Can Wiki Edits Predict Romney's VP Choice?

[russ_watters]

I didn't mean you had to come up with the idea -- unless Obama is shopping around for a new Veep!

 

[CAC1001]

Well, read this about Ryan's "plan".

Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick, would fundamentally remake federal health and long-term care services for the frail elderly and adults with disabilities.

Restructuring federal health and long-term care services is something that is necessary to save them. However, doing so doesn't mean just coming up with a new experimental plan and forcing everyone to adopt it, it means making the new changes optional, and seeing how they work out.

He’d completely restructure Medicare, slash funding for Medicaid, and likely abolish most of the other safety net programs that this vulnerable population has come rely on over the last half-century.

That's his (IMO inflammatory) opinion. And remember, the Vice President does not have absolute power. Republicans do not have a problem with safety net programs. The Democratic party wants the general public to think they do, as they want to scare them. The Democrats are the ones who are allowing programs like Medicare to just go straight over a cliff (same with the federal debt), not proposing any kind of reforms for it. Reform does not mean repeal and it doesn't have to be mandatory at all even (a truly good reform will become popular on its own as word would spread).

It is fair to say that no major party candidate for national office in a half-century would do more to change the way seniors and those with disabilities get care than Ryan.

He says this like it's a bad thing.

Medicare: Ryan would effectively end the current Medicare system for future retirees. He’d replace it with a government subsidy that seniors would use to buy their own health insurance, a system known as premium support. In one version, seniors would still have the option to buy into traditional Medicare, but in most others, they would not.

Ryan and Romney have both made it explicit that they will never support any Medicare reform program that makes it where people cannot keep their conventional Medicare should they choose to. From a strict political standpoint even, it wouldn't make any sense not to do this.

And where does the financial burden fall for seniors lucky enough to have children? On the children.

That's only if the program was mandatory and didn't work out well.

But of course if you are rich, as you would be if you weren't a deadbeat leech on society (IMO), this wouldn't affect you.

You sound like you've fallen hook, line, and sinker for how the Democrats want you to perceive the Republican party as opposed to what it is actually proposing.

 

[Evo]

Restructuring federal health and long-term care services is something that is necessary to save them. However, doing so doesn't mean just coming up with a new experimental plan and forcing everyone to adopt it, it means making the new changes optional, and seeing how they work out.



That's his (IMO inflammatory) opinion. And remember, the Vice President does not have absolute power. Republicans do not have a problem with safety net programs. The Democratic party wants the general public to think they do, as they want to scare them. The Democrats are the ones who are allowing programs like Medicare to just go straight over a cliff (same with the federal debt), not proposing any kind of reforms for it. Reform does not mean repeal and it doesn't have to be mandatory at all even (a truly good reform will become popular on its own as word would spread).



He says this like it's a bad thing.



Ryan and Romney have both made it explicit that they will never support any Medicare reform program that makes it where people cannot keep their conventional Medicare should they choose to. From a strict political standpoint even, it wouldn't make any sense not to do this.



That's only if the program was mandatory and didn't work out well.



You sound like you've fallen hook, line, and sinker for how the Democrats want you to perceive the Republican party as opposed to what it is actually proposing.

Do you have a version of his plan that contradicts the information in that article? If you do, please post it.

 

[russ_watters]

Ryan has the lowest initial poll numbers since Quayle:

In a nationwide survey taken Sunday, 39% of registered voters call Republican contender Mitt Romney's selection of Ryan "excellent" or "pretty good" while 45% rate it as "only fair" or "poor." Sixteen percent have no opinion.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-13/ryan-romney-poll/57038326/1

What does this tell us? No one had heard of Palin.

 

[CAC1001]

There has to be a sane approach, the rich need to pay a fair share of the tax burden, not be given more tax loopholes and lower taxes. We discussed this before, the rich have ways to "legally" evade taxes. Let's get rid of those laws. I'm watching tv, so I'm just typing between commercials.

A few things:

1) Who is calling for more loopholes? The goal, if taxes are lowered, is to close a lot of the loopholes as was done under Reagan.

