[InterceptPoint]

So what about the claims that House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan also cuts Medicare by $716 billion? Ryan’s budget follows current law. The BBA Medicare-payment reductions are federal law, and his budget necessarily uses federal law as a baseline.

Make sure you understand this sentence. It will be the focus of the attacks by the Dems on Ryan's Plan.

[mongo141]

Well if you look at it from the standpoint that the present regime is a pack of lying, no good, self serving pack of stinking commie wannabes you can see which path should be taken.

[Norseman]

I’m sorry but I understand math and accounting reasonably well and the following sentence is clear as mud:

>>So here’s the bottom line: President Obama leaves the $716 billion in Medicare reductions in place, and he spends the money again to create a vast new Obamacare entitlement program. Paul Ryan doesn’t double-count this money. His budget leaves the BBA Medicare payment cuts in place, but also creates a plan to make the program more efficient by injecting market forces through competition and consumer choice. <<

What doesn “leaves the $716 billion in Medicare reductions in place” mean? To me it would mean that Obama’s budget makes the cuts. But then Ryan’s also leaves the cuts in place too, so he’s doing the same.

The only double-counting I can see is if one assumes that Congress will go ahead once again and delay the cuts year by year. Otherwise, both Ryan and Obama cut the $716 billion (by following the law on the books from the 90’s) but Obama uses it to fund Obamacare and Ryan uses it to implement a voucher plan of some sort.

Maybe someone has a different take on it and can explain it?

[LuvFreeRepublic]

Bump for later.

[LuvFreeRepublic]

Bump for later.

[Sgt_Schultze]

$716 billion over 10 years is an average $1,376,923,000 reduction to the program, per week.
There are roughly 47 million Medicare recipients.
The average cost per recipient is a net $1,500 reduction in benefits, per year.
That's a loss of $125 per month per Medicare recipient.

[Jim Noble]

“The truth about Medicare”

The truth is that Medicare is a stealth bomb to destroy the Constutution and the practice of free-market economics, and it’s working.

Medicare (1965) promises that FedGov will pay “usual, customary, and reasonable” fees for ALL services provided to enrollees in a given year, without regard to how many services or what they cost.

That’s not a bug, that’s a feature.

Now, if you think about it for a minute, Congress cannot pass a budget that accurately allocates money for this purpose, BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS HOW MUCH THE COST WILL BE.

Some Medicare services (maybe 20%, probably a little less) are services which are necessary to life AND are services for which afflicted seniors (or families) would willingly pay for. The rest is discretionary.

Take joint replacements. They are great. Currently existing technology, however, would never have come into being without Medicare’s promise to pay. Of all joint replacenets done/year in the US, how many would be done if the patient, or kids, or grandkids, had to pay cash? 10%? Maybe not even.

The flood of OPM unleashed by Medicare (mostly fiat FRNs and borrowed money) has created a fantastic wave of innovation. But none of it would have come about without the government’s promise to pay.

So, we can have a continued promise to pay if we keep borrowing from China and printing money. But if we fix the borrowing and fix the money, we cannot continue to have open-ended expenses within a closed budget system.

Why do you think Congress can’t pass a budget?