Ryan 2015 starts with: Repeal Obamacare"

[Zander]

Health insurance is a product, not a right.

 

[kwc57]

Oh' shit I'm not allowed to choose my belief system for different subjects. LOL...

You extremist fuckers think in black or white... I think in gray! I use common sense while you whine and attack out of idiocy.

In other words, you're a rudderless ship blown about by the winds. Nice. Congrats.

 

[kwc57]

You're the cut, slash and burn tea partier that wishes to end the epa, nws, nhc, cdc, nasa, on down the list. The fact that you can't see the difference between useless welfare and organizions that better our country makes you a hack. Live with it or consider thinking about why the slashing is so stupid.

As I told your circle jerk partner Ed, I'm not tea party. What I am is responsible. I don't spend more than I make......no matter how badly I want or think I need something. I believe the government should do the same. Personal responsibility, give it a try. You'll like it more than you think.

The host of NBC’s “Tonight Show” continued his comedic assault on Obamacare Tuesday night, mocking Obama’s supposed triumph in signing up 7.1 million Americans on the Obamacare exchanges by the March 31 deadline.

“The White House says it has surpassed its goal for people enrolled in Obamacare. It’s amazing what you can achieve when you make something mandatory and fine people if they don’t do it and then keep extending the deadline for months,” Fallon quipped. “It’s like a Cinderella story. It’s just a beautiful thing. You make everyone do it.”

“If you still haven’t enrolled, you might have to pay a penalty called the ‘Individual Shared Responsibility Payment,’ which is 1 percent of your salary,” he continued. “Then Americans said, ‘Hey, good thing I don’t have a job.’”

 

[rightwinger]

 

[g5000]

Okay, so I read the 100 page Ryan thingy last night and can now comment on it.

Reading the whole thing will give you a headache, so if you only care about his Medicare reform, just read Function 570 which starts on page 57. Here is the link: House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's FY 2015 budget blueprint


Ryan does not call his Medicare plan a voucher plan. In fact, he insists it is not a voucher plan. He instead calls it a premium support plan. But it sure looks like a voucher plan to me. He calls it premium support since the premiums would be paid directly to the insurance company by the government instead of giving a voucher to the beneficiary. A distinction without a difference.

This premium support plan would provide a senior citizen with a choice. They could stay in Medicare (thus, not ending Medicare as we know it), or they could buy private sector insurance for themselves.

Those who will be retiring before 2024 will be exempt from the premium support plan, but can opt in if they wish.

That's the starting line.

My questions about this plan revolve around what happens after Year One. In his 100 page document, Ryan does not go into this next part I am about to explain. We will have to look at the actual budget resolution itself to find out what we really need to know.

This is where you have to pay very special attention to the legislation and the rules for premium support they contain. You need to pay attention to how the rules handle rising costs of healthcare in subsequent years.

Suppose the cost of healthcare rises by 10 percent in Year Two. This is not an unreasonable expectation since Medicare costs have been outpacing inflation and GDP growth for decades.

If the rules tie the amount of the premium support to the cost of healthcare, then no problem. But if the rules have an arbitrary index which increases the premium support by, say, five percent a year, then you can see the problem. Since healthcare costs rose faster than the premium index, the senior than has to make the choice of either paying more out of their pocket to receive the same coverage, or they will have to settle for less coverage.

At the outset of a premium support program, insurance companies will obviously make their plans equal to Medicare at a cost equal to the premium support. But if costs rise faster than the amount of the premium support checks, all bets are off.

Therefore, from my point of view, if you want me to support a premium support program, you better peg the premium support to the actual cost of healthcare and not some arbitrary index. And the premium support should decrease with the wealth of the recipient.

Ryan does support lower premium support for the wealthy:

The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that the sick would receive higher payments if their conditions worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of their premiums.

Ryan alludes to a CBO analysis which "found that a program in which the premium-support payment was based on the average bid of participating plans would result in savings for affected beneficiaries as well as the federal government".

He in no way commits to this idea, though.

He also wants to ensure insurance companies don't boot sicker seniors:

Moreover, it would set up a carefully monitored exchange for Medicare plans. Health plans that chose to participate in the Medicare Exchange would agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking, and to ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.

Another significant part of his plan says that the Medicare eligibility age will be raised to the same age as the Social Security eligibility age. They are currently not the same.

Medicare is still 65 while Social Security is slowly being raised to 67.

As most of you know, it is my opinion they should both be raised to 70 and indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward.


He also attacks the current Medicare fee for service scheme, but not give any details about what his reformation of this aspect would look like.

Also starting in 2024, the age of eligibility for Medicare would begin to rise gradually to correspond with Social Security’s retirement age and the fee-for-service benefit would be modernized to have a single deductible and by reforming supplemental insurance policies.

