• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Ryan/Republican Budget - 2012 elections

w will this budget affect the 2012 election?


  • Total voters
    34
Very little of the tax rate cuts effect middle and lower class people. They get almost no gain from it, as well as for the other changes. Some of the deduction's removed(ie for mortgages) however do affect middle class people, who do not have the lower tax rate to benefit from in return.

Which is a fact in and of itself matters little to what I said. If the net gain for the "Rich" isn't that large of one, if even that, then the middle and lowe lass having an even smaller or negligible gain still doesn't represent a significant difference between the two as many are seemingly trying to make this out to be.

Without knowing all the details which are not in place yet, you are technically correct, but all the evidence so far indicates that upper class people will receive tax reductions, while the middle class will ultimately pay more and lower class and the elderly will get fewer benefits from the government.

I don't know where you get this "all the evidence so far" statement, since others like cpwill have been pointing to suggestions quite the contrary to what you're saying. The evidence is not indicating only a single implication in this. Some are pointing to the upper class recieving a hefty reduction in taxes while others are pointing to the upper class primarily having anywhere from a small net gain to a moderate net loss due to exemptions being removed. I'm also not sure where you're seeing only evidence that the Middle Class will be paying more since many of the deductions that will be lost won't apply to them and the removal of the AMT could potentially offset it when you're talking about the average of them all.

Now I won't disagree with you about the lower class and elderly getting fewer benefits from the government, though its dishonest to cache it that way obviously implying that somehow those benefits will be denied only to the lower class and elderly. However, that's irrelevant to the conversation of whether or not the "rich" are being significantly helped in this with regards to taxes comparitive to their counter parts.

While the reduction in benefits does need to happen, assuming that it is done to benefit the higher incomes, it is both a mistake, and a huge PR gain for democrats.

And again, this is nothing but absolute partisan spin on your end with suggsting that the reduction is benefits is "done to benefit the higher incomes". There is a glaring fallacy within your argument to suggest that because the tax rate of the "Rich" is going down and some government benefits are being stripped away are both in the plan that it must automatically mean that government benefits being stripped away are specifically to pay for the tax rate reduction. You see two things and immedietely equate them together with not fact but pure conjecture. I won't deny that it can be spun that way be political pundets and politicians for the hope of PR gain...that absolutely can be done, as you are valiently demonstrating in this thread...however what it can be spun as and what it is are often two different things.

Again, looking at the information that Ryan himself presents, it does appear from his own words that this will benefit the wealthy. While I think down the road further tax cuts will be a good thing, and those should favor the wealthy(they do pay a larger share of taxes now on average), I do not think it is a good idea to mess with taxes or the tax system until the deficit problem is handled, and not by shifting the burden.

The largest contributors to this countries financial revenue stream is the "wealthy". Its not surprisingly that something aimed at reducing the deficit, in part by also attempting to speed up the economy, is going to have a larger positive impact on someone whose significantly paying into the system compared to someone that is barely or not paying into it at all. This is part of the ridiculous argument I hate regarding taxes. People complain you "cut taxes on the rich", making the rich benefit instead of the poor, while ignoring that the poor don't even pay an income tax so what did you want from them? Are we to never cut taxes on anyone at any time because there's a large segment of the population that we're incapable of cutting the taxes on without simply GIVING them government money for working because the "rich" will always benefit from that more than the poor?

Yes, the plan as a whole could easily be argued that the "wealthy" are gaining more benefit from it. However, that comment by itself is rather worthless. Okay, they're getting more? Outside of PR spin of class warefare? So. If I said "The Poor are benefiting more from this" would that be a bad thing? What if I said the middle class? Or are you suggesting its not a negative.

But even then, just suggesting the Wealthy are getting the most benefit is rather useless. If I give three people money and two get $99 dollars and one gets $100, the third person got "more" money from me...but in reality they all got a significant chunk of money and the disparity between them was extremely small. The "Wealthy" were going to take, by far, the most significant hit by greatly removing the loopholes in the tax code, essentially creating a sizable tax increase on them, something Republicans have argued all along and right on through the Bush Tax cut fiasco hurts the economy. Note, not the apparent Democrat argument of "it hurts the economy if you do it to some people but helps it if you do the other", but in general hurts the economy. So in conjunction with that they also reduced the tax rates that the "rich" would have to pay. An action that, based on all the evidence I'VE seen, has an unclear effect that may increase or decrease their total tax payments.

Meanwhile, the reduction in spending from the cuts to various programs and the changes to others...including those that can come about due to a simplified tax code...benefits EVERYONE just like the running up of debt hurts everyone.

Now. I'm not going to sit here and sugar coat it. Yes. You're correct in regards to the fact that in general this is more bad for the elderly and the poor and more good for the Wealthy. I do not however agree that one is at the expense of the other, which is to assume...as your spun it above...that the changes to Medicare/Medicaid were done specifically to reduce the tax rate on the wealthy and not done because they're gigantic entitlement programs that eat up a larger portion of our budget every single year and needs to be trimmed.

And while I absolutely agree that the PR spinners for the Democrats will rely upon emotional arguments and that evil word that many on the left like to throw out about rich people...greeed....to make their point, and will be decently successful. The notion that its benefiting the wealthy more and hurting the elderly and lower class more doesn't bother me because rather than dealing with this emotionally and buying into the spin as you obviously have I'm actually taking a look at this while taking a step back.

The goal here is to reduce spending, reduce the size of government, and spur revenue through increasing the economy.

Medicare/Medicaid, next to Defense Spending and Social Security, is our biggest expense. Its going to have to be reformed and cut somehow. Now regardless of how you do it, if its going to be in any way more than just shuffling papers around on a desk, its going to negatively impact someone be it the current crop of seniors or the current crop of soon-to-be retiree's. So while I can absolutely understand and accept arguments that this is the wrong way to do it, the Helen Lovejoy like screaming of "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE SENIORS" isn't going to sway me. Sorry...if there's going to be effective reform of it, they or the next crop is going to take some kind of hit.

Similarly, everything in government needs to be cut. Now I've said part of what I dislike about the Ryan plan is it doesn't cut defense enough, but even defense is cut under it. When cutting a budget, ANY budget, you look towards things that are luxuries first...items that are good to have but aren't a necessity. In a home budget, its things like entertainment and leisure purposes. In a business, its stuff that's not easily justifable under your duties. In government, its programs that are helpful and nice to have but aren't a core government function. Cuts to some social programs, or attempts to shift them to the states, are going to affect the poor more than middle income and the wealthy. At the same time, these programs are generally the ones least essential to core government functions.

Simplifying our tax code, removing many of the exemptions for businesses and individuals, and streamlining the process will help our budget. We will need to dedicate far less resources into these things, allowing for a shrinking of the government work force and the expenses associated with it. It also keeps people from manipulating the system through the variety of loopholes that are present in our swiss cheese tax code.

That said, raising taxes on people may generate more income tax revenue, but damages the economy as it takes more money out of it thus causing a host of issues in and of itself. This notion that it will hurt to raise taxes at all on the middle or lower classes, even so much as a 1% tax, but that it will actually be benefial to do it to the "rich" in substantial amounts makes no sense. I would disagree, but would at least respect the Democrats, if they were actually pushing for a tax hike on everyone. But this obvioux and crystal clear attempts at buying votes and class warefare by villifying the evil horrible nasty greedy "wealthy" for daring to say "don't yoiu dare take anymore of my money" but sitting there going "we won't dare to take anymore of YOUR money" to the larger group of the population is disgusting, transparent, and frankly inconsistent. The Ryan plan would've significantly increased the amount of taxes the Rich were paying due to the elimination of the various deductions that largely applied to their returns, which would in turn take money out of their hands and out of the economy thus damaging it in the Republicans view. The notion of it being done to "benefit" the rich is nothing but hollow spin. The attempt is for the other cost cutting measures that would damage the rich not to also damage the economy by taking a large segment of money out of the actors of said economies hands.

Any decrease in taxes of any kind is likely to affect the Rich more and affect the poor almost in no way.....because the Rich pay significantly more taxes and the poor pay next to none, so there's not many other options when cutting it then what I just stated. Similarly, most cuts of government budget is going to affect the poor and middle class more because they make up the majority of the population and thus make up the majority of those individuals benefiting from that government spending. Those two statements can be used for an emotional ploy to try and tug on peoples need to look out for themselves and make sure they get theirs while keeping those who they see as more successful being "knocked down a peg". But they aren't in and of themselves a negative or bad thing, but a simple reality of what happens when you attempt those two actions.
 
Ain't no way I am quoting all that post and responding to it. I also will never, ever again comment that I was wordier in a post than you where. You win.

All the information I am using is from either the Paul plan that I linked to, or from the CBO report on his plan. Paul's plan lists the reduction in tax rates, and the elimination of taxes, and the elimination of most deductions. Based on that, the middle class should see a tax increase, and the wealthy a tax decrease. Since the bill they passed does not seem to do anything except promise to do stuff, it is very hard to discuss specifics beyond that.

