What Is Obama's Long-Term Plan to Rival the Romney/Ryan Plan?

[AmericanNation]

I found the Democratic plan!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/13/brutal_cnn_torches_dws_on_medicare_falsehoods




God these people need a new chairman.

As mentioned in that article, the Obama/Biden "plan" is to kick the can down the road and leave their successor to worry about the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. The current path is bankruptcy for Medicare in 2024. That is a little over a decade from now. Furthermore, Obamacare takes resources from Medicare to support better coverage for the poor. It's like Robin Hood; it's Obama Hood: Take from seniors to give to the poor. Put differently, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Maybe America's myopic youth only care about gay marriage, but America's seniors and soon-to-be-seniors, and even people Paul Ryan's age, care about solving our fiscal problems today, tomorrow, ten years from now and onward.

Their's some truth to this. But the Ryan Medicare plan is also "Robin Hood" in a sense- it steals from generations X, Y and Z so as to sustain traditional Medicare for the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation.

Not necessarily. If Romney/Ryan transform the federal government into the type of small government that is committed to just a few things (i.e., SS/Medicare, defense, law/order, basic infrastructure) rather than continuing the era of Big Government, it may be possible to get our fiscal house in order in such a way to maintain obligations towards Medicare for every American alive today, tomorrow and one hundred years from now. Obviously the trade-off is cutting other programs and shifting as much spending as possible onto the states to decide what is worth paying for and what is not.

The bottomline: A continuation of the era of Big Government is going to lead to broken promises and dismal results, both of which will be magnified if Obama continues to kick the can down the road. Shifting towards a smaller, more efficient government may still lead to permanent solvency of Medicare and Social Security, though.

It isn't "burdening" the next generations.  In most cases it is giving them a better deal and/or more options(choices).  Democrats hate choices (except the A word one).  They think a private social security account were you could easily get a 2-4% return compounded over your entire career (plus a transferable asset to your family) is worse than a 0.001% return from the government ponzi scheme.  They fear giving people the ability to choose one or the other because almost everyone is going to choose the one they oppose for stupid ideological reasons.  A medicare voucher for someone 20 years from now is the same thing.  A lot of benefits vs. very few negatives.       

[Politico]

I found the Democratic plan!

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/13/brutal_cnn_torches_dws_on_medicare_falsehoods




God these people need a new chairman.

As mentioned in that article, the Obama/Biden "plan" is to kick the can down the road and leave their successor to worry about the solvency of Medicare and Social Security. The current path is bankruptcy for Medicare in 2024. That is a little over a decade from now. Furthermore, Obamacare takes resources from Medicare to support better coverage for the poor. It's like Robin Hood; it's Obama Hood: Take from seniors to give to the poor. Put differently, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul. Maybe America's myopic youth only care about gay marriage, but America's seniors and soon-to-be-seniors, and even people Paul Ryan's age, care about solving our fiscal problems today, tomorrow, ten years from now and onward.

Their's some truth to this. But the Ryan Medicare plan is also "Robin Hood" in a sense- it steals from generations X, Y and Z so as to sustain traditional Medicare for the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation.

Not necessarily. If Romney/Ryan transform the federal government into the type of small government that is committed to just a few things (i.e., SS/Medicare, defense, law/order, basic infrastructure) rather than continuing the era of Big Government, it may be possible to get our fiscal house in order in such a way to maintain obligations towards Medicare for every American alive today, tomorrow and one hundred years from now. Obviously the trade-off is cutting other programs and shifting as much spending as possible onto the states to decide what is worth paying for and what is not.

The bottomline: A continuation of the era of Big Government is going to lead to broken promises and dismal results, both of which will be magnified if Obama continues to kick the can down the road. Shifting towards a smaller, more efficient government may still lead to permanent solvency of Medicare and Social Security, though.

