NORFOLK, Va. (AP) -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has picked Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan to be his running mate, according to a Republican with knowledge of the development. They will appear together Saturday in Norfolk, Va., at the start of a four-state bus tour to introduce the newly minted GOP ticket to the nation.
The official spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to disclose the decision.
In a statement issued Friday night, Romney's campaign would say only that the running mate would be revealed at 9 a.m. EDT at the Nauticus Museum. Berthed at the museum is the USS Wisconsin - which offered a hint about Romney's choice.
Any bets on how long until we see more ads with a Paul Ryan look a like throwing granny over a cliff?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Depends....we could always wait and take a picture of him actually DOING that after the election. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Now how on Earth will Ryan bring so much of the budget to <4% GDP, when Romney has pledged never to let military spending get below, what was it, 3.5%? Will the Republican base even notice, or will they be too busy shrieking and cheering at the impossibilities of Ryan's budget?
Rhetorical question.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
This could be Romney's best move or his worst. Either way, it's a bold one.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
OK, everybody get ready to "CUT THE DEFICIT*"
* by 'deficit' I mean 'taxes'
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And by taxes you mean deficit, right? Because as everyone but economists and historians know, the way to solve a decifict problem is to just cut taxes.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Jesus, have the united states actually gone completely insane? Sam is right- why and how does this base of people who are apparently capable of reality control exist?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: This could be Romney's best move or his worst. Either way, it's a bold one.
My thoughts exactly. A lot of Dems are celebrating, and its very premature if you ask me.
Ryan comes with a lot of faults, but conservatives love him.
On the other hand,he's the antithesis of Romney. Romney hates details, Paul is a wonk. Romneys no details plans are now Ryans hyper controversial very detailed plans. That's big...but not necessarily good. Obama is going to scare the hell out of seniors with Ryans medicaire plan.
Supposedly there's a New Yorker article coming out soon by someone who has been all over Ryan for a year, and he was shocked that Romney picked Ryan.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
One piece of good news is that Ryan--with 38% favorable polls in Wisconsin--is unlikely to help Romney carry his home state.
I'm hoping that the various Tea Party movements' enormous unpopularity among the USA overall (upper 30s approval rating, I believe) instead of among the Republican base will offset a higher potential turnout of the base by a higher turnout of everyone else. Because holy hell I am well past sick of far right conservatives parlaying their high degree of organization and turnouts in primaries, followed by ticket-voting generals, into an attitude that they 'are' America.
Don't get me wrong, that's how the system works, so it's kosher for them to do that, but for quite a long time now the far right of the Republican party has been exercising polical power in this country far in excess of their actual support of the people. It's too much to hope for moderate Republicans or Democrats to grow spines and nip that in the bud, so hopefully the Obama campaign will be able to remind Americans, "Hey, you think these guys are freaking nuts, remember?"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
At the very least, it's a great short term ploy.
Romney was taking an absolute beating, and has been for weeks, but now it's all about his daring VP choice.
Of course, once the honeymoon is over and the sprint to the finish is on, the debate becomes what Romney has avoided for months: Specifics.
And in the end, when people do the math, it'll crush him.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You think most people do math?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
God, I hope so. But I wouldn't put it past the Democrats to somehow cough up the ball. And, before I get incorrectly labeled as some sort of Democratic partisan again, my hope there has as much or more to do with my disgust with the way the Republican party has willingly surrendered to its own furthest right base as with anything else. Like the last election, my vote for Obama has as much if not more to do with my antagonism for the GOP as it does disapproval of Romney* or approval of Obama.
*Though again, in another classic example of 'our outrage only matters when it's a Democrat', the actual government experience Romney is actually running on is...well, running an Olympics. I guess the exchange rate on that experience into governing ability is extremely high.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama has run the most aggressive Democratic campaign since Bill Clinton. He'll do the math for us, and he'll ram it down Romney's throat in the debates, where a lot of people will make up their minds about the election.
Romney has simply made too many promises he can't keep. And so did Paul.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Romney has simply made too many promises he can't keep. And so did Paul.
And so did Obama.
I think it was a pretty daring choice. Romney now doesn't have to sweat some of the budget stuff, he can simply adopt Ryan's ideas now.
I don't think Ryan was the best choice, but it is the choice that will probably energize the base the most, which is something Romney needs.
Rakeesh, not be nit-picky, but Obama had what, 2 years in the senate? That is hardly a lot of experience either. Running a state gives a lot more executive experience than being in a senate seat for two years.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Obama has followed through on a couple huge ones, and there's a general impression that the stuff he couldn't do was largely because of opposition from Republicans. You can say that's not true, but the impression is there regardless.
Romney and Ryan, on the other hand, have some budget ideas that have absolutely no chance of becoming reality with aspects that are downright embarrassing once the specifics are spelled out.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Romney now doesn't have to sweat some of the budget stuff, he can simply adopt Ryan's ideas now.
Except that Ryan's ideas conflict with the few concretes that Romney has put forth already.
quote:I don't think Ryan was the best choice, but it is the choice that will probably energize the base the most, which is something Romney needs.
No, not really. The base was already planning to vote and vote for Romney, even if they had to hold their nose. I do, however, know a few Democrats that were disappointed with Obama and weren't planning to vote until the Ryan announcement. They now plan to get out and vote against Romney.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Romney has simply made too many promises he can't keep. And so did Paul.
And so did Obama.
I think it was a pretty daring choice. Romney now doesn't have to sweat some of the budget stuff, he can simply adopt Ryan's ideas now.
I don't think Ryan was the best choice, but it is the choice that will probably energize the base the most, which is something Romney needs.
