Ryan's Budget Proposal - It's a Start

[tigervol9802]

I think this sets up for an interesting fight. The left is coming out already with the usual accusations but they've put nothing on the table to address the problem. Will the public look at the Ryan plan as a start to an important discussion or listen to the exaggerated complaints.

The optimist in me thinks maybe the majority of the country is ready to listen and consider these type changes.

I'll say the semi-informed and informed are. Sadly, I think this number also makes up a less than majority number as well.

 

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

I think Ryan is definitely a breath of fresh air when it comes to thinking things through, creating a plan and leading people to make tough decisions.

I wont hold my breath that anything happens though.

 

[volinbham]

Evey time cap gain or dividend rates have gone down, treasury revenues have posted new records. I don't understand how it's so hard to see the "if A then B" correlation here.

but at some point there are diminishing returns and then a negative effect. Obviously if the tax rate was zero, revenues would be zero.

I don't know if going any lower than we are now would raise, lower or have no impact on total tax revenues.

 

[tigervol9802]

but at some point there are diminishing returns and then a negative effect. Obviously if the tax rate was zero, revenues would be zero.

I don't know if going any lower than we are now would raise, lower or have no impact on total tax revenues.

I don't think you could lower either any more at this current point without having an adverse affect on revenues without wholesale changes.

If we want to do something outside the box to raise revenues we need offer an olive branch to profits abroad by lowering tax rates to bring them back to america.

 

[lawgator1]

Let me get this straight. Instead of open-ended Medicare benefits, the plan is to give each senior a set amount of money to spend and then they are done?

And he says that is not a voucher because the money does not get paid to an insurer, but instead goes directly from the government to the provider.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that latter point a ginormous step towards true socialized medicine? And isn't the first step basically a death panel, i.e. you have x amount of money to spend for health care and, when you are out of your share, you are SOL?

Look, I'm not saying what he's proposing isn't ultimately in some form or another inevitable. I'm just saying that it leaves me scratching my head as to whether the same gripes about Obamacare last fall are now equally applicable (if not more so) to this.

 

[lawgator1]

By the way, I give him credit for putting something out there. I think seniors, and those close to it, are going to have their pitchforks out because he is basically limiting their Medicare benefit and telling them otherwise to buy their own health insurance (good luck with that at age 75 or 80 on a fixed income). But kudos for taking a shot.

 

[droski]

seniors already purchase medicare suppliments in this country.

 

[utgibbs]

Much to like here IMO. Let the attacks begin.

Rep. Ryan steps into spotlight - TheHill.com

This has the basic framework

Paul Ryan: The GOP Path to Prosperity - WSJ.com

I feel there is little to recommend this budget.

The Path to Prosperity is aptly named, although completely Orwellian. It's a recipe to ensure a further redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the upper strata of elite American economic power.

1. The Medicare "debate" (it's not really a debate), as we've shown ad infinitum at this point, is a non-starter. Health care costs are one of the two major issues we must confront. Until we address the fact that health care is not a market, and private health care has no incentive for efficiency, it is simple political nonsense. This says nothing about the ridiculousness of seniors having to purchase insurance at 65+ (simply more proof health care is not a market).

2. The second item is the Keynesian corporate-military expenditures, both for defense and war. The Gates proposals are, frankly, ridiculously tiny. I would go further and lump law enforcement, prison, judiciary expenditures here as well. A major rollback is required, not just in defense, but war expenditures. The fact that Ryan is rolling out in agreement Gate's proposal is proof positive it is political nonsense.

3. Tax reform is, of course, doublespeak for wealth redistribution (upwards). Taxes should be raised to the pre-Reagan levels (if we were serious), and the reform of "consolidating brackets" has nothing to do with what we all want, a Simple, Transparent, and Progressive tax code.

In short, there is almost nothing to recommend this budget. It is clearly a political exercise, and it is clearly unserious. This is American politics (sic) at its very worst, I'm afraid.

 

[droski]

"private health care has no incentive for efficiency"

except profit. because certainly none of these health care companies want to make more money by making things more efficient.

