a blockbuster budget. The suggestion is that we can trim (get this)
$6.2 Trillion out of future budgets. The result of this will be that we
get back to long-term fiscal balance. Gosh that sounds good! Actually it's bullshit.
We will never see the savings that Mr. Ryan has projected. We will
(economically) die first. The Ryan plan just kicks the can down the road
for a decade.
Consider the analysis done last night by the CBO (See this article at Zero Hedge) on the Ryan proposals. I want to focus on just the next ten years.
Compare the CBO Baseline to Ryan's plan out to 2022. Note that there is a
reduction of both expenses and income. Ryan wants a smaller government
and that would be most welcome. But the results don’t look so hot. Under the Ryan plan Debt Held by the Public would be larger than it is today as a percentage of GDP. It would be even larger than the CBOs baseline assumption. What’s so conservative about that outcome?
If adopted the Ryan plan would reduce the deficit as a percent of GDP
over the next decade. The CBO thinks we will be at 2 ¾% in ten-years.
Ryan gets that down to a mere 2%. That would be great. But it is not
going to happen. Mr. Ryan relies on a forecast for economic activity
that is simply off the charts. For example, his 2021 unemployment rate is assumed to be only 2.8%. That’s ridiculous.
So how does the Ryan plan do all of that good stuff and achieve those trillions in savings? Easy.
The plan makes dramatic changes in a number of critical programs
(primarily Medicare). Many of those big changes happen far away in 2022.
Some line items:
Starting in 2022, the age of eligibility for Medicare would increase by two months per year until it reached 67 in 2033.
People who turn 65 in 2022 or later years and Disability Insurance beneficiaries who become eligible for Medicare in 2022 or later would not……..
Beginning in 2022, the federal government would establish a medical savings account (MSA) for certain beneficiaries with low income.
People covered under traditional Medicare would, beginning in 2022, have the option of switching to the premium support system.
Starting in 2022, Medicaid block grant payments would be reduced to exclude projected spending for acute care services.
In the Ryan plan all of the “hard stuff” happens ten years from now. I
don’t really know if the proposals that would kick in then
would work or not. I suspect that they would make a difference. But, who cares? Under the Ryan plan we won’t survive for another decade. There will be a monetary and fiscal crisis that occurs well before ten years. Sorry Paul, nice effort, but we can’t wait as long as you seem to think.
Whoever the H-- is trashing you is beyond me. You are right on so far as I'm concerned. The tea-pary has some facets that greatly appeal to me; namely less government. However, there are a number of radical tea-partiers who spout off about death panels, who are birth-ers and who shout down government aid programs as they are scurrying to cash their SS checks and on their way to p/u medication paid for by medicaid/medicare.
Less government does not just mean small economic government. Small government also extends into social issues. And government has no business attending meetings a citizen schedules with her doctor. Whether it is to discuss later-life quality of life issues or abortion: government does not belong in these discussions.
The day the GOP and the tea-partiers extend their smaller-government chant into ALL corners of social issues: that is the day I will look again at being a member of the GOP. Until then, I prefer to observe their antics rather than participate.
SheHunter
The whole birther issue is the most brilliant "Rope a Dope" strategy I've ever seen.
It keeps the nut-cases busy...I often wonder if the O campaign didn't invent it or if is just fell into their lap.
Secrets like this can't be kept hidden long...if there are such "secrets".
Obama wouldn't even have gotten elected to the Senate without benefit of an actual leaked secret.
He was not favored to win the IL Senate election, but the Republican candidate, Jack Ryan, had a penchant for group sex with stangers that his wife, actress Jeri Ryan (Star Trek's Seven of Nine), didn't appreciate. On more than one occasion, he tried to involve her and even attempted to trick her into participating. Their divorce records were ordered sealed by a judge to protect the young children.
But, http://www.wpri.org/blog/?p=111
Resistance is futile.
Secrets rarely stay that way in politics.
maybe there is no answer. if so "posture away" i say. i prefer my left side to the camera...how about you all?
Flat,
Tea Part Fktards?
You should be thanking them for a GOP majority in the house.
Otherwise Owhamo would have clear sailing to continue steering the Ship off a cliff even faster, JUST LIKE HE WAS.
They slowed him down.Now WE must rid America of this mulatto bstd.
Whatever their doing wrong, it beats the HELL out the alternative.The Dems passing everything that moved, sure did not,help.
So it buys time, we need time............
JFC DosZap.
What the F does it matter whether he is a mulatto bastard or just another testesterone--oozing good 'ole boy, more of the same, total disappointment, lying, conniving bastard?
Leave the skin shade out of the slur....a lying politician is a lying politician is a lying politician is a lying...etc ad infinitum nauseosis
+10 Corruption knows no boundaries. Corruption knows both parties. Corruption is human.
