GOP proposes to change Medicare to Obamacare

Left alone Medicare would cost $500 billion a year in a few years. Liberals have no plan, because they believe that money is magically created by a few wealthy people and government should just take more and more of it.

Ryan's plan is based on individuals making personal decisions in a competitive marketplace, and government providing for those who can't provide for themselves. This is incomprehensible to liberals.

A bumper sticker in every pot!

"Oh, and for all those older Americans who voted GOP last year because those nasty Democrats were going to cut Medicare, I have just one word: suckers!"

--Paul Krugman

For the record, I think the GOP proposals to cut Medicare are a great idea. It's nice to see Republicans like Paul Ryan working tirelessly to ensure that Florida goes to Obama in 2012. I did not know Ryan was a Democrat.

Is this the individual responsibility and freedom that LICC supports?

Arizona conservatives now want government in your face. Literally.

Gov. Jan Brewer has now proposed levying a $50 fee on state Medicaid recipients who are obese and who don't follow a doctor-supervised slimming regimen. She also wants to charge those who smoke.

The plan, if approved by the Republican-dominated legislature, would mark the first time a state-run but federally subsidized health-care program for the poor has charged people for unhealthy acts.

That would be another great thing about Ryan's plan. Private insurers would have separate policies based on the insured. That way one person isn't paying higher rates because someone else is obese and smokes.

Should private insurers charge more to insure those who choose to buy cheap real estate nearby toxic superfund sites, such as certain fools have done in LIC??

Why should we bail out these damaged people? If they chose not to read or heed the clear warning expressed throughout the media, why should they be subsidized?

It's about accountability, right?

Responsibility for one's own action. You buy cheap, you get a tumor, your problem!!

You sell...cheaper.

"Ryan's plan is based on individuals making personal decisions in a competitive marketplace, and government providing for those who can't provide for themselves. This is incomprehensible to liberals."

Your quote is the ORIGINAL OBAMACARE

"That way one person isn't paying higher rates because someone else is obese and smokes."

Insurance companies ALREADY charge smokers extra.

WTushy! Remember to stay away from children. On behalf of parents everywhere, I beg you

A well-constructed sentence:
"That would be another great thing about Ryan's plan."

would/if ... but because there is no great thing about Ryan's plan, there cannot be 'another' great thing, and the 'thing' that 'That' refers to is certainly not one.

"That would be another great thing about Ryan's plan. Private insurers would have separate policies based on the insured. That way one person isn't paying higher rates because someone else is obese and smokes."

How do you know if someone is obese or smokes? If I eat a piece of cake, is Paul Ryan going to come to my house and tell me I can't eat it or else I will have to pay more? Shame on you LICC for promoting big government healthcare. If I want to eat that chocolate cake, that is my right!

Its actually a dramatic expansion of medicare advantage.

"Ryan's plan is based on individuals making personal decisions in a competitive marketplace, and government providing for those who can't provide for themselves. This is incomprehensible to liberals."

This indeed sounds exactly like ObamaCare. Under ObamaCare, we were told we would have a competitive marketplace in the form of "exchanges." And those who can't provide for themselves will get subsidies based on their income. I am absolutely shocked that LICC supports ObamaCare. I never knew he supported it. And this comes less than 1 day when he called for private Social Security accounts that would be heavily regulated by the govt.

It seems that LICC like govt. regulation more than I do. By the end of the week, he will support cap and trade.

Exactly. This plan is remarkably like Obamacare, the Dutch system, Hilarycare...

I'm not surprised the liberals here can't understand the differences. Then by your reasoning, you are all in favor of Paul Ryan's plan since it is so much like the Obamacare that you love??

"Private insurers would have separate policies based on the insured. That way one person isn't paying higher rates because someone else is obese and smokes."

While some of this already happens, it defeats the whole point of insurance. You're pooling risk for a reason. To alter that in the way you're proposing is really just a call to do away with insurance and institute a universal fee-for-service model. While a line has to be drawn for blatant disregard to health consequences, pooling offenders separately is not a good solution.

As for whether Ryan's plan is like Obama's, I would think that would be obvious - Ryan is essentially trying to abolish traditional Medicare and push everyone into the private market, which has proven to be more expensive for no real additional benefit. It is also essentially a voucher program, even if they label it as "premium support." I doubt it will fly, but that's most likely a good thing.

bjw, I think your comment that private markets have "proven to be more expensive for no real additional benefit" is quite suspect. What are you basing that on?

Insurance companies now have different policies for smokers and non-smokers. They still pool risk, but among different risk level categories.

LICC: Is it possible for you to write a sentence without the word "liberals" in it? If you stop throwing that word around, you might actually start thinking for yourself.

