EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 3, 2011 12:41:29 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 3, 2011 13:24:50 GMT -5
Ryan's got balls, I'll give him that.
But looking at all the "cutting off Grandma" and "death panel" scaremongering that Obama had to go through for a plan that barely touched Medicare, then imagine what will happen to a plan that explicitly calls for major cuts to Medicare.
The GOP has a lot of momentum going right now. I'd be surprised if they put their necks on the line in that big of a way before the 2012 elections.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 3, 2011 18:47:34 GMT -5
"Cutting off Grandma" and "death panel" will be mild in comparison with how the Democrats will demogue Ryan's plan.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 3, 2011 19:45:11 GMT -5
"Cutting off Grandma" and "death panel" will be mild in comparison with how the Democrats will demogue Ryan's plan. And the GOP would do the exact same thing if the Dems proposed the exact same plan. The Boz Doctrine applies nicely here. It's interesting that after such a brutal fight against health care reform, the GOP's budget proposal is, in effect, health care reform.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 3, 2011 23:17:02 GMT -5
It's only interesting if you hold the position that Republicans all along were against any form of health care reform at all, and not that they were opposed to Obamacare.
I realize there are those who hold that position, but it doesn't make it accurate.
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Apr 4, 2011 8:18:07 GMT -5
EJ Dion makes a pretty good first blast at the Ryan approach today in the Post www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-end-of-progressive-government/2011/04/01/AFQbjTXC_story.html?wpisrc=nl_politicsOnly the first of many I am sure. I am surprised Ryan would be rolling out a $4 trillion cutting plan the same week that the current year's plan is being (hopefully) decided. Given Shumer out there trying to say any cut at all is extreme I would have thought the better play was to focus on getting this done and label Dems as out of touch before introducing the long term medicine - whatever you think of the plan. Smacks of a tin ear to me. More globally I am thinking Ryan is making a similar mistake to what Obama made with Health Care reform - not spending the time to prepare the American public for what you want to do. Like health care everyone knows the deficit is a problem but few know any details and are IMHO not really prepared for the fixes. I would have taken the time (recognizing the budget process timing) to have the party (not just Ryan) prepare the public for specifics - ie. 120 separate programs for feeding kids at risk, dynamics of why medicare/medicaid are broke, even a military spending option before tieing it all together in a $4 T plan that will be raw meat to the Prez and his attack dogs. Easy raw meat for them.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 4, 2011 10:40:25 GMT -5
Partially agree with hoyawatcher. The country, not just Ryan or the Republicans, needs to be spoon-fed on the consequences of the monstrous debt, explained to it in simple terms that all can understand. This should be the first step. Then, after hammering this home for a while, competing plans for solving the problem need to be discussed. Two such plans are those of the president's commission and Ryans but they should not be the only ones. The country needs first to recognize the magnitude of the problem and its consequences and, then, to be exposed to various ways to solve it. And the smoke and mirrors of whatever approach need to be exposed. For instance, Ryan's plan supposedly has no added taxes but, in reality, his plan makes Medicare patients pay more for their services than they would pay under the current system. While not a conventional tax, it's certainly a revenue enhancer. So we need to come up with terms which describe the consequences that are straightforward and honest.
My hat is off to the president's commission and to Ryan for having the guts to face the problem and to put forward possible approaches to solving it. And shame on anyone who attempts to use either as a means of scoring political points.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
Post by TC on Apr 4, 2011 12:08:22 GMT -5
But looking at all the "cutting off Grandma" and "death panel" scaremongering that Obama had to go through for a plan that barely touched Medicare, then imagine what will happen to a plan that explicitly calls for major cuts to Medicare. I think TPM makes a decent point in that this is not "major cuts" to Medicare, but an elimination of Medicare. If I understand it correctly, it replaces Medicare with some sort of voucher program and throws old people into the private insurance industry.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 4, 2011 12:56:10 GMT -5
First of all, the plan doesn't do anything to current old people, since there are no changes for those 55 and up. (there are those, such as Chris Christie, who have suggested that you have to change it for current beneficiaries as well, which is one reason I guess that Christie isn't running for President).
