Originally posted by no1marauderI have a question on this point. You say Ryan's budget keeps those cuts to Medicare, but since the republican budget repeals Obamacare, doesn't that mean that ~$700 billion would never leave Medicare in the first place?
1) Mitt Romney says that “unlike the current president who has cut Medicare funding by $700 billion. We will preserve and protect Medicare.” What happens to those cuts in the Ryan budget?
The republican budget document is explicit about this. The funds that would have been diverted by Obamacare are to be used to "shore up Medicare." Under the section titled Saving and Strengthening Medicare there is a bullet point (on pg 54) that states:
Stop the raid on the Medicare trust fund that was going to be used to pay for the new health care law. Any current-law Medicare savings must go to saving Medicare, not the creation of new open-ended health care entitlements.
This budget ends the raid on the Medicare trust fund that began with passage of the new health care law last year. It ensures that any potential savings in current law would go to shore up Medicare, not to pay for new entitlements. In addition to repealing the health care law’s new rationing board and its unfunded long-term care entitlement, this budget stabilizes plan choices for current seniors.
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
15 Aug 12
Originally posted by sonhouseRyan's budget passes the House. Obama's is rejected in the Senate 97-0. We have no budget for his whole Presidency so far.
"The underlying problem with Paul Ryan is that he does not have the credentials or qualifications to put forth budget proposals for the US.
Aside from numerous part-time and temporary jobs, his greatest achievement in life has been as a marketing consultant for his own family’s business.
(Per Wikipedia) “Ryan briefly worked during college for the Osca ...[text shortened]...
His job in college: Wienermobile driver🙂
I guess his brand of economics, Wienernomics🙂
15 Aug 12
Originally posted by SleepyguyI wonder when Politifact will get around to evaluating the claim that the ACA "raids $700 billion from Medicare" as the Pants On Fire that it is? In fact:
I have a question on this point. You say Ryan's budget keeps those cuts to Medicare, but since the republican budget repeals Obamacare, doesn't that mean that ~$700 billion would never leave Medicare in the first place?
The republican budget document is explicit about this. The funds that would have been diverted by Obamacare are to be used to "shore u ...[text shortened]... for current seniors.[/quote]
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found last month that the Medicare provisions in the health care law would save $700 billion over a decade and extend the life of Medicare.
The cuts don’t target beneficiaries — they come largely in the form of reduced payments to hospitals, discounts on Medicaid prescription drugs, and pay cuts to private insurers under Medicare Advantage.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-obama-medicare-cuts-mitt-romney.php
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by utherpendragonI agree the Obama should have been more forceful in pushing is agenda early on but tell me - for how long did the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate for that is what it takes to really get something passed these days. DOn't forget he also had that phony Dem Leiberman who would have voted with the repubs against any serious business/banking or tax improvements.
Again, more tired old lines coming from the left about Republicans blocking or obstructing everything their Messiah tried to accomplish. "If it was not for them it would be ok now", or words to that affect.
You seem to forget that the first two years of Obamas Presidency he had the majority of both the House and Senate. And what did he do with it ?
It did not go unnoticed. The 2010 beat down showed that and this 2012 election will as well.
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by kbear1kDo you intend to say that no President is effective, unless he has a majority in the House and closure proof majority in the Senate?
I agree the Obama should have been more forceful in pushing is agenda early on but tell me - for how long did the Democrats have 60 votes in the Senate for that is what it takes to really get something passed these days. DOn't forget he also had that phony Dem Leiberman who would have voted with the repubs against any serious business/banking or tax improvements.
16 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIt seems to me that such cuts that "don't target beneficiaries" will have a negative impact on beneficiaries nonetheless. Health care providers need to make a profit. Price controls and cuts in pay will mean providers just stop accepting Medicare patients.
I wonder when Politifact will get around to evaluating the claim that the ACA "raids $700 billion from Medicare" as the Pants On Fire that it is? In fact:
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found last month that the Medicare provisions in the health care law would save $700 billion over a decade and extend the life of Medicare.
The cuts do ...[text shortened]... .
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-obama-medicare-cuts-mitt-romney.php
16 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyHow many doctors and hospitals are going to stop accepting seniors? Be serious.
It seems to me that such cuts that "don't target beneficiaries" will have a negative impact on beneficiaries nonetheless. Health care providers need to make a profit. Price controls and cuts in pay will mean providers just stop accepting Medicare patients.
If health care costs keep rising at double digit percentages per year as then have averaged over the last 20 years, nobody's plan can possibly avert "bankruptcy" of Medicare and probably of the country. Ryan's budget plan keeps those measures as already pointed out; the difference is that because he screws the present population without health insurance who would receive subsidies under the ACA, he claims that $700 billion saving can be used toward "saving" MediCare. But Ryan's plan increases defense spending by about a trillion dollars plus has trillions of dollars of unfunded tax cuts: money that won't be available for "saving" MediCare. Ezra Klein is more lucid than I am explaining this here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/14/ryans-budget-keeps-obamas-medicare-cuts-full-stop/
Romney, doubling down on irresponsibility, is now saying he will restore in full the $700 billion to MediCare that the measures that both Obama and the Ryan budget plan accept as necessary savings. Of course, he has not made any proposal on how to cut other spending so that this doesn't increase the debt (perish the thought of any additional tax revenue).
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by sh76ya, I have to laugh at that one too.. Ryan is hands and feet above Joe Biden,,, hell Sarah Palin did ok against Joe in their debate..??? His latest gaffe really makes me wonder, replace him, or leave him?
An Obama supporter complaining about a candidate's lack of previous job experience.
Heh.
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, Obama's CMS actuaries thought it would be about 15 percent.
How many doctors and hospitals are going to stop accepting seniors? Be serious.
It is important to note that the estimated savings shown in this memorandum for one category of Medicare provisions may be unrealistic. The PPACA introduces permanent annual productivity adjustments to price updates for most providers (such as hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies), using a 10-year moving average of economy-wide private, non-farm productivity gains. While such payment update reductions will create a strong incentive for providers to maximize efficiency, it is doubtful that many will be able to improve their own productivity to the degree achieved by the economy at large. Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates, based on productivity expectations that are difficult to attain, would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than, and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers’ costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries. Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries). Simulations by the Office of the Actuary suggest that roughly 15 percent of Part A providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection period as a result of the productivity adjustments. (pg 9)
http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Research/ActuarialStudies/downloads/PPACA_2010-04-22.pdf
I don't understand why you think that would be unthinkable. In a fee-for-service system, if you reduce the fees ... what happens?
Anyway it looks to me like Romney/Ryan can, if they are careful, fight the Mediscare issue to a stalemate in the media. The "Paul Ryan wants to end Medicare as we know it" argument can be met with "Medicare as we know it has already been killed by Obamacare", and for current seniors to boot.
