Let's examine the Ryan Budget

[turk]

Who is game to have a civil discussion comparing the Paul Ryan budget proposal with Obama's ? Specifically, I would like to deconstruct what's in the medicare reform and the repeal of Obamacare in Ryan's budget proposal. This is paramount . I would prefer keeping the discussion specific, i.e. let's stay focussed on policy and the facts surrounding the crisis. Which brings me to this: do we have a crisis? I think so. I think it's a budget crisis of staggering proportions across the nation, on all levels. Some states are in better shape than others. The federal government is basically borrowing $ and printing $. If we agree on this, going forward we may have a lively debate on what the best solution(s) are.

[Amskeptic]

Who is game to have a civil discussion comparing the Paul Ryan budget proposal with Obama's ? Specifically, I would like to deconstruct what's in the medicare reform and the repeal of Obamacare in Ryan's budget proposal. This is paramount . I would prefer keeping the discussion specific, i.e. let's stay focussed on policy and the facts surrounding the crisis. Which brings me to this: do we have a crisis? I think so. I think it's a budget crisis of staggering proportions across the nation, on all levels. Some states are in better shape than others. The federal government is basically borrowing $ and printing $. If we agree on this, going forward we may have a lively debate on what the best solution(s) are.

It is immoral to provide lousy $15,000.00 vouchers to the elderly for their medical care, then cast them into the sea of private providers who can easily charge you $15,000.00 for one lousy visit to the emergency room.
Ryan Paul voted for two wars and the Bush tax cuts at the same time, he voted for Medicare Part D which cost us 700 billion while they were pandering to Medicare voters, he voted for the recent extension of the Bush tax cuts which, had they been allowed to expire, would have covered every damn cut The Republicans are currently demanding of children's health, nutrition programs, women's health, and educational grants. There is no discussion. Ryan Paul is a hypocritical idiot. Truly.
Colin

[turk]

It is immoral to provide lousy $15,000.00 vouchers to the elderly for their medical care, then cast them into the sea of private providers who can easily charge you $15,000.00 for one lousy visit to the emergency room.
Ryan Paul voted for two wars and the Bush tax cuts at the same time, he voted for Medicare Part D which cost us 700 billion while they were pandering to Medicare voters, he voted for the recent extension of the Bush tax cuts which, had they been allowed to expire, would have covered every damn cut The Republicans are currently demanding of children's health, nutrition programs, women's health, and educational grants. There is no discussion. Ryan Paul is a hypocritical idiot. Truly.
Colin

Let's disabuse ourselves of hyperbolic metaphors first. As I understand it (which you prompted me because I did not know about the vouchers), they are to buy insurance. So it's not to pay the health care provider. The insurance company does that. So, it will be part of the cost of the policy. The recipient of the voucher will be expected to pay the rest of the policy. It would create a market for private insurers to tap into. Now, what insurance plans are better than others depends on a lot of things. Medicare currently pays less than private companies for hospital care, but more than private companies for home care. This isn't a simple issue. Nor is Medicare a solvent social safety net. And the future of Medicare is simply in the red. I will bring some real data on this. Also your last claim about the Bush tax cuts being allowed to expire would pay for thses things. No sir. Dead wrong. I will also provide the facts on that.

[ruckman101]

Oh look, lint.


neal
Reply: That's your personal business. If you have something to contribute to this discussion, keep it relevant to the topic.

Eric

[Lanval]

I like some of what he proposes; moving the money out of the government's hands is good, but it's kind of a bait and switch. At least, looking at the proposal it's not clear whether the vouchers are ONLY for medicare approved plans, or any plans. The plan contradicts itself on this point:

This part sounds OK:

"The payment will be made directly to the health plan designated by the beneficiary (similar to the administration of the refundable health care tax credit), with the beneficiary receiving any leftover amount as a payment from the health plan, or assuming financial responsibility for any difference in the payment and the total cost of the premium. This allows the Medicare beneficiary to invest the leftover amount in a Medical Savings Account [MSA] to pay for other medical expenses, or to purchase long-term care insurance."

But then it next argues:

"Each Medicare beneficiary becomes eligible for the payment by enrolling in a health insurance plan. Medicare will publish an annual list of plans that are “Medicare certified.” Medicare enrollees are able to use their payment to pay for one of the Medicare certified plans, or any other plan, such as those offered by former employers or available from the private market." (emphasis mine)


Two things about this seem odd; if the goal is to get the money out of the gov't's hands, why do they get to approve certain plans? Isn't that basically a recipe for companies to buy influence through the gov't?