Rakeesh, not be nit-picky, but Obama had what, 2 years in the senate? That is hardly a lot of experience either. Running a state gives a lot more executive experience than being in a senate seat for two years.
There's a big difference between a plan that literally doesn't make sense, and a plan that's politically untenable.
Both Romney and Paul have plans that are mathematically impossible. Not to mince words, but, they're lying. They simply cannot do what they are promising to do.
Obama has plans on the other end of the philosophical spectrum, but they've failed to be implemented not because they don't add up, but because Republicans have refused to go along.
Big difference.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Romney now doesn't have to sweat some of the budget stuff, he can simply adopt Ryan's ideas now.
Except that Ryan's ideas conflict with the few concretes that Romney has put forth already.
quote:I don't think Ryan was the best choice, but it is the choice that will probably energize the base the most, which is something Romney needs.
No, not really. The base was already planning to vote and vote for Romney, even if they had to hold their nose. I do, however, know a few Democrats that were disappointed with Obama and weren't planning to vote until the Ryan announcement. They now plan to get out and vote against Romney.
Problematic in a lot of ways.
First off, yeah, adopting Paul's plan is really risky. It doesn't really solve his problem because he was intentionally vague. Now he has to take on the mantle of a plan that the far right loves, more or less, but doesn't make any fiscal sense, and scares a hell of a lot of people.
At the very least, his plan clashes directly with Romney's on military spending. Romney has proposed some huge spending increases, and they're apart by several tens of billions of dollars. Then there's Medicare. Good luck wading into an entitlement reform fight.
Paul energizes the base, and scares the hell out of everyone else. Once the oooo and ahhhhh wears off and the analysis sets in, Ryan becomes an anchor. Romney's problem is that he's a moderate that has to pretend to be a hardcore conservative. But that means the far right doesn't trust him, and now centrists don't either. So he goes out and secures the far right? Unless he starts tacking to the center, it's really a terrible long term move.
I'm really interested to see what he does with Ryan's plan.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, not be nit-picky, but Obama had what, 2 years in the senate? That is hardly a lot of experience either. Running a state gives a lot more executive experience than being in a senate seat for two years.
Absolutely. But Romney is emphatically not running on his governorship. That would be, you know, problematic because then he would be forced to discuss all the ins and outs of how Obamacare was sweet when it was Romneycare and it was Romney doing it, but unspeakably stupid and evil when it's Obamacare and Obama doing it.
As for Ryan's ideas, I would *love* for Romney to openly adopt *some* specific plan (and if you dispute that,'you're welcome to point us to any actual specific major policy campaign ideas Romney has put forward). But as for Ryan's idea, which part of his completely unworkable budget do you like the most?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Obama has followed through on a couple huge ones, and there's a general impression that the stuff he couldn't do was largely because of opposition from Republicans. You can say that's not true, but the impression is there regardless.
Romney and Ryan, on the other hand, have some budget ideas that have absolutely no chance of becoming reality with aspects that are downright embarrassing once the specifics are spelled out.
Yeah so?
Romney also got quoted saying that Obama has raised the debt more than any previous president, and that he is going to save medicare from Obama defunding it. He is just lying through his teeth at this point. The people who are still going to vote for him have been conditioned to just put it out of their mind and not think about it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Medicare vouchers and privatized social security. Nuff said. Obama is getting this republican's vote.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ryan's plan for untying benefits from a guarantee of coverage: competition and choice will bring down the price enough that this won't ever be a problem.
Oh, well, that settles it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It might be instructive to keep in mind what the non-partisan CBO has to say about Ryan's plans.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I wonder how NASA's budget would fare under the Ryan plan.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, extrapolating from what he says he wants to do as far as reforms and spending cuts...
NASA wouldn't have a budget.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I wonder if he'd come out and say that he'd defund NASA. Especially right now. Or maybe he hasn't thought about that particular ramification of his plan.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think if you asked him the question ideologically, he would tell you the private sector can do it better, as evidenced by Space X. If you asked him as a VP candidate, Romney, whilst thinking of all the space related jobs in Florida and Texas would spear Ryan at the knees to shut him up. Lots of people are saying going to Mars is a waste of money, its an easy cut to satisfy the base, but it'd piss off the wrong people.
Still, there's no room in Ryans budget for NASA. Not even a penny. It's good though, once you eliminate the entire government, it gives people a chance to reflect on what parts of government they say they don't want but really do...which is a lot of it.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Not that you were making an argument yourself, but it's important to note how much SpaceX owes NASA (a point which Elon Musk himself has made). I think it's generally true that the private sector can do certain things more efficiently, but in some cases, the public sector has to do them first.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I almost attached that very same rebuttal to my post.
There are countless industries where private enterprise was only able to exploit an industry after government kicked down the door. You also have to consider all the secondary applications that NASA research tends to create.
I'm fine with passing off LEO to private companies. But I don't see any private companies rushing out to bid on billion dollar rovers, asteroid landings and other kinds of space exploration that pushes boundaries.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The problem with the "Voucher" plan is this.
If the Government guaranteed everyone a Hershey Bar whenever they wanted one, then Hershey could increase the cost of their candy bar and people would still buy it.
The same thing is happening now with medicine. Since the government is guaranteeing that everybody gets the medical help they need, the people proving the medical help feel happy to charge higher and higher prices.
If the government stopped buying Hershey bars for everyone who wanted one, then people could decide for themselves if the prices Hershey charged were worth the chocolate goodness. If it was too expensive, they would not buy it.
