Thoughts on Ryan as VP?

[Spartana]

That's interesting. I believe that under the Ryan plan, seniors could opt out of Medicare and get the same benefit that our Congress is afforded. I guess that really would change Medicare as we know it.

My understanding (based on network TV so it's possible I'm wrong :-)!) is that he wants to eliminate medicare at the federal level and adopt a voucher system which gives a set amount, less than was needed, to the states and they would make up the difference. And of course there is the 10/25 tax plan which many middle and lower income people would find very unfair.

[Alan]

My understanding (based on network TV so it's possible I'm wrong :-)!) is that he wants to eliminate medicare at the federal level and adopt a voucher system which gives a set amount, less than was needed, to the states and they would make up the difference. And of course there is the 10/25 tax plan which many middle and lower income people would find very unfair.

I truly believe networks are in the business of telling you what to believe. Here's a Business Insider review you might not see on any of the network TV shows.

Excerpt:

What would change under Ryan's plan?
For those who become eligible after 2023, Ryan's plan would make two major changes:

• The age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months every year until it reached 67 in 2033.
• Medicare beneficiaries would get voucher payments to buy private insurance plans. Medicare enrollees would choose among competing private insurance plans, offered on a new Medicare Exchange similar to the insurance exchange now offered to federal workers, including members of Congress. The plans offered through the exchange would be required to cover everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, and would be prohibited from charging discriminatory rates based on age and health condition. They would also be required to meet a minimum standard of coverage. The vouchers would go directly from the government to the insurance company.

Under the Ryan-Wyden plan, seniors could also opt for the traditional "fee-for-service" Medicare plan, in which healthcare coverage is administered by the government, rather than a private insurer. But the amount that government pays for healthcare — whether in the form of vouchers or fee-for-service payments — remains the same.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-...#ixzz23Y0oSKBx

[Spartana]

Thanks Alan - Yes I did read something similair that the vouchers were given to individuals to buy their own private medical insurance (I made a mistake saying it went to the states - that was for Medicaid not medicare, which I read would be cut greatly (along with food stamp programs) under the Ryan plan). I'll read more but my understanding was that the vouchers would likely not be enough to cover the cost of private health insurance premiums, which would not be capped although the vouchers would be, and that individuals would have to make up what could be a very large difference. Great if you are a high earning senior, but that's not always the case - especially for divorced women who may have spent much of their lives as homemakers rather thenin the paid work force, or low income workers who never were able to save much thru out their lives. And with the loss or reduction of many of the other entitlement programs Ryan advocates and more taxpayer money going to military spending instead, along with higher taxes for the lower income brackets (i.e. seniors in many cases) I can see where people would have a problem with Ryan. But I'll read/watch more (something other then Fox ) and try to learn more before judging. But, you know me, I'm an advocate of universal healthcare (but not a fan of Obamacare - although it's better than nothing IMHO) and some very basic and stringently given entitlement programs, so I doubt I will be onboard the BatMitt and Rybin plan :-)!

[ApatheticNoMore]

Sometimes I think one way or other, that in the end almost noone is going to be able to afford healthcare anyway. 90% of the populace wont' have it

The age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months every year until it reached 67 in 2033.

I've not yet figured out how exactly one is supposed to afford healthcare up until that age. Through employers? Hmm one becomes age discriminated against for employment *LONG* before that age. I can see it. I myself don't see many older people employed at the companies I work for! 50 something is OLD for the workplace (as in try to look as young as you can and stay employed old!). Save up that much? When premiums keep increasing because they increase every year even for people of the same age and because they increase as you get older. Sounds very difficult. Self-employment, yea that one *might* work ...

