E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mark Wilson / Getty Images
From left, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, unveiled a Medicare reform plan in a news conference on Medicare reform on Capitol Hill March 15, 2012.
Updated at 5:23pm ET Running a political risk during an election year, Republicans continue to offer proposals to cut future Medicare outlays.
The latest offering came on Thursday from a quartet of fiscally conservative Republican senators. The group proposed replacing the current open-ended, fee-for-service Medicare with enrollment of seniors in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) which offers an array of privately-run health insurance plans.
Members of the group include Rand Paul of Kentucky, Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Mike Lee of Utah.
“This will be the new Medicare,” Paul said at a Capitol Hill news conference. “Medicare will be the federal employee health care plan.”
DeMint described the plan as “beginning to privatize” Medicare, an all too familiar description for Democrats who use similar terms to stigmatize GOP Medicare reform plans.
Medicare covers 50 million older and disabled Americans. The program’s spending will nearly double in the next ten years, continuing to grow at a rate faster than the nation’s income, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Paul said the plan “means-tests the benefits and gradually allows the age of eligibility to go up.” The current Medicare eligibility age is 65; his plan would gradually raise it to 70 by 2034. “There is means-testing in this -- and the reason you have to do that is: we’re spending more on Medicare than is coming in.”
Paul said the proposal would reduce Medicare costs by $1 trillion over ten years, but he acknowledged that adding older Americans to FEHBP would drive up the cost of the plans offered by FEHBP. He said the plan would include a high-risk pool “for really sick people” that get an additional subsidy. Paul added “they also still will have Medicaid,” the federal-state insurance plan for low-income people.
Recommended: Obama pushes back on gas production, prices
Democrats, DeMint said, “know that a dependent voter is a dependable vote.” The proposal he and the other GOP senators were offering is “basically kryptonite to a Democrat – because it gives people choices, it gives them freedom … .”
Paul thanked Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., for letting the group “borrow” the idea. Paul said the plan was part of Kerry’s campaign platform in 2004.
In fact, Kerry in 2004 proposed to allow uninsured people, not seniors, to enroll in FEHBP.
“Entitlements are broken,” said Paul. “It’s not Republicans’ fault; it’s not Democrats fault. I tell people, ‘It’s your grandparents’ fault for having too many kids and then your fault for not having enough kids.’ It’s a demographic problem.”
Graham said he hopes to solve the problems with Medicare before the election this year.
“What I would tell the person near retirement is don’t fear change, embrace it, because you’ll have more doctors available to treat you and your family,” Graham said. “Think about not just what happens to you … think about where we’ll be as a nation if something doesn’t change pretty quickly with these big programs.”
The quartet’s proposal follows one offered two weeks ago by Sen. Richard Burr, R- N.C., and Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., which would also raise the Medicare eligibility age (to 67, not 70) and subsidize seniors so they could purchase private insurance plans.
Meanwhile House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan, R- Wisc., has altered a plan he offered last year and reached across the aisle to partner with Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon. The Ryan-Wyden plans would allow seniors to stay in traditional Medicare or choose a private insurance plan.
Ryan is scheduled to give speeches next week at two conservative think tanks in Washington and is likely to address Medicare.
But Paul said on Thursday that the Ryan-Wyden option wouldn’t save the federal government any money. ”If you give people the inertia of staying where they are versus moving, they may not move,” Paul said.
The Ryan-Wyden plan says that for people who are now age 54 or younger, "we propose to strengthen Medicare by transitioning the current program toward a coverage-support plan with the choice of guaranteed coverage options -- including traditional Medicare -- on a Medicare exchange."
But critics of the Ryan-Wyden plan argue that it would not really preserve traditional Medicare since it would create a marketplace where future retirees would need to purchase coverage of either traditional fee-for-service Medicare or another plan, and it would limit future program growth to the Gross Domestic Product growth rate plus 1 percent.
President Obama, too, acknowledges that Medicare needs to be redesigned and wants some of those getting Medicare to pay more for their coverage.
Recommended: Biden names names; says GOP 'dead wrong' on auto bailout
In his Fiscal Year 2013 budget plan, Obama is calling for a variety of cost increases for people on Medicare, although perhaps it is no coincidence that Obama’s proposal would take effect only in 2017, after he would leave a second term in office.
Under Obama’s plan, in beginning in 2017, the Medicare premiums that higher-income people pay would increase by 15 percent. The higher premiums, co-pays and deductibles that Obama proposes would add up to about $33 billion over ten years.
That amount to only four-tenths of one percent of total Medicare outlays over the next ten years.
Nearly everyone in Washington agrees that the federal government can’t get control of its deficits and ever-increasing debt unless it curbs entitlement spending.
It was President Bill Clinton’s former budget director, Leon Panetta, now defense secretary, who chided the Senate Budget Committee a week ago: “You can’t meet the challenge that you’re facing in this country” by only cutting discretionary spending, the outlays on items like prisons and national parks, which is less than a third of spending.
“If you’re not dealing with the two-thirds that is entitlement spending, if you’re not dealing with revenues, and you keep going back to the same place, frankly you’re not going to make it, and you’re going to hurt this country’s security.”
But when leaders of either party do try to curb Medicare spending, the opposing side carpet-bombs them with TV ads playing on senior citizens’ fears.
In 2011, when Ryan offered his plan to raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67 and to do away with Medicare’s open-ended payments which cover almost all medical procedures, one Democratic group ran an ad showing a man -- presumably Ryan -- pushing a terrified elderly woman in a wheelchair off a cliff.
Leave a Comment:
This just keeps getting better and better. Go ahead Republicans, tell the American People exactly how you plan to screw us over, IF anybody is crazy enough to vote for you!
It is the democrats that are screwing you. Instead of trying to fix the problem they are more than willing to let it go bankrupt because people like you can't deal with the reality that costs cannot continue to increase exponentially so you will let them get away with it.
Of course when it does go bankrupt, they can just retire but by then it's too late.
Please do a little research and see where we are headed with medicare budgets vs. income then tell us how you would fix the massive shortfall.
Here's an idea.
Get the for-profit insurance companies out of the healthcare equation all together.
We have the highest per-capita healthcare costs in the world.
Why is that? Greed. Huge insurance company CEO bonuses, executive bonuses and salaries.
You want to bring healthcare costs down. Medicare or otherwise? Then vote in a public healthcare system.
.
Well at least they are up-front on how they plan to screw us...
Did you know that if you sell your house after 2012 you
will pay a 3.8% sales tax on it? That's $3,800 on a $100,000 home, etc. When
did this happen? It's in the health care bill and goes into effect in 2013 right after the elections (coincidence?).
Why 2013? Could it be to come to light AFTER the 2012
elections? So, this is "change you can believe in"? Under the new
health care bill all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales
Tax.
If you sell a $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax.
This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who
often downsize their homes. Does this make your November and 2012 vote more
important?
Oh, you weren't aware this was in the Obamacare bill?
Guess what, you aren't alone. There are more than a few members of Congress
that aren't aware of it Either!
http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home>
http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home
W W w.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home>
W W w.gop.gov/blog/10/04/08/obamacare-flatlines-obamacare-taxes-home
Look carefully at the 2014 rate compared to the 2013 rate
EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW, NOT ONLY SENIORS.
For those of you who are on Medicare, read the following.
It's short, but important and you probably haven't heard about it in the
Marxist liberal media. "The per person Medicare Insurance Premium will
increase from the present Monthly Fee of $96.40, rising to:
$104.20 in 2012
$120.20 in 2013
and
$247.00 in 2014."
These are Provisions incorporated in the Obamacare
Legislation, purposely delayed so as not to confuse the 2012 Re-Election
Campaigns.
Send this to all Seniors that you know, so they will know who's
throwing them under the bus.
96ws6, Fox News is calling you.
.
United - you are 100% correct.
It was Richard Millhouse Nixon and his Republican cartel that brought us the first HMOs and started the downward spiral of healthcare and upward spiral of healthcare costs in this country.
He gave us the middle men ( "consultants" ) that we now can't seem to do with or without.
...remember when the Republicans tried to sell us on privatizing Social Security by letting it play the stock market ? Imagine where we would be if we had fallen for their snake oil in 2008-09 .
They must think we have short memories.
I don't trust a single one of them.
Here's an idea - don't allow healthcare to be a publicly traded commodity. End the 'for profit' speculation in 'bad health'.
All the government sponsored health programs are simply transferring public funds to private profits. Medicare does that now. This proposal will only allow 'for profit' healthcare to suck more public funds to subsidize their profit models.
Medicare is not the problem. The problem is 'for profit' healthcare. If 'for profit' healthcare can do it cheaper - why are the individual costs rising so quickly?
You know, the rest of the world doesn't have a problem with healthcare.
Instead, America, the only country without National healthcare, is the one who has all these problems. Our healthcare system isn't even ranked in the top 20, and we pay more for our health services than any other country.
And now they want to give us a coupon good for care at a private insurance company?!? What happens when costs go up? What happens when I exhaust that coupon allotment?
this fellow is so full of @!$%#, his eyes are turning brown
Simple solution, offer three choices:
1. Stay the same. Do nothing. Absolutely no change from today. Pay the same Medicare tax rate. Get the same benefits at 65 or become disabled.
2. Republican option - Allow citizens over the age of 65 to buy private health insurance with a voucher if their financial situation warrants it.
In my option I would expand that, so someone under 65 can opt out of traditional Medicare and pay a lower Medicare tax rate. The lower Medicare tax rate would help cover the medical expenses of uninsured children and an insurance policy to cover the costs in the event a non-contributing person suddenly needs to utilize Medicare. It is only fair that there be an insurance policy to cover this situation in the event Medicare needs to absorb the cost.
3. Democrat option - Allow citizens under the age of 65 to buy into Medicare, they would have to pay a higher Medicare tax rate. People under the age of 65 tend to have lower annual medical costs. They would be contributing more to the system then they utilize on an annual basis.
Separate medical expenses into three categories. Children, Adults and Seniors. If the medical costs of children go up then all three options have an increase in Medicare tax rates. If the medical costs of Seniors goes up then the Medicare tax rate is increased on the first and third options. If the medical costs of the Adults goes up then the Medicare tax rate will only increase on the third option.
@96ws6. Thankfully your accusations are false. Scared me for a moment. Quote from factcheck.org
The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won’t apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home.
1) Fully find Medicare and Social Security by taxing ALL earned compensation with NO CAPS including bonuses and deferred compensation in cash or stack in the year awarded!
2) i think we should expand Health Care Reform to provide a full insurance plan for all citizens on the Canadian, European and Asian models. I would prefer to pay a higher tax rate and have my health care funded than let the insurance companies and health care systems keep jacking us around.
Thank you Saved me the time. It really is appalling the amount of lies being spread by the right about a plan they would have endorsed not so long ago.
We have to do something. We all know the numbers don't add up. At least Republicans are looking at the problem with an eye to coming up with solutions. Democrats may not like it, but I don't read much coming from them. It's easy to throw stones; try solving the problem for once.
Personally, I'm for a single-payer option. We need to divorce health care from employment and take the profit motive out of it.
Azindy:
It works for them why can't it work for us
Gee, I wonder just how many jobs this plan by the GOP will create.
The only things the Republican Party has to offer the American people are lies, more tax cuts for the rich, the return of failed greed based policies, the destruction of social programs that actually work and more lies. I forgot one thing, the elimination of health care for American women. Why any sane person would vote for these people eludes me.
Americangirl - I'm not a Republican, still less a Tea Party member, and I'm unlikely to vote for any of the prospective GOP candidates, not unless it is proven that Obama is native born Kenyan, communist member of the global Jihadist movement, and invites his friends to Tupperware Parties.
But, I do not blame the Republicans entirely for pointing out that a Medicare-cost crunch is looming, and some solution must be found. I'm not saying I like their alternatives, or the intransigent manner in which they propose things. I do believe, however, that a dialogue on this problem must start, and it needs to be open, focused and honest.
So far, most of public statements I've heard from the GOP on this, or almost any other subject, have all the intellectual honesty of an elementary school playground taunt.
@ 96WS6, re: post 1.3, excerpt here:
Go read this and stop spreading bull$#!t.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp
96ws6-I don't know where you get your numbers from, but this is 2012, not 2011. Medicare is $99, not $96. The Medicare increase is a funtion of the yearly SS increase if there is one. Better go back to school.
There is only one real solution to the Health Care problem. It would mean that every legal resident is able to access reasonable care without fear of going bankrupt. It would take hundreds of billions out of the total national healthcare bill. It would dramatically slow down (and even reverse) the increase in medical costs. It would make our companies more competitive by taking away the cost of employee medical insurance they now bear. All we have to do is take the words "over age 65" out of the Medicare law. The GOP doesn't want you to know this, but 97% of the funds Medicare pays go directly to Health Care providers. The figure is less than 67% for private insurance. The difference? Medicare doesn't pay its execs huge bonuses; it doesn't have to pay dividends to stockholders; it doesn't employ death panels to deny coverage. So much for the fairy tale that tells us the government can't do anything right and the "free-market" always does it best.
96ws6 - you lie!
