• 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!

Ryan to announce plan to keep federally funded Medicare

AdamT

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
17,773
Reaction score
5,746
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I haven't seen the actual plan, yet, but credit to Ryan and Wyden for working together to try and come up with a realistic solution to this serious problem. Should be interesting to see how the candidates react.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, who has been castigated by Democrats and hailed by Republicans for his plan to privatize Medicare, will on Thursday unveil a new approach that would preserve the 46-year-old federal health program.

Working with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.), the Wisconsin Republican is developing a framework that would keep government-run Medicare as an option for new retirees starting in 2022, along with a variety of private plans.

Seniors would still receive a set amount of money from the government to buy insurance, as they would under the Medicare proposal Ryan included in the budget blueprint that passed the House last year. But the new approach would let that subsidy, known as premium support, rise or fall along with the actual cost of the policies — creating more protection for seniors and saving potentially far less in the budget.

Ryan to announce plan to keep federally funded Medicare - The Washington Post
 
I haven't seen the actual plan, yet, but credit to Ryan and Wyden for working together to try and come up with a realistic solution to this serious problem. Should be interesting to see how the candidates react.



Ryan to announce plan to keep federally funded Medicare - The Washington Post

While I understand that seniors need some aid with medical costs, I don't see why the nation spends so much more on those consuming the most resources while providing the least in terms of production/return on investment.

It's not really in the best interest of a countries future, to spend more on the elderly, than on children and young families.
 
While I understand that seniors need some aid with medical costs, I don't see why the nation spends so much more on those consuming the most resources while providing the least in terms of production/return on investment.

It's not really in the best interest of a countries future, to spend more on the elderly, than on children and young families.

Yes, we ought to invest in economies of scale and law of large numbers and go straight to UHC so that we can minimize costs and risk while providing for the nation! Finally we agree, HG! ;)
 
Yes, we ought to invest in economies of scale and law of large numbers and go straight to UHC so that we can minimize costs and risk while providing for the nation! Finally we agree, HG! ;)

Err not really.
If we were to go the full utilitarian route, you wouldn't put any money towards senior medical care, while providing the most money to the medical needs of the young.

I'm referring to input and output.
With spending on seniors, you have to put a lot in and you get very little back.
 
Err not really.
If we were to go the full utilitarian route, you wouldn't put any money towards senior medical care, while providing the most money to the medical needs of the young.

I'm referring to input and output.
With spending on seniors, you have to put a lot in and you get very little back.

You might have a different perspective if you were 75.
 
You might have a different perspective if you were 75.

Of course.
The person benefiting from a program will usually always be in favor on continuing to benefit from it.
That doesn't make it economically sound though.

In terms of resources, like money and general wealth, the elderly are wealthier than the people who pay the taxes to support them.
It's actually one of the most regressive social/tax systems we have.
 
Of course.
The person benefiting from a program will usually always be in favor on continuing to benefit from it.
That doesn't make it economically sound though.

In terms of resources, like money and general wealth, the elderly are wealthier than the people who pay the taxes to support them.
It's actually one of the most regressive social/tax systems we have.

The elderly are among the poorest in terms of income.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5aAsxFJOe...rison-1995-2005-total-income-by-age-group.JPG

The other thing is that, if you know you're going to have health care coverage, it dramatically lowers the amount you need to save for retirement when you're younger.
 
The elderly are among the poorest in terms of income.

comparison-1995-2005-total-income-by-age-group.JPG (image)

The other thing is that, if you know you're going to have health care coverage, it dramatically lowers the amount you need to save for retirement when you're younger.

Income /= access to total resources.

The elderly are better off than advertised - The Washington Post

With the later statement, you're kinda advocating for less fiscally conservative Americans by removing a core requirement to save.
Aka, it seems to me that you're advocating mass consumerism.
 
Last edited:
Err not really.
If we were to go the full utilitarian route, you wouldn't put any money towards senior medical care, while providing the most money to the medical needs of the young.

I'm referring to input and output.
With spending on seniors, you have to put a lot in and you get very little back.

Oh you dont want me to get medicare when Im 65 which is next year....your an OLDAPHOBE Harry hands down...your trying to take my right to healthcare away from me...you hate old people...your a hater
 
Oh you dont want me to get medicare when Im 65 which is next year....your an OLDAPHOBE Harry hands down...your trying to take my right to healthcare away from me...you hate old people...your a hater

Wow you didn't even read what I wrote, in both the first post and in the second.
 
Income /= access to total resources.

The elderly are better off than advertised - The Washington Post

With the later statement, you're kinda advocating for less fiscally conservative Americans by removing a core requirement to save.
Aka, it seems to me that you're advocating mass consumerism.

Income = income.

As far as fiscal conservatism, I don't see how that follows. It's more a question of personal saving for private insurance later in life versus paying higher taxes for government insurance later in life. Medicare isn't a welfare program. We will either have to pay more for it, or we will have to scale back benefits, or most likely, a combination of the two
 
Income = income.

As far as fiscal conservatism, I don't see how that follows. It's more a question of personal saving for private insurance later in life versus paying higher taxes for government insurance later in life. Medicare isn't a welfare program. We will either have to pay more for it, or we will have to scale back benefits, or most likely, a combination of the two

If my income is low, but I have access to several million dollars, should I get an income subsidy like SS, when the person paying the taxes for it makes $30k a year, has negative assets and gets no income subsidy.

