[CesseOveldset]

No surprise Dems voted against it. We'll see what the Senate does. I actually think they shouldnt have pushed this through. Things need to be bi partisan or not at all. If they cant agree to cut spending, then shut it down.

The final tally was 235-193, with four Republicans opposing it. Every Democrat voted "no."


It will now be considered by the Senate, where it is considered dead on arrival.

Earlier in the day, the House rejected an alternative budget that would make an even deeper cuts than Ryan's proposal, but only after a chaotic scene on the House floor.

In an effort to embarrass Republicans by having them approve a budget that makes deeper cuts than Ryan's proposal, Democrats voted "present" on the Republican Study Committee bill. Initially, 124 Republicans were prepared to support the measure offered by the conservative RSC, but several switched their votes when it appeared the bill could pass.

In the end, 119 Republicans voted for the RSC budget, with 120 Republicans voting against. The bill failed in a 119-136 vote.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House passes Ryan's '12 budget; conservatives want more cuts - The Hill's On The Money

[Lymneterfeiff]

Puppies died?

[Dyslermergerb]

I thought it was old people. Oh well...probably a late bill revision to include the puppies.

[CesseOveldset]

Much as I like Ryan, I would have voted against this. It increases spending, even though it decreases the deficit, and it doesnt have bipartisan support. Congress should not pass anything that both parties dont agree to, and that doesnt cut over all spending every year till it balances. Not just spending relative to baselines or other budgets, but total outlays have to go DOWN.

[Scukonahuy]

Anything that doesn't cut spending ANDraise revenue should be dead on arrival. Neither by itself will get us out of this mess. That is going to mean compromise. Don't want to compromise? Get ready to go broke.

[nryFBa9i]

I don't know why they voted on it. Did they not realize the vote to "end Medicare as you know it" will be campaign commercial fodder? This is a big deal and I mean really big. Passage of that bill could even cause the GOP to loose the house and loose seats in the Senate next year. If there was no chance of it becoming law then smart politics to me means don't even bother voting on it.

[emexiagog]

I don't know why they voted on it. Did they not realize the vote to "end Medicare as you know it" will be campaign commercial fodder?

I think thats their plan.

Ending Medicare as you know it would make it something other than a bloated entitlement careening towards insolvency.

[Varbaiskkic]

No surprise Dems voted against it. We'll see what the Senate does. I actually think they shouldnt have pushed this through. Things need to be bi partisan or not at all. If they cant agree to cut spending, then shut it down.

ahoy Jviehe,

i have to redirect ye to this thread.

thar was never the slightest intent to pass it....it was just a bit 'o kabuki theatre served up for folks like yerself.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/capi...ml#post1891981

- MeadHallPirate

[Cofeeman]

Going after Medicare doesn't have the same political problems when the President's plan cuts Medicare even more deeply. Ryan's plan grows Medicare at inflation +1%, the President's plan grows it at inflation +.5%.

The disagreement is over whether to voucherize it or keep it under government control. The President is actually willing to cut more so long as the government maintains control. I'm not sure either the President or Ryan has a clear advantage in that battle.

[Buyemae]

I don't know why they voted on it. Did they not realize the vote to "end Medicare as you know it" will be campaign commercial fodder? This is a big deal and I mean really big. Passage of that bill could even cause the GOP to loose the house and loose seats in the Senate next year. If there was no chance of it becoming law then smart politics to me means don't even bother voting on it.

I'm trying to figure out why Ron Paul voted no to it?!!

He's only the guy wanting to get rid of the dep't of everything.

Paul Ryan reminds me of a young Arlen Specter during the McCarthy-era and then thru the whole "magic bullet" period in history. Just a young guy trying to make a name for himself by doing something gutsy.

Just last week Ryan even said, "This would be giving the Democrats ammunition against us next year".

Why did Ron Paul vote against it is the first thing I'd like someone to explain to me, the second thing I'd like to know is how the whole voucher thing would work. So the gov't would subsidise a coupon, and I'd use the coupon to pay for a health care plan. When the private insurer then keeps jacking me up, does the coupon's value go up with the price of health care or no?

[Cofeeman]

Ron Paul voted no because it doesn't go far enough. Not quite as pragmatic as his son.

The Ryan plan works this way: the value of the vouchers go up by inflation +1%. At first, the vouchers would be as generous as Medicare is now, but over time they'd lose their value.

That sounds bad, but the President's plan used the Medicare Advisory Board to hold cost growth to inflation +.5%.

Personally, I prefer the President's plan and I think Republicans will be quick to embrace it. It's not often you can get MORE medicare cuts by giving in to the Democrats. That's how bad they want to keep the program under government control. I care more about the cost than who runs Medicare and I think most conservatives will agree.

[CesseOveldset]

Anything that doesn't cut spending ANDraise revenue should be dead on arrival. Neither by itself will get us out of this mess. That is going to mean compromise. Don't want to compromise? Get ready to go broke.

How do you figure? Cut 1.6 trillion in spending. Problem solved.

[CesseOveldset]

They arent vouchers.

Current Medicare beneficiaries, and those approaching retirement age, would not be affected by the GOP’s proposed changes. Instead they would apply to people currently 54 years of age and younger.

This cohort, when it enrolls in Medicare, would receive a fixed annual payment for insurance from Uncle Sam. This payment would be higher for those with greater health-care needs and would be adjusted for the cost of health care in particular areas.

Beneficiaries would then purchase insurance from private providers on a health exchange, a sort of supermarket where plans compete for customers. It is a structure derived from a plan drawn up previously by Ryan and Alice Rivlin, a Brookings Institution economist and former budget director under President Bill Clinton.

It is also similar to the health-exchange plan contained in President Obama’s health-care reform law. The GOP proposal released Tuesday calls for that law’s repeal.

This Medicare exchange would be “tightly regulated,” according to the Republican long-term budget. Insurers would have to promise to insure all Medicare beneficiaries, even the least healthy. Medicare: How Paul Ryan's budget would change it - CSMonitor.com

[Cofeeman]

Yeah, it's not technically vouchers, it's premium support.

[CesseOveldset]

Yeah, it's not technically vouchers, it's premium support.

Simply, instead of reimbursing whatever care someone might get, the govt gives individuals money to buy insurance.

[Vapepreab]

Simply, instead of reimbursing whatever care someone might get, the govt gives individuals money to buy insurance.

And of course the rising cost of health care would mean for many the ability to buy insurance would not be possible. The cost of health care rises much more than the inflation rate. Do ya think they thought about that? Damn right they did. Intently!!!

[Cofeeman]

Well, the President's approach is to just cut Medicare, which amounts to the same result. The new Medicare Advisory Board will have a bottom line to meet, and they'll meet it by no longer covering certain treatments.