[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by Napoleon17

From what I've read of the proposal, I understand it's pretty drastic, at least when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid, which are huge issues that are going to be hotly contested.

Yes and no....it really doesn't layout specific major changes, but makes a great case for the insolvency of those programs. If I'm reading it correctly, the idea would be to offer only newly eligible people programs based on those that congress members have. Existing patients would retain the old system, or I'm assuming be able to opt into the new one should they choose.

In contrast, just letting the whole system go to pot on it's current track would be pretty drastic.

I knew I should have filled out that Form 4361 when I had the chance....

EDIT: any negotiation starts off with extremes from each side, and generally each side doesn't get everything they want, but each side gets something they want. That's why I say that this particular proposal is never going to happen. Some parts of it may be implemented, but the Republicans are not going to get what they don't ask for.

It'll never happen simply because there is nothing to make happen. It's just a proposal for fiscal thinking with a few good but broad ideas. So far in this discussion only one person is trying to spin it as an actual budget proposal and judge it based on that merit.

That said, I'd love to see Ryan or whomever go that next step and show us how this could be accomplished, starting with a 2012 budget.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

If I'm reading it correctly, the idea would be to offer only newly eligible people programs based on those that congress members have.

So children and retired people and disabled people will be offered the same package that works for the independantly wealthy?

That seems like "let them eat cake".

In contrast, just letting the whole system go to pot on it's current track would be pretty drastic

Or we could look at the transisition from 1990 to 2000. For that matter: we could look to the 2000 budget as a good place to work from.

How about that? Put spending around 2000 levels?

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So children and retired people and disabled people will be offered the same package that works for the independantly wealthy?

That seems like "let them eat cake".

Or we could look at the transisition from 1990 to 2000. For that matter: we could look to the 2000 budget as a good place to work from.

How about that? Put spending around 2000 levels?

"Let them eat cake"... what does that even mean with regard to this discussion?

Democrats are agreeing to $38 billion in budget cuts as we speak, kicking and screaming the whole way. If you want them to cut more, by all means join the discussion.

The programs that this proposal attempts to strengthen and save from failing are targeted toward the weakest members of our society. The goal is not to make them wealthy, nor to guarantee them an identical lifestyle.

[adamwagg]

I think Jerry is saying that the program that works for those that are wealthy will not be adequate for those who are much poorer and have less means to support themselves. Hence the reference to the famous saying 'let them eat cake' which works well in this context.

Is that what you were saying Jerry?

If so then I agree In principle that a program that works for a rich segment of society may well not work for the poorer segment, unless the first is over generous or is well deigned to provide a universally acceptable level of support. Though without knowing the details of each program here I can't say if that's the case.

[JerryLove]

Yes, that would be an accurate description of my analogy.

And I cannot say I'm familiar with the specific program in question either. I know that what works successfully for me (an umbrella plan), did not work for my wife (who went without meds because she could not afford them) before we started living together. I suspect strongly that the same holds true here...or does congress give its members food-stamps?

[JerryLove]

I am curious what people who believe Ryan is about limited spending think of his voting record. Specifically:

Voted NO on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)
Voted YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)

All but the first are spending, with no budget controls, and with no end date.