From what I understand, Paul Ryan has submitted a plan to try and make the entitlement programs sustainable. The problem, if you want to call it that, is when Social Security and the government Medical programs were created people did not live as long, nor were medical expenses as high. As a result people retired or heading into retirement today have not paid enough money into the entitlement programs to make them sustainable. There is the additional problem too in that the baby boom generation had few children. This means there are fewer tax paying younger workers to support retired folks. Soon there will be 2 workers supporting 1 retired citizen. In the past it was closer to 10 workers for every retired beneficiary.
Reforms are needed. The result will be in the future either significantly higher taxes on young workers creating less opportunity for them, less benefits paid out to retired folks who did not pay enough into the programs, and/or means testing. If wealthy enough, you will not be eligible to participate in the government program.
However, the REAL genius of this plan is simple: the 'voucher' will rise at the rate in inflation, irrespective of what medical costs do. Since medical costs have been rising at well over the rate of inflation, the voucher's value will diminish.... and that's when the savings comes in, because fewer people at the lower end of the economic spectrum will be able to buy it... so, the savings will come from rationing by affordability. Brilliant plan; of COURSE the costs will come down, if fewer people get health care.
The health care dilemma will NOT be solved until these bozos realize that health care is a life-cycle phenomenon; any solution MUST, by definition, anticipate that health care needs increase as a person ages, and any system which prices health care by age is inevitably DOOMED TO FAILURE.
Tish happens (I'm dyslexic)
So wardd finding the Supreme Court saying obamacare is unconstitutional when the decision comes down, it's okay?
Last edited by S.V. Airlie; 04-30-2012 at 03:30 PM.
make that john adams
Glad you got the second president you named right. It wasn't Jefferson.Just for kicks, did the Constitution written in 1790 include anything specifically about universal healthcare in any shape or form or was it a later amendment say post 1790 when Washington wrote the bill?What about regarding commerce laws which seems to be the bone currently facing the Supreme Court.In fact, it deals with 2 points only in the entire bill.
Not the point. Maybe if you bothered reading my post above, you might come to realize that the Constitution of 1790 might have allowed it. Again, more recent amendments might have limited commerce that wouldn't have allowed Washington to pass the bill.Of course I'm being silly or so you say and you are in your typical avoidance mode.What you don't want to know or even think about can fill a rain barrel or 20 barrels. Go back to sleep wardd..Think of amendments about commerce that were approved after 1790.Look at the articles in the original Constitution.Which of these are being considered by the Supreme Court. I think it was the just first ten out of all amendments passed Washington dealt with.
and, compassionate conservatism
and then there's the permanent republican majority
You are living in a country whose constitutional system was inaugurated in 1787 because the confederation government that preceded ours had no right to direct taxtion and, therefore, could not pay it's bills. George Washington, who started the impetus to create the new form of government, stated he was saddened the country he had helped create " was not a responable country" because it was in danger of defaulting on the loans that funded the Revolutionary War.
You understand incorrectly. Social Security is already sustainable with very small tax increases, or a modest increase in the income ceiling. The problem with Medicare and Medicaid is the fact that US health care is both twice as expensive as the rest of the developed world, and was increasing much faster until quite recently. He doesn't address this problem at all. Mr. Ryan proposes just about eliminating Medicaid (mostly for the elderly and disabled) and changing Medicare to a voucher system that doesn't keep up with the rate of cost increase. He proposes an enormous tax cut, almost all for the wealthy, offset by an even more enormous spending cut, reducing federal government spending to levels not seen in living memory. He has a totally unjustified reputation as a serious policy guy, one who makes the numbers add up. He's nothing of the kind; he's a Social Darwinist fantasist, believing in tax cuts for the rich first, last, and always, and all else be damned.From what I understand, Paul Ryan has submitted a plan to try and make the entitlement programs sustainable.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations,
for nature cannot be fooled."
Prez Obama swore an oath tp "'preserve protect and defend" the US but Paul Ryan ain't about to swear an oath to a gazillion poor people. His eyes are glued to John Boehner's back looking for a profitble place to stick the knife in.
The speaker's job is Ryan's choice in leu of the presidency which Ryan is not likely ever to attain.
In a World full of wonders, man invented boredom. (Terry Pratchett)