I almost feel sorry for this idiot as he tries to find someone --anyone!-- who will support his stupid ideas.

"Step FORWARD", subby? What are you, a Communist?

This could be the most one-sided fight since 1973 when Ali faced an eighty-foot tall mechanical Joe Frazier. My memory isn't what it used to be, but I think the entire Earth was destroyed.

The guy who came up with it? GODDAMMIT I had Mitt Romney.

Okay okay, for the next round of who is next to come out against Paul Ryan's Medicare plan, I'm going to go with Paul Ryan himself.

tallguywithglasseson: Lol.

Bonus: says to give the healthcare exchanges from Obamacare time to work.

//doesn't quite mesh with the "repeal and replace" mantra

Sounds like a real rino.

Only unrestrained capitalism can truly keep us healthy.

"The regulatory climate has changed," Aaron said. "It is far more hostile to the kinds of regulatory intervention that Bob Reischauer and I thought were essential."

Vodka Zombie: I almost feel sorry for this idiot as he tries to find someone --anyone!-- who will support his stupid ideas.

He has. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. They don't come much more liberal but he's one of those pesky lawmakers who insists changes are needed in the entitlement programs or millions of Americans are going to take it between the cheeks.

Much more politically wise to say everything's just fine and the other person wants to yank granny's IV from her arm.

qorkfiend: This could be the most one-sided fight since 1973 when Ali faced an eighty-foot tall mechanical Joe Frazier. My memory isn't what it used to be, but I think the entire Earth was destroyed.

Interesting if true.

Insurance premiums have kept rising well beyond inflation since 1995?

Who knew?

FTFA "In the years since Bob Reischauer and I put this Idea forward, I've changed my mind," Aaron said at a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee last week.

The big reason is that Aaron has seen no evidence since the two men came up with the idea that their assumptions have been borne out.

Well no shiat. Isn't this what happens with pretty much every Republican economic theory? It's almost like they have this goal, to reduce burdens on those people/companies who can afford them as well as spending on/protection for people who need it, and they just make up whatever logic is necessary to support the goal regardless of that pesky "reality" getting in the way. What a shock.

T-Servo: Insurance premiums have kept rising well beyond inflation since 1995?

Who knew?

Isn't it obvious?

I'm sure Ryan will be calling him a liar like he did the generals and the bishops any moment now.

Emposter: FTFA "In the years since Bob Reischauer and I put this Idea forward, I've changed my mind," Aaron said at a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee last week.

The big reason is that Aaron has seen no evidence since the two men came up with the idea that their assumptions have been borne out.

Well no shiat. Isn't this what happens with pretty much every Republican economic theory? It's almost like they have this goal, to reduce burdens on those people/companies who can afford them as well as spending on/protection for people who need it, and they just make up whatever logic is necessary to support the goal regardless of that pesky "reality" getting in the way. What a shock.

To be fair it was a sound economic theory at its time, but Aaron obviously being an economist and not a politician recognizes its failings and states that the regulations required to make it work wouldn't fly in today's climate.

Ayn Rand?

Vodka Zombie: I almost feel sorry for this idiot as he tries to find someone --anyone!-- who will support his stupid ideas.

I like that after Catholic bishops shiat all over it he tried to go above their heads to the Pope.

This will be extra amusing when the GOP goes back to disliking Catholics in a few years.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

God you republican losers are farking hilarious.

Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee, did not engage Aaron in debate at last week's hearing, instead relying on one of Aaron's Brookings Institution colleagues, former White House Office of Management and Budget head Alice Rivlin to argue why premium support can work. (She said she believes strict oversight and risk adjustment can be done.)

Sure, yeah, you bet. Just ask the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau what a slice of cheesecake it's been getting established. Or, hey, you could even just ask the guy in the tri-cornered hat yelling "SOCIALISM" what he thinks of the health care reforms recently encated. He loves strict oversight and government involvement in the private insurance industry.

The Ryan plan has been DOA since the last time it saw the light of day.

qorkfiend: This could be the most one-sided fight since 1973 when Ali faced an eighty-foot tall mechanical Joe Frazier. My memory isn't what it used to be, but I think the entire Earth was destroyed.

That made me cackle!