It is obvious you do not understand the concept of insurance. In our country, we have decided that everyone pays a little into the pot so that a few people get what they need when they need it. There might be other ways to do it, but this is what we've chosen. That means everyone in the same pool.

We also don't punish people for being sick. Do you personally have a thorough understanding of all the causes of obesity? Because even medical science doesn't yet. There are people who spend their lives dieting and working out and are still obese. Should they get insurance for being good little boys and girls? You're like some medieval religious fanatic insisting that fat people should be punished for the sin of gluttony. Well, when you're without sin you can cast the first stone.

Tell me, should we just deprive sick people of medical insurance right off the bat so they don't raise your own personal premiums or taxes? If being a liberal means having the capacity to care about other people as well as myself, you can call me that dirty word.

LICC, it's not suspect - one of the major culprits has been the private fee-for-service model, which Obama's reform has (successfully so far, anyway) de-incented significantly. The whole point of privatizing part of the Medicare program was to invite competition and help curb some of the cost increase trend (this is what Bush and others said publicly anyway), but what the reform really did was create a more "premium" product that pays MORE, inexplicably.

Read this: http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/07/the-trouble-wit.html

This one's good too: http://www.healthbeatblog.com/2009/10/some-medicare-advantage-plans-do-provide-valuethe-hmos.html

"no real additional benefit"???

Are massive shareholder profits "no real additional benefit"?
Are huge executive bonuses and perks "no real additional benefit"?
Are ginormous Wall Street fees "no real additional benefit"?

You're clearly being highly disingenous, bjw2103.

And Medicare is wildly inefficient compared to private health insurance, as can be seen here:
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004083 ... hardly any contribution to the administrative economy whatsoever, leading to higher unemployment. That's bad for America.

Mr. bjw2103, you have some thinking to do, and when you're done I want you to apologize.

alan, you are right. I always forget about the little shareholders. Thank you for keeping my humanity in check. I owe you a sidecar.

Now we patiently wait for LICcomm to affix a Heritage Foundation bumper sticker here, stating that Medicare [elderly, with much more complex health problems on average, required much more complicated coordination] administrative costs PER BENEFICIARY are higher than those of the general population per beneficiary with private health insurance.

Medicare advantage is more expensive per patient by far than regular Medicare. This is massively expanding Medicare advantage. We have proof RIGHT NOW that his plan will prove more expensive.

"The budget plan unveiled by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) Tuesday does a neat trick: It claims that repealing the health care reform law will actually reduce the federal budget deficit -- despite extensive analyses by the Congressional Budget Office that show exactly the opposite.

The CBO -- which is the gold standard for budget analysis and number crunching on Capitol Hill -- has issued a series of reports which conclude that the health care law will reduce the deficit and, by corollary, that repealing the health care law will cause the deficit to go back up...."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/gop-budget-ditches-cbo-to-claim-health-care-repeal-will-reduce-the-deficit.php#more

Awkard. 30% of his health care "savings" come from repealing Obamacare, when in fact the CBO says it will INCREASE the deficit. he also spuriously assumes that unemployment will be reduced to below 5%, from 2015 on, thus lowering expenditures for unemployment benefits and raising tax revenue. He does not say how unemployment will get and remain that low, but this is OBLIVIOUSLY too sunny a forcast.

...sorry, 4% unemployment. He says we will have 4% unemployment from 2015-onward. Forever. Really, that is what his budget plan assumes. Of course, Fed policy would be to raise rates when unemployment is below 5% to keep a lid on inflation. Yet Ryan's genius plan assumes 4% unemployment and 3% real GDP growth.

Magic.

"Then by your reasoning, you are all in favor of Paul Ryan's plan since it is so much like the Obamacare that you love??"

Asolutely. I can't think of a better way for the Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot in next year's election that voting to privatize Medicare. The attack ads will be up in 3 seconds.

The economist on Ryan's plan:

"...His tax reform plan is so bare bones that judging its credibility is almost impossible. Of the plan's $6.2 trillion in spending cuts over 10 years, more than a quarter come from "other mandatory" categories, without specifying which: food stamps? Pell grants? Veterans' benefits? If the Congressional Budget Office scores this plan, it may well find the numbers don’t add up...

...Its projections of the economic impact are also surreal...Mr Ryan, citing analysis by the Heritage Foundation, claims his plan would actually create 1m additional private sector jobs and slash the unemployment rate to 4% by 2015, compared to the Blue Chip private sector consensus of 6.6%....when I read their report, I find the prediction of a massive investment boom utterly implausible. Corporations today enjoy record or near record profits. If government deficits were crowding out private investment (a key assumption of their analysis), short-term interest rates would not now be near zero and long-term rates near postwar lows. Mr Ryan risks undermining the credibility of his overall plan by casting its economic consequences in such an implausibly optimistic light..."

