Corwin says debt clock is ticking

Hochul already came out in favor of the compromise spending bill that was passed last week.

Corwin wouldn't give a position on it until it was time for the Friday news dump when she tiptoed in and out of the news cycle as quietly as possible while coming out in favor of the Medicare-destroying Ryan plan.

Matthew Harakal was Chris 'Shimmy-Shirt' Lee's press secretary. I'm real anxious to listen to anything that larynx-for-hire spews! Is there no escaping this drivel?

blah blah blah Nancy Pelosi blah blah blah Nancy Pelosi blah blah small businesses blah blah families blah blah Nancy Pelosi.

Good point, Howard. Some of us used to refer to a night of drinking as 'getting stupid.' Reading these campaign press releases has the same effect, without the hangover- unless of course, one actually votes in line with this dreck-peddler. (ie. a two year long hangover)

Brandon - Don't forget blah blah Obama blah blah Obamacare blah blah taxes blah blah values blah blah jobs blah blah Western New York blah blah.

I'll apologize first, but i just can't stop myself from sharing this:

<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lj3iNxZ8Dww?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lj3iNxZ8Dww?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>

Dave,
It's her school that should apologize to us.

Wrong, John. Schools don't turn kids into insipid twits, parents do :)

Dave - *Shudders*...the maps...

Jane Corwin's idea to solve the defcit problem is to endorse Republican Paul Ryan's plan to end medicare and replace it with a voucher for private insurance leaving seniors at the mercy of insurance corporations and to gut medicaid. Corwin thinks its just dandy to leave seniors to fend for themselves against insurace companies and withoutany alternatives for skilled care and nursing homes by stripping medicaid down and making block grants.

Corwin thinks that by claiming it won't effect those over 55 years old guess again, when that day comes for facing the choice of putting parents in a nursing home or rehab center the safety net provided by medicaid once seniors assets are depleted will no longer be available to cover additional care costs. Those under 55 fare no better with the Ryan plan. If you think that when you reach the age to qualify for the voucher plan insurance companies will have magicaly changed into a warm and fuzzy put the needs of seniors first sysytem it's time to wake up.

The Republican Ryan plan endorsed by Corwin never mentions pulling the plug on Iraq or Afghanistan and other foriegn occupations and utilizing the savings, nor does the plan address substantively ending tax breaks and preferential treatment of corporations that export American jobs and American industry, special tax brackets for billioaire hedge fund managers.

Corwin's plan is just more of the same old lower taxes for billioaires and corporations and doing away with any regulation that might prevent another economic melt down caused by the reckless Republican econimic programs that led to this recession that is the worst recession since the great depression.

The only candidate running that represents any true change is Jack Davis. The only candidate that has a real plan for long term economic growth and job creation that will preserve medicare, medicaid, protect American jobs and industry is Jack Davis. The only candidate that has a proven track record of creating jobs and providing long term benefits for employees is Jack Davis. The only candidate whose vote in congress won't be for sale and can't be bought is Jack Davis.

My apology is for making fun of a 17 year old child. But, then I'm kinda mean sometimes, it's still funny. Anyway, the point is someone told her to learn a few buzz words, stand up straight and smile. Kind of what I believe Jane Corwin is doing, albeit on a grander scale.

Chris,
In this case, I would say it is both.

Good one Dave...I've heard Jane Corwin speak with out a script and she makes about as much sense.

Edmund - <object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8TevhNaJgoo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8TevhNaJgoo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>'

Any thoughts on what Jack means by stating his desire to "preserve the heritage of our fathers,"?

Jane's out of touch with senior citizens and future senior citizen's, like me. She wants to saddle us with a voucher system, so instead of a national debt that should be reduced via shared sacrifice, she wants the debt shouldered by senior's and the disabled. And then she wants more tax breaks for her and her billionaire friends. How does that make any sense?

Lorie i don't know if a voucher for medicare is good or bad yet its still being debated but at least it somthing on the table to debate on how to control the cost of this program that is going broke..Were is the democrats plan for this..how can we control these costs..From the few people that i know with it seems like they over use it..They go to the doctor every month to be checked for something..DRs know this is free money and take advanage up it..There is so much waste and abuse in it ...And yet no one does anything but talks about it..

From HuffPost-

"Embattled Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) confirmed Thursday night that he will resign his seat amid an ethics probe.

"'It is with tremendous sadness that I officially hand over the Senate seat that I have held for eleven years,' Ensign said in a statement. 'The turbulence of these last few years is greatly surpassed by the incredible privilege that I feel to have been entrusted to serve the people of Nevada. I can honestly say that being a United States senator has been the honor of my life.'

"Ensign was under investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee and the FBI in the wake of an admitted sexual relationship with campaign aide Cindy Hampton and accusations that he tried to steer lobbying business to her husband, Doug, a former Ensign top staffer."

-Interesting Ménage à Trois!

CM,
Too bad he wasn't Charlie Rangel (D-NY), who even after being found guilty of ethics violations, was able to stay.

Mark, wouldn't it be nice to be able to have a real discussion about the facts of the Ryan proposal, instead of having to listen to the same old broken record of partisan politics?

What most of the Roadmap trashers don't want anyone to know (or don't know themselves because they rely on regurgitated information from 3rd, 4th, 5th...etc,. generation sources) is that the CBO report doesn't just analyze Ryan's plan...it compares and contrasts it to the "Alternative Fiscal Scenario" which they (CBO) define as "a continuation of current fiscal policy"....aka...the other plan.

FULL CBO REPORT http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10851/01-27-Ryan-Roadmap-Letter.pdf

Right or wrong, John the scandal embattled -- Chris Lee, John Ensign, Charlie Rangel, Eric Massa, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Eliot Spitzer, Mark Sanford, et al decide for themselves if they ride out the storm or go. We all wondered why Chris Lee exited so quickly and a few weeks later we learned he was also trolling for transsexuals so it made sense that he would make a quick exit.

I've read the CBO report, JoAnne and I agree we do need to debate the deficit. Rising Medicare and Medicaid costs need to be part of that debate.

