I didn’t write a piece on the medicare proposal of Ryan, but on his mode of approaching politics, which I find to be ideological. Along with Glenn Beck, he demonizes those who disagree with him. He sees a great battle between progressives and Americans. His view of rights is more theological than political. In his commentary on politics, i.e. his Hillsdale and Oklahoma speeches, he bases his politics on simple propositions, deductions from which he guides his policy positions. He is more interested in reducing the scope of government and combating collectivism than he is in fiscal responsibility as far as I can tell.

And on the issue of medicare by the way, his proposals may lead to less costs but I am far from sure that the less fortunate will then be able to afford care. I don’t see how this saves medicare.

The last point is partisan. The earlier points I make as as student of political culture. And by the way, I know I am often misunderstood when I say that something is ideological. I do so in the way Hannah Arendt used the term, not Mannheim or Geertz, i.e. magical modern thinking that knows the truth in politics past, present and future.

My suggestion would be for you to engage specific issues
using primary documents and what the principals actually said rather than what
others have said about them. A
good place to begin would be the proposals to save Medicare offered by
Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden. I suspect that the Romney/Ryan approach is still
being fleshed out; however the “Guaranteed Choices to Strengthen Medicare and
Health Security for All” offered by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Representative
Paul Ryan (R-WI) is in print and readily available as a primary document. The
closest primary document supported by President Obama and Vice President I
suspect is whatever language you can find in the Affordable Care Act. The
former is easy to absorb, the later is must harder to analyze.

The Medicare Trustees and Actuaries have a different
perspective on the Affordable Care Act and its impact on Medicare than the
Congressional Budget Office. The trustees and actuary remain extremely
concerned about the sustainability of Medicare as presently constructed even
after the Affordable Care Act.

In my view, the differences between both approaches are
stark and for the most part not understood by most people.

An objective comparison of both might surprise most people. Some
politicians on the stump have a tendency to play fast and loose with the facts.
From my readings of both, one side seems to be more honest about the comparison
than the other.

“Now here’s the funny thing. After years of praising Rand, assigning
Rand readings to subordinates, and gifting friends and colleagues “Atlas
Shrugged” for Christmas, Ryan has recently taken pains to distance himself from the conservative matriarch.

The congressman from Wisconsin characterized his Rand-devotion as “urban legend” in a recent interview in the National Review.

In
fact, his romance with Rand was nothing more than a youthful dalliance,
Ryan told the National Review. “I, like millions of young people in
America, read Rand’s novels when I was young. I enjoyed them,” he said.
“…[but] I reject her philosophy.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2012/0814/Paul-Ryan-does-an-about-face-on-Ayn-Rand/%28page%29/2”

Looks like the was for it before he was against it trend has already begun…