I think you responded to my alternate plan. The main benefit of that privatization plan I made up is it would have some chance of being signed into law someday. The Ryan plan has NO chance of ever being law as is, never did, not even with a Republican president, so it saves not one dime. I dont care how many arms they try to twist now.
Back to your point, I believe you are making a moral argument about the immorality of taxpayers being forced to pay to care for those nearly completely incapable of doing anything for themselves who Will go in nursing homes, as they been doing for > 40 years now. That is a valid argument.
But to make that moral argument seriously you have to take responsibility for the proposal you are supporting and it's consequences too, because the practical consequences raise moral issues within themselves. Will voters ever vote to throw patients damaged with serious strokes out of hospitals into the streets because there is no-place to take care of them in a privatized system? If this is necessary to save the country which it may be, then Ryan should say so specifically and shouldn't deny it and call it a lie, that is all I ask.
Also is the moral(ly flawed) proposal of dividing the country up into clear winners and losers, at 55 (born ~ around 1956.) The winners born before 1956 get their medical bills paid as always , the losers born after 1956 not only are forced to pay for the winners under the Ryan plan, but when it is their time under the hypothetical Ryan plan they get told “Sorry, we are out of money. Please go away (even if you cant get out of a bed) and die because we don't want to admit you even exist. you existence is contrary to our beliefs. ” as you and another freeper implied is necessary for the Ryan plan to do. Obviously this scenario will be played to death by Democrats to win the next election, but it raises real moral issues too that would need to be debated before they are forced on voters. Clearly the 55 threshold is not needed to save the county, that is just a cheap political gimmick and negatives most of the other arguments.
These are really brutal issues and I sure never gave Democrats one moment of peace here on Obama-care, posting lots of articles and pings on it, so I cant just drink the Koolaid on this issue either, in fact I was one of those here opposing Republicans running on protecting entitlement benefits for political gain predicting it would backfire as it did.
I just want an honest debate. I am not one of those against reform ,or for entitlement as a right.
It begs the great moral dilemma of our age: How much and who decides?
Obviously, when these are government programs the government decides through the direction of democratically elected officials. And, elected officials will NEVER advocate for "rationing" or cutting somebody off. NEVER. Won't happen.
And that means the US and every Western Democracy will go into sovereign default. Complete financial destruction...so that ONLY the total destruction of all wealth and resources will be the end determinant.