 

[g5000]

As for other parts of Ryan's plan, he does believe in cutting federal subsidies to alternative energy sources while continuing federal subsidies to oil and coal and the like.

He also wants to cut farm subsidies and further reform agricultural disaster insurance.

He wants to greatly reduce the Department of Energy's influence.

 

[edthecynic]

Okay, so I read the 100 page Ryan thingy last night and can now comment on it.

Reading the whole thing will give you a headache, so if you only care about his Medicare reform, just read Function 570 which starts on page 57. Here is the link: House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's FY 2015 budget blueprint


Ryan does not call his Medicare plan a voucher plan. In fact, he insists it is not a voucher plan. He instead calls it a premium support plan. But it sure looks like a voucher plan to me. He calls it premium support since the premiums would be paid directly to the insurance company by the government instead of giving a voucher to the beneficiary. A distinction without a difference.

This premium support plan would provide a senior citizen with a choice. They could stay in Medicare (thus, not ending Medicare as we know it), or they could buy private sector insurance for themselves.

Those who will be retiring before 2024 will be exempt from the premium support plan, but can opt in if they wish.

That's the starting line.

My questions about this plan revolve around what happens after Year One. In his 100 page document, Ryan does not go into this next part I am about to explain. We will have to look at the actual budget resolution itself to find out what we really need to know.

This is where you have to pay very special attention to the legislation and the rules for premium support they contain. You need to pay attention to how the rules handle rising costs of healthcare in subsequent years.

Suppose the cost of healthcare rises by 10 percent in Year Two. This is not an unreasonable expectation since Medicare costs have been outpacing inflation and GDP growth for decades.

If the rules tie the amount of the premium support to the cost of healthcare, then no problem. But if the rules have an arbitrary index which increases the premium support by, say, five percent a year, then you can see the problem. Since healthcare costs rose faster than the premium index, the senior than has to make the choice of either paying more out of their pocket to receive the same coverage, or they will have to settle for less coverage.

At the outset of a premium support program, insurance companies will obviously make their plans equal to Medicare at a cost equal to the premium support. But if costs rise faster than the amount of the premium support checks, all bets are off.

Therefore, from my point of view, if you want me to support a premium support program, you better peg the premium support to the actual cost of healthcare and not some arbitrary index. And the premium support should decrease with the wealth of the recipient.

Ryan does support lower premium support for the wealthy:

The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that the sick would receive higher payments if their conditions worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of their premiums.

Ryan alludes to a CBO analysis which "found that a program in which the premium-support payment was based on the average bid of participating plans would result in savings for affected beneficiaries as well as the federal government".

He in no way commits to this idea, though.

He also wants to ensure insurance companies don't boot sicker seniors:

Moreover, it would set up a carefully monitored exchange for Medicare plans. Health plans that chose to participate in the Medicare Exchange would agree to offer insurance to all Medicare beneficiaries, to avoid cherry-picking, and to ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest-cost beneficiaries receive coverage.

Another significant part of his plan says that the Medicare eligibility age will be raised to the same age as the Social Security eligibility age. They are currently not the same.

Medicare is still 65 while Social Security is slowly being raised to 67.

As most of you know, it is my opinion they should both be raised to 70 and indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward.


He also attacks the current Medicare fee for service scheme, but not give any details about what his reformation of this aspect would look like.

Also starting in 2024, the age of eligibility for Medicare would begin to rise gradually to correspond with Social Security’s retirement age and the fee-for-service benefit would be modernized to have a single deductible and by reforming supplemental insurance policies.

 

[auditor0007]

Health insurance is a product, not a right.

Rights are determined by society. If society determines that healthcare should be a right, then it will be a right. Oddly enough, in the US we have determined that if you are truly poor, then healthcare is a right, but if you are just a little bit above being poor, then it is not. Of course, if you are fairly well off, then you really don't need to worry about it, unless of course you have a pre-existing condition that makes you too expensive to insure; then you only get the amount of healthcare you can afford. Of course, we are headed in the right direction now as we are trying to see to it that everyone has access to adequate care.

 

[Stephanie]

Health insurance is a product, not a right.

Rights are determined by society. If society determines that healthcare should be a right, then it will be a right. Oddly enough, in the US we have determined that if you are truly poor, then healthcare is a right, but if you are just a little bit above being poor, then it is not. Of course, if you are fairly well off, then you really don't need to worry about it, unless of course you have a pre-existing condition that makes you too expensive to insure; then you only get the amount of healthcare you can afford. Of course, we are headed in the right direction now as we are trying to see to it that everyone has access to adequate care.

lovely, now we are ruled by, mob rule
what if they decide abortion should be banned? you think people will ACCEPT your bright idea then

 

[kwc57]

Okay, so I read the 100 page Ryan thingy last night and can now comment on it.

