Thoughts on Paul Ryan?

Visitor (not verified)
anonymous user
Registered: 12-31-1969
Thoughts on Paul Ryan?
254
Mon, 08-13-2012 - 9:54am

I'm kind of new to iVillage, so I hope I'm posting in the right place!

I was just wondering what you think about Romney's VP choice.  I don't know a lot about Paul Ryan, so I don't have much of an opinion yet. 

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 08-19-2012 - 11:56pm

I'm not seeing any sites proclaiming Obama is going to cut routine healthcare for seniors.  I do see where many mention both Obama and Ryan will cap costs. If the costs exceed the cap, Obama will reduce reinbursement for providers  which is not the same as Ryan who will shift the costs on to seniors.  As far as your out of business argument, any place of business will not be able to function once either government, private insurers or seniors are unable to pay the costs.  It needs to be affordable.

To address the comment about competition driving costs down, this was also said by the Republicans in Congress when they went to pass the Medicare Advantage program which actually raised costs by anywhere between 14% to 20% depending on location.  What makes people think things will be different under a voucher program?

The comment about seniors not being able to do it on their own also applies to anyone.  That is why we have either private insurance or some sort of safety net in place.  Things do happen out of people's control and are not always predictable.

 

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sun, 08-19-2012 - 10:47pm

How can we trust congress?  Yes, ten years in parallel testing with "go back" is a good idea.  What is not so good is having some congress in the future changing the game.  The congress is historically untrustworthy.  Those people have no courage to stick with a plan.  Because of term limits we would have some new person who would want their mark on the plan.  Politics are like that.  I do not trust.  To my way of thinking it is not viable. 

  There also would be a guaranteed bottom line.  So no on ends up will less than advertised benefits.  How would you/we enforce such safeguards?  

chaika

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2006
Sun, 08-19-2012 - 10:23pm

I quoted you directly. I did not twist  or change your words. I copied and pasted them as they were. I did not question your intelligence, education or ethics. I simply asked you to

 "Please explain to me, what point you were trying to make between the virtues possessed (or lack thereof according to your post) by the Romney kids and the wealth that their father has gifted to them."

 I am/was curious how virtues relate to their wealth, but if you can't  explain it, I totally understand and respect that. I won't ask again and we'll just let it stand as is. Have a good rest of the night!

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Sun, 08-19-2012 - 10:11pm
muddymessalonskee wrote:
"Your logic is flawed". Right. Ironic to include with an argument for the trickle down fairy tale...bwahahahaha...

Despite the remark, your logic (and that of the left) is still flawed.

And you still haven't explained what your problem is with Romney giving his kids money.

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2006
Sun, 08-19-2012 - 5:47pm

With all due respect you wrote,

" And what specific virtue do the Romney kids have, other than that Daddy gave them $100,000,000? None..."

You are the one who brought virtue into the discussion and claimed the Romney children have none. Please explain to me, what point you were trying to make between the virtues possessed  (or lack thereof according to your post) by the Romney kids and the wealth that their father has gifted to them.

 

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Sun, 08-19-2012 - 5:47pm
"Your logic is flawed". Right. Ironic to include with an argument for the trickle down fairy tale...bwahahahaha...
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2006
Sun, 08-19-2012 - 5:35pm

You say that 10 years is not enough time to ascertain viability of a private plan, however, with the Ryan plan, senior's can opt to stay in the traditional Medicare plan, if they are more comfortable with that option. In my opinion that's a perfect way to evaluate a new plan because it can measure the new plan while the "old" plan is still in existence. In my line of work, we called that parallel testing.

Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Sun, 08-19-2012 - 5:27pm
Correct. There is no logical connection between what I said and this:

"Are you suggesting that people's virtues are measured by the amount of money they have? It sounds like you are implying that wealthy peopl have less virtue than those with less money?"

Learning the symbolic language of logic is well worth the time...it becomes harder to make mistakes like equating "All cats are mammals" with "All mammals are cats". It also makes it easier to see that when Ayn Rand was making a high falutin' philosophical argument (about the nature of reality) or whatever...she was mostly making it up, with similar logical circularities and errors.
Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sun, 08-19-2012 - 4:18pm

While there is no perfect plan, ten years is not enough time to ascertain viability of a private plan.  Worse there would not be a guarentee.  While ACA is a step in the right direction; there is the need for a will to make medicare and the advantage plans better.  That means money.  Being cheap is a fatal flaw.

   There are plenty of ways to insure medicare is fully funded  First is for congress to stop fighting.  Yes, that means eliminating the cap on income that is currently in effect.  The problem with Ryan's plan is that there is no guarentee on the coverage.  No one retired needs to be faced with uncertainty about the coverages.  Cheaping in current coverages and raising the retirement age is not just.    Benefits is what people use.

"private insurance, which would transform Medicare into a program defined by its contributions, not its benefits."

  A problem is that there would be constant changes in coverage according to contributions that is not acceptable.   Costs will go up as the tech advances.  The new innovations in medical and dental medicine will be only for the rich leaving the rest as 4th class citizens.  To lower costs would mean a overhaul not only of the way we pay.  But the costs of training and the equipment or just another big problem. 

 As it is the "standard care" is way below state of the art.  The advances in treatment will cost more as they are introduced. 



chaika

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2006
Sun, 08-19-2012 - 3:28pm

We can't forget to take into account that under the Obama plan, which cuts billions from Medicare, reimbursement fees will be reduced for Hospital care, nursing home care and routine healthcare. For us to think that seniors' benefits will not be cut due to revenue loss by those entities, is extremely short sighted. Of course they will. In fact, since businesses can't run without adequate revenue being generated, I foresee some (maybe many) healthcare facilities that cater to seniors being forced out of business.

Ryan's Medicare reform plan allows future retirees to use a premium support payment to buy private insurance or buy into traditional Medicare. It also doesn't affect current seniors or those 10 years away from retirement. Ryan proposes to cap spending. He’d offer seniors a fixed amount of money to buy private insurance, which would transform Medicare into a program defined by its contributions, not its benefits. The idea is that competition among insurers for their business will drive down costs

 

You wrote: " That is a bogus argument because no senior is going to "do it on their own". They will either depend on government or private insurers'

I wasn't making an argument in reference to seniors. I was opining about the attitude of many in our society.

Photobucket

Pages