AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

” It has been claimed by various people including President Jack Kennedy that Americans have a legal right to government funded health care. What is the evidence that supports this claim?’

The revolutionary’s purpose is to undermine the system by taking from the haves and giving it to the have-nots, and then see what happens;
Radicals should be political relativists and should take an agnostic view of means and ends;
The radical is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer;
The most basic principle for radicals is lie to opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals;
The radical organizer does not have a fixed truth"truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing;
The issue is always the revolution;
The stated cause is never the real cause, but only an occasion to advance the real cause which is accumulation of power to make the revolution;
The radical is building his own kingdom, a kingdom of heaven on earth.

The Ryan Tax Plan: Higher Taxes for 90% of Americans, Less Revenue for the Government

Paul Ryan’s “budget roadmap” has terrified the GOP leadership, but thrilled conservative intellectuals with its calls for sharp cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and all other government programs combined with privatization of Medicare so that a larger share of your diminished benefit goes to for-profit insurance companies. Less widely discussed is the tax aspects of Ryan’s plan. As you would expect from a conservative plan, compared to Barack Obama’s tax ideas Ryan would raise less government revenue. This is why he needs sharp cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and all other government programs combined with privatization of Medicare so that a larger share of your diminished benefit goes to for-profit insurance companies.

The interesting thing, however, is that when the Center for Tax Justice (PDF) ran the numbers, they discovered that this isn’t the kind of tax cut that makes your taxes lower. On the contrary. Most Americans will pay higher taxes under Ryan’s plan than under Obama’s. Only the very richest will pay less. This table sums up the essence of the Ryan Ripoff:



So give Ryan credit. It’s quite difficult to raise taxes on 90 percent of Americans while reducing overall tax revenue, but he’s shown enormous ingenuity in getting the job done. Remember that this is the top House GOP budget guy. If John Boehner becomes Speaker after the midterms, Ryan will be writing budgets for the new majority, presumably animated by the same moral principles that led him to this idea.

hey ican, why don't you just **** off and actually say something yourself

My point, gentlemen, is that I think your posts are based on your and other's false opinions and sophistic arguments, and that these false opinions and sophistic arguments appear to be derived from those persons who are desciples of Saul Alinskiy--a person, who based on his writings, suffered severe mental illness for most of his life.

http://www.house.gov/ryan/healthcare/index.htm
Paul Ryan Introduces The Patients’ Choice Act

My plan, The Patients' Choice Act, ensures universal, affordable health care for all Americans. Under The Patients' Choice Act, patients and doctors would control their health care decisions - not insurance companies and federal government bureaucrats. Equally important, my proposal does not raise taxes or increase government spending, but uses the money we currently spend more effectively.

Health Care News Releases (111th Congress)

Health Care Audio/Video, Speeches, Statements and Editorials (111th Congress)

Health Care issue paper

The Patients' Choice Act

http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/PCA.htm
On May 20, 2009, U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) and Richard Burr (R-NC) and U.S. Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Devin Nunes (R-CA) introduced health care reform legislation that delivers on the shared principles of promoting universal access to quality, affordable health care, and does so without adding billions of dollars in new debt or taxes.

“The Patients’ Choice Act of 2009,” transforms health care in America by strengthening the relationship between the patient and the doctor; using choice and competition rather than rationing and restrictions to contain costs; and ensuring universal, affordable health care for all Americans. “The Patients’ Choice Act” promotes innovative, State-based solutions, along with fundamental reforms in the tax code, to give every American, regardless of employment status, age, or health condition, the ability and the resources to purchase health insurance. The comprehensive legislation includes concrete prevention and transparency initiatives, long overdue reforms to Medicare and Medicaid, investments in wellness programs and health IT, and more.

"As a practicing physician, I have seen first-hand how giving government more control over health care has failed to make health care more affordable and accessible. The American people deserve health care reform that will work, not another round of so-called reform that repeats the same failed policies of the past. Congress and the administration have the opportunity to pursue bold reform and a fresh start. The Patients’ Choice Act will provide every American with access to affordable health care without a tax increase, more debt and waiting lines,” Dr. Coburn said.

“The American health care system needs a complete transformation,” Senator Burr said. “The Patients’ Choice Act will finally enable Americans to own their health care instead of being trapped in the current system, which leaves people either uninsured, dependent on their employer, or forced into a government program. With a focus on prevention and wellness and covering those with pre-existing conditions, the Patients’ Choice Act will make health care affordable and accessible to all Americans.”

“Both parties need to step up to the plate with specific solutions to our nation’s health care crisis,” added Ryan. “The Patients’ Choice Act represents a clear alternative to those who seek to empower Washington at the expense of the individual, and I am hopeful that our efforts can help push Congress to enact a more sensible health care reform bill this year. The Patients’ Choice Act proves that America can have universal health care coverage without the government running our health care system.”