No one argues that medicare and social security do not have to be fixed. However, vouchers to buy private insurance is about the worst possible solution, since it not increases costs by the amount cut, but further due to higher administrative costs and the need to make a profit inherent in private insurance companies. The issue is not that cuts are made, but how those cuts are made. Medicare is a complex problem, and to be honest, I do not have the solution. However, I much prefer a solution that works within the framework that already exists and does not shift senior medical insurance to private companies.
 
All the information I am using is from either the Paul plan that I linked to, or from the CBO report on his plan.

Which is a ridiculously small sample size of "all" the information out there. The CBO, while perhaps non-partisan, has been found to be far from the absolute authority on this kind of stuff. For example, see the huge error their estimate of Medicare Part D ended up being.

Paul's plan lists the reduction in tax rates, and the elimination of taxes, and the elimination of most deductions. Based on that, the middle class should see a tax increase, and the wealthy a tax decrease.

And this is what I don't get. I see you saying that, but I read that and see something entirely different than you with regards to the wealthy getting a tax decrease. I see it being likely that the wealthy by and large come out with a net wash, or at best a relatively small decrease. Similarly I think the middle classes increase is likely to be small based on nothing but the information you post there.

No one argues that medicare and social security do not have to be fixed. However, vouchers to buy private insurance is about the worst possible solution, since it not increases costs by the amount cut, but further due to higher administrative costs and the need to make a profit inherent in private insurance companies. The issue is not that cuts are made, but how those cuts are made.

And as I said, I'm all for people arguing its being done in a poor manner. I'm all for people arguing its not even needing to be fixed. My issue is people arguing that its being done not because the Republicans feel it needs to be fixed, or not because they feel it will help reduce costs, but rather to pay for the Rich's tax cut.

Medicare is a complex problem, and to be honest, I do not have the solution. However, I much prefer a solution that works within the framework that already exists and does not shift senior medical insurance to private companies.

And this I understand. You made an argument, can't remember in this thread or another, stating how you felt doing nothing was better than doing this because you felt this was worse than what we have now. And you know what, while I may disagree I can accept and respect that view point. Its what I and many other Republicans felt with regards to Health Care. I just hope all the liberals that are using that sort of argument now with regards to this weren't bashing Conservatives for "doing nothing" about Health Care or for saying that doing nothing was better than Obamacare.
 
Which is a ridiculously small sample size of "all" the information out there. The CBO, while perhaps non-partisan, has been found to be far from the absolute authority on this kind of stuff. For example, see the huge error their estimate of Medicare Part D ended up being.

I grant you your point on the CBO, but it is still the most accurate and fair at making projections. I find it to be the most trustworthy, but when making projections, well, you never know.


And this is what I don't get. I see you saying that, but I read that and see something entirely different than you with regards to the wealthy getting a tax decrease. I see it being likely that the wealthy by and large come out with a net wash, or at best a relatively small decrease. Similarly I think the middle classes increase is likely to be small based on nothing but the information you post there.

My point is not the size. You are right, no one knows, and neither the bill nor the plan Ryan published gives enough information to judge. The point, and the one you seem to admit, is that the middle class is likely to see some tax increase, while the wealthy is likely to see some tax reduction. The relative size is entirely unknown since no one wants to give us enough facts to work with.


And as I said, I'm all for people arguing its being done in a poor manner. I'm all for people arguing its not even needing to be fixed. My issue is people arguing that its being done not because the Republicans feel it needs to be fixed, or not because they feel it will help reduce costs, but rather to pay for the Rich's tax cut.

What you are seeing is a confluence of issues in one bill. Taxes on wealthy go down, taxes on middle class go, expenses for the elderly go up. Those are not necessarily all related or caused by each other, but all are part of the bill.

And this I understand. You made an argument, can't remember in this thread or another, stating how you felt doing nothing was better than doing this because you felt this was worse than what we have now. And you know what, while I may disagree I can accept and respect that view point. Its what I and many other Republicans felt with regards to Health Care. I just hope all the liberals that are using that sort of argument now with regards to this weren't bashing Conservatives for "doing nothing" about Health Care or for saying that doing nothing was better than Obamacare.

I don't remember saying that, though it is possible. I find this plan damaging. I would point out while I supported the health care reform bill(Obamacare), it was far from what I thought was the best way to handle things. I felt for it, and for Medicare, small changes made over the course of years, with time to see what effect those changes have is the way to do things. In fact, my biggest problem with this plan is while some of the problems with the plan are evident, not all the problems are foreseeable, and those unforeseen changes scare me. When you consider the CBO scoring(ie the foreseeable), which says that health care costs for the elderly not only go up dramatically, but the help from the new voucher system will increase slower than health care costs will increase, and it will raise costs for insurance for every one, the unforeseen could be downright catastrophic.

While both Medicare and Social Security issues are getting immediate and we have to begin making changes now, we do not have to solve the problem in it's entirety yet. Rushing into solutions is the exact wrong way to solve the problem, especially with things as complicated as this.
 
I grant you your point on the CBO, but it is still the most accurate and fair at making projections. I find it to be the most trustworthy, but when making projections, well, you never know.

I can understand that.

My point is not the size. You are right, no one knows, and neither the bill nor the plan Ryan published gives enough information to judge. The point, and the one you seem to admit, is that the middle class is likely to see some tax increase, while the wealthy is likely to see some tax reduction. The relative size is entirely unknown since no one wants to give us enough facts to work with.

My whole thing is though, its irrelevant to even talk about in a negative or positive way without knowing the size, and you're obviously talking about the disparity in a negative way. If I give one person $1 and another person $100 and send them both on the way, that's a disparity that probably needs to be talked about. If I gave one $99 and the other $100 its not really a big deal. If, when more accurate numbers comes out, this looks like its going to largely increase the tax on the middle class or a large decrease on the Rich, then I think you may have a point in talking about it. Right now its trying to take something very ambiguous and put it out there.

And while I agree with you that there's a likelihood that this could result on a possible increase to the middle class or a decrease to the wealth, I don't agree with you that its a given. I very much think there's the potential that the removal of the various deductions could, on average, negate the decrease the tax rate would have on the rich. I think the slight raise on the middle class is more of a sure thing than the reduction on the rich.

What you are seeing is a confluence of issues in one bill. Taxes on wealthy go down, taxes on middle class go, expenses for the elderly go up. Those are not necessarily all related or caused by each other, but all are part of the bill.

Saying that they're all part of the bill and saying that ones happening so the other can happen are significantly different things.

I don't remember saying that, though it is possible. I find this plan damaging. I would point out while I supported the health care reform bill(Obamacare), it was far from what I thought was the best way to handle things. I felt for it, and for Medicare, small changes made over the course of years, with time to see what effect those changes have is the way to do things. In fact, my biggest problem with this plan is while some of the problems with the plan are evident, not all the problems are foreseeable, and those unforeseen changes scare me. When you consider the CBO scoring(ie the foreseeable), which says that health care costs for the elderly not only go up dramatically, but the help from the new voucher system will increase slower than health care costs will increase, and it will raise costs for insurance for every one, the unforeseen could be downright catastrophic.

I'll have to look for the exact quote. You didn't say it specifically as I did but that seemed to be the gist.
 
Last edited:
The only problem is with using information from that link is that is not Congressman Ryan's current budget plan, but rather his ideal plan. Here is a link to the correct budget plan:http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

With that in mind, it is still way too early before anybody can make claims about how this will work out until it makes its way through Congress. Yes, its intent is to close all loopholes for corporations and make the income tax revenue neutral, but it has yet to be seen whether it will actually do that. Given that Congressman Ryan seems to dodge questions about closing controversial loopholes such as oil subsidies, I seriously question whether it will close all tax expenditures like he claims his plan will. I guess only time will tell.
 
Ok, now maybe we're getting somewhere.

I have asked questions in threads where you are active and seen mine and others simplistically dismissed by you.

So in future maybe some discussion can happen.

And I get that you obsess. I do the samr thing about PR industry "persuasion".

Just bear in mind that other people who aren't idiots do disagree with some of your presumptions and only possible solutions. There is a vested interest in people believing as you do and a considerable amount of money is spent reinforcing said beliefs.

I suspect that some of the programs you summarily pronounce DOA could probably be repaired in some fashion that doesnt actually destroy them and that is what the majority want. It may simply require belts being tightened that are not generally subject to tightening.

Here's to actual debate moving forward.:2wave:

1. alright, where are the actual questions
2. the entitlement programs can survive. they simply cant' survive in their current form because eventually (and sooner rather than later) they will kill the host (the US of A) that supports them.
3. I, and other conservatives would love to save these programs. I put out my own idea for Saving Social Security by turning it into a vehicle by which the working poor could build enough wealth to become financially independent upon retirement.
 
1. alright, where are the actual questions
2. the entitlement programs can survive. they simply cant' survive in their current form because eventually (and sooner rather than later) they will kill the host (the US of A) that supports them.
3. I, and other conservatives would love to save these programs. I put out my own idea for Saving Social Security by turning it into a vehicle by which the working poor could build enough wealth to become financially independent upon retirement.

