Ryan Plan Vs. ObamaCare?

[Oddball]

Wow....Text walls of DNC boilerplate make me feel warm alllll oooover about socialistic bureaucracy and efficiency!

 

[Political Junky]

Obamacare is not a tax.That's how the administration defended it.when States challenged it as unconstitutional the administration said it was a tax and the government was well within it's rights to impose it as such.

I can't see how anyone can defend the administration forcing it's citizens to purchase anything.
Also if this thing were any good why are so many getting waivers excusing them from having to purchase Obamacare.

Yet another con who advocated for a mandate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86DbFEszjr0]YouTube - ‪Jon Huntsman on his support for a health insurance mandate‬‏[/ame]

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

 

[mudwhistle]

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 are you asking for? Dry policy detail or the philosophical difference between the Republican and Democratic approaches to Medicare? The philosophical differences are fairly straightforward.

The GOP, in its budget, expresses a very clear desire to just get out. They no longer want to concern themselves with paying the medical bills of seniors, they don't want to have to deal with utilization volatility or provider costs, they don't want to have to worry about the quality of care seniors are receiving or their level of access. All the features that make Medicare what it is and guarantee seniors a health benefit are on the chopping block. Instead they want a privatized, voucher-based system designed primarily to limit federal financial obligations, not to guarantee access to high quality care for seniors.

The alternative vision for Medicare is one of a healthier budget picture through a healthier Medicare program: that is, improve Medicare instead of ending it. That's a big task with a number of components. It's improving the tools available to clinicians who treat Medicare patients to enable more effective and efficient delivery of health care (e.g. by offering Medicare-participating doctors and hospitals financial assistance to start using electronic health records with built-in clinical decision support tools and the ability to support quality measurement).

That means changing the way Medicare pays for care to promote value, and ultimately changing the way care is delivered to facilitate more coordinated, patient-centered care. That means tackling the alarming prevalence of medical errors by using Medicare to spearhead a national patient safety initiative.

It means tackling the drivers of Medicare cost growth--notably, chronic conditions--by encouraging community-based prevention, supporting states as they pioneer new approaches to providing care to the costliest beneficiaries (including giving those states new tools for embracing advanced models of primary care aimed at improving care for those high-utilization, high-cost beneficiaries), and transitioning enrollees from institution-based long-term care to community-based care where possible.

Perhaps more importantly than any single one of those moves is the effort to institutionalize a culture of reform within Medicare by creating an internal body with the authority and the mandate to test other new models of payment and delivery to improve care and slow cost growth.

The GOP proposal doesn't do anything like that; there's no effort to improve Medicare, the delivery of care to beneficiaries, treatment of the costliest conditions, quality, patient-centeredness. None of that is of interest to the GOP because they're not interested in fixing Medicare's deficiencies, they're interested in scrapping the program and leaving behind an inadequate privatized derivative whose function has nothing to do with improving care for the nation's elderly.

Did you write that crap or was it supplied to you???

You know of course it's total BS.

I look at who offered Obamacare, what professionals say it's doing to them already, and what the Dems did to get it passed.

All of your lies aren't going to change my opinion about a program that was forced down our throats by people we know are lying to us.

 

[Greenbeard]

All of your lies aren't going to change my opinion about a program that was forced down our throats by people we know are lying to us.

The reason I provide links is so you don't have to take my word for it. Each of the reforms I mentioned is now law and you can read all about each one in detail elsewhere. But it seems instead you've opted for another approach:

 

[Trajan]

Perhaps more importantly than any single one of those moves is the effort to institutionalize a culture of reform within Medicare by creating an internal body with the authority and the mandate to test other new models of payment and delivery to improve care and slow cost growth.

does this bend the cost curve?

 

[Trajan]

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 are you asking for? Dry policy detail or the philosophical difference between the Republican and Democratic approaches to Medicare? The philosophical differences are fairly straightforward.

The GOP, in its budget, expresses a very clear desire to just get out. They no longer want to concern themselves with paying the medical bills of seniors, they don't want to have to deal with utilization volatility or provider costs, they don't want to have to worry about the quality of care seniors are receiving or their level of access. All the features that make Medicare what it is and guarantee seniors a health benefit are on the chopping block. Instead they want a privatized, voucher-based system designed primarily to limit federal financial obligations, not to guarantee access to high quality care for seniors.

The alternative vision for Medicare is one of a healthier budget picture through a healthier Medicare program: that is, improve Medicare instead of ending it. That's a big task with a number of components. It's improving the tools available to clinicians who treat Medicare patients to enable more effective and efficient delivery of health care (e.g. by offering Medicare-participating doctors and hospitals financial assistance to start using electronic health records with built-in clinical decision support tools and the ability to support quality measurement).

