So I am still left wondering how the average money actually breaks down, but with the modifications from the new plan, it may be a moot point. And I still wonder how a board of 15 in DC knows more than many doctors and patients spread throughout the country…

I also believe that even if more costs would in theory be passed down to the average person, the very fact that more of the cost is known to the person would cause less wasteful spending in healthcare, which would benefit everyone.

You also still failed to answer how higher taxes are an incentive for Romney to keep his money here. Also, I am mystified as to how Ryan’s plan increases taxes for everyone…not even the CBO says that…

It is clear to me at this point that Ryan offers a multitude of plans because he is constantly refining them based on knowledge…the point being that he allows his study to dynamically inform his policy proposals…way more than I can say for many politicians, let alone Obama. He is perhaps the most studious member of congress, and probably knows more about these issues than any one in the United States….esp Obama.

“Republicans can’t seem to decide whether the President’s proposal would cut $500 billion from Medicare, as Romney asserted last week or $700 billion, as RNC chair Priebus asserted on Sunday.”

The most recent CBO estimate of Obamcare’s Medicare cuts is $716 billion.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/13/yes-obamacare-cuts-medicare-more-than-president-romney-would/

“Spending cuts will also be realized by cutting fraud” Actually, on planet Earth, Obamacare cuts payments to hospitals. https://www.sdaho.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=449&Itemid=650

I thought the funniest thing I’d heard in years was when Gingrich said he was going to solve the Medicare problem (more or less) by cutting fraud. But now hearing it from partisans of the Solyndra administration makes it even funnier! Good times.

“Ryan supporters, including Pete, have asserted that a person opting out of Medicare would possibly be able to find a private plan which would actually cost him less than would care under Medicare. Anything is possible, but the probability here wouldn’t be worth calculating, at least not for similar coverage (apples to apples and all that).”

I take it you mean “the probability here wouldn’t be worth calculating” to actually mean “very likely.” Sort of like how “bad” meant “good” in the later 1980s.

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/313243/new-estimate-potential-impact-competitive-bidding-medicare-expenditures-reihan-salam

In any case, under a Romney-Wyden-style plan, if FFS Medicare is the lowest bidder for services at the same price to recipients, the premium support would cover…FFS Medicare. And it would fund it at the exact same level as Obama’s latest budget. Though as James Capretta has pointed out elsewhere, US health care is regionalized and there will likely be places (especially rural areas) where FFS is the low bid. The Ryan-Wyden approach adjusts the premium support for region and health status.

“On the one hand, we’re supposed to fear doctors declining to care for Medicare patients because of imagined deep cuts in payments made to doctors under the President’s plan. While on the other hand, you want us to believe that some doctors might actually be willing to accept an even lower payment from a patient who finds private insurance that costs the patient less than Medicare.”

This assumes that health care delivery is so close to optimal, that the only way to improve efficiency is for a single third party payer to impose across-the-board reimbursement cuts to all providers while leaving no price signals that would steer consumers to higher productivity networks. There is reason to doubt this proposition:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/13/120813fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all?currentPage=all

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/09/how-american-health-care-killed-my-father/7617/

“In fact, the CBO estimates that under the Ryan plan in 2022 (the first year vouchers would go into effect) expenditures for a typical 65-year-old would be 40% higher than those expenditures would be under the current Medicare system.”

Those numbers do not take into account either the Medicare cuts that Obama proposed this year or this year’s Ryan budget with higher Medicare spending. It is 2012, your numbers are out of date, President Obama is now for SSM and the Giants won the Super Bowl. So let us spell this out one more time: The Ryan plan, at the very worst case scenario, spends as much on Medicare FFS as does the Obama budget.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/20/paul-ryans-new-and-improved-plan-for-medicare-and-medicaid-reform/

I can see why you want to rely on stale talking points.

http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-ryan-romney-medicare-plans-budget-2012-8

If I were a partisan of the incumbent, I would focus my criticisms on the recent Ryan budget’s cuts to domestic discretionary spending in the out years. That is problematic – though not as problematic as Obama’s budget plan to raise taxes, centrally cut Medicare, and still go bankrupt by the middle years of the next decade (or more likely come back for even more tax increases after the election.

Having an insurance plan that costs less does not necessarily mean the doctor would receive less in payment. It could also mean that the patient receives less coverage. That was what I meant about comparing apples to apples. Insurance companies already offer plans which appear to cost less than other plans. However, the patient/customer often finds out much too late, like at the time to pay his bill, that his plan doesn’t cover his needs.

Worse still, most, if not all, insurance companies already violate policies’ terms by denying payments for coverages which are clearly spelled out in their plans. This is done for the simple fact that insurance companies know, from experience, that there is quite a high percentage of customers who will tire of the appeal process, won’t sue the company, and will just go ahead and either pay a bill or refuse treatment. Now there’e another win-win for the insurance companies. They get paid for coverage they refuse to provide. It’s a lose-lose for the patient. They pay for coverage they don’t receive.

The CBO, at least in the information that I read, uses the phrase “typical 65 year-old.” I would take that as an average person, with an average income. The CBO, like any other entity, can only estimate about the future and what a change in policy might bring. But they have great advantages over others, in that they have the resources needed, including the particulars of both the Ryan plan and the President’s plan, and the particulars of the ACA. They also make these kinds of estimates for a living, and as much as any of us might like to deny it, they are as non-partisan as we’ll find.

Medicare already has a board that sets pricing on fees-in-service. Doctors are the key members on that board. I trust doctors much more than I do insurance companies where it comes to anything. But this board is all about helping Medicare recipients receive quality care, and that includes making sure that care providers are getting paid enough to continue providing services, not the other way around.

As for Romney’s money coming home, raising his taxes on his money before it leaves the U.S. should be the aim. He and many others have more incentive to send their money off-shore where it helps create no jobs than they do to keep it here and create jobs. Incidently, there is not an ounce of proof to support the idea that the trickle-down theory creates more jobs. However, what has proven to create by far the most jobs is an economy in which more money is being spent by more people. That only occurs when more people have more money in their pockets. And that only occurs when more people are paid more in salary and wages.

We’re not going to reduce our debt without growing the middle class. We are not going to reduce our debt by allowing the very rich to pay .82% in taxes, which is part of the Ryan plan. We are not going to reduce our debt or grow our economy by raising taxes on eveyone else. That’s exactly what the Ryan plan does. And it further requires more money from the average person’s pocket to pay for things like Medicare. It’s a plan that would crush the middle class, not save it. It’s a plan that would devastate our economy. It’s asinine to float such a plan out there and expect the public to elect the author of it.