Now that FDL’s Jon Walker has done the deliciously dirty work of exposing Paul Ryan’s anti-Medicare proposal to force America’s seniors to accept the same flawed mandate and voucher system as ObamaCare, I can’t wait to hear Mitt Romney explain why he thinks this is a terrific idea.
As Jon so subtly hints, a pig is a pig, even if it has Mitt Romney’s lipstick on it. For the affected groups, the basic outline of RomneyCare is the same as the basic outline of ObamaCare is the same as the basic outline of StupidRyanCare. Let’s review the features:
1. Force everyone in the affected group to purchase private health insurance. We’ll call that a “mandate.”
2. Require the private insurers to accept all eligible customers but do little to prevent them from discouraging/screening out sick people via poor service and marketing. Call this “the business plan.”
3. Deprive the customers of any lower-cost public alternatives, like Medicare for all, a public option, etc. Call that “choice” or “keeping the insurers honest.”
4. Allow insurance companies to become so concentrated that in 80-90 percent of the country, only one or two mega insurers control the local market and set prices, while providing minimal oversight to ensure quality of service. Allow the antitrust, anti-price fixing regulators to wither. Call that “free market competition.”
5. Require the affected group to select between this one or two insurers on an “exchange” website that allows them to find the websites for the few eligible private insurance plans. We call this, “using teh Google.”
6. Having stripped consumers of the ability to bargain collectively (via Medicare, a union, an employer) for better, cheaper, more honest private insurance, send individual consumers, including the sick and the elderly, out on their own to “bargain” with the insurance giants. Call this, “leveling the playing field.”
7. Minimize or neglect obvious efforts to rein in the costs of private health care providers, including hospitals, specialist cartels, and big PhRMA, who are allowed to merge and concentrate. Let them be shielded by too-long patents and non-compete agreements and exempt from market or regulatory cost controls or antitrust pressure. Then allow them to fix the prices that private insurers must cover and pass on to their captive customers, plus the insurers’ higher but hard-to-audit administrative costs and profits. Do “homes of the rich and famous” shows on the execs. Call this, “the invisible growing hand in your wallet.”
8. Collect payroll taxes and other revenues via government mandate to help subsidize premiums — we’ll call this “premium assistance” — but provide no mechanism to ensure that the assistance keeps up with rising care costs to make the premiums affordable. If you’re Ryan, make sure it doesn’t keep up (See Dean Baker and CBO on how this screws Seniors). Call that “fixing the budget by shifting the costs to vulnerable people on fixed incomes.”
9. Wait to see how many people die from this stupid system. Call that “fiscal responsibility” or just “evil.” (Note similarity to Wi. Gov. Walker et ilk in shifting budget costs to workers as a means to strip workers’ economic leverage.)
Yes, that’s it. That’s the structure of PaulRyanCare. It’s also the structure of ObamaCare for the non-elderly, non-poor, which is exactly RomneyCare in Massachusetts.
Now my ex-Governor has a slight problem. Massachusetts’ system is called RomneyCare, because he was governor and he signed the bill and then went around the country telling folks what a great system he created. But when another corporate Republican, Barack Obama, embraced exactly the same structure (because he likes Republican ideas), poor Mitt had to come up with a reason why ObamaCare was awful but RomneyCare was, uh, different.
What Mitt Romney has been telling talk shows and crowds for months is that RomneyCare is different because . . . (1) Obama proposed ObamaCare, so it can’t be the same because it’s a government takeover, and (2) ObamaCare is different because it’s one-size fits all, imposed nationally, whereas RomneyCare is tailored to fit the peculiarities of people like me who came from New Mexico and California but happen to live near Cambridge, MA, and (3) that’s the best he could come up with.
But now Paul Ryan has come out with PaulRyanCare, same as ObamaCare, same as RomneyCare, only worse, because Ryan doesn’t make any pretense of covering actual health costs over time. But worse for Mitt, Paul Ryan wants to impose RyanCare on all future seniors (after some date called “the day of forgetting”) across the nation. As in, “one size fits all.”