Second, and more importantly, does the money go directly to the Medicare approved insurer, or does the end-user get to control the money at some point? Or does the end-user only get to direct the money?

My take on this is that it's double-speak; Ryan wants to get the money out of the gov't's hands, but DOESN'T want to give it to people the money really belongs to. I wonder if you can put the money in Medical Savings Account, with a high deductible?

***********************

What makes me really wonder about Ryan's plan is the claim that he's going to reduce the deficit by cutting spending (I get that) AND cutting taxes (I don't get that).

The bottom line is the rich need to pay more. The wealthy are getting a free ride on the backs of the middle and lower classes. Historically, the wealthy have paid much, much more in taxes. No reason they shouldn't again.

****************

The concept of more individual responsibility is fine by me; but pretending that we can solve our problems by not spending money is silly. I have plenty of debt, but I won't eliminate it by spending less; there is a base level beyond which we can't reduce our spending. My wife refuses to live in the van. Likewise with the gov't; they can't fix the budget by just cutting spending. They're going to have to make more money to fix the budget ~ that means MORE taxes, not less.

L.

[RussellK]

It's another gift to the insurance industry. Does introducing another layer of profit make sense?

[steve74baywin]

This is as close to topic as I can get, because as we already see it is very messy and confusing situation.
A) Stop taking money from people at gun point.
B) Stop creating or borrowing money.
C) Remove all rules and regulations that attempt to use the government to level the playing field.
D) Individuals seek out and get whatever care they want and can acquire.

[Bleyseng]

If the Ryan plan gets rid of Obama care then how do the elderly get insurance in the first place as most will be excluded due to pre existing conditions? Does the Ryan Plan address this?
I see it as another insurance company golden goose with the taxpayers paying for it.
Let's look at the Ryan Plan's Military budget increases and why they won't cut it?
Even Greenspan has come out speaking in favor of higher tax rates for the Rich, when will the GOP lift their head out of the sand?

[Amskeptic]

If the Ryan plan gets rid of Obama care then how do the elderly get insurance in the first place as most will be excluded due to pre existing conditions? Does the Ryan Plan address this?
I see it as another insurance company golden goose with the taxpayers paying for it.
Let's look at the Ryan Plan's Military budget increases and why they won't cut it?
Even Greenspan has come out speaking in favor of higher tax rates for the Rich, when will the GOP lift their head out of the sand?

Very good points.

We need to look at how this country was doing in the 50's with the top marginal tax rate of 90%. I do not remember a hue and cry against that commie socialist Eisenhower destroying American innovation. We were enjoying some nice interstate highways and a robust middle class and a nascent space program.

The military industrial complex has gross inefficiencies that budget cuts could only help to resolve.

I think the 60% of America's total wealth trapped above the 10% top earners is not flowing through the economy. It is an incontrovertible fact at this point to conclude that tax cuts have NOT increased employment nor have they increased the middle class standard of living. That's a fact. Time for a different tack on economic recovery.
Colin

[turk]

I don't think any of income tax revenue goes to pay anything other than interest on debt transfer. I think it's been that way for a long time. It's a scam. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year, let alone reduce the accumulated debt. For a humorous perspective see: this snopes article. You may have heard the parable before.

[Lanval]

This is as close to topic as I can get, because as we already see it is very messy and confusing situation.
A) Stop taking money from people at gun point.
B) Stop creating or borrowing money.
C) Remove all rules and regulations that attempt to use the government to level the playing field.
D) Individuals seek out and get whatever care they want and can acquire.

I think this is OK, but the problem emerges in a crisis:

1. People often have trouble operating in their own best long term interests
2. When things go off the rails (i.e. the Great Depression) it's hard to tell 20% of the population to go screw themselves ~ that's no way to get elected.

Which means even if we did move towards the kind of system you advocate here, down the road we'd be relying on the moral fortitude of our leaders to stand up for the system when it seems not to work (i.e. severe, exceptional crisis)... "moral fortitude" and "politician" are not words I normally use together.