That means changing the way Medicare pays for care to promote value, and ultimately changing the way care is delivered to facilitate more coordinated, patient-centered care. That means tackling the alarming prevalence of medical errors by using Medicare to spearhead a national patient safety initiative.

It means tackling the drivers of Medicare cost growth--notably, chronic conditions--by encouraging community-based prevention, supporting states as they pioneer new approaches to providing care to the costliest beneficiaries (including giving those states new tools for embracing advanced models of primary care aimed at improving care for those high-utilization, high-cost beneficiaries), and transitioning enrollees from institution-based long-term care to community-based care where possible.

Perhaps more importantly than any single one of those moves is the effort to institutionalize a culture of reform within Medicare by creating an internal body with the authority and the mandate to test other new models of payment and delivery to improve care and slow cost growth.

The GOP proposal doesn't do anything like that; there's no effort to improve Medicare, the delivery of care to beneficiaries, treatment of the costliest conditions, quality, patient-centeredness. None of that is of interest to the GOP because they're not interested in fixing Medicare's deficiencies, they're interested in scrapping the program and leaving behind an inadequate privatized derivative whose function has nothing to do with improving care for the nation's elderly.

Did you write that crap or was it supplied to you???

You know of course it's total BS.

I look at who offered Obamacare, what professionals say it's doing to them already, and what the Dems did to get it passed.

All of your lies aren't going to change my opinion about a program that was forced down our throats by people we know are lying to us.

You have to understand, GB posts this because he cannot or will not spell it out, it’s the age old axe, well, there it is just read, now its in its own language, they themselves have a word for it and employ , GB cannot or will not spell it out so schmucks like us can get it, why? Because its not ‘getable’…it will expose the very essence of what is is, a boondoggle and just more gov.

Its like an aircraft designer, drawing an aircraft based on sound historic principals of flight, see they know a brick cannot fly but GB thinks different, because his focus is so narrow and the bubble he is in thinks so because he designed or implements the screwing in of a screw, you get what you see here, its supposed to make sense , he tell us how a screw is designed an even forged and how it will hold the panel of one piece of the airplane together but cannot tell you how it will actually fly when its all together, the safe place is the cave of legalese and bureaucratic language…forget that the panels screwed in don’t fit, just don’t worry, here it is see? Just get in the thing when its built and .......trust us!!!!

 

[Oddball]

Perhaps more importantly than any single one of those moves is the effort to institutionalize a culture of reform within Medicare by creating an internal body with the authority and the mandate to test other new models of payment and delivery to improve care and slow cost growth.

does this bend the cost curve?

No, it bends the incomprehensible semantics curve.

 

[Oddball]

All of your lies aren't going to change my opinion about a program that was forced down our throats by people we know are lying to us.

The reason I provide links is so you don't have to take my word for it. Each of the reforms I mentioned is now law and you can read all about each one in detail elsewhere. But it seems instead you've opted for another approach:

We don't have to take your word for it because your words are an indecipherable melange of bureaucratic doublespeak.

Yet, through all that Orwellian party man hack bullshit, you cannot point to one instance of where any product or service has become less costly when a third party, unrelated to the buyer and seller, is doing the paying.

 

[mudwhistle]

All of your lies aren't going to change my opinion about a program that was forced down our throats by people we know are lying to us.

The reason I provide links is so you don't have to take my word for it. Each of the reforms I mentioned is now law and you can read all about each one in detail elsewhere. But it seems instead you've opted for another approach:

The problem is we don't trust the people that wrote the fucken law nor the law itself.

It's as simple as that.

It doesn't matter what they say it means. It's how it's going to work that matters.

If these folks can't seem to do anything else right, how in the heck do you expect something as convoluted and complex as Obamacare to work.

 

[Lars]

Either plan screws seniors. Obamacare draws funds from Medicare to finance it. With the Ryan plan, seniors will end up paying most of their medical costs as medical cost rise. And of course both plans have insurance companies in the driver's seat.

Someone is going to have to get "screwed" one way or another to bring the US Government's finances into order and balance the budget along with bringing down medical costs. I really don't care for either plan, and don't feel sympathy for those under 55 who think they should get the same thing people right now who are getting medicare receive. They have to be willing to pay their own way and make some sacrifices.