Tman - so it's the Tupperware Parties that will change your mind??? Had me chuckling on that one!
wow, bunch of brainwashed folks here. Defense is almost half the budget, start there before u hatchet what folks pay for as they work. Me, I am tired of watching the industrial military complex grow at the expense of we the people
You can count on two things;
1 - The Democrats will demonize them as 'heartless'.
2 - The media will support the Democratic version of the 'spin'.
What we need is an alternative to the GOP and the Democrats.
So how would you characterize cutting health care for the elderly Roy? Where is their plan to reduce health care costs for everyone subject to private sector insurance, pharmaceutical and healthcare gouging? When will we ask the profiteers to give something back rather than seniors who've paid into Medicare for 45 or more years?
Here's something to think about, since this recession not as many people are dying, why because people are going into the hospitals, money is made when they screw up your health and kill you, maybe that's why the GOP don't want people to be able to sue for wrongful death .....
Did folks see the recent report about Romneycare? Health care costs have gone down in Massachusetts compared to the national average. In other words, it is successful. We could continue to build upon what IS working nationwide.
Vouchers for the elderly to buy health insurance in the private sector? Seriously?! How stupid does a person have to be to think anyone over age 50 with any pre-existing condition could EVER buy insurance, let alone affordable insurance -- People can't do it now! The same goes for greedy, gouging Big Pharma. The insurance and pharmaceutical companies (as well as providers) will get away with every increasing profit margins as long as they are allowed to get away with it.
We must rid ourselves of ignorance and fear-mongering from the far-right f-ups (see photo above) who benefit from the status quo via campaign contributions. Throw the treasonous Teapublicans out. Obama/Biden - 2012!
I wonder how much these "private medicare insurance" companies had their lobbyists pay these Republicans.
This would be easier to swallow if they promised to maintain the Obamacare clause that requires insurance companies to spend 80% of the money on actual health care... and not CEO salaries. But you know the Republicans hate this idea. For some reason they want to go back to 70% of their insurance payments going to executive salaries and bonuses. So much for protecting their "hard earned money".
@Roy.... Unfortunately for the right, truth has a liberal bias.
Here are some FACTS from Obama's latest 2013 Budget;
Total Medicare Receipts for the 10 years from 2013-2022 = $2.823 Trillion.
Total Medicare/Medicaid Expenditures for the same 10 years = $11.134 Trillion.
That's a DEFICIT for health care alone of $8.311 Trillion.
By way of comparison, the total projected increase in the National Debt is $10.4 Trillion between now and 2022.
Does anyone understand the problem now?
Of course, Obama totally ignored this 'entitlement' problem in his 10 year budget projections, but just watch him DEMONIZE the Republicans for trying.
To verify, simply 'google' Obama's 2013 Budget and look at Table S-5
Do your homework....snopes is run by local nitwits in Cal. they are not ...are not valid in alot of their findings just use THEIR personal OPINIONS.
ROY WILSON-336103, Fox News is calling you.
.
American girl, quit bitching and offer ideas....
you can do it ;o)
have a good week
When these jerkoffs begin paying for their own medical, maybe then, they can come talk to us.
justredd?? you mean like Fox News??
US1776
I am very impressed with your last intellectual remark, lol....
No worry, you are consistent.
have a good week
republicans up to their usual antics, privitize profit...socialize debt
Using Obama's Budget numbers, payroll taxes for Medicare only pay about 42 cents of every dollar spent on Medicare, so when people say "I paid my Medicare taxes, and I want full benefits", they are only fooling themselves.
And who pays the other 58 cents? Not the bottom 50%, because they don't pay any Federal income taxes, so the other 50% of 'actual income tax paying Americans' picks up that part of the tab, as well as the total cost of running the Federal government (defense, education, homeland security, debt interest, the $1.7 Trillion shortfall for Social Security, etc.)
Of course, to hear Obama tell it, they are STILL 'not paying their fair share'.
Gee, I wonder who Obama caters to?
Let's not forget the health insurance companies motto; "You can't make a profit by insuring the sick and the elderly."
Good idea....turn over our medicare to a bunch of profitering a$$sholes!
Bye bye GOP 2012 (and beyond)
Privatize my arse. The banks, Wall Street Brokers, Defense Contractors, the auto industry--all examples of how well the private sector has been responsible. I say--cut out the middle man, (the insurance companies), pass single payer. These millionaires are passing more and more laws that benefit their class,, screws the Middle class, blue collar workers, and the working poor.
Wasn't Eisenhower a Republican? He had a tax rate of 91% on the top earners--so give them that flavor of Republicanism--they're just pimping for special interest to make themselves richer. Will any of them address cutting Defense, (Offense)? No, they won't. We spend 7 times what China does on defense and 12 times what Russia spends. It has always caused governments to fail and we're on a collision course with disaster. Vote these dickheads out of office.
UnitedStates1776 "ROY WILSON-336103, Fox News is calling you."
You remind me of someone who once said "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind's already made up".
lol
PS - Fox News is not available here in Costa Rica, so I'm stuck with CNN.
The GOP is plenty willing to step in the quick-sand of insanity too get a vote from stupid....and there is plenty of that going around these days
If you believe what you can't see or touch...you might be a redneck (don't believe what you hear...dumb-a$$)
The highest costs and the worst outcomes of ANY industrialized nation. Makes you want to get up and shout "USA! USA! USA!" doesn't it?
It's all part of the serfdom of America...and it's already too late to do a damned thing about it.
GET PROFIT OUT OF HEALTHCARE. PERIOD!!
Profits beget greed, that we don't need for the American citizenry in regards to our healthcare. Yes, Medicare is out of control @ROY WILSON-336103. A HUGE part of the reason is the profit margins that places like Nursing homes and Hospitals make. I have heard up to %14!! Wall street is investing HEAVILY in health systems that make large profits off the government tit........
Single Payer..... Keep it public..... My health should not be for profit.......
Because we live in a world where you only get news on television, and not this crazy world-wide thing called "the internet".
Keep pretending like Fox News is not your browser homepage. Or is it Hannity now?
Mitt Romney just turned 65, I guess he's on Medicare now too !!!!
The issue has continuously been that when it was formed, medicare spending was 42% of what was coming in, and the "surplus" was "banked away" for when there would be fewer tax payers and more users. Over time, the costs increased faster and the amount of taxes became less. Many tax payers, particularly those with higher incomes, discovered unique ways to avoid paying the medicare tax.
Mitt Romney gets full benefits from Social Security and Medicare, although he probably has not paid a dime into either for years. Isn't it great to be able to convert ordinary wages into "carried interest" ?
CAL USA "There is only one real solution to the Health Care problem."
I agree. The only practical solution is universal health care for everyone, with premiums paid through a combination of payroll taxes and a national sales tax (so everybody pays something). The universal 'standard of care' should be set by government health experts, but it should be administered by private insurance companies (the government never runs anything efficiently).
That's the way all of the successful health care systems in the World work, and there is no point in 'reinventing the wheel'. If people want supplemental coverage, they can pay extra out of pocket.
My estimate is that about a 3% payroll tax (to replace the current 2.8% Medicare Tax), combined with a 3% national sales tax (excluding food/medicine) would likely cover the costs.
The bottom line is that the Republican Party will not be happy until grandma is broke and dying in the street when they finally kill off Social Security and Medicare. You want Death Panels? Look a the guys trying to pass off this legislation. Now THAT is a Death Panel.
You mean having a group of people who ONLY care about profits, and nothing else, in charge of your health might be a bad thing?
Come on... what's the worst that could happen? (looks at wall-street, banks, mortgage lenders)
Ken & 96ws6 - The tax is only on capital gains, which, in today's market don't often exist, anyway.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp
Ughh. There is a simple solution to the problem about Medicare. I say expand Obama's healthcare plan and turn to single-payer system like they have in the REST of the world. Model ours off of the top 5 nations when it comes to affordable and efficient healthcare. And to Atlas, where's YOUR plan. Mine is right here:
I. Reduce the debt by $8 trillion over 10 years.
I am not joking. Check (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie… Just removing 90% of our tax code's loopholes and tax expenditures would save $947 billion a year. Maybe we ought to do that and simply reform entitlements and we'd have practically no debt by the mid-to-late 2020s.
II. Economic Recovery Package
Like, anyone that thinks this is a good idea.
How about this instead: Cut out the insurance companies and get a single payer system not for profit.
It never ends with these people, empty political rhetoric and lies. Everyday we here Republican politicians talk about abortion, birth control and privatizing social security.
What you will never here from these right wing ideologues are real solutions to help the economy, the unemployed or homeowners that are in deep trouble because of greed based policies and laws the REPUBLICANS themselves created. The reason they’ll never talk about important issues is; THEY HAVE NO ANSWERS.
The GOP no longer cares about actually governing, the only thing that matters to them is their unwavering loyalty to the people they really report to, their filthy rich benefactors.
You guys may not like the insurance companies, but they're the best there is around at predicting and planning for risk. Nobody else has comparable incentives to keep costs low. So I'd suggest that we learn from them and use those skills and incentives rather than driving them out of business. If other countries' medical systems are so great, why do people come here for serious treatment when they can? I've seen socialized healthcare and highly doubt that people here would want it if they really knew all the costs. Look at those countries...with stagnant economies and little to no opportunity. We can and should do better. Then, too, how much control do we want to give the government over our health care? Isn't that giving up fundamental freedom to secure an illusion of comfort and/or security? Governments can't be relied upon. Especially when too many people rely on them and aren't using their wits, brain, and initiatives to find and capitalize on better solutions than the government can ever provide. Do we want government using our health information and availability of health care against us to impose its will on us?
The fact is that, due to modern technology, many people are living who would have died even twenty years ago. But they're incurring enormous costs. Obviously it's good that they can be helped, but the reality is that catastrophic medical expenses have to be paid for by somebody. Neither the federal government nor the insurance companies can afford to foot the bill all the time. If I thought there was a way of keeping Congress's hands off it, I'd suggest sacrificing and creating a huge principal for a contingency fund to assist in those cases and making it so big that just the interest could handle a big part of catastrophic claims.
The second problem is more basic: People pay little attention to costs when they don't see them directly coming out of their pocketbook. In a lot of cases, they'd make much different decisions if they expected to have to pay for care themselves. The availability of Medicare/Medicaid and private insurance encourages people not to count the burdens they're imposing on others. We have to find a way to address that problem.
The only real solution is to do everything we can not to be dependent on others in the first place. Once we are, it's hardly our right to dictate what they can and will provide to us. I don't think we can afford to treat people or provide them with care without regard to preexisting conditions and their health risk factors. It's just a simple reality that some populations get sick a lot more and cost a lot more to treat, and we have to plan in those terms and give people incentives early on to address risk factors that can be mitigated and are in their control. More importantly, I think we need to change the model of insurance. Regular, continuing care stuff has a different risk model and should be paid for differently than for catastrophic injuries and disease. But look at Medicare and Medicaid...bloated and plagued by fraud. You want the government who provides that in control of the whole healthcare sector of our economy? Just wait until whoever administers this all starts cracking down, because they'll have to. Just wait until care is rationed by bureaucrats. (If you think insurance adjusters are bad, just wait until your health care hangs on government employees with immunity from suit and no competitors and absolutely no incentive to worry about continuing business.) Just wait until employers can't afford to and won't hire people because paying however much per employee per mandate will destroy their business. Just wait until great students aren't going into medicine anymore because they can make a whole lot more money in other areas than the government will let them make as doctors, and with a whole lot less hassle and blood and toil.
Face it, folks. As a country, we can only afford so much. Our outlays on social programs HAVE to somehow be brought into line with our expenditures. It's easy for us to accept benefits now and not think about the consequences, but we are nearly insolvent as a country. If you think the federal government is going to be there to take care of you, much less your children, you're fooling yourself.
Democrats are the ones who want to destroy Medicare. Obamacare steal 500 millions from medicare, millions of Americans are going to lose their heath, insurance because their employers won't be able to afford to provide health insurance to their employees,according to the CBO Obamacare will cost 1.7 trillions, but Democrats lie, giving false assumptions to the CBO geting a cost of 900 millions in order to pass the law. The health industry colluded with Democrats support an unconstitutional Law. However, the plan offer for Republicans will affect only the high income seniors, not the ones with income lower that 100 thousand that will be subsidized in 75 % of the cost. Democrats/OWS and the media bias can't wait any opportunity to spin the facts.
Obama should open up Medicare to the free market. If you are between 18 and 65 then you should have the option to buy in to Medicare at a rate comparable to other insurance companies. The profits from this will more than cover the elderly, disabled and poor (instead of going to Romney's Cayman Island accounts).
OK: so now Paul Ryan wants to eliminate Medicare by putting people onto the FEMHP. Do you care to guess what will be eliminated next ?
All you federal employees are now on notice, the GOP will be soon be targeting your health coverage to be eliminated.
Killing off grandma and now your favorite postal worker is not how to cut spending.
What the GOP fails to realize is that if you eliminate all of the so called "entitlement" spending and all of the so called "discretionary" spending there would still be debt and deficit spending and the only way to eliminate it is to increase revenue.
which of the four pictured above is the real ALI-BABBA?
