Posted on 08/12/2012 10:42:36 PM PDT by Praxeologue
OK, then show me the path to 270 EC votes using what you’ve just told me as your political platform.
Competition among CONSUMERS.
This will lower prices or at least keep them down whereas with choices limited to bureacrats and employers prices now are on track to skyrocket.
As people see medical care come within their reach and their choices are being respected in the market again hope and confidence return.
Then you can have further reforms such as tort reform and insurance across state lines. And reforms will continue for some time. Later, States will want a larger say which will end up reducing the cost for the Federal Gov't even more.
“Premium support”—that is, government funding of private insurance plans chosen by individuals—is an option for those who choose it. No senior would be forced out of the traditional Medicare program against his will. And third, overall funding for Medicare under the Ryan-Wyden plan is scheduled to grow at the same rate as under President Obama’s proposals.
Those most likely to burden the system will gravitate to the government option. Only the healthy will purchase private insurance.
Does this sound like a budget-balancing market-driven plan to you?
This piece deliberately misses ObamaCare's take over of all healthcare with a plan for Medicare which is already a government program with rules as to who does what, when and for how much.
As a divide and conqueror hit piece, it's a failure.
Ron Wyden must've awaked with a horse head in is bed. He's not running away from his co-authorship in the Wyden-Ryan Medicare reform plan and attacking Romney for talking about it. Dems now say co-authorship between one Dem and one Rep. doesn't make a plan "bipartisan."
I guess Wyden forgets he stood with Paul Ryan at the announcement and called it "our plan." Rush said "60 Minutes" cut from broadcast Paul Ryan discussing the Medicare plan's origins with Clinton's Medicare task force. Rush said the clip is online. I don't remember seeing it when I watched the edited version of the interview streamed at cbsnews.com.
The same argument was used by Karl Rove to push for Medicare Part D, Title 10, Prescription Drug Plan. This madness needs to stop.
It's a given that Obamacare must be repealed. Replacing it with a plan that is market-driven in name only and costing just as much, is no solution.
Not when they see the private market alternatives.
Lower costs, better choices, better doctors.
Plus, you can keep what you don't spend.
This will not be an instant solution but a great step in the right direction. More solutions then will happen over time as people are convinced that the Fed Gov't is not the only way.
You’re confusing two things. You cannot implement policy unless you win. Rove was wrong and it was bad policy from square one. It was a very stupid and unnecessary political move as well.
Romney has to win to implement policy. He’ll reverse Obamacare by granting waivers the first day. That will allow federalism to work. Isn’t that the goal?
There won’t be anything left to keep, unless you opt not to buy the insurance, at all.
I would imagine that details must be worked out on the Ryan plan, but I suspect that the credit for insurance will be a tax deduction, rather than an out and out credit. Otherwise, we would end up with people pocketing the tax credit and showing up at the hospital without insurance.
So, if a person opts for basic no frills medicare, they will get the rationed low level coverage that would be offered by Obamacare. If you want better you get the tax credit and buy the coverage that you want. What won’t happen, is the return of corporate supplemental policies, which many companies have gone to. I just don’t see companies that have switched to supplemental policies for retirees, switching again. I think that corporations will just say, you’re on your own, once you retire. That’s coming anyway, with Obamacare, or without it.
Doctors don't want Medicare patients because Medicare doesn't pay enough. Patients know; we all know; that Medicare alone is not adequate for our health care. And yet Medicare is single-handedly bankrupting the country. That is all pre-Obamacare, which would just compound the problem: more spending and poorer care.
So Ryan presents a vague plan that gives the illusion of being market-driven, yet will, IMO, result in half the population, because of income, age, ill health, ignorance or fraud, selecting the government option; plus silver bullets like block grants and and an eligibility increase to sixty-seven in the distant future. All this will cost, they trumpet to put recipients' minds at rest, just as much as Medicare costs now, even though Ryan's March press release claimed an $800 billion saving over ten years.
