The 2012 Republican Primary thread, early edition

[LA Ute]

Are the Republicans really going to run on the platform of changing Medicare to basically a voucher system that will only partially subsidize the purchase of private insurance for the over-65 crowd beginning in 2022? Am I understanding that part of the Paul Ryan plan correctly?

It's probably one way to stop out-of-control Medicare spending, and I think something drastic like that needs to be done. But there is no way any Republican can run on that platform and beat Obama. It's impossible.

He had teamed up with Alice Rivlin and advanced a plan involving vouchers last year, but his current proposal is based on premium support. There's a pretty balanced (meaning I don't agree with half of it!) summary here in Fortune.

[Goatnapper'96]

Probably not. I haven't heard any presidential candidate running on that. I doubt any will.




It doesn't look like you are. You imply that the voucher will leave a substantial payment of insurance premiums to be paid by the recipient. That's not necessarily the case. As I understand it, the voucher is set at an amount that approximates the average cost of premiums for a senior today. The voucher will allow the recipient to choose basic coverage (likely not more than the voucher), or as much more coverage as they wish to purchase with their own money. The idea is then that the recipient is able to purchase a plan that fits his needs/wants. The competition creates a variety of options at reasonable prices.

I understand that the vouchers are progressively linked to wealth, income?, and that the vouchers increase with inflation instead of with the rising cost of medical care. If the inflation of health care is not tamed, I understand that there is likley to be a gap between what the vouchers provide and what insurance costs. However, I was under the impression that the last Congress passed a huge health care reform law that assured us the steep curve of health care inflation was fixed so I struggle to understand why the President doesn't like the Ryan plan!

[Color Me Badd Fan]

It looks like we're left with three serious candidates:

Pawlenty
Romney
Huntsman

Chris Christie has vehemently stated that he will not run in 2012. It's a good move. He's too green as the governor and historically speaking, it's tough to unseat a president. Combine that with the fact that he has time to make another run, whether it's 2016 or 2020 (if the GOP wins in 2012).

Rick Perry has also flat out denied that he will run in 2012. There have been some rumblings behind the scene that he's considering a run, who knows?

Finally there's Jeb Bush. Too bad his brother left a turd in the punchbowl for him, otherwise he'd be a great candidate.

So, we're left with three candidates that are flawed but could actually do well in a general election. With this field, Romney really can win the nomination. But in all honesty, I wouldn't be surprised if Huntsman ends up on top if the current field remains the same.

Here's my reasoning -- first the flaws:

1. Pawlenty is boring. He released a book and its sales were lol hilarious. I think people will find it difficult to get behind him.

2. Romney lectures, is regarded as slick, doesn't always appear comfortable in his own skin and is unlikeable to a lot of people as a result. Romneycare is an enormous millstone around his neck.

3. Huntsman worked under the Obama administration as the ambassador to China and his record and positions may be more unappealing than the other two serious candidates.

The flaws vs. the strengths.

1. Pawlenty is the safest candidate though not necessarily the best candidate. Conceivably he would play well in the upper midwest in the general election while carrying the South. But again, you have to wonder about his ability to turn out the vote in his favor.

2. Romney is the most energetic and the most dogged campaigner. He also knows how to set up an organization and achieve goals. He's also well-funded by the well-heeled mormons and what remains of the blue-blooded GOP-leaning business leaders.

3. Huntsman is the most likable and he's a lot cooler than the other two guys. With the records of the other two candidates, I really don't think Huntsman's record will be a huge negative. He's in the mormon world but not of the mormon world. I think he can shed that baggage easier than Romney. He's also the most electable in a general election -- don't underestimate the GOP primary's ability to go for who they think is the most electable candidate.

So, I think the recent election that 2012 resembles the most is 1992. A number of serious Democratic prospects (e.g. Mario Cuomo) simply chose not to run probably because they thought George Bush was unbeatable after the fall of European communism and due to the success of the first Iraq war. Bush's approval ratings at this time in 1991 were really good.

