MATERGRAVY

I posted Ryan's plan with a two fold purpose. One, to show that those who stand up on National Television and claim the Minority has no ideas, are "distorting" the FACTS. Two, to hopefully have some people read the details in the proposal and discuss the pros and cons in a meaningful manner.  IMO, this country has got to start somewhere...being faced with the deficit spending we have, the economy, and the status of SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.

G. Will only gives a basic summary in his article, I posted the link to details of the plan.

I figured this paragraph from Will's article would generate a response from most people.

"Ryan's plan would allow workers under 55 the choice of investing more than one-third of their current Social Security taxes in personal retirement accounts similar to the Thrift Savings Plan long available to, and immensely popular with, federal employees. This investment would be inheritable property, guaranteeing that individuals will never lose the ability to dispose every dollar they put into these accounts."

How does that compare with all the Healthcare reform proposals in Congress that includes somewhere around $500 billion in cuts to Medicare programs to pay for the proposals?

They also note all over the report:
Notes: The alternative fiscal scenario deviates from CBO’s baseline projections, incorporating some changes that policymakers have regularly adopted in the past and others that may occur.

What are they talking about?  The fact that Congress passes legislation before the deadline all the time to bypass the Medicare cuts that are suppose to occur by law?

The CBO report and the Deficit and the favorite expression in Congress, "bend the curve".....page 5 through 7:

Overall Budgetary Effects of the Roadmap
The Roadmap, in the form that CBO analyzed, would result in less federal spending
for Medicare and Medicaid as well as lower tax revenues than projected under CBO’s
alternative fiscal scenario (see Table 1). Federal spending for Social Security would be
slightly higher than under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario for much of the projection
period. On balance, those changes would reduce federal budget deficits and the federal
debt. Under the proposal, federal outlays excluding interest (so-called primary
spending) would decline, from 26 percent of GDP in 2009 to 19 percent in 2020,
16 percent in 2060, and 14 percent in 2080. Revenues under the Roadmap would initially correspond to revenues under the alternative fiscal scenario and then remain
at 19 percent of GDP after 2030, on the basis of specifications provided by your staff.
The budget deficit would peak at 5 percent of GDP in 2034 and then decline. By
2080, the proposal would generate a budget surplus of about 5 percent of GDP.
Under the Roadmap, the ratio of government debt held by the public to economic
output (the ratio of debt to GDP) would be lower than that under the alternative
fiscal scenario in every year (see Figure 1). In particular, debt is projected to peak at 100 percent of GDP in 2043 and to decline thereafter, reaching zero by 2080. (Debt
held by the public was about 53 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2009.) The
federal government would accumulate net financial assets equal to 17 percent of GDP
by 2083. In contrast, under the alternative fiscal scenario, debt is projected to
skyrocket over the next several decades.

BB: I dont know or understand the full effects of this idea yet, but IMO, the Fact remains, it is an idea worthy of discussion in Congress, good or bad, to try to control SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and overall Healthcare.  But then again, to paraphrase Harry Reid's statement...There is no problem with SS, Medicare, and Medicaid.

I also think one needs to read the CBO report with this statement in mind:

The analysis in this letter does not represent a cost estimate for your proposal. Producing such an estimate would require a more detailed analysis of the Roadmap’s many
provisions, rather than the fairly mechanical extrapolations that underlie most of the
findings presented here. Moreover, CBO’s cost estimates generally apply only to the
10-year budget projection period, because the uncertainties about the budgetary effects of legislation (especially regarding health care) are simply too great beyond that span. In contrast, this analysis uses a 75-year horizon to offer a rough assessment of long-term trends under different policies. Even this rough comparison can be constructed for your proposal only because its provisions and additional specifications provided by your staff set predetermined growth rates for the key amounts of taxes and transfers; CBO does not have the capability to model more subtle changes in federal health programs, even in an approximate way, over that very long time span.

Charles Robert wrote:

BB: How does that compare with all the Healthcare reform proposals in Congress that includes somewhere around $500 billion in cuts to Medicare programs to pay for the proposals?

CR: It would seem to me that the cuts suggested by the democratic plan are part of a broader package of reforms designed to influence the costs of the overall healthcare system.

The republican “Roadmap” plan seems to rely on the idea of to just reduce the amount of money flowing into Medicare relying on the market to sort itself out.

One way purposes to change the costs of the system from within and the other purposes to cut the funds and force the seniors to figure how to best spend what’s left.

I will say though – I hope the republicans get behind Ryan’s plan.  I suggest they push it heavy in this year up coming elections.

Here is Obama's proposal explained by Peter Orszag from back in June 2009.  Which of the two categories you labeled and I highlighted above do they go in???

"So today, I am announcing an additional $313 billion in savings that will rein in unnecessary spending, and increase efficiency and the quality of care -- savings that will ensure that we have nearly $950 billion set aside to offset the cost of health care reform over the next ten years," Obama said.

About $110 billion of the new cuts would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments. That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.

Obama also proposed cutting payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients by $106 billion on the assumption those ranks would decline as health care reforms phase in.

An additional $75 billion would come from "better pricing of Medicare drugs," Orszag said, adding the White House was in talks with stakeholders over the best way to do that.

BB: was that the meeting Obama had with "big Pharma" at the whitehouse a reportedly a deal was struck with them?

The remaining $22 billion in proposed cuts would come from smaller reforms, such as adjusting payment rates for physician imaging services and cutting waste, fraud and abuse.

The new cuts are in addition to a $635 billion "down payment" on health care reform that Obama outlined in his budget to Congress earlier this year.

About half of that came from cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and the rest from revenue proposals such as cutting tax deductions for families that make over $250,000 a year.

Altogether, the Obama administration is now asking Congress to trim spending on Medicare and Medicaid by more than $600 billion over the next decade, which is more than some Democrats are willing to swallow.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel told reporters after a closed-door meeting with fellow Democrats on the panel that the committee would include about $400 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings in the health care overhaul legislation being drafted.

"We don't think we can do all the things he (Obama) is recommending. ... We think his 600 (billion) is our 400," Rangel told reporters.

Reid's first plan before he changed his "cadillac" tax:

The $848 billion health care reform legislation unveiled by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week is financed primarily through cuts to Medicare provider payments (which would save $330.6 billion, or 34 percent of the bill's 10-year cost)

Pelosi's plan:  Pelosi's $1.05 trillion plan depends more on Medicare cuts to providers ($440 billion, or 37 percent of the bill's 10-year cost)

Which of these changes the system from the inside?......and which just cuts the funds and forces the seniors to figure how to best spend what’s left?

BB said: Which of these changes the system from the inside?......and which just cuts the funds and forces the seniors to figure how to best spend what’s left?

CR:  Changes the system from the inside????  Who said that? You would not be trying to change the context of my statement there would you? Maybe you are trying to make the case that all cuts are the same?  To refresh your memory I said:

One way purposes to change the costs of the system from within and the other purposes to cut the funds and force the seniors to figure how to best spend what’s left.

It was said in context with this statement:

CR: It would seem to me that the cuts suggested by the democratic plan are part of a broader package of reforms designed to influence the costs of the overall healthcare system.

Everything you posted fits within my context since they are trying to influence costs within the system not to abolish Medicare – Ryan’s plan is to save money by reducing the payments period – I will also point out - while at the same time the costs of medical treatment will increase.  Seniors (the most costly medical demographic) will be forced to work within a system of private insurers that really don’t want them – it is like some faith based idea that the market will work itself out.

But the overall goal of Ryan's plan is not to provide the best / cost effective healthcare for our nation's seniors - it is to reduce / eliminate the debt.

Has anybody even bothered to ask if the insurance companies want to do this? The only reason why Medicare was developed was because the insurance companies did not want to deal with them anyway.

CR: Changes the system from the inside???? Who said that? You would not be trying to change the context of my statement there would you? Maybe you are trying to make the case that all cuts are the same? To refresh your memory I said: One way purposes to change the costs of the system from within and the other purposes to cut the funds and force the seniors to figure how to best spend what’s left. It was said in context with this statement: CR: It would seem to me that the cuts suggested by the democratic plan are part of a broader package of reforms designed to influence the costs of the overall healthcare system. Everything you posted fits within my context since they are trying to influence costs within the system not to abolish the system – Ryan’s plan is to save money by reducing the payments –

BB:  WOW, I'm sorry I'm not able to comprehend your Harvard degree "style"  writings that seem to be reminiscent of "it depends on what the meaning of the word "is"...IS?   Us simple minded run of the mill high school education conservatives have to depend on Merriam-Webster dictionary for the difference between "inside" and "within".  Please forgive me for thinking they were the same and that such a thing was possible in your writings.

Main Entry: 1with·in
Date: before 12th century
1 : in or into the interior : inside

Main Entry: 1in·side
Date: 14th century
1 a : an interior or internal part or place : the part within b : inward nature, thoughts, or feeling

Now that you can see how mistaken I was on the meaning of the two words,  lets try to unconfuse me one more time.......Pleaseeeeeeee?

"The $848 billion health care reform legislation unveiled by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week is financed primarily through cuts to Medicare provider payments (which would save $330.6 billion, or 34 percent of the bill's 10-year cost)

  Pelosi's $1.05 trillion plan depends more on Medicare cuts to providers ($440 billion, or 37 percent of the bill's 10-year cost)"

If one Dem plan Cuts Medicare Provider payments, and the other plan says "Cuts to providers', is that "WITHIN" Medicare in your definition?....or would it be like you just described Ryans plan...."Ryan’s plan is to save money by reducing the payments"....or earlier "to cut the funds and force the seniors to figure how to best spend what’s left"?