Skip to comments.Ryan: “We are going to win the debate on Medicare”
Posted on 08/18/2012 4:48:13 AM PDT by Perdogg
Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan showed vigor and enthusiasm speaking to an overflow crowd at West Springfield High School on Friday afternoon. He literally dared Democrats to attack him on entitlement reform.
We are going to win the debate on Medicare, he said in a high school gym packed to the gills with suburban northern Virginians. The vow brought whoops and cheers.
There is only one person who has treated Medicare as a piggy bank, and thats President Obama, Ryan added, referring to how the administration shifted funds from Medicare to cover the costs of Obamacare.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
The debates will be run by the rat media, now thats fair
I was a Rubio guy, but, we definitely got the right guy for the VP spot.
The issue, and any facts involved, will soon be buried under the usual Dem/Liberal avalanche of ad hominem attacks...
as in -
WE: There’s a serious problem with (issue) as it exists and here’s what we can do to correct it...
THEY: Look at what (Candidate) wrote in his 3rd Grade Termpaper!!!
If you want on/off the VA Ping List, please freepmail me. Thanks!
Johnson signed both medicare and medicaid into law.
A bandaid is plastic and fabric that costs X
Get plastic and fabric cost down and the bandaid is less expensive and the programs are less expensive.
Or legislate the damned things out and let us fend for ourselves.
We have the best aid and care on the planet ... it's the cost and how to pay that is in question.
Ryan is about to talk about Medicare at The Villages in Florida.
A very large retirement facility of I think 61,000 retirees, and over 40,000 golf carts.
It’s true. As Krauthammer pointed out, Paul Ryan’s selection allows Romney the opportunity to execute perfect judo. Let Obama attack the right on Medicare and take his thrust and energy and redirect it at two things - Obama cutting $750 billion from Medicare and using that money to fund ObamaCare.
Soon enough Obama will stop talking about it.
Yep - yet there are some here who devoured the Reuters "story" about how Ryan and Romney are singing different tunes and how Ryan is "backing off" the medicare rhetoric so he must be getting corrupted by Romney.
God help us all.
Paul Ryan basically told them “come at me bro”
That should be the new campaign slogan...I mean it would work for Chris Christie
On the Romney/Ryan side of things are these facts:
1. Because of Obamacare, Medicare benefits ARE reduced by over $700 billion over the next ten years.
The Dems can dress this up by saying that “it's just cuts in payments to providers, not a cut of benefits,” but the bottom line is that if you pay lots less money to providers, fewer providers will take Medicare, those that do will shove more patients into smaller amounts of time, there will be longer waits for Medicare patients to obtain services, meaning that Medicare recipients will receive fewer services, and the quality of care will decline.
2. Obamacare and the Obama regime offer no long-term solution for fixing Medicare beyond the next decade or so.
After 2024, the system falls off the cliff, and the Obama regime has not plans to prevent it from failing.
On the Obama regime side, there is this:
1. The actions of the Obama regime DO lengthen the life of the Medicare Trust Fund (or rather, it increases the amount of Treasury IOUs that the federal government credits to the Medicare program).
Why? That's simple. The amount of money coming into Medicare will increase (Medicare taxes are going up), while the amount of money going out will be reduced by over $700 billion over the next decade. This stretches the life of the trust fund.
2. And, because of the unified budget counting approach used by the federal government, which offsets overall deficits in the federal budget by any surpluses in specific programs such as Social Security, Medicare, the highway trust fund, etc., the reduction in Medicare spending combined with the increase in Medicare taxes DOES actually result in a lower overall deficit number for 10 years, which is then used to help pay for Obamacare.
So, the task of Romney/Ryan is to emphasize:
1. The immediate cut of benefits to current Medicare recipients, and that Romney/Ryan will restore them.
2. The long-term plan for folks currently under 55 to obtain Medicare through premium support.
The first part is easy, but a little tricky. The second part is also doable, I think, but tougher.
Folks will understand intuitively that if you take $700 billion from a program, you're going to get $700 billion less of what you're paying for. And by getting rid of Obamacare, the overall effect on the deficit is neutral.
But the tricky part is that technically, getting rid of Obamacare and restoring the Medicare cuts DOES reduce the life of the “trust fund.” What Romney/Ryan will need to do is just be honest - in the short term, before we get the Medicare fixes in place, Medicare will have need to resort to the general revenues received by the Treasury to meet the promises made to current seniors and those soon to be seniors. Fortunately, by getting rid of Obamacare, we'll have the resources to do that.
I think that's a winning argument.
On the second point, premium support for younger folks, the Dems are going to scream “vouchers, vouchers, vouchers!”
