Posted on 05/25/2011 8:29:25 PM PDT by sickoflibs
True but they didn't have to pitch then vote on a plan that was guaranteed to fail, unless that is what they wanted. The specifics of this plan don't even make any sense, let alone being politically acceptable. Imagine 2021 and the first seniors retire that are affected, so those born in 1956 or 1957 get to go out there and buy insurance competing with those born before that age that are part of a huge medicare negotiating pool. What did the plan pitch that changes things (market wise) so this first year retirees are any better off than the uninsured at 64?
It is not a rational phased in approach to privatization that should start now for all new retires (born after 1946 not after 1956) , It is just throwing some off the ship because of the year they are born to get the others support 10 years from now when they are no longer in office , justifying it by repeating "we are broke".
I cant imagine what they were thinking. Maybe they like being out of power and responsibility, it is more fun for them I will admit. Then in the minority in 2014 they can try to say "I told you so".
I believe that the Ryan Plan had some kind of pools for those who don't stay on the old medicare plan, but these pools seem to be based on state laws. These would be smaller than the national medicare pool, but would potentially have the cost advantage (depending on what each state does) of not having to follow Obamacare's one-size-fits-all coverage and Kathleen Sebelius's thousands of pages of regulations that she is still writing.
But it won't become law.
As far as I know Obama-care did not totally replace medicare, there are some changes and cuts for those over 65 but they are not nearly as dramatic as the Obama-care changes to those under 65, Basic Medicare is already single payer, you cant get that much more regulated than it is.
But those in that first ‘pool’ that were born in that year 1956 would have it pretty tough because they would be alone. My proof? Because Ryan is going to those born in 1955 and before and say “you should support this reform because you are exempt from it.” just like Obama-care exempts some politically. If Obama's current plans for medicare are so much worse, why is the voting carrot to those born earlier that they will stay in it?
Of course, the media thinks that Obamacare with corrupt waivers and bloated bureaucracy is heaven on earth, but even without such a tilting of the game, it was predictable that voters would be nervous about whatever specific entitlement reform plan came out first.
Nothing really makes sense when those who are going to be swindled out of their money withheld from their pay specifically labeled for the entitlements that money is supposed to pay for, no matter which party gets its way. I don't think Obamacare is popular either. Both Obamacare and Ryancare play accounting tricks (for example, I think Ryancare assumes that the cost of medical care won't rise faster than inflation!). I think some voters will figure out how dishonest Obamacare was. But Obama was more diabolically clever than the GOP, and at this moment, Ryancare has taken some of the voters' wrath from Obamacare.
The should have come up with a plan that phases in changes for everyone (age wise) getting medicare starting at passage. And it should have a voluntary aspect to it (as I suggested before) so average Americans who worked and paid many hundreds of thousands of dollars of federal taxes dont feel like they are thrown out of the passenger airplane, the one that they had to pay for that others are riding in, just because they were born too late. Let the retired consumer decide if he personally wants Obama death panels or not.
Or here ILLEGALLY!
It’s like walking on very thin ice in the middle of a large lake. With no one around to pull one out.
This mini-discussion we were having relates to the future retiree personal perspective on this bill, as well as designing a reform proposal that does do go up into flames. But there is the other side to it, the somewhat hidden side.
Those other two freepers, one on this thread and the one on the other thread, were making a moral argument for the Ryan plan that went: ‘Why should anyone have to pay taxes to pay for anyone else’s health care(unless they were born before 1956) , even for a retiree that was forced to pay taxes to pay for other’s health care?(apparently born after 1956)’ They made the argument that if someone (born after 1956 apparently) doesnt save enough for their health care when they get old, why is that anyone else’s responsibility to do it? (And BTW :There is such thing as long term health care insurance, I know all about seniors options.) Then I threw out some unpleasant graphics to illustrate exactly what that would mean.
The problem is that this is NOT their argument. They are making the argument that they are ‘saving medicare’. If the above is the real argument than they shouldnt say they are ‘saving’ it. That is the part that annoys me the most.
Plus the whole 10 year delay thing ruins that moral argument anyway.
Understand. Thanks.
Entitlements are like benefits to some government union workers. If you make them unsustainable, any kind of reform will evoke resentment among those who would have collected those same benefits. In some cases, paying union dues is a requirement for employment.
The difference is that reforming union benefits won’t affect everyone. At least not unless some future federal government makes us all union members.
Or like a ponzi scheme where eventually someone will get screwed and others earlier are the big winners, But that plan contradicts itself by making such a clear discontinuity between winners and losers. Another point, I dont like bills that dont take effect until those that passed them are out of office. It's cowardly. Like most of Obama-care in 2014.
I was visiting a relative in his 80s today for the holiday, every week it seems he has a doctor story about some new problem, I naturally ask if medicare pays for each and it does, he was also complaining about the free electric wheelchair medicare bought him. He is very lucky, a good part of his career was before SS raised FICA taxes in the 1980s.
If crooks (not including the government) run a ponzi scheme, those who lose their money kiss it goodbye. When it's the government, those who lost money expect the government to change the laws of economy. And the government is likely to do just that, by printing money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.