It seems today that many people say they understand a sacrifice needs to be made in order to get federal spending under control…as long as the sacrifice is made by someone else. If you so much as mention entitlement reform (including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance), then you become heartless…or out of touch…or racist…etc. The fact is that these entitlements MUST be reformed as they are unsustainable in their current form, and the recipients of these benefits should realize that the entitlements are a privilege and NOT a right. I’m not saying that entitlements should go away (actually, nobody is saying that), but cuts and restructuring MUST occur to ensure that these programs will be around for generations to come. Its time for politicians to have the political will to do what is needed as well as time for the American people to come to terms with the sacrifices that must be made.
Say what you will about the Budget Plan introduced by Congressman and Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan… at least Mr. Ryan has the courage to take entitlement reform head on even if it is very unpopular politically. The fact is that the retirement age MUST be raised for the simple fact that people are living much longer than they were when Social Security was first implemented. The average life expectancy in the 1930s was 58 for men and 62 for women. Also, in the 1930s, only 54% of people who reached the age of 21 actually made it to the retirement age of 65. Today over 85% of people make it from 21 to the retirement age of 65. It seems to me that Social Security started off as a very clever scheme because only half of the people who paid into it actually received benefits from it. I could go on to explain how the government began using the Social Security money as a type of slush fund…but I’ll save that for a future rant.
Also there’s the fact that not only are more people living to retirement age, they are also drawing benefits for a longer time frame. On average, in the 1930s, a person drew Social Security for 13 years, now beneficiaries draw for over 20 years on average. If President Roosevelt had realized that in 1935 life expectancy was much higher than it was in 1865, then maybe he would have had the foresight to make the retirement age progressive. Today the average life expectancy for men and women is around 75 which is a 15 year increase from the average life expectancy of 60 in the 1930s. All President Roosevelt would’ve had to do was write into the Social Security Act that the retirement age would increase by 1 year every 15 years. Which would make the current retirement age 70 with it scheduled to increase to 71 in the year 2025. When the Social Security act was passed the retirement age was 65 and life expectancy was 60...a five year deficit…and if the current retirement age was 70 with a current life expectancy of 75, then there would be a five year positive gap…But somehow if you even suggest raising the retirement age to only 67 or 68, then you hate old people or some bull crap.
Then there’s Medicare. I’m sure you’ve heard about how Paul Ryan wants to throw granny over a cliff and all that jazz…and that he wants to ration health services to seniors and blah blah blah. Its all crap. Mr. Ryan’s “voucher program” (as his critics call it) is NOT about rationing…the Ryan plan creates a Medicare payment initially averaging $11,000 per recipient with lower income earners receiving more support while benefits for wealthier seniors are reduced. This Medicare payment allows seniors to purchase their own PRIVATE health insurance if they choose. The idea is that its much cheaper to pay for seniors’ Medicare certified insurance plans than it is to pay for all of their doctor visits, prescriptions, procedures and operations with taxpayer money. Makes sense to me.
The opponents of the Ryan Plan say that under this plan all new Medicare recipients would receive $2,000 less in benefits than they are currently projected to receive. I say….ummmm…that’s kind of the idea…isn’t it? We want to lower the expense of Medicare on the taxpayers…and as I said before, the plan states that we will spend less per recipient because its cheaper to grant a Medicare payment for private insurance than it is for the government to pick up the entire tab which averages between $13,000 and $14,000 per recipient. Not to mention the fact that the President’s own healthcare law calls for cutting Medicare by $500 billion dollars and puts 15 unelected bureaucrats in charge of Medicare (to ration care)….where as the Ryan Plan puts seniors back in charge of managing their coverage.
Finally, there’s Medicaid. All that the Ryan Plan calls for is to put STATES back in charge of running their healthcare plans. Each state is different and should be allowed to create a system that works best for its citizens. I really don’t see a problem with that. Critics say that some state governments run just as badly as the federal government…and I say…THAT’S THE WORST ARGUMENT I’VE EVER HEARD. Because some of the state governments are just as bad as the federal government then we shouldn’t allow the states with solid governments to create their own Medicaid plans??? The states are suppose to compete with each other…and if one of these less than stellar state governments sees that a plan is working well in a neighboring state…then maybe they’ll try that plan for themselves as they begin to notice that their citizens are moving away to the better ran state. The hard fact is that the federal government allows nearly 10% of the Medicaid budget to be spent on improper payments (fraud) totaling around 40 BILLION dollars a year. That’s over double the average of all other government program’s improper payments of around 4%.
The bottom line here is that States want to keep their citizens…a State without citizens ceases to exist…so competition makes states want to do better for their people. That’s what has made our republic so great and why there are many more things that should be given back to the states to decide…but again, that’s a rant for another time. I just feel as though it’s a no brainer to give Medicaid back to the states…especially, when it has become obvious that Washington is all but completely dysfunctional.
In closing, I want to make one thing very clear…The Ryan Plan doesn’t cut anything from these programs. Let me repeat that…. THE RYAN PLAN DOESN’T CUT ANYTHING from these programs!!! The Plan simply slows the growth of the programs…and we all know that according to liberal math, if a program is suppose to get a 5% increase and it only receives a 4% increase then that’s a cut. Give me a break. That’s like saying a child started out by getting a 5 dollar per week allowance with every six months the allowance being raised by 1 dollar. After two years, the allowance would have risen by 4 dollars to a total of 9 dollars per week. That would have meant the child had their allowance increased by 2 dollars each of the first two years. Now say that during the third year, the parents decided (for what ever reason) to raise the child’s allowance 1 dollar to bring the total allowance to an even 10 bucks. According to a liberal, the child didn’t receive a dollar raise…they received a dollar cut. I hope that you can see the difference between a cut and slowed growth. They are completely different things.
