Forbe's Blog "The Apothecary" has an adult...

[Yonivore]

...conversation about Medicare reform.

Why the Democrats' 'Mediscare' Attack Won't Work Against Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/11/why-the-democrats-mediscare-attack-wont-work-against-paul-ryan/)

The Romney and Wyden-Ryan plans preserve traditional Medicare


As we’ve documented extensively at The Apothecary, the Wyden-Ryan Medicare plan—so named because it was coauthored by progressive Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.)—only applies to Americans younger than 55 years of age, and gives those younger individuals the option of remaining in the traditional Medicare program, or choosing a comparable private-sector insurance plan.

The policy-wonk term for this approach is “competitive bidding,” an idea that originated with Democrats. The Wyden-Ryan plan is nearly identical to one that was introduced a few weeks earlier by Mitt Romney.

The bottom line: if Romney and Ryan leave you the option to remain in the 1965-vintage, fee-for-service, traditional Medicare program, and you claim that Medicare has “ended as we know it,” what you’ve really ended is the English language as we know it.
...
PolitiFact, the left-leaning fact-checking site, pronounced the “ending Medicare” claim to be the 2011 Lie of the Year (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/12/20/republicans-ending-medicare-is-politifacts-2011-lie-of-the-year/).

Obama has cut Medicare more than Romney-Ryan would


As to the supposedly draconian nature of Mitt Romney’s Medicare cuts, they’re only exceeded by the severity of the Medicare cuts in…Obamacare.

According to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/27/cbo-obamacare-will-spend-more-tax-more-and-reduce-the-deficit-less-than-we-previously-thought/), Obamacare will reduce Medicare spending by $716 billion between 2013 and 2022, relative to prior law. These cuts directly affect current retirees. By contrast, both the Romney and Wyden-Ryan plans only affect retirees younger than 55. In other words, for better or worse, President Obama cuts Medicare more than Romney would.
...
In addition, President Obama’s budget uses exactly the same target growth rate for future Medicare spending as does the Wyden-Ryan plan: growth in gross domestic product plus 0.5 percent. The long-term difference between these two approaches, then, is not how much they reduce Medicare spending, but how.

Obamacare reduces Medicare spending using a government-centered approach. The law creates a new panel, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will be composed of 15 unelected government officials, who will be charged with rationing care to seniors, primarily by underpaying doctors and hospitals.

The approach advocated by Ryan and Romney, by contrast, gives seniors more control over their own health dollars, allowing them to choose the plan that provides the best value for their money.

As Jim Capretta and Yuval Levin point out in an important new article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/more-mediscare_649725.html), research from three liberal Harvard researchers indicates that the privately-run Medicare Advantage program can deliver the traditional Medicare benefit package 10 percent more cheaply, on average, than can government-run Medicare. And Medicare Advantage is tied down with all sorts of restrictions that make it less efficient. A Romney/Wyden-Ryan style approach, combining competitive bidding with premium support, is almost certain to generate even greater efficiencies and savings.

[Wild Cobra]

Yep.

Someone tell me again how much Obamacare cuts medicare please.

[Yonivore]

Yep.

Someone tell me again how much Obamacare cuts medicare please.
$713 billion dollars over the next 10 years and, that's $713 billion dollars taken directly from current participants and those that will become so before 2022.

[ElNono]

I think the comments section on the article do a good job dispelling the falacies included in them. It should also be noted that Wyden voted against the plan when it came to a vote in the House as part of the GOP budget.

Time will tell what people think of the Ryan proposal.

[ChumpDumper]

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/cache/gravatars/aroy_136.jpg

[Yonivore]

I think the comments section on the article do a good job dispelling the falacies included in them. It should also be noted that Wyden voted against the plan when it came to a vote in the House as part of the GOP budget.

Time will tell what people think of the Ryan proposal.
Which commenters? JCWPolitics misses in the very first paragraph of his rebuttal.