I'd like to see your figures for that assertion because from what I understand, nothing else comes close to the impact on our national debt of SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. If we could get those under control and stop (for example) a lot of grants and government programs, I think we'd have a chance. If not, than we're already past the point of no return and increased taxation will only cause additional public unrest that will probably lead to the fall of our government. Say what you want about the Greeks, but human nature is human nature.
The GOP solution - privatize which equals big profits for a few while the rest get screwed? Hmmm, let's put it out there and see how it floats. Like the Titanic imo. You guys are so out of touch it's not even funny anymore.
And what do you think will happen with Republican plans?
You are right, human nature is human nature... so how do you think those plans will play out?
If you want to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit just let the Bush tax cuts expire. That's all you have to do GOP.
Everything in this country involving "FOR PROFIT" insurance is a scam, especially when golden parachutes and Huge Bonuses are paid before actual costs are factored in. See a problem there? AIt will never work. And if the american people arnt squeezed enough, the GOP want to sell you even more debt to their retirement plans that they are vested in. This country is the last vestage for "BIG BUSINESS" to get away with wringing us out to dry because they know our good ole boys will do all in their power to let them. This isnt even funny, lets just raise the age to 100(jeeze). Them priks in congress had no problem sticking us in this hell of a mess and want to just unload it all on us to fix. The GOP are the party of "NO" and the party of "up yours". I am so sick and tired of this and its boiled to a head thats bursting. They will have us all living like the most poor people they represent down south. I am totally befumbled over why they just keep sticking it to us and we keep letting them. All I can do is vote and cross my fingers or find another country that doesnt bend its own tax payers over to protect greedy bastards. It just might come to that if the clown show gets elected because gas went up or some stupid invalid reason that someone sells their future out over.
I'll agree with the Republicans revamping Medicare, when they agree to give up the guaranteed health care they receive and subject themselves, to their revamped Medicare. I retired less then two years ago, after working over forty years as a nurse. I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Now, I am beholden to Medicare. Medicare has been a very good, government program but the co-pays are mounting. How much do you think Congress people pay for co-pays? Do you think they will go through every cent of savings, they have salted away for their "golden years?" Oh did I mention, my wages flat-lined the last three years before I retired? AND, I lost most of my 403b during early 2000, while the wealthy Republicans took information like insider trading and donations from their benefactors.
Yes, I will gladly take the Republican revsions, they are planning, just as soon as the playing field is leveled and the Republicans, get my retirement money back, they are expected to pay thousands in co-pays and, I get a several wealthy benefactors, to promote my election.
I am finished with the chemotherapy and half way through the radiation. I will be cured and I plan to fight like the devil, to stop politicians from stealing from hard working middle class (Well, I used to be.) citizens.
It may surprise a lot of people but their are some decent, honest people, just like me, who would make make great leaders. Now, where do I sign up?
Spoken by people who have the best medical care available all on the tax payers dime. They've never paid one cent for their medical.
Still think medicare for all which cover (?) this percent and then you purchase an insurance plan to cover anything additional.
Keep it simple
No! No Plan will ever be perfect.
Can't believe they are still trying to sell "less is more"!
Indyparty
In what world are you living, of course we are a Christian country, the majority are and actually you are forcing your morality demanding change ours, using all means including Judges legislating from the bench.
96ws6:
You obviously didn't do a fact check regarding your rant regarding the 3.8% sales tax on home sales. If you did you would have found that it only applies to single people with incomes over $200K per year or married couples with income over $250K per year. Next, the tax only applies to the profits from the home sale, not the entire sale amount, and then only the profits that are over $250K for single tax payers or over $500K for married couples. For more details check factcheck.org -- here's a link to the article
Not according to the founding fathers. Of course you will just make up lies to push the theocratic fascism you so desperately want.
Wrong, we want you to MIND YOUR OWN F***ING BUSINESS. If it doesn't affect you personally, back the f*** off. But keep telling people how to live, and see what happens. Keep forcing yourself in our bedrooms, and see what happens. Keep pushing yourself on our bodies, and see what happens. Keep pushing your big government in our personal lives, and see what happens.
Human nature is human nature, son. Keep pushing... and see what happens.
Respectfully, why should there be "a plan?" Insurance companies, by every action they take in healthcare, are the middle men between the patient and the doctor. Just simplify it by the government employing the care providers directly. Fraud couldn't exist. Cover every US citizen and for those who here illegally, stabilize and deport.
No plan that ever comes from either side will be perfect, but the right is always wrong. At least with the left you have a fighting chance.
Typical Republican drivel. Giving their BIG MONEY CORPORATE buddies even more money. I will never again vote Republican.
Does anyone on here actually believe that, if we had a balanced budget and a twenty digit surplus, the GOP would all of a sudden sart saying, "Ok, now we can fund public schools, healthcare and other stuff?"
They won't. They'll find some other way to fight it all - some other talking points or imagined threats.
They really don't give a crap about anyone they think won't fit in in their Stepford little world.
That's it.
Have a nice day.
Roy Wilson. If what you're saying is true then in order to make up the difference we simply need to lower the costs elsewhere. I think a lot of people here have good ideas. Close the bases overseas. Make sure corporate America pays its fair share in taxes. Quit giving subsidies to the oil companies. As I understand it our budget is mostly made up of 3 big costs: medicare/medical, social security, and defense. Now since I wouldn't want to cut out the first two then the third one has to be cut. Also we need to cut out all the profit out of the health care system. Are the Politicians (Republicans and Democrats alike) willing to do that? Does this country have the will to do that? If not, then all we'll end up with is just another small segment of the population getting rich at everyone else's expense.
Oskar.
Youre deluded. We aren't a christian country. And nobody is trying to force you not to be a christian. Give it a rest.
We already have an American universal care system to follow. The military is a single payer health provider. Troop readiness depends on healthy soldiers. The military is very serious about healthcare - especially preventative care. The quality of soldiers healthcare declines when they are transferred to 'for profit' VA care.
The 'for profit' health care model has failed. Our citizens are NOT receiving superior care at lower cost. The current model is NOT working - so - we need to find something that works better.
We have an American model to look at. We know how it works - we know how well it works - we know that it can provide superior care - we know exactly how much that care costs. We have an alternative available - we only need politicians with the courage to try it.
Here we go again more BS from the GOP and Teapublican party Its always the out of work Rednecks in the Red states that complain about Obamacare because they just want to go to the emergency room when they get hurt and dont want to pay for any insurance, and pass along the cost to us who are paying for them, what a bunch of welfare QUEENS. I have had enough of these teapublicans and there nonsense, I am ACTIVELY going to volunteer Time and Money to my Local Democratic party, It is to bad there mommas couldnt of kept the aspirin between her legs longer so the knuckle dragging neanderthals wouldnt of been born
Obamacare stole 500 billion not 500 million get your facts right.
DEMs are behind this the REPs are just trying to seal a 1/2 trillion dollar hole.
I doubt anyone noticed but Obama just this week passed Bush's debt TY Obama under your leadership we have added 4.89 Trillion to the debt in just over 3 years
GOP Solution; Logan's Run for the poor. Perhaps they can change it to Ryan's Run.
@ IndieParty:
If you're here for invective, then I might as well sign off right here and now. If you want to talk solutions, then let's talk solutions. Partisan rhetoric isn't going to solve the problem, and almost nothing of what you said actually related to health care.
I'm not necessarily buying into these proposals, as I haven't yet examined them in depth, but I don't think they should be dismissed offhand. I think we're going to have to accept that people who depend on government benefits can't expect the level of benefits they've been receiving. It isn't a matter of what anyone wants, simply the realities of what the public can afford. Our "entitlement" programs are simply unsustainable as they're currently structured. The only way to assure anyone any benefits in the future is to address those structural problems now before the whole country goes bankrupt. We can only do and be expected to do what we reasonably can do given our country's "income." If we're creative and frugal and look out for each other, there's no reason why anyone should have to die for lack of options. But the government, especially a national government, is never going to be creative or frugal enough to make things work long term.
Offering incentives to insurers to offer contraception in their plans might be tolerable, but mandating it? Why should the public have to pay for someone else's voluntary sexual activity? If you can't support yourself enough to afford contraception, you have no business risking pregnancy much less abortion on the public dime. It's simply irresponsible. You don't have to be religious to see that.
As for how it will all play out? I couldn't predict. I'd have to look at specific proposals in depth.
96ws6,
Obviously you don't know how to fact check things and just believe the crap that comes in your inbox.
Here is a very simple trick. Copy the first or second sentence of the email. Go to google and paste it, then hit search. Now when you see the hundreds or even thousands of right wing blogs repeating the same crap, ignore those. Instead look for postings on Snopes, Politifact, Factcheck.org, Ubanlegends, Truthor fiction, etc. Read what they have to say. Then if you still have doubts, get the bill number which will likely be listed in at least one of the posts. Now take that and look it up on an official .gov website. There are a number which will get you to the actual text of the passed bill. Take the time to read what it actually says. Some of these bills like the Affordable HealthCare Act are pretty lenghthy, but they are usually available in pdf format. Once you have a pdf, you can search it for text in question.
In a mere 5 minutes or less, you can usually check just about any of these crazy claims. It's easy.
But if you just happen to hate the President and really want to hear something that sounds bad about him, then just believe your uncle Charlie, your redneck neighbor or fellow Tea Bagger that sent it to you because it tells you what you want to hear anyway. But, don't make the mistake of posting it somewhere or forwarding it to someone intelligent, because you will just look like a fool for believing this propaganda.
Using the FEHBP would be a great idea; but just remember the "F" in FEHBP stands for FEDERAL?? So let's get ALL FEDERAL Employees (Congressmen, Senators, Judicial, Exectutive, Etc., the whole "she-bang"?? Hey!, maybe Social Security too...?? If they were on it, bet they damn sure could fix it??
In resonse to:
THANK YOU!! NFIL! It is so nice to know that someone knows what the heck they are talking about! People spout but never take the time to learn.
Judy The Ornery post 1.65 YOU GOT MY VOTE !
After reading most of the posts on this vine it seems more than 75% of the people think the GOP is made up of crooks and the other 25% are paid Karl Rove trolls and brainwashed old white people.
Lamarquise: Thank you for your intelligent and well thought out commentary! At the end of the day the question is, how much can we afford to pay, and it is clear we cannot continue on the current course. Like you, I am uncertain of the full answer, but clearly we cannot tax our way out of the problem.
Entitlements are a disincentive to succeed in society, like the woman in Michigan who won a million dollar lottery prize but continued to collect her food stamps because she felt she was entitled, or extendting unemployment insurance to two years (99 weeks) so people don't have to work. So it is with many gov't services and benefits (disabled and elderly notwithstanding). If you get something valuable for nothing it devalues the benefit; today's value becomes tomorrow's expectation, particularly if someone else pays the bill.
Medical care is about preventing premature death and quality of care, not immortality and certainly not bankrupting a nation. 79 years old and want a heart transplant? You can have it, but pay for it yourself? 9 years old and want a three organ transplant operation? You can have it, but pay for it yourself.
Oh I LOVE this - it's getting to be that not a day goes by that the GOP fails to do something to self implode! Buh-bye wing-nuts! I'm sure these is some small Island country the natives will be willing to sell you so you can set up your Banana Theological "Republic" there while the rest of us march on into the future.
TruePatriot-445959
This year, as a Massachussets resident, my insurance went up $10 a month which means I will be paying $1.25 a week more than last year - my employer will pick up the other $1.25 a week. I can live with that.
It may be the wrong move politically, and I may not like the approaches offered, but I do give the Republicans credit for putting forth real proposals for discussion. We can't keep burying our heads in the sand about the deficit - and we can't fix the deficit without getting healthcare costs under control.
(yes, other things such as Defense/SS need to be addressed, as well as tax rates - but there is not enough there to fix today's deficits, let alone the projected healthcare related deficits)
Everyone here who believes that the "for profit" insurance industry should administer public health care, I have some very simple questions:
What is the main goal of any for-profit business?
What is the incentive of a for-profit monopoly to provide better products/services?
Why should any individual be forced to allow a for-profit business to make profit-driven life and death decisions concerning their health care? (and don't start the false-argument, logical fallacy BS about letting government decide instead...in a single-payer system there would be a PUBLICLY created, accepted and administered standard of care for ALL based on the best-possible care for the patient as informed by a doctor..not a company by company standard that is driven purely by profit).
When the "for-profit" snake-oil salesmen can answer these questions in a way that is rooted in SANITY and reality and with actual care for humanity let me know...
I fully expect a torrent of Fox News BS talking points to follow...don't bother...we've heard it all and are not buying it...
News Flash: If you were born in 1937 or earlier you could retire at an actual age 65, if you were born between 1938 to 1954, you would add extra months to your age 65 (if you were born in 1954 your age increased to 66), and if you were born between 1954 to 1960 you would add extra months to your age 66 (if you were born in 1960 your age increased to 67), If you were born in 1960 or later, your age would be 67. Here is a paradox. Why was the additional monthly increase stopped?
News Flash: You still have to buy supplemental insurance for Part B and Part D when you start drawing Medicare.
News Flash: If you have no qualifying Dependents, your Social Security pay stops upon your death. If you have qualifying Dependents, then they may be able to draw from your payments, but at a much reduced amount.
News Flash: If you are still employed after starting SS, you are still required to pay into SS and Medicare at the standard percent of your salary with no, or little extra, benefits.