So I am anxious to know what Mitt Romney says about this. And here it is: (h/t TPM)
I applaud Rep. Paul Ryan for recognizing the looming financial crisis that faces our nation and for the creative and bold thinking that he brings to the debate. He is setting the right tone for finally getting spending and entitlements under control. Anyone who has read my book knows that we are on the same page.
Oh. So Paul Ryan read Mitt’s book. But don’t worry about poor Mitt. Montana Senator Max Baucus has now assured us that he’d never allow anything as stupid, corrupt and cynical as RyanCare to be imposed on Americans. Not on his watch. No siree.
“We are led by idiots.” — Atrios



38 Comments

Thorough.
‘Tween you n Mr. Walker, its all bookmarked for I thank I iz gonna need this info whilst jousting teh idjits of all party affiliations.
Rcc’d, as always n thanks for all you do.
I have never understood why Medicare for those under 65 hasn’t been offered on an open enrollment basis. I would think employers would love it for competitive reasons, and the system would be flooded with money from those under 65 who are, on the average, a much healthier group. What am I missing? What are the downsides?
Ditto.
too much competition for the for-profits.
Sadly not enough of our “representatives” have a “service” orientation. They are about MONEY, GREED, and LYING.
Exactly. The big corpses couldn’t handle the competition and demand that they be screened from it.
The cost of insurance coverage is more than my monthly income, or it would be if not for my pre-existing condition that makes me completely ineligible for coverage. Even Medicare covers only 70 to 80% of costs, which add up fast. Then extra $90 a month for a prescription plan that allows up to a 60% discount from highly inflated list prices. My two main medicines cost list of $580 per month, so assuming a, at best 40% discount,leaves me owing $230 + the $95 drug plan fee + the unpaid 20% from diagnosis and doctor and hospital bills. This on a level of income that now qualifies me for health clinic discounts on blood tests, doctor visits and they are providing medication for me .
Now if a person was allowed the “free market” choice of buying medicine from a foreign pharmacy, one of the drugs that sells for $278 a month here, would be available in a generic equivalent for $30 a month and the other drug in generic at $35 a month. So with the medicare drug plan I would pay $368 a month for two drugs, including the drug plan charge, but in a free market the cost would be $65 with no drug plan. Both drugs have no generic available in the USA.
Claims are made that some form of low income help will be available in 2014, although attempts by Republicans to repeal those laws are in progress, so now and possibly in the future our health care laws are no help to me, and I am not at the bottom of the payment scale for social security.
Republicans are also trying to reduce the budgets of community health clinics and public assistance like Planned Parenthood, who supply what is the only health care received by many low income women.
Assumptions that everyone can buy health insurance are based on total fantasy.
He can’t explain it and won’t even attempt to do so in plain english.
Have you heard Ryan give a reasonable explanation of his budget plan?
How does wiping out the Social Security Administration save money or jobs? It doesn’t!
Except those of the “former Congressperson/Senator” type, I would assume…
Classic Line here by Scarecrow!
“But when another corporate Republican, Barack Obama, embraced exactly the same structure (because he likes Republican ideas), poor Mitt had to come up with a reason why ObamaCare was awful but ”
Houston! Mitt Romney has a huge problem
Me thinks a lot Dems running in 2012 will be throwing ObamaCare under the bus, and the tea party will be throwing Mitt Romney under the same bus.
more fun
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qybUFnY7Y8w
When is Willard going to just go away. No way a Mormon is ever going to win a nomination when his “base” is a bunch of ignorant, bigoted assholes. He reminds me of The Log Cabin idiots or GOProud. Completely in denial about reality.
heh… too true on all counts. Don’t get it, myself, but there ya go…
Man I hope they find a way to pull this off and turn Medicare into Obamacare. I honestly do. Average Americans are such selfish, scared, short-term thinkers. I think that would go along way toward waking people up and getting them to see the need for organizing peaceful direct action and civil disobedience.
