GOP 2030: "Everyone Bankrupt Trying to Pay for Health Care"

[Fergasun]

I am an American citizen who is well under the 55 year old mark. The GOP is offering me "massive changes to Medicare" (more specifically Paul Ryan's plan promises not to touch it for those over 55, but I get massive changes). I don't understand why those under 55 should have to continue supporting the current Medicare system, if the GOP is admitting the system is flawed, and going bankrupt. Of course, I understand that proposing changes to those near retirement-age and above would get flatly rejected by those voters. So why should I embrace a plan that my elders will reject (and the GOP is so afraid of it getting rejected)?

The way I see it, rising health care costs are bankrupting Medicare. So if we change the system, and we take the burden of rising health care costs away from the government (Medicare); where is that burden going to fall? Oh, that burden is going to fall on me! Praise Paul Ryan! So by the time I reach somewhere near age 55 and above, to maintain the current level of health care services provided under Medicare, I'll have to essentially go bankrupt!

But the GOP is in a bind. If they admit that health care costs are out of control; they point the finger at their friends in the health care services sector (providers and insurance companies). This is a sector they have gone so hard-over to protect. Their next step will be to propose some massive change in how health care is looked at in this country (I dunno, maybe something along the lines of that health care reform law called "Obamacare").

I'd prefer a plan that changes Medicare for everyone and doesn't protect those in or near retirement age (why should they get protected from the consequence of poor policy over the past 40 years?). But making those needed changes would essentially mean all those impacted would go bankrupt trying to keep their current health care level.

While the GOP may not be throwing the current generation of old folks off a cliff, it certainly does seem like they are trying to throw me off a cliff in 20 years when I am an old folk.

[twa]

can you explain how his plan = would essentially mean all those impacted would go bankrupt trying to keep their current health care level?

do you mean the level that will need to be imposed under Obamacare?...or the fantasy one that exists now carried into the future?

I prefer choice myself

[The 12th Commandment]

can you explain how his plan = would essentially mean all those impacted would go bankrupt trying to keep their current health care level?

do you mean the level that will need to be imposed under Obamacare?...or the fantasy one that exists now carried into the future?

I prefer choice myself

Choice = euphemism for let the those who made a poor choice just die. We're never going to do that and there will always be a substantial number of people who make poor choices for one reason or another. Letting them die is not really an option.

Spreading out the cost more fairly that we do today is the best we can hope for. Minimum level of coverage with the risk shared by everyone and trying to make the everyone include more people than have coverage today by making it mandatory. Everyone will have the choice to buy additional coverage beyond the minimum. This seems to be the prevailing line of BS, that we will all be stuck with that crappy minimum coverage and not have the "choice" to purchase more, when it's not the case.

[Fergasun]

twa,

According to the GOP, the "current level" of health care spending is bankrupting America. So if we transfer the responsibility for health care spending from government to the people; to maintain the "current level of health care spending" it will bankrupt individuals.

Isn't it obvious why the plan will exempt those in or near retirement age?

Because once they go to a voucher system they will find they can't afford the level of health care they can afford through medicare.

[twa]

Ferg according to the numbers the "current level" of health care spending is bankrupting America,with the costs scheduled to only increase

even honest Dems admit that

KAO...why would you object to a option rather than a mandate?

[The 12th Commandment]

Ferg according to the numbers

KAO...why would you object to a option rather than a mandate?

Because it will be cheaper to cover those people to begin with and a whole bunch of them are not going to avail themselves of a plan when they're not sick. I'm not excusing that sort of stupidity, just recognizing that it exists as well as the fact that we'll wind up paying for them anyhow. To the tune of much more expensive procedures to deal with an issue that would have been cheaper had it been recognized earlier. The fact is we're only mandating to people who wouldn't already buy it anyway. I assume really rich people who prefer to pay cash would pay the penalty or tax - whatever it is will be a pittance to someone with that much cash.

[Thiebear]

I don't admit to know the future, but current rate of increase went from 3% to 9% increase?

and that is without the expected 30-40million people dropped from corporate to Obamacare?

the doctor fix should take care of it...

[twa]

Because it will be cheaper to cover those people to begin with and a whole bunch of them are not going to avail themselves of a plan when they're not sick. .

I was was talking about medicare options, where it will be vouchers and options

if they don;t enroll in a different plan they remain under medicare

[Fergasun]

Ferg according to the numbers the "current level" of health care spending is bankrupting America,with the costs scheduled to only increase

even honest Dems admit that

KAO...why would you object to a option rather than a mandate?

twa,

Yes; that's my point.

If the current level of health care spending is bankrupting AMERICA than changing the responsibility for healthcare payments from AMERICA to individuals will bankrupt AMERICANS.

