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

[The Rabbi]

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.

What I find fascinating is that people buy into this crap. Yes, seniors will do well trying to find the plan that best fits them for $20,000 per year, LMAO.

That sure beats the hell out of a "plan" that pays so little they will never be abel to get care anywhere.
Or do you have a better idea?

 

[The T]

The idea behind the Ryan plan is to make the patient into the payer.

No, it isn't. It simply pushes them into the arms of private payers (you understand they get a voucher to purchase private insurance, right?).

The goal of Obamacare is also simple, to cap the expenses of the government. Some people want to argue that it will do this by controlling costs, but have put forth nothing but sound bites to explain how that works. Instead they point to a list of items that will supposedly accomplish miracles that have never before been possible in the history of the universe.

It would certainly make sense to set a cost growth target and then include no attempts to address the cost drivers in our system, ensuring that the targets can't be met. I can understand why Ryan's your man.

Good luck with that.

Obamacare's solution is to appoint a panel to oversee costs. This will result in more expensive treatments getting denied. These are the very treatments that might be the only hope for a sick patient.
Death panel indeed.

ObamaCare’s Death Panel is Already Here: It’s Called IPAB

 

[Greenbeard]

Who could've guessed that when pressed on the merits (or lack thereof) of the Republican Purina Plan for Seniors™, the far right would revert back to "but, but, but...DEATH PANELS!"? Mama Grizzly would be proud!

Should we interpret the constant diversion to the ACA as a sign that you don't think the "Medicare is not an option" proposal can stand on its own merits? Perhaps it's even beginning to weigh on your consciences. Whatever it is, the defenses of dismantling Medicare have become decidedly half-hearted.

 

[Trajan]

Who could've guessed that when pressed on the merits (or lack thereof) of the Republican Purina Plan for Seniors™, the far right would revert back to "but, but, but...DEATH PANELS!"? Mama Grizzly would be proud!

Should we interpret the constant diversion to the ACA as a sign that you don't think the "Medicare is not an option" proposal can stand on its own merits? Perhaps it's even beginning to weigh on your consciences. Whatever it is, the defenses of dismantling Medicare have become decidedly half-hearted.

I love it when the washed meets the unwashed, that response is well, an example of just how far you've come. defending the undefendable is hard work but alas....are you on the clock? tsk task..

and that pretty much fits the snotty gov. reception one would and can expect when pursuing an explanation or answer from the central planning hub of obama U.

 

[The Rabbi]

Who could've guessed that when pressed on the merits (or lack thereof) of the Republican Purina Plan for Seniors™, the far right would revert back to "but, but, but...DEATH PANELS!"? Mama Grizzly would be proud!

Should we interpret the constant diversion to the ACA as a sign that you don't think the "Medicare is not an option" proposal can stand on its own merits? Perhaps it's even beginning to weigh on your consciences. Whatever it is, the defenses of dismantling Medicare have become decidedly half-hearted.

So you think that Medicare is just fine? You think that more and more physicians, unable to count, will accept lower and lower reimbursements from Medicare?
Which is it?

 

[The T]

Who could've guessed that when pressed on the merits (or lack thereof) of the Republican Purina Plan for Seniors™, the far right would revert back to "but, but, but...DEATH PANELS!"? Mama Grizzly would be proud!

Should we interpret the constant diversion to the ACA as a sign that you don't think the "Medicare is not an option" proposal can stand on its own merits? Perhaps it's even beginning to weigh on your consciences. Whatever it is, the defenses of dismantling Medicare have become decidedly half-hearted.

Another partisan DOLT™ speaks...

 

[Polk]

Yes, because that's what Ryan's budget uses the savings on. That's not even remotely similar to saying we pay for everything on the table by solely taxing the wealthy.

Funny thing, under Ryan's plan people will cut taxes for everyone, not just the rich. Yet you, even though you are trying to claim you are being reasonable, insist on focusing on the rich. Why is that?

I focus on the tax cuts for the wealthy because it's absurd for the Republicans to claim we need to slash Social Security and Medicare to avoid a crisis while also proposing reducing taxes for the wealthiest Americans by almost a third.

