The difference between Ryan's Medicare spending and Obamacare's

[Quantum Windbag]

$0.00

 

[Polk]

$0.00

That's false.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

$0.00

That's false.

No it is not.

If we implement the Medicare savings in Obamacare the government will end up spending exactly what they would under the Ryan plan.

Are Paul Ryan’s Medicare Spending Targets Impossible? - Avik Roy - The Apothecary - Forbes

The real difference is that the Ryan plan will actually preserve Medicare and make it fiscally viable, while Obamacare just pretends that it will.

 

[code1211]

$0.00

The real difference between the Ryan plan and the Big 0's plan is that the Big 0 relies on government officials to do the work while we sufer or reap the effects of their efforts.

The Ryan plan puts the decision making in the hands of the Seniors. When this approach has been used before, it has worked and worked very well to improve the options, coverages and cost factors.

No matter how many government officials are at work doing the planning, they will not be able to equal the combined efforts of every single Senior and their families researching every nuance of their conditions and the available options for insurance and care.

Ryan's plan endorses the capability of the end users while the Obamacare option denies the capability and the wisdom of the end user. The Obamacare approach asserts that we are all helpless idiots who need care and guidance, not able free agents who need reasonable options.

Obamacare is the typical Liberal approach that has to be interpreted as an insult to any thinking individual.

From the article:

A key difference between PPACA and PTP is the method by which each reduces Medicare spending. PPACA cuts payments to hospitals and doctors, which will force many doctors out of the health care system, reducing access to care for seniors in much the same way that Medicaid does.

On the other hand, PTP places control in the hands of seniors. Retirees under PTP will be incentivized to reduce wasteful health spending by shopping for insurance plans that contain the benefits they most want. This patient-centered approach is far more appealing.

 

[B. Kidd]

Projected date for Medicare default was moved up to 2024 this month.

Bad economy has shortened life of Social Security, Medicare - pottsmerc.com

 

[WillowTree]

$0.00

Wrong. obie doodle stole 960 Billion from medicare already to fund his rammed down our throats health care and now he wants to make like Republicans want to hurt seniors. he's a liar and a fake.

 

[Polk]

$0.00

That's false.

No it is not.

If we implement the Medicare savings in Obamacare the government will end up spending exactly what they would under the Ryan plan.

Are Paul Ryan’s Medicare Spending Targets Impossible? - Avik Roy - The Apothecary - Forbes

The real difference is that the Ryan plan will actually preserve Medicare and make it fiscally viable, while Obamacare just pretends that it will.

The Ryan plan will "make it fiscally viable" by taking the cost off the government ledger and pushing them on the backs of seniors.

And yes, Ryan's belief you can hold the rate of growth to the rate of growth is completely unrealistic.

 

[Polk]

$0.00

The real difference between the Ryan plan and the Big 0's plan is that the Big 0 relies on government officials to do the work while we sufer or reap the effects of their efforts.

The Ryan plan puts the decision making in the hands of the Seniors. When this approach has been used before, it has worked and worked very well to improve the options, coverages and cost factors.

No matter how many government officials are at work doing the planning, they will not be able to equal the combined efforts of every single Senior and their families researching every nuance of their conditions and the available options for insurance and care.

Ryan's plan endorses the capability of the end users while the Obamacare option denies the capability and the wisdom of the end user. The Obamacare approach asserts that we are all helpless idiots who need care and guidance, not able free agents who need reasonable options.

Obamacare is the typical Liberal approach that has to be interpreted as an insult to any thinking individual.

From the article:

A key difference between PPACA and PTP is the method by which each reduces Medicare spending. PPACA cuts payments to hospitals and doctors, which will force many doctors out of the health care system, reducing access to care for seniors in much the same way that Medicaid does.

On the other hand, PTP places control in the hands of seniors. Retirees under PTP will be incentivized to reduce wasteful health spending by shopping for insurance plans that contain the benefits they most want. This patient-centered approach is far more appealing.

That's cute rhetoric. Too bad it doesn't work out in reality.

 

[dblack]

Both plans are focused on the same goal: pushing as many tax dollars as possible into insurance industry coffers. No thanks.

 

[Trajan]

look, when you put the money in the their hands they will be nature shop smarter. I believe that having the employer based plans where in one is basically cocooned form the cost structure makes us all profligate in that we don't care what the back end costs are because we don't see them.

When folks start shopping and paying even via voucher, they will begin to understand more fully what they are actually getting or not for their money and that will help drive demand that costs , say for those $10 Tylenol goes down,( you know bending the cost curve which is what this is supposed to be all about), competition via producers/suppliers will warm up driving cost down.
Also, shopping for your own plan to fit an individual/family need free from the demand that say a plan cover say, mental health costs etc. is viable and a must.