 

[droski]

3. Tax reform is, of course, doublespeak for wealth redistribution (upwards). Taxes should be raised to the pre-Reagan levels (if we were serious), and the reform of "consolidating brackets" has nothing to do with what we all want, a Simple, Transparent, and Progressive tax code..

are you actually arguing the current tax code isn't progressive?

 

[MG1968]

"private health care has no incentive for efficiency"

except profit. because certainly none of these health care companies want to make more money by making things more efficient.

in terms of efficiency, look at how far knee surgeries and vision correction have come in the last 20 years. If not for the private sector's profit motive and competition, we'd still be using scalpels to cut on people's eyes, and completely opening up the leg to repair tendons, etc.

 

[droski]

in terms of efficiency, look at how far knee surgeries and vision correction have come in the last 20 years. If not for the private sector's profit motive and competition, we'd still be using scalpels to cut on people's eyes, and completely opening up the leg to repair tendons, etc.

intuitive surgical is a perfect example of this. robotic operations are far more expensive than non robotic operations, but they cut the hospital time in this country in half. therefore every major hospital in teh US has one. (few in europe have them btw).

 

[milohimself]

"private health care has no incentive for efficiency"

except profit. because certainly none of these health care companies want to make more money by making things more efficient.

If the entirety of Obamacare is repealed and things go right back to the way they were, insurance companies won't be making profit by increasing efficiency and making good, honest business decisions.

Tighter regulation of healthcare practice is going to hurt the revenue-making ability of insurance companies in so far as stopping some frankly ****ed up business practices.

This again goes back to people in this country needing to take accountability for their health, as well as curtailing garbage malpractice suits in order to drive insurance prices for physicians down.

I'm generally okay with the stuff Ryan put forth, it's something, but IMO it's putting a band-aid on a stab wound.

 

[droski]

If the entirety of Obamacare is repealed and things go right back to the way they were, insurance companies won't be making profit by increasing efficiency and making good, honest business decisions.

Tighter regulation of healthcare practice is going to hurt the revenue-making ability of insurance companies in so far as stopping some frankly ****ed up business practices.

This again goes back to people in this country needing to take accountability for their health, as well as curtailing garbage malpractice suits in order to drive insurance prices for physicians down.

I'm generally okay with the stuff Ryan put forth, it's something, but IMO it's putting a band-aid on a stab wound.

and what ****ed up business practices are those? charging more for people with higher healthcare costs?

 

[BeecherVol]

I feel there is little to recommend this budget.

The Path to Prosperity is aptly named, although completely Orwellian. It's a recipe to ensure a further redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle classes to the upper strata of elite American economic power.

1. The Medicare "debate" (it's not really a debate), as we've shown ad infinitum at this point, is a non-starter. Health care costs are one of the two major issues we must confront. Until we address the fact that health care is not a market, and private health care has no incentive for efficiency, it is simple political nonsense. This says nothing about the ridiculousness of seniors having to purchase insurance at 65+ (simply more proof health care is not a market).

2. The second item is the Keynesian corporate-military expenditures, both for defense and war. The Gates proposals are, frankly, ridiculously tiny. I would go further and lump law enforcement, prison, judiciary expenditures here as well. A major rollback is required, not just in defense, but war expenditures. The fact that Ryan is rolling out in agreement Gate's proposal is proof positive it is political nonsense.

3. Tax reform is, of course, doublespeak for wealth redistribution (upwards). Taxes should be raised to the pre-Reagan levels (if we were serious), and the reform of "consolidating brackets" has nothing to do with what we all want, a Simple, Transparent, and Progressive tax code.

In short, there is almost nothing to recommend this budget. It is clearly a political exercise, and it is clearly unserious. This is American politics (sic) at its very worst, I'm afraid.

Wealth distribution
upwards is funny.

 

[utgibbs]

"private health care has no incentive for efficiency"

except profit. because certainly none of these health care companies want to make more money by making things more efficient.

We've already demonstrated your premise is false.

The primary purpose of a health care system is to be utilized as little as necessary. Which means each transaction must be as dear as absolutely possible. It also breeds inefficiency - good insurance will get you a plethora of redundant tests, specialist vists, etc. All milking the cow.

