Skip to main content

Former White House budget director Peter Orszag writes an op-ed for Bloomberg, detailing the cost-shifts to Medicare enrollees in the Republican budget. But his words really can't compare to this picture:

Chart by Jarrod Barretto. Sources: CBPP, CBO

By 2030, both the CBO and CBPP estimate, the Republican voucher proposal would cost nearly $9,000 more per beneficiary than Medicare. The great bulk of that—over $8,000—would be shifted to the beneficiary. In other words, all of us who are disabled or retired as of 2030. Those costs would increase because the Republican plan does nothing to contain costs, so as they rise the proposed voucher won't keep up, and an increasing burden is placed on enrollees. Which, by the way, is exactly what Rep. Paul Ryan wants.

Orszag writes:

At the heart of the Ryan plan is a shift within Medicare toward consumer-directed health care -– which in turn is predicated on increasing beneficiaries’ "skin in the game" to make the health system more efficient.

While more consumer cost-sharing would help reduce unnecessary care, the plan would not live up to its billing in cutting health costs for America. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it would do the opposite. That’s right: The CBO found that the Ryan Medicare proposal would substantially increase total health-care spending....

On the critical metric of whether the Ryan plan would reduce total health-care costs, though, the CBO conclusion is shocking: The plan would not only fail to decrease health-care costs per beneficiary, it would increase them –- by an astonishingly large amount that grows over time. By 2030, health spending on the typical beneficiary would be more than 40 percent higher under the Ryan plan than under existing Medicare, according to the CBO report.

Health-care costs would not be reduced on the backs of seniors; they would be raised on the backs of seniors.

How could this possibly be, when the point of reform is to reduce costs? The CBO points to two factors: Private plans have higher administrative costs than the federal Medicare program, and less negotiating leverage with providers.

No wonder it's such an unpopular plan. Ryan and his colleagues like to say that these facts and figures are just Democratic scare tactics, but the CBO isn't a Democratic organization. It's awfully hard to argue with the ugly truth.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  This is what happens when you cut taxes of d' Rich (7+ / 0-)

    but ofcourse these Medicare whiners didn't make the connection.

    So now they want their tax cuts AND their Medicare.


  •  Lots of seniors (12+ / 0-)

    think this plan is actually going to screw them -- which it will re: the donut hole issue -- but they are worried about their kids and grandchildren.  Ryan and his dittoheads in Congress and Beltway "pundits" assumed old folks were completely self-interested -- they were wrong.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:11:28 PM PDT

    •  and a lot of baby boomers... (10+ / 0-)

      not only are they pissed if they're less than 55 years old, but they're pissed off that they have to worry about how their parents are going to make ends meet.

      I didn't get Jack from Abramoff...I'm not a Republican!

      by nonnie9999 on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:16:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  When is someone going to point out that this (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nonnie9999, avsp, SingleVoter

        will probably raise rates for those of us in the private ins market?

        It isn't offbase to hypothesize that insurers who pay out more money to seniors (because seniors, you know, file medical claims n stuff) will try to make up that shortfall by raising rates on younger, healthier people. In other words, put a bunch of expensive-to-insure folks into the risk pool and that raises rates for everyone.

        Unless there's something I'm missing there...

        "The revolution's just an ethical haircut away..." Billy Bragg

        by grannyhelen on Thu May 26, 2011 at 08:00:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  good point, grannyhelen...n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          grannyhelen, avsp

          I didn't get Jack from Abramoff...I'm not a Republican!

          by nonnie9999 on Thu May 26, 2011 at 08:23:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's not really a risk pool (0+ / 0-)

          They may try to blame raising rates on that, but it'll be a lie.

          Seniors won't be buying into a risk pool with you. They'll be buying on the individual market. The reason the individual market doesn't work is that they try to price it so that they make a profit on each person, based on their known risk factors. If they can make a profit on seniors, by charging them outrageous rates, they will. If they can't, they won't shift the costs to you, they just won't sell plans to seniors.

          The only exception would be actual group plans. If more seniors keep working and stay on employer's insurance, then those rates would go up.