2) Depending on how one looks at it, the rich already do pay their fair share, as they pay the majority of the bill. It is much of the poor and middle-class that pay nothing in federal income taxes, and are subsidized to a degree right now.

IMO, everyone needs to be paying something into the system.

 

[CAC1001]

Do you have a version of his plan that contradicts the information in that article? If you do, please post it.

The current version of his plan contradicts the information in the article. I believe his plan has always contradicted the information claimed in the article regarding seniors not having a choice in the matter as it implies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57491634/romney-ryan-together-on-60-minutes-tonight/

 

[Evo]

We only accept, mainstream, well known sources without a strict bias. Although there are known biases in well known sources, they can't specifically list themselves as "conservative or liberal".

 

[Pythagorean]

Then the President and Nancy Pelosi are "fundamentalists"?

A single stance on one issue is not an ideology. Notice I listed a handful of social stances that fundamentalists take as a package (pro-life and discrimination against homosexuals are the main two).

There is at least one published paper in a respected journal and well informed opinion to the contrary.

That one study (and one is never enough anyway, especially when multiple studies show the opposite) has come under a lot of fire. It's not what I would consider well respected or well informed. Not only is the scientific robustness of the paper called into question by social scientists, but the actual conclusions of such a study would not be exactly as they've been made out. Intentionally ignoring demographics and then utilizing the results of intentionally ignored demographics is the most suspect thing you can do in social sciences:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ost-scientifically-robust-study-in-the-world/

And Obama and many Democrats hold some bizarre and unreasonable positions as well. Until a politician comes along who is inbetween, all one can do is vote for politicians from both sides of the isle to create a balance.

Again, I don't see the point of saying Obama/Dems do it too. It didn't work in Kindergarden either. But you won't get any argument from me that unreasonable positions exist in the democratic party.

In the same vein, just blindly voting for people from both sides could just as easily lead to immovable conflict (there is balance in no progress, I suppose...). In fact, I think polarization in the US mostly only benefits government employees... not so much the citizens.

 

[Evo]

The current version of his plan contradicts the information in the article. I believe his plan has always contradicted the information claimed in the article regarding seniors not having a choice in the matter as it implies.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57491634/romney-ryan-together-on-60-minutes-tonight/

This doesn't show his plan, can you link to his plan?

Thanks!

 

[SixNein]

Sure, anyone can recommend saving billions by taking the money away from programs for the poor, elderly, and disabled. Is that the way to do it? Not in my opinion. What then happens to these people that have no way to afford to live?

Before any policy is considered financial or otherwise, we should stop to ask if its just. The purpose of our government is to serve the people. The largest problem I see in our government today is the complete failure to consider if a policy is just. Politicians rarely even mention the poor class today; instead, they talk only of the rich and middle class.

I like the take by Fareed Zakaria (Who I have a great deal of respect for btw):

In the United States, however, if you are born into poverty, you are highly likely to have malnutrition, childhood sicknesses and a bad education. The dirty little secret about the U.S. welfare state is that it spends very little on the poor — who don’t vote much — lavishing attention instead on the middle class. The result is clear. A student interviewed by Opportunity Nation, a bipartisan group founded to address these issues, put it succinctly, “The ZIP code you’re born in shouldn’t determine your destiny, but too often it does.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...ard-mobility/2011/11/09/gIQAegpS6M_story.html

 

[CAC1001]

We only accept, mainstream, well known sources without a strict bias. Although there are known biases in well known sources, they can't specifically list themselves as "conservative or liberal".

Are Politifact and Factcheck.org okay?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ar-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/no-end-to-end-medicare-claim/

Also, regarding the Forbes link you used, you should be aware that Forbes can be very conservative or very liberal depending on which person wrote the article. Their way of being balanced seems to be to just have both right-wing and left-wing people writing for them.

 

[Pythagorean]

No, that's your argument! What the heck?!

All I said was that homosexual discrimination, forcing God into political ceremony, and pro-life are positions aligned with fundamentalism. They are all based in religious doctrine, not in social stability.

You're the one that said these are standard conservative principles (which I disagree with).

