Paul Ryan’s Budget

Avatar

Erik Kain

Erik writes about video games at Forbes and politics at Mother Jones. He's the contributor of The League though he hasn't written much here lately. He can be found occasionally composing 140 character cultural analysis on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

11 Responses

  1. Avatar North says:

    Works for me. Pity it’s political cyanide.Report

  2. Avatar ThatPirateGuy says:

    depending on the details I could get behind the Singapore system you mentioned.Report

  3. Avatar greginak says:

    I think there is an issue with his budget in that he doesn’t say what should be cut, just that there should be caps on spending. That seems to dodge the really hard part. that seems like faux grit.Report

  4. Avatar Aaron says:

    “Either way, before any privatization of Medicare and Medicaid can occur, the private insurance market must be transformed. Paul Ryan has shown true grit in crafting a budget that is actually balanced, but the possibility of backlash to cuts in entitlements is very real if the systemic problems in our healthcare system aren’t taken care of first.”

    I am also sympathetic to the idea that Ryan proposes if and only if the current bill passes as you say. I still think there would be a backlash anyway, though. If you thought the demagoguing on the current bill was bad, I can only imagine what it will be like for a proposal like this…Report

  5. Avatar trizzlor says:

    The response I often hear to selling insurance across state lines, without centralized regulation, is that it would create a race to the bottom in quality of care and regulatory safe-guards as insurance agencies migrated to the states that were most favorable to them. Perhaps from a libertarian stand-point this is a race to the top, but I’m not willing to trust the insurance industry to improve in a generally positive away.Report

    • Avatar North in reply to trizzlor says:

      Perhaps Trizz, but the fact remains that some states have enacted really retarded requirements into insurance as the result of lobbying. Do you run a hair implant shop and business is slow? Lobby a bit and suddenly any minimum coverage in your state has to cover hair implants. Wanna guess what that does to the cost of minimum coverage insurance?Report

      • Avatar trizzlor in reply to North says:

        Agreed, the argument holds equally in the case of basing minimum coverage on that of any one state, weather it’s the most or the least regulated. But I would hope that the government could establish a balanced minimum. From what I understand, the National Health Insurance Exchange that was in the House bill would do just that – enforce minimum requirements but allow anyone to purchase a plan nationally and without a tax … so I’m a bit confused as to why Mr. Kain is proposing this as an alternative.Report

    • Avatar historystudent in reply to trizzlor says:

      If the sales-across-state lines proposal were adopted, the federal government could (interstate commerce) and almost surely would regulate. This is a strong reason why I oppose the idea. It is interesting that Democrats who support a more regulated health care system have been so fixated on their own ideas that they (some at least) appear to have overlooked this opportunity for federal intervention in the market.Report

  6. Avatar Michael Drew says:

    I read in the budget about things called “refundable tax credits,” and I read in descriptions of the proposal by people like Ezra Klein that it involves the privatization of Medicare and Medicaid (and Social Security). Nowhere but here do I read mention of the use of ‘vouchers.’ Is this just referred nomenclature here for some part of the proposal (presumably the tax credits)? What’s with the seeming strong preference for a term that was the subject of much heated debate in other contexts but has largely been jettisoned, even by those proposing such mechanisms (this is obviously kind of neither here nor there; I’m just curious)? Or is there a part of the proposal I have missed (very possible)?

    IN any case, while I also feel a Singapore-like model would have the kind of flexibility to work substantively in this country, I think there is still plenty enough centralized authority in such a to be successfully demagogued by those who find it useful to do so. But maybe Republicans would immune to that (REAL party of health care reform! — you gotta pretend you don’t want it for sixty years, see.). As to the larger budget vision presented by the representative from the 1st district of my state, he does indeed deserve much credit for outlining a stark view of what a balanced U.S. budget looks like, even if the outline calls on no one currently receiving the benefits he calls on to actually experience such cuts. But I still will wait to see what is proposed by those in his party actually responsible for moving legislation when they are in a majority.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *