Ryan in the NYT: Repeal ObamaCare, then fix the real problems

posted at 2:30 pm on March 26, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

No one can accuse Rep. Paul Ryan of merely carrying coals to Newcastle.  He takes his argument for the repeal of ObamaCare to the pages of the New York Times today, attempting to school its readers on the actual issues of pricing opacity and tax-policy warping of the markets.  More importantly, Ryan pledges action, not obstruction:

To be clear: it is not sufficient for those of us in the opposition to await a reversal of political fortune months or years from now before we advance action on health care reform. Costs will continue their ascent as the debt burden squeezes life out of our economy. We are unapologetic advocates for the repeal of this costly misstep. But Republicans must also make the case for a reform agenda to take its place, and get to work on that effort now. …

Health care experts across the political spectrum acknowledge that a fundamental driver of health inflation is the regressive tax preference for employer-based health insurance. This discriminatory tax treatment lavishes the greatest benefit on the most expensive plans while providing no support for the unemployed, the self-employed or those who don’t get coverage from their employer.

Reform-minded leaders like Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, and Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, pushed legislative proposals that would directly address this issue. I helped write a plan that would replace the bias in the tax code with universal tax credits so that all Americans have the resources to purchase portable, affordable coverage that best suits their needs, with additional support provided for those with lower incomes. All these ideas, though, were dismissed early on, as they didn’t fit with the government-driven plan favored by the majority. But going forward it’s important that we reconsider this regressive tax issue.

Then, when helping Americans with pre-existing conditions obtain coverage, we should focus on innovative state-based solutions, including robust high-risk pools, reinsurance markets and risk-adjustment mechanisms. I intend to continue advancing true patient-centered reforms like attaching tax benefits to the individual rather than the job, breaking down barriers to interstate competition, and promoting transparency and consumer-friendly coverage options.

Of course, this is nothing new to those of us who have listened to Paul Ryan over the last year.  Ryan has repeatedly promoted these very ideas, both on the stump and in actual legislation.  That may be news to NYT readers, however, given the sparse coverage of Ryan’s proposals until Barack Obama made a big tactical error in holding his health-care summit in February — which forced the media to cover Ryan’s specific criticisms and proposals.

While I think Ryan’s reforms would work to undo the damage of ObamaCare and the tax policies of the last several decades, they could go a bit farther.  The best outcome would be to get rid of the idea of comprehensive insurance altogether and move towards catastrophic insurance instead.  That would alleviate the existing-conditions issue, since insurers wouldn’t be paying for routine medical services, and would encourage more providers to enter a more competitive market.  Innovation would follow, and everyone would get healthier as a result.

However, that’s just a quibble at this point.  The real need is to repeal and replace, for which Ryan makes an excellent argument — and exactly where it’s needed.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

No one can accuse Rep. Paul Ryan of merely carrying coals to Newcastle.

Sounds like that could be a Vice President Neil “BFD” Kinnock allusion.

Abby Adams on March 26, 2010 at 2:34 PM

RYAN 2012!

cmsinaz on March 26, 2010 at 2:34 PM

Ryan / Pence 2012!!!!

lavell12 on March 26, 2010 at 2:35 PM

It’s difficult to not love Paul Ryan. Keep this in the news every day. This guy is really smart! Not the pseudo-intellectuals that we are treated to in Washington. He has taken the intellectual exercise to a solution. That’s what “smart” looks like.

BetseyRoss on March 26, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Do Ryan or Pence have any executive experience? No more legislator presidents, please.

OhioCoastie on March 26, 2010 at 2:36 PM

lavell12 on March 26, 2010 at 2:35 PM

even better :)

cmsinaz on March 26, 2010 at 2:36 PM

OhioCoastie on March 26, 2010 at 2:36 PM

give them a little credit, they never voted ‘present’, they actually know what goes on in the halls of congress

cmsinaz on March 26, 2010 at 2:37 PM

Sounds like a sensible guy. We need this sort in charge of this country.

jeanie on March 26, 2010 at 2:38 PM

This man sleeps on a cot, while congressional staffers make over 200k, on our dole.