          The Empire never ended.

          by thejeff on Fri May 27, 2011 at 10:11:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  And many of them suspect... (4+ / 0-)

      ...that promises that this won't impact anyone over 55 won't be enforceable when their age cohort is significantly less voter active relative to all retirees, say when those who are currently 55 are approaching 70. If this plan were to become law, the voting support to maintain Medicare "as is" for those over 80 could very well erode rapidly.

      Which is what the GOP would be counting on: a real life version of the Ryan Wheelchair ad in that it would be older people pushing even older people over the side of the cliff.

      Generational contracts are as old as our species. The GOP would have us destroy millennia of cultural and social evolution for the sake of a extra few percent of marginal profits for a few thousand people today.

      The so-called "rising tide" is lifting only yachts.

      by Egalitare on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:44:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  OK, first question to ask the R's is "why was (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grannyhelen, JamieG from Md

      Medicare enacted in the first place?" What problem was it intended to solve? Did it work?

      On our side, the R's will continue the meme that Medicare won't be there anyway, if their changes aren't made. What is our response? There should be a counter argument ready for their next attempt to sell their plan.

      Their secondary attack point is that the Dems have no plan to protect Medicare from dying. Again, what is our response?

      Progressives will win when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

      by auapplemac on Thu May 26, 2011 at 07:35:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Say it often and loudly (8+ / 0-)

    The only way to convince those who don't follow the issues every day (independent voters, that is) is to keep saying this over and over and over on every news outlet out there--even on the republican propaganda network.

  •  who the hell was it... (7+ / 0-)

    who declared that eddie munst...i mean, paul ryan was some kind of economic genius?

    larger version

    I didn't get Jack from Abramoff...I'm not a Republican!

    by nonnie9999 on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:14:30 PM PDT

  •  So "costs" (10+ / 0-)

    in  wingnut speak only means what the government spends.  What seniors will be forced to spend  is "savings" for the billionaires.

    I could buy a parrot and train it to say, `tax cuts,' but at the end of the day, it's still a parrot, not a conservative.

    by MadRuth on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:14:47 PM PDT

    •  and corporate profits (5+ / 0-)

      I bet a big chunk of that extra expense in the Ryan Plan comes from feeding the corporate beast. Seniors will be bleed dry to enrich the CEO's and stockholders of corporate health care / health insurance /pharma.

      I mean, when you shift from a program with a 2% expense ratio to a corporate model with a 30% expense ratio, of course costs will go UP not DOWN!!!!

  •  Vouchers?! (7+ / 0-)

    Republicans have a fetish for vouchers.  We don't need no stinkin' vouchers!!

    It's the fascism, stupid!

    by lastman on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:17:50 PM PDT

    •  Call them "death tickets" (7+ / 0-)

      Not vouchers.  It's more or less what they are.  Vouchers leads people to believe they can actually buy healthcare, which they cannot.  I'll bet those "vouchers" would not even cover one of those god aweful super-high deductible plans for a senior.  

      If they're going to replace Medicare with so-called vouchers they may as well allow seniors the ability to exchange the voucher for a loaded gun to kill themselves with or a visit from Dr. Kevorkian.  Because for many it's a death sentence anyway.

      •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChadmanFL, lastman

        and the pundits need to stop calling it "the republicans kill Medicare bill" and start calling it " the republicans MURDER Medicare bill."  

        Murder is intentional.

        "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

        by fugwb on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:35:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  She's got a ticket to di-ie (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ChadmanFL, lastman, splashy

        She's got a ticket to di-i-ie
        She's got a ticket to die,
        and he don't care!

      •  Do we know whether the insurance plans will have (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JamieG from Md

        mandatory coverage for pre-existing conditions? Will rates increase as insured ages and becomes sicker?

        The voucher will be on a sliding scale. Will this be based on income or on total assets? If it's based on total assets, that could be a killer for many who have saved to coverage their anticipated retirement living expenses, but not enough to coverage the added medical costs. Paying more because you have a nest egg to cover your retirement years would cause your savings to be eaten up at a faster pace.

        Just some details we should know to add to our arsenal. I don't want to muddy the main theme of killing Medicare as we know it, but they are going to fight back with more "stuff" and we should be ready with the facts.

