Paul Ryan Says He's Open To Making Medicare Plan Optional

WASHINGTON -- The news from Thursday that House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) was willing to make his proposal for privatizing Medicare optional was not really news at all.

While his budget creates a voucher system for Medicare -- giving seniors a check to purchase insurance through an established exchange -- Ryan has, in the past, expressed openness for allowing seniors to remain in the traditional fee-for-service system. So when he told the advocacy group No American Debt that he'd be comfortable with having "a fee-for-service option alongside premium support" on Thursday, it turned some heads but it wasn't inherently earth-shattering.

Conor Sweeney, a spokesman for the congressman, pointed out that Ryan told The Weekly Standard in April that he didn't "have a problem" with allowing those under 55 to remain on traditional Medicare should they choose to do so. While he's presented his budget as financial solace for an entitlement program going bankrupt, Ryan added that allowing the choices wouldn't necessarily mitigate its "budgetary effect."

Yet when Ryan offered a similar variation of that response on Thursday, Democrats accused him of running away from the budget he authored.

"Republicans are not fooling anyone," said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "They voted to end Medicare and now they can’t take the heat. The only plan is called Medicare and we must strengthen it, not weaken it. What you’re hearing now is a lead balloon crashing to the ground."

It is a telling illustration of how politically advantageous Democrats believe Ryan's Medicare plan could be for them -- even as he tacks away from it, they refuse to acknowledge his flexibility. In reality, however, the aggrieved party here should be Ryan's fellow Republicans.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took a near presidential campaign-ending amount of heat for suggesting that Ryan's proposal went too far and should be made optional. His rhetoric, of course, was part of the problem (Gingrich called it "radical" and "right-wing social engineering") but his principle is one that even Ryan himself has endorsed. And now, as one Republican operative complained to The Huffington Post, every GOP member in Congress is being forced to defend Ryan's plan even though he himself seems fine with it being a starting point -- not the end product -- of negotiations.

"Even Ryan seems to think that this was the beginning of a discussion," said the operative, who asked to remain nameless for fear of political retaliation. "It is pretty bizarre, maybe even suicidal, to take a brain storming idea and make it a litmus test."

Comments

[HonyGee]

10:08 AM on 06/22/2011

How about making the entire budget plan optional? http://open.salon.com/blog/greer_mcvay/2011/06/22/weiners_over_now_back_to_ryan

[joeThibo]

09:27 PM on 06/27/2011

Sure !! And why don't we just ignore the budget process all together. Oh that's right that's what the Democrat controlled Senate is doing as we speak. The congress writes a law that by April each year they should create and vote on a budget for the country. Now who would have thought the party that wrote those provisions would be the party that will violate the law as written. That;s right folks the same Democrats who want regular law and order are to busy to supply regular law and order when it comes to the budget process. Heck they didn't pass a budget last year either. They should all be held in contempt of congress for not doing their assigned duties. They are obstructing the running of a government.

[kcin]

07:59 AM on 06/20/2011

Republicans and Democrats are trying to solve different problems, which is why their solutions look so different.

Democrats are trying to use the vast economic resources of this country to maintain its infrastructure, invest in the future through things like education, and take care of it citizens in areas from unemployment to disaster relief.

Republicans are trying to redirect the vast economic resources of this country to the top 1%. Every dollar spent on the little guy is one less dollar available for those at the top.

Republican fiscal policies are the problem, NOT the solution.

[joeThibo]

06:03 PM on 06/20/2011

You forgot the other comment
The democrat fiscal policies are the problem of bankruptcy and NOT the solution!!

[kcin]

08:26 AM on 06/21/2011

Do you actually think about your postings?

The Debt to GDP ratio is the correct way to look at our debt and measure how it impacts our potential for bankruptcy. This is because it puts debt in the context of income and it automatically adjusts for inflation.

Look at the third chart on the page from a conservative web site. Down is good, up is bad:

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/

Reagan, Bush and Bush combined have increased our debt problem by 313%. Carter, Clinton and Obama combined have increased our debt problem by 0% (yes, zero).

Republicans controlled the House (therefore setting fiscal policy) for 7 consecutive elections preceding the Great Depression and for 6 of the 7 elections preceding the Great Recession. Democrats controlled the House for 29 of the 31 elections between those two periods of Republican control and presided over the most prosperous time in our history.

