Ryan/Wyden plan's numbers for medicare same as Ron Paul's? [Mod- no Ron doesn't cut]

[Nathan Hale]

I was debating a friend on facebook about how Paul Ryan has such a bad reputation on Medicare and he replied (knowing that I'm a Paul supporter) that the numbers on the Ryan/Wyden plan are the same as the numbers on the Ron Paul plan. What gives?

[specsaregood]

I was debating a friend on facebook about how Paul Ryan has such a bad reputation on Medicare and he replied (knowing that I'm a Paul supporter) that the numbers on the Ryan/Wyden plan are the same as the numbers on the Ron Paul plan. What gives?

What gives what? Dr. Paul has a "bad reputation" on medicare as well. That tends to happen when you desire to eliminate it.

[Nathan Hale]

What gives what? Dr. Paul has a "bad reputation" on medicare as well. That tends to happen when you desire to eliminate it.

But Ron Paul doesn't propose to eliminate it. I know he philosophically is opposed to medicare, but we're talking about his budget plan, not his philosophical endgame, and RP has said numerous times that his budget balances without cutting benefits for seniors.

[specsaregood]

But Ron Paul doesn't propose to eliminate it. I know he philosophically is opposed to medicare, but we're talking about his budget plan, not his philosophical endgame, and RP has said numerous times that his budget balances without cutting benefits for seniors.

And? I'm not sure what you are confused about. You said you were debating Ryans bad reputation; well Paul has one too.

[dancjm]

And? I'm not sure what you are confused about. You said you were debating Ryans bad reputation; well Paul has one too.

If I understand correctly, the OP was making the point to his friend that Ryan won't cut Medicare. His friend pointed out that Ron won't cut medicare either. I think he is asking, why is Ron not cutting medicare? (@Nathan Hale correct me if I am wrong).

Ron is not cutting medicare because people have become dependent on it, and there needs to be a transition. The necessary cuts can be found in military spending and the elimination of useless and troublesome departments, all without dumping on people who have been encouraged and taught to become dependent through no fault of their own.

Ron is philosophically opposed to welfare, but for a transition away from welfare to be possible, a free and healthy economy, a climate of personal responsibility, and a currency which retains it's value, are all required. To cut welfare without meeting these conditions too would hurt a lot of vulnerable and dependent people.

[sailingaway]

I was debating a friend on facebook about how Paul Ryan has such a bad reputation on Medicare and he replied (knowing that I'm a Paul supporter) that the numbers on the Ryan/Wyden plan are the same as the numbers on the Ron Paul plan. What gives?

This is nonsense. The Ron Paul plan was a three year plan and didn't cut a penny from medicare. Your friend is wrong. He was trying to cut dramatically, but by cutting functions the feds shouldn't be doing and overseas (military only actually cut 15% to 2006 levels in those 3 years, stationing troops here not there so pay went back into our economy rather than hosing the world). He knew they'd have to restructure medicare to make more cost sensitive but was going to try to grow economy to do as much as possible according to promises, because once you pay in he sees it like a contractual right. And Social Security he would have completely fixed so opt out would be available but even down line there wouldn't be issues (if he got his whole plan passed.) So his three year plan cut not a cent and still balanced the budget in 3 years. The only reason CBO disagreed at the ten year out point (although they admitted only his of all candidates on both sides actually cut spending and reduced the deficit)was that regardless of what each plan said they applied the same growth assumptions on cost to all plans (even though some directly would change those assumptions) and by the time you go ten years out the assumptions are more determinative than the actual plan. Note the three year plan with balanced budget would have been Ron's last year.

He would not 'eliminate it' for those who have paid in, he would fund it other than on the backs of younger generations which is self perpetuating and would let them opt out, to end the program over a generation.

See his Plan to Restore America at the issues tab of his campaign web page.

They might be talking about the one RAND Paul did with Leslie Graham, that did cut and I don't remember the exact details.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I thought Ron block granted Medicare to the states, returned payment levels to 2006 levels, and slowed the rate of growth for everything? I'll have to look over the RAN plan again.

[sailingaway]

I thought Ron block granted Medicare to the states, returned payment levels to 2006 levels, and slowed the rate of growth for everything? I'll have to look over the RAN plan again.

That was mediCAID and welfare. Not the senior entitlements people paid in for which he sees as an obligation the federal government took on when it forced people to pay for them with dollars that were worth a lot more then than they are now.

[Feeding the Abscess]

That was mediCAID and welfare. Not the senior entitlements people paid in for which he sees as an obligation the federal government took on when it forced people to pay for them with dollars that were worth a lot more then than they are now.

Gotcha. Still going to look over Medicare and SS and the plan in total when I get back from the gym, because I seem to remember them being slowed for some reason. Really, his budget plan did everything in year 1 and relied on economic growth to balance in 3 years... it really should have been called a 1 year plan, since that's when the only cuts occurred.

[sailingaway]

Gotcha. Still going to look over Medicare and SS and the plan in total when I get back from the gym, because I seem to remember them being slowed for some reason. Really, his budget plan did everything in year 1 and relied on economic growth to balance in 3 years... it really should have been called a 1 year plan, since that's when the only cuts occurred.