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/04/americas_budget_deficit

And if Ryan's budget is not horrible enough, now the teabaggers are pushing for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the COnstitution. Yeah, good luck passing that. You need 67 votes in the Senate to amend the Constitution, and that is never ever happening. Yet the teabaggers are so stupid, they think it will beome law.

So Ryan thinks unemployment will plummet to 4% in just 4 years? When I first read that, I thought it was a joke. OH MY GOODNESS, this guy is an idiot! Too bad we can't recall Congressmen. Where are all thsoe jobs going to come from? John Boehner's a$$?

OH MY GOD ITS WORSE!!!!! Ryan's plan assumes unemployment will get down to 2.8% by 2021. Seriously!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Medicaide, BTW, costs 20% less for children and 27% less for adults than private insurance.

And regular mediCARE is as I said much cheaper than private plans under advantage.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/medicaidcosts.jpg

When is Paul Ryan gong to come out and tell us that he Punk'd us and release his ACTUAL budget?

Ryan's unemployment projections:

2012 6.4
2013 5.5
2014 4.8
2015 4.0
2016 3.5
2017 3.4
2018 3.3
2019 3.1
2020 2.9
2021 2.8

Ryan's unemployment projections:

2012 6.4
2013 5.5
2014 4.8
2015: 4.0
2016: 3.5
2017: 3.4
2018: 3.3
2019: 3.1
2020: 2.9
2021: 2.8

20% inflation would result...and we could inflate away our national debt. Its GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!

"....In sketching out that plan, Mr. Ryan may inadvertently be making the case for tax increases.

Reason one: Even with the spending cuts he proposes, Mr. Ryan wouldn't balance the budget until 2030 or so. Republicans, reluctant to raise the debt ceiling to cover past spending, would be asked to increase it every year until then because debt, measured in dollars, keeps climbing.

Reason two: The most far-reaching change he proposes—limiting the sum the government will spend on each Medicare beneficiary's health care—won't save a nickel for a decade. Grandfathering today's retirees, as nearly everyone wants to do, means savings from Medicare changes don't arrive quickly.

Reason three: Even without many of the details, and there aren't many, the Ryan plan shows how severe the spending cuts would have to be to avoid raising taxes...."

This is a NEWS story in the WSJ, not an editorial. As in the WALL STREET JOURNAL. So...awkward....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576245023533534178.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

...sorry, it is a column. Still...awkward.

They don't need to raise taxes -- they can just restore the Federal taxes that have been cut.

Probably the best article I've read on the proposal thus far (and before anyone accuses me of buying Heritage Foundation bumper stickers - yuck - read the last 3 paragraphs):

http://www.slate.com/id/2290509/

That is a good article bjw.

On your other points, the article you cited bears upon fee for service, not private vs. government-controlled. Having private healthcare markets in this country has led to tremendous benefits in medical research and development that I don't think you would have had with a single-payer system.

LICC, no, the article I pointed you to specifically points to private fee-for-service (note that first word). I am not nearly as convinced as you are that our private insurance model is the major reason we've seen beneficial medical research in this country. There's a LOT more to it than that - Americans simply want and expect constantly improving technology (sometimes at far too great a cost); intellectual property rights help innovation (this is highly debatable in my view - patent law in this country also stifles innovation, paradoxically); we have some great universities that do a lot of the research (public and private, of course); and of course, we've got a huge economy that allows us to take some risks in medical research. I'm not sure how any of this changes dramatically under a single-payer system. I think single-payer is inevitable in this country, but it will be a very long, drawn out fight, unfortunately.

It is UTTERLY vague on what will be eliminated to get the personal income tax top rate to 25% while net CUTTING taxes. In order to do this, you would need to eliminate employee health care deductions, mortgage interest, state income taxes, etc. It's utterly empty on details across the board. It also assumes a ludicrously low unemployment rate from 2012 onward by any stretch of the imagination. This is not anything.

"..There are, of course, some sleight-of-hand tricks in Ryan's plan. What he claims would restore fiscal balance would do nothing of the kind over the next decade, leaving $400 billion in annual deficits as far as the eye can see. That's because he slips a large tax cut into his "reform," leaving government revenues perpetually two percentage points lower than spending expenditures as a share of GDP. What's needed is not more tax cuts but a modest tax increase, of the kind the Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission proposed. That failure is easily remedied, however, by adopting a top rate higher than the 25 percent he proposes, though still lower than the current 35 percent level.

Ryan also evades a lot of difficult particulars. He seldom spells out domestic spending cuts, preferring to kick the can down the road by applying "caps." He skirts the question of which deductions and tax subsidies he'd eliminate to pay for these lower rates. Unfortunately, you don't get big savings unless you eliminate mortgage interest and charitable deductions, which would be politically unpopular. Ryan includes the Heritage Foundation's projections about job growth triggered by his plan—4 percent unemployment in 2015 vs. 5.9 percent without the plan—that are a supply-side fantasy. His anti-bailout rhetoric is silly pandering. I could go on. ..."