America, wake up!

Schadenfreude on March 26, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Wow. A pol who understands the problem very well and is working feverishly to get something done.

Refreshing.

matd on March 26, 2010 at 2:39 PM

…and Health Savings Accounts where you get to keep your money tax free. Where you make your own decisions.

Skandia Recluse on March 26, 2010 at 2:39 PM

RYAN/BOLTON 2012!

a girl can dream, sigh.

pabo on March 26, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Costs will continue their ascent as the debt burden squeezes life out of our economy. We are unapologetic advocates for the repeal of this costly misstep.

Anyone who thinks this isn’t going to bankrupt the nation has been riding their unicorn too long.

Forget about destroying the best healthcare system in the world.

Forget about destroying our personal freedoms.

National Socialist Healthcare is going to run us over a financial cliff – we simply cannot afford it.

Chip on March 26, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Me likey Ryan…!

Seven Percent Solution on March 26, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Smart men are so HOT!

Knucklehead on March 26, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Have y’all seen this?

My apologies if you have, but it amuses me. And it’s a pretty fantastic explanation of Obamacare – even a lib could understand it!

lonesome_pine on March 26, 2010 at 2:42 PM

Ryan / Pence 2012!!!!

lavell12 on March 26, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Yes! or vice-versa. Yes!

AubieJon on March 26, 2010 at 2:43 PM

VEEEEEEEP, please!

Diane on March 26, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Ryan/Cheney? oh my.

Diane on March 26, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Do Ryan or Pence have any executive experience? No more legislator presidents, please.

OhioCoastie on March 26, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Not sure about exec experience, but one thing that I know they DO have that our current boy-president does not, and that is a set of principles.

UltimateBob on March 26, 2010 at 2:46 PM

I’ve heard Ryan discuss health care for the past few weeks and I never tire of him unlike Obama whereas I hit the mute button immediately.

Ryan is smart, competent, nice and explains things in a way everyone can “get”.

More! More! More!

NYconservative on March 26, 2010 at 2:47 PM

The best outcome would be to get rid of the idea of comprehensive insurance altogether and move towards catastrophic insurance instead. That would alleviate the existing-conditions issue, since insurers wouldn’t be paying for routine medical services, and would encourage more providers to enter a more competitive market.

I can’t make sense of that. What if someone’s existing condition is that they need a heart/lung transplant rather than a wart removed?

MB4 on March 26, 2010 at 2:47 PM

The header up top is reversed, btw – it says fix health care now, then repeal the bill.

Yep, we need to repeal the bill and clean out that gangrene. It’s pointless to keep operating on this atrocity.

There is one problem we all need to face – if HC isn’t compulsory (which is shouldn’t be), what will happen to people who risk being without? Or choose to spend their money on beer and cigs? It’s not fair to make hospitals eat it. And very inefficient to use the ER for routine care.

disa on March 26, 2010 at 2:47 PM

To be clear: it is not sufficient for those of us in the opposition to await a reversal of political fortune months or years from now before we advance action on health care reform.

Maybe you all read a different NYT article by this Paul Ryan, but the one I read goes along the lines of: Lets take responsibility for the Democrats mess by trying to tweak it around the edges today, and then ‘promise’ to repeal it at some future date. As you fix the health care, you inherit the responsibility for it, the good along with the massive bad. Who do you think MSM and the progressive Democrats will lay every problem that peeks out once Republicans make changes to the bill? Once you make these changes, your changes are going to be intricately tied to the current bill, making your changes part of what you will have to repeal in the future in order to repeal the bill.

Then, when helping Americans with pre-existing conditions obtain coverage, we should focus on innovative state-based solutions, including robust high-risk pools, reinsurance markets and risk-adjustment mechanisms. I intend to continue advancing true patient-centered reforms like attaching tax benefits to the individual rather than the job, breaking down barriers to interstate competition, and promoting transparency and consumer-friendly coverage options.