I am a political independent, and really have no partisan bias in favor of either of those two proposals. I really like Ron Paul's less publicized plan the best, where he talks about funding medicare for the older generation through massive defense budget cuts and weening the system out over time by allowing the old who have paid into the system to get their money's worth while allowing the young like myself to opt out. The fact is, Medicare and Medicaid are boondoggles which have resulted in high deficits and higher medical costs. Medical Expenses used to represent 5% of GDP prior to 1965 and the inception of Medicare and Medicaid and now represent 16% of the GDP.


The fact is, when you subsidized the purchase of a service, you drive up the aggregate demand, thus you raise the price level.

The US Government does far too much, and really needs to be cut down to size. One thing I will give Rep. Ryan credit for is bringing about a national discussion on the issue.

 

[Greenbeard]

It doesn't matter what they say it means. It's how it's going to work that matters.

Indeed!

As I said above, there are two options: reform Medicare or end it. Those are the two approaches we're witnessing today. I don't particularly want to end it, nor do most folks. That's the problem the GOP faces today.

Reforming Medicare, on the other hand, means changing things about the program. Some of those changes will be more effective at improving Medicare than others--that's the idea behind trying every quality improvement or cost control concept the health care field is producing and building on success.

I want Medicare to be reformed. I want to see efforts to improve care, improve health outcomes, and get a handle on costs. If you don't want to try for those things because you don't believe achieving them is possible and thus ending Medicare is the only option, that's your business (it seems to be a common sentiment on the far right). But that's a bit defeatist for my tastes.

 

[Oddball]

It doesn't matter what they say it means. It's how it's going to work that matters.

Indeed!

As I said above, there are two options: reform Medicare or end it. Those are the two approaches we're witnessing today......

No matter whether reform or outright termination is proposed, we can always rely upon dishonest demonizing little weasel shits like you to run anyone and everyone who proposes any changes from the status quo into the ground.


Given that well worn ground, I say end it altogether and dispense with wormy little fucks like you for good.

 

[mudwhistle]

It doesn't matter what they say it means. It's how it's going to work that matters.

Indeed!

As I said above, there are two options: reform Medicare or end it. Those are the two approaches we're witnessing today. I don't particularly want to end it, nor do most folks. That's the problem the GOP faces today.

Reforming Medicare, on the other hand, means changing things about the program. Some of those changes will be more effective at improving Medicare than others--that's the idea behind trying every quality improvement or cost control concept the health care field is producing and building on success.

I want Medicare to be reformed. I want to see efforts to improve care, improve health outcomes, and get a handle on costs. If you don't want to try for those things because you don't believe achieving them is possible and thus ending Medicare is the only option, that's your business (it seems to be a common sentiment on the far right). But that's a bit defeatist for my tastes.

Who's planning on ending it?

Not Paul Ryan.

Maybe you need to quit repeating lies.

Have you read Paul Ryan's plan?

Under the President’s budget, Medicare would simply grow itself right into bankruptcy. Unlike the Majority’s health care overhaul that cuts Medicare by nearly a half-trillion dollars to create a new entitlement, the Roadmap makes no change for people 55 and older. The Roadmap makes Medicare permanently solvent so that it can fulfill the mission of health and retirement security for today’s and future generations of seniors. The Medicare reforms provide future beneficiaries (those currently under 55) with health coverage options just like the program enjoyed by Members of Congress. http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=9847

 

[Greenbeard]

No matter whether reform or outright termination is proposed, we can always rely upon dishonest demonizing little weasel shits like you, to run anyone and everyone who proposes any changes from the status quo into the ground.

Next are you going to tell me about how you can just get lost in those dreamy Paul Ryan eyes? When will the world appreciate his brilliance?

 

[Oddball]

No matter whether reform or outright termination is proposed, we can always rely upon dishonest demonizing little weasel shits like you, to run anyone and everyone who proposes any changes from the status quo into the ground.

Next are you going to tell me about how you can just get lost in those dreamy Paul Ryan eyes? When will the world appreciate his brilliance?

Eat shit, commie punk.

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.

I'm your worst nightmare come to life....Someone who can't be scared off by slimy little dirtballs like you.

 

[eflatminor]

g

Either plan screws seniors. Obamacare draws funds from Medicare to finance it. With the Ryan plan, seniors will end up paying most of their medical costs as medical cost rise. And of course both plans have insurance companies in the driver's seat.

Someone is going to have to get "screwed" one way or another to bring the US Government's finances into order and balance the budget along with bringing down medical costs. I really don't care for either plan, and don't feel sympathy for those under 55 who think they should get the same thing people right now who are getting medicare receive. They have to be willing to pay their own way and make some sacrifices.

