The Straight Poop On Paul Ryan's Crappy Plan To Kill Medicare

If The GOP Wins Medicare will be gone soon, but you can receive Paul Ryan's "VoucherCare" coupons to keep you kicking long past 65 1/2. Good night and good luck...


Paul Ryan has been criss-crossing the country preaching his plan to "save Medicare" for older Americans by repealing Obamacare, which he claims the President paid for by cutting $700 billion from Medicare. 

The truth is that while President Obama did cut some $716 billion from Medicare spending it was done to keep Medicare solvent - And that Paul Ryan's budget also calls for $700 billion in cuts to Medicare, but not in advantage to Medicare recipients, but rather to the advantage of the insurance companies.

Here is how the President's Affordable Care Act (ACA) keeps Medicare solvent by making $700 billion in cuts to the program:

  • Phasing down payments to Medicare Advantage plans
  • Reducing updates in payment levels to hospitals and other providers, and increasing premiums to be paid by higher-income beneficiaries
  • Closing the coverage gap in the Part D prescription drug “doughnut hole”
  • Including incentives to reduce preventable hospital readmissions and establish accountable care organizations (ACOs)
  • Establishes new sources of revenue dedicated to the Medicare program, including an additional payroll tax on earnings of higher-income workers and a fee on the manufacturers and importers of branded drugs.


While Romney and Ryan are promising to secure Medicare for the elderly, the right-wingers who are about to vote them in simply do not even believe in Medicare of Medicaid. So my question is, "Why would the GOP want to save Medicare if they don't believe in it?" The answer: They won't save Medicare or Medicaid, but rather they will de-fund it to death.

The conservative-leaning Kaiser Family Foundation just released a study that may put the nail in the coffin for the Romney/Ryan Ticket in 2012. The study shows that under their plan to repeal President Obama's Affordable Care Act, Medicare will become insolvent by 2016, leaving millions of senior citizens without government coverage and without laws to ensure that a company has to even offer health insurance.

If Romney is elected and repeals the Affordable Care Act, the law’s savings and revenue provisions would be reversed, seniors will pay more,  and Medicare will be dead by 2016 - Here is how it will go down:

  • Medicare savings provisions provided by the ACA that would have reduced spending by $716 billion from 2013 to 2022 will be null and void.
  • Part A deductible and co-payments would rise for seniors
  • Part B premiums for seniors would increase automatically set to cover 25 percent of spending
  • An estimated 3.6 million Medicare Part D beneficiaries, who would have otherwise benefited from provisions to close the doughnut hole in Medicare would see on average a $600 increase in drug costs.
  • Coverage of free preventive benefits would be eliminated, thereby increasing
    beneficiary out-of-pocket spending for these services.
  • Medicare will become insolvent by 2016, leaving millions of senior citizens without insurance and without laws to ensure their ability to find insurance.


So in essence, Romney and Ryan are lying to the people as they go town to town telling them that they are saving their Medicare. Why? Because old people love Medicare and could literally not live without it in many cases. Before Medicare was enacted in 1966 more than 50% of all seniors had no health coverage and 35% lived in poverty - Today, under Medicare, virtually every senior is covered and only 8.9% live in poverty.

Seniors do NOT want to lose Medicare, but the Romney/Ryan ticket is the death blow to Medicare itself. Now the question is, will people wake up and realize that the wool has been pulled over their eyes in time for November 6th?

God, I hope so...


And just in case Americans are reading the papers (or this blog) and are becoming aware of the GOP plan to defund Medicare, Paul Ryan is putting out a series of "VoucherCare" coupons that will be coming in October's ValPak.

