Reply With Quote
Yep.
Someone tell me again how much Obamacare cuts medicare please.
...conversation about Medicare reform.
Why the Democrats' 'Mediscare' Attack Won't Work Against Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney
The Romney and Wyden-Ryan plans preserve traditional Medicare
Obama has cut Medicare more than Romney-Ryan wouldAs we’ve do ented 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 “compe ive 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.
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, 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, 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 compe ive bidding with premium support, is almost certain to generate even greater efficiencies and savings.
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.
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.
Add that one and:Which commenters? JCWPolitics misses in the very first paragraph of his rebuttal.narratives
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.boutons post shouldn't be disregarded either: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.
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.
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.
Already stated on the VP pick thread: does not addresses healthcare cost, and I think the vouchers are a terrible idea.
In an ABC/Washington Post Poll:
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.
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.
No 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?
I'm fine with that. I think both plans are dog 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?
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...
You control costs. Neither plan addresses that, thus both plans are dog and keep kicking the can forward without addressing the real issue.
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-...37044#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.
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.
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...care-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-madr...-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 ing the 99%.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 08-14-2012 at 05:36 AM.
What effect, if any, do you see price controls having on R&D?
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.
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)
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