Still stuck on preexisting conditions are we? There is no way it works without it being a socialist plan. Why are we talking about paying people to buy insurance? We should just cut the tax loophole for health insurance provided by the employer clean.

The only thing this article did for my view on Paul Ryan is make me rethink if he is worth as much respect as I gave him earlier. I think he is on the slide to becoming a progressive, just like every other person who gets too much good media attention. If Democrats really wanted to destroy Sarah Palin, they would treat her like they are treating Paul Ryan today.

astonerii on March 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Ryan’s ideas are great… but he will never have the organization or power to ever implement them…

Republicans should care much more about fighting centralized planning than being deficit hawks or tax cutters… Republicans are going to find that the “conservative” label will hurt them in this health care debate… they need to bill themselves as being dynamistic distributionists…

ninjapirate on March 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM

So, why does the NYT article title say to fix it then repeal it? Is that their way to ridicule Paul Ryan’s ideas, or is it a typo?

13Girl on March 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Hats off to you, Allah and Ed…Blogging-meaning keeping the site nicely lookin’, although you guys are pretty much set up, I have had trouble with YouTube HTML codes, so after so much hard work, a makeover and fix aaaaaaalllllllll the videos and re-code them, was a piece of work.

I finally found my “magic number” for HTML encoding, and that was a bit intimidating for me in the sense that I don’t know programming or encoding. At least I got it pretty much where I wanted it, I want to add a thing or two more, but I am gonna have fun watching Mr. PPF barf over Glenn Beck’s quotes and pic. He can’t stand him! :D

ProudPalinFan on March 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Not sure about exec experience, but one thing that I know they DO have that our current boy-president does not, and that is a set of principles.

UltimateBob on March 26, 2010 at 2:46 PM

ObaMao has principles, all right. Just that they are not any principles that the majority of Americans like. Castro and Chavez, like them plenty, though.

mwdiver on March 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Can’t wait to print and read Ryan, pure genius!

ProudPalinFan on March 26, 2010 at 2:50 PM

We are unapologetic advocates for the repeal of this costly misstep

A well-crafted turn of phrase. +eleventy

ted c on March 26, 2010 at 2:50 PM

National Socialist Healthcare is going to run us over a financial cliff – we simply cannot afford it.

Chip on March 26, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Now Obama is hot on controlling health care
He’s made it his personal affair
National Socialist the country will be
As he goose-stepped all over the Constitution, said he
‘Cause you see, anything that brings more power to me, you must all just grin and bare

Cheshire Cat on March 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM

I’m sooooooooo sick and tired of looking at bambi’s pictures.

Hey, Ed, can you just put up a picture of an empty suit?

GrannyDee on March 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM

GrannyDee on March 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM

+1

mwdiver on March 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM

I’m sooooooooo sick and tired of looking at bambi’s pictures.

Hey, Ed, can you just put up a picture of an empty suit?

GrannyDee on March 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Sorry. Wrong thread.

The preview button is there for a reason.

Moving on…

GrannyDee on March 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM

The best outcome would be to get rid of the idea of comprehensive insurance altogether and move towards catastrophic insurance instead.

that’s a helluva idea, Ed. Burdening the individual with the day to day risk of boo boos and sick tummies, while paying for coverage for MVAs/heart attack/disease. Good idea.

ted c on March 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM

AT&T taking 1 BILLION dollar hit from O-Care

jp on March 26, 2010 at 2:54 PM

AT&T taking 1 BILLION dollar hit from O-Care

jp on March 26, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Uh-oh. Thanks for the heads up, jp. Think I’ll sell my stock while the gettin’ out is still good.

GrannyDee on March 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

National Socialist Healthcare is going to run us over a financial cliff – we simply cannot afford it.
Chip on March 26, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Now Obama is hot on controlling health care
He’s made it his personal affair
National Socialist the country will be
As he goose-stepped all over the Constitution, said he
‘Cause you see, anything that brings more power to me, you must all just grin and bare
Cheshire Cat on March 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Very Good!