While Ryan originally proposed a complete privatization of Medicare, the Wyden-Ryan plan preserves it for those who do not want to take advantage of the vouchers. So, his assertion Ryan is proposing a complete abandonment of Medicare is untrue.

I think JCWPolitics agrees, in a later post, that Medicare is unsustainable as it currently exists. I'm not sure anyone disagrees. So, the question is which Medicare reform measure makes the most sense?

Slashing $713 billion from current recipients, over the next 10 years, and replacing it with a 13-member panel that will be in charge of controlling costs (notice I refrained from calling the D word) or, preserving the current system for anyone over 55, untouched and giving the rest of us the option of migrating to a private system - along the lines of Medicare Advantage (which the article argues would be more sustainable without government interference) - or staying with the status quo. While Ryan has the added burden of demonstrating how his plan will result in savings and not leave the elderly without Medicare coverage; the Obama plan already does neither.

Is JCWPolitics the commenter? If not, care to point the comment out or, better yet, express your own objection to the Wyden-Ryan Medicare reform? And, while Wyden voted against the budget, that doesn't mean he opposed the plan he over which h worked with Ryan.

How do you explain Erskine Bowles comments? This is the President's pick for the Bowles-Simpson committeee and, ostensibly, his replacement for Geithner at Treasury.

Here's how I explain it:

President Obama cannot defend his plan for saving Medicare because it doesn't so, instead of even addressing the Wyden-Ryan plan, he's opted to demonize Ryan. I don't think it will work. Why? Ryan is likable and Ryan knows how to explain his plan to the American people. Worse for Obama, Ryan knows how to explain Obama's plan, as well; and, in a credible way without partisan rancor.

If you doubt it, just look at the 6:00 video where he completely exposes the "voodoo economics" of Obamacare.

[ElNono]

Which commenters? JCWPolitics misses in the very first paragraph of his rebuttal. :blah narratives :blah

Add that one and:


It is not really what you think about the Ryan Budge, or how elegant your “sophistry” sounds, but rather what Grand-Ma in retirement in Ft Lauderdale thinks of the Ryan’s Medicare-busting plan.

Right now, the news out of Florida after this Ryan thing is not good for “your Team”…!

What a gift to Obama !


Both plans appear to be variations on the “force Americans to buy health insurance” theme, which is great for insurance companies and the health care industry. While I do like the inclusion of tort reform that was in Ryan’s initial plan (I haven’t read the Wyman-Ryan plan), none of these plans appear to have any significant benefit to Americans without the inclusion of cost controls. For example, the cost of a CAT scan can vary across the country, and even in the same city, from $270 to $4,800 (http://www.comparecatscancost.com/) – that’s just ridiculous. Charge whatever big bucks for non-essential medical procedures, but the inconsistent, runaway costs of essential medical services need to be controlled for any of these plans to offer real benefit to Americans.


I agree with JCWPolitics – the republicans might think that grandfathering in over-55s will make them neutral with seniors, but the fact is, anybody on Medicare isn’t going to buy the line “I’m a Republican and I’m here to help you.”


Good article helping to understand the difference between the two camps issues with Medicare. In order for the Roomey plan to work, Social Security payments will l have to be increased to accommodate the additional expenses incurred in the Medicare program. Many people on a fixed income cannot afford the added payments of Roomey’s Medicare.


Uh, last I checked the Ryan plan KEPT the Obama cuts to Medicare (savings, if you will), AND claims that his plan will “save” (cut) another $200b in the next decade.

Your claim that Obama has cut Medicare “more than Ryan/Romney plan to” is outright false, since their cuts are ON TOP OF Obama’s savings.

boutons post shouldn't be disregarded either:


When I heard that Mitt Romney selected Paul Ryan to be his running mate, I was thrilled because now I know for certain that President Obama will win re-election. It’s a great time to be an American.

:lol


When you start trying to "explain" something that's out there in the open from very specific/partisan lenses, you're actually diminishing the proposition, IMO. As I said before, time will say what people think of the Ryan plan. After all, it's out there for everyone to see.