        Progressives will win when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

        by auapplemac on Thu May 26, 2011 at 07:46:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  All Ryancare coverage must meet PPACA (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          standards. This includes at least a 60% actuarial rate payout.

          And granny and grandpa must buy or pay PPACA penalties, which could be deducted from their Social Security.

          And seniors probably will have to buy supplemental coverage to top up their standard Medicare to meet mandatory PPACA standards starting in 2014. And if these policies aren't available or legal to purchase, allowed Medicare supplemental coverage is defined by regulation , then grandpa and grandma must buy 100% private coverage starting in 2014 to be PPACA conformant.

  •  You haven't accounted for people who aren't as (7+ / 0-)

    involved as we are.  An intelligent woman who works and has a family told me, "Well, I guess it won't be there for me anyway, right?"  Referring to SS.  And I said, "That's a lie.  It's meant to convince you to give up and walk away."  "Oh," she said.  I don't know what she believes now, but there are lots of people like her and the anti-SS crowd is counting on convincing them there's no point in expecting SS when it's their turn.  So, forget about, folks, just give it up.  People like her don't come to this site.  And they're not going to, they have other lives to live and other concerns.

    Don't insult their intelligence by tagging them low information.  They're actually quite informed and informative in their own fields.

    "The worst that can happen to any group of people working to unseat an existing power base is their failure to imagine the lengths to which those in power will go to keep it." Cognitive Dissonance at Zero Hedge

    by CarolinNJ on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:20:05 PM PDT

    •  The GOP fought the Social Security battle (0+ / 0-)

      back in 2005 and lost.  Now they're trying Medicare, and they're going to lose this one, too.

      The default position for the Dems on both issues is the one the vast majority of Americans already hold.

      Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
      ¡Boycott Arizona!

      by litho on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:32:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But what is our default position to prop up (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JamieG from Md, SingleVoter

        Medicare so that it will be there in the future? The Dems will need a plan of some kind as the Rs continue to say we have nada.

        Progressives will win when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

        by auapplemac on Thu May 26, 2011 at 07:49:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Affordable Care Act (0+ / 0-)

          is the down payment on the Democratic plan to save Medicare.  It seeks to control the acceleration in costs while at the same time guaranteeing the services provided.

          Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
          ¡Boycott Arizona!

          by litho on Fri May 27, 2011 at 02:03:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You're right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That's exactly the attitude they're counting on, especially from those who are many years from retirement age. They keep telling us that "if you're over 55, nothing will change." They are going to have a hard time selling that meme to the  people approaching that mark.

      This is the perfect opportunity for the Democrats to start honing their message - their biggest weakness. This opportunity has been handed to them. We all have to help it get heard.

    •  You're exactly right. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The Right wing talking point is that Medicare needs to be saved or it will be "belly up" in a few years.  Of course, those who are paying attention know that in fact, the program's ongoing revenues would still pay most of the cost even if the trust fund were exhausted . . . but that suggests that the long term prospects of the program are nowhere near dire enough to demand the harsh medicine in Ryan's plan.  

      What scares me is that, even though there is clear, definitive evidence that the solution is well within reach, the news media still talks about Ryan's plan as bold and courageous when it put budget balancing on the backs of those who are either poor or elderly, leaving those who are rich and the military completely out of the picture.  

    •  In 2038 (0+ / 0-)

      the government will still be levying SS and Medicare taxes and getting dedicated revenue for SS and Medicare. This dedicated revenue will be about 20% of all earned income.

      It may not be enough to maintain present payouts adjusted for CPI inflation and medical inflation, but it will be in the many hundreds of billions annually.

      It will be enough to pay for about 80% of present Social Security payout levels.

      The revenue inflow will be enough to pay for present Medicare care and product levels for seniors and SS total work incapacity benefit recipents after their 2-year waiting period.

      •  Guaranteed? You're absolutely, unequivocally, (0+ / 0-)

        beyond any doubt sure that 27 years from now that will be the case.  Because your prognostication skills are worth a considerable fortune, if that's true.  

        For myself, nobody can see that far into the future.  I won't live that long, but I know the future never arrives as the present quite as anyone guessed.

