DiscussMormonism.com

beastie wrote:While I'm asking questions that no one can answer, here's another one.

How in the world is Romney going to reduce the deficit when promising not to cut military, not to cut any benefits to medicare or social security, and lower taxes at the same time?

Experts agree that Romney's plan is not mathematically possible.

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-im ... x-promise/

beastie wrote:While I'm asking questions that no one can answer, here's another one.

How in the world is Romney going to reduce the deficit when promising not to cut military, not to cut any benefits to medicare or social security, and lower taxes at the same time?

Experts agree that Romney's plan is not mathematically possible.

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/romneys-im ... x-promise/

beastie wrote:How in the world is Romney going to reduce the deficit when promising not to cut military, not to cut any benefits to medicare or social security, and lower taxes at the same time.

beastie wrote:...why are RomneyRyan bending over backwards to convince current seniors that their medicare benefits will remain unchanged?

moksha wrote:It's an election ploy. Afterward these same seniors will be sent a notice by the Soylent Corporation on the benefits provided under the new RomneyRyan plan.

More Medicare Malarkey

We once again heard misrepresentations of the Medicare plan that Romney and Paul Ryan have proposed. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and labor leader Mary Kay Henry both said the plan would cost seniors $6,400, but that’s a reference to an outdated Ryan plan, not the more generous one he, and Romney, now back.

Sebelius also claimed that Medicare was “missing” from the “Romney-Ryan plan.” But that’s wrong. The plan keeps traditional Medicare for current seniors, and as an option for younger workers.

California Rep. Xavier Becerra’s prepared remarks also said that Romney was telling “older Americans after a lifetime of hard work that you’re going to pull the rug out from under them and turn Medicare into a voucher system.” But for “older Americans,” nothing would change under the Romney and Ryan plan. In fact, anyone now 55 or older would stay in the current Medicare system for the rest of their lives — and younger workers could still choose traditional Medicare from among a menu of competing private insurance plans subsidized by federal dollars. Becerra was scheduled to speak on the first night, but did not.


Sebelius: What’s missing from the Romney-Ryan plan for Medicare is Medicare. Instead of the Medicare guarantee, Republicans would give seniors a voucher that limits what is covered, costing seniors as much as $6,400 more a year.


Henry, the international president of the Service Employees International Union, said the plan that “would cost the average senior $6,400 a year out of their own pocket.” Both are referring to Ryan’s old plan.

It’s true that a Congressional Budget Office analysis indicated that a 65-year-old in 2022 could pay about $6,400 more per year under the plan Ryan proposed in 2011. Ryan’s latest plan is more generous in terms of the subsidies and choices it provides to seniors.

Ryan’s plan would create a Medicare exchange for new Medicare beneficiaries starting in 2023. They would choose from private plans or traditional Medicare and buy plans with the help of government subsidies. The old Ryan plan tied the growth of those subsidies to the rate of inflation — but health care costs have risen faster than that. The new plan ties the subsidies to the cost of the second-cheapest health care policy on the exchange. And if that policy grows faster than gross domestic product plus 0.5 percentage points, Congress would be required to do something to lower costs.

On the latest Ryan plan, CBO did say that “beneficiaries might face higher costs,” but added that there was plenty of uncertainty. There wasn’t a detailed analysis and no mention of Sebelius’ and Henry’s $6,400 claim.

The comment in Becerra’s prepared remarks about “older Americans,” however, is misleading whether it pertains to Ryan’s 2011 or 2012 plan. He claimed older Americans would be put in a “voucher” system. But, as we said, anyone 55 or older would stay in the traditional Medicare system, under either Ryan proposal.


Becerra: And, Governor Romney, you should know it’s not right to tell older Americans after a lifetime of hard work that you’re going to pull the rug out from under them and turn Medicare into a voucher system — Couponcare!


We should add that there are actually no vouchers or coupons involved. Under Ryan’s plan the federal government would pay insurance companies directly, just as it now pays for most of the cost of health insurance for millions of federal workers and retirees and their families, and just as the government will pay for subsidized policies for lower-income workers under Obama’s Affordable Care Act if it is allowed to take full effect in 2014.

Sebelius’ comment that Medicare is “missing” from the plan is also false. Ryan’s latest plan would keep traditional Medicare as an option even for younger Americans who won’t turn 65 until 2023.

beastie wrote:Yes, Brackite, I know they're now backpedaling. All you've done is provide information that verifies my OP, which is that they're bending over backwards to convince seniors they will NOT be under Ryan's "magnificent plan". Obviously they realized the original Ryan budget was not so magnificent after all. But that doesn't change the fact that Romney said that the ORIGINAL Ryan plan was "magnificent", does it?

I discussed this with someone who works on Capitol Hill. I told him I understood the criteria for the first three but was struggling to understand the reason for the young to old age subsidy. Was Congress and the president trying to emulate the group insurance market? Were they making a statement about the appropriateness of age-based pricing? The person just looked at me and smiled. He said, “Brad, you are such an actuary. You try to impute logic where there is none. There is one reason and one reason alone for the 3 to 1 limit that subsidizes the old at the expense of the young.” I said, “OK, what is the reason?” He said, “It is the price that AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) extracted for their support of the bill.”

“It is the price AARP extracted to support the bill.” Totally non-actuarial. Totally political. Old people vote, young people don’t. If you are under age 35 this should make you pay particular attention.