I just happen to believe, very strongly, that Ryan's Roadmap will place bankrupting, capital stripping burdens squarely on the backs of the voucher recipients. Oh, the wealthy will be fine, but middle class and the poor will be in big trouble. And people can forget about leaving any little inheritance to their children. Whatever modest nest egg their sitting on will be liquidated for health care premiums, co-pays and any costs outside the private insurance premium. And instead of the 5% overhead costs of the current Medicare system, healthcare decisions will be dictated by a for profit industry -- with much higher overhead. Remember this is an industry that makes a profit by denying care.

From the CBO report:
<i>Both the level of expected federal spending on Medicare and the uncertainty surrounding that spending would decline, but enrollees’ spending for health care and the uncertainty surrounding that spending would increase. Under the Roadmap, the value of the voucher would be less than expected Medicare spending per enrollee in 2021, when the voucher program would begin. In addition, Medicare’s current payment rates for providers are lower than those paid by commercial insurers, and the program’s administrative costs are lower than those for individually purchased insurance. Beneficiaries would therefore face higher premiums in the private market for a package of benefits similar to that currently provided by Medicare. Moreover, the value of the voucher would grow significantly more slowly than CBO expects that Medicare spending per enrollee would grow under current law. Beneficiaries would therefore be likely to purchase less comprehensive health plans or plans more heavily managed than traditional Medicare, resulting in some combination of less use of health care services and less use of technologically advanced treatments than under current law. Beneficiaries would also bear the financial risk for the cost of buying insurance policies or the cost of obtaining health care services beyond what would be covered by their insurance.<i/>

JoAnne, the fact is the Republican Ryan plan endorsed by Jane Corwin seeks to replace medicare with a voucher plan that will in fact leave seniors who rely on medicare to provide medical coverage at the mercy of the insurance industry.

Fact, the Ryan plan endorsed by Corwin keeps in place the tax rates that were cut early in the Bush administration for the super wealthy and makes little or no real end to the preferential treatment of corporations that export American jobs and indutry or hedge fund managers and wall street invesment bankers who were largely responsible for the economic mess we are currently in the middle of.

Fact, at the begining of Bill Clinton's 8 years in the White House there was a budget deficit created durin 12 yrs. of Repulican administrations, and at the end of 8 yrs. there was a substantial surplus. Republican Bush came in, the Republican's including Paul Ryan and the current leadership squandered the surplus and left a huge deficit with the nations economy close to total collapse. A near collapse and the worst recession since the great depressionn caused by unfunded wars, tax cuts for the richest individuals and corporations, and dergulation and lax enforcement of what regulations were left. Now Corwin and the Republicans want to continue with the failed economic programs that brought us to where we are today.

To be clear the Democrats are not much better when it comes to being responsible, the "compromises" that they allowed on last years continuation of the Bush economic formula for taxes and knuckling under to the Republican pressure to weaken regulations are a disgrace.

Jack Davis is the only candidate that will be our voice of opposition to these absurd destructive policies, and will lead the fight to bring back the American economy with a real jobs program, that provides gainful employment here in America that represents real economic stability and a better life for all Americans.

Mark, I know a lot of people that are on Medicare now and I think that you have a point. There are probably many senior's that go to too many specialists and receive expensive procedures that they probably don't need. I still don't think this should be the reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. On the other side of the coin there are probably just as many that don't go to the doctor when they should. Unfortunately when we age, we have many more health issues.

Mark said,"DRs know this is free money and take advanage up it" Medicare reimbursements are less than private insurance, so it's not necessarily "free money". I also think there should be more attention to waste, fraud and abuse. Anyone gaming this system should be sniffed out and prosecuted.

Chris Charvella has a great gift expressing himself about any issue he feels passionate about. He's done it over the weeks with his poignant interviews with homeless vets at Loyala House, a transitional home for vets in Pembroke, http://wnymedia.net/ccharvella/2011/03/my-first-evening-with-the-homele… and now he has an equally poignant account of Medicare as it relates to his family. Worth reading, but get out a tissue or two. http://wnymedia.net/ccharvella/2011/04/the-importance-of-a-social-safet…

Mark, I don't doubt that there is waste and some abuses in the medicare system, but I don't think that it comes from your average recipient. Most people on it are on a fixed income, senior citizens and the disabled. First off, you don't just "get" Medicare, you do have to pay a small premium for it through your SSI/SSDI payments for basic care, and out of pocket for the prescription plan. Second, the recipients also have to pay a percentage of all appointments, procedures and medical supplies...it adds up, believe me, I know. Personally, I try to go to my primary care doctor only the recommended 4-5 times/yr based on my medical conditions, but I also see my cardiologist a couple times/yr as well. I still owe back payments and have up to date recurring payments for medical items and hospital stays...it isn't cheap, even on medicare. Most people are just barely scraping by, sometimes not knowing whether they can afford their medication this month or not (been there), they don't have the resources to be "abusing" the system even if they wanted.

I've been trying to educate myself on this medicaid issue without the biases. This was helpful to me, maybe it will be to others as well: http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=568348

I

awww, shucks, Lorie.

Justin thanks for the great insight into this..Your point that you do have to pay a small premium for it through your SSI/SSDI payments for basic care, and out of pocket for the prescription plan. Second, the recipients also have to pay a percentage of all appointments, procedures and medical supplies.If this is all true then why are they all trashing the Ryan plan..Saying that seniors will have out of pocket money to pay when in fact they are allready..What if a 15,000 voucher gets you a medical plan with no out of pocket costs.Could this not be seen as a savings to seniors....If obama had suggested this then all Democrats would be for it..To not even debate this and just trash it is the wrong way to find a answer to all this mess..I would hope more senors will tell there story on this..And remember this will not effect anyone on it or those 55 and older...So please Obama stop the fear mongering..Lets all find out what kind of health care plan you can get for 15000...Maybe i pay i few more thousand to upgrade but lets at least look into it..How much does the city pay for there employees health care plan a year..Maybe there a way we can all buy into a plan like that for 15,000...

Right on Joanne...

Mark,
The plan takes you out of a government plan. That is one objection. Some people do not want you off the nanny state. I'd like to see an option at age 65, you can pick either the voucher plan or the traditional plan.

By the way, did you know that military personal are forced into medicaid, or they lose their military coverage.

good point John..For some reason many think that we cannot survive with out the government in every part of our lives...I look at it as we should look to government as a last resort not a first resort..Just getting rid of all the government employees at medicare dept would be a great savings...Democrats love the nanny state..