Again since we like to be repetitive here...cutting entitlements are necessary, cutting spending is necessary, CUTTING TAXS is not necessary and does nothing to help debt reduction and this debt pain were experiencing needs to be shared by everyone.
Ryans plan is a candystore of tax cuts for the wealthiest at the expense of the middleclass
 
Its an indisputable fact that Ryans plan cuts the tax rate on the wealthy

it is a rate cut matched with a deduction cut to achieve tax neutrality; as was suggested by the Presidents' own bi-partisan Debt Commission. If your' check to the IRS doesn't change, then you havent' gotten a tax cut.

Whether or not it significantly benefits the rich more than the poor or the middle class with regards to taxes that are actually paid, or if this will raise or lower the amount of taxes paid rather than the base rate, however is far from an open and shut case. There is a legitimate argument about those things.

So saying Ryans plan lowers the tax rate on the wealthy is correct. Suggesting that it decreases the taxes the wealthy will ultimately pay, or far more significantly benefits the rich when it comes to taxes is a far more questionable claim.

certainly the devil is in the details. but slapping the title "tax cut" on that kind of change-over is an oversimplification meant to deceive.
 
Again since we like to be repetitive here...cutting entitlements are necessary, cutting spending is necessary, CUTTING TAXS is not necessary

i would tend to disagree, but since the 2012 budget plan doesn't do that, i guess the point is moot.

and does nothing to help debt reduction

actually the tax simplification will significantly boost the economy by reducing drag in the form of $431 billion we spend annually just trying to comply with our own code.

and this debt pain were experiencing needs to be shared by everyone.

except, of course, public unions. when Ryan's plan alters Medicare he means-tests it, which leaves the wealthy retirees getting less. such a program would probably be in place for any social security reform as well. so, even as these programs effect everyone, rich and middle class and poor alike, the Republican Proposal is to hit the wealthy more.

you would think liberals would be all about this, but it came from a Republican.... so..... partisanship over ideology, i suppose.
 
it is a rate cut matched with a deduction cut to achieve tax neutrality; as was suggested by the Presidents' own bi-partisan Debt Commission. If your' check to the IRS doesn't change, then you havent' gotten a tax cut.

No one is saying revenue is affected(that is tax neutrality), but some people are going to have their tax bill change as a result of this. That is what we are discussing.

certainly the devil is in the details. but slapping the title "tax cut" on that kind of change-over is an oversimplification meant to deceive.

If you are paying less in taxes, you got a tax cut. Some people will inevitably have gotten a tax cut from this plan, and some people have inevitably gotten a tax increase.
 
Hicup;1059420427Support fiscally responsible candidates no MATTER what color their badge says. Tim-[/QUOTE said:
I agree, but not now, not in the middle of a recession. Being fiscally responsible means cutting jobs, and less jobs means less taxes and less spending.

ricksfolly
 
He has no illusions that it will get through...what it does do however is force Obama out into the open...and we've already seen this.

No Republican Budget can get though until at least 2012.


The only problem is with using information from that link is that is not Congressman Ryan's current budget plan, but rather his ideal plan. Here is a link to the correct budget plan:http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf

With that in mind, it is still way too early before anybody can make claims about how this will work out until it makes its way through Congress. Yes, its intent is to close all loopholes for corporations and make the income tax revenue neutral, but it has yet to be seen whether it will actually do that. Given that Congressman Ryan seems to dodge questions about closing controversial loopholes such as oil subsidies, I seriously question whether it will close all tax expenditures like he claims his plan will. I guess only time will tell.
 
from Redress pointing out a flaw in the Ryan budget plan

Massively reduces corporate taxes.

and the reply from Whovian



this is a good thing.

if you are a corporation.
 
He has no illusions that it will get through...what it does do however is force Obama out into the open...and we've already seen this.

No Republican Budget can get though until at least 2012.
From all the quotes I have seen from Ryan, I have to disagree with you that he has no illusion that some variation of his budget won't get through Congress. The numbers may look slightly different, but in principle it will be based around his ideas.

I do agree with you that this helps frame the debate around the what Republicans view as an ideal plan. In hindsight what President Obama should have done is embrace the Debt Commission's plan regardless of if it garnered the necessary votes and push that as the starting point. Instead now everybody is using Ryan's plan as that baseline.

Technically, no Republican budget will be able to be signed into law until 2013. Even then that depends on winning the presidency, maintaining their hold on the House, and gaining a substantial numbers of seats in the Senate. Getting all three is doubtful in my opinion.

For anyone that supports Ryan's plan I do have one question. How will adding elderly to private insurance decrease the cost of health care insurance? From what I have see from insurance companies they are already worried about their ability to make a profit if they need to insure the elderly, the costliest group to insure. If that is indeed the case, then what is stopping insurance companies from just raising the costs of everybody's insurance premiums to cover the money they most likely will lose from insuring the elderly?
 