[ElNono]

better yet, express your own objection to the Wyden-Ryan Medicare reform?

Already stated on the VP pick thread: does not addresses healthcare cost, and I think the vouchers are a terrible idea.

[Yonivore]

I said before, time will say what people think of the Ryan plan. After all, it's out there for everyone to see.
In an ABC/Washington Post Poll:

Near-Even Split on Ryan – But With Positive Movement (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/near-even-split-on-ryan-but-with-positive-movement/)


AGE and SEX – As noted, seniors are of interest given Ryan’s proposal to revamp Medicare with a system in which the government would give older Americans a fixed sum with which to buy insurance. They moved in Ryan’s favor, from a 28-28 percent favorable-unfavorable view prospectively to 46-28 percent this weekend. Again a sizable number, 26 percent, are undecided; debate over Ryan’s position on Medicare may inform their views.

[ElNono]

Time will tell what people think of the Ryan proposal.

[Yonivore]

Repeats himself.
You're right but, the difference now is Romney/Ryan have a national stage from which to draw the distinction between their plan and the Obama/Biden plan.

[Clipper Nation]

No shit seniors love Ryan, they're all neocons and Faux News told them Ryan was a good choice, so they automatically believe it....

[Yonivore]

No shit seniors love Ryan, they're all neocons and Faux News told them Ryan was a good choice, so they automatically believe it....
You guys need to pick a narrative. Either seniors love or hate Romney/Ryan; which is it?

[ElNono]

You're right but, the difference now is Romney/Ryan have a national stage from which to draw the distinction between their plan and the Obama/Biden plan.

I'm fine with that. I think both plans are dogshit and a lot of the same. Hopefully more people keep seeing that, and more apathy will keep growing with both parties.

[Yonivore]

I'm fine with that. I think both plans are dogshit and a lot of the same. Hopefully more people keep seeing that, and more apathy will keep growing with both parties.
How do you save Medicare?

Obama proposes a 13 member panel that will, ultimately, ration health care to pay for $500 billion he's already cut and another $200 billion to come at the end of the year.

Romney proposes maintaining the current plan while migrating those under 55 off, to a private plan.

What's yours? But, more importantly, at least for the next 3 months; who in the presidential field is being more dishonest about their plan?

[Clipper Nation]

You guys need to pick a narrative. Either seniors love or hate Romney/Ryan; which is it?

Seniors love Ryan would be the accurate narrative, tbh.... he's a neocon, slurped by Faux News, and his budget would reduce government to warmongering and Baby Boomer handouts tbh...

[ElNono]

How do you save Medicare?

You control costs. Neither plan addresses that, thus both plans are dogshit and keep kicking the can forward without addressing the real issue.

[Th'Pusher]

...conversation about Medicare reform.

Why the Democrats' 'Mediscare' Attack Won't Work Against Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/11/why-the-democrats-mediscare-attack-wont-work-against-paul-ryan/)

The Romney and Wyden-Ryan plans preserve traditional Medicare



Obama has cut Medicare more than Romney-Ryan would

Ryan's plan maintains the $700B in medicare cuts the ACA enacted. How is this having an adult conversation on medicare reform? As Chuck Todd points out nicely in this exchange, this is not a debate republicans actually want to have.

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/meet-the-press/48637044#48637044

Watching Rich Lowry tap dance here is comical. If nothing else, hopefully this will push Obama to put some substantive proposals on the table on how to reform a currently unsustainable medicare program.

[SnakeBoy]

You control costs.

How?

[ElNono]

How?

There's different ways to address it. You could start by letting Medicare negotiate drug prices like the VA does. Cap profit margins on services, etc.

This isn't rocket science. Almost every country outside of the US figured it out a long time ago, and they pay between 1/2 to 1/3 of what the US pays per capita for the same drugs or services. Why do you think the exact same drug in the US costs 4x-5x what it costs in Canada? Because Canada sat down and told pharma if you want to sell this drug here, you're only going to make this much over the cost of it. Germany, on the other hand, let's them charge whatever they want for just one year, then the drug is re-priced to "similar drugs that have similar effects".