Health care is not a market (or systemic market failure if you prefer the lingo). It is not a profit driven enterprise. The primary function of a health system is to need it as little as possible.

 

[utgibbs]

Wealth distribution
upwards is funny.

Is that a haiku?

Should read wealth redistribution in my text. I'll go fix. :hi:

 

[droski]

We've already demonstrated your premise is false.

The primary purpose of a health care system is to be utilized as little as necessary. Which means each transaction must be as dear as absolutely possible. It also breeds inefficiency - good insurance will get you a plethora of redundant tests, specialist vists, etc. All milking the cow.

Health care is not a market (or systemic market failure if you prefer the lingo). It is not a profit driven enterprise. The primary function of a health system is to need it as little as possible.

what possible incentive do the health care providors have for redundant tests since they pay for it? You seem to know nothing about the way health care providors work.

 

[Vol423]

By the way, I give him credit for putting something out there. I think seniors, and those close to it, are going to have their pitchforks out because he is basically limiting their Medicare benefit and telling them otherwise to buy their own health insurance (good luck with that at age 75 or 80 on a fixed income). But kudos for taking a shot.

Everyone 55 and older stays under the current system.

 

[milohimself]

and what ****ed up business practices are those? charging more for people with higher healthcare costs?

That's if insurance companies even choose to cover those people. There's a fairly significant portion of people in this country with no option for any sort of insurance coverage. (don't give me that "then get a job with health coverage" bs. With private insurance unaffordable or completely unattainable for some, doing what they want to do for a living can frequently mean forgoing health care). Charging people any premiums then moving to drop them from coverage or refuse care when the time comes for a costly claim.

Don't get me wrong. I want insurance firms to compete in order to achieve lower prices for the consumer, but the regulation has to be there so those prices can't be achieved through shady means like they have been. These are the pieces of Obamacare I'd like to see stick around.

 

[BeecherVol]

Is that a haiku?

Should read wealth redistribution in my text. I'll go fix. :hi:

The phrasing was understood on my end. That was not the funny part.

 

[utgibbs]

in terms of efficiency, look at how far knee surgeries and vision correction have come in the last 20 years. If not for the private sector's profit motive and competition, we'd still be using scalpels to cut on people's eyes, and completely opening up the leg to repair tendons, etc.

You mean the lasers that were developed within the public sector in universities / military industrial research?

Or do you mean the Russian who invented it during the Brezhnev years or the American researcher using public funds or the physicist working at the government lab????

LASIK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm having a very entertaining day today on VolNation. It has been delicious exploding various myths of received wisdom. lol:

The fact is most high tech is developed on the public dime (to minimize cost and risk) and then, when sufficiently developed, given license for private profit. Almost no fundamental R&D comes from the private sector.

This has been true in electronics, in lasers, in biotech, in pharmaceuticals. You name it.

 

[utvolpj]

There's a fairly significant portion of people in this country with no option for any sort of insurance coverage.

what would be a fairly "significant" number?

 

[utgibbs]

what would be a fairly "significant" number?

1

 

[droski]

That's if insurance companies even choose to cover those people. There's a fairly significant portion of people in this country with no option for any sort of insurance coverage. (don't give me that "then get a job with health coverage" bs. With private insurance unaffordable or completely unattainable for some, doing what they want to do for a living can frequently mean forgoing health care). Charging people any premiums then moving to drop them from coverage or refuse care when the time comes for a costly claim.

Don't get me wrong. I want insurance firms to compete in order to achieve lower prices for the consumer, but the regulation has to be there so those prices can't be achieved through shady means like they have been. These are the pieces of Obamacare I'd like to see stick around.

every individual state already provides insurance for those with preexisting conditions who can't get it. so i'm failing to see the problem here. chosing to work on your own is your choice. if healthcare was important to you you might have to make tough choices. not really our problem. basically you are arguing that YOU aren't happy with it so the rest of us have to pay for YOU. ridiculous. when i was unemployed i got health insurance from blue cross that covered any major problem with no cap for $40 a month. i could have gotten insurance to pay for every little thing wrong with me, but i didn't.