From all the quotes I have seen from Ryan, I have to disagree with you that he has no illusion that some variation of his budget won't get through Congress. The numbers may look slightly different, but in principle it will be based around his ideas.

I do agree with you that this helps frame the debate around the what Republicans view as an ideal plan. In hindsight what President Obama should have done is embrace the Debt Commission's plan regardless of if it garnered the necessary votes and push that as the starting point. Instead now everybody is using Ryan's plan as that baseline.

that is absolutely correct. there were alot of Republicans who didn't Like, but were willing to Go Along With the debt reduction commissions plan. it would have been bipartisan unhappiness, but a deal that saved the nation.

now the only adult option on the table is the Ryan plan. which would be great if it went through - it's a better plan i think in several regards. but given it's political unplausibility (in today's climate at least), the Bowles-Simpson plan was our best shot.

but what did Nancy Pelosi call it? "Dead On Arrival". Hey Dems, really good decision keeping that nutjob in power. :thumbsup:

Technically, no Republican budget will be able to be signed into law until 2013. Even then that depends on winning the presidency, maintaining their hold on the House, and gaining a substantial numbers of seats in the Senate. Getting all three is doubtful in my opinion.

I think the House and the Senate are pretty sure things at this point, given the numbers. the white house is the main coin toss.

For anyone that supports Ryan's plan I do have one question. How will adding elderly to private insurance decrease the cost of health care insurance?

because it flips the payment model. image for a second that you didn't have to pay for gas - your insurance company took care of it. would you really care what the price at the pump was? would you drive around looking for cheaper stations? would you get the medium or low grade gasoline? would you take extra care to purchase a fuel-efficient vehicle? generally no, you would do none of these things, which would drive up the demand for gas, which would drive up the price. that's the condition of the health care market for the past 50 years, and it's why prices have skyrocketed - because we aren't letting supply and demand function properly.

MIT economist Amy Finkelstein's research suggests that Medicare's 1965 creation led to market-wide changes that explain about half of the increase in real per capita health spending between 1950 and 1990. Premium Support would be just as consequential in reverse, which is why Economists from the center-left to center-right have been recommending premium support for decades, and some version has since been endorsed by everyone from President Clinton's 1999 Medicare commission, chaired by Democrat John Breaux, to Bob Dole and Tom Daschle in 2009. And then, again, of course, there was the bi-partisan Ryan-Rivlin plan that came out of that Debt Commission.

so what we have here is bipartisan agreement that premium support would be an excellent way to reform Medicare, and would have a depressing effect on healthcare costs...... right up until the point where someone actually proposes it..... at which point his opponents (who, 30 seconds ago, were on board) sense an opportunity for political gain, and start screaming about grandmothers dying in the snow.
 
No one is saying revenue is affected(that is tax neutrality), but some people are going to have their tax bill change as a result of this. That is what we are discussing.

yes, but those changes are generally within the brackets. so, some wealthy will see their tax bill decline, others (looking at you, G.E.) will see theirs increase; dependent upon to what extent they took advantage of available tax breaks.

but going from that to lambasting "tax cuts for the wealthy" is disinegenious (not saying you are doing it, saying it's a general trend).

If you are paying less in taxes, you got a tax cut. Some people will inevitably have gotten a tax cut from this plan, and some people have inevitably gotten a tax increase.

so are we going to scream about tax cuts for John Winthrop III, Esq. but cheer tax hikes for his brother, James?
 
I said not intil 2012...it cannot.

Dems hold the Senate and the WH...it cannot happen yet.

From all the quotes I have seen from Ryan, I have to disagree with you that he has no illusion that some variation of his budget won't get through Congress. The numbers may look slightly different, but in principle it will be based around his ideas.

I do agree with you that this helps frame the debate around the what Republicans view as an ideal plan. In hindsight what President Obama should have done is embrace the Debt Commission's plan regardless of if it garnered the necessary votes and push that as the starting point. Instead now everybody is using Ryan's plan as that baseline.

Technically, no Republican budget will be able to be signed into law until 2013. Even then that depends on winning the presidency, maintaining their hold on the House, and gaining a substantial numbers of seats in the Senate. Getting all three is doubtful in my opinion.

For anyone that supports Ryan's plan I do have one question. How will adding elderly to private insurance decrease the cost of health care insurance? From what I have see from insurance companies they are already worried about their ability to make a profit if they need to insure the elderly, the costliest group to insure. If that is indeed the case, then what is stopping insurance companies from just raising the costs of everybody's insurance premiums to cover the money they most likely will lose from insuring the elderly?
 
then what is stopping insurance companies from just raising the costs of everybody's insurance premiums to cover the money they most likely will lose from insuring the elderly?

