Actually, Paul Ryan's plan would put a cap on how much a senior would get towards their health care - the rest is out-of-pocket. Any idea how much "out-of-pocket" actually means when you are fighting cancer or diabetes?

@Jason Patzfahl -- precisely. Assuming a healthy 75 year old can be insured for less than the $15K voucher, those savings aren't passed on to the senior with significant health problems, whose private insurance costs more. And what if the senior with significant health problems is one of the unlucky folks who was a low-wage worker throughout life and whose Social Security check reflects that? How is that person going to pay for it? Either Paul Ryan is really out of touch or he's lying for a purpose.

More histrionics from the liberal college kids who need gas and pizza money. 15 minutes of fame. Ryan's plan was actually so good that left-leaning Politifact actually named the Democrat campaign against it "Lie of the Year 2011."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/dec/20/lie-year-democrats-claims-republicans-voted-end-me/

Just yesterday, the Chicago Tribune came out in support of it.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-medicare-0405-jm-20120405,0,3031715.story

Typical liberal answer - raise taxes on success so that the successful will either move elsewhere or at least move their money elsewhere. Then what answer will you have for us in your liberal bag of tricks Mr. Patzfahl?

Thank you , Patrick. Trash it is!

Indeed, Patrick, the health insurance companies really compete to provide coverage to individuals who might actually get sick. Like old people.

What fifteen person panel of experts are you talking about? Under current Medicare, you and your doctor decide what treatment you get, within reason. Something like Cheney's heart is decided by a transplant committee, which has nothing to do with Medicare.

I'd believe Paul Ryan gave three shakes about the future of Medicare if his plan weren't coupled with even more tax cuts for the upper brackets.

Patrick, this post you are reading is a blog post under our Local Voices blogs. The blogs are a person's opinion. If you are interested in running a blog on Patch, contact your local editor and feel free to get started right away!

@Bill Culver -- Your post is one long Conservative cliche. Get back to me when you have an original thought to share.

When did you resurrect from the dead Senator McCarthy? Socialism...communism...really? I don't see how helping take care of the poor and elderly is either of the above. I call that sympathy, empathy and being able to walk around in someone else's shoes. Those traits are nothing I am ashamed of.
And unlike you, I also believe health care is a right, not a privilege that only those with sympathetic employers are lucky enough to have. We should all have a VA-type universal health care coverage. It has over a 90% approval rating among vets.
But it's all about your precious little property taxes isn't it? And let's look at West Germany, the Netherlands, and Finland - their Social Democratic economies are very strong.

"We should all have a VA-type universal health care coverage. It has over a 90% approval rating among vets."

****************************

I'll pass. I've dealt with the VA. If you have all day to do nothing but stand around waiting in line, if you don't mind having your prescriptions substituted with something similar because they no longer warehouse what you were taking, if you don't mind seeing a "physician's assistant" instead of a Doctor, if you don't mind risking being prescribed something that could kill you and that any first year medical student would know was contradicted based on medical history, hope for a VA-style medical plan.

Unless the vets were doing a head-to-head comparison and were told to put aside cost as a consideration, I'm not sure I'd take that 90% approval rating to mean anything other than they were happy to be getting cheap healthcare.

@Bob McBride -

Could I convince you to go along with Jason's VA idea if I told you that such a system would be fully integrated with and run by the Postmaster General?

Think about it!

Well the upside would be a possibility of the return of house calls and a system whereby charges are assessed based on weight, so that might encourage a healthier lifestyle (unless taken to the extreme).

On the downside, limited office hours with threats of further reductions, elimination of facilities due to budget constraints and the ever-present fear of medical personnel going "postal".

Overall, a wash. I'll stick with what I've got currently, thanks.

Neither my dad or father-in-law would ever go to the VA for treatment. In fact the one time my dad did they refused him treatment for the jungle rot he got on his hands during WWII.

Bill Culver, I can't speak for anyone else, but I contribute substantially to Social Security and Medicare. That money takes care of elders now and when its my turn these social investments will support me. How does realization of my investment become "free money" in your mind?