I guess you're not very good with analogies, so I'll state it more directly. Under the current system, the cost of health care for seniors beyond a certain amount is covered. Under the Ryan plan, they get a coupon for a few bucks off and then the sky is the limit for cost they will bare.

And you are not very good with facts.

But the current system only exist in your head, Obamacare institutes massive cuts to Medicare in 2014. That is what you need to compare Ryan's plan to, not the one that has already been destroyed by the Democrats.

I'm comparing the Ryan plan to current law, not some fever dream you're having.

To directly provide for the millions that lacked coverage (instead of paying through it via the backdoor of ER visits) and so those with pre-existing conditions could be covered.

What about the millions more that Obamacare leaves uncovered?

Would be better if they were covered as well, but if it was up to you, no one would have coverage.

 

[Polk]

Who could've guessed that when pressed on the merits (or lack thereof) of the Republican Purina Plan for Seniors™, the far right would revert back to "but, but, but...DEATH PANELS!"? Mama Grizzly would be proud!

Should we interpret the constant diversion to the ACA as a sign that you don't think the "Medicare is not an option" proposal can stand on its own merits? Perhaps it's even beginning to weigh on your consciences. Whatever it is, the defenses of dismantling Medicare have become decidedly half-hearted.

So you think that Medicare is just fine? You think that more and more physicians, unable to count, will accept lower and lower reimbursements from Medicare?
Which is it?

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

 

[The Rabbi]

Who could've guessed that when pressed on the merits (or lack thereof) of the Republican Purina Plan for Seniors™, the far right would revert back to "but, but, but...DEATH PANELS!"? Mama Grizzly would be proud!

Should we interpret the constant diversion to the ACA as a sign that you don't think the "Medicare is not an option" proposal can stand on its own merits? Perhaps it's even beginning to weigh on your consciences. Whatever it is, the defenses of dismantling Medicare have become decidedly half-hearted.

So you think that Medicare is just fine? You think that more and more physicians, unable to count, will accept lower and lower reimbursements from Medicare?
Which is it?

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

OK, you've just defined yourself as a moron of the first rank. Congrats.
Fewer and fewer doctors are already accepting Medicare. Why should they when private 3rd party insurance pays better?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who could've guessed that when pressed on the merits (or lack thereof) of the Republican Purina Plan for Seniors™, the far right would revert back to "but, but, but...DEATH PANELS!"? Mama Grizzly would be proud!

Should we interpret the constant diversion to the ACA as a sign that you don't think the "Medicare is not an option" proposal can stand on its own merits? Perhaps it's even beginning to weigh on your consciences. Whatever it is, the defenses of dismantling Medicare have become decidedly half-hearted.

If Medicare can stand on its own, something I dispute, then why did Obamacare cut Medicare spending and set up IPAB that will never actually exist?

 

[Greenbeard]

So you think that Medicare is just fine?

I don't think anything in our health care system is "just fine." There's tremendous room for improvement in almost every aspect of it.

I take it from your question you're still under the impression that the Republican budget addresses some--any--of the problems with our health care system. Sadly, it doesn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I focus on the tax cuts for the wealthy because it's absurd for the Republicans to claim we need to slash Social Security and Medicare to avoid a crisis while also proposing reducing taxes for the wealthiest Americans by almost a third.

Almost a third?

The Ryan plan calls for a reduction of 10% in the highest rate, and couples that with a eliminating loopholes and simplification of the tax code. How do you get from that to a 33% reduction in taxes on the rich?

Would be better if they were covered as well, but if it was up to you, no one would have coverage.

Really?

Can you show me anywhere I advocated eliminating all insurance as well as Medicare and Medicaid? All I have done in this thread is point out the lies that are being used to prevent anyone from dealing with a major problem this country is facing. Medicare will not survive in its present form, and has already been decimated by Obamacare, yet you insist on attacking Ryan for trying to fix it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Who could've guessed that when pressed on the merits (or lack thereof) of the Republican Purina Plan for Seniors™, the far right would revert back to "but, but, but...DEATH PANELS!"? Mama Grizzly would be proud!

Should we interpret the constant diversion to the ACA as a sign that you don't think the "Medicare is not an option" proposal can stand on its own merits? Perhaps it's even beginning to weigh on your consciences. Whatever it is, the defenses of dismantling Medicare have become decidedly half-hearted.

