Ryan Plan Vs. ObamaCare?

I'm doing no such thing.

What I'm doing is accepting the premise proffered by scaremonger Marxist twirps like you, that the Ryan plan (or any other idea that deviates from expansion upon the status quo for that matter) will "destroy Medicare as we know it"....To which I say: "So, what's the downside?"

I know you accept that premise; that's what I've been saying. You and I share the same understanding of the GOP budget ("Under the Ryan plan, I'm one of the ones who will pretty much end up eating all the taxes paid in and I'm totally good with it.")

The point of disagreement here, since you seem desperate to find one, is that I oppose that plan because it dismantles Medicare, whereas from your point of view that's clearly a key asset of the proposal. There are flashes where it seems like you're the only one on the far right willing to be honest about his policy preferences; then you spend post after post lamely attempting to walk back what you've said. If you want to present your personal views as hypotheticals, why not start every post "So I've got this friend that thinks..." ?

Anyway, here we are on page 6 of the thread and no one in Ryan's corner has yet bothered to try and defend the GOP budget or explain why it's good policy (your "hypothetical" rhetorical questions don't quite count), although at least peach attempted to start sketching out an argument. That seems to be a recurring theme in these threads.
 
I admit nothing, other than that Medicare has been a pure scam all along and I'm good with it being relegated to the ash heap ASAP.

No kidding. That's what I just said. Folks like you who are frothing at the mouth to destroy Medicare love the Ryan plan. As you should.
I'm doing no such thing.

What I'm doing is accepting the premise proffered by scaremonger Marxist twirps like you, that the Ryan plan (or any other idea that deviates from expansion upon the status quo for that matter) will "destroy Medicare as we know it"....To which I say: "So, what's the downside?"

So you'd like to see Medicare dismantled AND you're in favor of the Ryan plan.

That would lead us to believe that you think that

a) The Ryan plan will make Medicare stronger
or
b) The Ryan plan will essentially kill medicare

Hmmmmm, I think the answer is clear. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
I'm doing no such thing.

What I'm doing is accepting the premise proffered by scaremonger Marxist twirps like you, that the Ryan plan (or any other idea that deviates from expansion upon the status quo for that matter) will "destroy Medicare as we know it"....To which I say: "So, what's the downside?"

I know you accept that premise; that's what I've been saying. You and I share the same understanding of the GOP budget ("Under the Ryan plan, I'm one of the ones who will pretty much end up eating all the taxes paid in and I'm totally good with it.")

The point of disagreement here, since you seem desperate to find one, is that I oppose that plan because it dismantles Medicare, whereas from your point of view that's clearly a key asset of the proposal. There are flashes where it seems like you're the only one on the far right willing to be honest about his policy preferences; then you spend post after post lamely attempting to walk back what you've said. If you want to present your personal views as hypotheticals, why not start every post "So I've got this friend that thinks..." ?

Anyway, here we are on page 6 of the thread and no one in Ryan's corner has yet bothered to try and defend the GOP budget or explain why it's good policy (your "hypothetical" rhetorical questions don't quite count), although at least peach attempted to start sketching out an argument. That seems to be a recurring theme in these threads.
Shall I rephrase that to "under the scaremonger's story of what the Ryan plan is", to make it clearer?

Why it's good policy is that it at least tries to root itself in the reality that we can't continue to expand the socialistic welfare state, acting as though Lucky the Leprechaun is going to stop by with a pot of gold when we need him the most to keep it afloat financially.

The best smarmy little snake oil salesmen like you can do is rephrase and repackage the same old socialist myth that there really is free lunch.
 
One of the most important topics in the country is healthcare. To be honest, I am not informed about both plans, and would love to have somebody inform me about the difference between the two.

What I do know, though:

Ryan Plan:

Voucher Plan (Go out and buy your own insurance?)
Won't touch anybody 55 and over

ObamaCare:

Insurance for all!

If I could get a Conservatives opinion, and a Liberals, that would really help me make a decision, or make me more informed about the issue.

I think, for one, who do you trust?

Do you trust Obama???

Not so sure about Ryan, but I know for sure I don't trust Obama.

Also, Obama's plan took over 2000 pages to spell it out. What that means is he's hiding something.

How many pages is Ryan's plan. Ryan's plan is similar to what Congress has.

Over 1300 waivers have been granted for Obamacare. Why do they need waivers if it's so great????

