One thing I would look out for with Ryans plan if it gains any traction at all....  

How does he calculate the Health Care Reform bill into it?

I would imagine that his main line of thought is that if we put the elderly into the privet insurance market, some of the extra cost would be absorbed by the rest of the people buying insurance.  The only way that could possibly work is if most of the country is buying insurance. What I think will happen is Ryan will be giving enrollment estimates that are based on the HCRA, while the rest of the party is trying to rip it apart at all levels, there by creating a worse clusterfuck for people later down the line.

Could Ryans plan work?  I think it could
The main goal of HCRA was to get more people who can afford to buy insurance to do it, and at a younger age.  There by increasing the pool of insurance buyers.
The HCRA  is already creating a platform for distributing subsidies (we can call the vouchers if that makes people happy), and it's creating a rating to federally approved insurance companies.
All these things would be needed for Ryans plan.

Few things I would change:

    Add a pre tax Health Care Savings account to medicare or Soc. Sec..  This would allow people to save extra through out their lifetimes to increase their subsidy (voucher.. whatever) to help pay for insurance at retirement.  While this will be voluntary, 1%-3% of your income will go into it unless you opt out (same idea as 401k's).  Up to 25% of your yearly contribution can be used for yearly medical expenses, but on a shorter list then free market Health Care accounts.  The rest must stay until retirement.

***I think the above might be a good stand alone idea.  It wouldn't directly effect regular health care savings accounts, due to the limited yearly withdraws.  It would allow people without health care savings accounts to get a bit of value year to year and would get people that are not good with money to save for medical expenses, since even a savings account at .5% would make more sense if you were able to leave it in there.***

Change the fine to a Tax, that you get a full deduction for if you have insurance.
Triple it, make it about $1500 per person.
Individuals can opt out of paying the tax with the following conditions:

   *They are not allowed to enroll in any of the federally approved programs later unless they pay all past premiums to the insurer regardless of health.
   *They must pass a health exam before being allowed to enroll.  (Can't be uninsured from 26 to 38, get diabetes then buy insurance for example).
   *Hospitals may require a deposit of up to $10,000 for ER from the uninsured/untaxed before services a rendered, unless blatant physical trauma is obvious.
   *The uninsured/untaxed person must negotiate his/her own prices with the provider.
   *Taxed patients get the insurance company rates for all treatments.
   *Deposits are Waived for the Taxed Patient.
   *Other medical services my require a deposit not to excess $1,000 (medical tests, check up, non emergency services ect.  Deposit set by the provider)
   *There will be no "Free Care Pools" by the states any more, or tax write offs for losses of unpaid bills.
   *Unpaid medical bills may be submitted to the IRS for Collection, at a fee.  The IRS may use their normal methods.
   *Privet Health Care Savings Accounts can be directly accessed by providers, with the consent of the patient.
**The above is only sane if people at all income levels are able to buy health insurance, based on income**


-- Modified on 4/22/2011 5:02:52 PM

Good luck with a voucher.

I still like my budget plan. Get rid of Medicare completely, and let seniors have those F-22 raptors that the Pentagon has never used despite that we're in 3 wars right now, and let them fly their asses to Canada where they can get their health care for free.

Get the government out of health care altogether and let the chips fall where they may.

Back in the late 1930's, when I was a youngster, there was no healthcare insurance. You either went to the doctor, and paid him in cash, or you stayed at home and toughed it out. Until the 1950's, that pretty much was the game plan. We went through measles, mumps, chicken pox, whooping cough, poison oak/ivy, whatever, and survived.

There was no welfare, food stamps, WIC, unemployment insurance, FEMA, free school breakfasts/lunches, the list goes on. But we survived.  

The overwhelming mentality that the government HAS to take care of me has become inbred, IMHO, in a majority of people. Instead, people need to grab their ass with both hands, pull themselves up and say that, I'm gonna get an education, I will not settle for the way things were, I will not trust the government to manage my life, I will not let someone else tell me how to raise my family, especially not a fucking 'village', I will take responsibility for my actions, I will be responsible for my debts, and when I'm gone, I will ensure that my family does not become dependent on the state for their survival. Many people make shitty life decisions, and THEY should live with the consequences, and not become the anvil around society's neck. That is neither conservative or liberal...that is how it should be, IMHO. There are genuine cases for public assistance, and they should be helped,  but the number is small.

To some, this sounds greedy, self centered, hateful..but you are wrong. Am I my brother's keeper? Depends on how my brother got into his situation, and what help he needs to get out of it, and if he genuinely wants help.

You complain that we are not using our F-22 Raptors but at the same time want us to get out of the wars we are in ?!?!?!