        "The worst that can happen to any group of people working to unseat an existing power base is their failure to imagine the lengths to which those in power will go to keep it." Cognitive Dissonance at Zero Hedge

        by CarolinNJ on Fri May 27, 2011 at 06:18:41 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hey Cantor, Medicare Seniors Already Have "Skin" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    litho, splashy, SingleVoter

    in the game, and hearts and lungs and hips and eyes and brains and all kinds of other body parts.  

    It's amazing that Cantor wants seniors to have more skin in the game while opposing anything even approaching that for over-the-counter credit default swaps that helped bring our economy to such a state of near-ruin that it has emperiled our nation's financial state.  

    But no need for skin in that game.

    Oh no.  

    Let's reserve that for little old ladies in nursing homes who the Republicans want to use as economic cannon fodder in the "war" against Government's health care costs.

    Let's hand those aged hammock-inhabitants* an undersized voucher and send them up out of the trenches across those contractual minefields to show those insurance companies who's boss.

    *Ryan's favorite analogy is that we can't let our safety net become a hammock.  

    Democrats on the other hand, don't want that safety net (or nursing home bed) to become a cardboard box underneath an overpass.

    Attaboy Eric. Hit those little old grannies where it hurts.

    Lots of courage to pick on grannies.  Not so much to take on insurance companies or Wall Street Shadow Bankers, Bookies or Gamblers.  

    We'd rather dream the American Dream than fight to live it or to give it to our kids. What a shame. What an awful, awful shame.

    by Into The Woods on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:22:06 PM PDT

  •  I been waiting for administrative costs (8+ / 0-)

    to be brought up.

    Switching to private insurance is an automatic benefit cut. Medicare is taking 2-3 %. private insurance anywhere from 20-26%, and you know republicans aren't going to regulate the insurance companies on what they can make.

    Medicare advantage has already proven that insurance companies can't make a profit on the same amount medicare spends, like they said they could.

    So why give insurance companies $6000-7000 year that doesn't increase benefits and make people in nursing homes apply for insurance every year, and create havoc in families everywhere.

    It's just another cost shift and more concentration of wealth in the financial industry. It does nothing to help the economy, the budget or the American people.

    Today's problems are yesterday's solutions. Don Beck

    by Sherri in TX on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:24:10 PM PDT

    •  The insurers said in the late 1990s (0+ / 0-)

      whan Medicare Advantage was being created that they couldn't sell policies for as little as Medicare cost.

      Medicare pays the providers less in many cases and also doesn't have the marketing and administrative costs private plans have.

      Standard Medicare costs less.

      To switch from standard Medicare means paying more.

  •  Next up: Reps defund the CBO (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, Egalitare

    Because, after all, if yer not with us, then yer a terrist.  Er sumthin'.

    " ... or a baby's arm holding an apple!"

    by Lavocat on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:25:42 PM PDT

  •  Either move the 6pm open thread, or stop stepping (0+ / 0-)

    on it!

    No, I'm not going to stop commenting on this until the practice stops!

  •  The Affordable Care Act, on the other hand (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChadmanFL, JamieG from Md

    is designed to cut health costs.  It's the Democratic plan to save Medicare.

    The Ryan plan, of course, repeals the ACA...

    Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
    ¡Boycott Arizona!

    by litho on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:29:19 PM PDT

  •  The plan is to funnel money from old people (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChadmanFL, JamieG from Md

    to insurance companies. From the Insurance companies it goes to  to GOP and bluedog campaign contributions and lobbying jobs for former congresscritters who do their bidding.

    The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy;the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness

    by CTMET on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:30:27 PM PDT

  •  the GOP's prognosis: large bitter pills /nt (0+ / 0-)

    I am off my metas! Präsidentenelf-maßschach; Warning-Some Snark Above join the DAILY KOS UNIVERSITY "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03)

    by annieli on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:31:30 PM PDT

  •  I hate to say it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JamieG from Md, SingleVoter

    But I'm glad my grandmother isn't still alive to see this nonsense.  She had money troubles late in life but was able to live quite happily to 85 (passed away 2 years ago peacefully) thanks to the two pillars of Medicare and Social Security.  Her head literally would have exploded if she saw what the republicans are now trying to do to these programs.  