Above, in the photo section of my blog is a sneak peak of Paul Ryan's VoucherCare coupons that you can expect:

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Lyle Ruble September 19, 2012 at 09:20 PM
@Brian Dey...I never denied that my wife wasn't a public employee working for the state. In fact I posted such on the boards many times. But, you came out and stated she was a union official and in fact a section president. I called you out on that you have yet to retract your statement or claim. Some people try to erase the evidence but there are already copies. Just sayin!
Lyle Ruble September 19, 2012 at 09:22 PM
@Nuitari...Elitist, how do you figure?
James R Hoffa September 19, 2012 at 10:12 PM
@Lyle - "Brian Dey 6:04 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012 I will take your word that she is not a union leader as it was a third party source that I relied on. Tell me she is not a public worker covered under contract and I will gladly take it back, but the substance is that you receive a benefit from your wife that is or could be affected by Act 10." http://mountpleasant.patch.com/blog_posts/chicago-teachers-union-proves-why-what-walker-did-was-good-for-wisconsin Sure does look to me like Brian Dey retracted the part about your wife being a union official. Is Hoffa missing something here, or are Lyle's files on people just not updated very well?
Brian Dey September 19, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Lyle, you might have missed it but Mr. Hoffa posted the link that clearly shows that I did retract it and even claimed it as a third party source and if I can find it, it was from someone who blogs here, and I might have missed if you denied it. Case closed.
Lyle Ruble September 19, 2012 at 11:17 PM
@JRH....C'mon, a conditional statement is not a retraction. The burden of proof is on Brian to prove what he said is true. I don't have to prove anything. For the record, since she is a state employee the recent ruling in Dane County doesn't affect her status at all. She has not been under a collective bargaining agreement since 01/01/11. She remains a union member so that if she needs legal representation in the workplace it is available to her. She never took any job action, did not go to Madison to protest, but did sign recall petitions away from work. His statements were clearly designed to defame her and her character. This was also done with the possible hope of discrediting me because of the claims about my spouse. The law doesn't care if he got it from a third party source. He was the one who placed it in the public. You as a trained attorney should know the law well enough to understand what I am saying is true.
Lyle Ruble September 19, 2012 at 11:46 PM
@Brian Dey...A conditional statement is not a retraction. It would have been fine if you hadn't placed the condition on the retraction. Your legal counsel could probably affirm my statement. As long as you publicly retract without the conditional statement, then the case is closed.
Brian Dey September 20, 2012 at 12:08 AM
Oh, but Lyle, I DO know the law and since it was in print from a third party and was not contested (if the alleged defamed person had knowledge and opportunity to correct such statement, third party or othrewise) than it can not be considered deliberate which is the key to any defamation case. Just to remind you Lyle, WEAC tried to claim the same thing as you and I didn't back down from them and won. This is your answer Lyle, that it is okay for you to mislead people on my background or my occupation, yet when the heat is on you, you run like a little crybaby to an attorney. Bring it on... http://local2748.org/dept/bmcw/state/042506bmcwpss.pdf http://local2748.org/dept/bmcw/state/011006bmcwpss.pdf http://local2748.org/dept/bmcw/state/022806bmcwpss.pdf http://local2748.org/dept/bmcw/state/012406bmcwpss.pdf http://local2748.org/dept/bmcw/state/092705bmcwpss.pdf http://local2748.org/dept/bmcw/state/092705bmcwpss.pdf http://local2748.org/dept/bmcw/state/092705bmcwpss.pdf At least in 2005 and 2006, she was a member representing the union in Labor Management meetings, as well as at least being named once as a steward in the minutes of those meetings. Also, the third party source was published first, prior to mine, but indeed, she was a union official, at least accorsing to the AFSCME 2748 website.
Brian Dey September 20, 2012 at 12:09 AM
Brian Dey September 20, 2012 at 12:21 AM
One more thing Lyle. The "it" is in reference that you have a vested interest in the outcome of any legal or legislative actions for which you indirectly receive benefits. I clearly stated that I accepted your word that she was not a union leader, but have reached the logical conclussion that she had some sort of leadership role as a stewart and in the Labor Management meetings in 2005 and 2006.
Lyle Ruble September 20, 2012 at 12:56 AM