So you think that Medicare is just fine? You think that more and more physicians, unable to count, will accept lower and lower reimbursements from Medicare?
Which is it?

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you think that Medicare is just fine?

I don't think anything in our health care system is "just fine." There's tremendous room for improvement in almost every aspect of it.

I take it from your question you're still under the impression that the Republican budget addresses some--any--of the problems with our health care system. Sadly, it doesn't.

No. I take it from your numerous responses you think Medicare is just dandy and the only problem is taxes aren;t high enough.
The Ryan plan will actually do whart Obamacare was billed as doing.

 

[Greenbeard]

No. I take it from your numerous responses you think Medicare is just dandy and the only problem is taxes aren;t high enough.

The Ryan plan will actually do whart Obamacare was billed as doing.

Like I said above, the defenses of this nonsense have been incredibly half-hearted. It doesn't even sound like you're fooling yourself anymore.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

The Pub budget plan has the same cuts to medicare as Obamacare does.It's a luxury Medicare no one needs with Health Refom. And just because Fox doesn't tell you about health reforms cost controls doesn't mean they don't exist...educate yourself. Adding end of life counsellors to the doctor and family will make the needlessly most difficult and hugely expensive peiod much cheaper and less traumatic.

 

[Polk]

I focus on the tax cuts for the wealthy because it's absurd for the Republicans to claim we need to slash Social Security and Medicare to avoid a crisis while also proposing reducing taxes for the wealthiest Americans by almost a third.

Almost a third?

The Ryan plan calls for a reduction of 10% in the highest rate, and couples that with a eliminating loopholes and simplification of the tax code. How do you get from that to a 33% reduction in taxes on the rich?

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%.

Would be better if they were covered as well, but if it was up to you, no one would have coverage.

Really?

Can you show me anywhere I advocated eliminating all insurance as well as Medicare and Medicaid? All I have done in this thread is point out the lies that are being used to prevent anyone from dealing with a major problem this country is facing. Medicare will not survive in its present form, and has already been decimated by Obamacare, yet you insist on attacking Ryan for trying to fix it.

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.

 

[Polk]

So you think that Medicare is just fine? You think that more and more physicians, unable to count, will accept lower and lower reimbursements from Medicare?
Which is it?

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.

 

[rdean]

Nothing like saying, "Here is a plan. Show us something better".

So there you go. Put up, or shut the fuck up. The right wing has been challenged. "DO SOMETHING". Show us what you've got.

That doesn't make any sense. Let's say a doctor makes a diagnosis that is clearly asinine and likely to do more harm then good. Let's say, for example that he says "ok, you've got cancer. I think we should shoot you in the head. Unless you can come up with your own plan, that's what I'm gonna do." In such a situation, wouldn't it be reasonable for the patient to simply say "Well, I'm not gonna let you shoot me in the head. That's my plan. Now go away."

OR

Let's say congress says - "Clearly insurance is overpriced and a ripoff, so what we're gonna do is force all of you to buy it." As far as I'm concerned, "Thanks, but no thanks", is all that's required as an 'alternative' to such idiocy.

I DO think there are things we could do in terms of government policy that would make the health care situation better. But I see nothing in the ACA that would improve things more than it would fuck them up. It's a power grab and a handout to the insurance industry first and foremost. So the most important thing to do right now is put a halt to it. That's plan A.

I, and many others here I'm assuming, have offered up ways to improve the health care situation that don't involved chaining us to the insurance corporations via state mandate. But, supporters of the ACA will hear nothing of it.

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?

 

[rdean]

No, it isn't. It simply pushes them into the arms of private payers (you understand they get a voucher to purchase private insurance, right?).



It would certainly make sense to set a cost growth target and then include no attempts to address the cost drivers in our system, ensuring that the targets can't be met. I can understand why Ryan's your man.

Good luck with that.

Obamacare's solution is to appoint a panel to oversee costs. This will result in more expensive treatments getting denied. These are the very treatments that might be the only hope for a sick patient.
Death panel indeed.

ObamaCare’s Death Panel is Already Here: It’s Called IPAB

You link to an article that starts off with this picture?

Hilarious.