That is EXACTLY what would happen, it's what happens now.

The MA plans that were orrignally approved were too costly to the Gov....and there has been a recent shifting of the burden because of that....a HUGE can of worms has been opened through this thing....end of life care is where EVERYTHING stacks up....don't kid yourself about "Death Panels" they are real.....but they are hidden under a euphemsm....."Quality Of Life Index".
 
that is absolutely correct. there were a lot of Republicans who didn't Like, but were willing to Go Along With the debt reduction commissions plan. it would have been bipartisan unhappiness, but a deal that saved the nation.

now the only adult option on the table is the Ryan plan. which would be great if it went through - it's a better plan i think in several regards. but given its political implausibility (in today's climate at least), the Bowles-Simpson plan was our best shot.

but what did Nancy Pelosi call it? "Dead On Arrival". Hey Dems, really good decision keeping that nutjob in power. :thumbsup:
Normally I would say that Nancy Pelosi is an effective politician, but this is a situation where she clearly missed the mark. The writing was on the wall that the United States needs to reform its social programs and she totally missed it. Now that allows Republicans a better ability to steer the debates how they see fit.

I think the House and the Senate are pretty sure things at this point, given the numbers. the white house is the main coin toss.
Right now it is too early to say for certain how each chamber of Congress will fall. I do think that the Republicans will regain the Senate just on the merit that such a large portion of seats are incumbent Democrats. I do not think it will be a super majority that allows to push through a bill that changes things as drastically as the Ryan bill would. Also factor in redistricting and it will be a presidential election, it is anybody's guess how everything will turn out this early.

because it flips the payment model. image for a second that you didn't have to pay for gas - your insurance company took care of it. would you really care what the price at the pump was? would you drive around looking for cheaper stations? would you get the medium or low grade gasoline? would you take extra care to purchase a fuel-efficient vehicle? generally no, you would do none of these things, which would drive up the demand for gas, which would drive up the price. that's the condition of the health care market for the past 50 years, and it's why prices have skyrocketed - because we aren't letting supply and demand function properly.

MIT economist Amy Finkelstein's research suggests that Medicare's 1965 creation led to market-wide changes that explain about half of the increase in real per capita health spending between 1950 and 1990. Premium Support would be just as consequential in reverse, which is why Economists from the center-left to center-right have been recommending premium support for decades, and some version has since been endorsed by everyone from President Clinton's 1999 Medicare commission, chaired by Democrat John Breaux, to Bob Dole and Tom Daschle in 2009. And then, again, of course, there was the bi-partisan Ryan-Rivlin plan that came out of that Debt Commission.

so what we have here is bipartisan agreement that premium support would be an excellent way to reform Medicare, and would have a depressing effect on healthcare costs...... right up until the point where someone actually proposes it..... at which point his opponents (who, 30 seconds ago, were on board) sense an opportunity for political gain, and start screaming about grandmothers dying in the snow.
I understand your argument that citizens will become more cost conscious if they see the full cost of their care. I just don't buy that this is going to cause the price of health care to decline because of increased competition. I could see this working with elective procedures, but nobody will care what the costs are for a necessary surgery, just that it's done and done well. If that's the case, then your hope of supply and demand being a means to decrease health care costs are rendered useless.

The problem I have is that this will not have a substantial effect on the cost of insurance that will make it attractive for insurance companies to insure the elderly at a moderate cost. For example, I am a dream candidate for insurance companies because I am in my mid 20s and over the last eight years have maybe at most spent $1,500 on health care. Contrast that with my grandfather, who over the last five years of his life experienced multiple heart attacks that necessitated an angioplasty and multiple strokes that eventually killed him. All of the related costs probably totaled conservatively $250,000. Under Ryan's plan any company that chooses to participate will have to cover my grandfather. The worst case scenario I envision is that insurance companies will find that insuring the elderly will not be profitable and en masse will choose not to participate in the exchanges, leaving the government to insure them. We would be back to where we are if that were to happen.

Another problem I have not seen anyone discuss is an elderly person's ability to buy health insurance. Let's be honest, there's a reason why the elderly are the most attractive targets for scam artists. If they all of a sudden had to buy health insurance I would not be comfortable with setting them free to negotiate costs with companies that are far from pinnacles of ethical behavior. It is akin to letting the wolves watch the sheep.

Finally, I don't like that this theoretical change doesn't take place until 2022. Congressman Ryan likes to talk about shared sacrifice, but then exempts everybody over the age of 55 from experiencing the pain. I understand why Ryan has done this, both the practical and political, but if our country is going to make this change I would rather see it be done in one fell swoop rather than have what will become two health care systems. Had Ryan proposed that then I would gladly admit that he had guts.