Why doesn't it go into effect until after Obama is into his second term???

These are questions you need answered before you decide who's program is better.

This is the best post of the thread.

So you are basing your opinion on which plan is best on how many pages the plan is? How many pages should the plan be....in your expert opinion.

Obviously reforming the healthcare system is something that should be done in a 8 page pop-up book and be completed in a week. Right?
 
No kidding. That's what I just said. Folks like you who are frothing at the mouth to destroy Medicare love the Ryan plan. As you should.
I'm doing no such thing.

What I'm doing is accepting the premise proffered by scaremonger Marxist twirps like you, that the Ryan plan (or any other idea that deviates from expansion upon the status quo for that matter) will "destroy Medicare as we know it"....To which I say: "So, what's the downside?"

So you'd like to see Medicare dismantled AND you're in favor of the Ryan plan.

That would lead us to believe that you think that

a) The Ryan plan will make Medicare stronger
or
b) The Ryan plan will essentially kill medicare

Hmmmmm, I think the answer is clear. Thanks for clearing that up.
Or....

c) Don't care either way because I understand that Medicare is a big Ponzi scheme, that's eventually doomed to financial ruin anyways.
 
You apparently have no clue about the health insurance industry. Do you realize health insurance companies have among the LOWEST profit margins among large corporations? It varies year to year but 3 to 5 percent is not uncommon. That too much for you? How about Apple, Inc.? Their iPhone has a profit margin of nearly 60%. Shall we nationalize them too? How about bottled water? 50 to 200 percent profit margins! Looks like we'll have to take them over too, eh?
Health insurance profits have been relatively low since 2000. I doubt they will remain low after Obama care dumps 30 million more customers in their lap and if it ever passes, Ryancare which would eventually dump 60 million more. However, that's not why I'm down on insurance companies.

Health insurance, either private or government pay most our medical bills. They are in essence the customer. Patients, for the most part, buy whatever the healthcare providers wants to sell them. The more the insurance pays the less the patient cares about cost. Insurance companies do little to control cost. They pay claims, raise premiums, and see their profits rise. The Ryan plan would be a disaster to the seniors of tomorrow unless we control rising healthcare cost. Medicare as we know it will be a disaster for everyone unless we can control the rising cost of healthcare.

So removing pre-conditions is a great way to control costs???
Forcing insurance companies to accept patients with preexisting conditions will increase premiums but will have little effect on the cost of healthcare services which is the major problem. In the past, insurance companies have attempted to control cost by denying claims. This has resulted in lose of customers and huge law suits. Now, most insurance companies pay any claim that fits into the general description of medically necessary which provides no incentive for healthcare providers to control their costs.

Regardless of whether healthcare bills are paid by private or government insurance, we are not going to make in headway in controlling healthcare cost until we have a more efficient way of delivering healthcare.
 
...we are not going to make in headway in controlling healthcare cost until we have a more efficient way of delivering healthcare.

We are not going to control healthcare costs until people stop expecting Cadillac care at Yugo prices. If you're rich and loose a leg, feel free to buy the latest in bionic technology. If you're poor, you might end up with a peg. That's always been the reality but when government got involved with the idea of healthcare being a right (in the 1960s increasing evermore today), competition was suppressed while supporting unrealistic expectations.

Cheaper health care is easy but not when the state dictates the best in care for everyone. End Medicare, end Medicade, end prescription drug programs, end Obamacare, end state's regulations of everything healthcare providers do. Then you'll have real competition and healthcare for all...at whatever level you can afford. But, as soon as you expect a welfare recipient to get the $250,000 operation on the taxpayer's dime, the whole system spirals out of control, just like we're experiencing today.
 
...we are not going to make in headway in controlling healthcare cost until we have a more efficient way of delivering healthcare.

We are not going to control healthcare costs until people stop expecting Cadillac care at Yugo prices. If you're rich and loose a leg, feel free to buy the latest in bionic technology. If you're poor, you might end up with a peg. That's always been the reality but when government got involved with the idea of healthcare being a right (in the 1960s increasing evermore today), competition was suppressed while supporting unrealistic expectations.