I am a political independent, and really have no partisan bias in favor of either of those two proposals. I really like Ron Paul's less publicized plan the best, where he talks about funding medicare for the older generation through massive defense budget cuts and weening the system out over time by allowing the old who have paid into the system to get their money's worth while allowing the young like myself to opt out. The fact is, Medicare and Medicaid are boondoggles which have resulted in high deficits and higher medical costs. Medical Expenses used to represent 5% of GDP prior to 1965 and the inception of Medicare and Medicaid and now represent 16% of the GDP.


The fact is, when you subsidized the purchase of a service, you drive up the aggregate demand, thus you raise the price level.

The US Government does far to much, and really needs to be cut down to size. One thing I will give Rep. Ryan credit for is bringing about a national discussion on the issue.

Well done young man.

 

[mudwhistle]

No matter whether reform or outright termination is proposed, we can always rely upon dishonest demonizing little weasel shits like you, to run anyone and everyone who proposes any changes from the status quo into the ground.

Next are you going to tell me about how you can just get lost in those dreamy Paul Ryan eyes? When will the world appreciate his brilliance?

As opposed to Obama's eyes.

Sorry, I don't think Ryan has all of the answers but I also take exception to people lying about his plan.

 

[Trajan]

It doesn't matter what they say it means. It's how it's going to work that matters.

Indeed!

As I said above, there are two options: reform Medicare or end it. Those are the two approaches we're witnessing today. I don't particularly want to end it, nor do most folks. That's the problem the GOP faces today.

Reforming Medicare, on the other hand, means changing things about the program. Some of those changes will be more effective at improving Medicare than others--that's the idea behind trying every quality improvement or cost control concept the health care field is producing and building on success.

I want Medicare to be reformed. I want to see efforts to improve care, improve health outcomes, and get a handle on costs. If you don't want to try for those things because you don't believe achieving them is possible and thus ending Medicare is the only option, that's your business (it seems to be a common sentiment on the far right). But that's a bit defeatist for my tastes.

well you're getting closer, its Six of one……….this debate has become circular…..as it is now a battle of philosophies.

Every plan will always be unfair to someone. Getting the system to perform, to capture the best of what it has to offer and provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people is what this is supposedly all about.

Its an ideological bridge that is the issue; there are some who believe that the government can stamp out or 'control for' all and any vestiges of 'unfairness' in any medium and is first last and always the best arbiter of what is 'right'. They also believe they can protect anyone/everyone from their own intrinsic lack of self interest in this regard or context.

Conversely the other party feels that in the end; the gains via the above platform are marginal in that no one anywhere at anytime has ever been able to bend so complex a vehicle like health-care so as to deliver to everyone =everything, exactly equitably where in citizen *A gets exactly what citizen *B gets, no matter their status, ala earning power or station in life. There will always be unfairness. The key is they a) recognize that you cannot nor ever will reach or make fair everything to everyone and b) that in the end the greatest amount of folks receiving the best 'average' level of care across the board in wide a swath as possible is the target, if 70% of people receive above average care this is far better than 90% getting so so care....recognizing you can never ever NEVER reach 100% in ANY level at any extreme, be it horrid or excellent ....


Its central planning vs. competitive market forces. The ideology of one seeks to harness the herd, the other seeks to free it to roam and to make a more individual choice and let markets mesh and evolve.

Give me the voucher; let me shop and buy a plan I want, tailored exactly to my need with me handing over the payment, if I don’t want add ons or packages that some markets demand via government dictate so be it, I will spend it wisely, when folks have to absorb and face the cost of what they are buying at the end user point, they wake up and I believe will make better or more learned choices, if they don’t, well as I inferred, you simply cannot make everyone get/take everything you want them too, people are not blocks of wood, that’s not unfair, its just life……...


Until we recognize this, we’ll just roll along till the system blows up and the pain then will be infinitely worse effecting many many many more and the unfairness quotient will be many many many times larger.

 

[Trajan]

No matter whether reform or outright termination is proposed, we can always rely upon dishonest demonizing little weasel shits like you, to run anyone and everyone who proposes any changes from the status quo into the ground.

Next are you going to tell me about how you can just get lost in those dreamy Paul Ryan eyes? When will the world appreciate his brilliance?

Eat shit, commie punk.

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.

I'm your worst nightmare come to life....Someone who can't be scared off by slimy little dirtballs like you.

I'll fight means testing, but at the same time, know 2 things; I will have to eat it and in the end, I'll be fine with it too, unicorns don't shit in our backyard..and this is life........