Despite all of those misgivings I am still open to the basic ideas behind the reform. Given that commentators and several members have even confused the budget proposal with his Roadmap for America, there is a lot of bad information out there. I personally want to wait until all the details are in place before I make a final decision about whether or not I would support Ryan's plan. Still something like Australia's health care system is my ideal reform, but that is a non-starter for Republicans.
 
Ryans bill takes money from the old, the disabled, the autistic children and gives it to the rich.

How is that false? Ryan's bill systematically reduces the payments for healthcare to the old and disabled while tying the amounts to the regular CPI while the healthcare CPI is often double, triple or even quadriple the inflation rate. At the same time the massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are traded for large tax cuts. Based on some projections, Ryan's tax cuts are barely covered by the spending cuts resulting in virtually no deficit or debt reduction for years.
 
I said not until 2012...it cannot.

Dems hold the Senate and the WH...it cannot happen yet.

I know what you said. I was merely correcting your statement that the Ryan plan won't be able to pass until 2012 because it is wrong. Any politician elected in 2012, be it a congressman or the president, will not be sworn in until 2013. If all things go their way, Republicans could then push for reform.
 
Normally I would say that Nancy Pelosi is an effective politician, but this is a situation where she clearly missed the mark. The writing was on the wall that the United States needs to reform its social programs and she totally missed it. Now that allows Republicans a better ability to steer the debates how they see fit.

i see it as a natural outgrowth of her worldview - similar to the claim that the earthquake would be good for Haiti because it destroyed so much. It's insane, yes, but that's what you get when you have insane assumptions.

Right now it is too early to say for certain how each chamber of Congress will fall. I do think that the Republicans will regain the Senate just on the merit that such a large portion of seats are incumbent Democrats. I do not think it will be a super majority that allows to push through a bill that changes things as drastically as the Ryan bill would.

i agree.

I understand your argument that citizens will become more cost conscious if they see the full cost of their care. I just don't buy that this is going to cause the price of health care to decline because of increased competition.

why do you think that it would somehow be different for healthcare than it is for every other good on the market? the claim that "some healthcare is necessary, and that's why it's not subject to market pressure" isn't matched by experience. Food is also necessary, as is housing, yet each of these goods is subject to market pressures because there are still multiple providers.

Medicare D, for example (which functions very similarly to the premium support plan) put market pressure on healthcare spending, and came in 40% under budget. 40%! has any government program in the history of man ever done that?

In Indiana, the adoption of HSA's (which also put market pressure on healthcare spending) has led to an 11% decrease in costs.

The problem I have is that this will not have a substantial effect on the cost of insurance that will make it attractive for insurance companies to insure the elderly at a moderate cost.

sure it will. the plans will simply tend to be high-deductible, catastrophic coverage ones.

which has already been demonstrated to drive down healthcare costs and is how health insurance should look anyway. it's a screwup in our tax code that gave us our current idiocy of a system. it's like expecting your auto insurance to fill up your gas tank.



Finally, I don't like that this theoretical change doesn't take place until 2022. Congressman Ryan likes to talk about shared sacrifice, but then exempts everybody over the age of 55 from experiencing the pain. I understand why Ryan has done this, both the practical and political, but if our country is going to make this change I would rather see it be done in one fell swoop rather than have what will become two health care systems. Had Ryan proposed that then I would gladly admit that he had guts.

:lamo you think this proposal, which wide majorities of even tea partiers oppose isnt' gutsy? and you think that he cuts too much, but then are upset that he doesn't do it early enough?

waiting until 2022 is smart because it allows Americans to plan. your grandfather won't be effected - but your dad will know that needs to be ready for the new program, and can make adjustments accordingly so that he is taken care of.

Despite all of those misgivings I am still open to the basic ideas behind the reform. Given that commentators and several members have even confused the budget proposal with his Roadmap for America, there is a lot of bad information out there.

that is certainly true.

I personally want to wait until all the details are in place before I make a final decision about whether or not I would support Ryan's plan. Still something like Australia's health care system is my ideal reform, but that is a non-starter for Republicans.

:) True enough.
 
Paul Ryans Fuzzy Math a page out of Rahm Emmanuals Playbook always make a crisis seem worse to give the RICHEST another tax cut.


Rep. Paul Ryan’s claim that Medicare will be "bankrupt in nine years" goes too far. The trust fund that primarily supports one part of Medicare is projected to be exhausted come 2020, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees said it might not actually happen until 2029. That still doesn’t mean the system will be "bankrupt," though.


Ryan’s Muddy Medicare Claims | FactCheck.org
 
Back
Top Bottom