Friday, January 29, 2010

Rep. Ryan's Health Care Con. It Leaves the Elderly Without Care, But Reduces Federal Spending.



Here's my analysis of Rep. Paul Ryan's health care plan from hell. Literally.
One size does not fit all well, says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a contributing editor of Real Clear Markets and an Adjunct Fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Rep. Paul Ryan's "Road Map for America's Future," reintroduced this month:

1. Americans would take refundable tax credits -- $2,300 for singles and $5,700 for families -- and choose private insurance.
How does that pay for a $10,000 or $14,000 plan? The average annual family premium for employer-sponsored health insurance rose to $13,375 in 2009. And it comes with a high deductible. Is that affordable for the employee or employer? How does that contain rising health insurance premiums when companies know the government is chipping in taxpayer money, not adjusted to inflation or rising premiums?

2. All insurance plans that are licensed in a particular state would be eligible, and each company would be free to set its own premiums.
How does that contain rising premiums? It doesn't.

3. Low-income individuals would get extra tax credits so they could buy the same kind of health care as other Americans.
Insurance companies will never have to worry about pricing too many people out of the health insurance market because they know government will give them more of our money.

4. Medicare would remain the same for current beneficiaries and for those 55 and older when they reach 65.
This is one way of buying the vote of senior citizens so they won't have to worry their coverage or cast a vote against the idea.

5. But when those born in 1955 or later … They would receive $11,000, adjusted for inflation, to buy a Medicare certified plan.
Health care costs go up 3 to 5 times the rate of inflation, leaving the balance in the hands of the fixed income elderly.
6. Those with lower incomes or with more serious health conditions would receive more funding.
Government subsidies paying taxpayer cash to unstoppable increases in insurance premiums. Wow, what an idea.

7. Health insurance companies could offer high-deductible plans carrying lower premiums combined with health savings accounts, or more traditional managed care or fee-for-service plans.
Great, $11,000 plans with a $10,000 deductible. Now that's affordable.

8. Persons with high-cost chronic illnesses, such as hemophilia or diabetes, would be placed in special affordable state high risk pools, with subventions paid by the government.
Corporate welfare. Government gets the high risk patients insurance companies don't want because they cut into their profits. High risk pools are ungodly expensive and don't spread the risk. Taxpayers end of paying again.

9. On Wednesday, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote to Ryan to tell him that this plan reduced health care costs and the federal deficit. He said: "Under the proposal, national health expenditures would almost certainly be lower than they would under the alternative fiscal scenario. Federal spending for health care would be substantially lower, relative to the amount in that scenario, for working-age people and the Medicare population."
This is the ultimate word game. A scam. Sure, when you shift health care costs from the government to the public, federal spending will go down, reducing the deficit. But individual Americans will end up absorbing all the costs that even the government said it could not afford.

And that's Rep. Ryan's Ayn Randian Plan. He's the numbers wiz kid. Any questions?

2 comments:

  1. Ugh, you liberals never make decisions based on common sense, but based on feelings. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office agrees that his plan would solve our problems: http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/05/house-dem-claims-ryan-plan-wou. An overwhelming majority of people are currently happy with their healthcare, yet liberals feel the need to spend a trillion dollars the country doesn't have to fix it. Feelings, not common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You didn't read the whole post apparently.

    Ryan shifts the money spent by the government to the elderly, saving the government money. That's why the CBO says it reduces government spending. Duh!

    An overwhelming majority of people are spending $4,000 to $10,000 more a year than they need to because we don't have universal low cost coverage for all Americans.

    You're okay with NOT having $4,000 to $10,000 more of your hard earned money in your pocket?

    And you're preaching to me about common sense. Balls.

    ReplyDelete