Nunes stated, “The American people deserve a health care system that is centered on their individual needs. Our bill will allow us to achieve this goal, while improving health outcomes, lowering cost and guaranteeing access to health care for every single American.”

http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/52909USATed.htm
On health care, Republicans move beyond 'just say no'
When President Clinton proposed a sweeping reform of the health care system in 1993, Republicans in Congress mercilessly savaged it as socialized medicine. A dozen years later, Democrats returned the favor. When President Bush proposed a plan to shore up Social Security in part by creating private accounts, they denounced it as a sell-out to Wall Street.

In both cases the opposition was unified, ruthless " and totally lacking an alternative plan for addressing an important but politically thorny issue. So vital national interests were ignored in favor of convenient political demonization. The cardinal rule of mindless partisanship became: Don't stick your neck out.

This is why it's gratifying that congressional Republicans introduced a health care plan last week, even before the Obama administration and the Democratic majorities in Congress hashed out the details of their own proposal.

The Republican plan, a more detailed version of what Sen. John McCain ran on in his presidential campaign, is no cure-all, particularly for the problem of the 46 million uninsured. Nonetheless, it's a serious proposal that merits serious consideration. More important, the simple fact that it exists might improve chances that the parties will negotiate.

The GOP plan relies on the deceptively radical concept of replacing the current unlimited exemption from taxes of employer-provided insurance with a refundable tax credit of $5,700 for a family, or $2,300 for an individual, that people get regardless of whether their health coverage comes through an employer.

The idea is to introduce market forces into health care to hold down costs that are soaring unsustainably. Here's how it would work: The government would essentially pay for the first $5,700 in coverage for a family through the credit, and the family would pay the rest out of pocket. With the average family plan costing $12,700 now, that is a major cost. An employer could contribute, but with workers having to pay tax on the benefit, the employer might as well convert it to pay.

The upside is that having Americans pay for more of their medical needs with their own money would give people incentive to shop around when looking for insurance or having procedures done, putting pressure on providers to control costs.

The downside is that millions of people who are now covered through their employers could be left on their own.

The policy implications could be sweeping. And so might the political ones. On one level, this is just a group of staunch conservatives girding for a fight. Instead of having no plan, they have one that many Democrats, and potentially some moderate Republicans, see as a frontal assault on employer-sponsored health care.

But on another level, give the GOP credit. For all those who say the Republican Party is out of ideas, on the issue of health coverage, at least, its proposal is bolder than what the Democrats have offered an asset given the scale of the problem.

The Democratic approach " advanced by President Obama but still under construction in Congress " is to expand the system of employer-provided coverage through mandates and subsidies. Such a plan would insure more people, but its ability to control costs is dubious.

More radically, the Democrats are weighing whether to include an option for people to buy into a government-run health insurance plan that would compete with private insurers " a concept that is as intriguing and as controversial as the Republican plan. It would drive down costs through the government's purchasing power.

Each side dislikes and fears the other's most far-reaching ideas. Republicans say private insurers could not compete with the government plan's prices and so would slowly be driven out of business, leaving people with just one option. Democrats say the Republican plan would leave more people uninsured and reduce quality of care. At bottom, however, the choice illustrates the two possible approaches to controlling runaway medical costs: dramatically increase the power of market forces or use government purchasing power more extensively.

A few other things can have a modest effect on the costs of medical service. The "low-hanging fruit" includes mandating electronic record keeping, limiting malpractice suits, paying for outcomes instead of procedures, and identifying the procedures and institutions that have the highest success rates.

Ultimately, the budget-breaking costs of the nation's dysfunctional health care system are unlikely to be brought under control just by tweaking the existing one, as the Obama administration's plan envisions. The two political parties have identified more groundbreaking ideas, and they are not entirely incompatible.

So let the debate begin. The only unacceptable approach is the status quo.

http://www.altavista.com/web/results?itag=ody&q=Paul+Ryan+Health+Plan&kgs=0&kls=0

http://www.thehispanicconservative.com/vilifying-paul-ryan.html
Vilifying Paul Ryan to Divert Attention from H.R. 3200
Universal Health Care
Written by Aaron Rodriguez
Wednesday, 05 August 2009 13:42
Liberalism Requires a Villain

In the past few weeks, Congressional Democrats have implemented an old recycled strategy to help them pass H.R. 3200 - one of the most perilous bills ever written. As is often the case, liberal ideology cannot be successful without a villain. Liberalism needs a villain for two reasons; first, it needs to distract the public from focusing on issues liberals feel might hurt their ideological agenda. And second, it needs a villain to generate enough frustration to oppose the progress of conservatism. There are many examples of such vilification. For global warming, they vilify big industry polluters. For high gas prices, they vilify wealthy oil execs. For the housing market meltdown, they vilify greedy Wall Street. For the current recession, they vilify George Bush. And the most recent vilification is, well, the profitable insurance companies. Oh yes, expect wealthy insurance execs to testify before Congress concerning their record breaking profits.