It isn't "burdening" the next generations.  In most cases it is giving them a better deal and/or more options(choices).  Democrats hate choices (except the A word one).  They think a private social security account were you could easily get a 2-4% return compounded over your entire career (plus a transferable asset to your family) is worse than a 0.001% return from the government ponzi scheme.  They fear giving people the ability to choose one or the other because almost everyone is going to choose the one they oppose for stupid ideological reasons.  A medicare voucher for someone 20 years from now is the same thing.  A lot of benefits vs. very few negatives.        

Remember how Bush spoke like this in early 2005 and subsequently tanked in popularity? I agree with you, but this is not a winning message. Too many people are terrified of the words "privatize" and "choice" when they are associated with Medicare and Social Security even though you are right and I agree with you. With that said, I am of the opinion that the only politically viable option is gutting much of the rest of government to continue funding the current system rather than going this route. It will be difficult, but at least it is politically achievable.

[Foucaulf]

We've gone six pages in this thread without mentioning once the Progressive Caucus's budget. Certainly it's too tax-heavy to be adopted by the current Obama administration, but the budget's as "far-left" as it's going to get.

God knows I didn't want to step into this thread but the last posts did it for me:

Remember how Bush spoke like this in early 2005 and subsequently tanked in popularity? I agree with you, but this is not a winning message. Too many people are terrified of the words "privatize" and "choice" when they are associated with Medicare and Social Security

Why the hell wouldn't people be scared of choice? Health insurance options aren't like apples and oranges: you choose the wrong one and you're either bankrupt or dead.

Give me one way how Ryan's flying vouchers can control costs without referring to the "invisible hand" argument - because the oligopolistic nature of insurance companies should be obvious.

[Politico]

We've gone six pages in this thread without mentioning once the Progressive Caucus's budget. Certainly it's too tax-heavy to be adopted by the current Obama administration, but the budget's as "far-left" as it's going to get.

So what? That does not mask the fact that Obama's "plan" amounts to kicking the can down the road.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here's a more pertinent question: Why the hell wouldn't seniors be scared of Obamacare rationing? Waiting on a list can lead to waiting too long (i.e., pain, suffering and/or death).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Romney/Ryan will ultimately have nothing to do with vouchers. When it is all said and done, preserving Medicare/Social Security will trump other forms of spending in the government. Many parts of the federal government will be gutted or shifted onto the states in order to maintain the permanent solvency of Medicare/Social Security.

[Foucaulf]

So what? That does not mask the fact that Obama's "plan" amounts to kicking the can down the road.

What do you even mean here? There are three ways to maintain Medicare's solvency: cut benefits, control costs and/or increasing revenue. ACA focuses on the second and tax rises coupled with demand-side spending focuses on the third.

Don't think I'm defending Obama here - no attempt at cost control is complete without an attempt to tackle the costs of patented drugs - but you're engaging in some one-dimensional thinking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, cut it out with the zero-sum flourish. Hospitals will be underfunded so long as price controls are put into place - which is why they are being put in place, albeit not in all of the needed places. Would you rather have prices continue at their regular pace, making it even harder for hospitals to provide services as usual?

You also assume those who weren't covered pre-ACA have to be a drag on the insurance system. If anything, the expansion of the insured base will be a net positive as they make contributions while risk-averse enough to not get into catastrophic health incidents.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm leaving this quote without comment...

Okay, one comment. Considering most states require heavy borrowing from the federal government to ensure the solvency of their legislated safety nets, are you really saying we should fracture the economy just so Americans can line the pockets of the health care industry?

[Brittain33]

Both Romney and Obama will be working with a very conservative House of Representatives. That informs how much power each would have to pass "their plan." A 100% Obama plan is DOA in Congress so is pointless to talk about.

Shouldn't a guy who has been running for/actually president (for 5.5 years) have a plan at some point?  regardless of the house's composition.    

That's not how the modern Democrat sees it. They care about gay marriage and gun control rather than maintaining the solvency of Medicare and Social Security.

Romney/Ryan offer solutions for the real problems facing us today, tomorrow, and far into the future.
Obama/Biden offer divisive culture war rhetoric and kicking the can down the road.