As the brilliant article states.

Is there a word for "grandstanding" that indicates something that's not even grand? That's what Ryan's Folly is.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/ryan-v-obama-some-chart-porn/#comments ... with revelation of funny silent revision by the Heritage Foundation to a particularly ridiculous aspect of their own particularly ridiculous claims.

Of course alan prefers Obama's budget that increases spending, debt and taxes. That away alan can keep begging for more handouts and not actually have to work for what he has.

No, LICcomm, I'm not crazy about Obama's budget either.

I want one that heartily increases spending in the short term (via single-payer universal national healthcare) so as to reduce national spending on healthcare in the long-term, in line with our first-world peers ... and hopefully then we'll be as happy with our health system as they are with theirs.

I want one that reduces the Republican debt.

I want one that increases taxes to a first-world level, and shifts them away from the middle classes and solidly towards the wealthy and high-income (criminal classes).

And sorry, you'll never have what I have, LICcomm.

"Having private healthcare markets in this country has led to tremendous benefits in medical research and development that I don't think you would have had with a single-payer system."

Complete nonsense. Israel has a single payer type system and they have devleoped tons of breakthrough drugs. See for yourself:

http://www.masbirim.gov.il/eng/i_med.html

Per capita, I would say Israel has done MORE.

"...the Republicans’ plan increases the federal debt by more than $8 trillion over the next 10 years, and it continues federal budget deficits until nearly 2040. Under the proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution that Ryan and his Republican colleagues claim to support, Ryan’s budget wouldn’t be in compliance for at least the next quarter century.

How could the House Republicans make such enormous cuts and yet not solve the debt crisis? Simple: Ryan’s proposal isn’t a budget. It’s a manifesto for the anti-tax cause. The GOP plan reduces the government’s revenues by $4 trillion over 10 years because of tax cuts, including a lower top rate for businesses and the wealthy...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/paul-ryans-irresponsible-budget/2011/04/05/AF4O7PlC_story.html

And one of the best Alzheimer drugs in the world was developed in GERMANY. Only recently did it get FDA approval.

JUST IN:

JP Morgan CEO Jaime Dimon: Tax the rich MORE

Will LICC now accuse the CEO of one of the biigest banks in the world of being a Socialist?

Your link is slightly off Alan, use this instead:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/ryan-v-obama-some-chart-porn/

However, the point is the same.

WOW. The GOP, Wall Street economist, and even Paul Krugman, Matt Yglesias, and other libs have complained that Obama's OMB projections were too optimistic.

But Ryan is even MORE so. He projects higher GDP growth than the already too-optimistic Obama plan.

An unemployment rate, again, of 5% by 2014 and UNDER 3% from 2020 onward. Which no one on EARTH thinks is realistic. Obviously, job growth far above what any Wall Street economist or the admin projects.

What is amazing is, as good as Ryan's job growth numbers are, they could not POSSIBLY mathematically add up to a 2.8% (or even 4%) unemployment rate unless we killed millions of people. literally.

He also projects wages and income higher than any other projection.

And interest rates below everyone else's. You mathematically cannot have 2.8% unemployment and NOT have inflation so high as to make interest rates higher, yet he has them lower than any other projection as far as the eye can see.

In short, this is a plan made up of pixie dust, unicorns, and wishing on a star.

Yes, thanks for the correct link, jason10006.

I don't know why they don't just claim 0% unemployment. Even Saddam Hussein had the gusto to claim that 100% of Iraqi voters voted in his last election, and he received 100% of the votes; Ryan is Mr. Inbetween.

If everyone in America gets 2 jobs, then can we have NEGATIVE unemployment? Paul Ryan is writing the 2013 budget and needs an answer ASAP.

Krugman goes on and on. Another example is "Ryan is assuming that everything aside from health and SS can be squeezed from 12 percent of GDP now to 3 1/2 percent of GDP."

Seriously. That INCLUDES defense.

"And sorry, you'll never have what I have, LICcomm."

If by that you mean jealousy of others, delusions of prosperous socialism, and the shameless desire to constantly beg for handouts- you are absolutely right.

Fratboys like Ryan are pathetic -- too many hours at 50-cent beer night, economics beergoggle.