If strict price controls over everything like Canada is too much, then let's look at a hybrid system. Expand Medicare for everyone but only cover 'basic' (and what 'basic' is can vary, but let's pretend it's non-catastrophic for sake of argument) and apply the strict price controls there. That way you can purchase catastrophic insurance with a much lower premium now, since they wouldn't need to cover basic stuff nor manage your healthcare, and pharma/services can still charge their exorbitant margins for the premium stuff.

There's plenty of options out there, but in one way or another they simply mess up the profits of a couple of very rich industries, which unfortunately spend a great deal of money influencing DC. And this is why we end up discussing plans that don't deal with the actual issue at all.

[boutons_deux]

To hide Ryan's plan to destroy medicare and enrich the for-profit insurance companies (with Ryan's too-small vouchers), Yoni and his right-wing LIE MACHINE are going full blast

Fox Falsely Claims Obama Is Gutting Medicare While Ryan Is Trying To Save It

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/08/12/fox-falsely-claims-obama-is-gutting-medicare-wh/189293


Rep. Ryan Repeats Zombie Lie that ACA Cut Medicare Spending, And George Stephanopoulos Lets Him Get Away With It

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/rep-ryan-repeats-zombie-lie-aca-cut-m

the zombie lie is all over the VRWC propaganda machine, and our resident bald-faced LIAR yoni is runing with it.

Steve Forbes, just another rich asshole born wealthy and fucking the 99%.

[Agloco]

There's different ways to address it. You could start by letting Medicare negotiate drug prices like the VA does. Cap profit margins on services, etc.

This isn't rocket science. Almost every country outside of the US figured it out a long time ago, and they pay between 1/2 to 1/3 of what the US pays per capita for the same drugs or services. Why do you think the exact same drug in the US costs 4x-5x what it costs in Canada? Because Canada sat down and told pharma if you want to sell this drug here, you're only going to make this much over the cost of it. Germany, on the other hand, let's them charge whatever they want for just one year, then the drug is re-priced to "similar drugs that have similar effects".

If strict price controls over everything like Canada is too much, then let's look at a hybrid system. Expand Medicare for everyone but only cover 'basic' (and what 'basic' is can vary, but let's pretend it's non-catastrophic for sake of argument) and apply the strict price controls there. That way you can purchase catastrophic insurance with a much lower premium now, since they wouldn't need to cover basic stuff nor manage your healthcare, and pharma/services can still charge their exorbitant margins for the premium stuff.

There's plenty of options out there, but in one way or another they simply mess up the profits of a couple of very rich industries, which unfortunately spend a great deal of money influencing DC. And this is why we end up discussing plans that don't deal with the actual issue at all.

What effect, if any, do you see price controls having on R&D?

[elbamba]

How?

One way you can reduce costs would be to force all medical providers to list prices. Imagine if you could actually shop for medical service the way you would purchase a laptop, TV or lawnmower. We don't do this because everything has been prenegotiated with our insurance providers. Once we cover our premiums someone else picks up the bill so who cares.

We just had a baby a few months ago. We are starting to get the insurance statements and bills that come with having a baby. The hospital charged something like $250 to check my wife's tempature. There were about 50 charges on the bill altogether. It amazes me at all the random pricing of services. Not to mention the ten bills that come later for services for my baby, only part of that is covered in the hospital bill.

If Americans could shop prices instead of our insurance providers, costs would almost certainly come down in my humble opinion.

[boutons_deux]

one great way to reduce costs is follow the example of adult countries not owned/operated by the for-profit corporations.

1. pay for training of govt-employed doctors who work on straight salaries (no fee for service) in primary care. After 10 years in primary care, they can move up to specialties. After 25 years, they can move into private practice.