@Brian Dey... She held the job as union steward for her unit for two years, ending in 2006. She resigned as steward and become just a union member, which she still is. As you well know being a steward is not the same thing as being a public union sector president. Your assumption and logic, as to her status was entirely incorrect. Now, I don't know who the third party source is that first posted such a lie. Please direct me to that post so that I can for myself. I am not WEAC and I have no vested interest in your business or what you do. As far as I'm concerned, it is OK to challenge my credibility, but when you unjustly defame one of my family members, who has not been engaged in anyway, that is taking it too far. Now, after all is said and done are you going to retract your statement about my wife?
Brian Dey September 20, 2012 at 01:23 AM
Lyle- It was on a recent post on the patch and I am still looking for it. I thought I made it clear that I took your word for it. Indeed, she is not a union president, however, the conclussion is that she was a union leader; i.e. steward and was a representative of th union at Labor Management meetings between 2005-2006. I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
Nuitari (Grand Master Editor) September 20, 2012 at 01:30 AM
@Lyle, am I missing something? I know this isn't my fight, but why are you threatening people with lawyers because your feelings are hurt? Kinda silly. Had the same thing happen to me from another Shorewood pantywaist.
James R Hoffa September 20, 2012 at 01:57 AM
@Lyle & @Brian - We've all seen some pretty stupid and silly flame wars between Patch commentators, but if either of you is actually going to an attorney over this matter - well, that's just insane in Hoffa's personal opinion! You're taking this forum way too seriously! Lyle, as I read Brian Dey's comment, the retraction forwarded by Mr. Dey was not conditional, as you're claiming it to be. If you consider the totality of the comments leading up to the retraction, and the wording of the condition itself, it becomes clear that the condition expressed by Mr. Dey was clearly in regards to his point about you potentially having a personal vested hatred of Act 10, because your wife, as a public sector union member, may have had her total compensation package provided by her public employer significantly reduced due to the implementation of the Act, thus effectively impacting your family's financial bottom line, and thus exposing a potential personal bias against the Act, those who caused its implementation, and those who support it and its creators. Also, the newly revealed information that at one time your wife did serve her union and its membership in an elected official capacity, as a steward, really muddies the factual support concerning the element of 'a false statement.'
James R Hoffa September 20, 2012 at 01:57 AM
And, as Brian has correctly stated, in order to succeed on a claim of defamation, you must be able to prove the requisite intent. Frankly, Hoffa just doesn't see any maliciousness from Brian here. While his claims may be somewhat tasteless and unnecessary, he was clearly intending to expose a potential deeply rooted personal bias in an ideological conversation. Hoffa also doesn't see how being falsely accused of being a union official is somehow defamatory. Most people would love to be falsely thought of being in a higher position than they actually are. Especially in your case, being the pro-union advocate that you've proven yourself to be through your blogs and comments here on Patch. Standing in your shoes, you should be proud that Mr. Dey considers your wife as being fully capable of holding a high level union position - not outraged. Hoffa knows that both of you guys are good people and considers both of you to be friends. Hoffa also suspects that although the two of you have clearly differing ideologies, that you also personally respect each other. Please, just apologize to each other, drop this foolishness, and let's move on to a discussion of substance and merit!
Lyle Ruble September 20, 2012 at 02:00 AM
@Brian Dey....Thank you, it's over.
Lyle Ruble September 20, 2012 at 02:05 AM
@Nuitari...As far as I'm concerned, I'm fair game. This involved a family member that is not a part of my participation on the Patch. I think that there should be some limits and attacking people's families is off limits as far as I'm concerned.
The Anti-Alinsky September 20, 2012 at 02:11 AM
OMG, Jason admits there is waste in a federal program!!! But wait a minute, lets see if those bullet points really deal with waste: 1) Phasing down payments to Medicare Advantage plans - (sounds like a cut in benefits) 2) Reducing updates in payment levels to hospitals and other providers, and increasing premiums to be paid by higher-income beneficiaries - (isn't this increasing cost to retirees?) 3) Closing the coverage gap in the Part D prescription drug “doughnut hole” (Great for retirees, but not really cutting spending OR waste) 4) Including incentives to reduce preventable hospital readmissions and establish accountable care organizations (ACOs) (NOW that's a plan, if it ever gets implimented) 5) Establishes new sources of revenue dedicated to the Medicare program, including an additional payroll tax on earnings of higher-income workers and a fee on the manufacturers and importers of branded drugs. (Soooo raising taxes will cut waste???) Jason apparently doesn't know which way the spin train is headed.
