THis slipped through the cracks because it was such an epic fail by Bush back in the day, but imagine how disastrous this plan would have been as enacted. Basically, take all of social security, invest it in equities in 2005-2006 at alltime high valuations, and the whole thing is bankrupt in 3 years, not 30.
As you mentioned, polls in the summer are meaningless. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...us/anything-can-change-in-a-presidential-year
Not really. Ryan's plan for Medicare consists in part of dismantling it and replace it with vouchers, while calling it "Medicare" instead of "vouchers". That's not hyperbole, it's a simple fact. Death panels was not a fact, nor was the "government takeover" of an already heavily-government regulated industry.
Drastically revamping Medicare and Medicaid is not a bad thing. States are being killed by these programs and a new plan is in order. The established programs have not been effective, they have allowed for billions of dollars in fraud, and effectively been a black hole in the budget. He does not want to cut health insurance and benefits for senior citizens, he wants to end the wasteful spending and allow for private insurers with per-determined rates to service these groups with "vouchers" from the governments. Anyone already receiving medicare and medicaid benefits will continue on their program, but starting in like 2022 it would switch over. Changing how something is done is not the same as ending insurance and benefits for the elderly. It's making it more efficient, which apparently some people think it is...wrong. And I think it is a ridiculous assertion that his plan will redistribute wealth from the bottom up. It's not going to make the richer rich and the poorer poor. Rich people have more money to spend, more to put into the economy, not to mention they pay incredibly higher percentages of their income to the government. I am not wealthy, never intend to be wealthy, but I don't think it is right to take from those who have to offer a multitude of programs to everyone else. They are not responsible for supporting an entire country, it's just going to send more jobs overseas, and put more Americans out of work. It's not evil, it's our system, you can not change our system without changing who we are and what we stand for. A free system that allows ANYONE to move up or down. ANYONE can make it in this country if they try, try being the key word. It's time for us to stop telling the youth of America that it is okay to fail, that we'll have their back. I believe it's time we tell them to get off their asses and contribute. Don't want to be poor? Get a job. If that means scrubbing toilets till something better comes along, so be it. I am definitely an advocate of the government fully funding mental health and patients with serious and chronic diseases, as I believe the voucher wouldn't be sufficient to pay for the costs associated with these programs. As far as his beliefs on abortion, the law still allows for abortions and I don't think any president is getting that overturned. It is up to the states to decide how they want to handle allowing them in their programs or not.
Which is an incredibly cynical way of trying to have your cake and eat it too. In other words, Medicare is socialist/unfair/a huge drain, but since we can't win without seniors votes, anybody who's a senior today is exempt from our plan to dismantle it and replace it with magical private medicare vouchers...which will do nothing to control costs overall and are actually more likely to increase costs per person rather than under the existing arrangement.
Most governments and institutions would do similar things when changing or ending a program, grandfather people in, or in this case out. It makes total sense to exclude them from them from the overhaul. And it's not like the Democratic party doesn't do the same thing. They feed off the economically disadvantaged, dangling social programs in their faces. The difference here is, while it may have a political advantage, it is what makes sense for everyone. Why make seniors already enrolled deal with a new program, those who want to join the new "Medicaid" system, will sign up through a different process.
What is blocked out before tier? No curse sounds right there haha. Because how would you start the new program? You are advising that if we want to end it, to just end it all together and not grandfather people off? Why?
How would I start a new program? I would hope to do so honestly. If I was ending Medicare and replacing it with vouchers, I'd make it clear and move up the timetable, rahter than picking a date 12 years in the future. So I'd say "as of next year or 2 years from now, no more medicare, here's your voucher, best of luck to you friend!" This is what Ryan's done, right? Oh...wait.... Anyway why don't you answer the question - why make anybody enroll in a crappy vouchers program?
I wouldn't make anyone enroll in anything. They are given the opportunity as of now to either a) register with Medicaid, or b) get their own private insurance plan. Ryan's plan would essentially ease seniors into the transition. It would likely be more cost effective, but this allows for (sorry to say it) 10 years for some of the eldest to, well, die. If the elderly want health coverage they will register for a voucher. As of now they register with Medicaid and the state has to deal with all of the issues of fraud and overuse, which costs the STATE money. As I understand it, this would leave the private insurance companies to deal with these issues, saving essential tax payer dollars. You can't call it crappy voucher unless you call what we have now "crappy medicaid/care."
Until a single-payer system exists, you will never be able to control health care costs. An unfortunate truth.
Actually pretty much every experience with vouchers and medicine shows that they increase costs overall (and this is what the CBO found with respect to Ryan's plan to scrap medicare). So if by "more cost effective" you mean, less, you're right. So basically we just ahve to wait for people to die to implement a worse plan. You are making a compelling case.
LOL, way to twist my words. That is not at all what I was saying. The main cost to states is fraud, and not from the consumer side. This would essentially push the burden onto insurance providers and save billions.
Since you first posted this, it's taken me this long to get off the floor from laughing so hard. If anything, substitute the name "Obama" for "Ryan" and the statement becomes soberingly true. You probably consider Ryan a "radical" because he wants to resolve the economic/debt crisis Obama created in many areas and exacerbated in others.
You should probably cut back on the meds. They seem to be affecting your lucidity. No I consider Ryan a radical for a myriad of other reasons; such as these. 1. Catholic nuns, priests, and friars have called the Ryan budget “immoral,” a “severe failure,” and the “height of hypocrisy.” 2. Catholic bishops have called the Ryan budget “unjustified and wrong” and failing a moral test.
Elderly people currently register for Medicare, not Medicaid. And Medicare is administered at the federal level, rather than state level (unlike Medicaid). And Medicare is cheaper & more efficient than private insurance plans now. So you'd be giving these people a voucher that will either cost the government more than it costs now, or wouldn't cover their cost of health care. Basically, you'd just be increasing total cost, whether it be paid by the government or by the seniors.