  •  No You're Wrong (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    If there's one thing the Republicans have proven is that it isn't hard at all (for them) to argue with the ugly truth.

    THAT is the only thing they have going for them -- being able to lie with impunity.

    This aggression will not stand, man.

    by kaleidescope on Thu May 26, 2011 at 06:53:43 PM PDT

  •  The graph (0+ / 0-)

    This is  a very bad graph.  I looked at it and thought "looks pretty similar except the one on the right is bigger.  Different colors of the pie pieces would have helped instead of barely visible yellow lines.  How about blue for government and red for personal share, so that at a glance one can tell that the personal share is bigger in the Ryan proposal.

    Also, the 3D effect is just distracting and in fact misleading.  Don't use 3D graphics when 2D will do the job far more clearly.  It's very hard to judge and compare pie slices at an angle which is what 3D graphics do.

    .-. . ..-. . .-. / - --- / - .... . / --- .-. .. --. .. -. .- .-.. / -.. --- - ... / .- -. -.. / -.. .- ... .... . ...

    by delphis on Thu May 26, 2011 at 07:17:07 PM PDT

  •  Small pill. Horse pill. Smart Graph! (0+ / 0-)

    My framing for the graph. Did the Democrats wake up?

    "Misfortune shows those who are not really friends." Aristotle Fuldheim's long and distinguished career - where, at age 91, .,,,. suffered a stroke on July 27, 1984, shortly after interviewing U.S. President Ronald Reagan via satellite.

    by JugOPunch on Thu May 26, 2011 at 08:01:13 PM PDT

    •  I have hated pie charts. They show portions of the (0+ / 0-)

      slice. Never the size of the pie, until, now.

      "Misfortune shows those who are not really friends." Aristotle Fuldheim's long and distinguished career - where, at age 91, .,,,. suffered a stroke on July 27, 1984, shortly after interviewing U.S. President Ronald Reagan via satellite.

      by JugOPunch on Thu May 26, 2011 at 08:06:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  insurance company share 30% (0+ / 0-)

    pity it doesn't include that.

    George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

    by nathguy on Thu May 26, 2011 at 09:31:32 PM PDT

    •  Under the PPACA (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      the insurers share should be 15% maximum.

      Of course American insurers could simply buy up German Krankenkassen with 2.7% markups so Americans can be fleeced by more than 15%.

      The insurers also cause hospitals and doctors to have increased costs because of the silly games insurers play.

      Not all of the frequently quoted 30% insurance based system burden is on the ledgers of the insurers.

  •  Is this the same Orszag? (0+ / 0-)

    1. Who left "public service" in the open, transparent and accountable Obama administration for a huge salary, perks and power on Wall Street?
    2. Who bemoaned in transition between the White House and Wall Street that there was a plethora of parasites sapping Social Security Disability?
    3. Who, along with Wall Street's minions, Geithner and Summers, directed the Obama administration's efforts to ensure Wall Street's better-than-ever profits, power and perquisites, while guaranteeing the suffering of millions and millions of the unwashed out in the hinterlands of our ever-more-recognizable Third World America?
    4. Who, along with other Truly Serious Types, will continue to be trotted out for the benefit of the Pete Petersons, the Wall Street and Media Elite, and their lackeys in the leadership of the Democrat Party?
    Give me and the other 300 million folks who don't count sharing in the American Dream (unless we are asleep) a break. Quote someone who really gives a damn about seniors.

  •  this should never be said without adding qualifier (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SingleVoter, thejeff
    While more consumer cost-sharing would help reduce unnecessary care

    it also reduces an equal amount of necessary care.

    Even the Rand corporation came to the same conclusion, as have many other studies of "cost sharing", or, more properly framed "financial barriers to access".

  •  The following needs to be made perfectly clear (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JamieG from Md

    to the healthcare "consumer":

    Competition in insurance plans is bad.  It inevitably leads to a race to the bottom, as healthy people will choose the least cost plan, and any plan that actually offers anything of benefit to sick people is quickly pushed out of the "market".  This is known in the industry as adverse selection, and there is really nothing you can do about it.  That is why there needs to be one plan, for everyone, forever.  This is why most rational countries have opted for some form of single-payer, and the ones that are most successful have programs that are single-payer where everyone is paying in at all times - according to ability - to buy a single plan.