Well: This is exactly my point. Near as I can tell, for 20,000 years of /human cultural development, it was taken for granted that that the biological mom and dad should be the parents. That view has nothing whatsoever to do with religion*.

Now you [Pythagorean] think that in 20 years that view can completely flip to being the absurd one? That's just plain not reasonable. The traditional view doesn't have to be right for it to be reasonable to be skeptical of such a radical change. It is certainly not reasonable to label that view as being strictly a religious fundamentalist view and therefore anyone who holds it as being a religious fundamentalist.

So your argument has nothing to do with the sexuality. According to your argument, straight parents shouldn't even be able to adopt. Do you know how absurd it sounds in the first place, let alone not even hitting the mark of what we're talking about?

Just think about your argument for a little bit... (preferably before you post it next time).

This may help in your next formulation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic )

 

[CAC1001]

This doesn't show his plan, can you link to his plan?

Thanks!

http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

- scroll to page 45 and 52, where it is pointed out that this Medicare reform plan does not change Medicare for current recipients or those nearing retirement.

 

[Pythagorean]

Part of me suspects that Obama is just giving another industry job security... :/

 

[Evo]

Are Politifact and Factcheck.org okay?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ar-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/no-end-to-end-medicare-claim/

Also, regarding the Forbes link you used, you should be aware that Forbes can be very conservative or very liberal depending on which person wrote the article. Their way of being balanced seems to be to just have both right-wing and left-wing people writing for them.

You claimed the Forbes article was wrong. I asked you to post Ryan's plan that shows that the article was wrong and instead you are just posting opinion pieces.

Please post Ryan's PLAN and point out where the Forbes article was wrong. I don't know what part of my request you don't get. I don't want opinion pieces.

 

[Evo]

http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

- scroll to page 45 and 52, where it is pointed out that this Medicare reform plan does not change Medicare for current recipients or those nearing retirement.

What the heck does this have to do with the proposed changes that we are discussing?

Medicare: Ryan would effectively end the current Medicare system for future retirees. He’d replace it with a government subsidy that seniors would use to buy their own health insurance, a system known as premium support. In one version, seniors would still have the option to buy into traditional Medicare, but in most others, they would not.

The government subsidy level would grow more slowly than the growth of medical costs. As a result, if health costs don’t slow, seniors would end up paying a much larger share of their health expenses than they do now. Today, the federal government pays about 70 percent of Medicare costs while seniors themselves pay about 30 percent. In one version of Ryan’s plan, seniors would pay 70 percent.

Come on, stick with the topic, follow through on it. I know you can do it. Post Ryan's plan and show me where the above isn't true as you claimed.

 

[russ_watters]

Before any policy is considered financial or otherwise, we should stop to ask if its just. The purpose of our government is to serve the people. The largest problem I see in our government today is the complete failure to consider if a policy is just. Politicians rarely even mention the poor class today; instead, they talk only of the rich and middle class.

Perhaps that's because we've moved past helping the poor and have moved on to helping the middle class? When 47% of the public pays no federal income tax, we're well beyond being able to talk about how tax policy affects the poor.

I like the take by Fareed Zakaria (Who I have a great deal of respect for btw):

-1:

Fareed Zakaria Suspended For Plagiarism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/fareed-zakaria-plagiarism-new-yorker-time_n_1764954.html

I never liked him anyway. Too much of a popular ideologue masquerading as a reporter. Your particular chosen quote contains some clear nonsense: Malnutrition? Virtually nonexistent in the US. I suppose "highly likely" is subjective, but I would have put it over 50% (of the poor). Instead, our malnutrition rate is less than 2.5%, which would be <15% of our poor. Perhaps he misspelled "unlikely"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Percentage_population_undernourished_world_map.PNG

 

[russ_watters]

2) Depending on how one looks at it, the rich already do pay their fair share, as they pay the majority of the bill. It is much of the poor and middle-class that pay nothing in federal income taxes, and are subsidized to a degree right now.

IMO, everyone needs to be paying something into the system.

Everyone of course believes everyone should pay "their fair share". But there is a lot of disagreement about what "fair" is. Me personally, I don't think everyone should pay federal income tax. I think the poor should be exempt. So that leaves around 30% of the population (47% who pay nothing minus ~17% who are poor) who pay nothing but should pay something.