But in the case of Medicare Advantage, similar to premium support in that Medicare pays a private insurer to cover someone, the attempts at risk adjustment have raised costs by about 8 percent, Aaron noted. On top of that, although there are many Medicare Advantage plans in existence, they are not cheaper than traditional Medicare, and there's little to suggest they will get cheaper.

What, we're using "facts" and "history" to determine which policies to implement? How preposterous!

Wisconsin went full on Tea Party in their last elections. I'm actually really interested if they are going to double down in their state or if they will pull a full 180.

MindStalker: Emposter: FTFA "In the years since Bob Reischauer and I put this Idea forward, I've changed my mind," Aaron said at a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee last week.

The big reason is that Aaron has seen no evidence since the two men came up with the idea that their assumptions have been borne out.

Well no shiat. Isn't this what happens with pretty much every Republican economic theory? It's almost like they have this goal, to reduce burdens on those people/companies who can afford them as well as spending on/protection for people who need it, and they just make up whatever logic is necessary to support the goal regardless of that pesky "reality" getting in the way. What a shock.

To be fair it was a sound economic theory at its time, but Aaron obviously being an economist and not a politician recognizes its failings and states that the regulations required to make it work wouldn't fly in today's climate.

It was a sound theory in the same way trickle down was a sound theory...the "this theory will work if I assume that people act in a completely unrealistic manner" way.

Epic burn.

On a related note, why does Ryan have an ounce of credibility left? He's been crushed multiple times for pushing this bullsh*t, and he just keeps coming back. He's like the Terminator, if the Terminator was sent back in time to have bad ideas instead of killing Sarah Connor. What's it going to take to push this slimebag sh*tweasel Reagan fellator's wet dream out to pasture? Because I'm sick of his sh*t.

There is a much simpler and more fair way to reduce Medicare costs.
Think about it: Medicare is subsidized insurance. If Medicare was not subsidized, old folks would be charged market rates on their premiums and it would cost the government nothing. So, from the government's perspective, the subsidy is the cost. The subsidy is supposed to be paid for by contributions people made while they worked. Those contributions, however, only pay for the subsidy for about 5 years, while the average person will collect Medicare for 13 years. For comparison, most people paid enough into Social Security to be able to collect the benefit for 10 of the 13 years they can expect to collect it. So reducing the subsidy would be fair, because even if you reduce it, the beneficiaries would still be getting quite a bit more than they paid for.
This mean charging a higher premium, or having co-insurance apply to more procedures, or both.
Those who prove financial hardship could avoid paying the increase.

Good for him.

Evidence is mounting that government vouchers to things like insurance companies (or schools) don't actually benefit the end user, just the company collecting the money, and this guy was able to acknowledge that.

I have hope for the human species.

//Of course, he isn't running for office, so he doesn't have to deal with the intractable nature of the modern Teabagger.

Correction to the above, SS collections don't begin until age 67. Most people can expect to collect SS for 11 years and they paid in nearly all that is needed.

GentDirkly: So reducing the subsidy would completely negate the entire farking point of Medicare be fair

You cannot cut or reduce Medicare/Social Security without admitting you are against the fundamental point they address. If you are, by all means, let's have that discussion. But let's be clear about what our goals are.

bdub77: Or to sum up: "Insurance companies are run by greedy bastards who no longer havenever had consumers' best interests in mind, only profits, and they will always find ways to fark over their consumers in nastier ways, until the end of time."

FTFY

lennavan: GentDirkly: So reducing the subsidy would completely negate the entire farking point of Medicare be fair

You cannot cut or reduce Medicare/Social Security without admitting you are against the fundamental point they address. If you are, by all means, let's have that discussion. But let's be clear about what our goals are.

Well we can't go back and retroactively charge these people higher payroll taxes can we?

If you are concerned that some people would be unable to afford medical needs, please read carefully where I said that those who can prove financial hardship would be spared the premium/co-insurance increases.

Finally, please carefully re-read what you wrote. The current rate of benefits for both Medicare and SS are the results of negotiation over the years, yes, but truly they are just arbitrary numbers. Why are you putting them on a pedestal? What if some generous politician 5 years ago had increased these benefits? Would a politician today, who said, "let's undo that" be "completely negating the point"? Really?

The point of both programs is that income from young workers is distributed up in the form of benefits to the retired. The aggregate amount that the median retiree collects is supposed to be equal to the aggregate amount that the median lifetime of work puts in. That's the point. It's forced savings into a common safety net. Now, some politician probably told you that they are really about solving poverty or making sure old people can leave something to their kids or some such horseshiat. No. Those are secondary effects that may happen in some cases. But they are not the point of the program.