I can't speak for everyone, but my problem with vouchers is that you will now be at the will of a private insurance company. Right now, the prescription plan is done that way. You have to pick one of the many participating companies that offer Part D coverage. The company that I have has raised my premium from $21 initially, to over $40 per month, and has decreased the amount of drugs they cover. There is also a $250 deductible every year before they start covering anything. So far, Medicare has yet to deny any procedures, or needed medical equipment/supplies. I have heard about and know many people who had their private insurance give them a long runaround or outright deny things. For instance, I know a cancer patient who had bad edema in their arm and was prescribed a special pressure pump to keep the lymphatic fluids from causing the arm to swell and ulcer...private insurance denied, awaiting appeal.
What is to stop the insurance companies from raising co-pays, dropping certain coverages, and putting better care out of reach? Nothing keeps it in check now because it's happening all the time. Profits go up, covered care goes down. They win, the people lose.

I'll admit though that my point of view is biased, I tend to agree with single-payer universal coverage. But that's an argument for another day!

Justin,
If you have a choice at age 65, medicare or vouchers,then there should be no problem.

As for private health coverage, remember, both political parties have denied us the right to competition.

As for co pays, what's to stop the government from raising them also?

The biggest money-vacuum in the entire federal budget was left almost completely untouched: Defense. I believe defense spending actually increases under Representative Ryan's budget. Defense spending increases under Obama's budget proposals, too.

We continue to fork-over almost one-trillion dollars in total defense spending (including Defense department, special spending for Afghanistan and Iraq, debt service on loans for the wars, CIA, "Homeland Security" and Veterans benefits)in these economically difficult times and we do so at the expense of this nation's great social safety nets.

I guess nobody wants to look 'soft' on defense, eh?

Howard, I don't know how ironic it is, once one superimposes the will of corporate healthcare (reinforced by a steady flow of campaign contributions) upon formulation of these 'plans.' If you look at the corporate response to 'Obamacare,' you will note that the insurance companies are purging their risky accounts, siphoning them into public programs. The insurance companies exploit public options, profiting from healthy subscribers and letting the government pay claims.

Full disclosure. I am a single payer supporter. I was dissapointed that Obama didn't start there and negotiate for the public option. Medicare for all, take the middle man (for profit insurance) right out of the equation.

Disappointed, Lorie? Come on, I go with Not Surprised. I'm not necessarily against single-payer,it'd be better than what we have; but I'd rather see a totally open market instead. Neither is very likely, unfortunately.
"Drug and insurance companies say they are merely seeking to educate politicians and the public. But with industry lobbyists swarming over Capitol Hill ‑ there are six registered healthcare lobbyists for every member of Congress ‑ a partner in the most powerful lobbying firm in Washington acknowledged that healthcare firms' money "has had a lot of influence" and that it is "morally suspect"." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/01/lobbyists-millions-obama-he…

Also, don't forget: "In 2007 and 2008, President Obama raised $1,085,469 in contributions from individuals employed by the insurance industry and $1,087,491 from those employed by the pharmaceutical industry. However, President Obama did not raise any of this money from industry PACs (political action committees)." http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/newsrelease/health-insurers-and-drug-co…

No angel is he.

Dave, I went to Washington for health care reform with a contingency of faith based activists. You just wouldn't believe all of the insurance and big pharma lobbyist's scurrying in and out of all those Congressional offices. It was down right depressing and it truly can make a person feel like the battle has already been won. But, I do go on to fight another day.

We shared the elevator's with them. Our group, made up of pastor's and lay people, made one bus trip down for one day while the 6 lobbyist's for every congresscritter are there every single day.

And you are so right. We need to take the corporate money and influence out of this game on both sides.

Allan Stone wrote a piece in Fortune magazine that I found interesting.
"Paul Ryan's Medicare 'reform' hocus pocus"
April 15, 2011 5:00 am
The Wisconsin congressman's proposed Medicare fix sure sounds wonderful, but it would leave the average Medicare recipient befuddled at best and on a path toward financial catastrophe at worst.

He warns:
"Beware of magical solutions and one-size-fits-all ideological agendas -- like the idea that free markets can solve all our problems. When you think about it, it's just as silly as the idea that government can fix everything. Take the proposal by one of Washington's shining stars, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), to "reform" Medicare by having recipients pick among insurance company plans rather than having basic benefits and costs set by the government.

"Medicare beneficiaries will be able to choose a plan the same way members of Congress do," says Ryan in his 2012 budget proposal. It sure sounds wonderful. But the analogy between members of Congress and Medicare beneficiaries just doesn't compute. And as anyone who's had to deal with health insurance companies will tell you, the average "free market" Medicare beneficiary would have roughly the same chance against insurers that retail investors have trading against Goldman Sachs (GS). But members of Congress are a lot better equipped to choose a health plan than Medicare recipients are. Congressmen are surrounded by helpful staff and have ready access to experts. Most important, Congress members as a group are much more affluent than Medicare beneficiaries and don't feel compelled to pick the lowest-premium, lowest-coverage policy because they can't afford anything better."

This is the point that many people seen to ignore

"By contrast, Medicare recipients tend to be old (the minimum age for coverage is 65) and sick (the older a group is, the sicker its members tend to be). As a group, they don't have much access to people with the time and competence to help them sort through choices. Finally, you can bet that many Medicare beneficiaries, worried about their month-to-month finances, will opt for the lowest-cost plan and hope for the best, rather than buy a higher-cost, higher-coverage plan that might better suit their circumstances. If anything goes wrong -- and things tend to go wrong as you get older -- they're toast."

While taking the government out of the picture, we are taking away the safety net for those who are not as well to do as those who support Ryan's plan.

"I'm not denigrating Medicare beneficiaries -- heck, I'd be one myself if my employer's health insurance didn't offer me a better deal. I'm just being realistic about how things are for people who aren't financially comfortable. I've seen people, including some family members, suffer the consequences of picking the wrong -- i.e., the cheapest -- policy. I hate the idea of that happening to millions more citizens, especially older ones.

It's wonderful to talk about "empowering" people -- but you also have to protect them, especially when their abilities, health, and finances are less than optimal. It's hard enough for young, healthy people to pick among health insurance policies. The idea of old, sick, and financially stressed people being able to competently sort through pages and pages of Medicare options is ludicrous.