It does mean a big overhaul for future old people, to be sure, but is there anyone out there who really believes that Medicare will survive for those of us who are not quite yet "old people" without a major overhaul or transformation?
'Cause if you do, I've got some land I'd like to sell you.
And the voucher program is actually strongly subsidized by the government, with premium payment subsidies at least partially based on the individual's health and wealth.
But I'm sure that won't prevent the commercials of someone's grandmother eating cat food or Louise Slaughter talking about having to make dentures out of wood chips or some such nonsense.
One of the major problems is that Medicare, in almost every respect, is a very good government program (yes, I actually said that). Unfortunately, the one area where it is not a very good program -- where it is, in fact, a failing/failed program -- is that its costs are completely unsustainable.
And no, raising taxes does not save Medicare. At best, raising taxes merely delays the inevitable. Now, if you don't think Ryan's idea is the solution, OK. I can understand and respect that. But I haven't really seen anything from the administration or Congressional Democrats that seeks to deal with the long-term problem. If there is that out there, I'll certainly be interested in it. The only other thing I've seen though is the debt commission report, which really just proposed dramatic cuts to the program.
Oh, and by the way: the only way Obamacare even theoretically works is through major cuts to Medicare.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
Post by TC on Apr 4, 2011 16:03:40 GMT -5
First of all, the plan doesn't do anything to current old people, since there are no changes for those 55 and up. Every argument the Republicans used against Obama's statement that "you won't have to change your private insurance plan under Obamacare" works against this statement. Change that - pretty much every argument Republicans used against Obamacare (and I'm not talking about the demagogery of "kill Grandma", but every other argument which showed how really how ineffective a private insurance-based system is - applies.) While it helps the budget, does Paul Ryan's plan cut health care costs? Nope, health care will cost more due to the risk pools of Medicare going away. Medicare will change greatly for people 55 and up. Health care insurance is an ecosystem - and the fact that Medicare won't be refreshing its risk pool with young 55 year olds (well, relatively young in the context of the Medicare plan) will mean terrible risk pools and less and less doctors taking Medicare. Every year Medicare will become a smaller and crappier program. Imagine being late in life and being one of the sole surviving members of the old Medicare program - think you'll find a Doctor? My main complaint is of generational fairness though and how Generation X and Y take the entire brunt of the sacrifice here, with none coming on the backs of the retirement lobbies.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 4, 2011 17:52:10 GMT -5
Try keeping Medicare the way it is and see how that feels on the backs of Generations X and Y/Millennials.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 4, 2011 18:49:00 GMT -5
Generation X and Y get an awful lot of money via county/local property taxes and state income taxes. Typically over 50% of property taxes go to schools, not including interest on bond issues for school construction. Many, many people, including seniors, have property and state income taxes as high or higher than their federal income taxes. The current wisdom that the younger generations are paying for the older generations has to be examined in terms of the total taxes, not just federal income taxes.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 4, 2011 19:04:58 GMT -5
Generation X and Y get an awful lot of money via county/local property taxes and state income taxes. Typically over 50% of property taxes go to schools, not including interest on bond issues for school construction. Many, many people, including seniors, have property and state income taxes as high or higher than their federal income taxes. The current wisdom that the younger generations are paying for the older generations has to be examined in terms of the total taxes, not just federal income taxes. Except aren't Social Security & Medicare being financed through debt which won't be paid off by the current older generations?
