Talk:The Path to Prosperity

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 April 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Path to Prosperity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Conservatism Unassessed

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Path_to_Prosperity&action=edit

Unbalanced

The article offers only a passing mention of the proposal itself, while Democrat criticism represents the bulk of the content. Article needs more detail about the specific goals and provisions of the initiative, and Republican commentary balanced to Dem opposition. Lionel (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Income tax rates

what income tax rates does Paul propose ? it should be clearer in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.151.0.13 (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get more information about the tax changes? It's only one line about one of the most debated parts of the plan. It mentions reducing the rate and getting rid of certain deductions, credits and subsidies, but not which ones. Deductions, credits and subsidies are a very wide variety.

Premium support payments

Isn't premium support payments just ''newspeak'' for vouchers. The CBO considers his plan to be vouchers. In previous proposals, such as the Roadmap for America proposal, Ryan advocates Medicare vouchers. In his 2012 budget proposal, he just replaces the word voucher with premium support payments. Nursebhayes (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're simply factually wrong.

(1)Watch his FNS interview. The program be almost identical to the healthcare plan that Congresspeople currently receive as well as current Medicare Part D, neither or which are described as "vouchers".

(2)It is not relevant what the Roadmap said. That is a separate proposal.

(3)It does not matter what Ryan "wants" mentally or ideologically, what matters is what's written in the paper of the proposal-- which this article is about.

(4)In a voucher, the government pays you (directly). Then you choose what to use the money on (think of food stamps or a carnival ride ticket). In this plan, the government will continue to pay the providers, it's just that the individuals will choose which private company and which private plan to have as a middle man. Conceptionally, it is wrong to call this a voucher. At no point does the person personally receive the funds.

(5)The CBO does not call this a voucher. Read the report cited. 129.120.177.8 (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There's a crucial difference. See #3 below.

(2) This proposal evolved from prior proposals, including this one submitted to the CBO in November 2010: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11966/11-17-Rivlin-Ryan_Preliminary_Analysis.pdf

The language in these two proposals is almost identical except that voucher system has been replaced with premium support payments.

(3) That's right. It doesn't matter which term Ryan wants us to use. I understand the fact that the term ‘vouchers’ carries negative undertones. If the system is a voucher, then let’s define i as a voucher.

The defining attribute of “premium support” plans is that the amount of support was to be indexed to average health care costs, and not to wider economic indexes, such as consumer prices, as Ryan proposes. This difference is crucial. Voucher plans are virtually guaranteed to become increasingly inadequate; premium support plans will not.

This proposal indexes the support to consumer prices, and is a voucher system. For decades, per person health care spending has exceeded price growth by an average of about 4 percentage points a year. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the share of health care expenses that a typical elderly beneficiary would have to pay out of pocket would go up in 2030—from 25-30 percent under current law, to 68 percent under the Ryan plan. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/04/06/vouchers-or-premium-support-whats-in-a-name/

By the way, the healthcare plan that Congressmen currently receive works the other way. When inflation increases the average health care costs, the government picks up most of the tab. Under Ryan’s proposal, the beneficiaries must pick up the increases in health care costs due to inflation – that how the plan saves money.

(4) A voucher is a voucher. It doesn't matter if there are intermediaries.

(5) See #2 above. Nursebhayes (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overly Political Criticism/Debate, Needs Economists

This section has what politicians are saying on cable news stations, which is pretty poor standard for actual debate over the policy. There's a lot of economist backlash on this plan which is unstated here. Pardon my frankness, but who cares what Steny Hoyer and Eric Cantor say in soundbytes or slightly longer chat. The budget plan has many economic predictions baked in that have been shown either highly unlikely or outright wrong by all modern economic theory. For instance, the unemployment rate falling below 3%. Krugman and many many others have pointed these things out, and this article needs to contain those viewpoints in more than a watered-down "he thinks it's not fair" way. Kismetjim (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]