Reading the whole thing will give you a headache, so if you only care about his Medicare reform, just read Function 570 which starts on page 57. Here is the link: House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's FY 2015 budget blueprint


Ryan does not call his Medicare plan a voucher plan. In fact, he insists it is not a voucher plan. He instead calls it a premium support plan. But it sure looks like a voucher plan to me. He calls it premium support since the premiums would be paid directly to the insurance company by the government instead of giving a voucher to the beneficiary. A distinction without a difference.

This premium support plan would provide a senior citizen with a choice. They could stay in Medicare (thus, not ending Medicare as we know it), or they could buy private sector insurance for themselves.

Those who will be retiring before 2024 will be exempt from the premium support plan, but can opt in if they wish.

That's the starting line.

My questions about this plan revolve around what happens after Year One. In his 100 page document, Ryan does not go into this next part I am about to explain. We will have to look at the actual budget resolution itself to find out what we really need to know.

This is where you have to pay very special attention to the legislation and the rules for premium support they contain. You need to pay attention to how the rules handle rising costs of healthcare in subsequent years.

Suppose the cost of healthcare rises by 10 percent in Year Two. This is not an unreasonable expectation since Medicare costs have been outpacing inflation and GDP growth for decades.

If the rules tie the amount of the premium support to the cost of healthcare, then no problem. But if the rules have an arbitrary index which increases the premium support by, say, five percent a year, then you can see the problem. Since healthcare costs rose faster than the premium index, the senior than has to make the choice of either paying more out of their pocket to receive the same coverage, or they will have to settle for less coverage.

At the outset of a premium support program, insurance companies will obviously make their plans equal to Medicare at a cost equal to the premium support. But if costs rise faster than the amount of the premium support checks, all bets are off.

Therefore, from my point of view, if you want me to support a premium support program, you better peg the premium support to the actual cost of healthcare and not some arbitrary index. And the premium support should decrease with the wealth of the recipient.

Ryan does support lower premium support for the wealthy:

The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that the sick would receive higher payments if their conditions worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of their premiums.

Ryan alludes to a CBO analysis which "found that a program in which the premium-support payment was based on the average bid of participating plans would result in savings for affected beneficiaries as well as the federal government".

He in no way commits to this idea, though.

He also wants to ensure insurance companies don't boot sicker seniors:


Another significant part of his plan says that the Medicare eligibility age will be raised to the same age as the Social Security eligibility age. They are currently not the same.

Medicare is still 65 while Social Security is slowly being raised to 67.

As most of you know, it is my opinion they should both be raised to 70 and indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward.


He also attacks the current Medicare fee for service scheme, but not give any details about what his reformation of this aspect would look like.

Also starting in 2024, the age of eligibility for Medicare would begin to rise gradually to correspond with Social Security’s retirement age and the fee-for-service benefit would be modernized to have a single deductible and by reforming supplemental insurance policies.

Wow! Nice retort from the low information comic book crowd. Asshat.

 

[edthecynic]

Okay, so I read the 100 page Ryan thingy last night and can now comment on it.

Reading the whole thing will give you a headache, so if you only care about his Medicare reform, just read Function 570 which starts on page 57. Here is the link: House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's FY 2015 budget blueprint


Ryan does not call his Medicare plan a voucher plan. In fact, he insists it is not a voucher plan. He instead calls it a premium support plan. But it sure looks like a voucher plan to me. He calls it premium support since the premiums would be paid directly to the insurance company by the government instead of giving a voucher to the beneficiary. A distinction without a difference.

This premium support plan would provide a senior citizen with a choice. They could stay in Medicare (thus, not ending Medicare as we know it), or they could buy private sector insurance for themselves.

Those who will be retiring before 2024 will be exempt from the premium support plan, but can opt in if they wish.

That's the starting line.

My questions about this plan revolve around what happens after Year One. In his 100 page document, Ryan does not go into this next part I am about to explain. We will have to look at the actual budget resolution itself to find out what we really need to know.

This is where you have to pay very special attention to the legislation and the rules for premium support they contain. You need to pay attention to how the rules handle rising costs of healthcare in subsequent years.

Suppose the cost of healthcare rises by 10 percent in Year Two. This is not an unreasonable expectation since Medicare costs have been outpacing inflation and GDP growth for decades.

If the rules tie the amount of the premium support to the cost of healthcare, then no problem. But if the rules have an arbitrary index which increases the premium support by, say, five percent a year, then you can see the problem. Since healthcare costs rose faster than the premium index, the senior than has to make the choice of either paying more out of their pocket to receive the same coverage, or they will have to settle for less coverage.

At the outset of a premium support program, insurance companies will obviously make their plans equal to Medicare at a cost equal to the premium support. But if costs rise faster than the amount of the premium support checks, all bets are off.