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Apr 4, 2011 20:26:06 GMT -5
Generation X and Y get an awful lot of money via county/local property taxes and state income taxes. Typically over 50% of property taxes go to schools, not including interest on bond issues for school construction. Many, many people, including seniors, have property and state income taxes as high or higher than their federal income taxes. The current wisdom that the younger generations are paying for the older generations has to be examined in terms of the total taxes, not just federal income taxes. Except aren't Social Security & Medicare being financed through debt which won't be paid off by the current older generations? "Social Security is being financed through debt?"Social Security has been running a SURPLUS for years (until the loss of 8 millions jobs due to the Bush/Cheney global economic meltdown) That surplus has been Financing the Federal Govt. and continues to finance the Fed. govt. SS isn't FINANCED by debt... SS is the LENDER -- not the borrower. It will take years to work down the SS surplus that has been built up over time. The "older generation" has been paying into SS for decades. About 7-8 decades. They are now receiving the benefits promised to them by the FEDERAL govt.... through many many administrations of both parties. The benefits they paid for during a lifetime of work. The older generation is NOT getting a free ride. On the other hand, suggesting the "younger generation" is getting a free ride because Seniors share the "burden" of paying for schools...... that is a non-sensical argument as well. Education -- having an educated citizenry -- benefits EVERYONE. More productive citizens, higher wages -- ergo, higher tax revenues, lower crime, lower social service payments, more competitive US economy .... we should ALL want EVERY American to get as much, quality education as they can. That is a decision that we -- as a society -- and most other societies globally as well - have determined is a crucial national priority. Expecting everyone to pitch in for the cost of education is as legitimate as asking everyone to pitch in for the cost of Defense.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 4, 2011 21:18:16 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Social Security is NOT a pension plan. People (especially seniors) like to think that it is, but it was never meant that way. It essentially is a way to ensure that those who work take care of (financially) those who are now too old to do so. In other words, it's the current generation of workers paying for the current generation of seniors, not the current generation of workers paying into the system to store it there until they can get it back when they're seniors.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,443
|
Post by TC on Apr 5, 2011 8:31:39 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Social Security is NOT a pension plan. People (especially seniors) like to think that it is, but it was never meant that way. It essentially is a way to ensure that those who work take care of (financially) those who are now too old to do so. In other words, it's the current generation of workers paying for the current generation of seniors, not the current generation of workers paying into the system to store it there until they can get it back when they're seniors. I'm a little confused as to what your point here is - is it that we've stored too much money in the Social Security coffers to account for demographic shifts? In any case, Social Security IS NOT Medicare. The constant conflation of the two programs is ridiculous. Social Security is a program that can be fixed quite easily by phasing in new age restrictions and which doesn't constitute a budget buster, Medicare is a program that I think both parties realize isn't sustainable as presently constituted and will be a huge factor in the deficit.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Apr 5, 2011 11:12:35 GMT -5
"Ryan was a protégé of Jack Kemp, and Kemp’s uplifting spirit pervades the document. It’s not sour, taking an austere meat ax approach. It emphasizes social support, social mobility and personal choice. I don’t agree with all of it that I’ve seen, but it is a serious effort to create a sustainable welfare state — to prevent the sort of disruptive change we’re going to face if national bankruptcy comes. It also creates the pivotal moment of truth for President Obama. Will he come up with his own counterproposal, or will he simply demagogue the issue by railing against “savage” Republican cuts and ignoring the long-term fiscal realities? Does he have a sustainable vision for government, or will he just try to rise above the fray while Nancy Pelosi and others attack Ryan? " www.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 5, 2011 11:24:35 GMT -5
The full document is available here: budget.house.gov/fy2012budget/(Medicare proposal begins on p. 44 of the full report, FYI). I haven't read it all, but I'll bet I've read more than Nancy Pelosi did before she took to Twitter. That was quite a rebuttal, 'Nance! What are you, five?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 5, 2011 11:29:14 GMT -5
For what it's worth, Social Security is NOT a pension plan. People (especially seniors) like to think that it is, but it was never meant that way. It essentially is a way to ensure that those who work take care of (financially) those who are now too old to do so. In other words, it's the current generation of workers paying for the current generation of seniors, not the current generation of workers paying into the system to store it there until they can get it back when they're seniors. I'm a little confused as to what your point here is - is it that we've stored too much money in the Social Security coffers to account for demographic shifts? In any case, Social Security IS NOT Medicare. The constant conflation of the two programs is ridiculous. Social Security is a program that can be fixed quite easily by phasing in new age restrictions and which doesn't constitute a budget buster, Medicare is a program that I think both parties realize isn't sustainable as presently constituted and will be a huge factor in the deficit. What are these "Social Security coffers" of which you speak? Is there some big pot of money out there I'm unaware of?
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 5, 2011 14:12:41 GMT -5
Well, this is a good step, in that it pays for tax cuts for the rich rather than debt-financing them, as has been standard for the GOP for a while now. Of course, it pays for those cuts by raising taxes on the rest of us, so...
|
|