Brad DeLong put this together from a post and a graphic from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities by Paul Van de Water. It seems to be right in line with what other economists -- and Peter Orzag -- have been saying over the past several weeks but it makes Ryan's bona fides look like something not bona and certainly not something you'd want to trust.
A quick summary: Health care spending on a "typical" 65-year-old in 2022 will cost $20,500 under Ryan's plan, and $14,750 under Medicare. It breaks down like this:
Of Ryan's $20,500, the government would pay $8,000 and the poor sucker -- that "typical" 65-year-old -- would pay $12,500.
Of Medicare's competing $14,750, the government would pay $8,600 -- a wee bit more -- and the 65 year-old less than half of what Ryan would charge him, or $6,150 vs. Ryan's $12,500.
One commenter at DeLong's blog pretty much sums up the problem. It's all in how Republispeak works to confuse the confused. He writes:
See, this is where you libruls just can't see reality. What Van de Water calls 'costs,' the insurance industry calls 'profits.' And guess which one is more important to the policy making elite?
The title of DeLong's post is "Why We Would All Be Better Off without the Republican Party." True. Quite apart from getting rid of Ryan and high-cost health care, we could have the pleasure of watching as lying and greed indicators slide back to normal.