Oh I do thank the Tea Party. Because of their move against unions it'll soon be quite cheap and easy to get a few of these unemployed Americans to work at my cotton plantation for free. Thank you T.P, GOP and Milton! Back to the good old days, right?
Going to hire former government union employees to do real work on your cotton plantation!? Think about that again.
At least you have sky high cotton prices to take care of you -- thanks to the Federal Government printing presses.
Funny, I remember astronomical increases in intelligence spending, a newly funded "Homeland Security" industry, an unfunded Medicare prescription plan, two unfunded wars (Iraq was supposed to "pay for itself" remember?) and a disporpritonaly huge tax cut for the "bankster" class out of the last time Republicans controlled the WH and had partial majority control of both houses of Congress for most of eight years.
And the Tea Party fucktards and their weak fellow travelers have no problem accepting government handouts.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gma-takes-on-tea-party-darlings-on-the-dole/
And there is no time.
Agreed - Republicans went off the deep spending end....and got hammered in the 2008 election.
But with all of that, they could only manage to get the deficits up to $400+ billion. There would be great celebration in the land if we had a $400 billion deficit today or even two years from now. And then BHO shockingly extended those Bush tax cuts.
It would help if "conservatives" were conservative and "liberals" were liberal. Hard to make plans when they keep moving around.
intrusion of reality
Money-we don't have it. either cut voluntarily, or reality will eventually reassert itself at the time and place of its own choosing.
start by cutting back .gov lies that never should have been made in the first place. no matter how many rainbows and unicorns you paint on it-it is not sustainable.
Democrat Underground is thataway, you fucking sock puppet.
-------->
And you would propose what as an alternative?
Allowing Medicare patients to have a paid for well visit consultation with their doctor for a private one on one disucssion regarding advanced directives and end of life issues.
So people will not have this discussion with their doctor unless I pay for it?? That's absurd.
Reality is that people are too lazy just to fill out some fairly simple forms -- this is not rocket science.
All you have to do is look at any number of studies done following the Patient Self Determination Act of 1990 to know that NOT ENOUGH people are having this kind of conversation with their doctor prior to hospital admission.
You'll pay for it one way or the other. The question is, "How MUCH do you want to pay?"
A little up front for someone to make an informed decision...or a lot on the back end when no one, doctor or patient, broached the conversation.
I choose first option.
If they are not filling out some very simple forms now, why are they going to go through the additional effort of booking a separate doctor visit to discuss this (which still does not get the form filled out)? And why can't they pay for this doctor visit?? They are not neglecting to do this because I do not pay for it. Please.
Most of these "discussions" are with family (not doctors) who are their designated healthcare surrogates.
And the decisions can be made (or changed) even post hospital admission -- and they frequently are.
Studies comparing pre and post PSDA showed greater numbers of patients made advanced directives post effective date of PSDA.
It was for many patients the first time they were presented with the paperwork and afforded the opportunity for a discussion.
The on going problem has been that it occurs as the worst possible time or missed completely for many patients who are admitted to the hospital under emergency cirsumstances, unconcious, or when they are very sick and or debilitated.
The number could be much better if it were done in a non-emergency setting with informed consent.
Check the lit.
And you pay for the bad results now as someone who is privately insured and/or a taxpayer.
But why can't they pay for this doctor visit? Medicare patients are highly likely to be able to afford it.
Some could pay; many can't.
Check the povery rates.
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=10&cat=1
Even non-poverty sticken seniors are often forced to cut back on essentials.
Paying for a well-visit to a doctor would be a luxury for many.
Most can pay (vs 15% "poeverty rate") for something this important.
The vast majority of Americans need a massive re-definition of "essentials" (which certainly does not include any restaurants, movies, cell phones, cable tv, houses > 1,200 sq ft, pets, multiple or new cars, etc, etc, ). At least that is what 80% of the world who all live below our poverty level thinks.
But again, people do not need a separate well visit to accomplish the task at hand -- and fairly certain the majority of folks who do have the paperwork completed never set up a well visit with a doctor to complete such. Not sure how they managed, but they got it done. Probably a family discussion and not a doctor discussion. But a doctor discussion provides no reasonable assurance the paperwork even gets completed (presuming the proposed reimbursement is for just "discussion" and not collecting completed forms -- which would be more worrisome).
How would you dis-incentivise the Medicare system from rewarding that doctor for making sure the patient's decision is to give up early instead of persuing a longer life through additional treatment? Because if there's money to be saved by people dying off then I find it hard to trust a doctor who gets a cut of it. Haven't we learned anything about government corruption?
New meaning to "Cash for Clunkers"
"Medical Death Bounty Benefit Subsidy Act of 2010"
Prohibit any reward in the enabling legislation.
Simple.
A very succinct thought and sums up how this will evolve.
Reminds me of Martin Armstrong.
This, even more: