« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Is Ryan’s Medicare proposal a “bridge to far?” Should we instead offer a two-track plan?

By: gawken (Diary)  |  April 26th, 2011 at 11:54 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

One of the key components of Paul Ryan‘s blueprint to  save America from bankruptcy involves changing Medicare to a modified voucher system.  Despite continual affirmations that the plan will NOT affect anyone currently enrolled in Medicare, nor anyone currently within ten years of eligibility for Medicare, the Democrats have already begun to demonize it. This will be the centerpiece of their campaign strategy.

What is astonishing  are recent polls showing that nearly 80% of Americans are opposed to changes in Medicare, INCLUDING over 70% of those who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters. Yes, it is early in the debate, and yes, it’s only one poll, but many on the right have already commented on the implications of these numbers. It is possible that 50 years of an ever growing welfare state have so conditioned the American ethos that we won’t be able to institute such a dramatic change in a short time.

Let us assume that Ryan’s plan became law today. That would mean that for about the next 50 years, we would have a two track health system for seniors: those under existing Medicare, and those who would come under the Ryan reforms.

So why not defuse ALL the Democrat objections in one fell swoop. Anyone now today over the age of 27 ( I’m choosing that number, because that is now the age up to which “children?” can remain on their parents medical coverage. It could easily be another age) ….will have the option, at age 65, to choose the existing Medicare plan, or the Ryan plan.

In addition, any who choose the existing Medicare structure when they reach 65 will have a one-time opt out, to change to the Ryan plan. And any  persons NOW currently on Medicare will also be allowed to make a one time choice to adopt the Ryan plan. I suspect that millions would do so.

As conservatives, we believe in the free market system, and the marketplace of competing ideas. This idea completely negates all Democrat opposition to Ryan’s  proposal, and will allow for the time needed to implement such a major restructuring of Medicare, with voter support.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • carolina

    account where medicare tax revenues had been ‘saved’, would medicare be bankrupt today?
    We know that SS would still be ‘in the black’ if there had really been a separate lock-box for SS tax revenues.
    I think this is one of the things that upsets people so much. Congress and the fed govt has WASTED so much of our tax $$ – so that now people feel cheated. Folks have paid for years …… for something that is likely going to be taken away, or greatly reduced.
    Today 50% of all income is from the govt. This is obviously not sustainable.

    • reddotor

      It’s all the same pot. Saying something is in a lock-box makes it seem like it is off the table for discussion. As you well know, medicare and SS are the two biggest chunks of our spending problem. To fully fund both of them at their current rates will require a significant increase in taxes.

      • YnotNOW

        I wrote about this a couple weeks ago:
        http://www.redstate.com/ynotnow/2011/04/04/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund/

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Not only is your solution a good one, but it’s a marketable one: We need to start selling CHOICE and FREEDOM more in these entitlements. We also need to advocate to start getting more people self-reliant by getting people who can afford it to get off these systems – if the Dems can bash millionaires, lets get millionaires off the Govt teat. No medicare for anyone who is a millionaire.

    The problem with the Ryan plan, if there is one, has NOTHING to do with the pros and cons of voucherizing Medicare. It’s a Democrat lie to talk of Medicare getting abolished if you create vouchers, or if you offer choice or provide provider options.

    The political problem is that it shifts the discussion from the burning question of TODAY – how to eliminate the TRILLION DOLLARS IN EXTRA DEFICIT CREATED BY THE PAST FOUR YEARS OF DEMOCRAT OVERSPENDING?

    Entitlements is a debate about a future serious problem, and it’s a debate that, given President Obama’s non-leadership and spend-it-all position, will have NO serious resolution soon. Any solution, Ryan or otherwise, is just a hypothetical.

    Our urgent burning issue – OUR TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT OF TODAY – requires far more immediate action. Ryan doesn’t eliminate the deficit for 38 years, nor will the Medicare changes have immediate effect.

    If we focus on the URGENCY of change and get the discussion back on what we need to do NOW, we can and will find more fertile ground to discuss the needed changes in entitlements.

    Here is something we can and should do now – pass a Federal law to impose this:

    “prohibit Congress from spending more than 18 percent of annual GDP, raising taxes, or raising the debt ceiling without a supermajority vote in both houses.”"

    This is embedded in the BBA language, but can be unpacked and made into Congressional rules and Federal law (a necessity since the BBA will not get out of Congress):

    “Recently, all 47 Senate Republicans signed on to Senate Joint Resolution 10, a balanced-budget amendment proposal sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch and me that would prohibit Congress from spending more than it collects each year unless two-thirds of the members of both houses voted to authorize a limited deficit for a specified purpose. It would likewise prohibit Congress from spending more than 18 percent of annual GDP, raising taxes, or raising the debt ceiling without a supermajority vote in both houses.”

    Why does this lay the groundwork? First it keeps the focus on the real issue and motivator of the FISCAL CRISIS we are in. Second, it begs the question of HOW we keep the budget under control when our entitlements are out of control. Which is where voucherizing Medicare a la Ryan comes into the picture.

    In summary, long-term entitlement reform as a topic is a ‘bridge too far’ for right now. Right now, we need to focus on the urgent fiscal crisis and we need to focus on the key immediate things we can do (Cut the spending NOW) and key fundamental reform goals/vision (limit spending to 18% of GDP, protect taxpayers and stop spending growth). Debating the details of entitlement reform is at this point a bit cart-before-horse.

    We need to use the debt ceiling increase as an opportunity to have that fundamental debate, as done here:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/265447/breaking-debt-ceiling-cycle-sen-mike-lee

  • aesthete

    If given the choice, people will choose Medicare: it pays for everything all the time and puts it on the government’s credit card! Voucher systems are a great way to reduce costs precisely because they impose a limit. We need to cull people off ASAP: Ryan’s compromise was fair and adequate, and will give future seniors the time to plan based on this change. More time simply allows Medicare to keep its hooks in, and potentially allow for others to join the program, as well.