GentDirkly: Well we can't go back and retroactively charge these people higher payroll taxes can we?

We also shouldn't go back on our promises.

GentDirkly: It's forced savings into a common safety net

Correct. My point is when you start reducing benefits, you are poking holes in the common safety net, thus rendering it worthless. The safety net should catch everyone, not most people.

GentDirkly: Now, some politician probably told you that they are really about solving poverty or making sure old people can leave something to their kids or some such horseshiat.

I've never heard that but I agree, that is horseshiat. It's about survival.

lennavan: GentDirkly: Well we can't go back and retroactively charge these people higher payroll taxes can we?

We also shouldn't go back on our promises.

GentDirkly: It's forced savings into a common safety net

Correct. My point is when you start reducing benefits, you are poking holes in the common safety net, thus rendering it worthless. The safety net should catch everyone, not most people.

GentDirkly: Now, some politician probably told you that they are really about solving poverty or making sure old people can leave something to their kids or some such horseshiat.

I've never heard that but I agree, that is horseshiat. It's about survival.

The vast majority of people contributing to Medicare today don't understand that it's an insurance that includes premiums, co-pays, exceptions, limits, and every other confusing detail that regular insurance has. They won't understand that until it's time to collect the benefit, and even then it will be fuzzy to them. All they've been 'promised', that they actually understand, is that they will have insurance that they can afford and that will meet their needs.

As I said before, as long as people with financial hardship are spared any subsidy reduction in Medicare, then no one is going back on any promise.

Emposter: MindStalker: Emposter: FTFA "In the years since Bob Reischauer and I put this Idea forward, I've changed my mind," Aaron said at a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee last week.

The big reason is that Aaron has seen no evidence since the two men came up with the idea that their assumptions have been borne out.

Well no shiat. Isn't this what happens with pretty much every Republican economic theory? It's almost like they have this goal, to reduce burdens on those people/companies who can afford them as well as spending on/protection for people who need it, and they just make up whatever logic is necessary to support the goal regardless of that pesky "reality" getting in the way. What a shock.

To be fair it was a sound economic theory at its time, but Aaron obviously being an economist and not a politician recognizes its failings and states that the regulations required to make it work wouldn't fly in today's climate.

It was a sound theory in the same way trickle down was a sound theory...the "this theory will work if I assume that people act in a completely unrealistic manner" way.

If people could make intelligent and informed healthcare decisions, let alone intelligent and informed health insurance decisions, and if those companies selling either were completely honest actors, then we wouldn't have a health insurance mess to begin with.

GentDirkly: The vast majority of people contributing to Medicare today don't understand that it's an insurance that includes premiums, co-pays, exceptions, limits, and every other confusing detail that regular insurance has. They won't understand that until it's time to collect the benefit, and even then it will be fuzzy to them. All they've been 'promised', that they actually understand, is that they will have insurance that they can afford and that will meet their needs.

As I said before, as long as people with financial hardship are spared any subsidy reduction in Medicare, then no one is going back on any promise.

So your logic is that since people are stupid, it doesn't matter how little they get from medicare at all (at least up until what, the break even point on what they pay in over a lifetime?), and therefore no reductions in coverage count as taking anything away?

Wow.

And for the record, EVERYTHING the government spends is collectivist subsidization of something the population wants and hopefully benefits from having. Army, Cops, Roads, FEMA, FDA, you name it. Welcome to society.

GentDirkly: As I said before, as long as people with financial hardship are spared any subsidy reduction in Medicare, then no one is going back on any promise.

I dunno, I guess my desire for a single payer system (medicare for everyone) is clouding my judgement here. I get you want to exclude wealthy elderly people from Medicare. I guess I don't have any actual problem with that but I think it's heading in the wrong direction.

Smackledorfer: GentDirkly: The vast majority of people contributing to Medicare today don't understand that it's an insurance that includes premiums, co-pays, exceptions, limits, and every other confusing detail that regular insurance has. They won't understand that until it's time to collect the benefit, and even then it will be fuzzy to them. All they've been 'promised', that they actually understand, is that they will have insurance that they can afford and that will meet their needs.