2. Force BigPharma's and BigDevices' prices into cut-throat negotiation f.

3. introduce a hard-core public health insurance plan paid for out of ALL income, taken out of income like ss, IRS, and employer health insurance.

4. allow employees to opt of employer for-profit insurance for the public option (they are now forbidden from buying in the insurance exchanges)

5. Pay the relocation/housing costs of primary care doctors and nurses who move to underserved inner city and rural areas.

The US health system is fixable, but the for-profit gamers who own/profit from the current dysfunctional system will block reform (block legislation)

[Drachen]

What effect, if any, do you see price controls having on R&D?

Sadly I would see it coming down since, without the US subsidizing the rest of the world's R&D, the money probably wouldn't be there. However this may cause the other countries to restart R&D. Who knows.

[boutons_deux]

Pump $10Bs of taxpayer money into "for results" R & D instead "for profits" medical R & D.

(BigPharma spends $60B/year on marketing alone. double what it spends on research)

Govt to finance/ research products that are manufactured under contract to US corps only, with all mfring required in USA. Profit margins on drug + device mfring to be regulated, like a public utility.

[boutons_deux]

Can't talk about health care reform without fixing the corrupted, compromised UCA-owned FDA

Intimidation, retaliation and marginalizing of safety at the FDA

The FDA is often accused of serving industry at the expense of consumers. But even FDA defenders are shocked by recent reports of an institutionalized FDA spying program on its own scientists, lawmakers, reporters and academics that included an enemies list of "actors" and collaborators.

The paranoid and retaliatory email monitoring program, which sought to suppress the safety opinions of those hired to give their safety opinions, has provoked swift action from Capitol Hill. "I am writing to express my disappointment and disbelief with the way the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has retaliated against whistleblowers who expressed concern to Members of Congress and the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) regarding safety concerns about medical products," wrote Sen. Charles E. Grassley, (R-IA), Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary to FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, the day after the breadth of the surveillance was reported in the New York Times.

Government agencies cannot discourage whistleblowing and reporting of wrongdoing by monitoring employees, echoed a White House memo sent to all government agencies about the FDA spy program.

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=651

[ElNono]

What effect, if any, do you see price controls having on R&D?

I expect some effect. It's difficult to quantify though. Right now we're on the absolute opposite end: almost half of their budget or more is spent on just marketing. Universities aren't going anywhere, and some R&D is done there too. Plus, as Drachen said, we're subsidizing R&D and marketing for the rest of the world right now. As I said in my previous post, you can nuance the effect by concentrating it on just a subset of the area. But something needs to be done with costs. They're way out of hand, and it's clear that expecting insurance companies to bring those costs down hasn't worked.

[ElNono]

One way you can reduce costs would be to force all medical providers to list prices. Imagine if you could actually shop for medical service the way you would purchase a laptop, TV or lawnmower. We don't do this because everything has been prenegotiated with our insurance providers. Once we cover our premiums someone else picks up the bill so who cares.

We just had a baby a few months ago. We are starting to get the insurance statements and bills that come with having a baby. The hospital charged something like $250 to check my wife's tempature. There were about 50 charges on the bill altogether. It amazes me at all the random pricing of services. Not to mention the ten bills that come later for services for my baby, only part of that is covered in the hospital bill.

If Americans could shop prices instead of our insurance providers, costs would almost certainly come down in my humble opinion.

I agree too. The billing part of this thing is a major ordeal right now, and rarely, if ever, you get to see prices before any procedure.