If you think it's Democrats who are driving the bus into the ditch, you need to watch something other than Fox.

[kcin]

07:37 AM on 06/27/2011

You said, "The mandated that the sub-prime loans be made available so some could afford to buy homes they didn't pay for. "

Again, your facts are wrong. The legislation you are referring to did nothing like this. What it mandated was that banks use the same financial criteria for all geographic areas served by banks in determining loan qualification. So, for example, if two people had the exact same economic qualifications, and wanted to purchase homes in different neighborhoods, the banks could not approve one and deny the other based solely on neighborhood.

The sub-prime crisis occurred because demand exceeded supply for high quality investments, so banks bundled investment packages using less and less secure loans while the rating agencies continued to give them top rating. US mortgages had a historical default rate of 3% (very safe) but the banks bundled these loans in packages that ended up with default rates in excess of 9% (not safe).

It was greed by those who bundled these investments that brought about the sub-prime crisis. And it was the lack of oversight by the Bush administration from 2004 to 2007 that allowed this to occur.

And given the number of times you mention socialism in your posts, you really need to study what socialism is. You don't really appear to understand what it is and whether or not we are doing it.

[tbbikerdad]

07:53 AM on 06/20/2011

Only thing going to help MEDICARE / MEDICADE / SOCIAL SECURITY , ...GET RID OF WELFARE SYSTEM . AMERICAN CONGRESS IS KEEPING AMERICA IN SOCIALIZED MEDICINE ON PURPOSE . ...THE MORE DEPENDANT WE ARE ON GOVERNMENT TO SURVIVE , WE CAN NOT ARGUE ABOUT WHAT IS PROVIDED FOR SURVIVAL , .....BECAUSE IT IS FREE , YOU CAN NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT SOMETHING YOU DID NOT PAY FOR .........T i m

[kcin]

08:17 AM on 06/20/2011

So, things like cancer or cardiac treatment are free? In this country those things are for-profit businesses.

And if everything we need for survival is free, what about food? Clean water? Heck, you're on the Internet soaking up public resources and using electricity that requires a public infrastructure.

A better question is why are we sending taxpayer dollars to large international corporations that build plants in other countries? Or, why do those who make many millions of dollars pay, on average, a lower tax rate than everyone else?

We have the resources to take care of our own, which is the point of government. We pool our resources for the common good. But under Republican stewardship our government has become a tool for the redistribution of wealth upward.

Republicans tell you they want small government, but their actions say otherwise. They attempt to 1) take your money and 2) control just about every aspect of your life.

Actions speak louder than words. You cry about Socialism, but you should study up on Oligarchy, which is the form of government the Republicans are creating.

[joeThibo]

10:48 AM on 06/21/2011

RE: "Actions speak louder than words. You cry about Socialism, but you should study up on Oligarchy, which is the form of government the Republican­s are creating. "

====Since when is putting the decisions in the hands of the people an Oligarchy. The Republicans want Medicare decisions placed in the hands of the people instead of the government. That is a Representative Republic just like the founders formed many years ago. Try reading the constitution and Federalist Papers sometime and discover this country was not formed as a socialist or collective form of communism. It was formed as a limited government with restricted powers granted to the government. That's because the power of this nation is in the People and their ability to decide what is in their best interest. It's when govt.mandate that this nation gets in trouble. The people are the solution not the govt. The govt is suppose to provide equal protections for the people. So stop with Socialism and the collective good is what this nation needs. That's the last thing we need.

[tricked by bush]

08:50 AM on 06/20/2011

What are you talking about? Workers have paid into Medicare all their working lives. It is not welfare. It is misinformed people like you who are the problem.

