The Medicare Cutters
The debate over Paul Ryan's Medicare reform ideas has largely been healthy, even amid the liberal distortions. But why has there been so little scrutiny of President Obama's new Medicare proposal? Anyone worrying about more individual choice and responsibility in health care might be interested to learn that the alternative is turning every one of these decisions over to a 15-member central committee.
It sounds absurd, but there the President was last week, gravely conceding Mr. Ryan's analysis of Medicare's balance sheet and then claiming that the solution is to give a lot more political power to an unelected board to control health costs. Democrats believe this board will play doctor and actuary and allocate health resources better than markets, so allow us to fill in some of the details of this government-planned future...
Starting in 2014, the board is charged with holding Medicare spending to certain limits, which at first is a measure of inflation. After 2018, the threshold is the nominal per capita growth of the economy plus one percentage point. Last week Mr. Obama said he wants to lower that to GDP plus half a percentage point.
Mr. Ryan has been lambasted for linking his "premium support" Medicare subsidies to inflation, not the rate of health cost growth. But if that's as unrealistic as the liberal wise men claim, then Mr. Obama's goals are even more so. Medicare grew 2.1 percentage points faster between 1985 and 2009 than Mr. Obama's new GDP target. At least Mr. Ryan is proposing a workable model for bringing costs down over time by changing incentives.
Mr. Obama, by contrast, is relying on the so far unidentified technocratic reforms of 15 so far unidentified geniuses who are supposed to give up medical practice or academic research for the privilege of a government salary. Since the board is not allowed by law to restrict treatments, ask seniors to pay more, or raise taxes or the retirement age, it can mean only one thing: arbitrarily paying less for the services seniors receive, via fiat pricing...
Messrs. Ryan and Obama agree that Medicare spending must decline, and significantly. The difference is that Mr. Ryan would let seniors decide which private Medicare-financed insurance policies to buy based on their own needs, while Mr. Obama wants Americans to accept the commands of 15 political appointees who will never stand for election.
Orr we could seize the oil revenues from Iraq and Afghanistan that are owed for saving their sorry asses and give our seniors better wheel chairs and bingo boards.
I think that if we're going to have some kind of mandatory medical care, it should be a mandatory HSA, with less restrictions on what type of insurance you can get.
Seriously, I don't need to be covered for pregnancy, I don't have a vagina.
I think that if we're going to have some kind of mandatory medical care, it should be a mandatory HSA, with less restrictions on what type of insurance you can get.
Seriously, I don't need to be covered for pregnancy, I don't have a vagina.
Indiana is in the process of switching it's Medicaid recipients over to HSA's, having already offered that option to it's public employees. Going to be interesting to see how it works out and what it tells us for public policy.
You are a human being. Of course you have a vagina. How else could you be fruitful and multiply? And medical care must be mandatory because humans do not let other humans suffer or die.
And think, if we swapped out the Medicare tax to contribute to the HSA, it would be golden.
geez. combined with swapping Social Security over to a ROTH-style plan... and saved up against your retirement...
....our biggest retiree issue would be that housing prices in Florida would be skyrocketing. we would literally be retiring entire generations of millionaires in real money.
we could means-test Medicare and join it with Medicaid to cut redundancy - both of which would just subsidize the 'Low Income / High Risk HSAs', everyone would still be provided for; and we could concentrate what few dollars we have to spend on that exceedingly small percentage seniors who would actually need it....
Long Term, we could lower government spending to 15% of the economy. 10%. Easily. Good God, can you imagine the economic boom?
geez. combined with swapping Social Security over to a ROTH-style plan... and saved up against your retirement...
....our biggest retiree issue would be that housing prices in Florida would be skyrocketing. we would literally be retiring entire generations of millionaires in real money.
we could means-test Medicare and join it with Medicaid to cut redundancy - both of which would just subsidize the 'Low Income / High Risk HSAs', everyone would still be provided for; and we could concentrate what few dollars we have to spend on that exceedingly small percentage seniors who would actually need it....
Long Term, we could lower government spending to 15% of the economy. 10%. Easily. Good God, can you imagine the economic boom?
and yet we won't because we are so stupid :doh
aaaaarg, it's depressing seeing how awesome we could be, how many poor people we could lift out of poverty, how we could recapture our founding ideals..... and yet we wont. :sigh: ....
:rwbdonkey:blastem:
You're insane, crazy, that will cause millions to die for some unknown cosmic reason. :scared:
In my lifetime CPwill theres been many just like you...telling me how fantastic this idea for change is...or that idea for change is...if WE WOULD ONLY DO THIS it would end all world problems as we know it..
that doesn't need to be specified or defined, but certainly involves your elderly grandmother and an autistic kid being stabbed to death - as they lay in the snow - by the Koch brothers.
You're so devilish. :lol:
Just checked, I still do not have a vagina.
There are other humans you know. It's not all about just you. Your concerns for your female humans should be no different than your own.
There are other humans you know. It's not all about just you. Your concerns for your female humans should be no different than your own.
When I am female, I will have a deep concern for my vagina.
Until then, I have no need of insurance that covers pregnancy or any vagina related ailment/problem.
Insurance is meant to cover things that could happen to you, you wouldn't buy car insurance when you don't have a car.
I wouldn't purchase insurance to cover pregnancy when I can not get pregnant.
That's why it's moronic to have government regulate these markets beyond contract enforcement and fraud.
Cars are not necessary to advance life. Babies are. You have to pay for the well being of babies. Not cars.
Gonna have to disagree, rapid transportation is very important to advanced life.
As I've pointed out a couple of times, here, both sides are admitting that we need to cut medicare.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?