The problem is health care costs that are rising (which is something Obamacare at least was trying to tackle!).

[twa]

twa,

Yes; that's my point.

If the current level of health care spending is bankrupting AMERICA than changing the responsibility for healthcare payments from AMERICA to individuals will bankrupt AMERICANS.

The problem is health care costs that are rising (which is something Obamacare at least was trying to tackle!).

There are cost containment strategies in the Ryan plan.

you do know Americans pay either way?...why not instead contrast the containment strategies?

because you can't?

[Wrong Direction]

If the current level of health care spending is bankrupting AMERICA than changing the responsibility for healthcare payments from AMERICA to individuals will bankrupt AMERICANS.

This is laid out in the Romney thread, but since this thread is also open, I'll summarize.

Ryan's plan tells insurance companies to compete with traditional Medicare. Each year, all private and Medicare plans will bid to provide the same coverage Medicare provides today. The second lowest bid (public or private) is what the Medicare premium will be. Every eligible person will be subsidized an amount equal to that bid (poor and sick get more). The difference will go to the consumer if they choose the cheaper plan. If the consumer chooses the more expensive plan, they will pay the difference.

This does not raise the price for any consumer unless they choose the more expensive plan. This does not preclude changes to traditional Medicare if politicians or the IPAB want to cut costs. If liberal pundits are correct, government run healthcare should be cheaper than private healthcare. If that's the case, everyone can stay in traditional Medicare at the same costs as now. However, if private plans can offer the same exact coverage for cheaper, people will choose that private plan, total government costs will go down and traditional Medicare will either react by lowering costs or slowly lose enrollment.

How is this a major cost shift to consumers?

[alexey]

This does not raise the price for any consumer unless they choose the more expensive plan. This does not preclude changes to traditional Medicare if politicians or the IPAB want to cut costs. If liberal pundits are correct, government run healthcare should be cheaper than private healthcare. If that's the case, everyone can stay in traditional Medicare at the same costs as now. However, if private plans can offer the same exact coverage for cheaper, people will choose that private plan, total government costs will go down and traditional Medicare will either react by lowering costs or slowly lose enrollment.

How is this a major cost shift to consumers?

I think the option to stay in traditional Medicare is the same load of baloney as Obama's promise that you can keep your healthcare if you like it. Same bull as compensating for reduced tax rates by closing of unspecified loop holes.

While I like the idea of using market forces to drive down costs, a simple fact is that healthcare for old people is always going to be really expensive. The only way for seniors to afford healthcare is to have healthy people help pay for it. Ways of doing that include taking money out of the paycheck, and having them buy insurance. The first option is not very good at using market forces to drive down costs, but it does generate needed funds. The second option, if employed correctly, has a chance of using market forces to drive down costs. A recent attempt at implementing the second option is called the Affordable Care Act .

[Wrong Direction]

I think the option to stay in traditional Medicare is the same load of baloney as Obama's promise that you can keep your healthcare if you like it. Same bull as compensating for reduced tax rates by closing of unspecified loop holes.

While I like the idea of using market forces to drive down costs, a simple fact is that healthcare for old people is always going to be really expensive. The only way for seniors to afford healthcare is to have healthy people help pay for it. Ways of doing that include taking money out of the paycheck, and having them buy insurance. The first option is not very good at using market forces to drive down costs, but it does generate needed funds. The second option, if employed correctly, has a chance of using market forces to drive down costs. A recent attempt at implementing the second option is called the Affordable Care Act .

Old people almost all signup, regardless of whether they're sick or not. Healthy people, plus the tax payer, already contribute.

If this sounds like the ACA, why aren't Democrats on board?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

It's a very good question. Why should we keep paying for Medicare that we aren't going to have access to?

[twa]

It's a very good question. Why should we keep paying for Medicare that we aren't going to have access to?

The only ones getting reduced are the rich...ya'll should like that

You will pay because you will be made to pay...just like the rest of us.

[Fergasun]

Ryan's plan tells insurance companies to compete with traditional Medicare. Each year, all private and Medicare plans will bid to provide the same coverage Medicare provides today. The second lowest bid (public or private) is what the Medicare premium will be. Every eligible person will be subsidized an amount equal to that bid (poor and sick get more). The difference will go to the consumer if they choose the cheaper plan. If the consumer chooses the more expensive plan, they will pay the difference.

So if healthcare care costs continue to rise at the same rate they've been since 1980 (8% per year); the plans will continue to go up in cost, and the eligible person subsidy will keep rising at the same rate? Or will the "savings" exist because the eligible person subsidy will stay constant while the lowest bids keep rising at 8% per year?

How can you say the price isn't raised? The prices keep going up which is the problem (that is bankrupting Medicare).