[GetRealView]

07:36 AM on 06/20/2011

I don't agree that Ryan thought that "this was the beginning of a discussion" and that it would be "suicidal, to take brain storming idea and make it a litmus test." Why do I say this? Because look at how both the media and the Republicans in Congress jumped on Newt Gingrich after his interview on "Meet the Press". They forced Newt to apologize to Ryan for saying his plan was "right wing social engineering." In fact, it was considered a litmus test for Republican presidential candidates as this incident showed. Paul Ryan himself said that the US was facing a debt and deficit catastrophe if it did not immediately reduce the size of the entitlements meaning Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

[ncweb76]

07:12 AM on 06/20/2011

This is what I like about Huffingtonpost. Although it is liberal leaning they give accurate news. They could have just continued the Democrat speaking points, but they went out of the way to put the statements in context. I'm a liberal so I appreciate accurate news. Conservatives want to stick their heads in the ground and push facts as far away as possible. If Fox didn't say it then its not true to them.

[rtx47]

12:28 AM on 06/20/2011

Over the weekend, I met a couple who are two-earner, high income, country club, golf enthusiasts, jet-set.

They were staunch Republicans till recently; when their elderly mother became nursing-home bound.

Now their philosophy is: Govt and System has to take care of their mother and others like her.
Suprise! Suprise! They just don't like Republican solutions to SS and healthcare.

[FreedomBeforeDemocracy]

10:55 PM on 06/19/2011

As Thomas Jefferson said (from http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/thomas+jefferson):
"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...[we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."

When will this stop?

[FreedomBeforeDemocracy]

10:54 PM on 06/19/2011

Paul Ryan's plan is only a first step. When seniors are put in control of their healthcare again (as opposed to Washington bureaucrats), prices will actually start getting lower rather than higher (not counting the Fed's inflation of course).

But Medicare (like SS) still works on the basic premise that current taxpayers can live better at the expense of future taxpayers (like our children, grandchildren, and beyond).

If the government thinks it knows best and needs to force people to do something, then we should force today's workers to save some of their resources to use when they get older. Instead, prior taxpayers have spent any extra payroll tax they paid plus two times more (that is about $5T payroll surplus for a $14T debt) and expect current (or most likely future) taxpayers to pay the bill.

SS, Medicare, public pensions, and public debt alike can all be described as generational theft (as well as tax rates below the level of spending).

[spiritcosmo]

09:33 AM on 06/20/2011

i cant wait to see what the out of pocket expense is for seniors when they are put "back in control" of their healthcrare via killing medicare. i think that they will find that they have even less control. what insurance company is going to want to insure an 80 year old man with a laundry list of pre-existing conditions? pretty hard to turn a profit on those people - so i wonder how they will turn a profit?

[FreedomBeforeDemocracy]

07:06 PM on 06/20/2011

Why shouldn't seniors pay more out of pocket for the services they want to receive? According to this survey data, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States, ages 55 to 64 are the wealthiest among us with 65 to 74 next in line. 45 to 54 is third, but 75 and older are next with 44 and younger having the least wealth (which makes sense considering wealth is accumulated over a lifetime and depleted in retirement). This isn't to say that there are poor seniors, but even if one concedes it is appropriate to take money by force to help the poor (which I do not), why should younger people living in poverty be forced to pay for Bill Gates healthcare?

A major reason the government is so inefficient at resource distribution is because they seek to get around our pricing system. The beneficiaries of Medicare don't pay the cost for the services. Yes they were forced to pay a tax when they were younger, but it had little to do with the cost of what they would be receiving.

This is why you don't hear the recipients trying to balance cost. They think they've already paid, but they didn't. They are now getting their services paid for by everyone else.

No matter how progressives may wish otherwise, medical care is a limited commodity like all others. There is no unending supply. Government provision mainly just leads to less efficient allocation of the limited resources we have.

[JDZSB]

10:33 PM on 06/19/2011

For self serving reasons, too many Americans think the taxpayers and federal government should take care of them. It is one thing to help people who are between jobs and provide temporary unemployment help, but the mindset that the federal and state governments should confiscate more and more income (in the form of taxes and fees) to provide welfare checks, food stamps, disability checks, free medical insurance, lavish salaries and benefits to public service union employees, etc. is outrageous and out of control. This mindset (which is a prevalent liberal mindset) is the root cause of why this country is going bankrupt. And, because it is political suicide to actually cut back on these entitlements, few in Washington have the guts to do anything about it. Those that do, like Paul Ryan, are demonized by the liberal and their lame street media friends. This country is headed down a rat hole unless we get some adult supervision in the Whitehouse.

