Convention speakers

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You keep saying this, but the article you linked did not state that this is actually what would happen.

I have seen it reported several places. The "admittedly extreme" scenario was the authors opinion, but according to the congressional analysis, it is actually what was proposed.

The following is directly from the Joint Economic Committee (10 rep., 10 dems) report


"After eliminating the deductions for state and local taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions, removing the employer‐provided health insurance exclusion, and taxing 401(k) contributions, the typical household making more than $1 million and filing a joint return will still experience a net reduction in taxes of $286,543 under Ryan’s budget. The typical household earning between $500,000 and $1 million will see their tax burden decline by $37,887.


For households making less than $200,000, removing the tax deductions, making 401(k) contributions subject to taxes, and eliminating the exclusion for employer‐provided health insurance outweighs the benefit of the lower tax rates in the Ryan plan. The net effect is that a typical household earning between $50,000 and $100,000 and filing jointly will face a tax increase under the Ryan plan of $1,358, assuming the additional income is taxed at a 10 percent rate. If those households end up in the 25 percent tax bracket, their additional tax burden would more than double to $2,938. For households with incomes between
$100,000 and $200,000, the tax increase is $2,681."

http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/?a=...f-9b88695dcb85

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I have seen it reported several places. The "admittedly extreme" scenario was the authors opinion, but according to the congressional analysis, it is actually what was proposed.

The following is directly from the Joint Economic Committee (10 rep., 10 dems) report

actually, according to the cover page of the report and as noted on the bottom of every page after that, it was prepared by Sen. Bob Casey's staff...who are the 10 republicans and 9 other democrats that signed on to this?

The 30-second spot cites two liberal sources for the claims: the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a report prepared by the staff of a Democratic U.S. senator active on budget issues.

Roberton Williams, senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, said Baldwin’s mixing of the two studies is a problem.

"They are not even apples and oranges," Williams said. "It’s more like apples and toast."

Both Williams and McBride expressed some concerns with the Democratic study because it assumes Ryan would eliminate major tax deductions that greatly benefit the middle class and below.

"We had no basis to decide what Ryan would pick" to eliminate, Williams said. He also criticized the Democratic study as using questionable estimates.

PolitiFact Wisconsin | Baldwin says Thompson wants to give millionaires a tax cut while raising taxes on the middle class

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I have seen it reported several places. The "admittedly extreme" scenario was the authors opinion, but according to the congressional analysis, it is actually what was proposed.

The fact is, the Ryan/Wyden budget proposal does not specify which tax exemptions would be eliminated nor on whom. The projections you cite are guesses and assumptions that probably won't happen. The tax questions will be fleshed out by the Ways and Means Committee, and political suicide is not normal procedure.

What your report, and other negative projections don't take into account, as well as making worst case assumptions, is the impact of competitive bidding for medicare insurance coverage. Bringing the cost down on the Federal Gvts. most expensive toy, as well as cutting other spending, would have a positive impact on the economy, and on the middle class.

What is more probable than eliminating all the "middle class" deductions, is the degradation of this plan, or any other long-term plan, by future administrations and congresses.

Nor am I, personally, all that ga-ga about the Ryan plan. It is still Big Government. But at least it attempts to reduce the National Debt and "save" medicare. Much of the medicare reform is similar to the Health Care Bill. But the difference, for me, is the trajectory, vector, direction. The HCB goes in the direction of nationalizing a private sector function, the Ryan/Wyden plan goes in the direction of privatizing a national plan. It is a step toward devolution of Federal power.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What your report, and other negative projections don't take into account, as well as making worst case assumptions, is the impact of competitive bidding for medicare insurance coverage. Bringing the cost down on the Federal Gvts. most expensive toy, as well as cutting other spending, would have a positive impact on the economy, and on the middle class.

Interesting enough though, the most recent experiment along these lines (Medicare Advantage) is reported to have a higher government cost.

What is more probable than eliminating all the "middle class" deductions, is the degradation of this plan, or any other long-term plan, by future administrations and congresses.

Agree this is most likely.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Interesting enough though, the most recent experiment along these lines (Medicare Advantage) is reported to have a higher government cost.

-spence

It has a higher government cost partly due to its disbursments being tied into traditional medicare's administrative payment system. Ryan's plan presumably corrects that. Medicare Advantage also is more expensive because it provides a broader range of benefits than fee for service and enrollees receive higher quality care than those in traditional Medicare. In fact, the majority of Medical Advantage plan bids to provide standard Medicare benefits come in at or below government's benchmark.

The Ryan plan for competition through bidding sets the benchmark at the second lowest bid or current medicare cost, whichever is lower. If the beneficiary chooses a higher cost (higher bid) plan, he pays the difference. If he chooses the lowest cost plan, he would get a rebate for the difference. And those who choose the benchmark plan would get a voucher for the full cost. Also, vouchers would be risk-adjusted--upward for for higher risk beneficiaries, and lower for the lower risk ones. The various competing plans would have to accept anyone who applies. So companies with excess low risk enrollees would pay a fee to make up for the more profitable booking, those with excess high riskers would get a rebate.

There is a lengthy, complicated mechanism for keeping costs down and making competition work. But various critical articles don't get into the details. Various premium support plans, as is the Ryan plan, have been proposed in the past, even bipartisan ones. But they have been a tough sell, especially to seniors who have been mediscared by opponents into fearing losing medicare "as we know it." The Ryan plan solves that scare by not affecting anyone presently over 55, or those who are younger and choose to remain on traditional Medicare.

Other competing plans exist now, such as The Heritage Foundation premium support plan. When you read the actual plans, or, especially, the commentary on the plans by those who write them, or those who support them, you obviously get a far more optimistic view than that given by the critics.

Everybody seems to agree that some reform has to be made or the whole thing goes kapooie. Kinda depends on which "vector" you prefer.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

In fact, the majority of Medical Advantage plan bids to provide standard Medicare benefits come in at or below government's benchmark.

That's got to be easy for the insurance companies to say when they know that's not the rate they're going to get paid.

From what I see the Ryan plan has a real potential to divide the system into dramatically different levels of care based on means.

-spence