So, it would make sense to some that if the government stopped guaranteeing us health care when every we needed it, it would be up to us to decide if the cost of the surgery was too expensive. If not, we get the surgery. If its too expensive--we skip the surgery--and die.
That will teach them to lower their prices.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I bet NASA's inspiration of the next generation of scientists and engineers alone is worth the money we spend.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I bet NASA's inspiration of the next generation of scientists and engineers alone is worth the money we spend.
Tell me about it.
I've spent most of the last week wishing I'd gone into engineering or astronomy instead of history, though I've had that fantasy for awhile now. I even seriously considered switching to history of science to try and be involved with some policy-driven area of America's space program, but I just don't see a career in it.
Sigh. I love space. I just wish I was smart enough or driven enough to be involved with it as anything but a spectator.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I bet NASA's inspiration of the next generation of scientists and engineers alone is worth the money we spend.
The actual economic benefit of Nasa's various technological advances are literally incalculable, and they span such a massive swath of the consumer and industrial sectors, that trying to figure out any concrete numbers is pretty much ludicrous. But you can thank the existence of Nasa and US space exploration generally for the state of modern computing, telecommunications, material sciences (metallurgy, lenses, plastics, carbon fibers) , propulsion, energy (including battery technology), project management, astronomy, and a rather long list I can't begin to touch upon.
Virtually everything you do in your everyday life, every dollar you spend on anything, and every product you buy, is in an untold number of ways connected with what Nasa has produced in the last half century. Its influence is totally ubiquitous, across the whole world.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Don't forget Tang!
Posted by Slavim (Member # 12546) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: The problem with the "Voucher" plan is this.
If the Government guaranteed everyone a Hershey Bar whenever they wanted one, then Hershey could increase the cost of their candy bar and people would still buy it.
The same thing is happening now with medicine. Since the government is guaranteeing that everybody gets the medical help they need, the people proving the medical help feel happy to charge higher and higher prices.
If the government stopped buying Hershey bars for everyone who wanted one, then people could decide for themselves if the prices Hershey charged were worth the chocolate goodness. If it was too expensive, they would not buy it.
So, it would make sense to some that if the government stopped guaranteeing us health care when every we needed it, it would be up to us to decide if the cost of the surgery was too expensive. If not, we get the surgery. If its too expensive--we skip the surgery--and die.
That will teach them to lower their prices.
I've professed this many a times, there is no such thing as supply and demand in real healthcare (not the Viagra, weight loss drugs, etc. one). If you need a surgery to survive, you'll pay anything they charge. The only force of keeping the prices for skyrocketing is competition, but without supply/demand economics, it's only strong enough to limit the growth to ~15% a year.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Who are you competing against? If you're talking about competition in insurance, rather than the problems at hospitals themselves, and the pay structure relationship between the two, that's like killing the mosquito after it's already transmitted malaria to the patient. It makes the overall situation a little better, but doesn't really cure the patient.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Really, the closer you look at health care, the less it becomes suited to traditional supply and demand explanations. Very few people can really 'shop' for doctors-they've got a number of providers in their given area that are hopefully covered by their insurance, and generally they must pick on. Most of us are thoroughly trapped in our own pools of health care, and the only two things that really improve our access to mobility are wealth and better coverage.
In the very long run, more efficient and inexpensive medical care will sometimes win out, but again for almost every given individual they simply don't have time to vote with their dollars so to speak and apply those kinds of Darwinian pressures. Even if it's not critical, in order to avoid missed work or simply misery, they need to access health care and have their given problem treated sooner rather than later. So time as well as location is on the side of the provider.
Yet another way the usual supply and demand chatter doesn't apply is that with most goods and services, it's pretty instinctive to know what to do if you're getting the shaft from someone: you threaten to take your business elsewhere, and then you do it. Even if you can't actually find a better deal, the threat will act as an immediate spur sometimes to get a better offer. With health care, just how many people are well informed enough to even know when they're really being screwed, and by who exactly? Sure, most everyone recognizes, "Damn, that's a lot of money," but that's not a helpful piece of knowledge. Are they getting a raw deal from their insurance? The doctor? A hospital, the pharmacy, or even another party somewhere in the chain? There isn't a blue book out there one can consult to learn a standard value to treat an illness in a human in such and such a condition, in such and such a region.
The most frustrating thing about this is that I'm about as far from well informed on health care issues as it's possible to get without being completely ignorant. I read, and I loved to watch House, but really that's about it. It doesn't take a lot of thought at all to realize how poorly the usual economic ideas and pressures fit in a discussion about health care...but phrases like supply and demand and competition are substitutes for actual thought in so many people's minds.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
House teaches us that the government will pay to cure you of a life threatening illness or injury so long as it is sufficiently interesting to the Doctor on call.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I've spent most of the last week wishing I'd gone into engineering or astronomy instead of history, though I've had that fantasy for awhile now. I even seriously considered switching to history of science to try and be involved with some policy-driven area of America's space program, but I just don't see a career in it.
Sigh. I love space. I just wish I was smart enough or driven enough to be involved with it as anything but a spectator.
Hey, that's my plan.
I missed the science boat very early on-- as a child (perhaps I never had the right brain anyway). Now I'm tunnelling back in from the outside.
*
Supply and Demand lowering costs with health care is not only not terribly feasible, it's also not terribly desirable. You don't want to go to the cheapest doctor or dentist, you want high quality good service.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: Don't forget Tang!
That's a myth. General Foods produced Tang.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Supply and Demand lowering costs with health care is not only not terribly feasible, it's also not terribly desirable. You don't want to go to the cheapest doctor or dentist, you want high quality good service.