As I said before, as long as people with financial hardship are spared any subsidy reduction in Medicare, then no one is going back on any promise.

So your logic is that since people are stupid, it doesn't matter how little they get from medicare at all (at least up until what, the break even point on what they pay in over a lifetime?), and therefore no reductions in coverage count as taking anything away?

Wow.

And for the record, EVERYTHING the government spends is collectivist subsidization of something the population wants and hopefully benefits from having. Army, Cops, Roads, FEMA, FDA, you name it. Welcome to society.

Yes, I agree, those are all collectivist subsidization. In many cases, they draw on a general fund and the tax revenue used comes from a totally different part of the economy.

However, Medicare was never supposed to draw on the general fund and will begin to do so very soon. That's the problem Paul Ryan is attempting to solve, and the one that I am attempting to solve in a different way.

In general, it is bad for a government program, or the government as a whole, to spend more than it takes in. A healthy level of debt creation, averaged over time, is less than 3% of GDP. We've been above that for a lot of my lifetime.

lennavan: GentDirkly: As I said before, as long as people with financial hardship are spared any subsidy reduction in Medicare, then no one is going back on any promise.

I dunno, I guess my desire for a single payer system (medicare for everyone) is clouding my judgement here. I get you want to exclude wealthy elderly people from Medicare. I guess I don't have any actual problem with that but I think it's heading in the wrong direction.

No. I want them to be included, but I want them paying its real cost from the government's perspective, after they collect the median lifetime contribution back.

The actual history of Canada's medicare system is really cool. In reality, it was as motivated by business concerns and problem solving as by some higher moral thingy. A lot of the "assumptions" that have "not" been borne out actually have been figured out in Canada. although, granted, it's not like the USA has many areas like Saskatchewan in the 1940s...

Bennie Crabtree: The actual history of Canada's medicare system is really cool. In reality, it was as motivated by business concerns and problem solving as by some higher moral thingy. A lot of the "assumptions" that have "not" been borne out actually have been figured out in Canada. although, granted, it's not like the USA has many areas like Saskatchewan in the 1940s...

Paul Ryan's project is to make our Medicare less like Canada's. Medicare Advantage is a step away from the Canadian system as well. The Canadians haven't figured out how to make something like Medicare Advantage or subsidized premiums work, because they haven't attempted it. IIRC, only the Swiss have.

GentDirkly: lennavan: GentDirkly: As I said before, as long as people with financial hardship are spared any subsidy reduction in Medicare, then no one is going back on any promise.

I dunno, I guess my desire for a single payer system (medicare for everyone) is clouding my judgement here. I get you want to exclude wealthy elderly people from Medicare. I guess I don't have any actual problem with that but I think it's heading in the wrong direction.

No. I want them to be included, but I want them paying its real cost from the government's perspective, after they collect the median lifetime contribution back.

I also want that. But I recognize that is not possible to do particularly well without a time machine.

qorkfiend: This could be the most one-sided fight since 1973 when Ali faced an eighty-foot tall mechanical Joe Frazier. My memory isn't what it used to be, but I think the entire Earth was destroyed.

Not the Earth! Ah man, that's where I keep all my stuff.

qorkfiend: This could be the most one-sided fight since 1973 when Ali faced an eighty-foot tall mechanical Joe Frazier. My memory isn't what it used to be, but I think the entire Earth was destroyed.

Dear God, I hope Michael Bay doesn't read this thread.

Bennie Crabtree: The actual history of Canada's medicare system is really cool. In reality, it was as motivated by business concerns and problem solving as by some higher moral thingy. A lot of the "assumptions" that have "not" been borne out actually have been figured out in Canada. although, granted, it's not like the USA has many areas like Saskatchewan in the 1940s...

The bold is the biggie. Small business owners should, logically, be over the moon about getting out from the horrible mess of trying to shop for and manage health insurance coverage, competing with other employers on health benefits, worrying about whether you'll be renewed if even one of your employees gets really sick, yadda yadda.

It's a burden on Fortune 500 companies, sure. But, they have HR departments. They have some leverage back at the insurers due to the scale of their policy. They have an easier time outsourcing more of their work. It keeps their employees a little more captive. Now, why should a lot of American small businessmen continue to be against single-payer? God only knows.

But, as you note, this isn't Tommy Douglas's Saskatchewan. Real small business and independent farmers simply don't constitute a voting bloc any more.