I'm also in favor of eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts -- yes, raising taxes -- in order to increase revenue. But just in case people aren't aware, that's a tax increase for everyone, not just the rich. Bush didn't just reduce taxes for the rich, he reduced them for everyone. Oh, and before taxes are raised, I'd want spending decreased by an equal amount. None of the shenanigans the Dems pulled on Reagan when he agreed made a similar deal, then the spending cuts didn't happen.

 

[CAC1001]

You claimed the Forbes article was wrong. I asked you to post Ryan's plan that shows that the article was wrong and instead you are just posting opinion pieces.

Please post Ryan's PLAN and point out where the Forbes article was wrong. I don't know what part of my request you don't get. I don't want opinion pieces.

Politifact is an opinion piece?? Also, how is the article you posted not an opinion piece?

What the heck does this have to do with the proposed changes that we are discussing?

Come on, stick with the topic, follow through on it. I know you can do it. Post Ryan's plan and show me where the above isn't true as you claimed.

I did post Ryan's plan (from my understanding of it, when people refer to the "Ryan plan" they are referring to the Medicare proposals outlined in the link I provided). Again, see page 52, where it says that for future retirees, they will have the option of choosing a traditional fee-for-service Medicare plan (and for current and soon-to-be recipients, nothing in Medicare changes for them). Page 53 mentions that low-income seniors, if costs grew faster than the limit set, would qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid, which would pay for their out-of-pocket expenses. Those seniors that do not qualify for Medicaid but which are still under a certain income threshold would receive fully-funded accounts to offset any out-of-pocket expenses.

 

[russ_watters]

All I said was that homosexual discrimination, forcing God into political ceremony, and pro-life are positions aligned with fundamentalism. They are all based in religious doctrine, not in social stability.

I was talking about gay marriage/parenting only and I pointed out that it in and of itself has nothing to do with religion. It (heterosexual marriage/parenting) is a tradition that has existed essentially forever until recently.

You're the one that said these are standard conservative principles (which I disagree with).

I didn't say "standard conservative principles" -- it isn't important enough or old enough of an issue to be part of traditional conservativism. I merely said it was the mainstream view. And really, it is more than that. The Defense of Marriage act passed by about an 85% - 15% margin in 1996. And as someone pointed out, even in liberal states that held referrendums, gay marriage laws have not done well. You're essentially calling a large majority of the congress and Americans in general "religious fundamentalists" (even if their opinion has nothing to do with religion! ).

So your argument has nothing to do with the sexuality. According to your argument, straight parents shouldn't even be able to adopt. Do you know how absurd it sounds in the first place, let alone not even hitting the mark of what we're talking about?

Just think about your argument for a little bit... (preferably before you post it next time)

Wow. Are you not aware that gay marriage and gay adoption are relatively new concepts in human history? And FYI, my sister was adopted. That fact caused tension in my family. She's done well and certainly better than she would have with her single-mom biological mother, but certainly her situation is less ideal than mine (biological son of my parents). It's the reason I have a closer relationship with them than she does.

 

[mheslep]

Are Politifact and Factcheck.org okay?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ar-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/no-end-to-end-medicare-claim/

Also, regarding the Forbes link you used, you should be aware that Forbes can be very conservative or very liberal depending on which person wrote the article. Their way of being balanced seems to be to just have both right-wing and left-wing people writing for them.

Gleckman is not a Forbes staff writer but a blogger hosted by Forbes.

 

[Evo]

Politifact is an opinion piece?? Also, how is the article you posted not an opinion piece?

You claimed that the Forbes piece was wrong. I am waiting for you to post something that shows it's wrong. I never claimed the article wasn't an opinion piece.

Factcheck, from your link

It’s true that an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that seniors on the private plans would pay more than they would under traditional Medicare. And the CBO analysis indicated that a 65-year-old in 2022 could pay about $6,000 more than he or she would for the year under traditional Medicare. The government subsidies would increase with the rate of inflation, which critics argued was not much when dealing with health costs that, for years, have risen much faster than the general inflation rate. Ryan did say that low-income beneficiaries would get more money from the government to help cover costs, but the details on how much and who would qualify were not yet fleshed out.