News Flash: If you are as State Employee (SC), and covered by the State Insurance Plan, you cannot enroll into Medicare until you fully retire from State employment. The State Insurance Plan becomes your Supplemental Insurance for Part B and D. Note: There are some Companies in the private sector that have similar provisions for their employees.
Here's a real-life example...
I had eight suddenly appearing growths in my body. The doctor said they should all come out. I was told that the insurance company would only pay for the removal of five at a time. So I was forced to play what I like to call "Cancer Roulette". Nothing makes the insurance company's policy right NOTHING.
The medical opinion of doctors hould be the ONLY determining factor. Not some spreadsheet at an insurance company. But that's what "for-profit" insurance is...care by spreadsheet. Is this what you really want America? Really?
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.
What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.
There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.
More reasons for the single payer system!
Read more:Debunking Canadian health care myths - The Denver Posthttp://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12523427#ixzz1pIJBfitv
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
A solution is not always a GOOD solution. Before I take any of the Republican plans seriously I would like to see a couple of sets of data...I
1. Is there a cap on benefits. If Grandma develops cancer will her treatments by covered an no additional cost to her?
2. I would like to see a CBO analysis of the plans. What would be the impact on seniors financially?
I agree with you on single-payer. I tend to be skeptical of Republican entitlement reforms such as their infamous Medicare Part D.
Medicare for all would be the easiest to implement and least costliest solution to our healthcare problem !!!!!! of course it would be a socialist thing to do and no one would be making money off it, so the republicans would fight all the way, just as they are now !!!!!
GOP plan for the US = privatize medicare/medicaid, education, prisons, regulatory agencies, parks, police services and fire departments. Plan and simple, the repugnicans and approx 70% of democraps are OWNED by the welahty and their corporations and could give two sh_ts about the welfare of we the people.
Until ALL private money (corporate, wealthy individuals and unions) is removed from politics WE THE PEOPLE will only be pawns in a game of political greed and self indulgence. Public financing of ALL elections (municipal thru federal) is the ONLY cure for what ails the US of A.
“There is means-testing in this -- and the reason you have to do that is: we’re spending more on Medicare than is coming in" This is an interesting statement considering the maon reason income to the government is down is because of the tax cutting done by Bush during his term. We also have the problem of a war started by Bush that was not paid for. Lots of questions that should be asked are not being asked..and even when they are...truthful answers are not forthcoming for any politican. We have today major problems with congress to bein with in that they all accept huge amounts of funding for lobbyist....they no longer work for the voters...only wall street.
Raise the retirement age to 70? Do they think everybody has a desk job? The goal of the republican recession policies are to keep us working from cradle to grave; where most of other western culture wants something a little better for their senior citizens.
The only thing that makes any sense at all is some kind of means testing, that at a certain point if you are wealthy enough for example John McCain (not sure if this is a fact, but do remember seeing it somewhere.) gets $70,000 year in socical security income. Now tell me does John McCain need that money or should he do Country First and take a big cut in those monies so that someone not so blessed in life with sucess and wealth, not have to die sick and dirt poor without any help.
Valhalla PhilRestored
So the Republicans throw up an offering that is basically a combination of "musical chairs" and a federal cap on support and you're "all in" for their plan? What a joke.
Here's the bottom line:
The Republicans are trying to solve the federal BUDGET problem, everything and everone else be damned. Read "find some other way to get health care" when you get older.
The Democrats are trying to solve the health care problem that is the underlying REAL issue with medicare. Medicare has the same problem as normal insurance companies except that medicare insures the high risk elderly.
Neither has a lock on the solution yet, but I'll take the Democrat approach any day. The Republicans let the cat out of the bag on their approach with the Ryan plan: which was to simply cap federal contributions like corporations do... basically tells us to solve the rising health care costs on our own.
Roy, Seriously? Costa Rica? Probably just a coincidence that your in one of few countries with no extradition treaty with the U.S., right? LOL. It is a great place to live, though... beautiful.
Sounds feasible to me. We have all been complaining about thier golden medical plans and it couldn't cost anymore than Medicare + supplement polity + Medication insurance, all of which are going up and an incredible rate and giving less coverage with Obamacare on the horizen and the cutting of 500 Millions in that and another in Obama's budget of $500 million which is planned to in the end kill us off early. Panels of government appointees deciding what care we get. Incompetent federal employees letting fraud go in to billions of dollars. Hey, the insurance companies do a much better job. Sound like an answer instead of a kill off which is the Obama plan in the end for Medicare. Haven't heard him propose cuts in Medicaid of course that serves his hoped for future voters. At least these guys tell the truth, that alone should be a refreshing new wind coming out of Washington. The truth hasn't been coming out of there in a very long time.
First, to 96ws6: Please check the facts!
Then, to the article: Oh, yes, let's have insurance companies handle the health care program, we'll all go bankrupt in a New York Second! Let's get real folks, we have way too much regulation, and extremely greedy Health Care companies- don't mind for them to make a bit of money, but let's keep it real! What we could do would be to allow Health Care companies to manage Medicare plans, but with a certain limit on their take, like five percent at a max - averaged - and no bonuses to the fat cats who do nothing productive. Sadly, the Republicans would never go for something like that... Cheers, Y'all!
why not take the 4 to 5 billion dollar$ that are given to the Oil Industry ie the Koch Brothers and subsidize Medicare with no tax increases.... the republicans dont want Medicare they want privatization where they can Gouge seniors
3 GOP Senators at great political risk, put forward some ideas to attempt to save Medicare and every poster trashes them for it.
You are not bright enough to grasp that unless the system is reformed in some way, it will go bankrupt. Obama and democrats have not put one proposal on the table to fix medicare or social security. They hope it will go away. They literally cannot see past the next election.
This kind of myopia is why Washington is broken. Go back and read about Greece.
"A Vote for the GOP is a Vote for the Ryan Plan and the down fall of Medicare"
Yes, Gary, YOU go back and read about Greece. There are two parts of the equation. People (especially the rich) were not paying taxes. Now the austerity is causing unemployment to skyrocket. Tax cuts and "starve the beast" are the myopic thinking from the GOP/TP that would make the US like Greece.
We just need to collect more revenue by increasing the cap on FICA for Medicare and Social Security, at least up to 250K,or better yet 500K. After that means test -- Multi-millionaires need not collect. We need a single-payer Universal system administrated by the government for everyone. I would much rather pay more in FICA than premiums to greedy insurance middlemen in exchange for crappy coverage. Imagine how much more effective your $200/month premium would be in this way.
Then pass a constitutional amendment that prevents congress from raiding accounts like this (include infrastructure from gas taxes if you like). These 3 GOP Senators have not done anything courageous. The day they end expenditure on a large standing army, and pay for wars with War Bonds, and stop attacking the elderly, sick, or middle class to fund their deficit spending on such things is the day I will
admiregive a sh!t about these GOP Senators.Now run along back to FOX Noise to get some more talking points.
I guess Liberals have a hard time digesting 'inconvenient truths', so I'll repeat my Post #1.30 since they go out of their way to 'collapse' my posts, even though they violate no conduct code.
Here are some FACTS from Obama's latest 2013 Budget;
Total Medicare Receipts for the 10 years from 2013-2022 = $2.823 Trillion.
Total Medicare/Medicaid Expenditures for the same 10 years = $11.134 Trillion.
That's a DEFICIT for health care alone of $8.311 Trillion.
By way of comparison, the total projected increase in the National Debt is $10.4 Trillion between now and 2022 in Obama's Budget, so 80% of the debt increase is for health care.
Does anyone understand the problem now?
Of course, Obama totally ignored this 'entitlement' problem in his 10 year budget projections, but just watch him DEMONIZE the Republicans for trying.
To verify, simply 'google' Obama's 2013 Budget and look at Table S-5
JoeCal "Roy Wilson. If what you're saying is true then in order to make up the difference we simply need to lower the costs elsewhere."
Cutting costs is a nice 'catch phrase', but it never seems to happen. If we can cut costs, great, but we need to be realistic about our health care problem. The way I see it is we need to fully fund our health care requirements (Universal Health Care) with tax increases - A combination of payroll taxes and a national sales tax. Defense is a ligitimate expenditure provided for in the Constitution, although I'm sure there are huge amounts that could be trimmed.
My estimate is that this would actually reduce net business costs and make American businesses more competitive in the global market = MORE JOBS.
Home • Ask FactCheck • A 3.8 Percent “Sales Tax” on Your Home?
A 3.8 Percent “Sales Tax” on Your Home?
Posted on April 22, 2010
Q: Does the new health care law impose a 3.8 percent tax on profits from selling your home?
A: No, with very few exceptions. The first $250,000 in profit from the sale of a personal residence won’t be taxed, or the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple. The tax falls on relatively few — those with high incomes from other sources.
LMarcT "Roy, Seriously? Costa Rica? Probably just a coincidence that your in one of few countries with no extradition treaty with the U.S., right? LOL. It is a great place to live, though... beautiful."
Didn't know that, but I'm only here for 3 months, so it doesn't matter.
Yes, it is beautiful here, and very healthy - their average life-expectancy is better that the USA. Slow paced, and lots of great beaches and friendly people. Great place to ride a bicycle too. We come every Winter/Spring.
PS - They have universal health care for all residents - very inexpensive. Unfortunately, we don't qualify, but I have Medicare anyway.
Do you like the idea of a SINGLE PAYER SYSTEM or a PUBLIC OPTION for health care, for all Americans?
( If you agree, please click on the "up" arrow, on the lower right corner of this frame ).
Uh, LMarcT, have the Democrats ever offered a plan to fix Medicare?? It's not that I hate them or that I like what the GOP's proposing, but I have never really heard about any major proposals by the Democrats to fix Medicare. If there are, could you please show me???
OBAMA BIDEN+DEMOCRATS 2012
YES, if you paid attention. The first plan is to have Medicare for all, AKA a single-payer Universal health care system with one large pool -- A system that: 1) is not provided through employers (WTF?); 2) is non-profit such as already exists in parts of the nation; and 3) eliminates the greedy insurance middlemen. Than, per my post #1.104 above:
Currently FICA is capped at $106,000 in income. The richest 5% do not pay into the system above that amount. The richest 1% should not collect any entitlements beyond the right to participate in Universal health care should they choose to.
The other solution to pretty much everything is to increase revenues in general by improving the economy and restoring good-paying jobs here in America. For that matter restoring the American Dream including home-ownership, as this has been a key retirement asset enjoyed by previous generations.
Now, let's hear what Teapublican plans are. Oh that's right, to attack and destroy any and all social programs altogether, with every man, woman, and child for his/herself. Good heavens if the Teapublicans actually worked on improving systems--that would be too much work!
And when the poor are living in slums and epidemics like cholera return -- along with skyrocketing deseases like Alzheimer's, diabetes, asthma -- but there are no medical facilities or research to deal with it, and the elderly are choosing between cat food and the heating bill and freezing to death, I suppose doctors will be paid with chickens and the local church will have a bake sell to pay for it all - NOT.
The Teabaggers forget this bleak picture is how welfare got started, and why Social Security was formed in the first place! We as a society will pay for all this one way or another, and the Teapublican
world viewnightmare not only is unnecessarily inhumane but ultimately far more costly. It is better for people to pay more in FICA than having them uninsured and without a minimum income when they grow old. Stop the viscous cycle of Dark Ages to enlightenment back to Dark Ages, and embrace progress and moving forward!Thanks True Patriot. I always thought that Universal Healthcare was a demand of the people, not an idea proposed by Democratic lawmakers...
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE 2012
TruePatriot-445959
Your 'solution' of removing the cap on Medicare taxes is a 'band-aid' at best. It will only cover about 8% of the deficit shortfall for health care over the next 10 years. What's your solution for the other $7.6 Trillion deficit for Medicare/Medicaid?
TO THE ADMINS:
PLEASE RESTORE THIS THREAD!!!!
UNDER WHAT RATIONAL DETERMINATION SHOULD IT BE COLLAPSED?
THIS THREAD IS THE DISCUSSION!!!
DO THE RIGHT THING.
Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want to put my health in the hands of pirate insurance companies. I know from personal experience how they work. My doctor ordered a test for my heart. My insurance company said no, stating that since I hadn't complained about chest pains, etc. they thought the test was unnecessary. What they were saying was that until I was having a heart attack, they wouldn't be paying a red cent. My doctor then hooked me up with a heart monitor because he said I had a rapid heart rate and they wanted to know why. After the test, my insurance company refused to pay for it. I've had this company for years and years, never using it except for yearly exams, etc. They want your money up until you get sick, then it's no, no, no. Sound familiar?
Just say you're having chest pains. That's what I did, and I don't feel bad about it either.
The republicans don't want to fix Health-care, they want to do away with health-care... I think congress should accept the same health-care that all America have... If it's good enough for us then it's good enough for them...
The GOPee
First they destroy the country through their malfeasance of the 8 years of the Bush Administration debacle... the worst president in history.
The GOPee the obstructionist party of NO is at it again if it’s not threatening to obstruct unemployment benefits for people out of work caused by their economic policies during the Bush debacle, it's their opposition to the Economic Recovery Act, or Health Insurance Reform, or Cash for Clunkers or the Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights than it’s their desire TO DESTROY Social Security and Medicare all the while giving their rich, corporate, puppet masters obscene tax breaks.