I'm not up for "debating" with a Romney infomercial.

If you want to play that game, I can cut and paste "Four more years!" as long as you can type up new posts. I'm with America's team of hope and change, not going back to the failed policies of the Bush Administration.

[Brittain33]

Here's a more pertinent question: Why the hell wouldn't seniors be scared of Obamacare rationing? Waiting on a list can lead to waiting too long (i.e., pain, suffering and/or death).

In contrast to the false picture Romney paints, President Obama’s Affordable Care Act is working for seniors, strengthening Medicare in a variety of ways:

    Improves quality and delivery system efficiency through the federal agency that distributes Medicare benefits—changes that will save Medicare almost $120 billion in the next five years.

    Extends the life of the Medicare trust fund by 8 years.

    Saves seniors an average of $4,200 over 10 years. By 2022, premiums and coinsurance for seniors will be more than $500 lower because of Obamacare.

    Makes Medicare prescription drugs more affordable for seniors in the coverage gap, closing the “doughnut hole” by 2020.

    Has already provided more than 24.2 million Medicare recipients with free preventive benefits like the Annual Wellness Visit.

Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan will try to mislead the American people, but he can’t change the fact that the Affordable Care Act is a historic achievement that continues to bolster Medicare and improve the health of our seniors every day.

[Politico]

So what? That does not mask the fact that Obama's "plan" amounts to kicking the can down the road.

What do you even mean here? There are three ways to maintain Medicare's solvency: cut benefits, control costs and/or increasing revenue. ACA focuses on the second and tax rises coupled with demand-side spending focuses on the third.

Obama's plan: Ignore the fact that Medicare is set to go bankrupt in 2024. Continue running $1+ trillion deficits for the next four years. It amounts to kicking the can down the road.

Obamacare takes nearly $700 billion from Medicare in order to provide subsidized coverage to poor people. It amounts to taking from seniors to give to the poor. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

This is all just passing problems onto future presidents and generations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If R&D of $1 billion goes into developing a drug, why should that firm not enjoy a patent over their drug for a few years? If you take away the incentive to pour R&D costs into making new drugs, you will get a lot less new drugs in the future. That is a fact. Unfortunately, government bureaucrats are not known for developing groundbreaking drugs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Shifting resources from Medicare to assist poor people is robbing Peter to pay Paul any way you try to analyze it. It does not solve a problem; it merely creates a host of other problems.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely not. I am in favor of ensuring the permanent solvency of Medicare and Social Security. In order to achieve this end, the federal government must transfer a vast majority of its spending onto the states. The states can decide what is worth paying for and what is not. Innovation and experimentation will ensue, as will progress as a result of 50 states all trying different things with some things working and some things not.

[Politico]

Both Romney and Obama will be working with a very conservative House of Representatives. That informs how much power each would have to pass "their plan." A 100% Obama plan is DOA in Congress so is pointless to talk about.

Shouldn't a guy who has been running for/actually president (for 5.5 years) have a plan at some point?  regardless of the house's composition.    

That's not how the modern Democrat sees it. They care about gay marriage and gun control rather than maintaining the solvency of Medicare and Social Security.

Romney/Ryan offer solutions for the real problems facing us today, tomorrow, and far into the future.
Obama/Biden offer divisive culture war rhetoric and kicking the can down the road.

I'm not up for "debating" with a Romney infomercial.

If you want to play that game, I can cut and paste "Four more years!" as long as you can type up new posts. I'm with America's team of hope and hopeless change, not going back to the failed policies of the Bush Administration.

Fixed.

Romney has absolutely nothing to do with the Bush Administration, of course. Whereas Bush embraced and expanded Big Government, something Obama has continued to accelerate, Romney will walk the walk on this commitment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv7MZr-JkEM

[Brittain33]

Romney has absolutely nothing to do with the Bush Administration, of course. Whereas Bush embraced and expanded Big Government, something Obama has continued to accelerate, Romney will walk the walk on this commitment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv7MZr-JkEM

    President Obama passed the Affordable Care Act to restore health care as a basic cornerstone of middle-class security in America.

