Breaking News: Many news sites say Romney to pick Ryan as Veep.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
His Medicare plan is a huge fraud. It's going to get savaged. I think it was mostly ignored when the house passed it as it never had achance on the Senate, and even then it cost them seats. Now Ryan is vp, is going to be torn apart.

the plan is designed to have vouchers that decrease in yearly value relative to inflation.

So a 50 yr old is going to have to buy insurance on the open market with a voucher worth less than market value.[In 35 years] I'm sure a lot of [then] 85yr cancer/Alzheimer's patients are going to want to shop for ins. [w/ vouchers that will not cover all/much of the costs]

So where does all the money not paid out go? Tax cuts for the wealthy. Btw, Ryan also wants to end mortgage interest deductions on taxes too. #1 write off for the middle class...

should be fun...

LOL!

I'm on Medicare. What you forget is that if one is satified with the Medicare you have, then you do not, repeat, NOT have to change your plan.

It's called a choice. Remember choices?

Fair enough, comments are clarified as they didn't read quite right to the point I was making.

Regardless, if the plan is so good, why wait to enact it? Why not take your depreciated voucher and run?

I'm sure the ins companies will be lining up to cover the most ill and infirm.
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,676
5,239
136
Should we talk about all the other magic asterisks that Ryan put in to make the numbers "work"?

What else did he say? The tax cuts would drop unemployment to 3.5% or below in the next few years? Really? How is that, based off the Bush cuts working so well? He quotes a number that is lower than is considered full employment...

He also is basing his numbers off of a gov't % of GDP not seen since before WWI. Yet Mitt is also promising to pour money back into Defense. Hmmm.....

So what happens when all these unicorns don't appear? Massive deficits that will have us long for the good ol days under Bush and Obama.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
25,927
12,207
136
Should we talk about all the other magic asterisks that Ryan put in to make the numbers "work"?

What else did he say? The tax cuts would drop unemployment to 3.5% or below in the next few years? Really? How is that, based off the Bush cuts working so well? He quotes a number that is lower than is considered full employment...

He also is basing his numbers off of a gov't % of GDP not seen since before WWI. Yet Mitt is also promising to pour money back into Defense. Hmmm.....

So what happens when all these unicorns don't appear? Massive deficits that will have us long for the good ol days under Bush and Obama.

The funniest thing about the Ryan plan is that it doesn't even come close to balancing the budget either. Mainily because he gives away so much to the people who don't need it.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
No, unfortunately we cannot give everyone all the healthcare that they want because we live in a world of finite resources and there is no appetite to spend a greater percent of GDP on healthcare then we are now. So yes, people will die for lack of healthcare no what what system we use to ration healthcare resources. Even if we were willing to spend 100% of GDP on healthcare we would still have to decide how to apportion it.

Death panels and the Ryan plan are just two different ways to allocate the finite resources.

This just isn't the case. You're assuming that cost per 'unit of health care' stays the same or goes up, which doesn't have to be the case, especially if we cut out the middle men of insurance companies. Lots of other countries offer all the health care anyone wants. No one (well, almost - there are a tiny amount of hypochondriacs) WANTS to deal with getting health care, there's not an infinite demand for it. If people are healthy, they're healthy.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
This just isn't the case. You're assuming that cost per 'unit of health care' stays the same or goes up, which doesn't have to be the case, especially if we cut out the middle men of insurance companies. Lots of other countries offer all the health care anyone wants. No one (well, almost - there are a tiny amount of hypochondriacs) WANTS to deal with getting health care, there's not an infinite demand for it. If people are healthy, they're healthy.

That would be nice if true but it simply isn't. I've had this discussion several times on this forums. Insurance company overhead is around 12% of total healthcare costs with profit being around 3%. Realistically, how much better do you think the government will do? Please don't use medicare as a comparison because the pool of patients and the services they get is completely different than in other insurance markets.

We could reduce the unit cost of healthcare through other means such as price controls and/or increasing the supply of doctors, or pushing work down to PA's and nurses. Any of these would would have a negative impact on quality, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do them as the trade offs may be worth it for some of the those options. I've posted before that one of the biggest drivers in healthcare costs between the US and other OECD countries is the difference in doctor's salaries.