Therefore, from my point of view, if you want me to support a premium support program, you better peg the premium support to the actual cost of healthcare and not some arbitrary index. And the premium support should decrease with the wealth of the recipient.

Ryan does support lower premium support for the wealthy:
Ryan alludes to a CBO analysis which "found that a program in which the premium-support payment was based on the average bid of participating plans would result in savings for affected beneficiaries as well as the federal government".

He in no way commits to this idea, though.

He also wants to ensure insurance companies don't boot sicker seniors:


Another significant part of his plan says that the Medicare eligibility age will be raised to the same age as the Social Security eligibility age. They are currently not the same.

Medicare is still 65 while Social Security is slowly being raised to 67.

As most of you know, it is my opinion they should both be raised to 70 and indexed to 9 percent of the population going forward.


He also attacks the current Medicare fee for service scheme, but not give any details about what his reformation of this aspect would look like.

Wow! Nice retort from the low information comic book crowd. Asshat.

It must have been! It left you with nothing but insults!!!

 

[bendog]

I really have no idea why he just trotted out the same shite again. He's not a whacked as the other Paul, but it's close. "Hey, ya got dementia, here's a voucher to go buy insurance"

 

[ScienceRocks]

As for other parts of Ryan's plan, he does believe in cutting federal subsidies to alternative energy sources while continuing federal subsidies to oil and coal and the like.

He also wants to cut farm subsidies and further reform agricultural disaster insurance.

He wants to greatly reduce the Department of Energy's influence.

So he doesn't believe in being fair to all sources of energy. What a bigot!

 

[ScienceRocks]

I really have no idea why he just trotted out the same shite again. He's not a whacked as the other Paul, but it's close. "Hey, ya got dementia, here's a voucher to go buy insurance"

50 billion cut out of infrastructure. Fucks over the old and disabled.

Wow, what a plan!!!!

 

[kwc57]

Wow! Nice retort from the low information comic book crowd. Asshat.

It must have been! It left you with nothing but insults!!!

Insults is all that someone who responds with a cartoon to a detailed, well thought out post instead of debating its points deserves. Asshat.

 

[kwc57]

As for other parts of Ryan's plan, he does believe in cutting federal subsidies to alternative energy sources while continuing federal subsidies to oil and coal and the like.

He also wants to cut farm subsidies and further reform agricultural disaster insurance.

He wants to greatly reduce the Department of Energy's influence.

So he doesn't believe in being fair to all sources of energy. What a bigot!

Are the other sources viable, reliable and cost effective? Build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door. Until then, the world will support the source that makes the world function. Good luck with your wind powered jetliner.

 

[kwc57]

I really have no idea why he just trotted out the same shite again. He's not a whacked as the other Paul, but it's close. "Hey, ya got dementia, here's a voucher to go buy insurance"

50 billion cut out of infrastructure. Fucks over the old and disabled.

Wow, what a plan!!!!

What, are they going to rip out all of the handicapped access now available?

 

[PredFan]

Repealing obamacare is a very good place to start.

 

[edthecynic]

Wow! Nice retort from the low information comic book crowd. Asshat.

It must have been! It left you with nothing but insults!!!

Insults is all that someone who responds with a cartoon to a detailed, well thought out post instead of debating its points deserves. Asshat.

If you had actually read the post you like so much, you would have seen the cartoon sums up one of the key points of the post!!!!

From the post:

"Ryan does not call his Medicare plan a voucher plan. In fact, he insists it is not a voucher plan. He instead calls it a premium support plan. But it sure looks like a voucher plan to me. He calls it premium support since the premiums would be paid directly to the insurance company by the government instead of giving a voucher to the beneficiary. A distinction without a difference."

 

[bendog]

Well, the thing about Ryan and the Kochs (and maybe still the gop but I'd hoped 2014 was a lesson) is the are NOT about more freedom of individual choice in society. I mean leave out the social issues that the gop loses again and again over. But economic.

We travel. Do we want high speed rail, as Obama championed? I'm all for trains, don't get me wrong, but the people voted with dollars for highways. Ryan and Koch's response. Cut our taxes so there's less tax money for interstates, and build toll roads. Thanks, but no thanks.

For the Ryans and Kochs, soc sec and medicare are social, not econ choice issues. If old people can't afford to live independently, they'll go back to living with their kids and realitives. Do anyone REALLY want to postulate how that promotes econ choice? I'm sure some rw nutbag like Helena or diamond dave would spin it, but it'd be bs.

Pell Grants. Well we could cut them. The FACT that the GI bill brought in tens times of its costs in pushing people into paying more taxes with higher earnings ....... but the Ryans and Kochs really have the interests of econ self choice in mind.

It would be so refreshing if the gop would get off it's ideological cross and actually try to solve fiscal issues without infusing an 19th century social ideology with it's "policy."