Cheaper health care is easy but not when the state dictates the best in care for everyone. End Medicare, end Medicade, end prescription drug programs, end Obamacare, end state's regulations of everything healthcare providers do. Then you'll have real competition and healthcare for all...at whatever level you can afford. But, as soon as you expect a welfare recipient to get the $250,000 operation on the taxpayer's dime, the whole system spirals out of control, just like we're experiencing today.
I don’t agree with your solution. Would it reduce healthcare cost? Of course it would, but cost would still be well beyond the cost of most seniors, the poor, and most low-income earners. The wealthy and the upper middle class would enjoy lower cost healthcare while others had no healthcare at all. I have been in countries where the sick literally dropped dead in the streets, where medical care consist of inoculations for children, a free clinic open one day a week that writes prescriptions for drugs and recommends procedures that the people can’t afford. I think there are very few people that really want to see this country go in that direction.

Surely, you don’t mean removing all state regulations from all healthcare providers. That means no licensing or minimum requirements for doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel, no health and safety requirements. Anyone could call themselves a doctor, peddling any kind of remedy. Emergency rooms could accept only those patients that could pay, leaving the rest to die. Doctors would be free to disclose patient information to anyone. The laws that require hospitals and doctors to keep medical records and provide them to the patient would not exist. Regulations aim at the prevention of communicable disease in healthcare facilities would not exist. etc. etc....


I think the best way to reduce healthcare cost would be:
1. Use capitation to limit unnecessary procedures and medication.
2. Put a deduction of say $5,000 on every form of health insurance including Medicare and provide subsidies for low-income earners.
3. Develop a plan to pay healthcare providers more for good results, in lieu of the current system, which rewards those that sell the most services.
 
Last edited:
...we are not going to make in headway in controlling healthcare cost until we have a more efficient way of delivering healthcare.

We are not going to control healthcare costs until people stop expecting Cadillac care at Yugo prices. If you're rich and loose a leg, feel free to buy the latest in bionic technology. If you're poor, you might end up with a peg. That's always been the reality but when government got involved with the idea of healthcare being a right (in the 1960s increasing evermore today), competition was suppressed while supporting unrealistic expectations.

Cheaper health care is easy but not when the state dictates the best in care for everyone. End Medicare, end Medicade, end prescription drug programs, end Obamacare, end state's regulations of everything healthcare providers do. Then you'll have real competition and healthcare for all...at whatever level you can afford. But, as soon as you expect a welfare recipient to get the $250,000 operation on the taxpayer's dime, the whole system spirals out of control, just like we're experiencing today.
I don’t agree with your solution. Would it reduce healthcare cost? Of course it would, but cost would still be well beyond the cost of most seniors, the poor, and most low-income earners. The wealthy and the upper middle class would enjoy lower cost healthcare while others had no healthcare at all. I have been in countries where the sick literally dropped dead in the streets, where medical care consist of inoculations for children, a free clinic open one day a week that writes prescriptions for drugs and recommends procedures that the people can’t afford. I think there are very few people that really want to see this country go in that direction.

Surely, you don’t mean removing all state regulations from all healthcare providers. That means no licensing or minimum requirements for doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel, no health and safety requirements. Anyone could call themselves a doctor, peddling any kind of remedy. Emergency rooms could accept only those patients that could pay, leaving the rest to die. Doctors would be free to disclose patient information to anyone. The laws that require hospitals and doctors to keep medical records and provide them to the patient would not exist. Regulations aim at the prevention of communicable disease in healthcare facilities would not exist. etc. etc....


I think the best way to reduce healthcare cost would be:
1. Use capitation to limit unnecessary procedures and medication.
2. Put a deduction of say $5,000 on every form of health insurance including Medicare and provide subsidies for low-income earners.
3. Develop a plan to pay healthcare providers more for good results, in lieu of the current system, which rewards those that sell the most services.

You write as though you believe there is an inalienable right to healthcare. There is not. Before Medicare in the 60s, we didn't have people dropping in the streets and there's no reason to believe we would now.

Surely I do mean to remove state regulations. You seem to feel that individuals lack the ability to make informed choices. Why is that? Surely, I can decide if I want to see a licensed doctor with all kinds of credentials or a local natural remedy healer. Should that not be my choice? Emergency rooms should take only those that can pay. Do you service customers in your business that cannot pay? Before laws requiring emergency rooms to take all comers, people still got care through charity, which can provide those services FAR more efficiently than government run facilities. Regarding patient records, how about having the patient keep those records. Then it is up to the individual who sees them.

Personal responsibility...a novel and rare concept I know.
 