I'm a believer in markets and freedom of choice. But for free markets to function efficiently, players need to have enough information to make informed decisions. That's simply not the case with health insurance. Even picking a Medicare supplement policy and prescription-drug plan is far from simple, as you'd know if you'd ever tried to do it."

Allan doesn't give the President a pass.

"I'm no fan of President Obama's health care "reform," which is long on regulations and short on common sense. It assumes that the plan will magically hold down the growth in health care costs. It is also based on "the rich," insurance companies, drug companies, and people with "Cadillac care" subsidizing everyone else. Obamacare doesn't surcharge people such as smokers or mega-fatties, who increase costs for everyone, and does nothing useful about the malpractice mess.

But Ryan's Medicare proposal is even more skewed than Obamacare. Ryan wants future Medicare beneficiaries (starting in 2022) to suck it up, but doesn't inflict any pain on the likes of me -- 66 and well enough off to tolerate reduced benefits. Yeah, Ryan is a smart guy -- but his plan's ridiculous. In Washington's elite world, Ryan's Medicare proposal is getting lots of buzz, instead of getting what anyone painfully familiar with the real world would have given it from the start: a big Bronx cheer."

http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/15/paul-ryan-medicare-reform-hoc…

No irony over here, Howard. I don't like 'Obamacare.' I'm a single-payer guy.

I don't see any irony coming from 'Obamacare' supporters either. There is a big difference between raising the level of care for the majority of American citizens and lowering the level of care for our seniors.

No doubt, Lorie and Bea, the campaign money and lobbyists and wealthy out- of- touch congressmen and senators are the main problem. Followed by insurance companies and hospitals run by accountants. Then there's the big pharmaceutical cabal. I can also agree that we cannot eliminate Medicare or Medicaid completely, there will always be those who need a safety net, could be me, I never say never. But, I think the numbers can be reduced.

Ryan's plan is not a true free market solution, we would still have very limited choices between plans, I'm not behind it. I think it has some good points, but doesn't offer people enough choice, it also only passes the exploding costs of healthcare on to future generations (a tried and true Republican formula), instead of trying to fix the problems.
I still maintain that transparency with contributions and making it public every time a member of congress or their staff meets with a lobbyist will help, along with term limits.

Thanks for keeping up the fight, Lorie; as was said regarding the hospital here in Batavia, "Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants" that's from former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, He also had a couple others which are pertinent:
" The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."

"Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent."

This MD's plan is worthy of consideration. Although he does call for eliminating Medicare and Medicaid, it also provides for a safety net. Just a little more info to think about as opposed to knee-jerk reactions http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/a_real_free_market_health_care_1…

Howard, I don't see how you equate the Ryan plan as being the same as Obamacare. I opposed Obamacare and I support the Ryan plan.

Paul Ryan was duly elected and authored his plan - but the White House White Paper on Health Care, the Medicare Part D Prescription Plan and the Health Care Bill were written by Max Baucus' Senior Aide, Liz Fowler, a former VP at Wellpoint, one of the largest insurance companies in the country. She actually worked for Baucus for a few years, left to take the VP job at Wellpoint, then returned to work for Baucus and write the bill. No need for insurance lobbyists when you have an insider actually writing the legislation.

The Ryan plan is voluntary - Obamacare is mandatory with a penalty for non-compliance.

The Ryan plan is available for viewing, analyzing and discussion - Obamacare had to be passed to see what was in it.

Ryan's plan would give every American (excluding those in Medicare, Medicaid or Military) a refundable (for those with zero tax liability), advanceable (you don't have to wait till the end of the year) adjusted for inflation, Health Care Credit of $2300 (individual tax filers) and $5700 (joint filers) to be used to pay for health care expenses, premiums, co-pays, deductibles, etc. With Obamacare, my premiums and co-pays went up last year costing me $100 more per month and they are going to increase again next month costing me an additional $100 more per month. The Ryan Health Credit would allow me to purchase a better and more affordable health care plan. Obamacare just makes the same plan more expensive and unaffordable.

While they both include the establishment of State-based exchanges that prohibit discrimination based on pre-existing conditions (really the only similarity) - Ryan's plan would require insurance companies to develop general health plans and a list of "medicare certified" health plans that offer the same standard health benefits available to members of Congress. Ryan's plan also creates a high risk pool with additional funds available to assist low-income individual and families and high-cost individuals and families.

Ryan's plan would also allow for the purchase of health insurance across state lines. Obama opposed allowing health insurance to be purchased across state lines. Imagine if GEICO or Walmart offered competitive health insurance plans that anyone, anywhere in the US could purchase. I've got to believe that the competition would drive prices down. As it stands right now, I can't even purchase competitive health insurance across the County line. Only one company (MVP) offers Rochester based rates in Genesee County. They have no competition, so they can keep raising their rates.

The Ryan plan also reforms the existing tax code into just 2 rules that will fit on a postcard. Obamacare further complicates the tax code and added more rules. If the Ryan tax code was in effect last year, I would have paid $800 less in federal taxes. Taxpayers can choose to use the current tax code or use the simplified code.

Bea, I don't know if I should respond to you or to Allan Stone, the author of your post. I'm assuming his opinion is also your opinion.

He warns:
"Beware of magical solutions and one-size-fits-all ideological agendas -- like the idea that free markets can solve all our problems.

Ryan's plan does not propose a one-size-fits-all solution. It recognizes that there are people with very low incomes and/or very expensive medical needs. The average voucher amount can be adjusted for those with higher risk (more expensive care required). For those fully “dual eligible” (eligible under current policies for both Medicare and Medicaid), and beneficiaries with incomes below 100 percent of the poverty level, an MSA subsidy is provided equaling the full deductible amount of an average high-deductible health plan.

Mr. Stone is right...free markets can't solve all problems...but competition in the health insurance industry certainly would help.

He also states:
"By contrast, Medicare recipients tend to be old (the minimum age for coverage is 65) and sick (the older a group is, the sicker its members tend to be). As a group, they don't have much access to people with the time and competence to help them sort through choices."

That's because the current Medicare system forces people that are old and sick to changeover to a completely new complicated system of insurance at a time when they are less able to comprehend all the choices.

For affected beneficiaries, the payment (voucher) replaces all components of the current Medicare program (Medicare Part A fee-for-service, Medicare Part B, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare Part D).

