Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia on Obama's Attack on Paul Ryan's Budget

President Barack Obama attacked Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to reform Medicare by giving seniors means-tested vouchers because, in Obama's view, that would balance the budget by shortchanging seniors. But Obama's fellow liberals have attacked the voucher idea for the opposite reason: It won't contain Medicare's runaway spending. In her latest Daily column, Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia notes that these critics are right. But that's because the Nanny State politics they espouse, and which RyanCare has bowed to, won't let the voucher idea work. "The problem is not GOP economics," Dalmia writes, "it is liberal politics."

Read the whole thing here, or for the full multi-media experience, download The Daily for your iPad.

Comments

[VongVoo]

Sad, our politicians and lawmakers are bought and paid for. America is run by the rich, for the rich.

http://www.internet-privacy.pro.tc

[Barack Obama]

Hope and Change anon-bot. Hope and Change.

[Old Mexican]

But Ryan's current plan does not offer vouchers in a traditional sense, it offers ? to use its own words ? "premium support." This means that seniors won't actually get any money in their hands. Rather, the government would apply its share, means-tested according to the income and health status of patients, to an insurance plan that seniors pick from a "tightly regulated federal exchange." It is politically inconceivable that this exchange would allow plans that are not larded with every benefit under the sun.

So much for "cost containment."

[Free2Booze]

I'm glad that people are pointing out some of the flaws with Ryan's proposal. I am in support of his "premium support" plan, but this should only be the beginning of the debate, not the end. If this proposal passes, it shouldn't be viewed as a victory, only a step in the right direction. I'm guessing that if enough support for a straight voucher program presented itself, then the "premium support" would have never been considered.

With W striking out with Social Security reform, a second defeat in the battle to reform entitlements, will prevent anyone from taking another shot at it for a long time.

[CrackertyAssCracker]

Another thing:

Even though I'm very very slightly impressed with Ryan for offering an actual plan, I'm still calling BS on "saving x-zillion-dollars over the next ten years"-type accounting.

No fiscal plan lasts 10 years. I'm only interested in how much you'll be saving NEXT EFFING YEAR. So don't quote me anything else. How much lower is NEXT YEARS debt (not deficit) going to decrease?

[Jersey Patriot]

But why did Rep. Ryan back away from his original voucher scheme? The reason is politics, or, more specifically, liberal politics.

I agree, but the liberal politics here is not "Nanny State" but "Shovel money to insurance companies as fast as humanly possible", q.v. Obamacare.

[Alan Vanneman]

"Liberal politics"? So Ryan is a "liberal" all of a sudden? Well, since virtually every Republican ran last year opposing any cuts to Medicare, I guess Shikha's right! Damn liberals! They're everywhere!

[Anal Vanneman]

Why, they're even in my ass!

[Old Mexican]

Re: Alan Vanneman,

"Liberal politics"? So Ryan is a "liberal" all of a sudden?

The word is "Statist," Alan.

Statist. They're ALL statists; different flavors, but same shitty bubblegum.

[rather]

...handed a minimum of about $11,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars and would have great flexibility in deciding which insurance plan to buy. (Sick and poor seniors would get a bigger voucher than healthy and rich ones.) Because the voucher amount would be lower than the cost of most Cadillac plans, seniors would shop around for lower-priced, high-deductible plans with built-in disincentives against overusing routine care for minor illnesses.

Someone has failed to research the insurance market. Good luck finding a policy for grandma and grandpa without government intervention.

Ryan's plan guarantees that their will be policies, otherwise insurance companies would fail to offer them or they would make them cost prohibitive

[Old Mexican]

Re: rather,

Someone has failed to research the insurance market. Good luck finding a policy for grandma and grandpa without government intervention.

As with anything, rather, which is why we're in the shit. Government intervenes, kills, steals, and as we have seen, sexually molests.

[rather]

...handed a minimum of about $11,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars and would have great flexibility in deciding which insurance plan to buy. (Sick and poor seniors would get a bigger voucher than healthy and rich ones.) Because the voucher amount would be lower than the cost of most Cadillac plans, seniors would shop around for lower-priced, high-deductible plans with built-in disincentives against overusing routine care for minor illnesses.

Someone has failed to research the insurance market. Good luck finding a policy for grandma and grandpa without government intervention.

Ryan's plan guarantees that their will be policies, otherwise insurance companies would fail to offer them or they would make them cost prohibitive

[DOUBLE CUNT-VOMIT ALERT!]

EOM

[Monica]

What do you think of this video of Representative Paul Ryan discussing his medicare voucher reform proposal, the White House's lack of bipartisanship efforts, the debt commission report and today's House vote on tax cuts,etc (12/10): http://f4a.tv/gSo1b3