Chip on March 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

AT&T taking 1 BILLION dollar hit from O-Care

jp on March 26, 2010 at 2:54 PM

I switched to AT&T becasue I hear they have “more bars in more places.” At the rate this country is going, I’m going to need all the bars I can find.

/sarc

mwdiver on March 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Do Ryan or Pence have any executive experience? No more legislator presidents, please.

OhioCoastie on March 26, 2010 at 2:36 PM

I was against legislator presidents long before Øbama. I say make Ryan the budget committee chair. His ideas would go further in that capacity.

Kafir on March 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

I switched to AT&T becasue I hear they have “more bars in more places.” At the rate this country is going, I’m going to need all the bars I can find.

/sarc

mwdiver on March 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

be careful what you wish for….esp regarding bars….

ted c on March 26, 2010 at 2:57 PM

I like that Ryan FINALLY gets us out of the tired mental constructs of the liberal Baby Boomers (of which Obama is clearly captive) and gives us some Gen X perspective on these entitlements.

Being forced to pay into programs you know won’t be there for you will change a person’s mindset on the value of those government “promises”.

venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 2:57 PM

I’m sooooooooo sick and tired of looking at bambi’s pictures.
Hey, Ed, can you just put up a picture of an empty suit?
GrannyDee on March 26, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Sorry. Wrong thread.
The preview button is there for a reason.
Moving on…
GrannyDee on March 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Well, I still like the idea – anything but… *shudder*..

Chip on March 26, 2010 at 2:57 PM

I was against legislator presidents long before Øbama.
Kafir on March 26, 2010 at 2:56 PM

There is a reason we rarely have them. ObaMao, Exhibit A.

mwdiver on March 26, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Michelle Bachmann are all heroes from their actions fighting back socialism and the filthy lying dictator in the White House. John Boehner, John McCain, and Mitch McConnell— not so much.

highhopes on March 26, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Paul Ryan is awesome, but I don’t want him to run for president or vice-president; I want him right where he is, in Congress.

I can’t believe we squandered our majority on corrupt career politicians like Trent Lott. If we had used those years to promote ideas like this, we’d all be paying less for health care today and ObamaCare would have been dead on arrival.

sandberg on March 26, 2010 at 2:58 PM

be careful what you wish for….esp regarding bars….

ted c on March 26, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Good point. I was referring to drinking establishments, but I see that if I violate the new law, I could be looking at the other type.

mwdiver on March 26, 2010 at 2:59 PM

I’ve mentioned this before, but I think a big source of the problem with Health insurance (beyond the third payer problem) is that we rent it instead of buying it.

What insurance should be is paying an up-front amount now to get reimbursed in the case of a specific future contingency. It should bought by the particular condition you are insuring against (individual cancers, syndromes, or things like catastrophic injuries, or something for “undiscovered” illnesses), and for specific treatment costs (which means you can get any treatment up to that amount with it).

Instead, we pay a monthly or yearly fee, with the insurance company trying to strike a balance between costumer service and cutting costs, and people look at it as some kind of discount mechanism like a Sam’s Club card.

Count to 10 on March 26, 2010 at 11:31 AM

What I wrote in the headlines thread.

Count to 10 on March 26, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Do Ryan or Pence have any executive experience? No more legislator presidents, please.

OhioCoastie on March 26, 2010 at 2:36 PM

One bad Obama, and a bunch of rotten liberals, doesn’t necessarily spoil the rest. :)

capejasmine on March 26, 2010 at 3:01 PM

As for people with pre-existing conditions, you buy coverage for everything but what you already have. If you can’t afford to pay for the treatment of your condition, you look for charity.