Well, it depends. I mean in the developing world and parts of the US where there is no medical care, competition for low cost medical care could actually be desirable. Even in the developed world, you may want competition between different contractors for building a hospital or suppliers for a MRI machine if the money saved ends up going somewhere else in healthcare. In Ontario for example, I don't have much issue with the government leaning toward generic drugs to save money.
IMO, the problem with the US system isn't so much that competition doesn't work, the problem is that the ground rules have been laid in such a way that it is much easier to compete for ways to deny treatment or reduce treatment rather than compete for the best way of delivering a certain standard of care.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Supply and Demand lowering costs with health care is not only not terribly feasible, it's also not terribly desirable. You don't want to go to the cheapest doctor or dentist, you want high quality good service.
But supply and demand doesn't lower all quality. People who want cheap but low-quality stuff will be able to get it, and people who want to pay more for higher-quality stuff will be able to get it too. Maybe some people do want to go to the cheapest doctor or dentist, just as some people will get LASIK for only a few hundred bucks per eye, while some will spend much more for better quality.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Jon, that is assuming that 1)You can make that choice--hard to due when you are unconscious, 2) You have the money to afford the better quality. If not you get "Survival of the Richest".
The Pro-Market people are arguing about optional procedures like Lasik. The Anti-Market people are arguing about necessary procedures. Sure, you have time to shop for the best value for your baby's delivery or where to get that MRI. But what happens at an accident scene? Do you tell the Ambulance driver, "I'm sorry. I want to use U-Breath Ambulance Company, not your Save-Right Ambulance. I'll just wait and bleed out until they can get here. No, don't bind me up. I can't afford your bandage rates. I'll just hold it in until U-Breath gets here."
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Jon, that is assuming that 1)You can make that choice--hard to due when you are unconscious, 2) You have the money to afford the better quality. If not you get "Survival of the Richest".
I don't see how this contradicts anything I said. Teshi said that supply and demand will lower the quality of treatment. I said that the law of supply and demand does not necessarily do that. Different levels of quality don't cease to exist just because you're unconscious or can't afford the higher levels.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't see how this contradicts anything I said. Teshi said that supply and demand will lower the quality of treatment. I said that the law of supply and demand does not necessarily do that. Different levels of quality don't cease to exist just because you're unconscious or can't afford the higher levels.
While I agree with you that in the long run, supply and demand will work to improve quality overall even in health care, the tricky thing about it is that if people cannot afford the higher levels of quality where they are, and there isn't a higher level of quality at a cheaper price they can actually get to and purchase, then it's very nearly a push.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I loved Jon Stewarts bit, with Democrats and Republicans being united.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: Don't forget Tang!
That's a myth. General Foods produced Tang.
Oh my gosh, you're right! Man, my esteem for powdered beverage mixes just fell back to earth.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Romney also got quoted saying that Obama has raised the debt more than any previous president, and that he is going to save medicare from Obama defunding it. He is just lying through his teeth at this point. The people who are still going to vote for him have been conditioned to just put it out of their mind and not think about it.
Well, yes and no. The debt has gone up 4.7 trillion (as of Jan 2012) since Obama took office, and it went up 4.9 trillion under Bush. So Romney is wrong as of January 2012. If you factor in the past 7 months and the rate at which the debt has been growing, it is more than likely Romney is entirely correct in saying that, though that depends on when he made the statement.
Admittedly most of that debt wasn't Obama's doing, and I do think it is dishonest to frame it as such.
As far as Medicare, honestly I would prefer an HSA type plan that I could invest in each pay period to help me with medical costs later in life. Right now due to government regulation the only way I can contribute to an HSA if I have a high deductible plan. I don't expect to get any benefit out of Social Security, so I invest in a 401(k). It would be nice to be able to put some money aside in the same way for health care later in life so I don't have to rely on the government.
I would like to point out too that Ryna's medicare plan is extremely close to what Congress has currently.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I say this as someone generally in favor of increased defense spending: it's strange, in some mysterious way, how Medicare and Medicaid, two of the most efficient, cheapest for the benefit programs the federal government has, are targeted for the chopping block due to supposed waste and corruption when defense, famously* known for boondoggles and unneeded weapons systems and bases that remain open when they're not needed and questionable contracting is sacrosanct by the same people who raise fire and brimstone over Medicare and Medicaid. Almost like there's some b*%#€£it in there somewhere.
*I say famously not because I think it's rampant but just because it's well known.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Most reports that have analyzed Ryan's plan note that even if they put Medicare up against private insurance companies, it's incredibly unlikely that private insurance would be able to be competitive as far as premiums and quality go. They simply can't match Medicare's efficiency and value.
That's not to say that it can't be fixed - it can. I think an NHS-style reform would dramatically reduce costs at the care level, rather than the spending level.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I would like to point out that some people do shop around for healthcare now, but it is extremely difficult! Even finding out which pharmacy will carry your medication at the lowest price isn't exactly easy - and since I pay alot for medication I do shop around. It can be a $20 difference on some of them.
I have yet to go into a doctor's offices that has a menu of services and pricing up on the wall though. "Yes doc, today I'll have the full gyno exam, but only a small side of vaccinations please! Oh, and don't take my blood pressure, I can do it at home for half the price."
I mean, honestly, how would such a program even work? Not to mention the problem with emergency care. Unless we want to change our laws to allow people to die if they can't approve their medical care, how to we allow unconscious people to "shop"?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm all for price controls for essential services.
Do what the NHS does. A la carte and optional service can be priced by the private market. Essential services are tested for the most effective and efficient form of doing it, and a team of doctors and wonks decide what works and what doesn't to say what's covered, then they set the price. Works great for them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm hearing a lot of acronyms bandied about with the letter 'S' in them. Well I think we all know that stands for SOCIALISM!!!!!!!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: As far as Medicare, honestly I would prefer an HSA type plan that I could invest in each pay period to help me with medical costs later in life.
What about the guy who pumps your gas? Do you think he could ever put enough money in an HSA to pay for chemo?
quote:Right now due to government regulation the only way I can contribute to an HSA if I have a high deductible plan.
This is a funny way to put it. Of course they "regulate" the circumstances under which you can put your income away tax-free.
quote: I would like to point out too that Ryna's medicare plan is extremely close to what Congress has currently.
Since the members of Congress are basically all rich, I'm not surprised a system like that would work fine for them. But I'd like to hear more about the similarities. Do you have a link?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote: Right now due to government regulation the only way I can contribute to an HSA if I have a high deductible plan.
This is a funny way to put it. Of course they "regulate" the circumstances under which you can put your income away tax-free.
It is not a funny way to put it. You are only thinking in the short term, not long term.
Let's look at it this way. If I was able to put $100 a paycheck into a Health Savings Account that I can use later in life, the government loses out on $1.45 in Medicare taxes. A DOLLAR FORTY FIVE. I still pay Medicare taxes on the rest of my disposable income. Let's assume that the Social Security tax goes back up to 6.2% and I pay a FIT rate of 15%. So the government loses out on a total of $22.60 per pay period, or $45.20 a month. That is a total of $542.40 per year for all three taxes combined.
Let's say I start contributing at 22 and retire at 65. That is a total net loss of $23,323.20 over the course of my career for the government. Now, over that amount of time I have put aside $103,200 into a Health Savings account. That doesn't include interest. With compound interest, even at 3% you are looking at well over a million dollars.
Now I could be spending my own money that I have set aside and got interest on, or go onto Medicare. Keep in mind the government only lost out on $23,323.20 over 43 years, and they got taxes from me on all of the rest of my disposable income. What do you think would be more cost effective for the government? Do you think with over $1 million dollars I would be able to purchase health insurance better than what Medicare offers?
I understand that there will always be those that can't afford to put $100 away into an account. I'm fine with Medicare helping those people. If there are a lot of people contributing to Medicare that end up purchasing their own healthcare later in life due to their investments, we would have more money to spend on coverage for those less fortunate.
Even if we were able to contribute to an HSA that was only exempt from Medicare taxes, you would see a MASSIVE influx of people doing it. The government would lose almost nothing (Only $1500 over 43 years using my example) and the savings to the government would be even greater.
So yes, government regulation is causing part of the problem. It ends up giving beneficiaries decreased services and benefits. I'm not asking for the privitization or end of Medicare, I'm just asking for the chance to invest in my own well being.
quote:
quote: I would like to point out too that Ryna's medicare plan is extremely close to what Congress has currently.
Since the members of Congress are basically all rich, I'm not surprised a system like that would work fine for them. But I'd like to hear more about the similarities. Do you have a link? [/QB]
I don't. I read a few articles back when he proposed the budget, but I can't seem to find them with a quick google search. I'll try to find some for you though and will post. I did read an article recently that said it is not like what Congress had, but it was just comparing premiums and co-pays.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote: Right now due to government regulation the only way I can contribute to an HSA if I have a high deductible plan.
This is a funny way to put it. Of course they "regulate" the circumstances under which you can put your income away tax-free.
It is not a funny way to put it. You are only thinking in the short term, not long term.
Let's look at it this way. If I was able to put $100 a paycheck into a Health Savings Account that I can use later in life, the government loses out on $1.45 in Medicare taxes. A DOLLAR FORTY FIVE. I still pay Medicare taxes on the rest of my disposable income. Let's assume that the Social Security tax goes back up to 6.2% and I pay a FIT rate of 15%. So the government loses out on a total of $22.60 per pay period, or $45.20 a month. That is a total of $542.40 per year for all three taxes combined.
Let's say I start contributing at 22 and retire at 65. That is a total net loss of $23,323.20 over the course of my career for the government. Now, over that amount of time I have put aside $103,200 into a Health Savings account. That doesn't include interest. With compound interest, even at 3% you are looking at well over a million dollars.
Now I could be spending my own money that I have set aside and got interest on, or go onto Medicare. Keep in mind the government only lost out on $23,323.20 over 43 years, and they got taxes from me on all of the rest of my disposable income. What do you think would be more cost effective for the government? Do you think with over $1 million dollars I would be able to purchase health insurance better than what Medicare offers?
I understand that there will always be those that can't afford to put $100 away into an account. I'm fine with Medicare helping those people. If there are a lot of people contributing to Medicare that end up purchasing their own healthcare later in life due to their investments, we would have more money to spend on coverage for those less fortunate.
Even if we were able to contribute to an HSA that was only exempt from Medicare taxes, you would see a MASSIVE influx of people doing it. The government would lose almost nothing (Only $1500 over 43 years using my example) and the savings to the government would be even greater.
So yes, government regulation is causing part of the problem. It ends up giving beneficiaries decreased services and benefits. I'm not asking for the privitization or end of Medicare, I'm just asking for the chance to invest in my own well being.
Hardly. Times those losses by 300 million people, and then factor the amount of interest the government would lost over 43 years....the same break you gave yourself...by the amount of total dollars lost.
And your "plan" doesn't really help anyone who can't afford $100 a month, as it removes revenue from a program that would still need to cover a large portion of our society.
