Ryan: Obamacare "Raids Medicare and It Rations Medicare ... For Current Seniors" - UPDATED: Article by Alain Enthoven, Professor Emeritus at Stanford added. Which plan should seniors really be scared of?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2011 6:02 PM GMT
    The current Democratic strategy, accompanied by recent polls that ask about Ryan's plan in isolation, are dishonest because they ignore the real context of the Ryan plan. They would have uninformed poll respondents believe they are responding to the unknowns of a new plan compared to the knowns of the current plan. Under that false assumption, wouldn't most people prefer the known to the unknown? No surprise. However, the current plan, i.e. the status quo, is not on the table. The task ahead is to ensure people are aware of exactly what the trade-offs are. The polls today only reflect lack of knowledge of the true situation. We have our work cut out to dispel the dishonest mediscare tactics.

    Following is from Rep. Ryan:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ryan-obamacare-raids-medicare-and-it-rations-medicare-current-seniors_573180.html

    Let’s for a moment talk about Medicare. Medicare as we know it is already gone. Our friends on the other side of the aisle – when they passed the Affordable Care Act – they stopped the Medicare status quo.

    The President’s new health care law--that ends Medicare as know it. It does two things: It raids Medicare; and it rations Medicare.

    It takes over $500 billion from Medicare to spend on the President’s new health care law. It doesn't take that money to extend its solvency. Just like people have complained for years that we are raiding the Social Security Trust Fund and we should stop doing that, the President’s health care law does that to Medicare now.

    Second thing it does: Starting next year, the President will appoint 15 unelect[ed], unaccountable bureaucrats to price control and to ration Medicare for current seniors.

    What’s worse is the President and Senate still have yet to put out a plan to save Medicare to prevent it from going bankrupt.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We stop the raid of Medicare in our budget and make sure that $500 billion stays with Medicare to advance its solvency....

    Number two, we repeal the rationing board so we don’t put bureaucrats in charge of determining what kind of health care benefits seniors do or do not get.

    Number three, we save Medicare. And the way in which we do this is this: We say that if you are on Medicare or if your ten years away from retiring – 55 and above -- government already made a promise to you. We want government to keep that promise. And so under our budget we keep that promise.

    We stop the raid. We repeal the rationing board. And for those of us who are 54 and below who have a bankrupt system that we right now cannot count on, we reform it so it works like the system Members of Congress and federal employees have. It's a system that looks like Medicare Advantage or the drug benefit works today: seniors get a choice of plans offered to them by Medicare – guaranteed coverage options – from which they can choose and Medicare subsidizes that plan. It doesn’t subsidize people as much if they are wealthy and subsidizes them a lot more if they are low income or if they're sick.

    This saves Medicare. This puts Medicare on a path to solvency. And more importantly, by saving it for future generations, we can keep our promises to the current generation.

    We stop the raid. We repeal the rationing board. And we save the program. That's what our budget proposes to do.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2011 7:27 PM GMT
    Let's just raise taxes on the rich, it'll solve everything!

    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 02, 2011 11:44 PM GMT
    Ryan's plan was DOA. It contains assumptions SO ridiculous (like 5% unemployment) as to make everything else in it a house of cards.

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 03, 2011 12:01 AM GMT
    Um ..... Paul Ryan is a Dead Man Walkin


    Persona Non Grata

    bete noire

    an outcast and a reprobate as far as the public is concerned

    I Can't WAIT to see the ads against him the next time he runs icon_biggrin.gif

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/politics/26medicare.html?_r=1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 12:37 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidThe current Democratic strategy, accompanied by recent polls that ask about Ryan's plan in isolation, are dishonest because they ignore the real context of the Ryan plan. They would have uninformed poll respondents believe they are responding to the unknowns of a new plan compared to the knowns of the current plan. Under that false assumption, wouldn't most people prefer the known to the unknown?


    Good God! Are you in fact Dick Cheney!??!?!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 12:52 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness saidThe current Democratic strategy, accompanied by recent polls that ask about Ryan's plan in isolation, are dishonest because they ignore the real context of the Ryan plan. They would have uninformed poll respondents believe they are responding to the unknowns of a new plan compared to the knowns of the current plan. Under that false assumption, wouldn't most people prefer the known to the unknown?


    Good God! Are you in fact Dick Cheney!??!?!

    Don't you mean Rumsfeld? icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 1:27 AM GMT
    I don't know much about Paul Ryan's social views, but his fiscal genius and resolve to stand up against the utter ruin that democrats and republicans alike want to take this country towards makes him a hero in my book.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 03, 2011 1:56 AM GMT
    For CURRENT seniors, is the operative phrase, whenever Ryan talks up his plan to kill Social Security and Medicare. He claims that everything will be just fine for CURRENT seniors, which is essentially TRUE, because his plan pretty much leaves their benefits alone.

    The problem lies in the disaster that his plan creates for people who are 55 and under, who wouldn't have Social Security or Medicare. How are they supposed to live and pay medical expenses ? They certainly can't afford to pay for private insurance.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 2:54 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidI don't know much about Paul Ryan's social views, but his fiscal genius and resolve to stand up against the utter ruin that democrats and republicans alike want to take this country towards makes him a hero in my book.


    Mock -

    Don't embarrass yourself by standing up for Ryan's plan. It is completely ridiculous, flounders in its own assumptions, and will be the albatross around the neck of the Republican Party for the foreseeable future.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 2:56 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidI don't know much about Paul Ryan's social views, but his fiscal genius and resolve to stand up against the utter ruin that democrats and republicans alike want to take this country towards makes him a hero in my book.

    Mock -

    Don't embarrass yourself by standing up for Ryan's plan. It is completely ridiculous, flounders in its own assumptions, and will be the albatross around the neck of the Republican Party for the foreseeable future.

    It's becoming clear that you just make up random shit, just like that paper you "critiqued".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 11:13 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidI don't know much about Paul Ryan's social views, but his fiscal genius and resolve to stand up against the utter ruin that democrats and republicans alike want to take this country towards makes him a hero in my book.

    Mock -

    Don't embarrass yourself by standing up for Ryan's plan. It is completely ridiculous, flounders in its own assumptions, and will be the albatross around the neck of the Republican Party for the foreseeable future.

    It's becoming clear that you just make up random shit, just like that paper you "critiqued".


    Where's the "yawn" emoticon?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 11:51 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said

    The problem lies in the disaster that his plan creates for people who are 55 and under, who wouldn't have Social Security or Medicare. How are they supposed to live and pay medical expenses ? They certainly can't afford to pay for private insurance.


    Huh?

    People currently under age 55 (who reach Medicare / Social Security age) "can't afford to pay for private insurance"

    What are you talking about, Webster-the-Devil?



    Webster and other folks on the left, please re-read this:
    We stop the raid. We repeal the rationing board. And for those of us who are 54 and below who have a bankrupt system that we right now cannot count on, we reform it so it works like the system Members of Congress and federal employees have. It's a system that looks like Medicare Advantage or the drug benefit works today: seniors get a choice of plans offered to them by Medicare – guaranteed coverage options – from which they can choose and Medicare subsidizes that plan. It doesn’t subsidize people as much if they are wealthy and subsidizes them a lot more if they are low income or if they're sick.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 12:07 PM GMT
    Even one of the "inventors" of premium support states that the Ryan plan isn't premium support.

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1103764Although the Ryan–Rivlin and House Budget Committee plans are called “premium support,” they actually jettison all or most of the consumer protections that distinguish premium support from bare vouchers. Both would shift costs to Medicare enrollees. The CBO estimates that by 2030 the House Budget Committee plan would increase the out-of-pocket share of health care spending for a typical Medicare beneficiary from the current 25-to-30% range to 68%. By 2050, the House plan would cut federal health care spending by approximately two thirds.4 Both plans would place substantial administrative burdens on the most vulnerable and infirm of Medicare's enrollees. And both would surrender the considerable leverage that Medicare can bring to bear on providers to reduce spending and improve quality, which to date has gone largely unused but which the ACA aims to mobilize with the backing of the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
    ...
    In brief, current proposals are not premium support as Reischauer and I used the term. In addition, I now believe that even with the protections we set forth, vouchers have serious shortcomings. Only systemic health care reform holds out real promise of slowing the growth of Medicare spending. Predicted savings from vouchers or premium support are speculative. Cost shifting to the elderly, disabled, and poor and to states is not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 2:13 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    mocktwinkie saidI don't know much about Paul Ryan's social views, but his fiscal genius and resolve to stand up against the utter ruin that democrats and republicans alike want to take this country towards makes him a hero in my book.


    Mock -

    Don't embarrass yourself by standing up for Ryan's plan. It is completely ridiculous, flounders in its own assumptions, and will be the albatross around the neck of the Republican Party for the foreseeable future.