How does this improve the quality of health care? It doesn't.
How does this slow us down as we hurtle toward the fiscal cliff? It doesn't.
The bigger problem is that it, once again, gives us false hope, the illusion of progress, like the debt limit. Meanwhile. the fiscal clock keeps ticking.
I have been thinking that waivers should be granted to every state who signed on to the anti-Obamacare law suits. It would be no different than the waivers that Obama issued.
In fact, the opposite would occur. The high-risk population will take the government plan since private insurance will cost more. The low-risk population may still take the government plan, since they are healthy and look after themselves, but may opt for private insurance.
Grant a blanket waiver to every state, but make it affirmative. That will put Dem governors and legislators on notice. If they want Obamacare let them have it.
Therein lies the risk. We are reading the tea leaves to estimate what Romney will do, versus what he says he will do. At the moment it is not looking good.
Ryan was on the right track until March. Now that Ryan has been selected as the Vice Presidential nominee, he should convince Romney that their Medicare platform should be fleshed out in detail, quickly. At the moment, it will please none of the political spectrum. There is currently a furious effort from the Bush wing to dress up Ryan's vague proposal as just what the doctor ordered. This won't withstand scrutiny for three months.
Ryan should go back to elements of his pre-March plan, set them out in detail, demonstrate political courage, and sell it to the public. Ryan now has everyone's ear as he has never had before. This is his skill set, so he should be good at it. Romney would be well advised to go along with that plan if he wants to win.
As far as I understand it, if you can find insurance for less than your premium, you can pocket the difference. Thus, there is a HUGE incentive for private insurers to undercut each other because everyone knows people want to keep as much as possible.
I'm under the impression it's more like a voucher...and if you have it you cannot show up at the hospital without insurance.
Corporate insurance has always covered pre-existing conditions. I haven’t heard of a corporate plan turning down an employee for a pre-existing condition for years. It shouldn’t be the huge problem that people make it out to be.
I remember years ago, I had a friend who was hired and then fired from Univac because her employment physical showed that she could be pre-diabetic, but that was years and years ago. Things like that just don’t happen now days.
Where I disagree with you is that people are not anxious for government health care. Seniors are not excited about being put on medicare. No one looks forward to the dependency of government rationed care. I hate depending on Aetna, let alone medicare, and I still maintain that you will get a lower level of care and coverage with the government plans. Oh, they might take higher-risk enrollees, but that doesn’t mean that those higher risk enrollees will get the same coverage that they would get from a private insurer at a higher cost. Insurance is like anything else, you usually get what you pay for.
I was just talking to someone who spent years living in Norway and she was telling me a little about the much vaunted socialist system in Norway. A doctor in Norway makes the same as a bus driver, about $32,000 a year. So, there is a shortage of good doctors, waits are long and much of the time patients are treated by general practitioners instead of specialists. That’s where government health care, including medicare is headed. The current level of coverage might remain the same, but the delivery will change as will the treatment. Good enough for government work will become the motto, of government paid health care providers.
That wouldn’t work because people would still show up at the hospital without coverage. It’s human nature. They could put the additional funds into a health savings account for people who purchased policies that cost less than the credit, but you cannot just give people money for health insurance and expect them to be responsible. It won’t happen. The money has to be in the form of a credit and like I said any extra, could go into a health savings account to pay for deductibles or other medical expenses.
I cannot take you seriously.
Romney would be well advised to go along with that plan if he wants to win.
That's why you wouldn't win. The polling says caution.
Here’s their plan and it is so good 60 minutes edited it out.
Here’s a link to the clip along with some analysis: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/13/video-romney-ryan-play-offense-on-medicare-in-60-minutes-appearance/
Kennard’s absolutely wrong about Romney and Ryan. There are too many FReepers carrying water for Obama. Let’s stop the circular firing squad and nail the real enemies.
Once they win we can set our conservative Congress on them and move the ball forward. Grow the economic pie and the rest will follow.
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.