Say what you will about the Budget Plan introduced by Congressman and Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan… at least Mr. Ryan has the courage to take entitlement reform head on even if it is very unpopular politically. The fact is that the retirement age MUST be raised for the simple fact that people are living much longer than they were when Social Security was first implemented. The average life expectancy in the 1930s was 58 for men and 62 for women. Also, in the 1930s, only 54% of people who reached the age of 21 actually made it to the retirement age of 65. Today over 85% of people make it from 21 to the retirement age of 65. It seems to me that Social Security started off as a very clever scheme because only half of the people who paid into it actually received benefits from it. I could go on to explain how the government began using the Social Security money as a type of slush fund…but I’ll save that for a future rant.
Also there’s the fact that not only are more people living to retirement age, they are also drawing benefits for a longer time frame. On average, in the 1930s, a person drew Social Security for 13 years, now beneficiaries draw for over 20 years on average. If President Roosevelt had realized that in 1935 life expectancy was much higher than it was in 1865, then maybe he would have had the foresight to make the retirement age progressive. Today the average life expectancy for men and women is around 75 which is a 15 year increase from the average life expectancy of 60 in the 1930s. All President Roosevelt would’ve had to do was write into the Social Security Act that the retirement age would increase by 1 year every 15 years. Which would make the current retirement age 70 with it scheduled to increase to 71 in the year 2025. When the Social Security act was passed the retirement age was 65 and life expectancy was 60...a five year deficit…and if the current retirement age was 70 with a current life expectancy of 75, then there would be a five year positive gap…But somehow if you even suggest raising the retirement age to only 67 or 68, then you hate old people or some bull crap.
Then there’s Medicare. I’m sure you’ve heard about how Paul Ryan wants to throw granny over a cliff and all that jazz…and that he wants to ration health services to seniors and blah blah blah. Its all crap. Mr. Ryan’s “voucher program” (as his critics call it) is NOT about rationing…the Ryan plan creates a Medicare payment initially averaging $11,000 per recipient with lower income earners receiving more support while benefits for wealthier seniors are reduced. This Medicare payment allows seniors to purchase their own PRIVATE health insurance if they choose. The idea is that its much cheaper to pay for seniors’ Medicare certified insurance plans than it is to pay for all of their doctor visits, prescriptions, procedures and operations with taxpayer money. Makes sense to me.
The opponents of the Ryan Plan say that under this plan all new Medicare recipients would receive $2,000 less in benefits than they are currently projected to receive. I say….ummmm…that’s kind of the idea…isn’t it? We want to lower the expense of Medicare on the taxpayers…and as I said before, the plan states that we will spend less per recipient because its cheaper to grant a Medicare payment for private insurance than it is for the government to pick up the entire tab which averages between $13,000 and $14,000 per recipient. Not to mention the fact that the President’s own healthcare law calls for cutting Medicare by $500 billion dollars and puts 15 unelected bureaucrats in charge of Medicare (to ration care)….where as the Ryan Plan puts seniors back in charge of managing their coverage.
Finally, there’s Medicaid. All that the Ryan Plan calls for is to put STATES back in charge of running their healthcare plans. Each state is different and should be allowed to create a system that works best for its citizens. I really don’t see a problem with that. Critics say that some state governments run just as badly as the federal government…and I say…THAT’S THE WORST ARGUMENT I’VE EVER HEARD. Because some of the state governments are just as bad as the federal government then we shouldn’t allow the states with solid governments to create their own Medicaid plans??? The states are suppose to compete with each other…and if one of these less than stellar state governments sees that a plan is working well in a neighboring state…then maybe they’ll try that plan for themselves as they begin to notice that their citizens are moving away to the better ran state. The hard fact is that the federal government allows nearly 10% of the Medicaid budget to be spent on improper payments (fraud) totaling around 40 BILLION dollars a year. That’s over double the average of all other government program’s improper payments of around 4%.
The bottom line here is that States want to keep their citizens…a State without citizens ceases to exist…so competition makes states want to do better for their people. That’s what has made our republic so great and why there are many more things that should be given back to the states to decide…but again, that’s a rant for another time. I just feel as though it’s a no brainer to give Medicaid back to the states…especially, when it has become obvious that Washington is all but completely dysfunctional.
In closing, I want to make one thing very clear…The Ryan Plan doesn’t cut anything from these programs. Let me repeat that…. THE RYAN PLAN DOESN’T CUT ANYTHING from these programs!!! The Plan simply slows the growth of the programs…and we all know that according to liberal math, if a program is suppose to get a 5% increase and it only receives a 4% increase then that’s a cut. Give me a break. That’s like saying a child started out by getting a 5 dollar per week allowance with every six months the allowance being raised by 1 dollar. After two years, the allowance would have risen by 4 dollars to a total of 9 dollars per week. That would have meant the child had their allowance increased by 2 dollars each of the first two years. Now say that during the third year, the parents decided (for what ever reason) to raise the child’s allowance 1 dollar to bring the total allowance to an even 10 bucks. According to a liberal, the child didn’t receive a dollar raise…they received a dollar cut. I hope that you can see the difference between a cut and slowed growth. They are completely different things.
No comments:
Post a Comment