to survive over the long haul. Perhaps it should come as no surprise that Ryan's wife is a former lobbyist for the health insurance industry.

More: Wendell Potter: Ryan is a 'dream come true' for health insurance industry - Lean Forward

 

[Lakhota]

One of the big problems with the voucher plan is that private health insurers would cherry pick the most healthy seniors, leaving the least healthy unable to afford coverage. Everyone must be in the same pool for it to work for everyone.

 

[SniperFire]

'Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it'

Finish the thought. "...however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option."

The defined benefit is gone. You get a defined contribution toward a health plan. If you believe that moderation is still a possibility for today's GOP (and I do not), then a public option will exist in the exchange and the defined contribution can be put toward that.

But the days of a defined medical benefit underpinning the nation's safety net for the elderly would be over.

ummmm. No.

Pay attention:

'All insurance plans must offer coverage at least comparable to what Medicare provides today'


Medicare

 

[Greenbeard]

ummmm. No.

Yes. Under Romney-Ryan, you are no long entitled to a defined health benefit (which historically has been known as the Medicare benefit, synonymous with the payer). You are entitled to a defined contribution, a fixed voucher amount.

That is the fundamental shift being proposed. The alleged existence of a regulated insurance exchange (and I think the GOP has made its feelings on those abundantly clear over the last two years, regardless of their election year positioning) does not change that.

 

[SniperFire]

ummmm. No.

Yes. Under Romney-Ryan, you are no long entitled to a defined health benefit (which historically has been known as the Medicare benefit, synonymous with the payer). You are entitled to a defined contribution, a fixed voucher amount.

That is the fundamental shift being proposed. The alleged existence of a regulated insurance exchange (and I think the GOP has made its feelings on those abundantly clear over the last two years, regardless of their election year positioning) does not change that.

The benefit is defined, and all insurance plans are at least as good as they are today.

You have failed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Keep in mind, the Republicans are fudging their position on killing Medicare now out of political desperation.

Keep in mind, what they really want, what they voted for and what Romney said he would have signed, is the original Ryan voucher plan that would end Medicare, period.

A Republican president and a Republican Senate would put what they really want right back on the table.

 

[SniperFire]

Keep in mind, the Republicans are fudging their position on killing Medicare now out of political desperation.

Keep in mind, what they really want, what they voted for and what Romney said he would have signed, is the original Ryan voucher plan that would end Medicare, period.

A Republican president and a Republican Senate would put what they really want right back on the table.

Obama is the only one who has gutted Medicare, and his Dealth Panels start working on additional cuts very soon.

 

[healthmyths]

You sound somewhat credible, but I'll put my faith in Wendell Potter.

Wendell Potter: 'Many seniors would die' under Ryan's Medicare plan - Lean Forward

NO Potter worked for CIGNA as former Vice President of corporate communications at CIGNA!
He was a disgruntled employee who DIDN"T have any contact with the financial aspects of how Cigna works!
He was a PR hack! A leading expert on modern corporate propaganda and its use by the public.

HE had NO where the knowledge of how Medicare works.
In fact he thinks Medicare processes claims just as you probably do!
WRONG!! Up to 2003 when Modernization ACT which most people associate with Part D was enacted it streamlined from over 200 different contractors around the country in 50 states. Now there are less then 20 that bid on processing the 1 billion in claims and $ 983 billion in payments in 2010. Statistics Potter and much less obviously do you have any knowledge!
Yet this guy through his PR expertise (WHICH I don't have... I have detailed knowledge but not any media contacts like Potter) has been identified as an EXPERT! He is NOT about Medicare.. does have more knowledge about Cigna obviously then I do but he DOESN'T know nearly as much as I do about Medicare!

He is a PR hack and ALL MSM has made him the "expert" but he is full of crap!
He doesn't even know what the "medical liability ratio" is if you asked him!
Which by the way for MOST health insurance companies is 80% of Premiums paid out in claims.. and CIGNA
The real financial facts are insurance companies annually, every year pay out 80% to the providers
of the premiums they receive and this comes from their financial reports that if they lie they go to jail!
76.9% - Aetna
82.3% - Cigna
83.9% - Health Net
83.2% - Humana
78.6% - UnitedHealth Group

http://www.newamerica.net/blog/new-health-dialogue/2009/health-reform-medical-loss-ratio-or-just-medical-loss-15773


AND YOU and Potter NEED to recognize that:
From: Fortune 500 2009: Top Performers - Most Profitable Industries: Return on Revenues
Top industries: Most profitable 2008 Profits as % of Revenues

1. 1 Network and Other Communications Equipment 20.4%
2. 2 Internet Services and Retailing 19.4
3. 3 Pharmaceuticals 19.3
4. 4 Medical Products and Equipment 16.3
5. 5 Railroads 12.6

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
22 Insurance: Life, Health (stock) 4.6%

 

[Zander]

Shocking!! I tell ya, it's Shocking!!