What is the average age of an FDL diarist/commenter do you suppose?
Morning Peg! And spot on with your comments…
Kudos, Scarecrow, for the clarity. Too bad Congress is in Foggy Bottom where clarity never exists.
Has Obama caved yet? The day is young.
Yeah you nailed it, Scarecrow. It’s a time bomb for real, breathing human beings but isn’t that the way financial terrorists roll?
From the Dean Baker link:
That really brings home how much of a cut this is.
Oh, can I answer the question? It’s because Mitt Romney is a partisan mongoloid who doesn’t let facts get in the way of his political ambitions.
Only 32 percent? Why would any sane person agree to that?
I’m telling you, it is the same as the Bush Medicare Part D plan that has huge deductibles and donut holes that seniors have to pay to private insurance firms!
I hear ya.
Back when Obama started endorsing an individual mandate without a public option, the only rank-and-file people I knew who were vigorously promoting that there was nothing wrong with forcing people to purchase private health insurance that wasn’t even fettered by antitrust regulations — were usually medicare recipients.
I suspect that in the next couple of months, the democrats will make a “counter proposal” consisting of dissolving medicare in favor of providing vouchers for some seniors — something *slightly* better than what the republicans are proposing. The rank-and-file dems who post on HP and Kos will rebuke liberals who are against it, saying “perfect is the enemy of the good”, and “think of the alternative! the slightly worse republican plan!”
I’d seriously like to know what those very same seniors who endorsed the individual mandate 2 Christmases ago will do at that point.
“Only 32 percent? Why would any sane person agree to that?”
Our representatives wont care since virtually all of them are well to do and will be able to afford their own private insurance throughout their lives.
What will the average American do if both parties endorse such a course of action? I think they lack the courage and initiative to go beyond the two party system, and will end up voting for the slightly less abusive parent.
Mitt is a very flexible, creative guy; he’ll come up with something. He makes chameleons look like colorless lizards.
We are in our late fifties – my wife’s coverage (medical only, no drug coverage) costs about $4,000 per year, with a $2,000 deductible, and quite a few uncovered expenses (we discovered after she fell down a flight of stairs and broke some bones). So call it $6,000 per year.
I wonder how many other couples or families only insure some of the family members, due to cost. We’re glad she was the one who had the accident, or we’d have declared bankruptcy.
David Dayen has a fresh cross-post already in progress: Ryan Budget Would Massively Increase Costs for Senior Health Care
How will he explain and rationalize it? Simple. They’re both Republicans, so it’s OK. Jeeziss told ‘em so.
Exactly. But why is this bit buried in the post?
Rather than make wondering how Romney will explain why PaulRyanCare the central focus, shouldn’t we be focusing on Obama and calling out Obama for the corporatist pig that ObamaCare (same as PaulRyanCare, same as RomneyCare) reveals him to be?
The last thing Obama’s going to want to hear as he launches his 2012 campaign is people pointing out how similar ObamaCare and PaulRyanCare are.
Your opinion is untenable unless …
To be serious, rather than just posturing before the FDL audience, you would have to be willing to PUBLICLY campaign for that happening, under your own name. You would have to be able to tell people, “I want this to happen to you!” Under your own name.
Otherwise, it’s not serious. That’s the problem with all the “I hope the Republicans win” folks. While some might argue that voting Green, for instance, could lead to a Republican win, advocating voting Green — and doing so publicly in your own name — is advocating positions you can be proud of.
Whole different thing.
That’s the whole point. Romney won’t be defending ObamaCare. Obama will be twisting himself into a pretzel explaining why NOT ObamaCare for seniors.
The debate is always on the Republican turf.
hehheh…”et ilk”…very good;gonna steal that one, fer sure…
In addition to mostly being millionaires, after sufficient time in office (think it’s 5 years) a member of Congress is entitled to lifetime access to health insurance with cost and coverage us proles can only dream of. And a nice pension, too, not those 401(k)s most of us have had to accept instead.
that’s a nonsensical statement.