Count to 10 on March 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM

The best outcome would be to get rid of the idea of comprehensive insurance altogether and move towards catastrophic insurance instead.

that’s a helluva idea, Ed. Burdening the individual with the day to day risk of boo boos and sick tummies, while paying for coverage for MVAs/heart attack/disease. Good idea.

ted c on March 26, 2010 at 2:53 PM

Why would we try to limit the choices people can make on their own? If a person wants to buy comprehensive health care services through an insurance policy, why should we stop them? Some people, particularly those on fixed incomes like the idea of paying a specified fee monthly with no chance for surprises. Auto insurance with $5000, $2000, $500, and $0 deductibles. Health Care with $5000, $2000, $500, and $0 deductibles.

The problem comes when the government subsidizes the insurance, making the comprehensive insurance a better deal dollar for dollar because the insurance premium is 100% tax free (through employers) while every dollar spent for the deductible is taxed.

The other problem is when people do not see the cost because the company keeps the cost hidden from the employees by paying it for them. People then are not making cost/value evaluations and over use the health care system.

astonerii on March 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM

And zero is doing his part by keeping the HC door swinging with his tour of “how great I am”.

dragondrop on March 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Ryan/McCotter 2012

matd on March 26, 2010 at 3:03 PM

I totally agree, Mr. Morrisey.

Paul Ryan’s solutions make much more sense.

Why would anyone think a lawyer/community organizer, an event planner (Pelosi) and a Gambino errand boy (Reid), could come up with a workable health care reform plan?

But what do I know, I just have a Masters in Health Administration and have 20 years working in federal health care.

I should be out redesigning our “justice” system, that’s what I’m qualified to do.

NoDonkey on March 26, 2010 at 3:06 PM

As for people with pre-existing conditions, you buy coverage for everything but what you already have. If you can’t afford to pay for the treatment of your condition, you look for charity.
Count to 10 on March 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Now this guy’s idea I like.

There is a somewhat problem with this though. Some diseases have extremely varied progression and side effects. It may be hard to determine which future problems a person with a preexisting condition waiver should remain personally liable for and which ones the insurance should pay for.

So, some sort of arbitration would need to apply in these cases. I know some insurance companies already do this sort of thing, so there must be a process that can accomplish it equitably.

astonerii on March 26, 2010 at 3:08 PM

So, why does the NYT article title say to fix it then repeal it? Is that their way to ridicule Paul Ryan’s ideas, or is it a typo?

13Girl on March 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM

That might mean that the majority of Americans still want the bill repealed, and the Democrats sense they can only push public opinion so far. So, they are using the momentum of enthusiasm for Paul Ryan’s ideas. He is indisputably smart. He talks a better game than Bobby Jindal.

Democrats are now saying that if Republicans were serious about reform, you would have heard more from Ryan. Boehner, they say, tried to sabotage Ryan’s budget. Republicans are not serious about repeal; they’re just pouting, because the Democrats beat them to the punch. Therefore, Paul Ryan must prove to the Democrats that he seriously wants to help by giving them all of his ideas, allowing them to pay lip service to them while giving him no credit, then using the new system as another ATM for their own reelections anyway.

chunderroad on March 26, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Ryan/Rubio 2012

I’m officially on the Ryan Express.

Ampleforth on March 26, 2010 at 3:09 PM

As for people with pre-existing conditions, you buy coverage for everything but what you already have. If you can’t afford to pay for the treatment of your condition, you look for charity.
Count to 10 on March 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Doctors getting tax breaks for charity cases they accept is a good idea (potentially.)

chunderroad on March 26, 2010 at 3:11 PM

When Ryan is asked a question he gives a complete succinct answer without er, um, ah,er,er, hmm, uh…

belad on March 26, 2010 at 3:13 PM

The Palinization of Paul Ryan starts in 3-2-1…

Bruno Strozek on March 26, 2010 at 3:14 PM

I finally found my “magic number” for HTML encoding, and that was a bit intimidating for me in the sense that I don’t know programming or encoding. At least I got it pretty much where I wanted it

ProudPalinFan on March 26, 2010 at 2:49 PM

That sounds like me several years ago, but I know more about it now because of study and practise over time as I am sure will be the case with you.

