Posted on 02/10/2010 9:06:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Yup.
Right now, there are just three Republican cnogressmen I have much real confidence in: Senator DeMint and Reps Michelle Bachman, and Pual Ryan. Pual Ryan is a young man that is going to go places.
“Ryan has put a credible plan on the table. It isn’t perfect, but no plan for controlling the cost growth at the heart of the entitlement problem is going to be uncontroversial. As Ryan put it to me, “If we are going to get serious about controlling costs, then either the individual is going to be in control of their health-care decisions or government is going to be in control.” Putting the individual in control sounds like the no-brainer choice, but in the past voters have expressed a preference for less risk, not more control, when it comes to their post-retirement well-being. Getting Republicans to embrace the politically perilous task of explaining to people that the status quo entails more risk, not less, will be no easy feat.”
__________________________________________________________
A reasonable plan, something to unite behind.
Reasonable as opposed to the unreasonable plan; and the unsustainable reality of the current plans.
Let us not bicker over the details too much. get behind Nothing will be perfect. Let us get headed in the right direction.
Whenever we hear the canard that Republicans are simply the party of of NO and have never submitted a cogent, alternative plan ( as Obama keeps repeating ad nauseum), here is EXHIBIT A of a cogent plan.
I’d like to read or hear a critique of this.
Any chance of a 1994 re-dux where EVERY republican shows up for a presser on the steps of the White House to back this plan?
that’s what’s needed to get any REAL attention from State-run media.
I won’t hold my breath. The RINOs want to ‘reach across the aisle’ and ‘compromise’ away our freedom.
To get them to pass TORT REFORM in a hurdle that can not be too high. For obvious reasons. It has helped bring doctors to Texas, since there was a dollar limit passed.
It is a fight worth fighting. Law suites has changed the face and process of nearly all avenues of existence.
Ryan fought FOR the passage of the bailout...
To me, that is an unforgivable deed.
I’ve looked at Paul Ryan’s roadmap. I’m not a big fan; he seems to intentionally limit his scope and objectives under the assumption that significant reform, rather than actual elimination of federal waste and bureaucracy, is the best we can hope for.
It’s a good starting point, but I wish his objective would have been a return to truly limited government.
Actually no it isn't. Costs of malpractice lawsuits in the form of payouts and premiums totaled about $30 billion in 2007. That's out of a $2 trillion plus healthcare industry. So do away with malpractice costs altogether and you're saving maybe 1 or 2 percent.
This is a possible solution to the exponentially increasing costs of entitlements, it isn’t an alternative to Obama’s healthcare for all. But at the end of the day, it’s the growth in entitlements that is the real disaster looming on the horizon and any plan that tries to tame that is something worth getting behind.
You may be aware that many companies are now paying into high deductible Health Savings Accounts as a tool to get their employees to move off their current plans which are larded up with state mandates.
For example, here in SW Pennsylvania, winos and druggies have a powerful lobby so companies HAVE to include "substance abuse" treatment in their policies even when you have to pass a drug test to get a job there! Over in Delaware, the gay lobby is powerful, so AIDS coverage and similar behavioral diseases are mandated so the favored group can pick the pockets of the other pool of insured.
If SocSec and Medicare are going broke, adding another major government program won't get us to more limited government and less government intrusion. Congress has three options for funding these failed entitlement programs. Raise taxes, cut benefits or some combination of the two. My guess is, the Feds will choose to raise taxes significantly and raise the retirement age to 70. While limiting benefits for SocSec recipients through freezes of COLA’s, (annual cost of living adjustments). A similiar plan to what the Greenspan Commission gave Reagan in 1983. Another short term quick fix.
It may be roadmap for a plan, And if the demons want to critisize it out of hand, then they will continue to prove that they don’t want a bill formed through bipartisanship. They only want their plan approved by bipartisan vote.
Go ahead BO, my family travels on your dime pelosi and the IBS poster boy reid. Critisize it show the nation that your version of “CHANGE SUCKS”!
>>>Something missing in the plan — WHERE’s TORT REFORM ??
Most medical malpractice cases take place in state courts. Limits at the federal level would have little impact, unless you are also suggesting these limits be imposed upon the states as well.
What is the cost of defensive medicine (tests/procedures doctors perform to lessen the likelihood of a malpractice suit)? I work in the medical field and I know there are significant costs associated with defensive medicine.
Tort reform, high risk pools (for pre-x conditions) interstate marketing and portability all would lower premiums for most Americans.
Medicaid reform and a total ban on "cost shifting" by hospitals.
Whenever they talk about "risisng healthcare costs" it's largely because the RATs are expanding medicaid and not paying their bills and reimbursing at a ridiculously low rate...the hospitals recoup costs by gouging the insured and cash paying customers.
People keep saying that, but a much bigger factor is the fact that many people are isolated from the marginal costs of their health care decisions. If a $100 drug works better than a $5 drug, but the $5 works well enough that someone, given a choice, would prefer to have the $5 drug plus $50 in his pocket, there's no reason why the person should buy the $100 drug; his doing so destroys $45 of wealth. On the other hand, if the person's "insurance" will allow him to buy the $100 drug for $20, and if he'd rather have the expensive drug than have the $5 one $15 in his pocket, there's no reason for the person not to choose the more expensive one.
Reconnecting decisions and costs would require some major insurance reforms, including replacing today's so-called "insurance" with real insurance. I've not seen much talk of that, though.
How will reducing revenues fund anything?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.