 

[JonDE]

http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

- scroll to page 45 and 52, where it is pointed out that this Medicare reform plan does not change Medicare for current recipients or those nearing retirement.

Of course. If they changed it for current or near retirement recipients they would lose much of the senior vote, those that are most likely to vote. So let's not fix it now, let's fix it in ten years, by which time it will probably need to be fixed again. Assuming that even if the law passed, that it would stay that way, which is a pretty big assumption.

So, let's not fix it now, let's fix it for the future, except we aren't really fixing it for the future, we just hope that it might last into the future, although there is no guarantee of that.

I believe this is the term, passing the buck, just really really subtle. If you really want to fix something, you have to fix it NOW.

 

[SixNein]

The problem with budget talk is this: For several generations, we've been feeding the economy with debt. Giving people free money is very popular, regardless of how bad of an idea it is. To correct that, not only do you need to stop giving people free money, but you need to get younger people to pay back the money given to people who are now retired or dead. So people would much rather just pretend there aren't any problems or hope they die before the check comes due than make any attempt to right the ship. As we've seen in Europe, people prefer to stubbornly fly their economic plane straight into the ground than try to pull up.

That was Obama's plan. Stimulus makes people happy, so let's do more. Taxing the rich makes the 99% happy even if it doesn't do much for the budget, so let's try to do that. But for God's sake, don't talk about SS and Medicare or mention the rapidly growing debt.

So your argument is essentially that liberals are responsible for our federal debt?

Our debt is primarily caused by the politicization of our tax system (and historical events), and in my opinion, the responsibility for taxes should be handed over to the fed so that its independent of politics. The fed would have actual experts working with the tax system instead of laymen who had a catchy political slogan and favors to perform.

In addition, our debt problem is being quite exaggerated. I would recommend a quick reading of...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html/

On a side note, I do not understand why you keep mentioning Europe. It's a different animal.

 

[Skrew]

Those who believe that gay marraige and gay adoption are supported by most of the american population are wholly mistaken. I suspect the country has reached its peak acceptance of gays and will start moving in the opposite direction. Those who support such policies have a tendency to reproduce less(or not at all).

 

[Evo]

Those who believe that gay marraige and gay adoption are supported by most of the american population are wholly mistaken.

You should check your facts before you post misinformation.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

 

[russ_watters]

So your argument is essentially that liberals are responsible for our federal debt?

I didn't say any such thing.

However:

In addition, our debt problem is being quite exaggerated. I would recommend a quick reading of...

You're arguing against your point by posting a Krugman article!

On a side note, I do not understand why you keep mentioning Europe. It's a different animal.

Increased social spending -> increased debt ->bankrupcy.

We're not there yet, but we're following their lead.

 

[Evo]

Let's try to keep the focus on Paul Ryan, we're all guilty of going off topic here.

 

[SixNein]

Perhaps that's because we've moved past helping the poor and have moved on to helping the middle class? When 47% of the public pays no federal income tax, we're well beyond being able to talk about how tax policy affects the poor.
-1: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/fareed-zakaria-plagiarism-new-yorker-time_n_1764954.html

Let me use your logic. Only 5% of the population payed the Federal Alternative Minimum Tax in 2011; therefore, everyone else is just freeloading in America. We need to move beyond our focus on the freeloading middle class and focus instead on those who contribute "the rich."

Sounds silly doesn't it?

I never liked him anyway. Too much of a popular ideologue masquerading as a reporter. Your particular chosen quote contains some clear nonsense: Malnutrition? Virtually nonexistent in the US. I suppose "highly likely" is subjective, but I would have put it over 50% (of the poor). Instead, our malnutrition rate is less than 2.5%, which would be <15% of our poor. Perhaps he misspelled "unlikely"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Percentage_population_undernourished_world_map.PNG

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0214.pdf

 

[Pythagorean]

Wow. Are you not aware that gay marriage and gay adoption are relatively new concepts in human history?

