Whenever you hear a man speak of his love for his country, it is a sign that he expects to be paid for it. (H.L. Mencken)

Everything about Mitt Romney is fake. I especially dislike his Jim-Nabors-Gomer-Pyle-hat-on-backwards-aw-shucks-I'm-just-a-regular-guy shtick. Gomer was a good guy. Mitt, not so much. NEW Gosh, I want to be President so bad, won't you just vote for me? I'll make sure to have Aunt Bee prepare some Apple pie and later we can all take a spin around lake Winnipesaukee on my new boat. Barney will be so jealous.

Hypocrites and liars full of false indignation. Akin of Missouri showed us how Ryan thinks. They sponsored a bill about it together. What today's republicans want is to think one thing and tell you another.

Quit stalling, Mitt, and let us see those tax returns you've been hiding. Word is the returns are so radioactive the accountants had to wear Hazmat suits while preparing them. What are you trying to hide, Mittens?

wow - loonies are out in force today. why so scared of a debate on medicare and the economy? BTW, is the $6,400 claim by obama true or false? Does competition actually lower prices in medicare?

@begolfing: Paying insurance companies is a waste of health care money, because it doesn't go to actual health care. Insurance companies skim off their own cut and reduce the amount of money left for _actual_ health care. Ryan's plan is a massive corporate boondoggle and _waste_ of money!

What's wrong with Ryan's plan? Common sense can tell you that sick, elderly people aren't likely to be in shape to be negotiators and could easily be prey to insurance companies.

Dim eyes that cannot see - ears that cannot hear; Look around and listen to that silence coming from our factories. The sounds I hear are the shuffling feet of the unemployed. Silenced construction machines no longer digging to install the oil pipe line from Canada seem not to have improved our environment one whit. Let Mr. obama and his V.P. speak words that propose ways to fill our nation with jobs and prosperity. When he said Government built our successful businesses, I became ill. When he bowed low to that Saudi king I wondered why. If, listening to alternatives to the continuation of our miasma of an economy causes you to write "Mittens" and "fake" and "Gomer" as alternative debating points, perhaps the current Democrat well is dry. School yard name calling may be a symptom of both a failed political party and its vocal supporters.

ericans Are Dependents of the State: Is Tyranny Next?" Here's a bit of the essay: Is America descending into a dependency state, where the majority uses its voting power to demand government services from taxpayers? New research from Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee Jeff Sessions (R-AL) reveals that this reality may already be here, with more than 107 million Americans on some form of means-tested government welfare. Add to that 46 million seniors collecting Medicare (subtracting out about 10 million on Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid, and other senior-eligible programs already included in Sessions' means-tested chart) and 22 million government employees at the federal, state, and local level — and suddenly, over 165 million people, a clear majority of the 308 million Americans counted by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2010, are at least partially dependents of the state. Since President Obama took office in 2009, eligibility for Medicaid, food stamps, the earned income tax credit, the making work pay tax credit, and unemployment benefits has increased by roughly 10 million. ……. But it's even worse than that. In fact, most voting-age Americans do not pay income taxes — approximately 50.6 percent. That includes 53.91 million Americans who pay nothing in income taxes, and another 64.7 million who get refunds in excess of what was owed. That's 118.61 million out of 234.6 million Americans 18 years and older, based on data compiled by the Joint Committee on Taxation and the U.S. Census Bureau.

proof? Print Email Share: Posted on August 20, 2012 by Paul Mirengoff in 2012 Presidential Election, Medicare The choice, Part Two The stark choice between the competing visions presented in this year's presidential election manifests itself most plainly in the Medicare debate. President Obama wants to rely on the federal government to impose price controls and other forms of micromanagement to contain costs while delivering good service. The Romney-Ryan ticket wants to rely on a more traditionally American mechanism – competition. The Romney-Ryan approach is already proving its efficacy in the prescription drug portion of Medicare. Thanks in no small part to reliance on consumer choice, and the resulting competition, costs have been contained – monthly premiums are stable and costs are 30 percent below initial estimates. Additional evidence that competition works comes via a column by Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post. He points to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study was performed by three Harvard economists, one of whom, David Cutler, prominently supports Obamacare. The study finds that Medicare Advantage, a voucher-like program that promotes consumer choice, costs less than traditional Medicare. From 2006 to 2009, it cost 11 percent less on average. This finding should surprise, if anyone, only the most ardent socialist. When people are able to shop for low-cost, high-quality offerings, providers have an incentive to improve services and lower costs. By contrast, under the fee-for-service approach of traditional Medicare, providers have an incentive to perform unneeded tests and procedures. Obamacare purports to deal with this problem by cutting reimbursement rates. However, as Samuelson explains, reimbursement reductions don't improve delivery systems; if anything, they increase the incentive to increase the volume of services, creating more waste. As for the other cost containment mechanisms in Obamacare, they are mostly "fluff," as Samuelson shows. Samuelson concludes: Voucher plans are not right-wing, extremist ideas. They enjoy support in both parties. Ryan would permit continuation of fee-for-service; if it's more efficient and effective, it would survive. If not, its decline would be no great loss. The Ryan plan's greatest defect may be that it doesn't start for a decade. We can't wait that long.