*************

On a larger scale, I'm reluctant to throw away the answers I fathers/ancestors fought for and implemented. Often, there are good reasons why things are done a certain way. Not always to be sure, and they can be modified as we gain experience/knowledge that our fathers had. Still, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act is our model here; we got cocky ("we don't need these controls, we're not stupid like people in the old days!") led to a situation which the original act was designed to prevent. Now we're trying to recreate it, or something like it.

This makes me think that we ought to be careful about how much we toss/change; slow and careful would be a good mantra.

L.

[steve74baywin]

This is as close to topic as I can get, because as we already see it is very messy and confusing situation.
A) Stop taking money from people at gun point.
B) Stop creating or borrowing money.
C) Remove all rules and regulations that attempt to use the government to level the playing field.
D) Individuals seek out and get whatever care they want and can acquire.

I think this is OK, but the problem emerges in a crisis:

1. People often have trouble operating in their own best long term interests
2. When things go off the rails (i.e. the Great Depression) it's hard to tell 20% of the population to go screw themselves ~ that's no way to get elected.

Which means even if we did move towards the kind of system you advocate here, down the road we'd be relying on the moral fortitude of our leaders to stand up for the system when it seems not to work (i.e. severe, exceptional crisis)... "moral fortitude" and "politician" are not words I normally use together.

*************

On a larger scale, I'm reluctant to throw away the answers I fathers/ancestors fought for and implemented. Often, there are good reasons why things are done a certain way. Not always to be sure, and they can be modified as we gain experience/knowledge that our fathers had. Still, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act is our model here; we got cocky ("we don't need these controls, we're not stupid like people in the old days!") led to a situation which the original act was designed to prevent. Now we're trying to recreate it, or something like it.

This makes me think that we ought to be careful about how much we toss/change; slow and careful would be a good mantra.

L.

Yes, I agree on the slow.
I often think it would have to start with the removal of the worse laws. This would only happen as more people understand. In other words it would probably take a long time but things would change proportional to the number of people and their level of growth. Eventually the smallest form of government whatever label fits, one like what we started with, or Libertarian coupled with a "do unto others" or "what goes around comes around" mentality because they understand the benefits of that mindset. This could be a great model for the world to follow. Then perhaps when ready the need for any form of government might be gone. But this could be a 50 to 500 year plan.

[Bleyseng]

I have to look at the Suriname model from my experience, where taxation is lax, law enforcement is lax. Imagine back to the wild west days and you have it! People take advantage of this so scams, stealing and just dishonest practices are rampant. We have too many people in the USA and going backwards to some Pie in the Sky small government is a joke! Yes, if you want that I say move to Alaska into the wild.

more people, more laws.

[turk]

Bleyeng, why so pessimistic? Nobody is thinking "let's go backwards" now. Some people think the way forward is potentially brighter than ever before. In fact, why shouldn't it be. And so, rather than assume we need more laws, more taxes, more dependence, more government intervention and control; some people presume to have more autonomous potential, more independence, more self-reliance and self-actualization, more freedom, and liberty, and less of the former stuff.
The myth of pulling one's self up by his own boot-straps is as true now as it was back 20, 50, 100, 200 or more years ago; which is to say, with more people and more stuff, and more paths to take, it's even truer now.

[Amskeptic]

Bleyeng, why so pessimistic?
1)Nobody is thinking "let's go backwards" now.
2) rather than assume we need more laws, more taxes, more dependence, more government intervention and control; some people presume to have more autonomous potential, more independence, more self-reliance and self-actualization, more freedom, and liberty, and less of the former stuff.
3) The myth of pulling one's self up by his own boot-straps is as true now as it was back 20, 50, 100, 200 or more years ago; which is to say, with more people and more stuff, and more paths to take, it's even truer now.

1) Oh but they are . . . tax revenues are back to 1949. Inequity has surpassed 1929.
2) We need re-application of old government intervention, we need restoration of old tax revenues, autonomy has taken a hit because more Americans are working harder for less in a generation, more Americans are in hock for such things as being born, going to college, buying a house, and regrettably, getting sick.
3) It is a myth. For every Horatio Alger myth story, you find that a support network allowed these "trail-blazing individuals" to get a leg up. Fact is, there are "indians" and there are "chiefs", they all deserve lives of dignity. It is arrogant to the extreme to declare that "individual initiative" is worth 85 million while a hard-working gardener can't feed his family.
Colin