    I don't understand how you see it this way. The republican party is not embracing it -- everyone is tiptoing. Paul Ryan is having to fight against the republicans as much as the democrats. They are botht he problem. They want to be popular and loved and tell everyone that the gravy train can last forever for their own political gain. Paul Ryan is telling the truth, and the truth is that the status quo is headed toward disaster. Attacking the one person who's willing to stand up and not care if it is political ruin for him is outrageous, but at the end he knows he can sleep at night that he tried to come up with a plan. No single plan will make everyone happy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 2:15 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    TigerTim said
    socalfitness saidThe current Democratic strategy, accompanied by recent polls that ask about Ryan's plan in isolation, are dishonest because they ignore the real context of the Ryan plan. They would have uninformed poll respondents believe they are responding to the unknowns of a new plan compared to the knowns of the current plan. Under that false assumption, wouldn't most people prefer the known to the unknown?


    Good God! Are you in fact Dick Cheney!??!?!

    Don't you mean Rumsfeld? icon_biggrin.gif


    Oh yes, that's right! Blame the jetlag.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 03, 2011 10:39 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said

    The problem lies in the disaster that his plan creates for people who are 55 and under, who wouldn't have Social Security or Medicare. How are they supposed to live and pay medical expenses ? They certainly can't afford to pay for private insurance.


    Huh?

    People currently under age 55 (who reach Medicare / Social Security age) "can't afford to pay for private insurance"

    What are you talking about, Webster-the-Devil?




    If Ryan's plan were passed (which it will never be), people who are currently 55 and under would have to purchase their own private health insurance to cover them from 55 to death, something that almost no one could afford to do. Seniors are currently struggling to survive under Medicare. Private insurance covers far less than Medicare.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 10:54 PM GMT
    What Paul Ryan's Critics Don't Know About Health Economics - A premium-support system would create the right incentives for cost cutting without putting undue burdens on seniors.

    By ALAIN ENTHOVEN
    Mr. Enthoven, a health economist who helped to design the premium-support concept 30 years ago, is a professor emeritus at the Graduate School of Business at Stanford.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576357750584271340.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

    It's clear that Medicare-spending growth must be curtailed and eventually limited to the growth rate of GDP—if not below. The big question now is how to do it. Unfortunately, the debate on Capitol Hill and in the media is too often fueled by partisan fear mongering instead of a thoughtful examination of the facts.

    Health care in America is extremely wasteful. A 2005 report by the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine found that 30-40 cents of every dollar spent on health care are spent on costs associated with "overuse, underuse, misuse, duplication, system failures, unnecessary repetition, poor communication, and inefficiency." Medicare is especially vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse.

    No amount of price cutting or central-government dictates will mitigate these problems. Their cure requires detailed local knowledge, incentives and fundamental organizational change so that curing them is in the interest of providers and patients.

    At the root of the waste and excess is Medicare's open-ended fee-for-service system, which pays health-care providers for doing more and more costly services, whether or not they're in the patients' best interests. Last year's health-care reform legislation acknowledged that fundamental change is needed from the traditional fee-for-service model to a system in which doctors and hospitals team up to offer coordinated care and are held accountable for per-capita cost and quality. Hospitals and suppliers may participate in this Shared Savings Program by creating or joining an Accountable Care Organization (ACO).

    Unfortunately, the incentives to form ACOs and to dramatically cut costs are far too weak and the regulations far too complicated. The rules alone for joining the Shared Savings Program number more than 400 pages, and to fully understand them is a daunting challenge for medical professionals. The program is voluntary, and, not surprisingly, it now appears that there will not be many takers.

    In a recent letter to the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the American Medical Group Association wrote: "On its face, [the rule to form an ACO] is overly prescriptive, operationally burdensome, and the incentives are too difficult to achieve to make this voluntary program attractive. . . . In a survey of AMGA members, 93 percent said they would not enroll as an ACO under the current regulatory framework."

    A better way to encourage accountable care is the "premium-support" model proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, among others. This is a managed competition model in which government would make a defined contribution and beneficiaries would have a choice from a variety of health plans with no discrimination based on health status. Standard coverage contracts would make comparisons possible for ordinary people. Competition would drive health plans to innovate in ways that cut waste and improve quality. And the use of exchanges would drastically reduce marketing costs, so insurance companies would not be taking 20% off the top, as is currently the norm.

    This is not "the end of Medicare," as some would have you believe. As Rep. Ryan wrote in these pages in April: "Medicare will provide increased assistance for lower-income beneficiaries and those with greater health risks. Reform that empowers individuals—with more help for the poor and the sick—will guarantee that Medicare can fulfill the promise of health security for America's seniors."

    These are also not "vouchers" in which "seniors would, in effect, be handed a coupon and told to go find private coverage," as columnist Paul Krugman recently wrote in the New York Times. Under the Ryan plan, seniors would receive a menu of participating contractors to choose from. And because Medicare Administrative Contractors, the firms that pay Medicare claims, are already private, this is not exactly "privatizing Medicare" either.

