Ryan Budget: Senate Whip Count

[Greenbeard]

With the Paul "Medicare is not an option" Ryan's budget scheduled for a vote in the Senate on Thursday, watching who votes which way should be interesting.

Today we have former Tea Party favorite Scott Brown explaining why he'll be a no vote:

First, I fear that as health inflation rises, the cost of private plans will outgrow the government premium support— and the elderly will be forced to pay ever higher deductibles and co-pays. Protecting those who have been counting on the current system their entire adult lives should be the key principle of reform.

Second, Medicare has already taken significant cuts to help pay for Obama’s health care plan. The president and Congress cut a half trillion dollars to the private side of Medicare — meaning seniors are at risk of losing their Medicare Advantage coverage.

Another key principle is that seniors should not have to bear a disproportionate burden [...]

But I do not think it requires us to change Medicare as we know it. We can work inside of Medicare to make it more solvent.

We've known for a month that Susan Collins will also be a no vote.

Have any other senators gone on record publicly for or against?

 

[Greenbeard]

Looks like we've also got Rand Paul coming out against because Ryan's budget adds too much to the debt:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Monday evening he couldn’t support Ryan’s budget because it would add too much to the national debt.

“It adds” to the debt, Paul told reporters. “I can’t vote to add that much debt.”

Olympia Snowe also came out against Ryan's budget today, though for different reasons that Rand Paul.

But Snowe said she doesn't like Ryan's plan to gradually turn Medicare into a system where beneficiaries buy their coverage from private health insurance plans, using a set payment that could mean their out-of-pocket costs increase. Snowe also said that while she agrees on providing states more flexibility with how to administer Medicaid, she does not agree that it is a good idea to turn it into a totally state-run block grant program.

"I am going to vote no on the budget because I have deep and abiding concerns about the approach on Medicare, which is essentially to privatize it," Snowe said, noting that Maine has a high percentage of elderly residents.

And Lisa Murkowski is apparently undecided.

“I have not yet firmly come down on the Ryan budget,” the Alaska Republican told POLITICO on Monday, saying she’s clearly “concerned” that it could further limit access to providers in her state. “I’m not so sure about the components of his Medicare proposal.”

She’s the fourth Senate Republican who has either come out against the House Medicare plan or expressed doubts about it. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts have said they won’t support it when it comes up for a Senate vote later this week. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine has been vocal with her criticism of the Medicare plan, too, but hasn’t said how she will vote.

One can't help but think back to failed Tea Party candidate Joe Miller's position on Medicare in the last election when Murkowski embarrassed him.

 

[Trajan]

fine by me let them vote, thats what they get paid for. *shrugs*

I'll be interested in seeing the dems alternative or compramises.

 

[auditor0007]

fine by me let them vote, thats what they get paid for. *shrugs*

I'll be interested in seeing the dems alternative or compramises.

Ryan's plan is deplorable and horrible. Everyone with half a brain knows it will leave millions uninsured in their retirement years. But you are correct, the Dems need to come forward with a plan to reduce costs, because there is no way we can afford the long term projected costs of Medicare. While it is not liked by many, my personal idea, and one that has been floated around, is raising the retirement age for anyone born before 1960 from the current 67 to 70. The reason people don't like it is obvious, but it does make sense as people are just living so much longer than in the past. By raising the age by three years, it would reduce total costs by approximately 20%. At the same time, it would leave most people contributing into the system for an additional three years which would bring in additional revenue. I haven't seen any real numbers, and I'm not even sure anyone has done any projections on how this would effect the cost of Medicare over the long haul, but it would be interesting to at least see if this idea has any merit.