Recent polling data by Rasmussen has indicated that H.R. 3200 (the Public Option) is not sitting well with the public. Albeit, those who oppose the bill are a slight majority (48% to 35%), the intensity at which they oppose the Public Option has created quite the stir across the nation. As a result, Bloggers on certain Wisconsin websites are already starting to vilify citizens who oppose the bill. Those who have practiced their constitutional right to let their voice be heard are now dubbed as an “angry right wing mob.” What these bloggers don’t seem to understand is that recent polling data indicates that 80% of those who have health care insurance rate their coverage as either good or excellent. And only 28% are willing to pay more taxes to extend health care coverage to everyone. Clearly, they are barking up the wrong tree.


Diverting Attention Away From the "Public Option"

In an Op-Ed entitled, “A Closer Look at Paul Ryan’s Health Plan”, Kelly Gallaher initiates the same tactic of creating a useful villain. Instead of publishing an investigative report on the abounding problems with Obama’s socialized “Public Option,” Gallaher decides to demonize Congressman Paul Ryan, the only Republican that has authored a substantial free market alternative to ObamaCare.

In the H.R. 3200, there are provisions that provide free health care coverage for illegals, gives the government access to our bank accounts, pays ACORN to recruit recipients for government health care, and restricts the type of treatments received by those in their “end of life” stage. These provisions don't even include how the bill virtually rapes doctors in terms of capping their income and restricting their ability to practice medicine. There are over a 1,000 pages to digest in the new proposal (enough to keep all of us busy), and instead of investigating the most important legislation to hit the halls of Congress in decades, Gallaher thinks it’s important to go after Paul Ryan’s free-market alternative. No agenda there, hey?

Vilifying Paul Ryan

Gallaher's biggest criticism of Ryan’s “Patient’s Choice Act” was that his refundable tax credit for individuals and families isn’t sufficient to cover the entire costs of current insurance rates. There are two problems this assumption. First, Ryan’s plan is not supposed to cover the entire costs of health care. If it were, it would create a serious mandate to increase our taxes and substantially add to our national budget deficit. This would defeat part of the reason why Congress is considering health care reform in the first place, that is to stop the trend of skyrocketing costs.

Her second assumption is that health care premiums will stay at the current rate even after Ryan’s alternative is implemented. Unlike the “Public Option”, the entire purpose of Ryan’s plan is to reduce the costs of health care. The Patient’s Choice Act, through refundable tax credits, empowers individuals to select plans that are individually crafted for them, which will reduce health care costs for individuals tremendously. This means that men in their 20’s will not have to pay for a plan that covers irrelevant tests “for them” like mammograms, hip replacements, pacemakers, and erectile dysfunction medications.

Kelly Gallaher complains further that Ryan’s plan would “significantly weaken employer-based coverage because individuals receive the credit and employers no longer have an incentive to contribute.” By making this statement, Gallaher demonstrates an ignorance of how employer insurance plans work. Employer plans are intended to meet the health care needs of a wide array of employees. By doing this, younger and healthier individuals are paying an inflated price for coverage they don’t need. By empowering individuals to break away from superfluous coverage and enter the insurance marketplace with refundable tax credits, insurance companies will have to compete for their investment and loyalty. A new market will open up to insurance companies that really haven’t existed before " at least not like this.

Now granted, Ryan's Patient's Choice Act will not be the end all to health care reform, but it's a significant start. By empowering individuals, rather than employers, it creates more consumers for insurance vendors to compete over. And the greater the supply of consumers, the lower the demand of product. Prices will decrease and product quality will increase as a result. Again, this will not be the answer for everything. There is a difference between government regulation and government control, and right now we need better regulation of the insurance industry. We need our representatives to engage in serious Tort Reform, and we need our citizenry to confront their Senators and Congressmen with vigilance.

The Party of No

And lastly, I think it's important to address an egregious comment Kelly Gallaher made about Congressman Paul Ryan. Gallaher said, "It is clear that my U.S. Representative, Paul Ryan, intends to play no role in helping to shape this historic legislation." This is exactly how liberals play the game. If you don't jump on board with what they consider to be real reform, then you are labeled an obstructionist or the "party of no" even though you have authored alternative health care reform legislation. In Paul Ryan's case, he's made a solid effort to get his plan some recognition in Congress, but Democrats have largely ignored him because they currently have the power to do so. Right now, it appears that Democrats are the "party of no" since they've repeatedly said no to Congressman Paul Ryan.

Currently the Republican leadership has neither rejected or accepted Ryan et al's proposal.