P.S.
In case you haven’t seen it I did answer your 7:35 am question to me concerning Zechariah 14:2-4 at 2:14 pm in this
thread

Basil Fawlty on March 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM

The Palinization of Paul Ryan starts in 3-2-1…

Bruno Strozek on March 26, 2010 at 3:14 PM

I’ve been waiting on this one, but it depends if my suspicions are right.

ProudPalinFan on March 26, 2010 at 3:21 PM

“…carrying coals to Newcastle…”

Leave it to Ed to use an expression only he and Vin Scully would understand. Said with the utmost affection for both.

tommylotto on March 26, 2010 at 3:26 PM

That sounds like me several years ago, but I know more about it now because of study and practise over time as I am sure will be the case with you.

P.S.
In case you haven’t seen it I did answer your 7:35 am question to me concerning Zechariah 14:2-4 at 2:14 pm in this
thread

Basil Fawlty on March 26, 2010 at 3:15 PM

Thank you so much! It makes sense when I went back and read it; ugly picture in my mind, but rest assured that Jesus Christ is allowing these things to happen (to our much frustration).

ProudPalinFan on March 26, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Ryan=A male version of Michele Bachmann

OmahaConservative on March 26, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Anyone know if Paul Ryan is steeped in the Austrian school of economics, as is his father, and is incorporating the theories of the Austrian school of economics into the economic policies he is advocating for health care reform and other U.S. national economic problems?

Basil Fawlty on March 26, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Anyone know if Paul Ryan is steeped in the Austrian school of economics, as is his father, and is incorporating the theories of the Austrian school of economics into the economic policies he is advocating for health care reform and other U.S. national economic problems?

Basil Fawlty on March 26, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Obama knows Austrian. Maybe he can tell us if some of Ryan’s phrases are translations from Austrian.

venividivici on March 26, 2010 at 3:46 PM

ATT out one beeeelion dollars thanks to “health care” law.

forest on March 26, 2010 at 3:50 PM

2 things:

1. Health Insurance as a job benefit should be eliminated all together. I can’t get homeowner’s, or car, or flood insurance through work…I shouldn’t rely on my Employer for Life or Health insurance either. That includes unions. I want to own my health insurance, I don’t want my employer owning it.

2. I can’t wait for Krugman’s next column.

uknowmorethanme on March 26, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Do Ryan or Pence have any executive experience? No more legislator presidents, please.

OhioCoastie on March 26, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Ryan would make a great VP. He is in love with numbers and knows budgets. Which one of O’s advisors have his knowledge? NONE!

elclynn on March 26, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Which one of O’s advisors the Democrats have his knowledge? NONE!

elclynn on March 26, 2010 at 3:57 PM

FIFY

mwdiver on March 26, 2010 at 4:01 PM

I’d be happy with Ryan as Majority leader…Boehner taking the gavel from the cold, dead hands of Dorothy’s nemisis after the “House” falls on her.

Tony253 on March 26, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Smart men are so HOT!

Knucklehead on March 26, 2010 at 2:42 PM

I’ve been sayin’ the same thing to my husband for years now.
The sexiest thing about conservative men are their large…brains.
*smirk*

annoyinglittletwerp on March 26, 2010 at 4:06 PM

The best outcome would be to get rid of the idea of comprehensive insurance altogether and move towards catastrophic insurance instead.

EXACTLY!! If car insurance operated like health insurance, you would have to file a claim everytime you change your wiper blades. It’s ridiculous.

labrat on March 26, 2010 at 4:13 PM

The best example to look at are these so-called “cosmetic” procedures. You can get laser eye surgery for roughly $3000. If insurers covered it – it would cost $30,000.

labrat on March 26, 2010 at 4:17 PM

RYAN/BOLTON 2012!

a girl can dream, sigh.

pabo on March 26, 2010 at 2:40 PM

Hell, with that. The ‘stache’ should be Sec of State. That’s his bread and butter.