[Winehole23]

I’m a little late to this particular party (I’m still in Canada, for my last theatrical jaunt northward of the summer), but I just wanted to chime in to say: neither the Obama nor the Romney campaign’s Medicare attacks entirely make sense. If you just look at the question of bending the cost curve, the competing plans have more in common than not. Moreover, the Romney-Ryan approach (if we assume it will be based on the most recent Ryan plan) specifically depends on something like ACA to function at all.http://www.theamericanconservative.com/millman/mediscares-all-around/

[Winehole23]

Romney and Obama are Both Medicare Double-Counters


By Josh Barro Aug 24, 2012 9:00 AM CT



One of the Obama administration's talking points in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been that the law extends the solvency of the Medicare trust fund (http://topics.bloomberg.com/trust-fund/). By slowing the growth of Medicare spending, the law postpones the date when the Medicare Trust Fund will be exhausted (http://www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=3956&intNumPerPage=1000&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=0&srchOpt=0&srchData=&keywordType=All&chkNewsType=1%2C+2%2C+3%2C+4%2C+5&intPage=&showAll=1&pYear=1&year=2011&desc=false&cboOrder=date) to 2024 from 2016.


Conservatives have typically responded that this claim involves double counting. The law cuts Medicare spending in order to make funds available to finance and expansion of Medicaid and subsidies for middle-income people to buy private health insurance. If the money is being spent on a new benefit, it can't also be used to shore up Medicare.
The president's double count is actually in line with the silly law that governs the Medicare Trust Fund -- more on that later -- but as a matter of measuring fiscal sustainability, the conservative critics are right: You can't spend money and say it's being set aside to cover debts due in the future.


But now, Mitt Romney (http://topics.bloomberg.com/mitt-romney/) is doing a Medicare double-count of his own which is in line with neither the law nor any reasonable yardstick for fiscal sustainability. Campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul says Romney's plan (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/undoing-obama-medicare-cuts-may-backfire-romney) will "repeal Obamacare and replace it with patient-centered reforms that control cost throughout the health care system and extend the solvency of Medicare."


It's hard to see how that can be the case. Romney would repeal the Medicaid and insurance subsidy provisions in Affordable Care Act, theoretically freeing up those funds to shore up Medicare. But he has also pledged to restore the law''s $716 billion in scheduled Medicare cuts over the next decade -- that is, Romney will take the money he saves on Medicaid and spend it on Medicare. If he says these savings will also shore up the Medicare trust fund, he is double counting, too.


The main reason that politicians are able to so abuse the Medicare trust fund in their discussions of it is that the trust fund makes little sense as a fiscal concept. Like the Social Security Trust Fund, it is an accounting fiction. There is no pool of investments in the fund, just Treasury bonds that list the federal government as both creditor and debtor.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-24/romney-and-obama-are-both-medicare-double-counters.html

[Winehole23]

It's a point that Ryan himself made in his speech accepting the vice presidential nod on Wednesday night. Attacking Obama's health care reform law, Ryan said its "biggest, coldest power play of all" targeted seniors for $716 billion in cuts. But Ryan's own budget counted on those same savings, which in fact would be squeezed from reimbursement payments to hospitals and insurers. Asked about the inconsistency of Ryan attacking cuts his own plan embraced, Cantor begged off. "The assumption was that, um, the, the, ah, again — I probably can't speak to that in an exact way so I better just not," he said.http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/30/cantor-says-romney-ryan-offer-detailed-plan-but-cant-name-details/

[Winehole23]

The Virginia Republican said his party is laying out a path to salvage the long-term solvency of Medicare. And he took on President Obama for engaging in "scare tactics" over those entitlement reforms in the Ryan-authored House GOP budget. "At the same time, he is the one who is taking massive amounts of cash out of very popular programs like Medicare Advantage and the prescription drug program," Cantor said. "This directly impacts seniors."same

[Winehole23]

full on schizo. Republicans are talking out of both sides of their mouths on Medicare.

[Winehole23]

and scaring seniors, which used to me a Democrat speciality.

[boutons_deux]

The Medicare Killers

It finally may have dispelled the myth that he is a Serious, Honest Conservative. Indeed, Mr. Ryan’s brazen dishonesty left even his critics breathless.

But Mr. Ryan’s big lie — and, yes, it deserves that designation — was his claim that “a Romney-Ryan administration will protect and strengthen Medicare.” Actually, it would kill the program.