    The Affordable Care Act will make health care more affordable for families and small businesses and brings much-needed transparency to the insurance industry.

    When fully implemented, the Affordable Care Act will keep insurance companies from taking advantage of consumers—including denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and cancelling coverage when someone gets sick.

    Because of the new law, 34 million more Americans will gain coverage—many who will be able to afford insurance for the first time. Once the law is fully implemented, about 95 percent of Americans under age 65 will have insurance.

[Brittain33]

Obama's plan: Ignore the fact that Medicare is set to go bankrupt in 2024. Continue running $1+ trillion deficits for the next four years. It amounts to kicking the can down the road.

Obamacare takes nearly $700 billion from Medicare in order to provide subsidized coverage to poor people. It amounts to taking from seniors to give to the poor. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

This is all just passing problems onto future presidents and generations.

Before health reform, insurance premiums were skyrocketing, and the shared cost of caring for the uninsured added $1,000 to the typical family’s policy. The Affordable Care Act promotes better value through preventive and coordinated care, and eliminates waste and abuses.

The Affordable Care Act also helps keep insurance premiums down. Insurance companies must publicly justify excessive rate hikes and provide rebates if they don’t spend at least 80 percent of premiums on care instead of overhead, marketing, and profits. As many as 9 million consumers are expected to get up to $1.4 billion in rebates because the President passed the Affordable Care Act.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh dear, dear. Here is my first six pack of questions for you Politico. Yes, I find posing questions often the best way to go about matters like this. 1. What costs are going to be passed on to the states?  2. Where will they get the money?  3. How will dirt poor Mississippi et al handle it all? 4. How workable is it to have 50 different this and thats across the Fruited Plain? 5. What does that do for economic efficiency?  6. How does one avoid a race to the bottom?  

Oh moving on to Brittian33 to just say hi, you say accurately that health care premiums were "skyrocketing" before health care reform (a hyperbolic term but sadly accurate). What have health care premiums been doing since?  Health care reform in the end has little to do with containing premiums, as currently fashioned, has little to do with containing premium costs, and a lot more to do with expanding health care services to those that don't have them, and effecting a rationing regime behind closed doors through regulatory fiat. Unless we go the Torie route, in partial mitigation, and it will only be partial, for those that can afford it, costs are going to ramp up, and at a faster rate, before the health care reform structure that has been put in place collapses. It won't take long. Thanks.

[Politico]

Obama's plan: Ignore the fact that Medicare is set to go bankrupt in 2024. Continue running $1+ trillion deficits for the next four years. It amounts to kicking the can down the road.

Obamacare takes nearly $700 billion from Medicare in order to provide subsidized coverage to poor people. It amounts to taking from seniors to give to the poor. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

This is all just passing problems onto future presidents and generations.

Before health reform, insurance premiums were skyrocketing, and the shared cost of caring for the uninsured added $1,000 to the typical family’s policy. The Affordable Care Act promotes better value through preventive and coordinated care, and eliminates waste and abuses.

The Affordable Care Act also helps keep insurance premiums down. Insurance companies must publicly justify excessive rate hikes and provide rebates if they don’t spend at least 80 percent of premiums on care instead of overhead, marketing, and profits. As many as 9 million consumers are expected to get up to $1.4 billion in rebates because the President passed the Affordable Care Act.

It is duly noted that you believe it is a good idea to steal resources from a program that seniors paid into for decades in order for there to be higher health coverage rates among poor people and students, most of whom have no chance of finding a decent job after they graduate in this economy. It is also duly noted that you do not care about the fact that Medicare is going bankrupt in 2024 if we continue the Obama Doctrine of kicking the can down the road.

[Brittain33]

Obama's plan: Ignore the fact that Medicare is set to go bankrupt in 2024. Continue running $1+ trillion deficits for the next four years. It amounts to kicking the can down the road.