Print Email Share: Posted on August 20, 2012 by Paul Mirengoff in 2012 Presidential Election, Medicare The choice, Part Two The stark choice between the competing visions presented in this year's presidential election manifests itself most plainly in the Medicare debate. President Obama wants to rely on the federal government to impose price controls and other forms of micromanagement to contain costs while delivering good service. The Romney-Ryan ticket wants to rely on a more traditionally American mechanism – competition. The Romney-Ryan approach is already proving its efficacy in the prescription drug portion of Medicare. Thanks in no small part to reliance on consumer choice, and the resulting competition, costs have been contained – monthly premiums are stable and costs are 30 percent below initial estimates. Additional evidence that competition works comes via a column by Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post. He points to a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study was performed by three Harvard economists, one of whom, David Cutler, prominently supports Obamacare. The study finds that Medicare Advantage, a voucher-like program that promotes consumer choice, costs less than traditional Medicare. From 2006 to 2009, it cost 11 percent less on average. This finding should surprise, if anyone, only the most ardent socialist. When people are able to shop for low-cost, high-quality offerings, providers have an incentive to improve services and lower costs. By contrast, under the fee-for-service approach of traditional Medicare, providers have an incentive to perform unneeded tests and procedures. Obamacare purports to deal with this problem by cutting reimbursement rates. However, as Samuelson explains, reimbursement reductions don't improve delivery systems; if anything, they increase the incentive to increase the volume of services, creating more waste. As for the other cost containment mechanisms in Obamacare, they are mostly "fluff," as Samuelson shows. Samuelson concludes: Voucher plans are not right-wing, extremist ideas. They enjoy support in both parties. Ryan would permit continuation of fee-for-service; if it's more efficient and effective, it would survive. If not, its decline would be no great loss. The Ryan plan's greatest defect may be that it doesn't start for a decade. We can't wait that long.

Thank you.

When Obama debates Romney,I hope he flat out calls him a liar,which he is. Obama didn't "steal" $716B from Medicare,he redistributed it back into the system to lower costs and eliminate the donut hole for seniors. As far as foreign policy? Forget it! All they(Romney/Ryan)are are Sarah Palins that can see Russia from their back yard. Completely out of touch,liars,and nothing more but typical Republican mouthpieces for the rich,tea party,and other right wing nutcases. They want set this country back 50 years. The war on women? On and on and on........................

The Medicare Advantage program shows costs differences that are strongly affected by self-selection. Healthier Medicare beneficiaries have an incentive to select into plans other than traditional Medicare. That's why the actual costs of care for these beneficiaries is much lower than for traditional Medicare, and why Medicare ends over-paying these plans relative to the care that they actually provide. The recent article by David Cutler and others indicates that based on 2009 figures, the Ryan plan would result in more than 2/3 of all traditional Medicare beneficiaries paying on average $768 more per year in Medicare premiums to stay in traditional Medicare. Also, more than 90% of Medicare Advantage enrollees would also have paid more under the Ryan plan. In future years, these increases in costs for Medicare enrollees would be multiplied as the premium subsidy paid by the Federal government did not keep up with cost growth. And this problem would be made WORSE by repealing Obama's health care plan because the Ryan plan does NOTHING to reduce the rate of cost increase. (The rate of cost increase in the Medicare Advantage plans has NOT been different than in traditional Medicare.) So the Federal government will save a lot of money under the Ryan plan, especially in future years as the value of the voucher increases slowly, if at all. And the Medicare enrollees will make up the difference. Ah, the wonders of the free, unfettered market in health care!