Ryan Budget Plan Would Increase Health Care Costs

[lakhota]

Rep. Paul Ryan Budget Plan Would Increase Health Care Costs: Bloomberg Study

WASHINGTON -- A new study shows Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan will do little to reduce health care costs, Bloomberg News reports.

The study, authored by Bloomberg Government, claims that key health care provisions in Ryan's budget are ineffectual in terms of cutting costs, according to the report.

In his budget proposal, Ryan (R-Wis.) presents a revamped Medicare plan in which individuals would receive "premium support payments" that subsidize private health care plans. However, the wealthiest 2 percent of beneficiaries would receive only a third as much in these payments as others, and the following 6 percent of beneficiaries would receive only half as much.

"If you're wealthy and you've got substantial assets beyond your Social Security, we're going to expect you to actually pay the cost of your premium. But it's not going to affect anybody in the middle class or below," said House Speaker John Boehner in an exclusive interview Monday night on Fox News Channel's "Hannity."

Ryan's plan aims to decrease the government's share of health care costs and increase those of the beneficiary. The theory is that increasing an individual's financial stake in health care will drive down unnecessary procedures and costs.

But according to Bloomberg, the study shows Ryan's plan will drive up costs to both beneficiaries and the government alike by curbing the assistance that goes to the wealthiest seniors. Increased expenses and limited returns for the top 8 percent of beneficiaries gives them an incentive to opt out of Medicare altogether, reports Bloomberg, in turn forcing those in lower income brackets to make up the difference.

While the Bloomberg study focuses on the effects of this one provision, other reports have dogged the Ryan plan as a whole.

An April report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found that while Ryan's plan would dramatically reduce federal spending on health care, total health care costs would skyrocket. By 2022, alleges the CBO, overall health care costs under the plan would be a staggering 34 percent greater than they would be as Medicare currently stands, and would rise to 40 percent by 2030.

As former Director of the OMB Peter Orszag puts it in a piece for Bloomberg, "health-care costs would not be reduced on the backs of seniors; they would be raised on the backs of seniors."

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/ryan-plan-could-increase-health-costs_n_887119.html

[handyman2]

One thing is for certain. Something must be done whether it is the Ryan plan or the Obamacare plan, costs are going to keep going up. looks like both are losers.
Did anyone notice that the President did not even mention health care in his speech today? I find that interesting. He covered all other issues with the budget but omitted that part.

[henryclay]

He did threaten to cut of social security and veterans benefits. Maybe he'll threaten to cut off medical payments for illegal aliens next.

Whaddya think? Where is his biggest voting block?

And, oh yeah, , , The Ryan budget raises the cost of health care? To who? To the user? Isn't that a unique concept? It can't possibly be a Democrat strong point to have people have anything to do with paying their own way. Why , , how decadent. . . That's the Gummit's chob. Ask any liberal, they'll tell ya.

[lakhota]

Did anyone notice that the President did not even mention health care in his speech today? I find that interesting. He covered all other issues with the budget but omitted that part.

Why should he mention it? It's already the law of the land.

[handyman2]

I would have expected him to mention it because much is yet unfunded and will impact this budget.

[lakhota]

Health Care Reform Constitutionality Upheld In Federal Court Ruling

CINCINNATI -- A federal appeals court in Cincinnati has upheld President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

The three-judge panel delivered a long opinion Wednesday with disagreement on some issues. But it affirmed a Michigan federal judge's earlier ruling that Congress can require Americans to have minimum insurance coverage.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/health-care-reform-constitutionality-ruling_n_886937.html

[cme1201]

Florida Judge Rules Against ObamaCare, Calls Individual Mandate Unconstitutional
Jan. 31 2011 - 3:03 pm

blogs.forbes.com/davidwhelan/2011/01/31/breaking-news-florida-judge-rules-against-obamacare-individual-mandate-unconstitutional/

4th Circuit Asks: 'Is Obamacare Unconstitutional?'
By Maryam K. Ansari on May 24, 2011 3:07 PM
In a separate suit brought by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, the lower court ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional.
blogs.findlaw.com/fourth_circuit/2011/05/obamacare-lawsuits-4th-circuit-asks-is-obamacare-unconstitutional.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FindLawLPNews+(FindLaw+News+for+Legal+Professionals)

Still have a long way to go before either those who are for or those who are against get to shout the we win slogan.

[handyman2]

The Obama care plan has a long way to go to get to the Supreme court. Also many controversial opinions have been over turned by higher courts seemingly on a regular basis lately so there is no assurances of what the outcome will be for some time yet.

[lakhota]

Bush-Appointed Former Scalia Clerk Upholds Constitutionality Of Health Care Law On Appeal

For the first time, a Republican appointed federal judge -- part of a three-judge circuit court panel -- has ruled that the individual insurance mandate in President Obama's health care law is constitutional.

The Sixth Circuit appellate court panel -- the first appellate court to rule on the question -- dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that levying a penalty against people who choose not to purchase insurance exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause powers. The justices also dismissed the underlying argument that the provision amounts to "regulating inactivity."

The development represents a significant victory for the Obama administration, which is facing numerous challenges to the mandate from individuals, conservative interest groups and Republican governors. A number of district court judges have ruled on the question already, and in a striking pattern, all Republican-appointed judges have ruled against the administration, and all Democratic judges with the administration. Today's development upends that trend.

"No one is inactive when deciding how to pay for health care," wrote Judge Jeffrey Sutton -- a conservative legal star, who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and was appointed by President George W. Bush -- in his concurring opinion.

Senior Judge Boyce Martin -- a Carter appointee -- went further still in his opinion. Though he affirmed the view that health care is a unique realm where no person is "inactive," he also argued that, even if that weren't the case, the Constitution places no limits on Congress regulating inactivity.

"[T]he Constitution imposes no categorical bar on regulating inactivity," Martin wrote.

In a partial dissent, Judge James Graham -- a Reagan appointee -- agreed with his colleagues on minor, procedural issues, but sided with the plaintiffs in arguing that Congress has exceeded its Constitutional powers.

"If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress's Commerce Clause authority would be," he wrote.

The Fourth and Eleventh Circuits will soon rule on similar cases, and the issue is expected to be resolved once and for all by the Supreme Court, perhaps as early as next year.

Read the decision below:

tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/bush-appointed-former-scalia-clerk-upholds-constitutionality-of-health-care-law.php?ref=fpb

[djAdvocate]

it is going to stand up, despite what Bachmann says.