Obamacare takes nearly $700 billion from Medicare in order to provide subsidized coverage to poor people. It amounts to taking from seniors to give to the poor. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

This is all just passing problems onto future presidents and generations.

Before health reform, insurance premiums were skyrocketing, and the shared cost of caring for the uninsured added $1,000 to the typical family’s policy. The Affordable Care Act promotes better value through preventive and coordinated care, and eliminates waste and abuses.

The Affordable Care Act also helps keep insurance premiums down. Insurance companies must publicly justify excessive rate hikes and provide rebates if they don’t spend at least 80 percent of premiums on care instead of overhead, marketing, and profits. As many as 9 million consumers are expected to get up to $1.4 billion in rebates because the President passed the Affordable Care Act.

It is duly noted that you believe it is a good idea to steal resources from a program that seniors paid into for decades in order for there to be higher health coverage rates among poor people and students, most of whom have no chance of finding a decent job after they graduate in this economy. It is also duly noted that you do not care about the fact that Medicare is going bankrupt in 2024 if we continue the Obama Doctrine of kicking the can down the road.

Strengthening Medicare

Fact: More than 47 million Medicare beneficiaries now have access to free health services—including an annual wellness visit, mammograms, and other health screenings—to help detect and treat medical conditions early.

Fact: Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, nearly 3.6 million seniors who fell into the Medicare “doughnut hole” last year saved an average of $604 on prescription drugs.

[Lief 🗽]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh dear, dear. Here is my first six pack of questions for you Politico. Yes, I find posing questions often the best way to go about matters like this. 1. What costs are going to be passed on to the states?  2. Where will they get the money?  3. How will dirt poor Mississippi et al handle it all? 4. How workable is it to have 50 different this and thats across the Fruited Plain? 5. What does that do for economic efficiency?  6. How does one avoid a race to the bottom? 

Torie, surely you know that your rhetorical questions (when re-stated as statements) are the not-so-secretly desired goals of Politico and his ilk. "Transferring Medicaid to the states" is just a roundabout and slightly more politically palpable way of eliminating it completely. Same with all other federal programs that must be "transferred to the states."

[Politico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh dear, dear. Here is my first six pack of questions for you Politico. Yes, I find posing questions often the best way to go about matters like this. 1. What costs are going to be passed on to the states?

Any and all spending at the federal level that does not meet our obligations towards Social Security, Medicare, national defense, law/order and BASIC infrastructure. We must have a federal government that does what it must do, the aforementioned outline, rather than being a bloated government of broken promises and dismal results.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

States will decide what is worth paying for and what is not. Inefficient, unwanted spending will become a relic of the era of Big Government.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See the above.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The world works with far more than 50 countries, so why should experimentation and innovation across 50 states work any differently? Besides, the latter (albeit with fewer states) is largely how America built itself from the ground-up in the early years of the Republic. Essential spending will be taxed and spent at the local/state levels.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This will increase accountability and efficiency. It is hard to imagine a lot of this spending being more efficient at the federal level compared to the state level. Washington is an out-of-touch bubble.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People vote with their feet. Those who want Big Government can find it in some states. Those who want government out of the way can find this in other states.

Rather than being a race to the bottom, it will be a race towards efficiency and accountability.

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh dear, dear. Here is my first six pack of questions for you Politico. Yes, I find posing questions often the best way to go about matters like this. 1. What costs are going to be passed on to the states?  2. Where will they get the money?  3. How will dirt poor Mississippi et al handle it all? 4. How workable is it to have 50 different this and thats across the Fruited Plain? 5. What does that do for economic efficiency?  6. How does one avoid a race to the bottom?  

Torie, surely you know that your rhetorical questions (when re-stated as statements) are the not-so-secretly desired goals of Politico and his ilk. "Transferring Medicaid to the states" is just a roundabout and slightly more politically palpable way of eliminating it completely. Same with all other federal programs that must be "transferred to the states."