Fuck it, I am not even going to vote now!

 

[Greenbeard]

The benefit is defined, and all insurance plans are at least as good as they are today.

Are you unfamiliar with these words, is that the problem here?

The government's obligation to seniors under Romney-Ryan is not to see that a guaranteed set of medical benefits is provided to them (as is the case now); the government's obligation is merely to offer them a voucher of a fixed amount.

That's a radical shift in financial responsibility--and risk--to seniors. That's how it "saves" the government money: it shifts the costs, above the value of the defined contribution, onto seniors. Instead of putting the federal government on the hook, it puts seniors on the hook (that's the point of any shift from defined benefit to defined contribution--to shift risk to the beneficiary).

Is this not clear? Do you understand what's changing under this proposal? You'll be a much stronger advocate for it once you understand what it is. Although your resistance to the idea makes it sounds like you'll actually be an opponent of it.

 

[healthmyths]

Again what Potter doesn't obviously KNOW and much less wants to tell you if he DID..

A) Average insurance company PAYS 80% of all their premiums in CLAIMS!!
B) THEY AVERAGE 4.6% net profit BEFORE TAXES!!!
C This means those evil corporate salaries, computers,utilities, rent,office space, etc.etc...
Average less then 15% so that is NEVER mentioned though!!!

Just evil insurance profit grubbing and senior executive gross compensation..

Again people should be VERY suspicious of the extreme anti-business bias the MSM/Obama/socialists have and understand THESE people have NO idea of how to read a financial statement much less
how insurance premium actuaries work!

 

[Lakhota]

The benefit is defined, and all insurance plans are at least as good as they are today.

Are you unfamiliar with these words, is that the problem here?

The government's obligation to seniors under Romney-Ryan is not to see that a guaranteed set of medical benefits is provided to them (as is the case now); the government's obligation is merely to offer them a voucher of a fixed amount.

That's a radical shift in financial responsibility--and risk--to seniors. That's how it "saves" the government money: it shifts the costs, above the value of the defined contribution, onto seniors. Instead of putting the federal government on the hook, it puts seniors on the hook (that's the point of any shift from defined benefit to defined contribution--to shift risk to the beneficiary).

Is this not clear? Do you understand what's changing under this proposal? You'll be a much stronger advocate for it once you understand what it is. Although your resistance to the idea makes it sounds like you'll actually be an opponent of it.

The social safety net disappears under Romney/Ryan.

 

[Lakhota]

Again what Potter doesn't obviously KNOW and much less wants to tell you if he DID..

A) Average insurance company PAYS 80% of all their premiums in CLAIMS!!
B) THEY AVERAGE 4.6% net profit BEFORE TAXES!!!
C This means those evil corporate salaries, computers,utilities, rent,office space, etc.etc...
Average less then 15% so that is NEVER mentioned though!!!

Just evil insurance profit grubbing and senior executive gross compensation..

Again people should be VERY suspicious of the extreme anti-business bias the MSM/Obama/socialists have and understand THESE people have NO idea of how to read a financial statement much less
how insurance premium actuaries work!

They make a fortune in denying claims and dragging their feet until people give up or die.

 

[SniperFire]

The benefit is defined, and all insurance plans are at least as good as they are today.

Are you unfamiliar with these words, is that the problem here?

The government's obligation to seniors under Romney-Ryan is not to see that a guaranteed set of medical benefits is provided to them (as is the case now); the government's obligation is merely to offer them a voucher of a fixed amount.

That's a radical shift in financial responsibility--and risk--to seniors. That's how it "saves" the government money: it shifts the costs, above the value of the defined contribution, onto seniors. Instead of putting the federal government on the hook, it puts seniors on the hook (that's the point of any shift from defined benefit to defined contribution--to shift risk to the beneficiary).

Is this not clear? Do you understand what's changing under this proposal? You'll be a much stronger advocate for it once you understand what it is. Although your resistance to the idea makes it sounds like you'll actually be an opponent of it.

Fuckchop,

I just gave you the statement that the benefits are defined for EVERY insurance plan to be at least as good as the present benefit of today's Medicare plans.

If I could put it up in crayon for you, I would.

But you simply are not interested in the truth.