Ryan says that Medicare won't be affected for those who are 55 and older. I'm 54, been paying in for 40 years now, am I supposed to feel better? Why would current beneficiaries think they should get more benefits while paying less? Ryan also hasn't said how he will fund Medicare once it runs out of money, in 2016 if Obama's "cuts" are repealed and reports are correct. He also doesn't mention that Medicaid will be severely slashed. Do senior citizens know that Medicaid pays for skilled and long-term nursing care, not Medicare? Probably not. Children are the other large group covered under Medicaid. In most states, adults must be disabled to qualify for Medicaid unless they are on Medicare.
Neither candidate has a sustainable approach to Medicare or health care in general. We need to cut the costs of care, not shift who pays the bill or make minor tweaks. We have by far the most expensive health care system in the world, spend an average of $8000/citizen, despite having 50 million people with no coverage. Other developed nations spend half or less and are ranked higher than 37th in terms of outcomes. I WISH Obama was a socialist or communist, at least when it came to health care. Hardly. Eisenhower spent far more on stimulus money after WWII than Obama could ever dream of, between the GI bill and infrastructure, and our debt was higher than now as percentage of GDP. We also had top marginal tax rates of 91%. Was Eisenhower a socialist? A socialist wouldn't have bailed out the banks, they would have nationalized them, a la Sweden in the early 90's. A socialist also would not have allowed government employment rates to dramatically fall, esp. during a recession. Do you realize that socialists, by definition, believe in government control of industry? A communist believes everybody should receive the same compensation. Wealth inequality has increased since 2009. And how has austerity measures (cutting government spending) worked out in Europe? In case you don't know, they all are seeing their deficits increase, which economically only makes sense. You can't cut national spending without contracting GDP (and thus revenues) and have high unemployment without increasing entitlement expenses. We have one of the highest rates of poverty in the developed world, second or third to last (which is responsible for our lousy student test scores, our non-inner city schools test quite competitively with other countries). I don't like Obama and his crony capitalism or Romney's either (oil subsidies for the corporations that are the most profitable in the world and whose executives testified when subsidies were first instituted, back in 2006(?) when the price of oil fell precipitously, that the subsidies wouldn't be needed once oil reached $55/barrel, anybody remember when that last was?) and will vote third party, but the math doesn't even work on Romney's budget and he refuses to clarify how he will balance the budget while cutting taxes by 20%, eliminating capital gains and dividends tax, not touching Medicare for current recipients, and increasing defense spending. There aren't enough tax deductions to eliminate. Obama a socialist, or communist....... that's almost funny.
P.S. I won't believe Republicans care about the life of unborn children until they start to care about their lives once they are born. Or are they concerned about the money spent on women claiming rape so they can get federal money to pay for their abortions, like all 28 of the women who had federally funded abortions last year as a result of rape claims. You know how women are. We all think the easiest way to make a profit is off having babies. Of course, they don't want to pay for birth control, only aspirin between the knees...... but on the other hand, they make sure that their Viagra is covered.