Well, let Politico have his turn at bat here. I am just trying to get the chap in shape. Going way out on limbs is fun if you enjoy being edgy, but tends to make one "uninsurable" as it were.

Oh, I see now that Politico just hung himself above. Hey Politico, why don't we play a game?  I need to do my morning libations now. Why don't you pretend that you are Torie, and put up a post responding to your own little statements above, trying to get into my little mind as to what I might say?  Just how good are you at detecting the weaknesses in your own arguments/assertions?  

[Politico]

Just how good are you at detecting the weaknesses in your own arguments/assertions?  

I am fully aware of the ultimate consequences of my proposal. You'll just have to face the fact that California is screwed whether we go my way or continue on the current path. Unaffordable promises are eventually broken promises no matter who is making the promises.

The difference between my proposal and the current path: America as a whole continues to be strong in the long-run under my proposal.

[Torie]

What do you think the "ultimate consequences" of your proposal(s) are, Politico?  Yes, I think that might be fruitful path to explore here. Ultimate consequences typically are.

[anvi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/state_spend_gdp_population

Just a little though-experiment here.  In the 2011 federal budget, non-military discretionary spending stood at $646 billion.  What would it mean for the states if we cut all that spending?  How about one "equal" but unrealistic scenario, and one less equal but more realistic one?

Even splitting that spending evenly among the states (an utterly unrealistic scenario, I know, but bear with me for a moment) would add $12.9 billion to every state's spending obligations if it wanted to make up the difference.  That figure is greater than the amount of money that state governments spend in total in eight states, more than half of what seven additional states spend, more than a third of what four additional states annually spend, and more than a quarter of what 9 more states spend.  In other words, over half the country would either have to massively increase revenues in order to replace non-defenese federal discretionary spending, which of course would mean dramatic hikes in state tax rates, or cut so many services in a state so as to cripple economic activity anyway.  

But let's say, to be more realistic, we assign less burden to states with the smallest spending budgets like South Dakota, shrinking their cut of discretionary spending to the tune of, say $3 billion (since they spend 61% less than does the highest spending state in the union, decreasing their share of the burden by 75% seems like a good deal for them).  The problem is that $3 billion is still nearly half the equivalent of that state's total spending of $6.9 billion.  Let's say, using the same logic, we increase California's share of the burden by shrinking their cut of discretionary spending by $18 billion (since, again, that state spends 61% more money annually than does South Dakota and saddles California with only .7% more responsibility for all the discretionary cuts than splitting up the burden equally would--a good deal for them).  That still takes an additional 4% out of the California state budget, which is already quite cash-strapped.  The larger point is that proportionally divvying up the burdens caused by slashing all fed non-defense discretionary spending would still mean absolute murder for small states even if the larger ones might have a chance to get by.  People in small states won't be able to vote with their feet, because they won't even be able to afford a Greyhound ticket after they're gutted that brutally.  That's not a proposal for a strong America, it's a recipe for civil war.

The lesson is that, in order for the massive spending cuts that we certainly need to make to be bearable, we need to spread them across the entire budget, and even then in complicated ways.  This is an area where platitudes will solve nothing.

[Torie]

I am saving my "thought experiment" for later on this. I have a dream. Anvi is definitely on the right track here, but has not yet fully etched out "the vision thing."

[Rhodie]

Obama has no plan, other than to get re-elected.

[Brittain33]

Obama has no plan, other than to get re-elected.

True, because if he isn't reelected, the Medicare changes he worked into PPACA will be repealed by Congress and Romney.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Obama has no plan, other than to get re-elected.

Obama does indeed have a plan. It was passed in 2010. You may have heard about it.

[Rhodie]

Obama has no plan, other than to get re-elected.

Obama does indeed have a plan. It was passed in 2010. You may have heard about it.

This thread is about what he will do if re-elected. I believe that his only ambition is to be re-elected, and thus has no concrete vision of where he would like to see the country go. Contrary to the line spun by some in the GOP that he's a dangerous leftist, I believe he's instead a soulless careerist and opportunist, whose only ambition is power.