    This is why vouchers are doomed to failure, and are really just a wink and  a nod to wealthy people to help offset their healthcare costs that they pay mostly out of pocket for anyway, and to, God forbid, make sure they aren't paying for anyone else's healthcare!

    •  There is a lot to be said for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      unified plans since they are less likely to have major pitfalls.

      A sick person might die at age 67. A healthy person might live to be age 92.

      This healthy person will need 25 years more money to supplement Social Security, and especially when Social Security might suffer 20% benefit reductions starting around 2030.

      What might be done to sell combined annuity/health coverage.

    •  Most wealthy people have very good insurance (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      preferably paid for by some company in tax-free fashion.

      In Germany, the insurance for the affluent pays more so the more affluent get a better choice of doctors and shorter waiting times.

      Herr Direktor and Herr Geschäftsführer carefully ensure that Sozialismus bows before their well-being of themselves and Familie.

      In America we will have the mandated purchase insurance system too so the sick wealthy and the sick connected get to the head of the best lines for care.

  •  They are against girls and women (0+ / 0-)

    In particular, in everything they do.

    This would hurt elderly women more than men, because they often have fewer resources than the men do because of lower pay and more time spent with families.

    The Republicans really hate girls and  women, that's obvious. They target them every time, to make them dependent on men with money, so the more well-to-do men can use them, abuse them, then throw them away like used toilet paper.

  •  Ryan is a prick (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The little weasel is just digging in deeper.  Hey I think that's fine.  The GOP are going to get an ass whumping in 2012.  NY26 was just the tip of the iceberg.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Fri May 27, 2011 at 03:59:42 AM PDT

  •  I don't anticipate (0+ / 0-)

    having $8,200 more "skin" for the insurers under Ryanfleece.

    In fact, I don't even anticipate having $8,200 [adjusted for inflation] in total yearly income in 2030.

  •  This ain't gonna happen, or else (0+ / 0-)

    Poll after poll after poll tells the repubs they're gonna need to back off of this one big time.  

    Personally, I hope they keep knocking on that door.  Because, when it opens up, they're going to find a room full of extremely angry voters lined up to check the "straight party D" on that ballot sheet.

    -- **Nothing sucks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.**

    by r2did2 on Fri May 27, 2011 at 05:41:59 AM PDT

  •  Vietnam era flashback (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    When I read the remarks of Rep. Ryan and other Republicans that they're not trying to kill Medicare but to preserve it on a sounder basis, my mind flashes back to the My Lai massacre and Lieutenant Calley.  Remember:  "We had to destroy this village in order to save it."  Apparently Ryan and company want to save Medicare by destroying it.  So House Republicans aren't just callous, they're Calleys!

  •  Rather than enduring an annual $20,000 (0+ / 0-)

    fleecing, millions of older Americans would simply move out of the country and pay about $3,000/year for full coverage in a Third World country.

    American hospitals and doctors might see much of their elderly customer base vanish under the Ryan plan.

  •  One thing that might happen with vouchers (0+ / 0-)

    is that people will move from high medical care cost areas to lower cost medical care areas.

    This will mean that hospital systems and real estate markets in the Northeastern United States would financially collapse.

    The Northeastern states would also see their tax revenues drop by double digit percentages within the first five years of the Ryan plan.

  •  The Bitter Pill - New Ad Needed (0+ / 0-)

    This needs to be turned into an attack ad.
    "The Bitter Pill Republicans Want You to Swallow".  It should end as it usually does, with a Drug Rep pocketing a wad of cash, while he slips a couple of C notes to the Republican Rep for a job well done.

    Any young, enterprising graphics artists and advertising marketing students out there eager to make a name for themselves?

    Think of it as the democratic version of Harry and Louise.  In fact if you can get the actors who played Harry and Louise or someone who looks very much like them to star in it, this will go viral and make a lot of republicans very, very angry (and uncomfortable).

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site