You do realize that when individuals like me receive a refund check, that's also not "free money," right? It's the result of tax overpayment. I also use or know people who use a variety of government services. Highways, schools, IRS customer service hotline...all privileges of citizenship. Thank you for making these possible at a reasonable cost to me, Uncle Sam!

I believe healthcare management to be a legitimate service of government because similar to highway usage it is a universal need. The current status of healthcare management as a for-profit industry ensures successful revenue generation/profit. The downside is that this industry's client market is a "hostage audience." The industry has been gamed so that individuals who have been without insurance for an extended period can be denied; as can those with pre-existing conditions. In many circumstances, new employees must wait 3 months for coverage, ensuring months of double payments. Taking the for-profit middleman out of healthcare would drive costs down.

@mau -

You better watch out - it appears as if Jason's twisted sense of humor is starting to rub off on you ;-)

What is a good debate without a little twisted humoir :)

If any of those "several problems" have the potential of resulting in people who currently have employer provided health insurance losing that and having to pay substantially more by purchasing it on their own (or going without if they can't afford to do so), then perhaps ACA isn't better than nothing at all.

@Bob McBride -- Please explain why and how the ACA would inspire employers who provide coverage to drop it? Because they could save money by doing so? Under the old system they could drop coverage any time they wanted and save even more money.

Randy, there are features of ACA that could potentially end up costing employers more to provide insurance to their employees than it does now. Take, for instance, the case of parents electing to have adult children up to the age of 26 covered under their employers policy. If this were to increase insurance costs to the point where it would be to the employers advantage to absorb a penalty rather than provide the insurance, they may very well elect to do so. I do believe most employers don't provide health insurance out of the goodness of their hearts. I also think that if a trend develops where one or more companies within a specific industry decide to go that route and accrue a savings by doing so, you'll see most others in that industry do the same.

Obviously, this doesn't concern you, other than the fact that you think that by forcing these folks into some sort of pool along with you and applying the penalties assessed against these companies to the cost of being in that pool, you'll be able to obtain health insurance for yourself. It's to your benefit if what I'm describing actually happens.

I'm not sure it's going to work out that way, but I know that's what you're banking on.

Let me ask you, Bob, if it raises costs to keep older children on a policy, doesn't it raise costs for each new family member on a policy? Or if one of those people actually gets sick? Doesn't something like a new baby or a case of cancer risk everyone's insurance coverage in the same way?

Or are insurance companies using this as an excuse to raise rates yet again, in which case we should look at the insurance companies.

Randy,

As I noted in the other thread, this was pretty much the concern expressed to me by that business owner that I spoke to today. He felt it was going to considerably add to his costs. A law that, all of the sudden, includes a significant portion of the population that wasn't included before is more likely to raise costs more significantly at a faster rate than do births, injuries, etc. that would expect to follow a pattern that's existed for years.

Again, this is one example I'm using here. Swithin was the one who envisioned "several problems" with ACA. I'd be interested in hearing what those problems, specifically, are. If they're significant enough to result in people effectively being dumped into the ranks of the uninsured or that could potentially harm small businesses in some fashion, then, again, perhaps an imperfect ACA isn't better than nothing at all when one is looking at the total picture.

The argument seems to be that something is better than nothing. We've had other "somethings" that were touted as being better than nothing that haven't necessarily turned out that way (McCain/Feingold being one of those).

Nobody seems satisfied with ACA as is. The assumption those who support it seem to be making is that it will, eventually, force a move to something better. The question is who, ultimately, ends up paying the price for it's implementation in its imperfect form.

A relative with an upcoming college graduate will take advantage of the extended insurance. This relative currently pays a subsidized rate for their own insurance (30%) and 100% of the second insured (student). This will continue. There is no additional cost to the company.

And U.S. generals don't give true advice, either. (Oh wait, that was a mis-speak). Between that "Can't we have a shred of freedom" whiner Ron Curler (I mean Johnson), and Scott Walker at any time, it's getting embarrassing. Last week I had to call a customer service line and was asked what state I was calling from. I answered and once again, as has happened before in the past year, there's the pause and, "Oh. Wisconsin." It was bad enough when a relative who lives overseas emailed me about the prank David Koch phone call. But the beat goes on.