    The Ryan plan isn't perfect. It proposes that after 2021 the premium-support payments be indexed to the consumer price index, which grows at a lower rate than GDP. The feasibility of that proposal is debatable and negotiable. But instead of seeking common ground, Democrats immediately attacked the entire plan. We now face the kind of partisan brawl that absolutely turns off independent voters.

    Personally, I think a growth rate as low as the consumer price index is probably unrealistic. But it is foolish to focus debate now on a formula that will not take effect until 2021. The premium-support payments in the next decade can be decided in the next decade, and reasonable people ought to sit down and work out a compromise.

    A more pressing problem is that, in the face of unsustainable federal deficits, 10 years is too long to wait to start cutting costs. Congress should focus on implementing competition in Medicare sooner. The problem with just cutting hospital payments now is that hospitals will continue to shift costs onto private payers.

    The 2010 health-care reform's Independent Payment Advisory Board is unlikely to be effective. Appointed by the president, 15 experts with no financial ties to the health-care industry are supposed to dream up cost-cutting ideas that would go into effect unless overridden by a supermajority in Congress. But the reality is that most waste identification and cutting is local. These 15 central planners are unlikely to do as good a job as hundreds of doctors and managers in local delivery systems working with incentives to improve value for money for their enrolled members.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 11:15 PM GMT
    Oh God... Socal has joined SouthBeach in his irritating re-posting of the original article when people disagree with him.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 11:17 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidOh God... Socal has joined SouthBeach in his irritating re-posting of the original article when people disagree with him.

    This is not a reposting. The article appeared only today in the Wall Street Journal, and it was consistent with the thread topic so I added it. It does refute some comments in the thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 03, 2011 11:28 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidOh God... Socal has joined SouthBeach in his irritating re-posting of the original article when people disagree with him.

    This is not a reposting. The article appeared only today in the Wall Street Journal, and it was consistent with the thread topic so I added it. It does refute some comments in the thread.


    Yes. I confused this with the thread riddler posted earlier of the same article. Apologies.

    And, as usual, SB is a:

    fortuny-douchebag.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2011 4:31 AM GMT
    Voters ultimately respond to sound bites and headlines, not long studies or articles. If the choices are made in stark terms, the choice for seniors really is scary.

    Ryan's plan: 55 or over, no change. Under 55, same plan as members of Congress, enjoying the efficiencies of competition, while managed under a Government umbrella.

    Democrats' plan: Pull $500 billion out of Medicare and establish for today's seniors a government panel to ration health care.

    For example, you are over 70 and need a hip replacement, will they say sorry. Not worth it. You had a good life. Stay in your wheel chair. All we will pay for is pain medication.

    Or you are over 80 and need dialysis. Will they say sorry. Not worth it. You had a good life. Bye-bye.

    Now, which plan should seniors be scared of?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2011 4:37 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Ryan's plan: 55 or over, no change. Under 55, same plan as members of Congress, enjoying the efficiencies of competition, while managed under a Government umbrella.

    Really? hmmmmm

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/health-care-for-members-of-congress/

    read the last line of the second paragraph at least twice.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2011 4:43 AM GMT
    socalfitness said

    Democrats' plan: Pull $500 billion out of Medicare and establish for today's seniors a government panel to ration health care.

    Really? Socal, you should REALLY research your bogus info BEFORE posting as it makes you look like an idiot!

    http://www.factcheck.org/2011/05/ryan-revises-history-on-medicare-reform/
    Make sure you read the entire informational piece to include the part entitled "mediscare".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 05, 2011 4:55 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    socalfitness said

    Democrats' plan: Pull $500 billion out of Medicare and establish for today's seniors a government panel to ration health care.

    Really? Socal, you should REALLY research your bogus info BEFORE posting as it makes you look like an idiot!

    http://www.factcheck.org/2011/05/ryan-revises-history-on-medicare-reform/
    Make sure you read the entire informational piece to include the part entitled "mediscare".

    Comparing to Clinton is a red herring. Nothing I quoted made any mention of that. As far as looking like an idiot, why don't you give us your critique of the Stanford professor's paper and tell us how he is mistaken, and let's see who really looks like an idiot.
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Jun 05, 2011 10:13 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Webster666 said


    If Ryan's plan were passed (which it will never be), people who are currently 55 and under would have to purchase their own private health insurance to cover them from 55 to death, something that almost no one could afford to do.


    Really Webster-the-Devil? They'd have to dig into their own pockets and fund their own private health insurance purchases?





    Exactly.
    Everybody knows that Medicare provides FAR better coverage than any private insurance company.
    People under 55 years old would have to forget about ever retiring. And, if they were too feeble to work any longer, they'd have to just die.
    THAT'S the Republican plan.