Are you working on some very fancy, expensive espresso machine using the F22s

Sorry, just wanted to have some fun to start my day

Don't get me wrong about my post about Ryans plan, I don't like the idea.
I just think it could work, but would require concessions to the health care reform act.  
Democrats could get HCRA settled and Republicans can get rid of medicare, a "win" for both sides.
Once it's settled, hopefully the industry can start working on ways to stabilize costs.

I am in favor of scaling back the military, rewriting the tax code to shift some of the berdon off the upper middle class to the rich, pushing for higher wadges for the lower middle class and re writing the corporate tax code.

For the sake of the economy, and there for the country, we need the government to take big actions to address the deficit...... and they need big compromises.

If we don't, we'll loose our credit rating.  You think the housing and auto markets are low now, slap a 15% interest rate on mortgages and car loans, on people that have good credit.
That is whats going to happen if they keep squabbling in congress and keep getting side tracked by infusing things like abortion and gay marriage into the budget talks.  
The countries and corporations that we owe money too don't care about these things.

If there's going to be a solution then everything has to be on the table.  The problem is that Congress can't seem to understand that.  Democrats won't discuss certain changes to social programs and Republicans insist the rich can't pay more taxes.  It's all bullshit.

Don't get me wrong, I know the shit will hit the fan if it happens, but a 15% interest rate on new debt creation might be a damn fine idea. If no one can borrow money anymore, then it'll force people to focus on sustainable income flows coming from real sources like wages, instead of kicking the bubble down the road and hoping you never have to pay back the piper.

we were in a Depression much worse than the one we're in today, with millions of people on bread lines through no fault of their own.  The only thing that pulled us out of it was World War II. That's a hell of a time to be nostalgic for.  I agree the pendulum swung too far in the other direction and we need some serious correction because we've been living beyond our means.  But that doesn't mean we have to take the advice of the Nevada Tea Party candidate who said we should pay for our medical bills with chickens.

First of all, you're about  80 and on TER, who's paying for your viagra....

If you read my original post, you might have notices a few lines that described what would happen to the people with out insurance.
If people want to just go to the doctor and pay out of pocket, fine.
I just don't want them to through their hands up when they get the bill and say they can't pay.
When they do that, the bill gets passed too the rest of us that pay our bills, just like any other theft in businesses.


-- Modified on 4/24/2011 12:59:14 AM

here is Ryans plan, give em a voucher for $15k, for most elderly people that would last a qtr, maybe 6months.  after that its "fuck you, go die"

everyone who is living longer through artificial means is a drain on our resources and results in a higher cost.  all you people who have had bypass surgery, pace makers, blood pressure medication, etc, you're the problem.  you should have been dead long ago, save for the new medical technology.  

cold and heartless? you betcha.  
at least i have the balls to tell you what the Ryan plan is implying.

i'll say this though, that is a hell of a way to save money.  could you imagine how much insurance prices may drop if it didn't have the heavy burden of the baby boomers living longer?  i'd probably be paying less for my insurance, so maybe it is a good idea.
*happy right wingers... i have joined the cold, heartless, darkside. fuck the old fucks, let em fend for themselves, as long as it save me a couple bucks a month.

Not issuing new debt is not an option, anymore than not floating new debt for a company that has to retire old debt is not an option.

The US has to constantly issue new debt as it retires old debt, saying that we simply won't incur new debt is like telling a corporation that you will "revoke it's charter", it just doesn't happen in the real world,

Willy if you are going to argue politics at least try to learn the basics of how the system works. You might as well decry that the sun will start revolving around the earth, it simply won't happen.

What kind of politician in his right mind would target the bulk of the baby-boomers?
It's not aimed at them, it's aimed at people in their 40's and under.
(You're right about his thought process, the drop dead part, if you don't have a good amount of cash)

By his plan, the first people to get vouchers would be 55, so the plan won't even kick in for 10 years.
The vouchers will be set to pay for a good portion of health insurance premiums at that time.
With out any real plan to lower the inflation rate of health care, the vouchers will loose about 10% to 15% in value per year, if these "elderly" plans go up at the same rate as regular ones.
So the people that will really get boned are the ones in their mid to late 40s and under whenever the legislation passes.

If health care inflation could keep pace with real inflation, or be lower (big, unlikely if), his plan could work.
If the size of the voucher was based on the persons retirement income, insurance companies were required to take the elderly, and distributed some of the extra cost of insuring them over a huge pool of people that are buying insurance.

All really big IFs, and would require insurance companies and medical providers to act a certain way.
Which republicans would probably think would happen with out regulation....