And last...where the heck did you learn math? $100 a month, 12 months a year, over 43 years at 3% compounded interest, compounding MONTHLY, is NOT EVEN CLOSE to a million dollars. It's $105,077.73. Your total personal contributions would have been $51,600, not over $100,000. The rest is interest over 43 years.
[ August 16, 2012, 02:19 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
and $132,072.61. is the cost of 1 major illness for one year (Cancer, leukemia, heart surgery--not even close to replacement), or about 6 years in a full service medical facility, not counting transportation, medication, and medical services.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And last...where the heck did you learn math? $100 a month, 12 months a year, over 43 years at 3% compounded interest, compounding MONTHLY, is NOT EVEN CLOSE to a million dollars. It's $105,077.73. Your total personal contributions would have been
Hmm, family of four, two young children. Regular checkups (which are absolutely vital to inexpensive, effective health care)...but your second kid is born a little early, or the labor is especially difficult, say. This happens pretty early in the savings process, so of course that not so large nest egg is even smaller. A couple of years later, one kid needs his appendix out. Ka-ching! Maybe he needs to stay a few days longer for one of any number of reasons. Ka ching! Another needs treatment for depression when they're an adolescent, a very real possibility since depression is hardly unheard of. You throw your back out in a routine slip at work. Ka ching.
All of this is completely ordinary in terms of medical 'events' in a family's life. None of it is on the extreme end in terms of cost. It would chew to pieces such a nest egg.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: What about the guy who pumps your gas? Do you think he could ever put enough money in an HSA to pay for chemo?
You live in Oregon or New Jersey, don't you?
I think HSAs work fine for relatively small, expected expenses (annual physical, common generic drugs you can get for a few bucks a month, glasses, etc.). The problem is that you can end up needing care that most people couldn't hope to save up for. That's one reason why comparing the markets for medical care and food doesn't quite work. Your life will never depend on eating caviar and truffles, but random circumstances can mean you need the medical equivalent of those to survive. Sure, competition can help drive down prices, but there are limits to that. Even after patents expire, certain types of drugs (e.g. monoclonal antibodies, often used as chemotherapy) will probably remain expensive because they are expensive to produce.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Lived in Jersey for a few years in grad school, but mostly it was just an expression.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The maximum yearly contribution to an HSA for an individual in 2012 is $3100. At that rate, you will have pay in to an HSA for 43 years to cover the average cost of a single major illness. That doesn't consider interest earned on the HSA, but it also doesn't consider inflation in medical care costs which, under current conditions, out paces interest rates by a pretty fair margin.
HSAs are a good in combination with an insurance plan that will cover major expenses. They are not a substitute for the insurance plan.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:HSAs are a good in combination with an insurance plan that will cover major expenses. They are not a substitute for the insurance plan.
B-b-but socialism!! Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote: Right now due to government regulation the only way I can contribute to an HSA if I have a high deductible plan.
This is a funny way to put it. Of course they "regulate" the circumstances under which you can put your income away tax-free.
It is not a funny way to put it. You are only thinking in the short term, not long term.
Let's look at it this way. If I was able to put $100 a paycheck into a Health Savings Account that I can use later in life, the government loses out on $1.45 in Medicare taxes. A DOLLAR FORTY FIVE. I still pay Medicare taxes on the rest of my disposable income. Let's assume that the Social Security tax goes back up to 6.2% and I pay a FIT rate of 15%. So the government loses out on a total of $22.60 per pay period, or $45.20 a month. That is a total of $542.40 per year for all three taxes combined.
Let's say I start contributing at 22 and retire at 65. That is a total net loss of $23,323.20 over the course of my career for the government. Now, over that amount of time I have put aside $103,200 into a Health Savings account. That doesn't include interest. With compound interest, even at 3% you are looking at well over a million dollars.
Now I could be spending my own money that I have set aside and got interest on, or go onto Medicare. Keep in mind the government only lost out on $23,323.20 over 43 years, and they got taxes from me on all of the rest of my disposable income. What do you think would be more cost effective for the government? Do you think with over $1 million dollars I would be able to purchase health insurance better than what Medicare offers?
I understand that there will always be those that can't afford to put $100 away into an account. I'm fine with Medicare helping those people. If there are a lot of people contributing to Medicare that end up purchasing their own healthcare later in life due to their investments, we would have more money to spend on coverage for those less fortunate.
Even if we were able to contribute to an HSA that was only exempt from Medicare taxes, you would see a MASSIVE influx of people doing it. The government would lose almost nothing (Only $1500 over 43 years using my example) and the savings to the government would be even greater.
So yes, government regulation is causing part of the problem. It ends up giving beneficiaries decreased services and benefits. I'm not asking for the privitization or end of Medicare, I'm just asking for the chance to invest in my own well being.
Hardly. Times those losses by 300 million people, and then factor the amount of interest the government would lost over 43 years....the same break you gave yourself...by the amount of total dollars lost.
And your "plan" doesn't really help anyone who can't afford $100 a month, as it removes revenue from a program that would still need to cover a large portion of our society.
And last...where the heck did you learn math? $100 a month, 12 months a year, over 43 years at 3% compounded interest, compounding MONTHLY, is NOT EVEN CLOSE to a million dollars. It's $105,077.73. Your total personal contributions would have been $51,600, not over $100,000. The rest is interest over 43 years.
Look at my post again Kwea, I said $100 a paycheck. Do you get paid monthly? I was assuming a semi-monthly pay period. Add $200 for a year if you are bi-weekly.