Ryan's plan also gives you ownership and portability with your health insurance. You buy it...it's yours...even if you move or change jobs. If you still like it when you turn 65, you can keep it and Medicare will provide you with a voucher to help pay for it. You don't have to changeover to a completely new system. You can stay in the system you have been used to all of your life.

Another quote by Mr. Stone:
"I'm not denigrating Medicare beneficiaries -- heck, I'd be one myself if my employer's health insurance didn't offer me a better deal."

Good news Mr. Stone, if you like the plan that your empoyer's health insurance offers...you can keep it. The only difference is your government, instead of your employer, will be making a contribution toward it.

Again, Mr. Stone says:
"Ryan wants future Medicare beneficiaries (starting in 2022) to suck it up, but doesn't inflict any pain on the likes of me -- 66 and well enough off to tolerate reduced benefits."

Not only is he wrong, but arrogant too! ?

Beneficiaries with incomes below $80,000 ($160,000 for couples) receive the full standard payment amount; beneficiaries with annual incomes between $80,000 and $200,000 ($160,000 to $400,000 for couples) receive 50 percent of the standard amount; beneficiaries with incomes above $200,000 ($400,000 for couples) receive 30 percent.

Hmmm...I wonder if he actually read the plan!

The CBO analyzed Ryan's plan and produced a detailed 50-page review of the plan and its impact on the long-term budget and economic outlook. According to CBO, A Roadmap for America’s Future provides reforms that make possible a growing and prosperous U.S. economy. It ensures the Medicare program does not go bankrupt and makes Social Security permanently solvent. It does so without changing benefits for those who are currently 55 and older. It balances the budget and pays off the debt. In short, CBO concludes that the Roadmap would put the budget and economy on sustainable path compared to current policies that will bankrupt America.

CBO highlights the fact that the real risk to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is doing nothing.

Insurance companies are in business to make a profit. Medicare has a 5% overhead compared to 30%+ for private insurer's. Why, with our most vulnerable, would we squander 25% of precious health care dollars -- that could actually be used to provide care?

And speaking of the insurance companies. How many are chomping at the bit to get a little piece of that 'high risk' action? What 'for profit' is going to be lining up to underwrite the sickest, the oldest and the highest risk demographics?

Not to mention how unbelievably unpopular this plan is with everyone. 80% are polling strongly against this plan. Even Republican law makers are backing away from it.

Seniors won't be able to afford these costs. Under the Ryan plan by 2030, a typical 65 year old would be required to pay 68 percent of the total cost of coverage, including premiums, deductibles, and other out of pocket expenses. How will that senior pay for food and shelter?

Let's look at ways to curtail the rising costs of Medicare, but not by dismantling it altogether. We can get serious about deficit reduction by getting out of the misadventures overseas, closing down the wasteful post WWII bases, increasing taxes on the wealthy, closing tax loopholes, and stopping subsidies to big oil and other insanely profitable multinational corporations instead of sacrificing the most vulnerable. Shared sacrifice.

Edited and added for Joanne: Because she really does challenge all of us to look at this closely. That's a compliment, Joanne, because I disagree with you, but respect your commitment to your belief's and admire your astute research abilities to back your arguments. I found this one article in the National Journal that may also reflect this issue by taking a critical stand at both sides and thought it was worth sharing. http://nationaljournal.com/columns/political-connections/medicare-refor… Happy Easter!

Back to the race for Congress which begs the question -- why won't Jane Corwin talk to Liz Benjamin?

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fxUTqnktBV8&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&v… name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fxUTqnktBV8&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&v…; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Something I find wrong with the whole healthcare mess would be all the "specialists" we suddenly have. As a child, I went to one Dr., whether for a broken bone, a rash, any variety of illnesses were all handled by the same doc. I understand the need for some, but not all.
You want to talk about throwing money away, when someone becomes ill, even if they know whats wrong, will have to go to their primary health care provider first, and then will be sent to a specialist.To me,this seems like paying twice for one illness.
How can we expect the government to understand problems they don't have? We need to get rid of career politicians, and corporate lobbies before we can even consider what is good for the average citizen. If the healthcare, and pharma lobby kept their money instead of throwing it at politicians, healthcare would be more affordable. For that matter, so would oil, and all necessary commodities.
This country is being run by corporate greed, and those in office couldn't care less about the average citizen, nothing is broke when they peer through their rose colored glasses.
Our government is in need of an enima, which will most likely take the form of civil unrest as citizens tire of lame millionaires running this nation into the ground.

Lorie, I believe that the argument that Medicare has a lower overhead rate compared to private insurers and is therefore better is disingenuous.

Your statement:
"Insurance companies are in business to make a profit. Medicare has a 5% overhead compared to 30%+ for private insurer's. Why, with our most vulnerable, would we squander 25% of precious health care dollars -- that could actually be used to provide care?"

Insurance companies are in business to make a profit...that's true. But, insurance companies, like any other for profit business, engage in competition. Our government restricts health insurance competition by not allowing them to compete across State lines. Ryan's plan would allow consumers to purchase health insurance across State lines.

Competition is also an incentive for efficiency. A company with runaway overhead costs resulting from poor efficiency would have higher premiums compared to a company that is able to keep overhead low by running efficiently. The market would weed out the winners and losers. The losers would have to become more efficient (cheaper) or cease to exist. The auto insurance industry is a prime example of the benefits of competition across State lines.

The debate over the comparison of overhead costs between Medicare and private insurers has been going on for years. Either Medicare is a model of efficiency or there are other factors (hidden overhead) involved. I tend to believe the latter.

Claims management is one such hidden overhead factor. Medicare passes the administrative task of claims management onto the providers, hospitals etc., which results in higher overhead for them, which results in higher medical costs that are then billed to Medicare. This allows Medicare to claim a lower overhead cost because the costs are rolled into the medical care expense and not reflected as overhead.

A lower Mecicare overhead cost also mean less oversight. Private insurers spend more on overhead to prevent waste, fraud and abuse. Medicare does not and systemic waste, fraud and abuse is the result.

A report released on March 2, 2011 by the GAO titled, "MEDICARE: Program Remains at High Risk Because of Continuing Management Challenges" reinforces the problem of Medicare's low overhead (low oversight).

From the GAO Report:

Why GAO Did This Study

In the February 2011 High-Risk Series update, GAO continued designation of Medicare as a high-risk program because its complexity and susceptibility to improper payments, combined with its size, have led to serious management challenges. In 2010, Medicare covered 47 million people and had estimated outlays of $509 billion. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has estimated fiscal year 2010 improper payments for Medicare fee for-service and Medicare Advantage
of almost $48 billion.

However, this improper payment estimate did not include all of the program’s risk since it did not include improper payments in its Part D prescription drug benefit, for which the agency has not yet estimated a total amount,” said Kathleen King, director of GAO’s health care team.

What GAO Found

As GAO reported in its 2011 High-Risk Series update, Medicare remains on a path that is fiscally unsustainable over the long term. This fiscal pressure heightens CMS’s challenges to reform and refine Medicare’s payment methods to achieve efficiency and savings, and to improve its management, program integrity, and oversight of patient care and safety. CMS has made some progress in these areas, but many avenues for improvement remain.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11430t.pdf

So, Lorie, I would ask you the same question you posed in your post:

Why, with our most vulnerable, would we squander $48B of precious health care dollars -- that could actually be used to provide care?

Joanne shared this -- <i>"In the February 2011 High-Risk Series update, GAO continued designation of Medicare as a high-risk program because its complexity and susceptibility to improper payments, combined with its size, have led to serious management challenges. In 2010, Medicare covered 47 million people and had estimated outlays of $509 billion. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has estimated fiscal year 2010 improper payments for Medicare fee for-service and <b>Medicare Advantage</b> of almost $48 billion.</i> I bolded Medicare Advantage because this is the private part that's already in place that allows senior's to choose.

This is where I hope we can agree. There are serious abuses of the system that need to be investigated and prosecuted. And I also remain hopeful that there are solutions to cut down on waste within the system. Again, not throwing out the entire compact, which puts future seniors in dire risk.

I'm sure you're aware of Tea Party Governor of Florida, Rick Scott's, former position as the CEO of Columbia/HCA's and his companies fraudulent billing practices. <i>“In settlements reached in 2000 and 2002, Columbia/HCA rose to public attention when it pleaded guilty to 14 felonies and agreed to a $600+ million fine in what the Justice department then called the largest fraud case settled in the history of the Justice department."</i>

Scott's Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Scott
<i>"In 1987 he helped found the Columbia Hospital Corporation with two business partners; this merged with Hospital Corporation of America in 1989 to form Columbia/HCA and eventually became the largest private for-profit health care company in the U.S. He was forced to resign as Chief Executive of Columbia/HCA in 1997 amid a scandal over the company's business and Medicare billing practices; the company ultimately admitted to fourteen felonies and agreed to pay the federal government over $600 million."</i>

I have one question. Why is this man not in prison? Or is this some kind of alternate universe that we live in where private corporations can commit this kind of exorbitant tax payer fraud and the CEO can still buy himself a governor's seat.

A senior citizen in 2030 who gets caught shoplifting because he or she can't afford food (after spending every last dime on health care) certainly wouldn't have the opportunity to run for anything.

Why will Obama not allow competition?

I would agree with you Howard. In fact, the issues you have pointed out are some of the reasons I support the Ryan plan which sets out to correct those problems.

"For the most part, employers buy health insurance, and the decision on plans and benefits isn't based on what's best for the employee (the consumer of the service), it's based on the best economic benefit for the company."

That is true. That is also why Ryan's plan to make health insurance ownership private and portable and not dependent on my employer, is very appealing to me.

"And because the consumer isn't the one paying the service (outside of sharing the cost for a program he or she has no real choice about and co-pays), the insurance companies have no incentive to be responsive to the consumer."

That is debatable. One can argue that health care premiums paid by your employer are in effect a "decrease" in your salary/wages by an equal amount so you are in effect paying for the service indirectly.

"Congress institutionalizing employee-provided health care is perhaps the single worst thing Congress ever did in regards to our health and well being."

This is one of the rare times that I would agree with Krugman. A major crux of the Ryan plan, repeal of the income tax exclusion on employer based health care benefits, makes the correction.

From the Heritage Foundation:

While putting health care consumers in the driver’s seat, the Roadmap also tackles out-of-control growth in overall health care spending. There is a broad intellectual consensus among health care economists that the existing tax treatment of health insurance, specifically the tax exclusion of employment-based health insurance, is a cost-driver; it contributes to the disconnect between health care consumers and the medical services and products they use. By tying group health insurance to the employer and making it an unlimited tax-free benefit, the tax exclusion removes consumers’ incentives to control costs.[38] It also undercuts the ability of individuals and families to choose the health plan that suits them best, decide how much of their compensation to dedicate to health care, and achieve portability of coverage, creating a barrier to those who want to keep their health plan if they change jobs.

Ryan’s Roadmap eliminates these barriers by replacing the current income tax exclusion for employer-based coverage with a universal, refundable health care tax credit for all Americans to buy the coverage of their choice.[39] The credits amount to $2,300 per individual and up to $5,700 per family in 2010 dollars and could be applied to health insurance either through an employer or purchased independently. Universal health care tax credits, which have enjoyed bipartisan congressional support, can dramatically expand health insurance coverage.

Households, not employers, pay 100 percent of health care costs, even when household members are enrolled in employer plans. The normal trade-off of wages to benefits is well understood.

http://heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/12/The-Future-of-Health-Care-…

John, that is an excellent question. Wolf Blitzer tried to get David Axelrod to answer that very question and he ...ah..ahem...uh...kinda failed. (This is my first attempt at posting a video)

<embed width="600" height="361" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" src="http://static.photobucket.com/player.swf?file=http://vid190.photobucket…;

It failed as bad as my attempt to post the video to show you...LOL!

second times the charm...:)

Off to work Happy Easter everyone!

Health care under private insurance will never be in the consumer's best interest. It will remain in the interest of insurance corporations' profits. Different insurers will offer identical plans with the only option: choice of networks of participating physicians and caregivers.

Portability has no advantage for someone without insurance. It only benefits those who have an existing plan and desire to stay with it. The sole advantage to portability is uninterrupted coverage. If not for pre-existing condition exclusions, this benefit is moot.

The primary advantage to public health system is consistent coverage for everyone regardless of health status, location, choice of caregiver and personal finances. No private option will ever provide equal coverage at equal cost to anyone regardless of health condition, locale and ability to pay unless required to do so by law.

