They are just two of many FAILed Democrat programs (SS is another) - yet the GOP never publicly makes the link.
After all, it isn't perfect. So what are the flaws as you see it ?
I hope to read some great discussions.
Rick Santorum articulated the Ryan Medicare plan very well on last Friday’s ‘Morning in America’ show (Bill Bennett). Although Santorum is not in my top five, he was very good on this issue. Republicans still need to find their voices and get their message out in a way that it can’t be demagogued by the Left and the media. They have the right policy, know the details, it’s the messaging that gets lost. I read Ryan’s plan and thought I understood it...but Santorum’s explanation and now this article essentially laying it out, helps my understanding even more.
Ryan plan ping! Not a bad article and is worth reading,
It lays out the argument that future seniors (those 65 in 10 years) would be better off under the Ryan plan than the (current) medicare with the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) cost savings passed under Obama-care. But the Ryan plan would have made that case better (giving it a chance to pass ) if they let future seniors choose between the privatized plan and the government run alternative. And also why not start that process immediately phasing it in for everyone rather than waiting 10 years? Except for political reasons.
Each one of the bullet points in this article is wrong, a lie, or a lie of omission in at least one way.
To start, this isn’t a good article to try to talk about Ryan’s plan.
So, for much of the last decade, the cost of senior care has been between 2.5 and 3 times the CPI inflation rate. Compound that by 10 years to get us to the proposed 2021. 11,000 won’t seem like much when your yearly medical expenses are closer to $30k. ON top of that, the median income today is 44k or so nationwide, in ten years it should be nearly double that as inflation creates wage inflation at some point in QE5000, and just like the Alternative Minimum Tax, Congress will purposefully refuse to raise the cap at a realistic Inflation Index, steadily shrinking the number of households that receive subisidies at each tier.
This was done by design at the Heritage Foundation using fantasy scenario projections that make Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph look like a reasonable prediction for the submergence of Tuvalu by 2021. Ryan’s plan is specifically designed to erode Medicare purchasing power through manipulation of the basket of goods in the CPI.
THen, after the nation realises they will be losing the purchasing power of their Medicare coverage each of their remaining golden years, Ryan’s plan forces them to play Russian roulette with their own lives, empty chamber you lose, loaded chamber the Federal government wins.
QUOTE:
Each patient would select from the approved list a plan best matching his or her expected healthcare needs for the coming year. Medicare would reimburse the health plan a fixed amount of money for each enrollee for premium payment support. If the Medicare-provided assistance exceeded the premium required for the selected plan, that excess would be credited to a “Medical Savings Account” (MSA) for the beneficiary’s future use.
END QUOTE:
This is just insane...$11k NPV 2011, will be something like $5k or $6k (present discounted value 2011) in 2021, no matter how many years you are healthy on Medicare, your first hospital stay will wipe out your MSA, the hospitals and insurers will lobby to make withdrawals from MSAs as difficult as possible for non-hospital expenses, If the MSA is given the same regulations as HSAs under ObamaCare (or Obamacare’s replacement), you’ll need a doctor’s prescription to deduct OTC medicines and medical equipment purchases against your MSA.
So what is the MSA?
it’s a carrot for retards.
Is the monthly cost of the current Medicare scheduled to double in the next two years the way many e-mails I have received warn?
BUMP
bttt
I’ve heard lots of talk about Ryan’s plan.
I’ve heard no one explain, specifically, how Ryan’s plan “saves” Medicare.
What say?