From National Review-

Reagan liked to argue that he and the Republicans were the true heirs to FDR, and Ryan followed Reagan in quoting Franklin Roosevelt’s famous words decrying welfare-state dependency: “a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. . . . It is in violation of the traditions of America.” Liberals always hated it when Reagan quoted that passage (and FDR’s remarks on balanced budgets, too). Reagan put it this way in his memoirs:

One of his sons, Franklin Roosevelt, Jr., often told me that his father had said many times his welfare and relief programs during the Depression were meant only as emergency, stopgap measures to cope with a crisis, not the seeds of what others later tried to turn into a permanent welfare state.

The corporate welfare state isn't permanent, though, LICcomm -- it can be crushed. Have some faith and hope (and charity, but for the people).

Oh, and don't believe everything you read in National Lampoon that quotes dead people.

LICcomm.

"One of his sons, Franklin Roosevelt, Jr., often told me that his father had said many times his welfare and relief programs during the Depression were meant only as emergency, stopgap measures to cope with a crisis, not the seeds of what others later tried to turn into a permanent welfare state."

So what? FDR came from an era in which welfare was anathema to the American way. This goes back to Jefferson vs Hamilton. Jefferson won at first, but those principles clearly weren't working anymore and they aren't today.

"I want one that heartily increases spending in the short term (via single-payer universal national healthcare) so as to reduce national spending on healthcare in the long-term, in line with our first-world peers ... and hopefully then we'll be as happy with our health system as they are with theirs.

I want one that reduces the Republican debt.

I want one that increases taxes to a first-world level, and shifts them away from the middle classes and solidly towards the wealthy and high-income (criminal classes)."

I'm on board with that! Alan, I'll owe you yet another sidecar!

"One of his sons, Franklin Roosevelt, Jr., often told me that his father had said many times his welfare and relief programs during the Depression were meant only as emergency, stopgap measures to cope with a crisis, not the seeds of what others later tried to turn into a permanent welfare state."

This is not at all what FDR HIMSELF said repeatedly about SS. He ALSO tried but failed to create national health insurance.

In addition, the above statement is vague enough that it could apply to any number of now-defunct new deal programs. However, there is zero doubt that FDR meant for SS, unemployment insurance, etc to be permanent. He said so himself hundreds of times.

It's time for Ron Reagan to start telling the world what daddy Ronald REALLY meant regarding his programs.

And in related news:
"A long-term Republican budget plan released this week by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin calls for drastic cuts in federal spending on energy research and development and for the outright elimination of subsidies and tax breaks for wind, solar power and other alternative energy technologies."

Disinvestment will help us dig our way out of our problems, excellent! Broke, cold, sick, immobile, unable to manufacture, etc., very very nice.

Sidecars! Sidecars for everyone!

It should be noted that in its original form, according to some analyses, SS was more than a little racist and sexist in its design. Today's proposed modifications, notably the plans to keep upping the age, are certainly racist, and probably demographically discriminatory in many other ways.

Says the all-knowing wikipedia:
"Most women and minorities were excluded from the benefits of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. Employment definitions reflected typical white male categories and patterns.[12] Job categories that were not covered by the act included workers in agricultural labor, domestic service, government employees, and many teachers, nurses, hospital employees, librarians, and social workers.[13] The act also denied coverage to individuals who worked intermittently.[14] These jobs were dominated by women and minorities. For example, women made up 90% of domestic labor in 1940 and two-thirds of all employed black women were in domestic service.[15] Exclusions exempted nearly half of the working population.[14] Nearly two-thirds of all African Americans in the labor force, 70 to 80% in some areas in the South, and just over half of all women employed were not covered by Social Security.[16][17] At the time, the NAACP protested the Social Security Act, describing it as “a sieve with holes just big enough for the majority of Negroes to fall through.”[17]
Some have suggested that this discrimination resulted from the powerful position of Southern Democrats on two of the committees pivotal for the Act’s creation, the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee.[citation needed] Southern congressmen supported Social Security as a means to bring needed relief to areas in the South that were especially hurt by the Great Depression but wished to avoid legislation which might interfere with the racial status quo in the South. The solution to this dilemma was to pass a bill that both included exclusions and granted authority to the states rather than the national government (such as the states' power in Aid to Dependent Children). Others have argued that exclusions of job categories such as agriculture were frequently left out of new social security systems worldwide because of the administrative difficulties in covering these workers.[17]
Social Security reinforced traditional views of family life.[18] Women generally qualified for insurance only through their husbands or children.[18] Mothers’ pensions (Title IV) based entitlements on the presumption that mothers would be unemployed.[18]
Historical discrimination in the system can also be seen with regard to Aid to Dependent Children. Since this money was allocated to the states to distribute, some localities assessed black families as needing less money than white families. These low grant levels made it impossible for African American mothers to not work: one requirement of the program.[19] Some states also excluded children born out of wedlock, an exclusion which affected African American women more than white women.[20] One study determined that 14.4% of eligible white individuals received funding, but only 1.5% of eligible black individuals received these benefits.[17]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)#Initial_opposition