 

[Trajan]

That's false.

No it is not.

If we implement the Medicare savings in Obamacare the government will end up spending exactly what they would under the Ryan plan.

Are Paul Ryan’s Medicare Spending Targets Impossible? - Avik Roy - The Apothecary - Forbes

The real difference is that the Ryan plan will actually preserve Medicare and make it fiscally viable, while Obamacare just pretends that it will.

The Ryan plan will "make it fiscally viable" by taking the cost off the government ledger and pushing them on the backs of seniors.

And yes, Ryan's belief you can hold the rate of growth to the rate of growth is completely unrealistic.

no more or less unrealistic than the cliff we are heading towards and the pabulum we are being fed by the nanny state.

 

[candycorn]

Wouldn't the best idea be, then, to set up 5 trial US states to use the Ryan plan and see how it goes? Lets say, just for argument, Wisconsin (I think he's from WI), Louisiana, Arizona, Kentucky, and Georgia.

Lets see how much money it saves in practice.

Any thoughts?

 

[Trajan]

Wouldn't the best idea be, then, to set up 5 trial US states to use the Ryan plan and see how it goes? Lets say, just for argument, Wisconsin (I think he's from WI), Louisiana, Arizona, Kentucky, and Georgia.

Lets see how much money it saves in practice.

Any thoughts?

that would probably require that the fed. block grants everything to the states and let them disperse the vouchers etc.......they won't, they did for medicaid in Rhode Island and they have had some good results from what I understand.
They tried a knock off via preempting Obamacare in Massachusetts and we see where that has gone....


here, I posted this in another thread but I think, from my slim point of view, its worth repeating;

Six of one……….this debate has become circular…..its 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.

However, there is an ideological bridge that is keeping the parties apart; there are some who believe that the government is the best arbiter, they think they can, by their management stamp out every vestige of unfairness for/to everyone. They believe they can protect everyone from their own intrinsic lack of self interest in this 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 healthcare 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. It is what it is.

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.

 

[candycorn]

Wouldn't the best idea be, then, to set up 5 trial US states to use the Ryan plan and see how it goes? Lets say, just for argument, Wisconsin (I think he's from WI), Louisiana, Arizona, Kentucky, and Georgia.

Lets see how much money it saves in practice.

Any thoughts?

that would probably require that the fed. block grants everything to the states and let them disperse the vouchers etc.......they won't, they did for medicaid in Rhode Island and they have had some good results from what I understand.
They tried a knock off via preempting Obamacare in Massachusetts and we see where that has gone....


here, I posted this in another thread but I think, from my slim point of view, its worth repeating;

Six of one……….this debate has become circular…..its 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.

However, there is an ideological bridge that is keeping the parties apart; there are some who believe that the government is the best arbiter, they think they can, by their management stamp out every vestige of unfairness for/to everyone. They believe they can protect everyone from their own intrinsic lack of self interest in this 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 healthcare 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. It is what it is.

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.

I'm not sure that the voucher plan isn't going to result in the blow up as well. So I think the large scale test case is the way to go instead of the philosophical merry-go-round. I would say that you add a GAO board to act as referee to see if the voucher system saves money or not. At the end of the trial period, they hold hearings of seniors, medical professionals, etc (all decided by lotteries so there are no "plants" to sway the GAO board) and see how it was accepted, the problems, etc...

Just a thought.

 

[Trajan]

Wouldn't the best idea be, then, to set up 5 trial US states to use the Ryan plan and see how it goes? Lets say, just for argument, Wisconsin (I think he's from WI), Louisiana, Arizona, Kentucky, and Georgia.

Lets see how much money it saves in practice.

Any thoughts?

that would probably require that the fed. block grants everything to the states and let them disperse the vouchers etc.......they won't, they did for medicaid in Rhode Island and they have had some good results from what I understand.
They tried a knock off via preempting Obamacare in Massachusetts and we see where that has gone....


here, I posted this in another thread but I think, from my slim point of view, its worth repeating;

Six of one……….this debate has become circular…..its 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.

However, there is an ideological bridge that is keeping the parties apart; there are some who believe that the government is the best arbiter, they think they can, by their management stamp out every vestige of unfairness for/to everyone. They believe they can protect everyone from their own intrinsic lack of self interest in this 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 healthcare 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. It is what it is.

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.

I'm not sure that the voucher plan isn't going to result in the blow up as well. So I think the large scale test case is the way to go instead of the philosophical merry-go-round. I would say that you add a GAO board to act as referee to see if the voucher system saves money or not. At the end of the trial period, they hold hearings of seniors, medical professionals, etc (all decided by lotteries so there are no "plants" to sway the GAO board) and see how it was accepted, the problems, etc...

Just a thought.

