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

[dblack]

Sorry, I couldn't get past: Let's say a doctor makes a diagnosis that is clearly asinine and likely to do more harm then good.

Doctors love to make a diagnosis that is clearly asinine. Maybe because it's "clearly" asinine, that's the reason doctors will "miss it".

In fact, why go to a "doctor" at all? What do they know?

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're getting at. Maybe reading past the first line would have helped.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The current top rate is 35%. Ryan's proposed new top rate is 25%.

25/35 = 0.7143

1-0.7143 = 0.2857

So Ryan's plan would decrease the amount by 28%.

Factor in the elimination of the loopholes and try again.

Ryan isn't fixing anything. Stripping seniors of their health coverage isn't fixing it any more than chopping off someone's leg fixes a wound. And yes, you do support the effective elimination of health insurance. You oppose an individual mandate, you oppose banning coverage denials for pre-existing conditions, and you support allowing the sale of insurance polices across state lines. The ultimate result are insurance policies that don't insure against anything.

Obamacare already strips them of their coverage while increasing their out of pocket expenses. The Ryan plan at least gives them a chance to get some of that back without cutting the actual money the government is going to spend over the Obamacare plan.

I oppose the individual mandate because I believe it is unconstitutional. Unlike you, I think that makes a significant difference. I have stated elsewhere that if they had passed a Medicare for all type plan it would be constitutional. That makes you wrong there.

I do not oppose pre existing conditions being covered, what I oppose is forcing companies not to charge people more if they have them, or to deny them coverage it they do not inform the insurance company about them. I am pretty sure the latter is fraud, and the former only makes sense if you think health care is free.

How does allowing people to buy insurance across state lines lead to an end to insurance coverage? I would love to follow your logic here, if you have any.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yeah, they absolutely will. Lower rates that you desire are still better than making zero.

Pointing out the obvious here, but if payments are lower than expenses it is actually worse than not getting paid.

Most of their expenses are fixed, but even that's not relevant, because lower rates than their desires are still extremely profitable.

Extremely profitable?

Are you aware that the Medicare actuary actually agrees with me that the payments will be so low that doctors will be forced to chose between going out of business completely or not accepting Medicare at all? How does that gibe with the payments being extremely profitable?

 

[Polk]

The current top rate is 35%. Ryan's proposed new top rate is 25%.

25/35 = 0.7143

1-0.7143 = 0.2857

So Ryan's plan would decrease the amount by 28%.

Factor in the elimination of the loopholes and try again.

What elimination of loopholes? Ryan claims it's revenue neutral because it eliminates loopholes, but when pressed on which loopholes are eliminated, he can't name a single one.

Ryan isn't fixing anything. Stripping seniors of their health coverage isn't fixing it any more than chopping off someone's leg fixes a wound. And yes, you do support the effective elimination of health insurance. You oppose an individual mandate, you oppose banning coverage denials for pre-existing conditions, and you support allowing the sale of insurance polices across state lines. The ultimate result are insurance policies that don't insure against anything.

Obamacare already strips them of their coverage while increasing their out of pocket expenses. The Ryan plan at least gives them a chance to get some of that back without cutting the actual money the government is going to spend over the Obamacare plan.

I oppose the individual mandate because I believe it is unconstitutional. Unlike you, I think that makes a significant difference. I have stated elsewhere that if they had passed a Medicare for all type plan it would be constitutional. That makes you wrong there.

I do not oppose pre existing conditions being covered, what I oppose is forcing companies not to charge people more if they have them, or to deny them coverage it they do not inform the insurance company about them. I am pretty sure the latter is fraud, and the former only makes sense if you think health care is free.

How does allowing people to buy insurance across state lines lead to an end to insurance coverage? I would love to follow your logic here, if you have any.

Talking to you is absolutely pointless. Instead of actually discussing the issues, you just run around making things up. The Affordable Care Act does strip seniors of coverage and does not increase out of pocket costs. In fact, it reduces them, since wellness exams are now covered and it closes the "donut hole" in Medicare Part D.

The individual mandate is not unconstitutional. Courts have ruled time and time again that Congress has the power to levy taxes. Consider the following. If instead of an individual mandate, with a penalty for those not having coverage, what if the bill had levied a tax of $1,000 on everyone, then gave it back as a tax credit to everyone with health insurance. That's unquestionably constitution, and it's the exact same thing as an individual mandate.