Reality is that the Republicans don't want to address the real problems that face this country. They just want to keep mouthing the same old shibboleths of "free market" and "competition" and "property rights" that they have used for so long to further the interests of the monied upper class, no matter what the result for the US economy and the public wealth. They want to oppose progressive policies (even ones that were proposed first by Republicans). And they don't give a damn about whether the 50 million uninsured Americans can get decent health care. They don't even give a damn about addressing long-term fiscal needs of the country. They just want to fire workers (especially ones that are unionized) so that bosses and owners can take home even more of the profits, and let Business go on as usual

HT, this is how Democrats really feel: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/26026-the-difference-between-democrats-republicans

""One of his sons, Franklin Roosevelt, Jr., often told me that his father had said many times his welfare and relief programs during the Depression were meant only as emergency, stopgap measures to cope with a crisis, not the seeds of what others later tried to turn into a permanent welfare state.""

This is hard to believe since FDR said exactly the opposite so many times in public. Reagan also told people he was a fighter pilot in WW2 and seemed to believe it -- although the only war he fought was on a Hollywood soundstage. To put it charitably, as he got older, his recollections became less and less reliable. Ditto his comprehension of economics. Still waiting for the benefits of tax cuts for the rich to trickle down to me from the Nixon and Reagan administrations.

I skimmed most of the posts above, so don't know whether anyone has pointed out that we may be the only country in the world in which health benefits are tied to employment. If you stop to think about it, this makes no sense.

What really makes no sense is that large employers have never rebelled against the burden they carry -- by pushing for single-payer National Health ... ???????

We are not the only country - the German system is half paid by employee and half by employer for most people. I am sure there are others.

HOWEVER the state covers all not covered by employers, there is more regulation of the system, and viola the Germans spend far less per capita than us and yet still have better health care outcomes.

The truth is there are 100% private versions of Obamacare (the Swiss), mostly private (Dutch, German, Australian), hybrid (French, Japanese), mostly state (Canadian), almost all state (UK) - and all are cheaper than ours with similar or better healtch outcomes. Ours in unambiguoulsy worse.

Prior to Obama's election, most in the GOP, and outfits like Cato favored the Dutch or Swiss-style system. But when Obama and Hilary adopted most of that...well, it became evil.

alan: I want one that heartily increases spending in the short term (via single-payer universal national healthcare) so as to reduce national spending on healthcare in the long-term, in line with our first-world peers ... and hopefully then we'll be as happy with our health system as they are with theirs.

- the idea that people in countries with single payer systems are thrilled with their health care is a myth. A major increase in government spending is the last thing we need. Individual based health insurance in competitive private markets with proper government regulation and support for those who need it would be the best way to have affordable quality healthcare for the most amount of people. But unions and politicians who love to control people's lives wont' have it.

alan: I want one that reduces the Republican debt.

- You mean government debt that Obama and Democrats have more than doubled.

alan: I want one that increases taxes to a first-world level, and shifts them away from the middle classes and solidly towards the wealthy and high-income (criminal classes).

- When you combine federal, state, local, property and FICA, we are taxed at a high level.
The richest 1% in the U.S. pay 27% of the country's federal income and payroll taxes. The richest 20% pay 72% of the federal income and payroll taxes. Nearly half of U.S. households pay no federal income taxes. I guess alan wants 10% of the country to pay 99% of the taxes.

alan and other liberals like him go through all sorts of disingenous distortions to indignantly demand more government-forced handouts. Sorry, alan's depraved vision for the country would change it from something America has never been.

If you want to live in a bankrupt socialist country with a terrible business environment and stagnant job situation, to live off the handouts of others, why are you here? Why don't you move to Greece?

jason's claim that all these other countries have better "health care outcomes" is another falsity. jason is full of those.

""jason's claim that all these other countries have better "health care outcomes" is another falsity. jason is full of those.""

Please explain -- you know, with actual data. And see if you can avoid using the word "liberals" in your answer.

"the idea that people in countries with single payer systems are thrilled with their health care is a myth. [random bumper stickers espousing ideology as mandate]"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,136990,00.html

Americans are more dissatisfied than citizens of other nations with their basic health care (search) even while paying more of their own money for treatment, a five-nation survey released Thursday notes.

The study shows that people in the U.S. face longer wait times to see doctors and have more trouble getting care on evenings or weekends than do people in other industrialized countries. At the same time, Americans were more likely to receive advice on disease prevention and self-care than others.

One-third of Americans told pollsters that the U.S. health care system should be completely rebuilt, far more than residents of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.K. Just 16 percent of Americans said that the U.S. health care system needs only minor changes, the lowest number expressing approval among the countries surveyed.