Health insurance profits have been relatively low since 2000. I doubt they will remain low after Obama care dumps 30 million more customers in their lap and if it ever passes, Ryancare which would eventually dump 60 million more. However, that's not why I'm down on insurance companies.

Health insurance, either private or government pay most our medical bills. They are in essence the customer. Patients, for the most part, buy whatever the healthcare providers wants to sell them. The more the insurance pays the less the patient cares about cost. Insurance companies do little to control cost. They pay claims, raise premiums, and see their profits rise. The Ryan plan would be a disaster to the seniors of tomorrow unless we control rising healthcare cost. Medicare as we know it will be a disaster for everyone unless we can control the rising cost of healthcare.

So removing pre-conditions is a great way to control costs???
Forcing insurance companies to accept patients with preexisting conditions will increase premiums but will have little effect on the cost of healthcare services which is the major problem. In the past, insurance companies have attempted to control cost by denying claims. This has resulted in lose of customers and huge law suits. Now, most insurance companies pay any claim that fits into the general description of medically necessary which provides no incentive for healthcare providers to control their costs.

Regardless of whether healthcare bills are paid by private or government insurance, we are not going to make in headway in controlling healthcare cost until we have a more efficient way of delivering healthcare.

thank you, back to square one, where in does obama care bend the cost survive? Does ryans plan, doesn't look like it...so, its no on both counts ..

now back to square one- whom do you trust more; a 15 member panel disconnected from blowback who will control cost via rationing OR a batch of insurance co's who control costs via ....rationing....


one route gives you ZERO recourse, the other, you do have a policy and a written contract, plus advocacy grps and yes, the gov. as guard-dogs if necessary...

I think the choice is clear.(plus, see my signature line)

.
 
Last edited:
We are not going to control healthcare costs until people stop expecting Cadillac care at Yugo prices. If you're rich and loose a leg, feel free to buy the latest in bionic technology. If you're poor, you might end up with a peg. That's always been the reality but when government got involved with the idea of healthcare being a right (in the 1960s increasing evermore today), competition was suppressed while supporting unrealistic expectations.

Cheaper health care is easy but not when the state dictates the best in care for everyone. End Medicare, end Medicade, end prescription drug programs, end Obamacare, end state's regulations of everything healthcare providers do. Then you'll have real competition and healthcare for all...at whatever level you can afford. But, as soon as you expect a welfare recipient to get the $250,000 operation on the taxpayer's dime, the whole system spirals out of control, just like we're experiencing today.
I don’t agree with your solution. Would it reduce healthcare cost? Of course it would, but cost would still be well beyond the cost of most seniors, the poor, and most low-income earners. The wealthy and the upper middle class would enjoy lower cost healthcare while others had no healthcare at all. I have been in countries where the sick literally dropped dead in the streets, where medical care consist of inoculations for children, a free clinic open one day a week that writes prescriptions for drugs and recommends procedures that the people can’t afford. I think there are very few people that really want to see this country go in that direction.

Surely, you don’t mean removing all state regulations from all healthcare providers. That means no licensing or minimum requirements for doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel, no health and safety requirements. Anyone could call themselves a doctor, peddling any kind of remedy. Emergency rooms could accept only those patients that could pay, leaving the rest to die. Doctors would be free to disclose patient information to anyone. The laws that require hospitals and doctors to keep medical records and provide them to the patient would not exist. Regulations aim at the prevention of communicable disease in healthcare facilities would not exist. etc. etc....


I think the best way to reduce healthcare cost would be:
1. Use capitation to limit unnecessary procedures and medication.
2. Put a deduction of say $5,000 on every form of health insurance including Medicare and provide subsidies for low-income earners.
3. Develop a plan to pay healthcare providers more for good results, in lieu of the current system, which rewards those that sell the most services.

You write as though you believe there is an inalienable right to healthcare. There is not. Before Medicare in the 60s, we didn't have people dropping in the streets and there's no reason to believe we would now.

Surely I do mean to remove state regulations. You seem to feel that individuals lack the ability to make informed choices. Why is that? Surely, I can decide if I want to see a licensed doctor with all kinds of credentials or a local natural remedy healer. Should that not be my choice? Emergency rooms should take only those that can pay. Do you service customers in your business that cannot pay? Before laws requiring emergency rooms to take all comers, people still got care through charity, which can provide those services FAR more efficiently than government run facilities. Regarding patient records, how about having the patient keep those records. Then it is up to the individual who sees them.