We lived in Germany under the German health system, with our federal health benefits plan. The German system works very well, even though it had to undergo major changes after the Berlin wall fell and the east and west German sectors were reunited. As “private pay” customers, our rates were VERY good and we submitted for reimbursement after the visit. MRIs are very inexpensive there, as are many things. Office visits were about $50, but often included some form of treatment, such as a sonogram for my thyroid, etc. EKGs were inexpensive and done in the GP’s office. You could wait a couple hours sometimes to be seen, but you’d be seen. As a school nurse, I often sent my military parents to the local KinderKlinik as they had superior care and never turned anybody away. They were not able to be seen at the Army clinic if they called after a certain time, anyway, so most of them waited so they could then do a walk-in at the Kinderklinik. Germany has certain rates they pay to all doctors and elective things are either a co-pay or you totally pay for yourself, if it is not a health issue, but a cosmetic one. To me, this makes sense. WHy should an insurance company (and all their constituents) pay for someone’s sex change or face lift? I think that under Ryan’s plan, all doctors would see an increase in their take home pay, if we can also bring tort reform. I’d love it if the Supreme Court put a cap on awards. I know there are always that one case that should be different, but for the most part, settlements are way over and above what is reasonable. You cannot afford that much in liability insurance, and many doctors and nurses who are NOT guilty, settle out of court in order to keep the cost lower and protect your reputation. Doctors and nurses who merit several complaints in their files should have their licenses revoked or put on probation. The “bad eggs” make the cost of doing business high for everyone. IN Germany, it is difficult to sue a doctor. There are no frivolous lawsuits, just because you didn’t like what the doctor said, or the doctor used 3 stitches to sew you up instead of 6, etc. That keeps the cost of health care down. Doctors who get in trouble there do not continue to practice. Period.
For the first 10 years both plans are nearly identical in gut & cut. Then Ryan’s plan diverges and gets to whacky to follow.
Neither plan goes to the heart of the problem. THE 40+ years of donor palm greasing, which drives up the cost of Medicare tremendously. Neither plan addresses the $60 Billion in fraud and waste. Neither plan addresses the red tape that adds to the cost of medical care. They don’t address the illegals on Medicare.
Neither plan has patient input, only lobbyist who mostly are former congress people and donor professionals.
Health Issues
May 27, 2011
Mediscare: The Surprising Truth
The Obama administration has repeatedly claimed that the health reform bill it passed last year improved Medicare’s finances. This claim is true only because ObamaCare explicitly commits to cutting health care spending for the elderly and the disabled in future years, say Thomas R. Saving, a senior fellow, and John C. Goodman, president, at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Almost no one familiar with the numbers thinks that the planned cuts are politically feasible. But suppose the law is implemented just as it’s written. In that case, according to the Medicare Trustees, Medicare’s long-term unfunded liability fell by $53 trillion on the day ObamaCare was signed.
But at what cost to the elderly?
* Under the new law, the average amount spent on people reaching age 65 this year over the remainder of their lives will fall by about $36,000 at today’s prices; equivalent to about three years of benefits.
* For 55-year-olds, the spending decrease is about $62,000 — or the equivalent of six years of benefits.
* For 45-year-olds, the loss is more than $105,000, or nine years of benefits.
In terms of the sheer dollars involved, the law’s reduction in future Medicare payments is the equivalent of raising the eligibility age for Medicare to age 68 for today’s 65-year-olds, to age 71 for 55-year-olds and to age 74 for 45-year-olds.
Are there better ways of solving the problem? Yes, say Saving and Goodman.
* First, there must be general system reform.
* Second, if federal spending is to be contained, young people need to be able to save in tax-free accounts during their working years in order to replace the dollars they will not be getting from Medicare.
* Finally, providers need to be able to repackage and reprice their services under Medicare in ways that lower costs and improve quality.
Source: Thomas R. Saving and John C. Goodman, “Mediscare: The Surprising Truth,” Wall Street Journal, May 27, 2011.
For text:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576345732775990392.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
What does this mean in terms of access to health care? No one knows for sure, but it almost certainly means that seniors will have difficulty finding doctors who will see them and hospitals who will admit them. Once admitted, they will enjoy fewer amenities such as private rooms and probably a lower quality of care as well.
Mediscare: The Surprising Truth
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576345732775990392.html
Of greater political interest is the House Republican budget proposal, sponsored by Mr. Ryan. This proposal largely matches the new law’s Medicare cuts for the next 10 years and then provides new enrollees with a sum of money to apply to private insurance (premium support).
............................................................
All right went through these, only the Heritage report (middle one) is worth the effort to read. They address the red tape problem for the medical system, but not the problems the patient faces because of Medicare red tape/regs.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/05/10/heritage-foundation-takes-ryan-plan-a-step-further/
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/05/ten-myths-of-ryans-house-budget-plan
http://blog.heritage.org/?p=58005