Medicare beneficiaries would get voucher payments to buy private insurance plans. Medicare enrollees would choose among competing private insurance plans, offered on a new Medicare Exchange similar to the insurance exchange now offered to federal workers, including members of Congress. The plans offered through the exchange would be required to cover everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, and would be prohibited from charging discriminatory rates based on age and health condition. They would also be required to meet a minimum standard of coverage. The vouchers would go directly from the government to the insurance company.

sounds expensive and this is for the people over 67. I've honestly never understood why corporatism (and there is way too much government money in this plan for it to be a free market) is prefered to just socialism, except well for the corporations benefitting. You still have government control ultimately, you just have a corporate middle man. Now cynical conspiracy minded me thinks programs that benefit corporations are the only one's that can survive the onslaught. Not those that just benefit people. So medicare part D or whatever the drug care one is, yea that will stay, lots of pharm companies need to be made rich. But a very pure efficient government program like Social Security, how are corporations directly benefitting? (a little Keynsianism spending maybe, but really they AREN'T directly benefitting!) Therefore that one needs to get the axe. Cynical, so cynical ...

Under the Ryan-Wyden plan, seniors could also opt for the traditional "fee-for-service" Medicare plan, in which healthcare coverage is administered by the government, rather than a private insurer. But the amount that government pays for healthcare — whether in the form of vouchers or fee-for-service payments — remains the same.

more of less than now?

I'll read more but my understanding was that the vouchers would likely not be enough to cover the cost of private health insurance premiums, which would not be capped although the vouchers would be, and that individuals would have to make up what could be a very large difference.

don't all vouchers ultimately increase cost? Such is my thinking. That they just basically raise the price point where supply and demand intersect. Too simplistic? Too neo-classical?

[Alan]

I'll read more but my understanding was that the vouchers would likely not be enough to cover the cost of private health insurance premiums, which would not be capped although the vouchers would be, and that individuals would have to make up what could be a very large difference....

Ahh, you didn't follow the link to read more did you?

How much would the voucher be for?
Under the Ryan-Wyden plan, the cost of the voucher would be determined by a competitive bidding process. The amount the government pays would be decided based on the second-least expensive plan or fee-for service option. If individuals opt for a more expensive plan, they would have to pay the difference in premiums out of pocket. Alternatively, individuals who opt for a cheaper plan would get a rebate.
The individual vouchers would also be adjusted to account for the health and income status of the beneficiary (i.e. sicker, poorer Medicare recipients get more money).
As a failsafe, Ryan's plan would also impose a spending cap requiring that per capita growth not exceed nominal GDP growth plus 0.5%

[peggy]

from the article:

How much would the plan save?

According to a CBO analysis of Ryan's 2013 budget, average Medicare spending for new enrollees in 2050 would be between 35% and 45% below what it would be under the current program. The analysis found that possible consequences of the dramatically lower spending could include higher out-of-pocket healthcare costs for seniors; reduced access to health care; diminished quality of care; increased efficiency of health care delivery; and less investment in new, high-cost technologies


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-...#ixzz23YWw2WZC

I'm guessing the increased efficiency of health care delivery will be due to the fact that fewer people will actually be able to seek health care.

[Alan]

I'm guessing the increased efficiency of health care delivery will be due to the fact that fewer people will actually be able to seek health care.

Perhaps you could enlighten us on how this will differ from the President's plan to 'redistribute' $711B from Medicare to Obamacare. Will it have an affect on Medicare premiums or will we simply stop taking on new people when the money runs out?

I honestly haven't seen any discussion on this point anywhere in the media.

[creaker]

The biggest part of the voucher thing I don't understand is how are they changing private insurance to make that work? There are people now in their 40's who could not get a private insurer to offer them a plan on any terms, much less being in their 60's and 70's. No health insurance company wants to touch later life/end of life care, which is one of the main reasons Medicare came into being in the first place.

Are they going force them to offer plans or what? I don't see any opportunity for "savings through competition" here. I see a big shift from Medicare funded care to ER funded care, though - at least until the dump the ER mandate as well.

[gimmethesimplelife]

I've read of this Ryan plan for Medicare and I have just one question.....How much longer until leaving the US due to the health care system (among other reasons) is no longer considered radical by some? I'm thinking if and when this gets implemented, really, there will not be much to keep many here who think it through.....Just my two cents. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

I also wonder, why doesn't the US government start offering us buyouts? For those of us willing to leave for whatever reason, why not give us some token money for our new lives elsewhere in exchange for getting us off future Medicare rolls? Maybe a nice chunk more money for getting us off future SS rolls? Just an idea.....Would not be surprised if the days comes down the road when this idea is floated around publicly. Will take more time though, for this to happen, I think.....Rob