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.
I think part of my reasoning that health care costs will not react to market pressures like most other products is that people are not rational actors when it come to costs. When it comes down to it people don't care how much something will cost, just so long as it saves them. Here is a blog post from
The Economist that better articulates some of my concerns about the plan's ability to actually decrease health care costs:
Medicare reform: You put the load right on me | The Economist
Do you have a link that goes into depth about what Indiana did with HSAs? I have read a little bit about it and so far it sounds like an interesting concept.
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.
This is what you are going to have a hard time selling to the future elderly. They will be the ones who will eat up that $5,000 deductible every few years because they will have to have necessary surgeries done. The other option is they wait so long to have problems fixed that they create further problems by waiting longer. Now add to that out of pocket costs and a voucher that grows slower than the rate of health care inflation, and the government is just pushing the costs onto the elderly. I imagine that annually Congress would have to pass legislation that fixes the growth issues, much like it currently does with Medicare reimbursements to doctor. Then any hope of saving money is thrown out the window.
Even with the high deductible plans, why would insurance companies want to participate in the health care exchanges if it meant giving up the ability to cherry-pick which elderly they could insure? Most companies try to ween themselves of the sickest customers, whereas this plan does the complete opposite.
:lmao you think this proposal, which wide majorities of even tea partiers oppose isn't' gutsy? and you think that he cuts too much, but then are upset that he doesn't do it early enough?
I will be honest that I don't view Paul Ryan's plan as gutsy. He has gone out of his way to ensure that his core constituencies of the elderly, wealthy, farmers, and businesses are not too negatively affected.
So far the only poll I have seen recently that mentions anything about how the Tea Party feels about Medicare cuts is the McClatchy-Marist poll that shows over 70% oppose cuts to Medicare. The results can be easily credited with the age group that make up the Tea Party. I am sure most of them think that any reform to Medicare will result in changes to the coverage that they would receive. As it has been made clear under the Ryan plan they would experience no changes, unless they chose to go the voucher route. I would wager that detail will change the opinion of how Tea Partiers feel about cutting Medicare with knowledge that they are safe from any substantial cuts. Until a poll is taken that asks Tea Partiers specifically about their feelings about the plan, I would hesitate to say how they really view Ryan's plan.
Until further details are hashed out, I am neither strongly for or against his plan. Some of the details, like what obvious child pointed out, make me skittish about supporting reforms. If reform to a voucher system is indeed implemented, then I want everyone to be included.
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.
First of all, my grandfather passed away ten years ago this December. So I certainly hope that he won't be affected by this reform. Now I know in Chicago we love to have our dead do plenty of things, but as far as I know insuring them is not one of them.
My concern is that even people now that are ten years away from retirement will struggle to save adequately to cover the out of pocket costs that they will incur were these reforms to go into effect. This plan looks only looks worse the younger you get.
On a similar note, what is your opinion of the Wyden-Bennett Act?
