Speakeasy forum: It's obvious theses Ohio seniors hate Ryan..................

OR am I confused senior?

IF Ryan does it, it won't end Medicare...If Obama does it, it will end Medicare?

The well-wisher, Erma from Howland, Ohio, told me later that she's not worried that Ryan and Romney would end Medicare. "I don't believe it," she said. "Because Obama has a bigger plan to rob Medicare of $617 billion."

Republican vice presidential contender Paul Ryan says he never would have included a $700 billion Medicare cut in his budget if President Barack Obama hadn't done it first.

"He put those cuts there," Ryan said Thursday, responding to a reporter's question while eating a hot dog in a restaurant. "We would never have done it in the first place."

But Ryan did not mention that his own budget proposal included the same cut. A reporter pressed him on the issue during an impromptu stop at a local hot dog restaurant.

if the plan they pick costs less than the voucher amount, they get to keep the balance and use it however they need.


OR if they don't chose ANY plan?

I smell entitlement.

along the scenario that all who can afford the difference will take vouchers and leave only those that can't government program.

Affording different is just about money for premiums, it will be about your health when you apply. If you're in good health, a private insurance will be cheaper with the vouchers. If you're already having health problems, private insurance is going to be higher or just refused.

So the sickest and the poorest end up on the government option. I wonder what that will do to the cost.

for good or bad, it would change things.

Right now, supposely everyone pays and everyone gets the same. Not always true we know, but that is the ideal.

You point about cutting payments to docs and clinics and less taking medicare is the same result as the only medicare participants being those poorest and sickest. They will need more costly care for the same money and more facilities will be declining to participate in Medicare at all.

And there is already a world of difference between the average nursing home accepting medicare/medicaid patients and those charging a lot more than medicare/medicaid pays. The weathy always get better care, there's nothing to argue about there.

While the political trading and favors that were traded to enact Obamacare are evidence on their own there wasn't a consenus for the bill besides all the other problems claimed or demostrated by different groups.

However, I have to say I can't condemn the idea of everyone being required to buy insurance. You complain we pay for the care given those in the emergency room that don't pay now. That's because they don't have any insurance.

I can't claim to know the answers, but some type of minimum insurance requirement seems to be indicated along with help for the very poorest to pay.

It may be necessary to scrap and start over, but without required insurance, how do you propose to cut those costs? refuse care?

no doubt.

But that has nothing to do with uninsured patients and unpaid bills.

1st off i wouldn't trust any political website from either side to determine the facts for me. It's far better to go to the source, like read the bill or action that gets anyone upset. Finding out directly and to the point would better explain what each is trying to offer. No shortcuts or simple explanations and yeah that makes you work for the answer. But, I'm sure many would be surprised at what they find, good or bad for their side. ------Willy