I could just see his first address to the UN.

“Pack yer $hit and get out!!!”

BigWyo on March 26, 2010 at 4:18 PM

However, that’s just a quibble at this point. The real need is to repeal and replace, for which Ryan makes an excellent argument — and exactly where it’s needed.

Repeal and Replace is a good slogan – It’s pithy and gets to the point.

Dr Evil on March 26, 2010 at 4:29 PM

As for people with pre-existing conditions, you buy coverage for everything but what you already have. If you can’t afford to pay for the treatment of your condition, you look for charity.

Count to 10 on March 26, 2010 at 3:02 PM

Doesn’t work like that though. Most insurance plans deny coverage outright.

Insurance companies have themselves to blame for ObamaCare happening. Over the past 10-15 years, there has been a growing hatred against them. Fairly or unfairly, they became on par with BIG OIL in the minds of people.

And yet they did nothing to change that image. As an industry they could have come up with ways to insure pre-existing people. Maybe do what you say. Or create a separate product for pre-existing with high co-pays and high deductibles. If Wall St could figure out a way to turn a 500 FICO sub prime mortgage into A+ paper, I’m sure there is a way to give coverage to someone who has diabetes and still make a profit. Or maybe take a loss on those people

But they did nothing and demagogues like Obama capitalized on that inaction.

angryed on March 26, 2010 at 4:38 PM

We need Paul Ryan and more like him in the halls of Congress, where legislation is crafted. We also need Paul Ryan out in front of the cameras and the talk shows, and in the editorials of major newspapers to spell out his fiscally sensible and common-sense views. He know how to make the issues understandable to the average citizen.

onlineanalyst on March 26, 2010 at 4:59 PM

The best outcome would be to get rid of the idea of comprehensive insurance altogether and move towards catastrophic insurance instead.

Ed, can you foresee an outcome that does NOT include Medicare and Medicaid? As long as these entitlements exist, it seems that we are only nibbling around the edges of real healthcare reform.

The left “went for broke” in pursuing their healthcare dreams of government control- why can’t the right pursue their dream of completely private, free-market healthcare with NO government control?

The pendulum may well swing back so forcefully from its extreme left angle (huge out-of-control government) PAST where we have been in the middle (public and private together, a la Fannie Mae, and Medicare) to the “never-thought-we’d-see-it-again” right (NO government involvement at all). The growing public disgust and distrust of the current crop in Washington, may be handing us an opportunity to GO FOR IT for the first time in a long time.

parteagirl on March 26, 2010 at 6:05 PM

The best outcome would be to get rid of the idea of comprehensive insurance altogether and move towards catastrophic insurance instead.

Suppose I like my comprehensive insurance plan? Ed, would you force me to give it up, or to pay post-tax dollars for it?

To put it another way, why should I give up a benefit I currently have for being (or having been, in case of retirement) gainfully employed?

That’s exactly like the SEIU-inspired plan to grab my 401(k) and make it the Government’s.

My wife was slated to retire in a few years with full medical benefits during retirement from her employer. To me, it’s looking like that will be ripped away, and we will have to pay for something she was promised and that she earned during her thirty-plus years of employment.

unclesmrgol on March 26, 2010 at 8:02 PM

There are many, many people who have pre-existing conditions that have health insurance. Clue… they had the insurance before the got the condition!
There are also many people that get coverage on the job that fail to replace their insurance when they leave that job and many people leave their jobs of their own accord. They feel that “it won’t happen to them” or that the COBRA price is too high. Most health plans will cover pre-existing conditions after 2 years anyway!

Vince on March 26, 2010 at 8:16 PM

No one can accuse Rep. Paul Ryan of merely carrying coals to Newcastle.

Coals?!?! As in BLACK COALS?!?!

Racist!!!!

/s

tom on March 26, 2010 at 8:35 PM

I am gonna go out on a limb here and make a totally immature post …..Paul Ryan is so hot….

sweet92169 on March 27, 2010 at 9:30 AM