Allowing a higher rate to be charged to those with existing conditions is the same as saying coverage can be denied on that basis. If companies offer policies, but also charge 3k a month for them, that's effectively the same as not offering a policy at all. This is also where selling insurance across state lines comes in. Insurance won't be sold across state lines, it'll be sold across one line: that of whichever state has the most loose regulations. The result is health insurance as burdensome as credit cards. Even better? The Republican health care proposal defines territories and commonwealths as states for the purposes of the legislation, so the only insurance polices available will be whatever the Northern Mariana Islands finds acceptable.

 

[Polk]

Pointing out the obvious here, but if payments are lower than expenses it is actually worse than not getting paid.

Most of their expenses are fixed, but even that's not relevant, because lower rates than their desires are still extremely profitable.

Extremely profitable?

Are you aware that the Medicare actuary actually agrees with me that the payments will be so low that doctors will be forced to chose between going out of business completely or not accepting Medicare at all? How does that gibe with the payments being extremely profitable?

If that's the case, how is your proposal to cut payments even further going to be sustainable?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What elimination of loopholes? Ryan claims it's revenue neutral because it eliminates loopholes, but when pressed on which loopholes are eliminated, he can't name a single one.

Nor can anyone name the waste reduction in Obamacare, but that does not stop you from claiming that it exists.

Talking to you is absolutely pointless. Instead of actually discussing the issues, you just run around making things up. The Affordable Care Act does strip seniors of coverage and does not increase out of pocket costs. In fact, it reduces them, since wellness exams are now covered and it closes the "donut hole" in Medicare Part D.

Then the Foster, who happens to work for Obama as the Medicare actuary, is lying when he says that Medicare Advantage premiums will go up, which I am pretty sure results in higher out of pocket expenses unless seniors opt for less coverage. Good to know that.

Thanks for proving you are willing to lie to defend your position though.

The individual mandate is not unconstitutional. Courts have ruled time and time again that Congress has the power to levy taxes. Consider the following. If instead of an individual mandate, with a penalty for those not having coverage, what if the bill had levied a tax of $1,000 on everyone, then gave it back as a tax credit to everyone with health insurance. That's unquestionably constitution, and it's the exact same thing as an individual mandate.

The mandate is not a tax. Also, the last time I checked, we do not have to pay a tax on life. Since the only direct tax authorized by the constitution is the income tax, I am pretty sure your stupid example proves that the mandate is unconstitutional.

I expressed an opinion, and you retaliated with wild descriptions of congressional power to tax life itself. Which of us is reaching further?

Allowing a higher rate to be charged to those with existing conditions is the same as saying coverage can be denied on that basis. If companies offer policies, but also charge 3k a month for them, that's effectively the same as not offering a policy at all. This is also where selling insurance across state lines comes in. Insurance won't be sold across state lines, it'll be sold across one line: that of whichever state has the most loose regulations. The result is health insurance as burdensome as credit cards. Even better? The Republican health care proposal defines territories and commonwealths as states for the purposes of the legislation, so the only insurance polices available will be whatever the Northern Mariana Islands finds acceptable.

Denying the companies the right to charge based on projected expenses is the same as telling them them that they have no right to be in business at all. By the way, forcing them to cover all pre existing conditions without allowing them to price for the risk is more likely to produce that $3000 a month policy than allowing them to price according to risk, except that they will be charging everyone that, which means that even healthy people will not be able to get insurance.

If we sell insurance across state lines not everyone will automatically opt for the insurance that offers the fewest benefits. Some people will prefer a policy that covers pregnancy because they might be part of the approximately 50% of the population that actually has a chance of getting pregnant. Even if they did, so what? Do you think everyone that drives a car should be required to carry full coverage, or do you think it is actually reasonable that people have the option of getting less expensive liability insurance?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Most of their expenses are fixed, but even that's not relevant, because lower rates than their desires are still extremely profitable.

Extremely profitable?

Are you aware that the Medicare actuary actually agrees with me that the payments will be so low that doctors will be forced to chose between going out of business completely or not accepting Medicare at all? How does that gibe with the payments being extremely profitable?

If that's the case, how is your proposal to cut payments even further going to be sustainable?