But now we are back in the uncomfortable land of trade offs. It's easy to say reduce the unit cost of healthcare by cutting out the insurance companies, but people are less open to the idea of reducing the influence of the AMA cartel and lowering the standards for doctors.

My original point stands that we can't have all the healthcare we want. We need to cap the quantity supplied, or cap the unit cost which will reduce the quality. If you think that single payer countries don't have bureaucrats that make decisions about the limits of how much healthcare people can receive you are living in a fantasy land. I'm not talking about people going to the doctor for a cold, I'm talking about the expensive procedures late in life that make up the majority of healthcare costs.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
That would be nice if true but it simply isn't. I've had this discussion several times on this forums. Insurance company overhead is around 12% of total healthcare costs with profit being around 3%. Realistically, how much better do you think the government will do? Please don't use medicare as a comparison because the pool of patients and the services they get is completely different than in other insurance markets.

Actually I disagree with your numbers. the actual cost is not the 15 percent you claim but at least about 20 percent. A lot of the discrepancy comes from self insured companies and the insurance companies that administer them.

A large corporation often assumes the "risk" of health insurance themselves. They do buy some "reinsurance" to protect themselves if costs are far higher in a particular year. In these cases they pay a health insurance company to pay the claims. The health insurance company works on a virtually guaranteed, but low profit.

The health insurance companies therefore can show a lot less in expenses, such as advertising the plan, monitoring fraud, etc than they do if they were performing the duties of a real insurance plan.

The health insurance companies roll these plans into their total numbers artificially bringing down the overhead and profit they attribute to thier health plans.

In reality, when they are performing real health insurance the percentage they keep of the premiums is about 20 percent not including self insured plans.

Now as to Medicare,you can't just dismiss it as it being different. What is different about Medicare? You point to the "pool of patients" which can mean anything. As to services being different, once again you don't define what that is. In fact, at the least, Medicare covers some things private insurance usually doesn't like motorized wheelchairs. These types of unusual claims actually cost more to process than your standard doctors office visit.

Medicare actually processes claims for about 2-3 percent of overhead. Now, remember that Medicare is actually paying private health insurance plans to process their claims. And these private companies are making a profit on this low amount.

So, by going to a single payer that was as efficient as Medicare we would save well over ten percent on health costs a year. Thats a staggering number.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Should we talk about all the other magic asterisks that Ryan put in to make the numbers "work"?

What else did he say? The tax cuts would drop unemployment to 3.5% or below in the next few years? Really? How is that, based off the Bush cuts working so well? He quotes a number that is lower than is considered full employment...

He also is basing his numbers off of a gov't % of GDP not seen since before WWI. Yet Mitt is also promising to pour money back into Defense. Hmmm.....

So what happens when all these unicorns don't appear? Massive deficits that will have us long for the good ol days under Bush and Obama.

So he is simply using Obama's playbook on economics. That should make dems happy.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Has the left come up with one of their cutesy names for him yet?

We have a team of our finest namesters on it. However, its summer and such talent as Bill Maher are out smoking dope and performing abortions. However, you can rest assured that whatever we come up with will certainly be a catchy way to refer to the killer of your grandmother.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
We have a team of our finest namesters on it. However, its summer and such talent as Bill Maher are out smoking dope and performing abortions. However, you can rest assured that whatever we come up with will certainly be a catchy way to refer to the killer of your grandmother.

:D
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,587
318
126
Once again a candidate to appeal to the base. When will Republicans learn?

At least this one's not an idiot, despite yet another "Conservative"* who thinks he can fix our fiscal state without cutting defense yet repeal the entire 20th centuryof US public policy..and not try and raise revenue.

I dont understand how this will help them in swing states.

Very strange, but at least its not Palin strange.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I think Romney is couting on Ryan to get the republicans to go out and vote. Obama, due to his terrible handling of the economy, is having troubles getting the type of voter drive he did in the last election. He simply no longer has the same shine of newness and differentness he did in the last election, and that will cause him a problem.

I fully expect a lower voter turnout this time around...and Romney is trying to make sure the republican turnout is high, and Ryan is his hope to do so. Since Obama cannot bring back the glitz and excitement he had the first time around, he could be in trouble. Obama needs to do something to energize his base, or at least convince them they should go out and vote.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
I read a good analysis today on the Ryan pick.