If the GOPee gets its way there will be a rich 1% and the once middle class will look like refugees in a third world country.
Over the years, especially during the election season, Republicans did everything they could to derail health care reform. They fueled fears and misinformation, throwing around terms like "socialist," "fascist," "government takeover," and of course "death panels and the rest of the outright lies."
If the GOPee and & teaparty wingnuts don't believe the federal government should play a role in that -- fine. But rather than voting to deny affordable care to millions of Americans and allowing insurance companies to discriminate against people on the basis of pre-existing conditions, The GOP should practice what they preach and start by canceling their own federal care -- care that we pay for.
Repeal proponents in the GOPee have long argued the wisdom and availability of private insurance. So they should have no trouble getting great private health coverage from the insurance companies they have been representing so well.
"First they destroy the country through their malfeasance of the 8 years of the Bush Administration debacle..."
Sorry, that's a lie. Compare the first six years of the Bush economy to the last two. It is the democrat congress that destroyed our economy, they inherited 4.6% unemployment and a booming economy and it's been down hill ever since. Note the recovery didn't really begin until republicans took back the house and blocked Obama's leftist agenda.
"Over the years, especially during the election season, Republicans did everything they could to derail health care reform"
Sorry, that's another lie. They tried to derail Obamacare which is NOT health care reform, as rising drug and insurance premium costs clearly show. Republicans offered REAL health care reform.
wow. Witchking, you are all about getting things from the government. Being on the dole, that's your entire life. What makes you angry is hearing anyone say they want to clean up the mess in government, which may mean you get less free stuff from Uncle Sam.
Vallhalla Phil: well you just keep cheering on your ridiculous party past and present right into irrelevancy because that's where they're headed. "let em eat cake" and good luck fighting that insurance company got you where you are today...headed for another huge loss...the only question after the absurd series of ridiculous self-inflicted gaffes, including this latest one to convince seniors they're better on their own, perhaps conducting their own surgery, is the size of the landslide against Republicans in November. Steve: hate to break it to you, but getting medicare doesn't mean you're "on the dole". What are you, 12?
TO: Valhalla Phil who wrote:
How can you possibly call it a "lie" when we are eyewitnesses to exactly what happened, and we know exactly who did what?
The ONLY reason Republicans try to "explain" history to us is because Republicans are trying to RE-WRITE history, and Republicans are ALWAYS trying to take credit for the Democrats work!
That booming economy you mentioned was all due to Democrat President Bill Clinton, and it was his vision that had our economy "booming", NOT Republicans. In fact, Republicans fought against that "booming economy" every step of the way.
Republicans have ALWAYS believed that "there will always be the poor" and "deficits don't matter" and NOT ONE REPUBLICAN EVER BELIEVED IN SPENDING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S HARD EARNED TAX MONEY ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, OR IN AMERICA. NEVER, AND THEY STILL DON'T.
Obama / Biden 2012
One day soon the vast majority of the American people will wake up and realize that the GOP doesn’t give a #$%^ about them. All Republicans do is plot ways to take from the American people and never give back, their nothing more than thieves in five thousand dollar suits. I'll say it again; Why any sane person would vote for a Republican eludes me.
Errrr, Valhalla. . . . did you miss that part of the Bush years where he put a war on the US credit card?
Sorry to correct you, Bill in Austin, but Bush put TWO wars on the US credit card.
Surely you know that a president cannot go to war (unless he's Obama and it involves bombing Libya) without the approval of Congress, right?
Guys, you are wasting your time with these people. I have come to the conclusion that ALL Republicans, the public and those in government, are all the same. They really don't care about anything or anyone except themselves and they completely believe everything that is fed to them via Fox and Lush, which in my opinion is where they come up with their version of the facts, for the most part. When there are still people out there in this country who question the authenticity of President Obama's birth certificate and believe him to be of a non-christian faith, and I daresay, are some of the same people posting comments on this article, we are banging our heads against a dead horse. It's just a waste of energy. When I read that some people actually want the same crap that we had for 8 years with Bush and his henchmen in office, I literally sit here and shake my head. When will they realize that to put another of their own kind back in the WH is akin to finishing off this country and picking over our bones? They won't. If we get Santorum, women end up completely screwed. If we get Romney, the rich will get much richer and those of us in the middle class and below will be completely screwed. If we get Gingrich......Well, I have to admit, I don't pay attention to that little man, and Ron Paul is just plain crazy, so don't even see a chance for him, which really surprises me given that the Republicans are on the fast train to crazy land. No, my post has nothing to do with this article. I just see all these crazy comments from the righties and felt like responding. Oh, by the way, with the exception of owning my own business, I have a full time job, have raised a child, gone to college, paid my own way through college, bought a house, bought cars, helped take care (financially/physically) of my grandmother, help my aging mother out financially when I am able, and pay my taxes. (This is for the benefit of a snob on here who asked me what I have done with my life. Typical snob Republican.)
Go USA::: A president can't go to war without the approval of congress-- unless you are a republican president named George W Bush and you figure you are the savior of the country. Then you can do just as you flipping please.
What that looks like to me is the Republican'ts pan handling their latest Plan to destroy Medicare and Kick Seniors and the Disabled to the curb.
In 2012 Vote Democrats Vote Obama, Save Grandma do it now!!!
And yes this is just my opinion.
"Running a political risk during an election year, Republicans continue to offer proposals to cut future Medicare outlays."
Don't you love how the liberal media can't wrap their tiny minds around politicians actually doing their jobs instead of campaigning and pandering for votes?
It's an election year and these guys are still offering ways to reduce our government waste?....my goodness, that is crazy!
Magnum Serpentine post 2.15
It's not just your opinion, the vast majority of Americans agree with you. Keep the faith Magnum because come November the collective anger of the American people will be directed towards these Republican thieves.......
Valhalla Phil..........Wow, what planet are you on ? You have to wake up ! Bush administration clearly did destroy the economy, you must be the last one on earth who even pretends otherwise. As for your reasoning that Obamacare is not working because health care premiums have gone up, please do a little research and see if you can find the last year when health care premiums have not gone up substantially. Prepare to go back 50 years !( that should be easy for someone of your political views).
Susie: You are either misinformed or lying. The US Congress voted in a bi-partisan manner to use force in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Private health insurance premiums rise exponentially in your later years. If the proposed vouchers also rose to meet actual insurance premium costs, they'd never be considered as any solution, but rather as another looming problem.
We need a single payer system that takes most of the profit out of healthcare. That's the only way to seriously attempt to control costs and offer care to all. Unlike Medicare, though, the tax to support it should be on all personal income including capital gains and not just on payroll.
We should also help to fund it by having a minimal charge per employee (1% of income?) to employers since they'll save a bundle in not having to offer or contribute to any company offered plans while still having the benefit of healthy employees delivering higher productivity at lower costs to businesses.
I really don't f***ing mind if I get socialized medicine. I don't care if the healthcare industry is nationalized, or, as the Teapublicans would call it, "socialized." I simply don't care. The Teapublicans (and the American people as a whole) need to understand that there are some things that the private sector is TERRIBLE at. Take healthcare. The costs keep driving up, and we pay more for healthcare, and yet we aren't even in the top 10. I say socialize healthcare and model our system after those in the top 5 nations with both affordable and efficient healthcare systems in the world. Sooner or later, we will be rising up. The military seems to be doing pretty well under the VA; imagine how good that would be for ALL Americans. To everyone that hates Obamacare, if we had a socialized healthcare system we wouldn't need an individual mandate, because everyone would already HAVE low-cost insurance.
Now I know some of you are arguing against socialized medicine, mainly to say that America should stay "exceptional." Well, to tell you the truth, we already are. We were the first successful experiment with Enlightenment ideals; we survived a massive civil war and two world wars. We became the world's most powerful nation at enjoyed decades of prosperity. And yet with all our wealth, we have millions in poverty. It's time we stop thinking that we're so damn superior and try using ideas from foreign nations to help us. Not every American ideal is great (supply-side economics, states' rights). So to HELL with private healthcare; to hell with raising costs; and YES to socialized medicine.
OBAMA BIDEN 2012
"SOCIALIZED MEDICINE" 2012
"Most Republicans I know are walking away because of the Tea Retard insanity"
some here say the congress should have the same health care that Americans have...the fact is over 50 million have NO health care...so let's throw them off the books and let them do without and while we're at it...they should be granted minimum wage earnings and let them live off that for a year.
Wait -- I paid Medicare premiums for 35years and now they want to change the Policy?
Change in this country is inevitable, even if it is for the worse. People today have lost sight of what is truly important. It is amazing to me that people profess to care and yet re-elect the same incompetent boobs that directly contributed to the mess or continue to make it worse. We are in desperate need of a government conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, but what we get is a non-functional, incompetent group of political strategists who exempt themselves for the very legislation they are mandating for the citizens over which they rule.
When the 200 million man army destroys one-third of mankind, it makes me wonder what strategies politicians are going to improvise to ratiionalize their legitimacy.
Sandnormad: You said it well. What the people do not understand is that they are in it for the perks and prestige. The American people be damned.
The first plan is to have Medicare for all, AKA a single-payer Universal health care system with one large pool -- A system that: 1) is not provided through employers (WTF?); 2) is non-profit such as already exists in parts of the nation; and 3) eliminates the greedy insurance middlemen. Currently FICA withholding is capped at $106,000 in income. The richest 5% do not pay into the system above that amount. This outdated cap needs to be increased to $500K in income. The richest 1% should not collect any entitlements (means testing) beyond the right to participate in Universal health care should they choose to.
The other solution to pretty much everything is to increase revenues in general by improving the economy and restoring good-paying jobs here in America. For that matter restoring the American Dream including home-ownership, as this has been a key retirement asset enjoyed by previous generations.
Now, let's hear what Teapublican plans are. Oh that's right, to attack and destroy any and all social programs altogether, with every man, woman, and child for his/herself. Good heavens if the Teapublicans actually worked on improving systems--that would be too much work!
And when the poor are living in slums and epidemics like cholera return -- along with skyrocketing deseases like Alzheimer's, diabetes, asthma -- but there are no medical facilities or research to deal with it, and the elderly are choosing between cat food and the heating bill and freezing to death, I suppose doctors will be paid with chickens and the local church will have a bake sell to pay for it all - NOT.
The Teabaggers forget this bleak picture is how welfare got started, and why Social Security was formed in the first place! We as a society will pay for all this one way or another, and the Teapublican
world viewnightmare not only is unnecessarily inhumane but ultimately far more costly. It is better for people to pay more in FICA than having them uninsured and without a minimum income when they grow old. Stop the viscous cycle of Dark Ages to enlightenment back to Dark Ages, and embrace progress and moving forward!TruePatriot: Did you forget that I already paid the premium !!!!! Do you just want to give away benefits to those who have not? Get in bed w/ Obama and Biden (if you can stand his snoring).
Sad disheveled relics of the past - your leaders...in the photo
What a sad even depressing crew these four seem just look at the photo? What a bunch of dwids these crowd looks like and they want to rule of the country? With a strong faith based theology as the Taliban some have even started to refer to them as "The American Taliban": forced religiosity is a form or coercion analogous to the Sharia spouting religulous fanatics we are waging war against.
These are the American counter-parts and just look around and ask yourself what other leading western country is turning back the clock on women's rights along with attacking women they attack the elderly and children and you want to put these zealots in positions of absolute power over you? Good luck with that because I suppose you will need lots of luck but not more than the American people should these clowns attain the power positions they aspire to. Prayer for breakfast, prayer for lunch and prayer for dinner just like - you know who!!!!!!!
Have a good day...............
PS: Paul is the most effeminate looking clown I have seen recently in his so empty suit - oh man - one of your leaders that always forgets to lead, another one of the shysters in high public office and the state he represents I wonder what condition that state is in? Let me guess?
Here are some FACTS from Obama's latest 2013 Budget;
Total Medicare Receipts for the 10 years from 2013-2022 = $2.823 Trillion.
Total Medicare/Medicaid Expenditures for the same 10 years = $11.134 Trillion.
That's a DEFICIT for health care alone of $8.311 Trillion.
By way of comparison, the total projected increase in the National Debt is $10.4 Trillion between now and 2022 in Obama's Budget, so 80% of the debt increase is for health care.
Does anyone understand the problem now?
Of course, Obama totally ignored this 'entitlement' problem in his 10 year budget projections, but just watch him DEMONIZE the Republicans for trying.
To verify, simply 'google' Obama's 2013 Budget and look at Table S-5
In principle the plan sounds good. The question is how it would executed. Would the disabled (S.S.D recipients) also be eligible, like they are now with medicare. Would the same payment assistance options be preserved for recipients significantly below the poverty line? If the answer is yes, it deserves serious consideration.
