Welcome to two months ago - the Ryan plan is dead, Republicans and bulbous-gluted scooter driving Tea Party folks put it out of its misery. "demaguery" had nothing to do with it. Of course, the fact that it was a freshly polished piece of dung salvaged from the festering remains of the Voodoo Econ 101 playbook probably didn't help its short brief lifespan either, despite the silliness of some of the beltway crowd who went for a few weeks pretending like Gabe from the Office didn't not have any clothes on.
You may be the only person who think Ryan is doing the right thing. His plan would actually cost more money (not to the govt but,) in general. His plan would hurt our nation's seniors, places all of the burden of reducing the deficit on the poor and middle class, with no sacrifice required of the wealthy and those best able to handle the sacrifice.
Well, for starters, we know that private health care is substantially more expensive than Medicare is for the same segment of the population. So it's odd that one would think subsidizing the private industry to provide that care - especially when they no longer even have to compete with Medicare - would be somehow cheaper than simply doing it directly. Nothing in the Ryan plan addresses the underlying costs of health care. All he does is shift the burden of unaffordable care to seniors.
The point that Major and I both made that the health care cost would be more under Ryan's plan, the fact that the burden is on poor and middle class more than on the wealthy etc. If it isn't loony it's just plain stupid.
<iframe width="853" height="510" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DJIC7kEq6kw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
No one want to talk about medical cost as a percent of GDP have gone up forever. If we do not cut medical cost, no plan will work. If you reduce medical cost, everything will be fine. But there is no way to cut cost unless you hurt the hospital profit, doctor income and drug company profits, which is to say it will not get done until the situation is so bad that it must be done, like 20 years down the road.
Yeah, this is about right. It's the major fault of the Obama plan. Without price controls, these changes are essentially meaningless. A single-payer system would help, but until we can somehow absolve ourselves of the idea that healthcare is primarily a profit-driven venture, we're still in deep ****.
i agree that the main problem is costs. however, you cannot expect a technologically advanced, industry that requires years of study to be a part of, to be not for profit.
I do not think for profit is the problem, the question is how much profit and how efficiency is the system(if one docotor and one hospital could do the job of two doctors and two hospitals, you can increase profit and reduce patient cost at same time).
http://www.bnet.com/blog/healthcare-business/health-spending-hits-173-percent-of-gdp-in-largest-annual-jump/1117 so we are spending over 17% of GDP on healthcare, are we going to spend 30%? 50% in 20 years? Can a country prosper when it spend so much of its resource on healthcare?
There are ways to control cost without price controls - price controls rarely have ever been an effective long-term solution at anything. ObamaCare consists of a bunch of things to control costs - some where there is wide agreement on, and a bunch that are entirely experimental and will be expanded depending on the effectiveness. One of the big failures of the Dems in the whole health care debate was focusing on the universal coverage when trying to sell the plan - the real key to the plan is in its reforms to the system. Whether they work remains to be seen - the reality is that no one knows what will happen because all the research thus far has been theoretical. But one of the beauties of the bill is that it throws virtually every cost-cutting idea out there into experimental trials to see what actually works in the real world.
Speaking of a path to prosperity, a new study out by the CBO puts in stark relief the debt burden caused by the last administration. And it puts the lie to the argument that Obama's polices are the cause of the majority of our rising debt Devastating
Regardless of the reason, Obama extended the Bush-era tax cuts. Those tax cuts are the largest contributor to the debt going forward, so it's just as much Obama's fault as the previous administration's fault.
The Senate votes and... 42 of 47 Repub Senators side with Ryan. Awesome. The ones that did not: Brown, the two gals from Maine, Murkowski, and... Rand Paul. Of course, Paul voted against it because he didn't think it was radical enough. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...s-split-on-vote-to-end-medicare.php?ref=fpblg
maybe, but the extensions are only for 2 years and Obama got a lot for those compromises. - extending unemployment benefits for 13 months and reducing the payroll tax by 2 percentage points for a year - food safety bill passed - repeal of DADT - 911 responder's health bill passed - new START treaty