"You mean government debt that Obama and Democrats have more than doubled." ... to fix the massive problems created by George W. Bush and the rest of the GOP, LICcomm, yes. But if you want to see the debt reduced, LICcomm, lobby for much higher taxes on extreme wealth and ultra-high income. Basically shit or get off the pot, LICcomm.

"The richest 1% in the U.S. pay 27% of the country's federal income and payroll taxes."

... what's their net effective rate of taxation, LICcomm? And what's yours? And what's that of a taxi driver, LICcomm, who works six 12-hour shifts each week, and is forced by Big Government to take fares to Long Island City, LICcomm, in violation of free enterprise?

If you want to live in a thriving socialist country with a government-produced great business environment and superawesome job situation, to live off the happiness of others and yourself, why don't you move to Norway?

Gallup, 2007: Americans are quite happy with their health plans. Eighty-three percent of Americans rate the quality of healthcare they receive as excellent or good, while only 15% say theirs is poor. Slightly less, 70%, say their healthcare coverage is excellent or good. These ratings have been fairly stable in the seven years in which Gallup's Healthcare survey has been conducted.

Gallup, 2009: Overall, 80% [of Americans] are satisfied with the quality of medical care available to them, including 39% who are very satisfied.

Eurofound survey, 2002: In the Euro states, only 44% are satisfied with their national health system.

Canadian Medical Association survey, 2007: Canadians reported a decline in the quality of health care they're receiving, finds a Canadian Medical Association survey released Monday, though regional pockets of satisfaction do exist.

According to the CMA's seventh annual national report card on health care, which surveyed 1,001 Canadian adults on their views about Canada's health-care system, 62 per cent of Canadians grade the overall quality of health-care services available to them and their families as an A (21 per cent) or B (41 per cent), a decrease from 67 per cent in 2006.

University of Maryland's John Lott: The debate over government-provided insurance for Americans frequently makes two assumptions: that the uninsured are unsatisfied with the health care they receive and that government health insurance would improve the quality of care for the uninsured. This paper finds that the vast majority of uninsured Americans are satisfied with their health care. Indeed, only 2.3 percent of Americans are both uninsured and very dissatisfied with the quality of the medical care that they receive. The paper finds that Canadians are much closer to uninsured Americans than to insured Americans in their satisfaction with their health care. There is also little difference in the level of Americans' satisfaction with their health care based upon race, marital status, educational attainment, income, or political views. There is some difference in satisfaction based on age and between the most extreme levels of educational attainment.

Seldom right and wrong again alan . . .

LICC -- It is cost and availability, idiot, not quality of care. The UMd survey is operating under two false premises.

Norway- the Israel hating country with less than 5 million people, hardly any military, and is a major oil exporter. This is alan's example of socialism's success. Let's see how socialism in Norway fares when the oil money starts to decline.

Norway's diverted a huge part of their oil profits, LICcomm, to a diversely-invested sovereign fund, so I'm sure they'll do quite well.

Let's see how crony-capitalism / new feudalism in the New United States fares, LICcomm, when the manufacturing money starts to decline, and all the resources are concentrated in the hands of a tiny number of families.

LICcomm, are you Israeli?

"the vast majority of uninsured Americans are satisfied with their health care. Indeed, only 2.3 percent of Americans are both uninsured and very dissatisfied with the quality of the medical care that they receive."

Duh! Because they just call an ambulance, get driven to an emergency room, receive treatment, medication, exams, bedrest, meals, etc., and the whole thing gets added to the hospital's expenses, causing everyone else's bills to increase yearly. Much more expensive than if they could just make an appointment with a doctor and receive reasonable care. But instead we have hospitals going bankrupt and closing as a result.

And what do you suppose the satisfaction level of the uninsured would be if hospitals were permitted to refuse treatment without insurance? Ecstatic?

LICcomm, are you Israeli?

You still lose the argument even if you change the subject. You brought up happiness, not cost.

Okeh, LICcomm, you claim that 30% of Americans rate their healthcare as less than good, and you readily admit that US healthcare costs twice as much as that of all other 1st-world nations, and that it's crippling government (which currently provides medical insurance to more than 25% of all adult Americans), businesses, hospitals, and all those who have to pick up the costs of the medical treatment of the uninsured.

So are you still going to stand with the bumper stickers?

And are you an Israeli citizen? How satisfied are your fellow Israeli citizens with their socialist National Health?

Are you Israeli?

Great Moments in Socialized Medicine
"In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors," observes Paul Krugman, the Baghdad Bob of socialized medicine. "We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false."

According to one such story from the BBC, "new thresholds for hip and knee replacements have been introduced" as "part of the NHS [National Health Service] drive to find £20bn [about $32.5 billion] efficiency savings by 2015." That means "patients now have to be more disabled or in greater pain" to qualify for a hip or knee replacement.