The Republican Party is now firmly committed to replacing Medicare with what we might call Vouchercare. The government would no longer pay your major medical bills; instead, it would give you a voucher that could be applied to the purchase of private insurance. And, if the voucher proved insufficient to buy decent coverage, hey, that would be your problem.

Moreover, the vouchers almost certainly would be inadequate; their value would be set by a formula taking no account of likely increases in health care costs.

Why would anyone think that this was a good idea? The G.O.P. platform says that it “will empower millions of seniors to control their personal health care decisions.” Indeed. Because those of us too young for Medicare just feel so personally empowered, you know, when dealing with insurance companies.

Still, wouldn’t private insurers reduce costs through the magic of the marketplace? No. All, and I mean all, the evidence says that public systems like Medicare and Medicaid, which have less bureaucracy than private insurers (if you can’t believe this, you’ve never had to deal with an insurance company) and greater bargaining power, are better than the private sector at controlling costs.

You can see this fact in the history of Medicare Advantage, which is run through private insurers and has consistently had higher costs than traditional Medicare. You can see it from comparisons between Medicaid and private insurance: Medicaid costs much less. And you can see it in international comparisons: The United States has the most privatized health system in the advanced world and, by far, the highest health costs.

So Vouchercare would mean higher costs and lower benefits for seniors. Over time, the Republican plan wouldn’t just end Medicare as we know it, it would kill the thing Medicare is supposed to provide: universal access to essential care. Seniors who couldn’t afford to top up their vouchers with a lot of additional money would just be out of luck.

Still, the G.O.P. promises to maintain Medicare as we know it for those currently over 55. Should everyone born before 1957 feel safe? Again, no.

For one thing, repeal of Obamacare would cause older Americans to lose a number of significant benefits that the law provides, including the way it closes the “doughnut hole” in drug coverage and the way it protects early retirees.

Beyond that, the promise of unchanged benefits for Americans of a certain age just isn’t credible. Think about the political dynamics that would arise once someone born in 1956 still received full Medicare while someone born in 1959 couldn’t afford decent coverage. Do you really think that would be a stable situation? For sure, it would unleash political warfare between the cohorts — and the odds are high that older cohorts would soon find their alleged guarantees snatched away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/opinion/Krugman.html?_r=1

[boutons_deux]

...conversation about Medicare reform.

Why the Democrats' 'Mediscare' Attack Won't Work Against Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney (http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/11/why-the-democrats-mediscare-attack-wont-work-against-paul-ryan/)

The Romney and Wyden-Ryan plans preserve traditional Medicare



Obama has cut Medicare more than Romney-Ryan would

"research from three liberal Harvard researchers"

who paid for the research?

who identifies/confirms them as "liberal"?

[Winehole23]

As President Obama and Democrats try to salvage the reputation of the Affordable Care Act, a national Republican group will hit 12 Democrats–all running in Senate elections next year–over changes to Medicare. The National Republican Senatorial Committee will highlight Wednesday the candidates' support for the federal health care law, better known as Obamacare, and what Republicans call $717 billion in cuts to the popular entitlement program that guarantees health insurance to seniors.http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/04/first-on-cnn-republicans-bring-back-medicare-attack/

[boutons_deux]

"salvage the reputation of the Affordable Care Act"

it will salvage itself from the Repug/tea bagger sabotage. The Repugs will have to salvage themselves from their red states poor who won't get Medicaid nor health insurance.

So House Repugs voted multiple times to approve Ryan's severe MEDICARE/SS-cutting budgets, and now they plan to attack the Dems for the not-credible cut of $770B? :lol

[Winehole23]

why not? should rile up the party base about as well as the last time

[Th'Pusher]

why not? should rile up the party base about as well as the last time

You mean when Romney used it? It will likely be just as successful.

[Winehole23]

was it particularly unsuccessful last time?

Romney didn't win, but I'm not sure I'd put that down, as you seem to suggest, to the GOP adopting the traditional Democratic Party tactic of demagoguing Medicare.