I don't, which is why I think the Ryan plan sucks as much as Obamacare. I am not here trying to defend Ryan's plan, I am here pointing out that people like you who attack the Ryan plan while defending Obamacare are hacks who are willing to lie in order to accomplish their goals.

So far you are doing a great job of proving me right.

 

[Greenbeard]

What elimination of loopholes? Ryan claims it's revenue neutral because it eliminates loopholes, but when pressed on which loopholes are eliminated, he can't name a single one.

Nor can anyone name the waste reduction in Obamacare, but that does not stop you from claiming that it exists.

The "waste" rhetoric referred primarily to $200 billion in overpayments to Medicare Advantage-participating private insurance companies; that was addressed by resetting the benchmarks. It's written right into the law. In fact you bitch about exactly that provision in the same post.

Why is that every time any of you are asked to defend the Republican budget you change the subject? No loopholes are identified for elimination in the Republican "plan." So why try and blow smoke up our asses with this "don't forget about the loopholes they're closing!" bullshit? If the best defense of this piece of shit budget you can muster is a lame lashing out at real legislation, that might be a clue for you that you've wandered into indefensible territory.

edit: Of good, I see you've added the "I am not here trying to defend Ryan's plan" cop out. That's good, because you were doing a shitty job. "Factor in the elimination of the loopholes and try again."

 

[Polk]

He'd rather jump up and down and accuse people of lying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What elimination of loopholes? Ryan claims it's revenue neutral because it eliminates loopholes, but when pressed on which loopholes are eliminated, he can't name a single one.

Nor can anyone name the waste reduction in Obamacare, but that does not stop you from claiming that it exists.

The "waste" rhetoric referred primarily to $200 billion in overpayments to Medicare Advantage-participating private insurance companies; that was addressed by resetting the benchmarks. It's written right into the law. In fact you bitch about exactly that provision in the same post.

Why is that every time any of you are asked to defend the Republican budget you change the subject? No loopholes are identified for elimination in the Republican "plan." So why try and blow smoke up our asses with this "don't forget about the loopholes they're closing!" bullshit? If the best defense of this piece of shit budget you can muster is a lame lashing out at real legislation, that might be a clue for you that you've wandered into indefensible territory.

edit: Of good, I see you've added the "I am not here trying to defend Ryan's plan" cop out. That's good, because you were doing a shitty job. "Factor in the elimination of the loopholes and try again."

Funny how all the waste in Medicare went to the single most popular part of Medicare with seniors, isn't it?

I have said from the very first time I commented on the Ryan plan that it lacked substance. I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy from the hacks, and the occasional shill.

My apologies, being a shill means you are not technically a hypocrite.

 

[Greenbeard]

I have said from the very first time I commented on the Ryan plan that it lacked substance.

Good! I'm in total agreement.

 

[Polk]

Nor can anyone name the waste reduction in Obamacare, but that does not stop you from claiming that it exists.

The "waste" rhetoric referred primarily to $200 billion in overpayments to Medicare Advantage-participating private insurance companies; that was addressed by resetting the benchmarks. It's written right into the law. In fact you bitch about exactly that provision in the same post.

Why is that every time any of you are asked to defend the Republican budget you change the subject? No loopholes are identified for elimination in the Republican "plan." So why try and blow smoke up our asses with this "don't forget about the loopholes they're closing!" bullshit? If the best defense of this piece of shit budget you can muster is a lame lashing out at real legislation, that might be a clue for you that you've wandered into indefensible territory.

edit: Of good, I see you've added the "I am not here trying to defend Ryan's plan" cop out. That's good, because you were doing a shitty job. "Factor in the elimination of the loopholes and try again."

Funny how all the waste in Medicare went to the single most popular part of Medicare with seniors, isn't it?

I have said from the very first time I commented on the Ryan plan that it lacked substance. I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy from the hacks, and the occasional shill.

My apologies, being a shill means you are not technically a hypocrite.

For someone who believes the Ryan plan "lacked substance", you sure are a pretty zealous defender of it.

Also, I'd love to see you source this claim that Medicare Advantage is "the single most popular part of Medicare".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The "waste" rhetoric referred primarily to $200 billion in overpayments to Medicare Advantage-participating private insurance companies; that was addressed by resetting the benchmarks. It's written right into the law. In fact you bitch about exactly that provision in the same post.

