Fryin' Ryan

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
¯¯¯̿̿¯̿̿’̿̿̿̿̿̿̿’̿̿’̿̿;812415 said:
Given that Rep. Ryan's alarm and prescriptions are not self-evidently true
Click to expand...

????....why do you think they aren't self evident.....pretty much everyone else does...
 
In a Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday, a robust majority of registered voters disapproved of Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) proposal to privatize Medicare and cap spending on the program that provides health care assistance to the elderly. And further, a strong majority said they supported an alternate path toward deficit reduction: raising taxes on top income earners, a proposal the GOP leadership has said is a non-starter.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595
 
if that was intended as an answer to my question, it wasn't......

are there people out there who don't believe Medicare is headed for trouble in the next decade or two?......
 
Why not start your own thread?

This one's about Paul Ryan.

"...because commercial insurers cost more to run than government plans, the Wisconsin Republican's proposal to privatize Medicare starting in 2022 would actually spark a dramatic increase in how much the nation spends on healthcare for the elderly, according to an independent analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/07/nation/la-na-gop-budget-20110408
 
Changes to Medicare and Medicaid remain wildly unpopular and more than two-thirds of registered voters want to repeal Bush-era tax cuts for households that make more than $250,000 a year, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll.

More than twice as many voters oppose efforts to change Medicare than those who favor limiting benefits under the popular health-care program for seniors. And a distinct majority opposes new limits on Medicaid, the federal-state health program for the poor.

What’s worse for the GOP, the numbers don’t change much when voters were told how much federal spending Medicare and Medicaid consume.​
​
​
 
PostmodernProphet said:
let me ask you this.....if the voucher system is terrible, why is it used to operate the insurance program for federal employees......
Click to expand...


A voucher system that actually paid for the insurance would not be all that bad an idea but a voucher that doesn't actually pay for insurance and requires seniors to pay lots of their money to purchase the insurance isn't good at all, particularly compared to Medicare today. The Ryan "plan" doesn't cut costs, it just shifts the responsibility to pay for those costs to seniors, the disabled and the poor.

It's a shitty "plan." It is so shitty that the Republicans are walking away from it as fast as they can given the overwhelming public rejection of it.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
A voucher system that actually paid for the insurance would not be all that bad an idea but a voucher that doesn't actually pay for insurance and requires seniors to pay lots of their money to purchase the insurance isn't good at all, particularly compared to Medicare today. The Ryan "plan" doesn't cut costs, it just shifts the responsibility to pay for those costs to seniors, the disabled and the poor.

It's a shitty "plan." It is so shitty that the Republicans are walking away from it as fast as they can given the overwhelming public rejection of it.
Click to expand...

If people are not responsible for part of their health costs then many will "over utilize" the system. This will cause costs to rise and in order to meet budget service will then have to be rationed.
 
Damn Yankee said:
If people are not responsible for part of their health costs then many will "over utilize" the system. This will cause costs to rise and in order to meet budget service will then have to be rationed.
Click to expand...

Of course, not providing care to people that lack the ability to pay is rationing, too, but that don't seem to concern you much.

In any event, when you are dealing with a population that consumes a whole lot of healthcare, senior citizens, it is delusional to think that millions of individuals making individual decisions regarding their health care (to the extent they have the capacity to do so) can be more cost-effective than a single entity with the ability to negotiate price on a ginormous scale. You think you can negotiate lower prices from a supplier than Wal-Mart?
 
Damn Yankee said:
If people are not responsible for part of their health costs then many will "over utilize" the system. This will cause costs to rise and in order to meet budget service will then have to be rationed.
Click to expand...


Cite.








realview.jpg

​
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Of course, not providing care to people that lack the ability to pay is rationing, too, but that don't seem to concern you much.

In any event, when you are dealing with a population that consumes a whole lot of healthcare, senior citizens, it is delusional to think that millions of individuals making individual decisions regarding their health care (to the extent they have the capacity to do so) can be more cost-effective than a single entity with the ability to negotiate price on a ginormous scale. You think you can negotiate lower prices from a supplier than Wal-Mart?
Click to expand...

WalMart is a good example of how private sector capitalism reduces cost while allowing millions of people to make individual decisions. It seems like you've made my argument for me.
 
Damn Yankee said:
WalMart is a good example of how private sector capitalism reduces cost while allowing millions of people to make individual decisions. It seems like you've made my argument for me.
Click to expand...



Walmart has a long history of undertaking efforts aimed at avoiding “its fair share of state and local taxes” after availing itself generous government subsidies.​




“The company doesn’t just reduce its tax outlays; in hundreds of places it has sought taxpayer funds to finance its expansion and thus expand its market share,” the report notes. “For every kind of tax that a retail company would normally pay or remit to support public services, Walmart has engineered an aggressive scheme to pay less and keep more.”​
​
​




The report accused Walmart of a wide range of unsavory practices that have cost state and local governments an estimated $400 million annually.​




“The fiscal burden imposed by Walmart is not limited to its tax policies,” the report continues. “The company’s low wage rates and inadequate health benefits force many of its employees to turn to taxpayer-funded programs such as Medicaid.”​
​
​



http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/05/05/let-the-walmart-debate-begin/
 
David St. Hubbins said:
A voucher system that actually paid for the insurance would not be all that bad an idea but a voucher that doesn't actually pay for insurance and requires seniors to pay lots of their money to purchase the insurance isn't good at all, particularly compared to Medicare today. The Ryan "plan" doesn't cut costs, it just shifts the responsibility to pay for those costs to seniors, the disabled and the poor.

It's a shitty "plan." It is so shitty that the Republicans are walking away from it as fast as they can given the overwhelming public rejection of it.
Click to expand...

so you're argument is the voucher proposed is smaller than the voucher given to federal employees?.....let me check if that information is available on the internet....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so you're argument is the voucher proposed is smaller than the voucher given to federal employees?.....let me check if that information is available on the internet....
Click to expand...


I am stating that the voucher is indexed to inflation and it's value diminishes significantly over time such that seniors will increasingly be required to spend more and more and more of their own money on health insurance. You can check the CBO report on the plan if you wish which details all of this and even has charts for the visual learners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top