It's inherently regressive.
 
Oh you dont want me to get medicare when Im 65 which is next year....your an OLDAPHOBE Harry hands down...your trying to take my right to healthcare away from me...you hate old people...your a hater

To better understand what I mean, we spend too much on seniors, point blank.
We need to reduce senior spending, while not entirely scraping Medicare and SS type programs.

They should really operate as anti poverty programs, rather than general income subsidies.
That is not saying, "I don't want you to have your right to medical care" or whatever pretend rights you think you have.
 
If my income is low, but I have access to several million dollars, should I get an income subsidy like SS, when the person paying the taxes for it makes $30k a year, has negative assets and gets no income subsidy.

It's inherently regressive.
The facts are that when you are old enough to get Medicare you might have a preexisting condition where no medical insurance will will sell you a policy at a reasonable cost.
 
If my income is low, but I have access to several million dollars, should I get an income subsidy like SS, when the person paying the taxes for it makes $30k a year, has negative assets and gets no income subsidy.

It's inherently regressive.

I have no problem with means testing. But regarding the article you cited, keep in mind that the dramatic reduction in poverty among the elderly is mainly due to the advent of Social Security and Medicare! The median net worth is $237,000 which may sound impressive, but it's not much if you're living off of income from that money and really can't afford to cut into the capital. That's goig to be more and more significant going forward as it has become a rarity for businesses to provide pensions. The other thing to keep in mind is that private health insurance is much more costly for elderly people.
 
I have no problem with means testing. But regarding the article you cited, keep in mind that the dramatic reduction in poverty among the elderly is mainly due to the advent of Social Security and Medicare! The median net worth is $237,000 which may sound impressive, but it's not much if you're living off of income from that money and really can't afford to cut into the capital. That's goig to be more and more significant going forward as it has become a rarity for businesses to provide pensions. The other thing to keep in mind is that private health insurance is much more costly for elderly people.

Private insurance prices are now regulated.

But that's really neither here nor there.
Medicare could be kept in tact, while reducing benefits to the point where it is no longer in the red.
One way is to reduce end of life care.

Instead of alleviating the population of the responsibility to save for the future, we should be encouraging it, so we don't need these programs.
 
Wow you didn't even read what I wrote, in both the first post and in the second.

Harry, please tell me you really didnt think I was serious lol...please ?
 
Private insurance prices are now regulated.
Instead of alleviating the population of the responsibility to save for the future, we should be encouraging it, so we don't need these programs.

Why is that such a great idea? How should we encourage it? By offering tax incentives? Distorting the market? And then it's predictable that tens of millions of people won't save enough, anyway. And then what? Let them croak because they were bad boys and girls? Or pay for their care anyway, but without having provided for funding?

"One way is to reduce end of life care."

DEATH PANELS!!! Heh heh. I agree, that is very important. An absurd amount of money is spent to prolong the lives of extremely sick people a few days or weeks. But it's obviously very difficult politically.
 
Why is that such a great idea? How should we encourage it? By offering tax incentives? Distorting the market? And then it's predictable that tens of millions of people won't save enough, anyway. And then what? Let them croak because they were bad boys and girls? Or pay for their care anyway, but without having provided for funding?

Maybe tax incentives sure or a match, it just depends really.
Real life examples make the best argument for people to do something.

No one wants to be the poor old guy struggling to eat, but why should one person be rewarded with a government subsidy while not saving and another person not be rewarded for saving.
You're sending inconsistent signals.

You do irresponsible things, you get money from the gov.
You do the responsible things, you get no money from the gov.


"One way is to reduce end of life care."

DEATH PANELS!!! Heh heh. I agree, that is very important. An absurd amount of money is spent to prolong the lives of extremely sick people a few days or weeks. But it's obviously very difficult politically.

Yep, this is the stuff of when reality meets fantasy.
Should we keep 85 yo granny, who has cancer all over her body, on life support?
The rational answer is no, the emotional answer is yes.
 
This does nothing to address the root cause of the problem, the most expensive health care system in the world. I do not consider it a solution to provide "options" as to who has to bear the cost of the most expensive health care in the world.

To address the root cause we will finally need to upgrade our health care system as the rest of the industrialized world has done.
 
I dont trust Paul Ryan one iota after his last failed plan...where he blatantly increaded costs hugely to seniors and included a candy store of HUGE tax breaks for the rich...the seniors beat him and his plan into the ground...the gop was inundated with nasty emails
They ryan teaparty types have one goal...assure tax cuts for the rich at anyone elses expense...seniors are still a huge voting block if not the biggest...babyboomers havent died yet...Ill read his plan and study it...but with a wary eye
 
This does nothing to address the root cause of the problem, the most expensive health care system in the world. I do not consider it a solution to provide "options" as to who has to bear the cost of the most expensive health care in the world.

To address the root cause we will finally need to upgrade our health care system as the rest of the industrialized world has done.

You are absolutely right about that. We're going to wake up and realize that single payer is the only option, or we are going to be in deep ****.
 
Back
Top Bottom