I don’t know you from Adam, and jeffroby is not going to convince me of his positions if they are out of touch with reality, nor that his name is indeed Jeff Roby.
If ‘blink’ can help rattle some disconnected synapses back into sync with reality and thus help dislodge some propaganda victims from their partisan stupor, kudos for ‘blink’.
Nor am I convinced that your name is Co Funk, but really, what the fuck are you talking about?
Anyone interested in checking out your ability to carry on a coherent discussion can follow this, which you launched into on your second day at FDL. You’re just spewing rhetoric. Are you then actually supporting blink’s position, “Man I hope they find a way to pull this off and turn Medicare into Obamacare”? Would a HIGHER unemployment rate make you happy because it would cause the masses to rise up?
The “looming” financial crisis that Republican’s are so worried about will happen–in the most abrupt possible way–in about a month if a budget deal isn’t reached and the US begins defaulting on its sovereign debt. Ignorance and stupidity at this level among right wingers is just plain evil.
“Are you then actually supporting blink’s position, “Man I hope they find a way to pull this off and turn Medicare into Obamacare”?
Absolutely and unconditionally, yes. And probably for the same reasons and in the same spirit in which blink made that statement. — Nothing but a true populist uprising will turn this Titanic around. Which is why your otherwise excellent treatise on methodology, is utterly worthless as a tool for the times.
And how will that lead to a “true populist uprising”?
“And how will that lead to a “true populist uprising”?”
jeffroby, I think you are taking advantage of my recent arrival, and just joshing with me here.
If the Quislings would have stood up for universal healthcare 70% of the public would have seen the benefits, but all that we’d be hearing is wall to wall reports of the 30% who’d claim to hate it. – Do you agree with this general assessment?
Perhaps you recall the T’baggers being all up in arms against socialized haealthcare while holding signs saying ‘hands off my Medicare”?! – Same thing.
Just as a hungry man is an angry man, a screwed man is a ultra pissed man, which is to say that if instead of slowly chipping away at the New Deal the Democrats would simply capitulate to the Republican’s corporatist demands, an uprising would be the automatic response.
Obamacare, with few mitigating exceptions (soon to disappear) is Lemon Socialism. The proposed Ryancare is the same. So, if you’d let them do quickly what they are doing incrementally, the only reasonable public response would be absolute and unmitigated outrage across the political spectrum. No amount of MSM spin could overcome the reality.
Health Insurance is wrongly categorized within the Health sector, as it firmly belongs within the Financial one, and you do remember how the ‘baggers reacted to Wall Street’s greatest heist in history…
Bring your methodology to the war at hand: Class War, and not the one you’ve been conned into fighting, or wish you were, and we might do great things together!
In other words, you subscribe to the long-discredited emiseration theory — that misery automatically leads to uprising.
Well, there are millions of hungry men (oh yeah, and women) and millions of screwed men (and yeah, women), and millions of the homeless, unemployed, foreclosed and oppressed ultra-pissed women and men in this country. And from a historic perspective, a lot of it’s been rather sudden. So where’s the rebellion? I see stirrings from primarily union members (not the most screwed among the U.S. population, by the way), but where’s the uprising?
It has to be organized. It was organized in Egypt, though the media has tried to obscure that. It was the existence of organized unions that led to events in Wisconsin. Otherwise, people simply are ground into the dirt, atomized, scattered, destroyed.
So capitulating to the Republican’s corporatist demands would lead to an uprising? Automatically. Per your logic, we should all join the Republicans and campaign for their most reactionary policies. We would tell the homeless and the unemployed and the foreclosed that we were taking away their homes and their healthcare and their jobs for their own goods? And how would they look upon us when we THEN tried to lead them in an uprising? Or would yours be a strategy where we could not look them in the face without shame?
In case you hadn’t noticed, we are already in a class war. Sorry, Class War. Better yet, CLASS WAR!!!!! It’s just that you would have us joining the wrong side.