Personal responsibility...a novel and rare concept I know.
Without state regulations on healthcare providers, people would not be able to make informed choices. State reporting requirements require hospitals to submit information about patient deaths, spread of communicable diseases and many other aspects that reflect on the quality of patient care. Without this information, patients and organizations that rate hospital care would be blind.

When the ambulance takes me to the nearest hospital with a serious illness or accident, I want the assurance that all those people in green uniforms have the qualifications to do their job. So you think a seriously injured or ill person will be able to make an informed choice about the EMS personnel that show up at an accident or the surgeon that’s cutting him open or the nurse that giving him an IV; of course not. We know that these people we trust with our lives have met the legal requirement to do their job.

I think you are the first person that I have ever heard that suggested that we should have unlicensed doctors and medial personnel working in our hospitals and medical facilities as a way of lowering cost. Even in most third world countries they have higher standards than this. I think your suggestion is ridiculous but it's a novel idea.
 
I don’t agree with your solution. Would it reduce healthcare cost? Of course it would, but cost would still be well beyond the cost of most seniors, the poor, and most low-income earners. The wealthy and the upper middle class would enjoy lower cost healthcare while others had no healthcare at all. I have been in countries where the sick literally dropped dead in the streets, where medical care consist of inoculations for children, a free clinic open one day a week that writes prescriptions for drugs and recommends procedures that the people can’t afford. I think there are very few people that really want to see this country go in that direction.

Surely, you don’t mean removing all state regulations from all healthcare providers. That means no licensing or minimum requirements for doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel, no health and safety requirements. Anyone could call themselves a doctor, peddling any kind of remedy. Emergency rooms could accept only those patients that could pay, leaving the rest to die. Doctors would be free to disclose patient information to anyone. The laws that require hospitals and doctors to keep medical records and provide them to the patient would not exist. Regulations aim at the prevention of communicable disease in healthcare facilities would not exist. etc. etc....


I think the best way to reduce healthcare cost would be:
1. Use capitation to limit unnecessary procedures and medication.
2. Put a deduction of say $5,000 on every form of health insurance including Medicare and provide subsidies for low-income earners.
3. Develop a plan to pay healthcare providers more for good results, in lieu of the current system, which rewards those that sell the most services.

You write as though you believe there is an inalienable right to healthcare. There is not. Before Medicare in the 60s, we didn't have people dropping in the streets and there's no reason to believe we would now.

Surely I do mean to remove state regulations. You seem to feel that individuals lack the ability to make informed choices. Why is that? Surely, I can decide if I want to see a licensed doctor with all kinds of credentials or a local natural remedy healer. Should that not be my choice? Emergency rooms should take only those that can pay. Do you service customers in your business that cannot pay? Before laws requiring emergency rooms to take all comers, people still got care through charity, which can provide those services FAR more efficiently than government run facilities. Regarding patient records, how about having the patient keep those records. Then it is up to the individual who sees them.

Personal responsibility...a novel and rare concept I know.
Without state regulations on healthcare providers, people would not be able to make informed choices. State reporting requirements require hospitals to submit information about patient deaths, spread of communicable diseases and many other aspects that reflect on the quality of patient care. Without this information, patients and organizations that rate hospital care would be blind.

When the ambulance takes me to the nearest hospital with a serious illness or accident, I want the assurance that all those people in green uniforms have the qualifications to do their job. So you think a seriously injured or ill person will be able to make an informed choice about the EMS personnel that show up at an accident or the surgeon that’s cutting him open or the nurse that giving him an IV; of course not. We know that these people we trust with our lives have met the legal requirement to do their job.

I think you are the first person that I have ever heard that suggested that we should have unlicensed doctors and medial personnel working in our hospitals and medical facilities as a way of lowering cost. Even in most third world countries they have higher standards than this. I think your suggestion is ridiculous but it's a novel idea.

I've worked in the government most of my adult life and have discovered that nothing about government means excellence. A regulation is just a barrier to go around.

Competition is what breeds excellence. If you only accept the best because your business or your company depends on it, then you'll more likely then not make sure that everyone that works for you is the best the market has to offer. The only way you can assure this is with constant training, not stifling regulations. Extensive training and putting it into practice is the only way to assure people have the skills to do the job properly.
 