That left a field consisting of Jerry Brown, Paul Tsongas and couple Senators from the midwest that got no traction. Bill Clinton saw an opening and jumped into the race. Bill Clinton was a moderate and he prevailed in the Democratic primaries. Low and behold the economy was the major issue (it always is if the economy sucks) and with an assist from Ross Perot he won the White House.

Like Bill Clinton, Huntsman could end up being in a three-man race. Like Clinton, Huntsman is a moderate. Like Clinton, Huntsman is the most likable of the three candidates. Also, Huntsman has a blue print provided by John McCain on how to capture the nomination as a moderate. Not surprisingly he's surrounded himself with a lot of McCain's people. He's also staking his fortunes on New Hampshire. Unlike at least Romney, the more that people see Huntsman, the more people will like him.

[Jacob]

I understand that the vouchers are progressively linked to wealth, income?, and that the vouchers increase with inflation instead of with the rising cost of medical care. If the inflation of health care is not tamed, I understand that there is likley to be a gap between what the vouchers provide and what insurance costs. However, I was under the impression that the last Congress passed a huge health care reform law that assured us the steep curve of health care inflation was fixed so I struggle to understand why the President doesn't like the Ryan plan!

Yeah, I think you've got it. Of course, Ryan and the Rs don't think Obamacare will really tame insurance/health care costs and the vouchers are Ryan's meager attempt to tame the health care inflation. Personally, I think the only way to make real cuts in the cost of health care is to 1) receive less health care (similar to rationing, and/or 2) cut out the insurance middle man.

Both Obama and Ryan want to ration in their own ways. Obama, by appointing a panel of health care bureaucrats who decide which services to cut and for whom. Ryan, by paying a fixed voucher rather than guaranteeing all costs no matter how high. Neither really gets to eliminating the insurance middle man, though I think Ryan intends to do so by giving the consumer more "choice." Ultimately, I don't think his plan is radical enough to do what really must be done.

[Goatnapper'96]

Yeah, I think you've got it. Of course, Ryan and the Rs don't think Obamacare will really tame insurance/health care costs and the vouchers are Ryan's meager attempt to tame the health care inflation. Personally, I think the only way to make real cuts in the cost of health care is to 1) receive less health care (similar to rationing, and/or 2) cut out the insurance middle man.

Both Obama and Ryan want to ration in their own ways. Obama, by appointing a panel of health care bureaucrats who decide which services to cut and for whom. Ryan, by paying a fixed voucher rather than guaranteeing all costs no matter how high. Neither really gets to eliminating the insurance middle man, though I think Ryan intends to do so by giving the consumer more "choice." Ultimately, I don't think his plan is radical enough to do what really must be done.

I think Ryan's plan will decrease government spending so it has that going for it. But if you mean by not being radical enough are you referring to cutting government spending on health care, government spending in general or are you talking about fixing the out of control costs for health care?

I will assume government spending in general. The reality, at least IMO, is that it is going to take a huge fiscal meltdown to get that under control. As long as anyone will finance US government debt, deficit spending will never get fixed. It will take the markets saying no to government debt and the ensuing fiscal meltdown to force the issue.

[Jacob]

I think Ryan's plan will decrease government spending so it has that going for it. But if you mean by not being radical enough are you referring to cutting government spending on health care, government spending in general or are you talking about fixing the out of control costs for health care?

I will assume government spending in general. The reality, at least IMO, is that it is going to take a huge fiscal meltdown to get that under control. As long as anyone will finance US government debt, deficit spending will never get fixed. It will take the markets saying no to government debt and the ensuing fiscal meltdown to force the issue.

I meant taming health care inflation or reducing the cost of health care. I actually think the Ryan plan does the job of curbing medicare spending quite well, while continuing to offer a pretty good package of benefits.