Any government plan that depends on preserving private-for-profit healthcare funding is a compromise, and the short-end of the stick for such compromise belongs to the public.

The current healthcare system is a cabal of corporate insurers, corporate providers, corporate medical technology manufacturers and corporate pharmaceutical manufactures. They are in high gear, ready to max profits on overweight, diabetic boomers, who are poised by the millions to enrich those corporations. ...Explaining why corporate lobbies expend millions in political contributions- to stake their claim on trillions of dollars in cynical profit. Amen.

If our government is currently operating at a deficit, how is giving 308 million people the ability to write-off their health insurance expenses going to fly?

CM,
Would you be in favor of giving people a choice of private insurance/voucher or government care?

I don't think the public option could work without a fully-funded 'bank' to cover claims. I liken it to a self-funded insurance program, the funds have to be there to cover expenditures. If we presume that the 40% of Americans NOT in favor of single-payer will choose the voucher over the public plan, those who defer will be those more likely to be feeding the kitty rather than drawing on it. One can assume that the majority of dissenters are 20 through 40 year-olds who have no major health expenses. When they choose to have a family or reach the age of 50, they may change their mind without ever having contributed- instead they drew a voucher.

Paying into a government-funded program represents the same expenditure one makes when subscribing to private coverage- without having to pay for the CEO's golden parachute and fatten the stockholders' bank accounts.

Posted by C. M. Barons on April 24, 2011 - 5:43pm
When they choose to have a family or reach the age of 50, they may change their mind without ever having contributed- instead they drew a voucher.

We will always be known as the last generation that took care of OUR elderly.

John,
You have always been up front about your own situation.
What kind of insurance do you have?
Would you give it up for a voucher?

CM, apparently you don't consider federal employees consumers.

The Ryan Plan is modeled after the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan.

"The FEHBP is an excellent model for Medicare reform. In administering the FEHBP, the federal government makes contributions to health plans chosen by its employees and retirees, and enforces effective rules for marketing, fiscal solvency, and consumer protection.

Walton Francis, a prominent Washington-based health care economist, concludes that “the FEHBP has outperformed original Medicare in every dimension of its performance. It has better benefits, better service, catastrophic limits on what enrollees must pay, and far better premium cost control."

http://heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/12/The-Future-of-Health-Care-…

I've never met a federal employee that didn't like their health benefits plan.

A pilot program, offering a sub-option, was suggested to transition federal employees to Medicare.

"It would be naive to assume the sub-option now being discussed by OPM could never lead in the direction of withdrawing a private insurance option for federal retirees although the political pressure from NARFE and federal employee unions would almost certainly highlight such an issue if it surfaces in future years."

http://www.fedsmith.com/article/2391/medicare-federal-employee-health-i…

CM posted:

"If our government is currently operating at a deficit, how is giving 308 million people the ability to write-off their health insurance expenses going to fly?"

Who said anything about a tax write-off?

On the contrary, a repeal of the exclusion I mentioned above would make employer contributions to your health plan taxable income that would be offset by the proposed Health Care Tax Credit.

CM, did you read Ryan's plan?

From your earlier post, JoAnne:

Ryan’s Roadmap eliminates these barriers by replacing the current income tax exclusion for employer-based coverage with a universal, refundable health care tax credit for all Americans to buy the coverage of their choice.[39] The credits amount to $2,300 per individual and up to $5,700 per family in 2010 dollars and could be applied to health insurance either through an employer or purchased independently. Universal health care tax credits, which have enjoyed bipartisan congressional support, can dramatically expand health insurance coverage.

The repeal of the income tax exclusion for employer-based coverage means that the amount an employer pays for your insurance coverage would be counted as income and would be taxable - not a write-off.

I guess all of you who are against the Ryan plan,must hate the way auto and home insurance are run with all the overhead and profit margins they enjoy.. ..Why not let the government run it and save all the elderly money on their car and homeowners insurance..How come competition works in that arena..How many elderly are complaining the they can't drive because their rates are to high.Or sold there house because they can't afford there homeowners policy..They are more apt to sell because of their property tax rates are to high..Which includes the cost of medicade..How do we control these cost..So far the only one with an idea is Mr.Ryan..

Sounds like Darwinian's theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest to me. I guess this is one way of decreasing the surplus population. Get rid of the safety nets all together and give more tax cuts to the wealthy. Clean up the nanny state once and for all.

One huge problem with this, though. No one wants it. A McClatchy/Marist poll revealed 92% of Democrats, 73% of Republicans and 75% of independents also oppose the cuts. Most revealing 70% of self proclaimed Tea Party members oppose cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Do you remember the signs from the health care debate? "KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE" Well, I guess they meant it.

Mark, here's some alternatives that I'm sure will be debated in Washington as they have been on here -- military bases, endless wars, tax loopholes, ending subsidies, higher taxes for the wealthiest Americans, waste, fraud and abuse.

Lorie i agree we need to end all wars we are wasting money on..close all loop holes ..close military bases also..I see no reason to have any bases in europe...Ron Paul is the one i would like to see as president..

Mark, owning a car or buying a house is a matter of personal choice. Poor health is an eventuality that no one escapes.

Lorie,
Mark is right, competition could not hurt. If it could, please tell us how. And why are Democrats so against it?

Bea,
Confused as usual? The voucher plan does not take the place of any personal insurance plan you have. It is to replace government care at age 65. There are probably a lot of people in your 400 Towers who have both private insurance and Medicare.

And you miss the point, again. Nobody said vouchers are better than the present system. They said that the present system will not last, it will go belly up and there will be no more Medicare. The voucher system is to still provide care and replace a system that is going under.

John,
You made your point. No matter what I post, you will come back with an insult and a condescending view of any opinion I have.
I'm done with this site.
You win!

John, Democrat's against it? Everyone is against it. Have you been listening to the poll results that are coming out on this? People are stating very strongly and clearly that they want another solution to this besides decimating Medicare. The solution that is polling the highest among Americans is surprise -- taxing the rich -- where 72% are in favor of higher taxes for the wealthiest. <b>Poll: Taxing the rich favored over Medicare cuts</b>
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53455.html

And isn't there choice in this already in Medicare Advantage and the supplements and Part D prescription drug policies? http://www.medicareconsumerguide.com/ Yup, there's choice already. In my family I have one loved one who has opted for a Preferred HMO Care Plan and another who has Blue Cross. And there are supplemental insurance called medagap that can be added to cover additional things. That adds up to lots of competition.

Lorie,
I did not mean competition between Medicare and other plans, I mean between current private plans. You could have competition between insurance companies right now and it would not impact on Obama's health care plan, or any other plan. We would just have lower insurance rates for current policies. But Democrats in DC would not do it, so we all pay more.

Lorie, your comment reveals just how partisan you really are. Why not just say that you would never go against your party to support a non-Democratic plan?

To make an outlandish comparison to Darwinism is beyond the realm of logical thinking, but I guess it makes for an effective scare tactic with the elderly.

Regarding the poll you cited. The question was regarding cuts TO Medicare and Medicaid. It did not ask if they supported/opposed Ryan's plan, or supported/opposed replacing/reforming Medicare/Medicaid. The question was more likely about supporting/opposing Obama's 500B cut to Medicare. Ryan's plan does not make a cut TO Medicare/Medicaid, it replaces them both.

I doubt many people have read Ryan's plan. Instead they will look to their favorite political pundit for a thumbs up or thumbs down and regurgitate the main talking points. It's an endless cycle of political partisanship that benefits no one.

John, in this thread, we are discussing the Medicare proposal as it relates to the special election, not Obama. Stick with the topic. We went down this road a couple years ago.

There are contrasting differences between the two female candidates. Jane Corwin would have voted to end Medicare and Kathy Hochul would have voted no. Jane Corwin would have voted to lower tax rates from 35% to 25% for the wealthiest Americans and Kathy would have voted no. That's what we're talking about here.

Howard,
That's part of my point. If we had lower premiums now on private plans, maybe some would keep their private plan at age 65 and either not sign up for Medicaid or not use it as much. Others might pick Medicaid as better for them.

That competition might help hold down the cost of the Medicaid program, and at least would not hurt it.

Joanne, I am partisan and everyone knows this, but I am also pragmatic and try to be thoughtful when I come to a decision about an issue. I try to read both sides of an issue and look at publications from a non biased perspective. I didn't get elected to lead the county Party because I was known to tow the Party line, I was elected because I already believed strongly in many of the Democratic principles. Some issues I take a moderate stand on, others I am more progressive and a few issues I tend to fall on a more conservative side.

I will be anxiously awaiting the next poll result. "Would you like to see Medicare privatized as the Ryan Plan proposes?"

I also don't jump all over a majority stand on anything. I was against the war in Iraq and fell somewhere in the 25% minority then. At the time I was regularly reading and participating in very Libertarian leaning websites -- antiwar.com with writers like Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimondo, Ron Paul, et al.

And on a more partisan note -- how can we forget "death panels" from the healthcare debate a year ago.

Howard, that is exactly what the Ryan plan is proposing.

The employer still gets to take a tax deduction for money paid out for employee health coverage. The only difference is it will be treated as a business expense instead of being treated as overhead.

Also, the money contributed to the employee would be taxable. But, you would get a Health Tax Credit to use toward your health care expenses. ($2300 individual, $5700 joint)

I'd prefer the poll question be, "Have you read the Ryan plan to replace Medicare/Medicaid, and if so do you support/oppose it?"

You didn't see "death panels" come from my keyboard.

JoAnne, my Darwinian comment came in the later hours when I tend to be a bit more emotional about an issue. I usually don't go there.

I have read the plan and I think that it has the potential to send senior's down a road of abject poverty. I just can't see how an $8, 10, or $12,000 per year voucher will translate into a policy that will provide health care to people at a time when their medical bills can escalate beyond the voucher amount in a matter of days just from one visit to the hospital or a couple of tests.

It's just very fuzzy math and I just don't believe that a country as great as the US would even consider putting senior's and the disabled in this situation.

I have a small business and besides senior citizen's, I work with the developmentally disabled. I just can't imagine how they're going to wade through a privatized program. Who will advocate for them? Besides the developmental issues, they also have increased physical problems, too.

JoAnne, Lorie has no monopoly on sounding partisan- although I would advance her some slack, she admitted to being disappointed in the current health reform law.

I haven't read Ryan's plan; why should I? If it doesn't support a single-payer public system, I have no interest in it.

Lorie, I'm not knocking your politics. I respect the passion you have for your beliefs. We all go where we shouldn't go sometimes...:)

From what you have said above:

"I just can't see how an $8, 10, or $12,000 per year voucher will translate into a policy that will provide health care to people at a time when their medical bills can escalate beyond the voucher amount in a matter of days just from one visit to the hospital or a couple of tests"

I'm getting the impression that you think that the voucher amount is the total amount available to seniors for their health care expenses. Is that what you think?

Let's clarify some of the fuzzy math.

I have just switched to a high-deductible policy so I will use those numbers.

Annual Premium: $3600
Annual Deductible: $1500
Coverage after deductible: 100% excluding prescriptions
Prescription Copays: 10/30/50
Annual Out-of-pocket Max: $2500

I will also use a voucher amount of $5600. (The Ryan plan sets the amount by today's standards and it is indexed to grow with inflation until it takes effect in 10 years-estimated to be $11,000 then)

We'll also assume that I fall into the low-income category(not much of a stretch)and qualify for the additional enhanced support.

Enhanced Support: full payment of deductible in a high deductible plan...in this case $1500.

Voucher Amount: $5600
Less Premium: -$3600

Voucher Balance:$2000
Less Annual Ded:$1500

Voucher Balance:$ 500

+ Enhanced Sup :$1500

Voucher Balance:$2000 (Amount remaining to pay for Rx copays, everything else is covered 100% since the deductible has been met.)

Annual Out-of-Pocket Max: $2500
Less Voucher Balance $2000

Annual out-of pocket risk $ 500

Does the current Medicare plan provide an annual out-of-pocket risk of less than $500?

Important Note: The Ryan plan specifically provides for the Retention of the Current Medicaid Benefits for Specific Populations...those in long-term care and the disabled. So if it is working well now, there is no need to worry about with Ryan's plan.

CM, I would love to compare Ryan's plan to a single-payer public option.

Do you have a copy of one you can share?

...Not a plan, but a proposal:

http://www.pnhp.org/publications/proposal-of-the-physicians-working-gro…

"I'm done with this site."

Okay, who had the three weeks square in the pool?