You are right though on the compound interest. It would be about $211,000. My mistake. That would still be enough to purchase health insurance for years. Cool little tool, I will have to bookmark it. Assuming a 3% rate you would double your money. You would have to have an 8.5% rate to reach $1,000,000, something that is certainly possible if the account was set up like a 401(k), even more so if they enabled your employer to match contributions.
DM, yes a major illness can cost that much if you DON'T have health insurance at all. I'm talking about taking the money one saves over the years and purchasing a health insurance plan when you retire. Since there are no more lifetime maximums you would be responsible for your deductible as well as any annual out of pocket maximums, and that is all you would pay. You would still have that with Medicare.
I suppose I shouldn't call it an HSA since currently the way HSA's work a little differently than what I am suggesting. HSA's currently can only help pay for COBRA and not premiums. I can't really call it an HRA since that is already taken by Health Reimbursement Accounts. I need a new acronym.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That would still be enough to purchase health insurance for years.
So, to clarify, you are buying health insurance with your HSA (which, as you note, is not currently legal)?
Which means that you are not leaving money in your HSA to compound, since you're paying monthly premiums with that money?
So you are putting extra money, above and beyond the cost of your health insurance, into a HSA in hopes that that money will compound?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:That would still be enough to purchase health insurance for years.
So, to clarify, you are buying health insurance with your HSA (which, as you note, is not currently legal)?
Which means that you are not leaving money in your HSA to compound, since you're paying monthly premiums with that money?
So you are putting extra money, above and beyond the cost of your health insurance, into a HSA in hopes that that money will compound?
Tom, Your reading comprehension is lacking. He said "I'm talking about taking the money one saves over the years and purchasing a health insurance plan when you retire."
He's talking about using the money save in an HSA to purchase a supplemental insurance plan when he retires.
If there was any reason to believe that the rules regarding medicare, HSBs, and the cost of medical insurance would remain even remotely like they are now and that you would have no other need medical needs for the next few decades, that plan might make sense. The chances that even one of those conditions might hold is vanishingly small.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yeah, I thought it was monthly. Sorry.
There are all sorts of online tools that weren't available years ago. Compound interest calculators, mortgage calculators with amortization tables, general loan calculators.....it's pretty amazing.
My dad wanted to show me a table about a mortgage once, so he hand wrote an amortization table for a 30 year land contract, compounded yearly rather than monthly, so show me the savings. Took him hours of prep.
I went online and showed him those calculators, and he turned bright red, while my mom dissolved into laughter behind us. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Your reading comprehension is lacking. He said "I'm talking about taking the money one saves over the years and purchasing a health insurance plan when you retire."
So he's assuming no medical expenses until retirement?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
He's assuming employer-provided health care until he retires, presumably with premiums of some sort, and an seperate account where you save to use to buy health insurance after you retire instead of having medicare.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote: Right now due to government regulation the only way I can contribute to an HSA if I have a high deductible plan.
This is a funny way to put it. Of course they "regulate" the circumstances under which you can put your income away tax-free.
It is not a funny way to put it. You are only thinking in the short term, not long term.
Let's look at it this way. If I was able to put $100 a paycheck into a Health Savings Account that I can use later in life, the government loses out on $1.45 in Medicare taxes. A DOLLAR FORTY FIVE. I still pay Medicare taxes on the rest of my disposable income. Let's assume that the Social Security tax goes back up to 6.2% and I pay a FIT rate of 15%. So the government loses out on a total of $22.60 per pay period, or $45.20 a month. That is a total of $542.40 per year for all three taxes combined.
Let's say I start contributing at 22 and retire at 65. That is a total net loss of $23,323.20 over the course of my career for the government. Now, over that amount of time I have put aside $103,200 into a Health Savings account. That doesn't include interest. With compound interest, even at 3% you are looking at well over a million dollars.
Now I could be spending my own money that I have set aside and got interest on, or go onto Medicare. Keep in mind the government only lost out on $23,323.20 over 43 years, and they got taxes from me on all of the rest of my disposable income. What do you think would be more cost effective for the government? Do you think with over $1 million dollars I would be able to purchase health insurance better than what Medicare offers?
I understand that there will always be those that can't afford to put $100 away into an account. I'm fine with Medicare helping those people. If there are a lot of people contributing to Medicare that end up purchasing their own healthcare later in life due to their investments, we would have more money to spend on coverage for those less fortunate.
Even if we were able to contribute to an HSA that was only exempt from Medicare taxes, you would see a MASSIVE influx of people doing it. The government would lose almost nothing (Only $1500 over 43 years using my example) and the savings to the government would be even greater.
So yes, government regulation is causing part of the problem. It ends up giving beneficiaries decreased services and benefits. I'm not asking for the privitization or end of Medicare, I'm just asking for the chance to invest in my own well being.
Hardly. Times those losses by 300 million people, and then factor the amount of interest the government would lost over 43 years....the same break you gave yourself...by the amount of total dollars lost.
And your "plan" doesn't really help anyone who can't afford $100 a month, as it removes revenue from a program that would still need to cover a large portion of our society.
And last...where the heck did you learn math? $100 a month, 12 months a year, over 43 years at 3% compounded interest, compounding MONTHLY, is NOT EVEN CLOSE to a million dollars. It's $105,077.73. Your total personal contributions would have been $51,600, not over $100,000. The rest is interest over 43 years.
Look at my post again Kwea, I said $100 a paycheck. Do you get paid monthly? I was assuming a semi-monthly pay period. Add $200 for a year if you are bi-weekly.