That's not necessarily true (sans paperwork); it's only recent in monotheistic WASP culture that we've even considered homosexuality a negative thing (and even then, there were periods of tolerance; the ancient Greeks did not think of sexual orientation as a social identifier as Western societies have done for the last century.). Homosexuality and 'adoption' (sans paperwork) have existed all the way back into our evolutionary history and still exists in many animals. It's quite natural. As society developed, rules and cultural norms developed, and differently in different cultures. You were raised in a society that just happened to have a cultural rule that you mistook for being "how it is".

But besides that, your argument doesn't even approach whether gay couples should adopt or not. You're saying that parents should raise their kids. That's irrelevant (and coincidentally, also a blanket statement that's false. Some people are actually terrible parents, even to their biological parents).

The issue of homosexuals adopting is the same as straights adopting. The kids have already been left by their parents. Now the argument is whether for these kids that were already left by their biological parents would have negative outcomes if homosexuals raised them.

And FYI, my sister was adopted. That fact caused tension in my family. She's done well and certainly better than she would have with her single-mom biological mother, but certainly her situation is less ideal than mine (biological son of my parents). It's the reason I have a closer relationship with them than she does.

An anecdote ('proof by example' the way you're using it is yet another fallacy). You don't know whether she would have been worse off or better off with her biological parents. Furthermore, if the biological parents died, it's unlikely she'd be better off without any parents.

I shall now obey Evo's request.

 

[CAC1001]

You claimed that the Forbes piece was wrong. I am waiting for you to post something that shows it's wrong. I never claimed the article wasn't an opinion piece.

Factcheck, from your link

It’s true that an analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that seniors on the private plans would pay more than they would under traditional Medicare. And the CBO analysis indicated that a 65-year-old in 2022 could pay about $6,000 more than he or she would for the year under traditional Medicare. The government subsidies would increase with the rate of inflation, which critics argued was not much when dealing with health costs that, for years, have risen much faster than the general inflation rate. Ryan did say that low-income beneficiaries would get more money from the government to help cover costs, but the details on how much and who would qualify were not yet fleshed out.

Regarding Factcheck, if the private plans cost a person more then traditional Medicare, then that person could stay with or switch back to traditional Medicare. Regarding the details, I agree, Ryan needs to spell out the details.

Here were the sections of my original post where I countered the article:

He’d completely restructure Medicare, slash funding for Medicaid, and likely abolish most of the other safety net programs that this vulnerable population has come rely on over the last half-century.

That's his (IMO inflammatory) opinion. And remember, the Vice President does not have absolute power. Republicans do not have a problem with safety net programs. The Democratic party wants the general public to think they do, as they want to scare them. The Democrats are the ones who are allowing programs like Medicare to just go straight over a cliff (same with the federal debt), not proposing any kind of reforms for it. Reform does not mean repeal and it doesn't have to be mandatory at all even (a truly good reform will become popular on its own as word would spread).

The way he words it, he is making it sound as if Ryan's plan is to completely change Medicare where you either must accept the wholly new changes whether you like it or not. I said that's his opinion because that is not what the plan calls for. He says Ryan would "slash" funding for Medicaid and "likely" do so for most of the other safety net programs. I said that all of that is his opinion and he is wording it in an inflammatory manner. I do not see anywhere in Ryan's plan where he's calling to "slash" Medicaid. He is proposing to fix it (i.e. make sure it can continue doing what it does). Nor do I see him talking about gutting programs like unemployment insurance, food stamps, and so forth. For example, regarding the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program ("food stamps" today), one point he makes is that states receive money for this program based on how many people they enroll on the program, and a problem is that the states have no incentive to make sure such people receiving the program are working or looking for work and that there is a lot of waste, fraud, and abuse as a result.

Now even if one disagrees with his reform proposals, there's a huge difference between saying that he will just slash this and that as if he's some far-right radical that wants to get rid of all the programs regardless of who gets hurt, versus just saying that his reforms will not work the way he intends. The opposite would be like those who say Obama just wants to spend the country into oblivion versus saying his spending and economic policies are not going to work the way he thinks.