Last edited:
When are they going to come up with a plan that does not pack their rich friends pockets with our money?
 
Ryan is just a corporate stooge no different than Obama.

Indeed. The glaring fact that the Ryan plan is ultimately focused on the same end goal as Obamacare - namely funneling customers and tax money to the insurance industry - spell this out quite clearly.
 
The Ryan Kill Medicare budget is great.

It is going to return Congress to the Dems.
 
The Ryan Kill Medicare budget is great.

It is going to return Congress to the Dems.

Dems one isn't any better.Doctors are refusing to take Medicare patients because of the low capped payments to Doctors.

At least Ryan is trying to keep it viable. Competition between insurance has always worked.
Non Competition Like the Dems plan will eventually become bankrupt.
 
I don’t agree with your solution. Would it reduce healthcare cost? Of course it would, but cost would still be well beyond the cost of most seniors, the poor, and most low-income earners. The wealthy and the upper middle class would enjoy lower cost healthcare while others had no healthcare at all. I have been in countries where the sick literally dropped dead in the streets, where medical care consist of inoculations for children, a free clinic open one day a week that writes prescriptions for drugs and recommends procedures that the people can’t afford. I think there are very few people that really want to see this country go in that direction.

Surely, you don’t mean removing all state regulations from all healthcare providers. That means no licensing or minimum requirements for doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel, no health and safety requirements. Anyone could call themselves a doctor, peddling any kind of remedy. Emergency rooms could accept only those patients that could pay, leaving the rest to die. Doctors would be free to disclose patient information to anyone. The laws that require hospitals and doctors to keep medical records and provide them to the patient would not exist. Regulations aim at the prevention of communicable disease in healthcare facilities would not exist. etc. etc....


I think the best way to reduce healthcare cost would be:
1. Use capitation to limit unnecessary procedures and medication.
2. Put a deduction of say $5,000 on every form of health insurance including Medicare and provide subsidies for low-income earners.
3. Develop a plan to pay healthcare providers more for good results, in lieu of the current system, which rewards those that sell the most services.

You write as though you believe there is an inalienable right to healthcare. There is not. Before Medicare in the 60s, we didn't have people dropping in the streets and there's no reason to believe we would now.

Surely I do mean to remove state regulations. You seem to feel that individuals lack the ability to make informed choices. Why is that? Surely, I can decide if I want to see a licensed doctor with all kinds of credentials or a local natural remedy healer. Should that not be my choice? Emergency rooms should take only those that can pay. Do you service customers in your business that cannot pay? Before laws requiring emergency rooms to take all comers, people still got care through charity, which can provide those services FAR more efficiently than government run facilities. Regarding patient records, how about having the patient keep those records. Then it is up to the individual who sees them.

Personal responsibility...a novel and rare concept I know.
Without state regulations on healthcare providers, people would not be able to make informed choices. State reporting requirements require hospitals to submit information about patient deaths, spread of communicable diseases and many other aspects that reflect on the quality of patient care. Without this information, patients and organizations that rate hospital care would be blind.

When the ambulance takes me to the nearest hospital with a serious illness or accident, I want the assurance that all those people in green uniforms have the qualifications to do their job. So you think a seriously injured or ill person will be able to make an informed choice about the EMS personnel that show up at an accident or the surgeon that’s cutting him open or the nurse that giving him an IV; of course not. We know that these people we trust with our lives have met the legal requirement to do their job.

I think you are the first person that I have ever heard that suggested that we should have unlicensed doctors and medial personnel working in our hospitals and medical facilities as a way of lowering cost. Even in most third world countries they have higher standards than this. I think your suggestion is ridiculous but it's a novel idea.

Without state regulations on healthcare providers, people would not be able to make informed choices. State reporting requirements require hospitals to submit information about patient deaths, spread of communicable diseases and many other aspects that reflect on the quality of patient care. Without this information, patients and organizations that rate hospital care would be blind.

how'd that work for say the Aids issue of the 80's -90's? :eusa_whistle:
 
Last edited:
The Ryan Kill Medicare budget is great.

It is going to return Congress to the Dems.

Dems one isn't any better.Doctors are refusing to take Medicare patients because of the low capped payments to Doctors.

At least Ryan is trying to keep it viable. Competition between insurance has always worked.
Non Competition Like the Dems plan will eventually become bankrupt.
And under government control at the expense of the taxpayer.
 

Forum List

Back
Top