You are right though on the compound interest. It would be about $211,000. My mistake. That would still be enough to purchase health insurance for years. Cool little tool, I will have to bookmark it. Assuming a 3% rate you would double your money. You would have to have an 8.5% rate to reach $1,000,000, something that is certainly possible if the account was set up like a 401(k), even more so if they enabled your employer to match contributions.
DM, yes a major illness can cost that much if you DON'T have health insurance at all. I'm talking about taking the money one saves over the years and purchasing a health insurance plan when you retire. Since there are no more lifetime maximums you would be responsible for your deductible as well as any annual out of pocket maximums, and that is all you would pay. You would still have that with Medicare.
I suppose I shouldn't call it an HSA since currently the way HSA's work a little differently than what I am suggesting. HSA's currently can only help pay for COBRA and not premiums. I can't really call it an HRA since that is already taken by Health Reimbursement Accounts. I need a new acronym.
$211,000 sounds like a lot of money right now, but I suspect that, given the rate of healthcare cost inflation over the next 43 years, it'll be a drop in the bucket. Even if you were allowed to, it would probably only pay for a few years of coverage.
The problem with premium supports as a solution is that it does absolutely nothing to curb costs or price inflation, it merely shifts responsibility for payment. There isn't really even any competition involved, or any proof that seniors would be able to navigate such a field of choice anyway.
The only solution out there actively being bandied about or actually passed into law that addresses the issue of cost, rather than payment, is the ACA.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
The problem IS that it only addresses cost. We still don't know what affect the ACA is going to have on health care costs. I perform open enrollment meetings all the time, and I can tell you that costs have not gone down one penny. I've had some clients whose premiums went up 20-30% since the ACA was passed.
We have to take a wait and see approach right now because we simply don't the entire impact.
I'm a big believer in giving people choices. Medicare is going to be awesome for some people, especially those that can't afford to save for health insurance. But if inflation is going to be a problem for people saving on their own, its going to be just as much as problem for Medicare, which the ACA cut by $700 billion.
My solution is obviously not the best one, but at least it is an idea. The baby boomers are getting older, and there is a time bomb of medical costs coming that Medicare can't handle and the ACA doesn't address.
Edit: I just saw the statement regarding premium payment types preventing competition. I don't know that I would really agree with that. We shop car insurance based on price, just as companies can do when shopping for health insurance. The problem is that due to different state laws and regulations and the lack of ability to purchase health insurance in another state, the costs go up. In Nevada for example Health Insurance companies are required to provide certain injections that other states do not.
Health insurance costs also depend on the health of your employees. I have a client that is a Lawyer. He has 10 employees. In that one year three had babies and one had to take time off for surgery. His rates climbed 50% from one year to the next, because his company got placed in a higher risk pool. The ACA has some provisions to try to lower the impact of things like this, but we simply don't know how effective it is going to be.
[ August 17, 2012, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Geraine ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The ACA has a ton of provisions in it that are geared toward reducing costs and improving efficiencies, but they haven't all taken effect yet. The law was designed to be phased in over time. Next year it will all be in place and we'll start to see the impact.
The vast majority of the reasons premiums skyrocketed last year (and my dad told me the same thing, he's in charge of figuring out insurance for the employees he manages) was because insurance companies knew the ACA banned those rate hikes, and they wanted to get them in before the gravy train ended. If they tried that next year, they'd be faced with a lawsuit.
And the ACA didn't cut a penny from Medicare. That's being bandied about a lot by Romney and Ryan, but it's not true. What it actually did was reduce costs in Medicare by that amount, a burden now borne by the ACA, it was not a transfer of funds, and Medicare benefits weren't reduced at all.
Edit to address your edit:
quote:Edit: I just saw the statement regarding premium payment types preventing competition. I don't know that I would really agree with that. We shop car insurance based on price, just as companies can do when shopping for health insurance. The problem is that due to different state laws and regulations and the lack of ability to purchase health insurance in another state, the costs go up. In Nevada for example Health Insurance companies are required to provide certain injections that other states do not.
Health insurance costs also depend on the health of your employees. I know a Lawyer who had 10 employees. In that one year three had babies and one had to take time off for surgery. His rates climbed 50% from one year to the next, because his company got placed in a higher risk pool. The ACA has some provisions to try to lower the impact of things like this, but we simply don't know how effective it is going to be.
Car insurance is incredibly simple. You have a car with a certain value, there are only one or two types of coverage, and you can get a quick and easy price quote from a multitude of agents very quickly and choose the best price. Health care is so complicated in comparison, it's hardly worth making a comparison at all.
I do agree that not being able to purchase across state lines leads to huge problems. Whole states are controlled by one or two health insurance providers with a virtual monopoly, and that stifles competition. On the other hand, if you throw the whole thing open, and if you take into account state laws that demand certain levels of coverage, then what you get is a race to the bottom. Health care companies, like corporations in Delaware or Luxemburg, will congregate in the state with the lowest possible number of restrictions, which will likely mean cheaper insurance, but it will also mean the level and quality of coverage drops precipitously as well. Unless national standards and base levels of coverage are established, you sacrifice care for cost.
The ACA spreads the risk out among a far larger pool. As an individual, you have zero power to negotiate rates or coverage levels. You get the price they give you. If you have 100,000 employees, you get deals on prescription rates and all sorts of other goodies, and you also get a much more diverse group to diversify your risk. The insurance exchanges that kick in next year are all about taking individuals and pooling them together to create diversified risk and to give them a serious bargaining power they currently lack.
Ideally, it'll lead to the undoing of employer provided insurance, which employers would love, and I think would ultimately benefit individuals.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Lived in Jersey for a few years in grad school, but mostly it was just an expression.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)