When people talk about the die-hard republican voters and how nothing will change their mind, read the post from Valhalla Phil and all the other wingnuts who's post were collapsed by community. They are the true republican fanatics. To them, if Fox News and the republican party said it, then it is the truth, and they will read the republican script word for word to everybody. Valhalla Phil said that Bush and the republican party didn't cause the country's near collapse, President Obama did, you shouldn't be able get much nuttier than that, but female republican die-hard voters topped that, they believe Santorum and all the others that are inventing ways to hurt women, are right in what they are doing because republicans call it religious freedom, and they believe them. What Phil does not know because republicans didn't tell him, is, the country's fall started before President Obama ever took office, but that's just one more true fact that he will not believe until his republican masters tell him to.
Ain't that the truth!
A vote for any REPUBLICAN PARTY card holding Member is a vote of death for all retired people.
If Republicans REALLY wanted to deal with Social Security and Medicare issues, they would allow us to pay more into these programs through the payroll deducations they are already taking from us.
I'd have to say that Republicans have intentionally been trying to bankrupt Social Security and Medicare for as long as I can remember.
Obama / Biden 2012
American Girl,
You can donate to the US Treasury right now. So put your money were your mouth is and donate.
Typical response from an idiot who doesn't know the difference between individual contributions and collective contributions. Get an education.
It is President Obama who cut the amount paid into Social Security through the payroll tax so I do not understand your point.
The Republicans put out a program with means testing for the richer people, which should be exactly what you should be in favor of and you complain. When these programs started the life span in the US was 60 so they want to raise the retirement age for those under 55 and you complain.
We are projected to reach a point where there will be 2 workers for every person receiving benefits and yet the only position put forward by the President is to save $33b over 10 years like that will make a dent.
American Girl, and the Democrat answer to this is to further short the system by the payroll tax holidays?
Larry R: Want to thank you for the article you sourced yesterday on the new health care law. Read it and from all appearances seems to be a legit article. A couple of points. From a democratic view the fact we are the only country that utilizes for profit health insurance is a contradiction in terms. So either we have a secret no one else has or we are the laggard. From studies done by the WHO we are a laggard. Our child mortality rates, life span of citizens, and general health(heart, diabetes, etc) we rank way below the best outcomes, yet we spend more money. So having a minimum payout required of the insurers is not an unreasonable request. When the CEO of United(I believe the largest carrier in the country) is over 100 million a year and a regular basis perhaps they are more motivated to maintain profits, and bonus rather then approving claims. There is something called the law of unintended consequences so it is possible the insurers are correct and the percentage is too high and will force them out of business. But I live in a state where our insurance commissioner about 15 years ago forced medical insurance companies to do away with preexisting conditions. A number of companies threatened to pull out but in the end most did not, new companies entered the state and no permanent problems resulted. A later insurance commissioner allowed the preexisting condition to be reinstated(going from memory).
So I do not believe it is the intent of Obama to purposely bankrupt the system, and the question arises why didnt the private insurance companies wage an all out blitz to defeat his plan as they did in 1992. Reason- the new plan gives them like 40 million new customers. So there does not seem to be an inherent logical consistency to your concern.
You CAN contribute more via 401K plans, etc. SS was NEVER a retirement plan, it was a safety net to assure people wouldn't starve. If you are counting on it as your sole retirement, you will be sorely disappointed it your later years.
Take some advice from a boomer, invest every dime you can in IRA's, 401K's, Roths, etc. Every boomer I know who did is retired in comfort, those that didn't are barely getting by. That is indeed what was supposed to happen, that was how it was set up.
By the way, the dow outperforms SS by two to one, despite the recent recession. Next time republicans want to allow you the CHOICE of investing some of your own money, instead of demonizing it, jump on it. I could only dream my SS funds were earning what my private investments are.
interrupted and didnt have a chance to proof read- CEO of United earns $100 million a year. Law of unintended consequences- Obama may have intended for the system to produce x and the outcome is y. Does not prove intent, was the point I wanted to make,
Social Security should not be compared to a 401K or any other investment based retirement plan. It is a different program altogether. It is a kind of insurance program, and should never be judged on ROI, because current contributions are used to pay current beneficiaries. Just like any insurance program it is about pooling resources.
Investment plans can and often do return much more than you put in, but they also carry the risk that they can collapse altogether and return almost nothing
Social Security maybe doesn't look good when compared to a booming stock market, but it does look sweet when compared to a market collapse. It's intent is to relieve seniors of the fear of abject poverty.
can anyone please explain what insurance companies contribute to anyone's health? you can't even get a aspirin from them. yet, we all give them thousands of dollars a year. what a scam!!
The republicans can go to hell. The job of insurance companies is to get as much out of their customers as they can in premiums and pay as little as they possibly can for those customers health problems. We need a government run, universal health care system. Damn sorry republicans! They know it works. They also know it would be much cheaper. But Alas! They don't want any government program to work. Look at what the gwaddamn greedy bastards are doing to the "post Office". I despise gwaddamn republicans!
Valhalla Phil, those are the biggest Ponzi schemes around, there run by insurance companies. You got to be KIDDING!!!! You think your going to see any more money back than you put in!!!REALLY!!! LOL,LOL,LOL You'll be lucky to get that back.
Mac, you took the words right out of my mouth.
For one MILD pre-existing health condition, I pay over $800 a month for a crappy, very-high deductible health insurance. It was the only health insurance I could find. It is through the state's high-risk pool- but is through a for-profit health corporation.
Anyone who would vote for ANY OF THESE REPUBLICAN CLOWNS who want to decimate Medicare and repeal the new health care laws is ignorant. They are voting against their own self-interest.
If you allow these immoral clowns to destroy these programs, unless you are a multi-millionaire- be prepared to live out your last 20 years of your life in poverty. These clowns ARE multi-millionaires, as are their primary donors, so they don't care. They just want more tax breaks for themselves. Dirty, greedy bstards.
The real way to save Social Security and Medicare would be to REQUIRE more types of income be subject to the tax, and (for SS) all earned income. Get rid of the "carried interest" BS that allow millionares like Mitt Romney to take home millions in what really are wages and pay almost nothing in taxes.
TO: Devdoc12able who wrote:
That's just it, I don't want anybody, including you, thinking you have right or say-so over MY Social Security money that I have already paid into.
Republicans want to stop us from receiving money we already paid, and they want to stop Social Security altogether, but they don't ever talk about them stopping taking our money. They want the money to keep on coming, but they don't want any part of giving it back to us.
Obama / Biden 2012
"Running a political risk during an election year, Republicans continue to offer proposals to cut future Medicare outlays."
Don't you love how the liberal media can't wrap their tiny minds around politicians actually doing their jobs instead of campaigning and pandering for votes?
It's an election year and these guys are still offering ways to reduce our government waste?....my goodness, that is crazy!
pjam What the Repbs. are doing is eating there own. The teaparty has ruined the GOP for now AND forever.
Pandering & campaigning to the right nut jobs is what they have done since Obama took the White House. And they thought that the "Teaparty Darlin...Palin" was going to stop that from happening. WOW...how did that work out for them? So what do they do...the Up the anti. No to Education, NO to health rights, NO to Woman's rights, NO to stop the welfare for oil co., NO to making the 1% pay thier FAIR share, NO to Green plans to save the earth, NO to ANY THING that would help balance and help the Middle/lower class.
All this in an ELECTION YEAR? Stupid is as Stupid does. Keep it up GOP and Teabaggers....and YOU will be the ENDANGERED ones.
Obama/Biden and All Democrat's / independents in 2012...the only SANE choice now.
Well. I guess it's better than the TEA PARTY program - DIE!
Based on what you just said above you should vote REP then.
www.forbes.com / sites/prospernow/2012/02/24/obamas-sneak-attack-on-senior-citizens/
take out the spaces and copy and paste.
Couple highlights shortened for space you can use the above address to read more.
1. Depress Interest Income: Interest rates have been held unnaturally low (by the Fed). Thus any money that senior citizens have in safe places like savings accounts, money market funds, and even most bonds, earns very, very little interest—between 0.3% and 2%
2. Draining Remaining Social Security Funds: Obama created the “Payroll Tax Holiday,” which was supposed to be for a short time—like 6 months—because reducing the employee’s portion of payroll taxes by 2% takes that money directly out of what is used to fund Social Security-- add 12 more months of drain.
3. Dry Up Dividends, Gut Capital Gains:while Obama talks about taxing the rich—a part of the taxes involved doubling the tax rate on dividends and capital gains. These two of the primary sources of retirement income for seniors, will be taxed more heavily and thus less desirable for companies to pay dividends.
4. New Taxes Hidden in Obamacare: The most notable one is a 3.8% tax on “unearned income,” which includes dividends, interest, and proceeds from the sale of a home (which many seniors are downsizing, and would use as a source of assets for retirement income.
O=Epic Fail
Both sides are so corrupt its redick.
I see so many people hurt by this gov't its not even funny.
"The GOP/TP are trying to Bankrupt our Country to regain Power"
"We can stop their insanity in 2012"
Patriotic,
It is simply amazing how well the Democrat propaganda machine works with Americans. The Republicans are trying to find alternatives to save Medicare while the Democrats do nothing to shore it up. Doing nothing will end Medicare by somewhere between 2024 and 2036, along with Social Security.
Remember that it was the Clinton Administration that raided the Social Security fund to create the illusion of a balanced budget with a "surplus." If you don't believe it you need to do some in-depth research into the matter.
And, it is NOT the GOP who are trying to bankrupt the country. They love money too much to do that. Doing that means that they lose income.
It is the Democrats who have the dream of bankrupting the country. Their overarching goal is to create a two-class society composed of abject poor and aristocrats. Everything that they do tends toward that goal. They are experts are making themselves look good doing it, too.
The Democrats already are well on their way to achieving their goal by already having spent the country into near insolvency and have caused 1 out of 2 Americans to fall into the poverty class over just the last three years. And, they keep trying to introduce legislation that allows further, massive increases in spending by slipping it into jobs packages. That way they can make Republicans look bad for not passing the legislation. But, if they pass it it allows for increased spending. It is a case of being damned if they do and damned if they don't.
Why not ask Harry Reid why it is that he has refused to take several jobs packages on his desk to the floor for a vote? Why not ask Obama why it is that he has repeatedly called the Senate to kill every jobs package or anything else that calls for cutting spending that does make it to the floor? Why not ask leaders among the Democrats why it is that they are allowing Social Security and Medicare to languish, knowing that it will die in 2024 if nothing is done NOW? (They will, however, lie to you and the public will believe it).
By the way, lest anyone mistake my political views, I wish we just would vote out every single Republican and every single Democrat in office and keep them all out for a couple decades to teach them a lesson! While I know it will never happen in today's politically charged climate, I can still dream.
But, the fact of the matter is that the GOP are not behind the economic wreckage we face in the near future. They at least are trying to save Medicare and are offering ideas to the public for their consideration. The Democrats are deliberately trying to prevent any and all change, full-well knowing that the entire system will collapse by 2036 if nothing is done. For them, 'doing nothing' is a good thing because it will help them reach their ultimate goal of enslaving the entire nation to their aristocratic whim.
dcpyle
That's great. No argument. Medicaid/care needs some help. But disbanding it and passing out coupons??
But what about the JOBs they were elected to get? What happened to the deficit problem? I see Romney's plan increases it 1 trillion.How many jobs does his plan create? How many jobs does the Paul Ryan plan generate? Shutting down government is supposed to get us out of debt? And just how the heck does probing women's vaginas create jobs?
You have me at a loss for words here:
Yet, the republicans refused to move on the debt limit and caused us to lose our credit rating. Some how, that is saving money??
I appreciate the patriotism in reading the Constitution, but they couldn't even get that right.
I suppose bringing up the "Starving the Beast" plan is a hoax to you.
Debt in 2009 1.7 trillion debt in 2010 1.7 trillion debt in 2011 after REPs came to power in congress 1.2 Trillion.
You can't blame year 2010 on the great recession since it ended March of 2009 and we have been in a recovery since then.
The party of "no" as people like to say has slowed down the spending to a point.
example 2010 Budget was 3.6 Trillion over 1/2 a trillion increase and the largest 1year increase in the history of the USA by nearly DOUBLE.
We are currently at 3.8 Trillion and growing.
That isn't what they want to do. That is what the Democrats tell you the Republicans want to do so that you will vote for Democrats and leave Social Security to die on the vine. Did you not read the above article? the abovementioned plan is to get Seniors on the Federal Health plan. That is one of the best plans in the nation. After all, Congress repeatedly votes the best for themselves! :)
Ask Harry Reid about that. Every single jobs package sent up to Congress has been killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate at the direct request of Obama himself.
Ask Obama and the Democrat-controlled Senate about that. Ask those who had control of the entire Congress for the last two years of the Bush Administration about that. They are the ones who put the increased spending into action.
Does Romney's plan actually increase spending to $1 Trillion--or, is that someone else's spin?
Good question. I do know one thing, though. Many businesses are afraid of what is coming around the corner as a result of the timeline set in motion by the Democrats when they had total control of both chambers of Congress and the White House. They won't hire because of all the new taxes and liabilities coming their way. Cutting government spending reduces that fear.
No, but that is only one part of the problem that can be slowed by cutting government.
Probing? Yeah, yet more Democrat propaganda. Yet, I suppose that will increase the number of gynocology jobs, if it were true! :)
Again, that is a question for Harry Reid. How does one cut spending when one keeps voting to increase spending? That is the path to bankruptcy. Everybody knows that. Also, you have fallen for Democrat-spin again. We lost our credit rating because government cannot get a handle on increased spending. Read the actual Standard and Poor report and see this for yourself.
