A conservative economist explains why Ryan's budget plan is all wrong for the GOP

Fox News ^ | March 14, 2013 | Peter Morici

[Bratch]

Republicans are losing elections they could win by slavishly clinging to untenable solutions for skyrocketing health care costs that voters reject.

The House Budget Committee, chaired by Paul Ryan, is proposing a plan to balance the budget in 10 years. That requires lowering the trajectory of Medicaid and Medicare costs, which account for 24 percent of federal spending.

Ryan proposes offering seniors the choice of a subsidy to buy private insurance or continuing in the existing Medicare system, and giving the states block grants to manage Medicaid.

Conservatives believe seniors could shop for health insurance, as they do for groceries, to drive down prices. The states, freed from excessive federal oversight, could similarly drive down costs.

That’s absolute fantasy.

[Bratch]

I'd like to see how the health care market would operate in a true free market environment.

Unfortunately, in our litigious society, that's probably a pipe dream.

[allendale]

Government heath care spending is a cornucopia of endless demands, entitlements and expectations.The government spends hundreds of billions on services of marginal benefit,futile care and defensive medicine. The politicians have promised the people more than the country can afford to pay.

[BitWielder1]

Doesn't sound one bit conservative to me.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”Conservatives believe seniors could shop for health insurance, as they do for groceries, to drive down prices. The states, freed from excessive federal oversight, could similarly drive down costs. That’s absolute fantasy.”

The key sign that Ryan's going no-where gimmick plan (3rd rollout of same plan) is not a bit serious nor is it a real plan, is that he says we need to pass a bill now that (starts) doing this in 10 years, 10 years after passage!.

I keep posting that Ryan needs to come up with a plan that starts right now, that would force him to be more serious about it. Claiming something that starts cutting/reforming a specific program 10 years later will save money and provide better service, in 10 years is like promising the tooth fairy will leave you a gold brick for your tooth 10 years from now, worse yet he claims it will jump-start the economy now.

The GOP Koolaid drinkers go into a tizzy when I suggest this :” WTF???Ryan balances the budget in 10 years. That's not good enough for you??? Its better than the Os plan. I hate brain-dead Conservative idealists like you! You are why Mitt lost, and McCain too.”

Look, Ryan's silly talking points went no-where in 2011 and less than that with Mitt in 2012 so why cant he try being serious about this for a change?

[old curmudgeon]

Two problems with the author’s theory.

First, his solution is as Marxist as obumbler care.

Second, there is not one single thing the government does that it does as well as a private entity would do.

Compare Social Security with any insurance company annuity.

Compare the post office with FedEx or UPS.

Compare the VA with any Catholic hospital.

[kingu]

Any conversation on health care reform that doesn’t start with ‘first we shoot the lawyers’ is doomed to soak the people for trillions. Without real tort reform, it will always get more expensive each year.

[babble-on]

tort reform should be part of it, but no reason it has to be first

[11th Commandment]

I disagree with premise of the article that business is no better than government in controlling health cost. One could make the argument that a free market solution will not reduce costs, but to say that government can run it better and cheaper than business, his own article admits that won’t happen. For government to control health care, it would have to justified such a takeover by running it by several degrees better than business, i.e., a draw does not win it for government.

[Sir Napsalot]

>>> Second, there is not one single thing the government does that it does as well as a private entity would do.<<<

And all your following examples.

If government losing out to private sector is because they do it with 1% of what private sector does, then I can accept the post office, etc.

But we all know that is completely opposite.

[sickoflibs]

Ryan: “We need to pass MY reform bill now to find out what's in it 10 years from now”

Didnt he just run for VP last year on this brilliant scheme?

[Vendome]

What FKNG elections are we losing¿¿¿

If Romney were not on the ticket we’d have gained greater majorities in both houses.

His magical underwear cost us what should have been mathematicaly and absolutely probable increases in both houses.

He, alone, is the sole reason we are in our current gasping position.

Didn’t need to happen but for Willards self serving ambition.

[asinclair]

tort reform should be part of it, but no reason it has to be first

I respectfully disagree. Doctors are currently between a rock and a hard place: lawyers on the one side who see doctors only as "deep pockets" and sue at the drop of a blood pressure, and Medicare on the other who is trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. There isn't much we can do about the militant Medicare bureaucrats at this time. There is something we can do about the lawyers: chop off needless malpractice lawsuits and the dueling-experts burlesque in our Courts.

One way to do that, as I've said several times, is to codify into Standards the Best Practices already published by the various medical organizations, get all of the parties to agree on those Best Practices, then have Congress put the force of law behind the Standards. (Note that government doesn't have a hand in creating the Standards, but requires the Courts to recognize and give weight to the Standards.)