Premium support isn't the same as vouchers, but it's a more involved discussion. As envisioned by the Ryan plan, insurance companies will be permitted to offer health insurance policies to Medicare recipients. The plans must provide the same level of benefits as what I'll call "Standard Medicare," the program that the government will offer to seniors who don't want to buy a private insurance policy.
All insurance policies must provide, at a minimum, the same benefits as Standard Medicare.
The government will provide premium support to seniors so that a senior who buys the second-cheapest Medicare insurance policy will have the same costs as if he elected to take Standard Medicare, and will have the same benefits as Standard Medicare.
That means that there will be at least one insurance package that's cheaper that will be available to seniors, that will offer the same benefits as regular Medicare.
So, folks who are now under 55 will be able to choose between:
- Standard Medicare. Seniors will pay according to the then-current formulae, and they will receive the standard benefits.
- Second-cheapest private insurance plan. This will provide the same benefits as Standard Medicare, and will have costs to the recipient similar to Standard Medicare.
- Cheapest insurance plan. This will provide the same benefits as Standard Medicare (although it may have some additional explicit cost-control mechanisms, such as pre-approval of benefits), but it will provide a lower cost to the recipient. Folks will get Standard Medicare benefits, but at a lower cost (and at a lower cost to the federal government, too).
- More expensive insurance plans. These plans will have all the basics of Standard Medicare, but can have richer, better benefits. The cost to the government won't increase; the entire cost of additional benefits will be borne by the recipient. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the government provides a slighly-smaller premium support for these plans as sort of a "Cadillac Plan Tax." The higher costs to the recipient may be offset for many seniors by reducing or eliminating the need for "Medi-gap" policies that currently provide some of these richer benefits.
Because insurance companies will all have to provide the same Standard Medicare benefit package, a primary means of competition will be on price. Insurance companies will look to find ways of providing the standard benefits for less than the government provides them through Standard Medicare, and for less than each other.
By offering full premium support for the SECOND-cheapest plan, the hope will be that many senior will elect to SAVE SOME MONEY for themselves and choose the cheapest plan, which will also save the government a few dollars, as well.
This is how the Ryan plan “bends the cost curve.” Even bending the cost curve by a small amount accumulates rapidly over a period of 10 - 20 or more years, and it's through this mechanism that the Ryan plan hopes to put Medicare on a surer footing for the long-term.
Of course, the hidden premise is that private insurance companies will find more efficient ways to provide benefits and services than the government provides them.
That's the bet of the Ryan plan.
I think it's a bet that most Americans will take. I think that most Americans will understand it intuitively - competition makes things less expensive.
The difficulty is boiling that down to a 30-second ad, or worse, a bumper sticker. But here's my contribution to the cause:
"Medicare: Competition makes things cheaper and better."
What's wrong with just ending the gov't programs/entitlements altogether?
Yeah, some may die, others suffer (I would be at least a sufferer or maybe dead, but I honestly would accept that ... NONE OF US have been the Patriot of the Revolution or the early days of America)
If I was running for president, I'd promise a 'solution' and then just end the damned things.
It's what businesses do when faced with an impossible fix.
In a family it's called tough love.
What "debate"? The socialist democrats are likely days from wearing bomb vests add launching themselves at the nearest conservative. The DNC has become a "hate group" and possibly the world's largest terrorist organization.
I too read that RR were backing off the discussion of medicare.
“What's wrong with just ending the gov’t programs/entitlements altogether?”
It's fine with me. I just don't see anyone getting elected by saying, “Let's just end Medicare.”
What a cogent reply. Surley you can add a factoid or two to demonstrate how it's "BULLS**T".
Here's the post I was referring to from the Reuters story that has the headline "Ryan downplays his signature issue on campaign trail": A good man Ryan is already being corrupted by Romney. Compromise......and folks here on FR think Ryan can keep Romney in check.
There, I provided a basis for my comment......
Agreed ... I said that I would, if running, not tell the truth until after the election.
I guess I’m the only one bothered by Ryan and Romney’s Medicare line of attack. (Of course it’s good that it’s hurting Obama).
Medicare is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. The genuine conservative position would be to abolish it. Yet, we don’t have this.
We’re just arguing about how big the redistributive post-Constitutional United States of New Deal is going to be.
I can’t get in the least bit excited about Republicans whining that Democrats are cutting an illegal entitlement program too much. Isn’t the GOP the “cut too much” party?
Jack - I agree with your point 100%. However, right now we are in the final quarter of the re-election and the bigger issue is defeating the marxist by any legal means necessary.
Medicare was the centerpiece of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.
It isn't constitutional.
The only way that we will ever get our fiscal house in order and restore liberty is to overturn the New Deal and the Great Society. We must return to the Constitution.
-- James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution
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.