As for overall government spending, I'm more radical than the Ryan plan which take 10 years to balance a budget that could be balanced in much less time. OTOH, I'm more moderate in that I wouldn't push for lower individual tax rates until after the budget were balanced. I'd be happy with the Bowles-Simpson tax proposals. It might make sense for a republican candidate to embrace a Bowles-Simpsonish plan in the general election.

[CardiacCoug]

It doesn't look like you are. You imply that the voucher will leave a substantial payment of insurance premiums to be paid by the recipient. That's not necessarily the case. As I understand it, the voucher is set at an amount that approximates the average cost of premiums for a senior today. The voucher will allow the recipient to choose basic coverage (likely not more than the voucher), or as much more coverage as they wish to purchase with their own money. The idea is then that the recipient is able to purchase a plan that fits his needs/wants. The competition creates a variety of options at reasonable prices.

Gotcha. Then it's pretty much what I thought it was, although you explained it much better.

In that case, I think Paul Ryan's voucher system sounds like a good idea to try to slow the growth of Medicare spending. But it also sounds like political suicide for any Republican in a general election.

[LA Ute]

Gotcha. Then it's pretty much what I thought it was, although you explained it much better.

In that case, I think Paul Ryan's voucher system sounds like a good idea to try to slow the growth of Medicare spending. But it also sounds like political suicide for any Republican in a general election.

I think you are right. Just Google "Paul Ryan Medcare Plan" and see all the attacks on it as pretty much the harbinger of the end of life as we know it.

[happyone]

Here is an interesting article from RCP contrasting Huntsman and Romney in New Hampshire. It basicly looks at Huntsmans trip through NH last week.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ey_109972.html

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Here is an interesting article from RCP contrasting Huntsman and Romney in New Hampshire. It basicly looks at Huntsmans trip through NH last week.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...ey_109972.html

It mentions some of the things I mentioned, the more that people see Huntsman, the more they like him. Romney is going to do the same thing he did back in 08 and not cede any ground in Iowa. He's going to be wallowing in the muck with idiots like Bachmann.

NH is the more important primary because the people that vote in it are more moderate and not subject to evangelical and farm subsidy BS that plays a huge role in Iowa. Romney would be wise to abandon the state altogether.

[LA Ute]

It mentions some of the things I mentioned, the more that people see Huntsman, the more they like him. Romney is going to do the same thing he did back in 08 and not cede any ground in Iowa. He's going to be wallowing in the muck with idiots like Bachmann.

NH is the more important primary because the people that vote in it are more moderate and not subject to evangelical and farm subsidy BS that plays a huge role in Iowa. Romney would be wise to abandon the state altogether.

Last I heard, Romney's not going to compete in Iowa. That may have changed. If a hard-core Evangelical is running by then I don't think he'll subject himself to a guaranteed early loss.

[Borderline Divine]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

Ironic that nearly every suggestion he made was actually implemented.

Well except for the one about no bailout money. And now both Chyrsler and GM are re-paying years ahead of the original time line.

[oxcoug]

Typical neo-con. Expects the lib to do all the thinking.

Typical lib -)) - I'm a B. Divine fan in spite of his crimes, but few things irritate me more in left wing discourse that the widespread ignorance about who neo-cons are and where neo-conservatism comes from.

1. The originators of the movement were mostly urban Jewish intellectuals who defected from the Democratic Party in the 60s and 70s.

2. It's overwhelmingly focused on foreign policy and only secondarily concerned with domestic issues.

Carry on.

[BigFatMeanie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

Ironic that nearly every suggestion he made was actually implemented.

Well except for the one about no bailout money. And now both Chyrsler and GM are re-paying years ahead of the original time line.

You read too much Democratic Underground and Daily Kos. Paul Ingrassia eviscerated the "repayment in full" myth in the Wall Street Journal.

There is no way GM generated near enough cash from its operations to pay those loans back:

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/04/gm-lost-4-3b-in-the-second-half-of-2009/

[Borderline Divine]

Good links.

Also a big thanks for the tip on Democratic Underground. I haven't ever read it but I'm off on my maiden voyage right now.