[ncweb76]

07:15 AM on 06/20/2011

Wow...when did America become a country that would just love to see the weakest die in the streets. We have an obligation to take care of the weakest in society. I'm not talking about the ones that feed off the system, but some people literally need assistance. Ever heard of the working poor? Those "entitlements" are not the reason this country is going under. There are many reasons, but regardless of whether I do or don't go into detail it will make no difference. Your mindset is such that everyone is a slacker that might need some assistance.

[spiritcosmo]

09:35 AM on 06/20/2011

uneducated, no doubt

[rgilley]

09:18 PM on 06/19/2011

The Echoes of Ayn Rand in Paul Ryan's Budget Plan
Jonathan Chait examines the intellectual underpinnings of the movement to slash budgets -- and especially programs that serve the poor, elderly and weak -- in a Newsweek piece, and argues that this is no accident:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/04/the-echoes-of-ayn-rand-in-paul-ryans-budget-plan/237082/

[ThomasPaine1776]

04:20 AM on 06/20/2011

Is Ron Paul's kid name "Rand" for a reason?

[rgilley]

06:28 AM on 06/20/2011

Well they both claim no connection, But thats one hellll of a coincidence ya think?
They are however, bth obviously zealots concerning her loosely defined ideology.

"Ayn Rand is one of America's great mysteries. She was an amphetamine-addicted author of sub-Dan Brown potboilers, who in her spare time wrote lavish torrents of praise for serial killers and the Bernie Madoff-style embezzlers of her day. She opposed democracy on the grounds that "the masses"—her readers—were "lice" and "parasites" who scarcely deserved to live. "
"She said the United States should be a "democracy of superiors only," with superiority defined by being rich. Well, we got it. As the health care crisis has shown, today, the rich have the real power: The vote that matters is expressed with a checkbook and a lobbyist. We get to vote only for the candidates they have pre-funded and receive the legislation they have preapproved. It's useful—if daunting—to know that there is a substantial slice of the American public who believe this is not a problem to be put right, but morally admirable. "
http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/

When a substantial number of our leaders espouse this type of fascist ideology Democracy and freedom are at dire risk. We need to purge our Democracy of this type of cancer before we wake in a Fascist Oligarchy of the corporate elites.

[nothingchanges]

08:07 PM on 06/19/2011

Something to ponder.............

Why is it when Republicans commit political suicide, so many non Republicans have to die for it?

[roydoe]

04:07 PM on 06/19/2011

The same old thing has been happening since FDR and they will never stop until the the poor are subjugated to the lowest levels of hell.

[ncweb76]

07:15 AM on 06/20/2011

If it were legal to shoot the poor in the streets...you would see all of the Republican Congress loading up..

[Neal Norvell]

02:46 PM on 06/19/2011

This man is not qualified to be the Chair of the ROP budget committee. He's never had a job and speaks from no experience. I also have just discovered that if he has his way his family will cash in to the tune of billions over subsidies in the insurance sector. Something just doesn't smell right here. Paul Ryan's original term "Voucher system" has been declared off limits for the GOP. They cannot mention voucher system, premium support help, medicare reform, etc. Don't trust these folks they definitely want to do away with Medicare as it is today. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT THAT.

[FreedomBeforeDemocracy]

11:22 PM on 06/19/2011

Medicare as it is today will not survive. Since Mr. Obama has no plan (commission aren't a plan) his default position is to end Medicare as we know it. Until he shows some political courage and takes a stand one way or another, the electorate should respond disapprovingly.

[jwalter]

02:18 PM on 06/19/2011

social programs = buying votes of the underprivileged

[historian1960]

06:28 PM on 06/19/2011

The underprivileged don't vote. If they did, your buddy Ryan wouldn't have even floated this Randian wet dream to begin with.

[Hoosierbrad]

08:46 PM on 06/19/2011

Defense spending = buying the votes of war-mongers. See, I can spout nonsense, too!

[marcchagal]

12:20 PM on 06/19/2011

Does that stupid upstart Paul Ryan really think that his flip -flopping is making him more trustworthy to Americans? Those pieces of garbage, he and his republican cohorts, already voted to end medicare. U can't un-ring a bell. Do these fools really think that Americans are going to buy into Paul Ryan's dancing the tango backwards?