Let me be clear…I’m a big fan of Congressman Paul Ryan.
However, I strive for philosophical and intellectual consistency, and I’m having a hard time with all of the conservative applause for Ryan’s Medicare reform ideas. I’m no longer a supporter of Newt Gingrich, but his recent description of Ryan’s plan as “right-wing social engineering” appears to me to be more accurate than we conservatives are willing to admit.
Let’s recap. My understanding is that the Ryan plan calls for no changes to Medicare for those already over age 55. No problem there.
For those younger than 55, there would be a “defined benefit” plan that would allow low-income Americans to purchase health insurance from federally-approved providers that would meet their basic healthcare needs once they reach retirement age (an age which is yet to be determined, but likely around 70).
For middle and high income Americans, the federal benefit would be slightly to more than slightly less than the actual premium price for the coverage. In other words, wealthier Americans would be expected to pay more to have the same level of coverage that would be provided at no cost for low income Americans.
If correct, doesn’t this mean that high income Americans will be contributing more money in their pre-retirement years and will receive less “benefits” when they actually reach retirement age? This sounds like old-fashioned wealth redistribution to me (or in other words “conservative social engineering.”)
Am I missing something here?
Moe Lane
PG DeFreese
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Dan Spencer
Yes, you are missing it.
Kyle-MI (Diary) Wednesday, May 25th at 3:22PM EST (link)1. The current system is worse and unsustainable.
2. The Dems have no plan.
3. Anything stronger than the Ryan plan would be in even worse political shape.
Don’t like it? What would you propose that would be better than Ryan’s plan and yet not violate any of the above points?
Kyle, I understand the political viability of Ryan's plan...
Mr_Ed (Diary) Wednesday, May 25th at 3:30PM EST (link)….but that doesn’t make it a “conservative” plan. Of course it’s better than the current system, but it’s still not “conservative.”
I can’t get excited about a plan that redistributes wealth. And it appears this plan does.
The best plan (which admittedly is difficult to impossible to achieve) is to remove the federal government from healthcare entirely. Give it back to the states, the private sector and to individuals.
I’ve worked in the healthcare sector all my professional life, so this is not just some pipedream from an ill-informed individual.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse’s Mouth
So Let's Approach This Differently
Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Wednesday, May 25th at 3:37PM EST (link)In the absence of Paul Ryan’s budget plan, what will get passed instead. Here are some possibilities.
1) Nothing. Every year is a continuation of 2009 until the Democrats actually need something they don’t already have.
2) More spending. The next time the Dems clean house in an election, Cap-n-Trade can go through like poop through a goose.
3) Balance with vastly higher taxes. VAT, Carbon Tax, Internet Tax or Respirationd and Heart Rate Tariff.
Which of these three do you personally prefer to Ryan’s suggestion?
Mr. Obama is pretending that an economic “recovery” is underway when he knows damn well that the banking system is just blowing smoke up the shredded *** of what’s left of that economy – James Howard Kunstler
RMJ, I agree that Ryan's plan is the best...
Mr_Ed (Diary) Wednesday, May 25th at 3:57PM EST (link)…available alternative. It’s the political reality.
But, as I understand it, it’s still not a “conservative” plan and therefore tough for me to get overly enthusiastic about.
Mr. Ed
Straight from the Horse’s Mouth
Medicare is itself redistributionist
Beaglescout (Diary) Wednesday, May 25th at 4:40PM EST (link)That’s why anything that fixes Medicare will be redistributionist, not conservative, and will raise your hackles. On the other hand, if we just let it collapse the answer will be worse. Letting it collapse won’t be conservative, it will just be lazy. And it will be foolish. Destructive too. So let’s fix the stupid thing as best as we can and try to move it closer to a private solution as time goes by.
Calling Ryan a prince doesn’t help though, no matter what the goal is.
“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”
Definition of "Insurance"
YnotNOW (Diary) Thursday, May 26th at 10:20AM EST (link)by definition, insurance is something that you hope you don’t need to use – or in the case of health insurance, use very little. If you “lose” money, (put more money in that you get back in benefits), that is a good thing and you should be happy. Insurance is for the purpose of “just in case something catastrophic happens, I need to have this backup”. So those that have a catastrophic medical expense, and end up “getting” more than they put in – you don’t really feel envious of them.
If you think of Social Security and the value of Medicare to be partly insurance against being poor, rather than an “investment” in yourself, then the wealth-distribution parts of the plan start to make sense. It is a poor investment. It is base-line poverty insurance.
YnotNOW
If not me, who? If not now, when?