Medicare: Ryan would effectively end the current Medicare system for future retirees. He’d replace it with a government subsidy that seniors would use to buy their own health insurance, a system known as premium support. In one version, seniors would still have the option to buy into traditional Medicare, but in most others, they would not.

Ryan and Romney have both made it explicit that they will never support any Medicare reform program that makes it where people cannot keep their conventional Medicare should they choose to. From a strict political standpoint even, it wouldn't make any sense not to do this.

He said Ryan would end the current Medicare system for future retirees. That is not true. He would create an alternative, which people could choose, or they could remain with the ordinary fee-for-service version of Medicare. He would not "replace" the current system (as in you have no choice but to use the new variant).

So I'm not sure how the link I provided doesn't contradict the article.

 

[mheslep]

In this part from Gleckman:

He’d completely restructure Medicare, slash funding for Medicaid, and likely abolish most of the other safety net programs that this vulnerable population has come rely on over the last half-century.

So far as I can see the "abolish most other safety net programs" part is utterly without support. The first "other" program to my mind would be Social Security, which the Ryan plan leaves untouched (unfortunately, as it too is going broke):

The proposal does not involve changes to Social Security.

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12128/04-05-ryan_letter.pdf

As for the Medicare part:

Medicare
Starting in 2022, the proposal would convert the current Medicare system to a system
of premium support payments and would increase the age of eligibility for Medicare:
...
o The payment for 65-year-olds in 2022 is specified to be $8,000, on average, which is approximately the same dollar amount as projected net federal spending per capita for 65-year-olds in traditional Medicare (that is, the program’s outlays minus receipts from the premiums enrollees pay for Part B and Part D, expressed on a per capita basis) under current law in that year. People who become eligible for Medicare in 2023 and subsequent years would receive a payment that was larger than $8,000 by an amount that reflected the increase in the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) and the age of the enrollee. The premium support payments would increase in each year after initial eligibility by an amount that reflected both the increase in the CPI-U and the fact that enrollees in Medicare tend to be less healthy and require more costly health care as they age.

The difference is, as I understand it, that one would go out with the $8K in hand to buy your own healthcare from the same suppliers used by federal employees now, which may or may not be less expensive (net) than that supplied by Medicare currently. The alternative, leave Medicare alone to keep growing at current rates, would be the more likely scheme to actually "end Medicare as we know it", because the spending is unsustainable with the current revenue level or any practical increase in revenue from more taxes.

 

[SixNein]

I didn't say any such thing.

However: You're arguing against your point by posting a Krugman article!
Increased social spending -> increased debt ->bankrupcy.

We're not there yet, but we're following their lead.

Social spending is a liberal idea is it not?

Krugman is a widely read economist. I'm starting to wonder why we train economists because nobody listens to them.

Europe is a different animal all together, and I'm not knowledgeable enough to debate on it. They have currency issues there because independent nations share the same coin. So Germany tugs the currency in one direction, and small countries tug it in another. The trick for them is how to restart those small economies despite the higher value currency.

 

[mheslep]

... I do not see anywhere in Ryan's plan where he's calling to "slash" Medicaid. He is proposing to fix it (i.e. make sure it can continue doing what it does). ...

He gives the Medicaid money to the states

Medicaid
The proposal would modify Medicaid as follows:

o Starting in 2013, the federal share of all Medicaid payments would be converted
into block grants to be allocated to the states. The total dollar amount of the block
grants would increase annually with population growth and with growth in the CPI-U.

There have been some waivers granted in the past to allow this to happen previously in at least on state (Rhode Island) with conflicting reports on cost savings.

 

[Evo]

Regarding Factcheck, if the private plans cost a person more then traditional Medicare, then that person could stay with or switch back to traditional Medicare. Regarding the details, I agree, Ryan needs to spell out the details.

I think this is where people are getting confused. People going on medicare in 2023 have the option of private or medicare, but NOT the Medicare we have now. It will be the new voucher-based medicare.

From your Factcheck link

Beginning in 2023, 65-year-olds would have their choice of insurance plans — private and traditional — on a new Medicare exchange. A premium-support payment, like a subsidy, would be sent to the plan of their choice.

That's the problem.