Peter Kay of the British Orthopaedic Association tells the Beeb that "simply delaying surgery by one means or another does not improve the outcome for patients as their condition can deteriorate." He adds: "The double jeopardy is that patients wait longer in pain, and when they have the operation, the result might not have been as good as it otherwise would have been had they had it early."

We've heard that before--in 2009 from Derek McMinn, inventor of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing implant:

"In Europe, of course, long delays for health-care-provision reasons are terribly common," Dr. McMinn says. While patients wait, they relieve the pain with anti-inflammatory drugs, the regular use of which causes bone damage. "By the time you come back, it's all destroyed, so you're forced into a total hip replacement as the first option, even though on age reasons you may well have wanted to do a resurfacing."

Today traditional Medicare is the largest buyer of health care in America. It is also the worst buyer. The government sets prices for thousands of services, then pays nearly any doctor or hospital that a patient visits. The same arbitrary fee schedule applies to the best hospital and the worst hospital, regardless of the quality or value of the care delivered, and the bills are sent to taxpayers.

This deliberate suppression of the price mechanism has helped to turbocharge U.S. health costs. Providers who find ways to deliver better medicine at a lower cost aren't rewarded, as they would be in any other industry. Medicare spending is growing at a 7.2% annual clip, far faster than the economy. Spending is due to double over the next decade, feeding on more and more of the federal fisc and national wealth . . .

Premium support would create a market reward for the services that consumers value. Because seniors would be chipping in at the margin, only above the fixed-dollar subsidy, most would favor lower premiums. Insurers would compete to supply them, and providers in turn would have a reason to innovate in health-care delivery and improve what has been their negative productivity rate. . . .

That said, Granny will not be turned loose unsupervised into the market wilds. The subsidies will flow through Medicare, only to regulated insurers and government-approved plans. It does not go as far as Mr. Ryan's previous "roadmap," which offered direct cash vouchers for individuals who preferred to buy insurance themselves. The subsidies are means-tested, so the poor would receive more support, as will sicker and chronically ill patients. They wouldn't kick in until 2022, more than enough time for people to adapt and exempting everyone older than 55 if they wished. . . .

Health care's lack of accountability to consumers helps explain why Medicare's unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years are about $31 trillion. That number is beyond human comprehension and among the reasons that creating one more new entitlement in ObamaCare was so reckless. Keeping Medicare's generational promise—that children assent to be taxed to pay for their grandparents' health care so that their grandkids can one day pay for theirs—would mean under current trends that every income tax rate, in every bracket, would need to more than double.

The brutal arithmetic is that total federal health spending is about 10% of GDP today and on pace to hit 15% in 20 years. The liberal response is more central planning and eventually the political rationing of care, even as taxes continue to climb. The alternative that Mr. Ryan has offered, including an ObamaCare repeal and a conversion of Medicaid into block grants to states, would bring that share down to 6% as premium support began to limit Medicare's open-ended spending.

-WSJ

LICC, you're so doggedly against anything but the complete privatization of healthcare, that it's seemingly impossible to debate the issue. I know quite a few people who shake in their boots at the mere mention of "single payer" or "socialized medicine." It's pretty sad, really. France has arguably the best healthcare system in the world - do you think there are no lessons to be learned from them?

bjw- France's national health insurance system has run huge deficits for years. More and more of the health expenses are being taken from general tax revenues. France has been trying to deal with this by cutting services. Everyone needs to step back from the grass is greener viewpoint.

I think government should step in to help those who cannot help themselves. Otherwise, I think an efficiently regulated free market would provide better results than government control.

LICC, I don't know how much you know about the French system, but sounds like not a whole lot. I'm part French so I know it quite well - there's a mix of public and private, and there is more than one fund that's paid into. So I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to by deficits here. It is obviously not purely profit-driven. This is not a question of grass-is-greener. Sometimes, non-American things are better, and we can learn from them. That's not to say it's perfect, but to ignore/dismiss as you seem to be doing, is pretty narrow-minded.

What's your definition of "those who cannot help themselves"? That can vary quite widely, as you might guess. If you truly believe in the employer-based system we have, then I don't think it's a stretch to look at the country as Mary Meeker just did with USA, Inc. (that is, as a corporate entity) and determine that everyone should be covered.

What is it that's inherent in government, in your view, that impedes it from running healthcare at least as well as private enterprise?

Well said, bjw. LICComment thinks that anything the government is inherently bad and can be done better by the private sector. Just ask the Blackwater people and Halliburton how that worked out in Iraq.

Sorry, I meant to say "anything the government does ..."

"I think government should step in to help those who cannot help themselves."

... LICcomm calls for a massive expansion of Medicaid.