Why is that every time any of you are asked to defend the Republican budget you change the subject? No loopholes are identified for elimination in the Republican "plan." So why try and blow smoke up our asses with this "don't forget about the loopholes they're closing!" bullshit? If the best defense of this piece of shit budget you can muster is a lame lashing out at real legislation, that might be a clue for you that you've wandered into indefensible territory.

edit: Of good, I see you've added the "I am not here trying to defend Ryan's plan" cop out. That's good, because you were doing a shitty job. "Factor in the elimination of the loopholes and try again."

Funny how all the waste in Medicare went to the single most popular part of Medicare with seniors, isn't it?

I have said from the very first time I commented on the Ryan plan that it lacked substance. I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy from the hacks, and the occasional shill.

My apologies, being a shill means you are not technically a hypocrite.

For someone who believes the Ryan plan "lacked substance", you sure are a pretty zealous defender of it.

Also, I'd love to see you source this claim that Medicare Advantage is "the single most popular part of Medicare".

Can you show me a single post where I defended it? Can you even show me an answer to my question about the actual monetary difference between Ryan's Medicare cuts and the cuts under Obamacare.

 

[Polk]

Funny how all the waste in Medicare went to the single most popular part of Medicare with seniors, isn't it?

I have said from the very first time I commented on the Ryan plan that it lacked substance. I just enjoy pointing out the hypocrisy from the hacks, and the occasional shill.

My apologies, being a shill means you are not technically a hypocrite.

For someone who believes the Ryan plan "lacked substance", you sure are a pretty zealous defender of it.

Also, I'd love to see you source this claim that Medicare Advantage is "the single most popular part of Medicare".

Can you show me a single post where I defended it? Can you even show me an answer to my question about the actual monetary difference between Ryan's Medicare cuts and the cuts under Obamacare.

You're said over and over that Ryan plan "saves Medicare". Yeah, that's what we English speakers call a defense.

And you've been shown the difference over and over again. Last time I checked, you threw a fit and claimed numbers aren't numbers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For someone who believes the Ryan plan "lacked substance", you sure are a pretty zealous defender of it.

Also, I'd love to see you source this claim that Medicare Advantage is "the single most popular part of Medicare".

Can you show me a single post where I defended it? Can you even show me an answer to my question about the actual monetary difference between Ryan's Medicare cuts and the cuts under Obamacare.

You're said over and over that Ryan plan "saves Medicare". Yeah, that's what we English speakers call a defense.

And you've been shown the difference over and over again. Last time I checked, you threw a fit and claimed numbers aren't numbers.

I did not, I said it works, which I think it does. I know that when I need Medicare I will be much happier with a grant to buy my own insurance than I will be with Obamacare's panels that tell me what I need.

 

[LilOlLady]

$0.00

Ryancare takes it out of the hand of government and put it in the hands of healthcare for profit private insurance companies. Nothing else changes. Except GOP want to raise retirement age and cut benefits in order to cut cost.

 

[EriktheRed]

Chicago Tribune July 2, 1969: The Medicare hospital trust fund faces bankruptcy by 1976 and taxes must either be raised or benefits reduced the senate finance committee was told today.

New York Times July 7, 1981: Medicare payroll taxes already imposed by Congress, including two increases scheduled for 1985 and 1986, will only be able to keep the hospital insurance system solvent for eight to 10 more years, three Cabinet officers informed Congress. Even under the Reagan Administration's highly optimistic economic projections, the fund will be bankrupt before 2000, the three said.

Washington Post,March 6, 1983: Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici warned the nation's governors the other day, "Medicare can be bankrupt in 2 1/2 years," unless some way is found to put the brakes on its burgeoning costs.

Chicago Tribune: June 25, 1983: Medicare is in danger of bankruptcy as early as 1986, the system’s trustees declared Friday.

Chicago Tribune, March 10 1984: To avert Medicare’s expected insolvency, a federal advisory council proposed Friday raising the eligibility age to 67, taxing employer paid health insurance benefits and boosting the tax on alcohol and tobacco… the Congressional Budget Office said Medicare may be insolvent in 1989

Etcetera, etcetera....

Change of Subject: Medicare is going bankrupt! Again.