It was slowed because balancing the budget should theoretically end inflation. Medical needs more though because the huge sums thrown at medicine by government to pay for people so sheltered from the cost they don't shop by cost at all, means that medical costs skyrocket. Balancing the budget would help but medical plans need to be restructured so people care how much things cost, as well.

[TrishW]

Ron, himself collects SS. He feels those who have been forced to pay into it are entitled to receive their money back. I do not think he would do anything to rob the elderly of their just dues.

But he see it as a flawed system and wants to allow younger people to opt out. Yes, this would cause a further strain. He will use the money saved on foreign nation hand-outs, and undeclared wars to keep the money coming for the elderly.

Ron Paul is actually the only candidate with a plan to save the SS of those who are entitled.

At least this is my understanding. I am not nearly as well versed in everything Ron Paul as many of the other posters.

[Nathan Hale]

And? I'm not sure what you are confused about. You said you were debating Ryans bad reputation; well Paul has one too.

But Paul doesn't have that bad rep. Sure, he has to answer questions on the issue, but he always addresses them fine and the media never runs with it.

[Nathan Hale]

This is nonsense.

I agree, and I linked Ron Paul's plan to the conversation. I think he was making excuses for Paul Ryan's plan, but he says the numbers are the same.

[sailingaway]

If I understand correctly, the OP was making the point to his friend that Ryan won't cut Medicare. His friend pointed out that Ron won't cut medicare either. I think he is asking, why is Ron not cutting medicare? (@Nathan Hale correct me if I am wrong).

Ron is not cutting medicare because people have become dependent on it, and there needs to be a transition. The necessary cuts can be found in military spending and the elimination of useless and troublesome departments, all without dumping on people who have been encouraged and taught to become dependent through no fault of their own.

Ron is philosophically opposed to welfare, but for a transition away from welfare to be possible, a free and healthy economy, a climate of personal responsibility, and a currency which retains it's value, are all required. To cut welfare without meeting these conditions too would hurt a lot of vulnerable and dependent people.

the friend isn't accurate because RYAN DOES cut medicare. Ron's budget plan didn't, to balance the budget.

[sailingaway]

I agree, and I linked Ron Paul's plan to the conversation. I think he was making excuses for Paul Ryan's plan, but he says the numbers are the same.

the numbers may be the same as RAND's although I'm not saying they were, it is possible your friend simply doesn't know what he is talking about. But I don't know if RAND's and Ryan's might be the same. It is possible your friend has Rand confused with Ron.

[Nathan Hale]

the numbers may be the same as RAND's although I'm not saying they were, it is possible your friend simply doesn't know what he is talking about. But I don't know if RAND's and Ryan's might be the same. It is possible your friend has Rand confused with Ron.

The only reason I didn't think that was the case was because I linked him to Ron's proposal, and it was after I linked him that he posted that he looked and said the numbers were the same. Oh well - it doesn't really matter, I was confused by his analysis but if you guys say that's not the case I have faith in that.

[sailingaway]

The only reason I didn't think that was the case was because I linked him to Ron's proposal, and it was after I linked him that he posted that he looked and said the numbers were the same. Oh well - it doesn't really matter, I was confused by his analysis but if you guys say that's not the case I have faith in that.

Ryan's plan may not impact numbers in the first three years or something. I don't know when it starts having economic effect, since it limits benefits for people still in the pipeline who aren't yet retired.

[specsaregood]

But Paul doesn't have that bad rep. Sure, he has to answer questions on the issue, but he always addresses them fine and the media never runs with it.

Whether he deserves it or not is immaterial. I have heard media talking heads and writers plenty of times mischaracterize/outright lie about Pauls position on medicare. As for "never runs with it", well they have a history of ignoring him don't they.

[sailingaway]

Whether he deserves it or not is immaterial. I have heard media talking heads and writers plenty of times mischaracterize/outright lie about Pauls position on medicare. As for "never runs with it", well they have a history of ignoring him don't they.

But the thread title was about his friend claiming Ron's numbers were the same as Ryan's, and if they are it would only be because Ryan's numbers aren't yet impacted because the people his plan limits don't retire in the first 3 years.

[Nathan Hale]

Whether he deserves it or not is immaterial. I have heard media talking heads and writers plenty of times mischaracterize/outright lie about Pauls position on medicare. As for "never runs with it", well they have a history of ignoring him don't they.

What I meant by 'runs with it' was that the takeaway analysis that always seems to come out about Ron's plan was never "he cuts senior benefits" - probably because he cuts outright 5 cabinet level departments and cuts the military, but either way I wouldn't say that he has a bad reputation on benefits - if anything he is one of the only fiscal hawks IMHO who goes out of his way to say that he's going to preserve those benefits.

[specsaregood]

But the thread title was about his friend claiming Ron's numbers were the same as Ryan's, and if they are it would only be because Ryan's numbers aren't yet impacted because the people his plan limits don't retire in the first 3 years.

The OP said that the subject of his debate he was having was: "I was debating a friend on facebook about how Paul Ryan has such a bad reputation on Medicare"

That is the angle of the topic that I found more interesting. Feel free to carry on with your own conversation though.

[sailingaway]

The OP said that the subject of his debate he was having was: "I was debating a friend on facebook about how Paul Ryan has such a bad reputation on Medicare"

That is the angle of the topic that I found more interesting. Feel free to carry on with your own conversation though.

I was just pointing out that you and he were focusing on different aspects of his statement.