Ryan is too much like Romney for this to have a positive effect electorally, which is really the only thing that matters. Ryan doesn't necessarily help Romney win any states that he's going to need to carry the election. Rubio would have been an infinitely better pick...lock up FL and have some chance of stealing some of the Hispanic vote from Obama.

A lot of this has to do with Romney's campaign and their insular nature. You can tell that Romney simply chooses to surround himself with people who think like him, act like him, look like him, etc. It's the reason why many on the right, including Rupert Murdoch, have been calling for Romney to fire his campaign staff.
 

the DRIZZLE

Platinum Member
Sep 6, 2007
2,956
1
81
Actually I disagree with your numbers. the actual cost is not the 15 percent you claim but at least about 20 percent. A lot of the discrepancy comes from self insured companies and the insurance companies that administer them.

A large corporation often assumes the "risk" of health insurance themselves. They do buy some "reinsurance" to protect themselves if costs are far higher in a particular year. In these cases they pay a health insurance company to pay the claims. The health insurance company works on a virtually guaranteed, but low profit.

The health insurance companies therefore can show a lot less in expenses, such as advertising the plan, monitoring fraud, etc than they do if they were performing the duties of a real insurance plan.

The health insurance companies roll these plans into their total numbers artificially bringing down the overhead and profit they attribute to thier health plans.

In reality, when they are performing real health insurance the percentage they keep of the premiums is about 20 percent not including self insured plans.

Now as to Medicare,you can't just dismiss it as it being different. What is different about Medicare? You point to the "pool of patients" which can mean anything. As to services being different, once again you don't define what that is. In fact, at the least, Medicare covers some things private insurance usually doesn't like motorized wheelchairs. These types of unusual claims actually cost more to process than your standard doctors office visit.

Medicare actually processes claims for about 2-3 percent of overhead. Now, remember that Medicare is actually paying private health insurance plans to process their claims. And these private companies are making a profit on this low amount.

So, by going to a single payer that was as efficient as Medicare we would save well over ten percent on health costs a year. Thats a staggering number.

The number is around 15% for large group insurance a few % more for individual plans. There is a Senate report from last year with all these numbers. I made a point to say in my posts that medicare in not comparable because the services that medicare patients recieve are far different then a young healthy person. If I go to the doctor for a sore throat at a cost of $150 + $20 to process the claim the overhead ratio is 20/170 = 12%. If an old person breaks there hip and has a $10,000 surgery to fix it and the claim costs $100 to process that's 100/10,100 = 1%.

Your example of motorized wheel chairs proves my point. The more expensive the services provided, the lower the overhead ratio will be all else held equal. The bottom line is you can't directly compare the two.

If you look at how much of the 15% is profit, and make some reasonable assumptions it's easy to see that there is no chance of 10% savings. Profit is about 3% of total healthcare costs which leaves 12% left over. Do you really think the government is 4x as efficient as private insurance companies at processing claims? It's just not possible.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Particularly troubling for Ryan, outside of his budget proposals, is his record on women's health issues. He supports some very radical positions in women's reproductive rights like allowing hospitals to deny abortions in cases where the woman's life is at risk. A good VP is supposed to complement a presidential candidate where he is weak. Ryan does not.
 
Jan 25, 2011
17,051
9,522
146
I see a lot of potential in a R/R ticket...

RR+Logo.jpg


Lots of potential indeed...

Well.. That didn't take long...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021110260

rolls-royce.jpg
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Strange is one word but stupid is better. It solidifies the far right vote that would never vote dem anyways. However, it is quite likely to push away the independents which is exactly what Romney needs. Stupid stupid stupid pick.

Though I love it.

What it does is give a reason for republicans to actually go out and vote. Something Obama has not given the dems yet. This election will be about who can convince more people to actually vote. Obama won the last election because he was able to rally a lot of people who normally never vote to actually vote. He cannot count on that again this time around.

Romney is simply ensuring that republicans will bother to vote, which he needs.
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
Well, we know for sure that the obama "plan", if you call spending the US into bankruptcy a plan, will not work.

The Republicans at least have a plan.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
Running against the Ryan budget has been causing spontaneous ejaculations amongst Democratic congressional leaders.
They are now saying they have an excellent chance to take back the House.
I have to believe there are terrified Republicans on the phone right now begging Romney to disavow the Medicare part of the budget plan.