Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As with any snake oil salesman, the boy wonder tries to confuse the customer to sell his product, which isn't as good as the product that already is available.
Fine, let people make their own mind up, we don't need others to interprut for us...
Again, I and many others in the 40-50 age group want a choice. I also realize we have to find ways to cut costs. Cutting costs through Govt price controls is a bad idea, and demand can be changed by having users of services have less option to services or pay more out of pocket. I think a combination of things must be tried. If we allow greater competition, there should be efficiencies of service offerings by the private sector to lower premiums.
It may be scarier to seniors as they are closer to end of life, or it is also a practic matter, as to changte into a new system will take years to implement. Just look at moving form ICD9 to ICD10 in the medical coding world, it is taking forever due to administrative in efficiences.
There is lots of demand and need, what is the problem is giving folks a choice? If they all choose Medicare then we go back to the drawing board.
There's nothing wrong with choice. The problem is Ryan's plan.
There's nothing wrong with choice. The problem is Ryan's plan.
Except that "choice" undermines Medicare's funding stream and that's the goal. They want to be able to de-fund Medicare so they can claim they had no choice but to kill Medicare.
What the right-wing on this thread are failing to see is that seniors like Medicare and those who are now 55 and under don't want to give up the benefit that their parents have.
Hello Mcfly, one can switch back to Medicare if they are not happy with a privatre plan under the Ryan plan. Go do some reading. Market competition will help lower costs, the CBO did not estiamte cost savings on the inital plan, and this silly 6K number your quote.
No. No. No. That is what they are telling you, but the plan is quite different. Medicare remains and you can select it or switch to it but YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY THE PREMIUM. Medicare will be one alternative like all the rest - pretty much the "public option" that Dems wanted in Obamacare. But, you have it very wrong, it is just another choice and you have to pay what it costs with your voucher same as any other plan that might be offered.
Do you understand your question? Ryans plan is for those under 55, can eitehr stay on Medicare, or take a voucher and choose from a different plan? I would want that, as this will apply to me.
If I can purchase a plan that is less than the voucer, Ic ome out ahead. If I think I will loose money, then I will stay on Medicare. If Market forces work, the competition between plans will lower premiums, and potentially Govt outlays. The worse that could happen, I would swithc back to Medicare. That to me, is a great option. Simply to say, we go the same direction without trying to bend the coist curve is nuts.
One of the most influential economic papers of the postwar era was Kenneth Arrow’s Uncertainty and the welfare economics of health care, which demonstrated — decisively, I and many others believe — that health care can’t be marketed like bread or TVs. Let me offer my own version of Arrow’s argument.
The thing about health care is that it’s complicated, and you can’t rely on experience or comparison shopping. (“I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!â€) That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.
This in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can’t just trust insurance companies either — they’re not in business for their health, or yours.
The other thing is that this "choice" undermines traditional Medicare and when that is gone, there is no reason private insurance will try to compete. They don't want the business of old people — they're a poor bet, when most health care costs are in the later part of life.
Do you understand your question? Ryans plan is for those under 55, can eitehr stay on Medicare, or take a voucher and choose from a different plan? I would want that, as this will apply to me. If I can purchase a plan that is less than the voucer, Ic ome out ahead. If I think I will loose money, then I will stay on Medicare. If Market forces work, the competition between plans will lower premiums, and potentially Govt outlays. The worse that could happen, I would swithc back to Medicare. That to me, is a great option. Simply to say, we go the same direction without trying to bend the coist curve is nuts.
You are a real babe in the woods when it comes to the cost of insurance. I bet your employer pays your and you have no idea what it really costs. I am a couple years too young for Medicare. So I have a group plan from my previous employer. I pay all the costs. It costs me 1500 dollars a month, $18,000 per year! I still have copays and coinsurance twice what Medicare people have. You can't buy squat for 6k in today's market and no amount of "competition" is going to change that. Ryan ties increases in voucher value to GDP growth. We all know that medical costs are rising several times faster than GDP. Of course, that is the problem. Ryan's solution is to stick YOU with the risk and the higher costs and take the savings in tax cuts for millionaires.
Except that "choice" undermines Medicare's funding stream and that's the goal. They want to be able to de-fund Medicare so they can claim they had no choice but to kill Medicare.
What the right-wing on this thread are failing to see is that seniors like Medicare and those who are now 55 and under don't want to give up the benefit that their parents have.
I am sure there is a way to continue funding Medicare. I simply know thatwe can't sustain the spending. We have to find wasy to contrrol costs. A choice plan would, why not use money from the same pot to fund a choice system? That is is doable, and allows choice. So in your mind, forced funding to Medicare overrides an individuals right to choose.
One of the most influential economic papers of the postwar era was Kenneth Arrow’s Uncertainty and the welfare economics of health care, which demonstrated — decisively, I and many others believe — that health care can’t be marketed like bread or TVs. Let me offer my own version of Arrow’s argument.
The thing about health care is that it’s complicated, and you can’t rely on experience or comparison shopping. (“I hear they’ve got a real deal on stents over at St. Mary’s!”) That’s why doctors are supposed to follow an ethical code, why we expect more from them than from bakers or grocery store owners.
This in turn means that someone other than the patient ends up making decisions about what to buy. Consumer choice is nonsense when it comes to health care. And you can’t just trust insurance companies either — they’re not in business for their health, or yours.
The other thing is that this "choice" undermines traditional Medicare and when that is gone, there is no reason private insurance will try to compete. They don't want the business of old people — they're a poor bet, when most health care costs are in the later part of life.
This is all correct. And don't forget boys and girls (those of you who weren't alive or were just babes in arms when Medicare came along), the reason we have Medicare is that private insurers didn't want these customers in the first place!
It seems to me (I'm 31) and a lot of people I know, that people under about 35 have no expectation of social security and Medicare being around when they reach retirement age. Because of this, we seem to have much less of an issue with people touching them and aren't really as concerned about Paul Ryan's plan as people a bit older than ourselves. This seems to apply even to those who don't otherwise support the Republicans. Is it me just being weird or does anybody else notice this too?
The only reason Social Security and Medicare won't be around in 35 years is if Americans choose to abolish those programs. In a country as rich as ours, there's no reason why that should happen.
I am sure there is a way to continue funding Medicare. I simply know thatwe can't sustain the spending. We have to find wasy to contrrol costs. A choice plan would, why not use money from the same pot to fund a choice system? That is is doable, and allows choice. So in your mind, forced funding to Medicare overrides an individuals right to choose.
I think right to choose is worth exploring. But what Ryan is proposing is not right to choose. What he wants is to have the goverment move from paying the full ride to paying about 1/3 of it and letting you "choose" among plans that cost several times what you can afford to pay (for most people). That is not a choice, it is a burden. If Ryan wants to increase the value of his vouchers to what his "congressional" plan costs us taxpayers and have us go shopping, I say fine, go for it. But that is not what he wants to do. He wants us to shop with an empty wallet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