Depends on how it is spun. Many spins are indeed hoaxes. Either way, spending needs to be cut. Medicare needs to be partially privatized or it will die. The same needs to be done with Social Security or it will die. The Democrats know that it will die and want the American people to vote them in to do nothing about it.
But, again, we need to vote out all Democrats and all Republicans in office for a few decades to teach them a lesson. I will never tire of saying that. Both parties got us into the mess. America needs to make them pay for it. But, America won't so it must choose the lesser of the two evils for the economy--and that certainly isn't the Democrats.
You see, they never gave up the idea of slavery. They just don't want to limit it to a single race anymore because that is illegal. But, they still can enslave us by creating dependence upon bigger government. It is the old Tory idea of the public being too stupid to govern themselves so they need bigger, more expensive, more aristocratic government to help the poverty-stricken public govern themselves. Yet, it has been over the last three-plus years that the government has caused 1 out of 2 Americans to enter the poverty class. The Democrats have been behind that all along. It is what they want.
dcpyle
You've only answered my questions with more questions.
Did I read the article???
That is called disbanning and turning it over to private insurance.
Why? the record number of fillibusters is in the House, not Senate.
The deficit problem is the republicans' battlecry. It was their number one concern. Why would I ask the president about a republican agenda?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3458Rya
Ryan's plan only hurts seniors and doesn't create jobs.
Here we go again asking Harry Reid questions. The republicans turned down a 4 trillion dollar deal and somehow, Reid is psychic enough to know why republicans couldn't compromise.
In your opinion, democrats have caused the middle class to dwindle. Well, others feel that deregulation caused it. You know, the whole Global Market Crash on a Republican watch.
Then, you claim democrats want to enslave people, wtf? The lesser of two evils to you is putting the same people back into power that got us where we are today. No thanks. We had 8 years of that already.
I can't understand your logic at all. You are telling me the same clowns that bankrupted America needs to be voted back in???
I guess a recession isn't good enough, you want a full depression?
For profit heath care only benefits those who take the profit, not those who need healthcare...
We in the US pay nearly as much as those in "Socialist" countries, but receive much poorer care, why is that?
Really is that why I have Canadians coming down to get treatment? They tell me a much different story about horrible waits for procedures and poor treatment.
I lived in Canada, you are lying through your teeth. There's always somebody who will not like the system, but go to Canada and ask if they are willing to exchange their system for ours, you will be run out of town in a New york minute.
..and Americans are going to Mexico for treatment, and getting meds from Canada and Mexico. Want to swap horror stories about the Canadian system vs the American system? Let's do it. You go first, because you're going to run out of stories long before I do.
A recent study had less than 2% of Canadians come to the U.S. for treatment. But Bush had to threaten people to stop them from going to Canada to buy drugs. Not to mention the drug companies threatened not to sell drugs in Canada if they kept selling to U.S. citizens.
Everyone brings up Canada, or Britain. There are many, many other countries out there with universal care that never get brought up. Because they work well.
No they aren't. They are virtually all going bankrupt
November 21, 2011
French Pharma Industry Pays The Price For Country’s Financial Woes
Let's look at Germany which is supposed to have the best UHC
You have three options for health insurance while living in Germany; the government-regulated public health insurance system (GKV), private health insurance from a German or international insurance company (PKV – Private Krankenversicherung) or a combination of the two. You can opt for full private plans if your income is above a certain threshold or if you are self-employed. Finding the best service provider of state health insurance or finding the most suitable coverage from a private health insurer while still at a competitive rate is not always easy but is well worth the effort.
Most German residents (approximately 70 million people) are members of the government health system. If your gross salary is below 50,850 Euros per year or 4,238 Euros per month then membership in the GKV is mandatory. The government health insurance scheme is administered by approximately 155 Krankenkassen and they must all charge the same basic rate. The basic rate of government health insurance is 15.5 % of eligible gross salary to a maximum monthly income of 3,825 Euros (2012 figures). If you earn more than this you do not pay a higher insurance premium. Assuming you pay the maximum monthly premium of 593 Euros as an employee earning at or above the threshold and are therefore a voluntary member, your contribution is approximately 314 Euros and your employer pays approximately 279 Euros. The general minimum period of membership with a particular Krankenkasse is 18 months. You can switch government health fund providers by giving two months notice after 18 months membership or if a supplemental premium is demanded or increased.
The medical benefits provided include in-patient (hospital) care as a ward patient with the doctor on duty at your nearest hospital, out-patient care with registered doctors (Kassenärzte) and basic dental care. Please note that there is no coverage for private doctors or surgeons, a private room in hospital, alternative/homeopathic medical care, dental implants, and vision products for adults or any medical benefits outside of Europe. Your non-working dependents living at your address in Germany are presently insured at no additional cost and simply need to be registered with the Krankenkasse.
http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/healthinsurance.html
So your position is that everyone deserves all the healthcare they can afford?
Larry Robbins - So who pays? The Senior Citizen with a limited income??? Unless what you're and most Republicans are suggesting is health care rationing whereby seniors won't get all the care they need and may end up dying earlier because they can't afford their health care. That's why Medicare was created so that seniors could get the care they need and not have it rationed. This will not fly with the American people. Health care should NOT be privatized because private for profit health insurance providers are in the business of denying health care not providing it.
there is no constitutional authority for the Federal govt to be involved with healthcare at any level. I want medicare repealed, I want Obamacare repealed.
I'm in my 60's and have paid into medicare since the first day it was law, and I'd rather just see it go away.
Larry: nonsense...you're no legal scholar. Healthcare is a national issue and I'd preffer YOUR kind be repealed.
It is Obama that readily admitted that rationing via his health panel will be used to control costs. This is the way all socialized medicine controls cost. That's why both Britain and Canada are allowing private practice, so people have a choice. Both Britain and Canada health ministers have said their system is unsustainable, it's not just France or Germany.
In one Canadian province the wait for chemo has a benchmark of 9 weeks, they are missing it up to 13 weeks. (data from their own website). Here it's more like nine days. That's why the survival rate for cancer, heart disease, etc. is higher in the US than anywhere else. Again, the Prime minister of Nova Scotia came HERE rather than Canada. That speaks volumes. The king of Saudi Arabia could go anywhere on earth, yet he came here. That speaks volumes as well.
Also consider this. Canada, etc. negotiates sweetheart deals with drug companies and US citizens pay the price. Essentially the US taxpayer is subsidizing your socialized medicine. If we demanded the same price as you, bye bye sweet heart deal, and you will see your costs soar. Britain already disallows some cancer drugs because they are too expensive so by definition, they are getting substandard care compared to us.
Well then Larry , when you have that heart attack that you're well on your way of having , just tell the hospital that you want them to cut off your care as soon as you receive the equivalent of "what you've paid into " and we'll be lining up for your funeral.
I want YOU repealed.
Phil, do you have any idea how many INSURED Americans have been denied treatment of expensive drugs? You act as if all Americans have no problems getting the care they need at a fair cost. Just because other countries have to make corrections to their national healthcare doesn't mean their programs aren't good. In other countries (like here) the wait often depends on where you are and how busy they are. Just like here. Some areas have no wait and others wait longer, but at least they end up getting treated without losing their entire life's savings.
Deudoc12able#4.1: I believe you are purposely telling lies. I do in fact know of several Americans who went to Canada for medical procedures. 3 for bypass heart surgery. Canada has a much better health care system, and much cheaper than we do. In fact, all industrial nations do. We are pissing in the wind compared with most everyone else.
The republicans just can't get it through their thick skulls. Health insurance, as run by PRIVATE companies, is what's driving up costs and lowering the quality of our care. It kills me that our political process has been so completely highjacked by lobbyists, they've actually convinced everyone that it's the sick people who've driven up costs.
Mind you, more sick people can increase costs, but if you offset them WISELY, by proper management in a less capitalistic manner, we can get the job done. Our health is too important to leave to capitalism. As for the caption of the article regarding the riskiness of bringing up this issue, all I have to say is....DUH!
Smokey.....Health insurance companies are not running up the costs. What makes you think that they are at fault? Why wouldn't they try to reduce costs so they can make a higher profit margin instead of increasing costs and making a lower profit margin? If anyone is at fault, it is us as consumers. We don't care about the price, we simply care about whether or not it is covered by insurance.
Larry? You dont want health care? You dont want a refund of your Medicare premiums???
As for constitutional authority, the constitution gives the House of Representatives the specific power to spend the nation's treasury on whatever they deem appropriate for the welfare of the citizens, with the concurrence of the Senate and the signature of the President! Medicare has been upheld in the courts time after time! Do you not care, even a tiny bit, that the reason the GOP deliberately our debt crisis is so they could convince us that privatizing Medicare and SS is the ONLY way to solve it! That is called endangering the national security of the United States for political gain. Some would actually call it treason!
Larry,
Be very careful what you wish for. The politicians pushing to end Medicare DON'T NEED Medicare because they are very wealthy. The rest of us do. They spin and spin it, trying to get people to vote against their own self interest.
I DON'T WANT MORE TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY. I WANT FAIR AND AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR ALL.
These same people fought against funding to fight MEDICARE FRAUD, FOR GOODNESS SAKE. Increasing oversight and making sure that our government is not being defrauded would save our country BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
DO NOT TRUST THE REPUBLICANS. DO NOT TRUST WHAT FOX TELLS YOU. THEY ARE DELUDED, LIARS OR GREEDY, most oftentime, all three.
Believe me, you WILL NEED AND APPRECIATE MEDICARE IN FIVE YEARS.
If you lose your job or decide to retire early- BUYING HEALTH INSURANCE ON THE PRIVATE MARKET IN YOUR 60'S IS Break-the-Bank expensive. I hope that does not happen to you- as it has to me.
Gotta say as a Canadian most in our country would never allow private health care. It is never going to be perfect but it hasnt let me or my family down. I would rather live in a country that is continually striving to provide excellent care. We pay lots of taxes for this service. We dont get our drugs and dental with this. At least in our system no one is going bankrupt from medical bills. Makes me wonder who foots the bill in the US when someone goes bankrupt because of illness to themselves or a family member. We are also not a bunch of socialists. In Canada our companies are not hampered by the expense of private heath insurance so it makes us more competitive. It can be a 5000.00 a year extra expense. Also our health care dollars have way less middle men to pay for.ie insurance brokers. We also dont have a pile of uninsured people showing up at emergeny wards to receive treatements. In our system everybody has to contribute something. No free rides.
PutAmericaFirst#4.16: You are very wrong. Health Insurance companies, and lack of basic health care suffered by some 60 million Americans are important factors that add cost to everyone's Health care. Course the present scattered system, politic'ed to major degrees of corruption, is the cause of much of the rising costs too. Insurance Companies are not!, I repeat, not!, health care providers. Their purported purpose is to charge as much as they can get away with to cover you in the event you have to have health care, then to deny paying for as much of that needed care as they can get away with. They actually spend about 30% of the premiums collected, figuring ways to fight or deny paying their perceived services. Additionally, they want mostly those who aren't likely to need any major health procedures for a certain period of time, heavily proportioned over a few who likely will need those procedures. This mindset, among politicians as well, causes those of low income and poor, to forgo tests and procedures which could prevent them from needing major procedures and care in the future. When these become major we all have to pay for them, in the form of increased insurance premiums and/or taxes. Why would we do such? Why not provide all, adequate health care, and allow them a good quality of life? I have 2 close relatives who are doctors. I have not even begun to address the scope of corruption and the potential for corruption within our present system. I hear about them often from them.
canuck: The US is the last developed country to adopt a national health care law. Weak as it is: it is unfortunately the American way to take baby steps toward anything resembling a national policy on anything impacting all Americans. There was a time when educating GI's was considered a ridiculous waste of taxpayer dollars and the "GI bill" a monumental failure. As Churchill once said, "I like the Americans. They ALWAYS do the right thing...eventually, and after first trying everything else."
@AP-1414066#4.21: Right on! Fact the government does many things well. All the hell raising about the "Postal Service" is another republican "straw man". Know anywhere you can go and pay .50 cents, get a nickle back, and send a missive anywhere in the country? Only one place. The US post office. They will deliver in 1 to 3 days too. They do all this, pay their way, provide employment for thousands, and now the republicans, and some dim witted democrats want to close the institution. We will continually need the services of the "Post Office". The needs though, for UPS, FedX, etc. are diminishing. They will become, if they survive, just other truck lines, unless they can get their hands on the postal service. Angers the hell outta me! Regards
Smokey's mom: I disagree. It has penetrated their thick skulls that private care insurance is bad for the masses. They just don't care as they count insurance company contributions on their way to the bank!
Why was Social Security or Medicare put in the hands of the Federal Government in the first place? It was because the President at that time did not trust private industry in the first place to manage it. Private industry as anyone can see would not have the accountability that the Federal Government has.
Funny Obama has already proposed cutting Medicare it is called Obamacare. Guess the Republicans are just late to that party.
Again spewing crap, you know nothing about Obamacare or any other care for that matter.
