And the critics' plan to save Medicare from bankruptcy is.....? At least Romney has plans to DO something. And is honest enough not to pretend to know the numbers involved: government proposals never approximate reality in anticipated savings anyhow. The point, as Richmond says, is competition; there's no way to predict how much that will save, except that it will be better than monopoly.

Romney is right on track to seek competition as a way to reform Medicare. The one part of Medicare which has come in under budget has been the prescription drug plan, which is based on a competitive model. The price controls that Obamacare uses do not work, and will lead to shortages, as health care providers refuse to accept Medicare.

The above Boston Globe opinion piece is full of all the usual Democratic-Party/AARP-insurance-company/left-wing lies. The implication is that "Original Medicare" (Parts A dnd B) is somehow popular and public and that other proposed or existing (Parts C and D) Medicare plans are dreg policies for the unlucky few and private. This is not true at at least two levels: 1. Administratively, Original Medicare is just as private (or public) as Parts C and D Medicare. All Medicare plans (A, B, C and D) are run by private insurers (National Heritage Insurance of Hingham in Massachusetts) in the same manner that self-insured employer sponsored group insurance such as from Raytheon or EMC works. (Self-insured employer sponsored insurance accounts for about half of the insured in Massachusetts.) The only difference is that us seniors cannot choose the A and B provider in our region whereas we can usually choose among multiple C and D providers at the county level. Of course this is also no different than if we work for EMC or Raytheon; employees do not choose which insurance companies administer their traditional plans either. 2. From a market dymanics perspective, very few people nationwide (around 10%) choose the Original Medicare that the Globe columnist inexplicably admires and for some reason thinks is a viable option. Original Medicare is not an option. It is terrible insurance with lifetime limits, geographic restricitions, no vision/dental/drug coverage, high copays/deductibles, no annual physicals, no long term care, and many other restrictions that Obama criticized in 2010 when passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Therefore: -- About 55% of us seniors nationwide add Gap and drug insurance (rising) or get the equivalent from an employer retirement plan (decreasing). -- About 25% of us emulate that approach through a C plan. -- About 10% of us are also on Medicaid State bureacracies such as Prescription Advantage in Massachusetts are set up around the country to allow those at 300% to 500% (depending on state) of FPL or lower to be part of the 55% or 25% at reduced premium rates. It doesn't matter if a Rivlin or Ryan plan were implemeted and mandated to include a "Original Medicare" option. Almost no one buys that option today so why would they buy it in the future.