C. Sanders September 20, 2012 at 02:34 AM
@Lyle: Your emotion seems to be driven by the reader understanding that your position on this blog reflects an economic benefit derived from a public sector union association [your wife] and her historical leadership position with the public sector union. Many would have already concluded that your positions taken on this blog reflect that association. As far as lawyers are concerned, I am laughing because your argument to protect your wife's reputation on this LITTLE blog is beyond rediculous. I for one would provide Brian Dey with $1,000 toward his legal defense fund knowing that complainant would need to cough up same in order to move the matter forward. Now, it is probably best for all to settle down and get back to this little blog for whatever personal entertainment, expression or whatever else brings the few of us here.
James R Hoffa September 20, 2012 at 02:43 AM
@Lyle - Hoffa concurs, family is off limits. However, in all fairness, you can't honestly believe that Brian was attacking your wife. He was merely trying to expose a potential personal bias that you may hold because of your wife's position in relation to the effects of Act 10. And in the context of an ideological debate/conversation, that's an extremely valid point. Being the political commentator that you are, you know this to be true. He never said anything personally insultive or derogatory about your wife, did he? While Hoffa greatly admires your defense of your wife, she was never really under attack by Mr. Dey. Hoffa sincerely hopes that you can see this reality.
Watts September 20, 2012 at 02:51 AM
Well, given todays polls, it doesn't sound like Ryan is getting over on many people in Wisconsin. Quinnipiac and Marquette polls now show Obama ahead of Romney in Wisconsin by anywhere from 6 to 14(!) points: http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/obama-expands-lead-over-romney-in-two-wisconsin-polls-596u1d6-170428436.html You only get one state to try to put into play with your VP pick. Choosing Ryan as VP candidate was Romney's attempt to put Wisconsin into play. Nate Silver currently has Wisconsin at an 82.5% likelihood win for Obama. If WI is now locked on blue, Romney doesn't have room to loose a single swing state left and still have a chance to win. And coincidentally, I also see that Nate Silver's electoral map now has Florida tinting blue, when that had been tinting red up until recently: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/
Brian Dey September 20, 2012 at 02:53 AM
Point well taken Lyle.
C. Sanders September 20, 2012 at 02:53 AM
And the polls also concluded that Walker would be recalled ... NOT
Watts September 20, 2012 at 03:03 AM
Sorry, Colonel Sanders. Here is the HuffPost article from back then, showing every poll in Walker's favor (or 1 in a dead heat, but none with Walker down): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/wisconsin-recall-polls-scott-walker-tom-barrett-margin_n_1570869.html But it doesn't matter. It would take an act of God to change anything enough to overturn an 82+% likelihood prediction from Nate Silver. His calculations are scary accurate. Far better than looking at polls, which is why I always look at Silver's reporting before accepting the validity of any polling.
C. Sanders September 20, 2012 at 03:14 AM
Actually, Walker was behind on the PPP polls, i seem to recall.
Lyle Ruble September 20, 2012 at 03:35 AM
Although I disagree with most of you who are right of center, but I respect your positions and your willingness to defend them. I usually attempt to lay off and resist becoming overly personal. I will continue to edit myself and if I step over the line I know you will let me know.
Bewildered September 20, 2012 at 03:43 AM
I don't know which is sillier tonite, Lyle and Brian's very public spat over perceived insults or the whole string re: Nicolet. Anybody notice the world is blowing up ?
Watts September 20, 2012 at 07:45 AM
PPP gets a lot of criticism for left leaning results. Even if I may personally lean that way myself, I usually try to stick to very centrist polls, just so I don't end up with any nasty surprises. And like I said above, even then I check those results (when I can) against Nate Silver.
The Anti-Alinsky September 21, 2012 at 10:06 AM
Jason is using Liberal math again. Somehow he increased Governor Walkers cuts to waste by half. IT WAS 800 MILLION HE CUT. AND, he did it by effective spending cuts, like letting local governments cut real waste (WEA insurance).
CowDung September 24, 2012 at 09:34 PM
Apparently, Patch isn't either...
CowDung September 24, 2012 at 09:37 PM
...'satire' and lies are almost as good.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something