Hey, why not? I am willing to try just about anything short of revamping the whole system before making it virtually impossible to unwind , if the vouchers don't work you can kill it, obama care? no chance.

 

[rdean]

Obama's plan:

Insures millions more Americans and children.

Ryan's plan:

 

[code1211]

Wouldn't the best idea be, then, to set up 5 trial US states to use the Ryan plan and see how it goes? Lets say, just for argument, Wisconsin (I think he's from WI), Louisiana, Arizona, Kentucky, and Georgia.

Lets see how much money it saves in practice.

Any thoughts?

Better yet, block grant the cash to the states and let each state, all 50, develop and deploy a plan and a program. What might work even better is to not ever send the cash to Washington and let the States take care of it.

In that way the Feds woldn't have to take their cut at all.

 

[rdean]

Wouldn't the best idea be, then, to set up 5 trial US states to use the Ryan plan and see how it goes? Lets say, just for argument, Wisconsin (I think he's from WI), Louisiana, Arizona, Kentucky, and Georgia.

Lets see how much money it saves in practice.

Any thoughts?

Better yet, block grant the cash to the states and let each state, all 50, develop and deploy a plan and a program. What might work even better is to not ever send the cash to Washington and let the States take care of it.

In that way the Feds woldn't have to take their cut at all.

That's already part of Obama's plan. Any state that can prove they can insure more people for less money can apply for an exemption. Seriously, I thought everyone knew that.

Vermont is moving to get a waiver out of health reform to enact a state single-payer system, And Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, along with Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, is moving to push forward enactment of a clause in health-care law to 2014 from 2017, which would let states get a waiver to opt out of the individual mandate if they meet certain benchmarks.

State of the Union: Addressing Health Reform - FoxBusiness.com

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Wouldn't the best idea be, then, to set up 5 trial US states to use the Ryan plan and see how it goes? Lets say, just for argument, Wisconsin (I think he's from WI), Louisiana, Arizona, Kentucky, and Georgia.

Lets see how much money it saves in practice.

Any thoughts?

Better yet, block grant the cash to the states and let each state, all 50, develop and deploy a plan and a program. What might work even better is to not ever send the cash to Washington and let the States take care of it.

In that way the Feds woldn't have to take their cut at all.

That's already part of Obama's plan. Any state that can prove they can insure more people for less money can apply for an exemption. Seriously, I thought everyone knew that.

Vermont is moving to get a waiver out of health reform to enact a state single-payer system, And Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, along with Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts, is moving to push forward enactment of a clause in health-care law to 2014 from 2017, which would let states get a waiver to opt out of the individual mandate if they meet certain benchmarks.

State of the Union: Addressing Health Reform - FoxBusiness.com

So we passed a trillion dollar law that anyone can get a waiver for?!

I'm not exactly seeing the logic behind this. If Obama just wanted to push states to enact their own healthcare reforms, I'm sure there are cheaper and more constitutional ways to do it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Befrore the Congress passed and President Obama signed new health care legislation, the costs for medical to individuals, counties and states continued to rise every year for decades. Sadly, when the deal was done, we got a camel. I suppose everyone knows that's what our Congress usually produces: "A camel is a horse designed by committee".

Part of the problem is that those who benefitted from the former system demagogued the issue, others played the emotion card, branding those who supported a form of universal preventative and single payer health care as, "communists, socialists, marxists and un-American". The elected representatives of the Republican party joined the effort to kill reform in mass their effort funded by the special interests.

Now the New Right wants to kill Medicare, Medicade and while their at it Social Security and Supplemental Security Income. They hope to kill the ability (the right) for workers to organize and negotiate salary and benefits, and to pit working man v. working man in compitition, while business and industry continue to merge creating a climate where cartels can flourish and competition is nil.

It is the goal of the New Right leadership to fundamentally to change our economic system into a Plutocracy. They oppose abortion not out of moral outrage, but by recognizing that a greater population creates competition for jobs, and a greater supply of cheap labor is a benefit to business & industry. They have allowed greater influence of money into our political system (Citizens United v. FEC) knowing the masses are easily led by hate and fear & such rhetoric which beats reasoned arguments everytime.

The NR accuses anyone who disagrees with them of using tactics which they themselves employ, it is a propaganda machine which speaks in one voice from thousands of mouths, using the same message which changes from week to week and day to day; it is always the same, always focued on the next election and uses any opportunity to demagogue, accuse, exploit, embarrass or abuse those whose opinions and ideas are different than their own.

No, this is not a conspiracy theory, and any effort to label it so is dishonest and partisan. Defending the NR and the hard right turn of the GOP is in fact UN-American. For nothing they have offered will benefit 'We the People'. The effort by the NR and the Republican leadership is evil to those of us who support the ideal of representative government.