Want to sue? Prove the doctor violated Best Practices Standards. It moves malpractice from dueling experts to a much simpler exercise in element identification, something lawyers learn how to to in law school. Shortens trials, prevents frivolous trials, reduces Court costs, and takes a huge monkey off the backs of doctors.

Remember, the doctors' malpractice insurance lawyers say "do this", the insurance companies and Medicare nitwits say "don't do that."

And who benefits from such a system? The doctors, you the patient, and the Medicare robots who can find more useful employment elsewhere.

And if we don't do that? Doctors are not stupid; if they can't pay off their student loans and continuing education, they will find less stressful employment elsewhere. THEN who will look after your health? Immigrants?

[BitWielder1]

Right.
I also disagree with the premise that seniors are unable to buy their own health insurance.
Most people know something about what's wrong with them and how sick they are.
If the actual cost of their health care is exposed to the actual consumers, people are likely to make wiser decisions on what coverage and treatment to seek.
To think otherwise is to declare people incompetent to make their own decisions, which is what the left loves to do.

[sickoflibs]

Reading the comments I see you got a bunch of ‘private insurance companies would do a better *job* than the government does’ replies. And this will keep on happening since Ryan isnt passing anything but maybe Obama-care CRs.

If Ryan really believed he had something here he wouldnt suggest to pass a bill that does nothing for 10 years after passage.

Imagine what the Ryan groupies would say if unpopular Obama-care PERSONAL mandates were delayed for 10 years.

Ryan: “We need to pass MY reform bill now to find out what's in it 10 years from now”

[babble-on]

except of course that the “how-to” manual would remove the judgments of the best doctors and reduce them to short order cooks rather than master chefs

[Georgia Girl 2]

I hate to diss on Paul Ryan because at least he’s trying but I looked at that first budget he came up with and it was not impressive. He was assuming an umemployment rate below 5%. How is that happening anytime soon?

It seems to me we would be a lot better off adopting the Chilean model for retirement and just getting rid of the fraud and waste in Medicare.

I know I keep beating a dead horse but how is it that even good old Paul Ryan cannot name even one govt agency he could bear to see shuttered? I can think of 5 agencies that if shut down the average American would never even know it.

[texasmountainman]

Morici looks and acts like Jerry Lewis in the Nutty Professor. I don’t think he’s ever worked anywhere other than a university or the government, unless you count the commercials he does for Kyocera copiers.

[JAKraig]

There is no way he is conservative. When he said, “Sometimes markets don’t work”, I knew he was a liberal.

I will guarantee that grandma will do a much better job getting the best insurance deal if she has a choice and can buy only what she wants and needs. Liberals think we are too stupid to make good decisions, that's how I know the writer is a liberal.

[DannyTN]

I agree, Ryan and his budgets have hurt the GOP. They are wrong headed.

The biggest thing you need to do to fix the budget is get the U.S. economy back on track and Ryan doesn't have a clue about how to do that.

Shadowstats.com still shows U.S. unemployment close to 25%!!!

Instead of tackling the economic crisis, Ryan is using the crisis as a means to attack healthcare and safety nets. His approach is not going to help the economy and is going to cause fellow Americans much unneccessary pain.

And Ryan's distraction from tackling the true issues, is going to drive the U.S. deeper in debt, hurting all Americans not just those currently unemployed.

It's time to restore the import tariffs which have fallen to historic lows of just 1%. And bring our jobs back. It will cost consumers more, but America will be employed and will be richer for it.

Cheap consumer goods are not cheap when it means we are all quickly facing unemployment.

[asinclair]

remove the judgments of the best doctors and reduce them to short order cooks rather than master chefs

Not true. The current Best Practices include multiple options for treating conditions. The doctor can select from any of these options, and the options would be selected based on other aspects of the patients' medical history and presentation. Also, there would be a protocol for experimental treatments and developing treatments, so that the malpractice exposure from using leading-edge procedures and materials would be reduced.

What the Standardization of Best Practices would do is reduce malpractice exposure in high-risk practices. High risk practices that have to charge a hefty fee because the chance of being sued is higher than for a family practitioner who takes care of runny noses. Also, because lawyers, insurance companies, the Federal bureaus, consumer protection groups, and concerned citizens would come together to hammer out these Standards, the fight does not take place when a patient is facing an illness, or after the patient has died. In other words, everyone knows the rules of the game going in.

Obviously, space doesn't allow me to make a full presentation of my idea. I have provided my idea to my elected representatives to Congress.