Don't like Obama care? Then you like insurance companies cancelling your coverage if you get sick. You prefer insurance companies deny coverage because of a pre-existing condition. You don't want parents to be able to keep their children on their policies until they are 26. AND you would prefer mandating those of us who do have insurance to pay higher premiums for those who do not.
Keep it up. That whoooosing sound is people leaving the G.O.P.
Rasputin,
There is a Medicare cut of $500 billion in there
Harvey,
In Florida if you are in a group there has been no preexisting conditions, we are able to cover our children until 30, so maybe you lived in a bad state
Actually that is true, Obama is taking 500 billion out of Medicare to fund ObamaCare.
Both Medicare and Social Security are going broke, it is a simple fact that cannot be disputed. When is always disputed. At the rate the private sector is shrinking, it is going to happen a lot sooner then anyone thought possible. Of course this is a political hot button because so many Democrats use it to scare people when in reality people should be scared of leaving it status quo. The majority of politicians are simply not honest people, and they could careless what happens 10 years or 20 years after they leave office. Right now all they care about is themselves, and nothing that ever happens to the American people as the result of their lies and deceit will ever affect them.
It takes guts to stand up and make this sort of proposal. Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow. Obviously we have a least a few politicians looking out for the American people. Of course you can decide not to believe them, you can simply roll the dice on whether either program will still be around when you need it. As long a politician gets your vote, he isn't going to care one bit that you get left out in the cold.
Rick, That's totally inaccurate and you shouldn't keep repeating Republican talking points that you know nothing about. It just so happens that the $500 billion is coming from the Medicare Advantage program, the private Medicare program which has an administrative cost that is 25% higher than traditional government run Medicare. The Obama Administration just reduced the administrative costs for Medicare Advantage down to what the administrative costs are for traditional Medicare and told the private insurers to work with the same amount of money as traditional Medicare.
Laurie,
The costs are so high because of bad government accounting which we all know is never going to change and companies will continue to charge the government and they will keep paying because that is the sysytem
Sorry Laurie, Obama did take $500,000,000,000 out of Medicare. Medicare advantage is still Medicare, (Medicare part C to be exact). To say government health care is more efficient is pathetic. It totally ignores the fact that public sector fraud is far worse than private sector fraud. The extra overhead the private sector charges goes to eliminating fraud.
To say only government programs have a fraud problem is false. Our entire system is fraught with fraud, and it is just one of the costs that drive us to pay more than anybody else in the WORLD.
http://www.insurancefraud.org/healthinsurance.htm
Lib50#5.9: So very true. The private sector dealing with the government are always the ones to defraud the government, and when these sons-a-bitches defraud the government they defraud us.
Obama isn't "cutting" Medicare. It is estimated that there is 500 billion dollars a year in Medicare fraud in the form of false billing- and the government wants to cut that out. However, you are 100% correct when you say the republicans are late to the party. When it comes to the interest of US citizens- the GOP is a no=show.
V.Phil, you have it completely wrong about fraud. I worked in this industry for almost 30 years and it is the private sector that has the highest fraud cases. Medicare is very efficiently run and guess what.... Medicare does not have CEOs that make multi-million dollar salaries. Reading some of your other comments I am beginning to believe that you are a paid antagonist intentionally selling false information.
Funny about obamacare..............CBO just anounced what?
The correct spelling of the name for the new health care laws is, "OBAMA CARES".
the only one that don`t know anything about Obamacare or any other healthcare plan is you Rasputin just like the rest of your racist rightwinged idiot party of the rich. i seem to remember that rasputin was a very sick demented murderer who could have used a little mentel healthcare, what they should be going after besides JOBS is Bush`s big PHARMA which he made non negotiable in prices thats 500 billion a yr. which is a joke that our goverment can`t negotiate prices how about we cut that program out that and find someone we can negotiate prices with i bet that we`ed save 250 billion a yr. what ya think about that.
Take note on who is telling the hard truth instead of pandering for votes with lies.
"we're spending more on Medicare than is coming in." "raise eligability age"...no one wants to hear this, sometimes the truth hurts. We need to take note on who has the guts to tell it like it is.
Even the President can't put a spin on this although as always he will screw us after he leaves:
In his Fiscal Year 2013 budget plan, Obama is calling for a variety of cost increases for people on Medicare, although perhaps it is no coincidence that Obama's proposal would take effect only in 2017, after he would leave a second term in office.
Kind of like we'll leave Afghanistan after the elections and the provisions in the NDAA and that "this administration will not wield this power" but make no mistake "this administration" sold us out for the rest of our lives.
Raise the amount that we workers pay into Medicare every week. It's such a small amount that is taken out of our paychecks. Believe me I would gladly pay a little more to insure I had access to Medicare when I turn 65. You don't hear the Republicans even suggest that because they are hell bent on destroying the program rather than fix it.
They suggested the rich pay more into the system and that they receive less benefits as opposed to nothing.
Laurie,
Simple solution, allow people to pay in or opt out and fund their own plan. That way you can have what you want without forcing your socialism on those that don't want it. This country IS about freedom of choice isn't it?
As it goes now, WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE "OPTED OUT" AND DON'T HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE. Should we just let the people who are so afraid of the scary word, "socialism" be paid for by everyone else.
Universal care, single-payer system. It works for other countries. It would work the U.S.A. if the dam* conservatives would stop obstructing and actually work for the majority of their constituents and not just their rich donors.
V Phil,
There is not one insurance company that offers primary coverage to someone who is 65 or older.
Sara M.....We are talking about Medicare here, not Medicaide. They are two different things. Yes, we are paying for many people who have opted out, but that is not the Medicare problem, that is Medicaide, a completely different ( but very serious ) problem. Not that you are wrong, but you are off topic. Medicare and Medicaide sound alike but are quite different programs with quite different problems.
People on Medicare have and continue to pay premiums for that program every week from their paychecks. Additional benefits have been added ( prescription drugs is a major one ) and those were never funded with premiums. Costs have skyrocketed and have not been funded by premiums. Medicaide certainly has funding and cost problems as well, but it never was funded by the people who benefit, it is funded totally by taxpayers as a welfare program gone wild. There is a big difference. People on Medicare want what they feel they paid for and the premiums they paid cannot support the benefits they want. People on Medicaide never contributed anything to that fund, they just get free medical care if they meet the income and asset requirements.
Here's my answer to the health insurance problem. If you get sick or injure yourself and go for medical treatment, you have to provide proof of medical insurance. If you can't do that, then you get kicked to the curb and croak. Doctors of course would have to be absolved of their oaths, but that's OK. No big deal. Why is it that people can't understand universal health care?
Sara M #6.4: I know what you mean, and you are correct.
Laurie-480643 #5.6: You are absolutely correct. Anytime you see a post by "Rick-3416939" and examine what is said, it's always skewed to republican talking points, and often, out and out lies.
Regards to you both.
96ws6
How can you make the statement, "we're spending more on Medicare than is coming in." "raise eligability age"...no one wants to hear this, sometimes the truth hurts. We need to take note on who has the guts to tell it like it is."
and in the next paragraph... "In his Fiscal Year 2013 budget plan, Obama is calling for a variety of cost increases for people on Medicare..."? Then, you chastise him for it.
Simply put, you admit Medicare needs money and blame Obama for... raising money??
Your whole statement contradicts itself.
All forms of income should be subject to FICA and medicare taxes; and, there should be no upper cap on this being the case. Problem solved. Oh, but wait...then people like Romney might actually pay their fair share!
Why was Social Security or Medicare put in the hands of the Federal Government in the first place? It was because the President at that time did not trust private industry in the first place to manage it. Private industry as anyone can see would not have the accountability that the Federal Government has.
american girl Go ahead Republicans, tell the American People exactly how you plan to screw us over, IF anybody is crazy enough to vote for you!
I say give them enough rope thy will hang them self. i can follow some of there policies, but this election year they have gone to far from left of center.
Why was Social Security or Medicare put in the hands of the Federal Government in the first place? It was because the President at that time did not trust private industry in the first place to manage it. Private industry as anyone can see would not have the accountability that the Federal Government has.
GOP keep cranking out those "winner winner chicken dinner ideas"!
The REPUBLICAN PARTY card holding Members come up with these stupid ideas simple because they are so corrupt.
Godfather Politics: President Barack Obama Signs Bill that Ends Free Speech in Presence of Any Politician
After last year’s tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona that killed six people and wounded twelve others including Rep Gabrielle Giffords, Congress started work on a bill that would help protect politicians. With little fanfare, HR 347 was passed by the House and Senate and signed into law this week by President Barack Obama.
The official White House release stated that President Obama,
“Signed into law: H.R. 347, the ‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,’ which makes it a federal crime to enter or remain knowingly in any restricted area of the White House, the vice president’s official residence, or their respective grounds without lawful authority.”
While this may sound fairly mundane, the actual language in the bill can be easily construed to override the First Amendment right of free speech in many situations.
Here is what the bill says,
“Whoever knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so; knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of government business or official functions; knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished.”
Some members of Congress saw the danger of the wording and voted against the bill. Among them was Rep Justin Amash (R-MI) who said,
“Current law makes it illegal to enter or remain in an area where certain government officials (more particularly, those with Secret Service protection) will be visiting temporarily if and only if the person knows it’s illegal to enter the restricted area but does so anyway. The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.
“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity – even if that activity is annoying to those government officials – violates our rights.”
Rutherford Institute president, John Whitehead responded to the HR 347 by writing,
“The bill’s language is so overly broad as to put an end to free speech, political protest and the right to peaceably assemble in all areas where government officials happen to be present.
“A person eating in a diner while a presidential candidate is trying to score political points with the locals could be arrested if government agents determine that he is acting ‘disorderly.’ Mind you, depending on who’s making the assessment, anything can be considered disorderly, including someone exercising his right to free speech by muttering to himself about a government official. And if that person happens to have a pocketknife or nail clippers in his possession (or any other innocuous item that could be interpreted by the police as ‘dangerous’), he could face up to 10 years in prison.
“Given that the Secret Service not only protects the president but all past sitting presidents, members of Congress, foreign dignitaries, presidential candidates, and anyone who the president determines needs protection, anywhere these officials happen to be becomes a zone where the First Amendment is effectively off-limits.”
“While the Trespass Bill may have started out with the best of intentions, it has ended up as the government’s declaration of zero tolerance for individuals exercising their First Amendment rights.”
Sounds to me as just another expected step toward a Marxist government where no citizen has a right to say or do anything against the government and its politicians. The old Soviet Union did it. China and Syria are still doing it and the Socialist States of America will soon be doing it.
America is no longer the land of free as we aren’t free to do very much anymore without it being illegal or offensive to someone else. At the current rate of America’s decline and loss of freedoms, it’s probably time to scrape the Statue of Liberty and sell it for the copper.
NO Obama / Biden / DEMOCRAT 2012
Your FUD is clogging your thinky brain machine.
Arizona is trying to pass a bill whereby any employer can ask a woman why she's using birth control...whether it's a medical necessity. If not, that employer will have the right to fire her. Speaking of rights! You remember that woman outside a Paul's gathering? The one whose neck was stepped on by one of Paul's followers? You would have more credence if you hadn't parroted that crap about "Socialists". You guys always go too far, that's why people have stopped listening to you.
Obama/Biden 2012.
Sorry, should have mentioned that this was referring to the company's medical coverage.
So the bill was passed by the Republican controlled House of Representatives. The GOP did not filibuster it in the Senate, as they have everything else supported by Democrats. And yet, you blame only Obama for it? Not biased at all, are you?
Haaaa! The bill was passed by the Republican controlled HOR and you didn't do your research so no, you can't blame the president..you jerk! HAAAAAA!!!
Are you saying that democrats are too stupid to filibuster a bill. You all have been raising hell about republicans filibustering bills now you are raising hell because they didn't. Seems to be par for the course. You people don't know whether you are coming or going.
Obama, "This health care bill will only cost 940 billion dollars"....CBO yesterday "Obamacare cost 1.76 Trillion dollars". I only see it going up even higher. By the time this takes effect it will two to three times higher than the 1.76 Trillion they are saying now.
At least its on the books, unlike President Bush's antics, wars, and unfunded mandates. I guess transparent politics is too good to be true for you.
Now that's a joke, calling Obamacare transparent. Bush's deficits averaged less than $250 billion, Obama's is averaging over $1.3 trillion. Unfunded or not, everything presidents do goes toward the deficit. If you are incensed by Bush, you should be downright livid at Obama, (assuming livid is 5x more intense than incensed!).
so the war in iraq that cost us almost ten years, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars so certain people could line there pockets with oil money was only a 250 million dollar deficit. i think that once they proved all the reasons for going to iraq were lies certain people should have been jailed for war crimes against the people of iraq and the troops of this fine country who had no choice but to die so the rich could get richer
Thinking Citizen-4182319
Will you explain to me exactly what you mean by "off the books" when you talk about some of Bush's expenditures.
How is this different from how Bush funded emergency spending?:
Obama breaks promise to end war supplementals... again
Obama signs supplemental war funding bill
Sad to see all of you looking to the government for answers, when they always just mess things up. Nine worst words to hear, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" (Ronald Regan).
At least Reagan raised taxes when we needed money.
Soon after taking office in 1981, Reagan signed into law one of the largest tax
cuts in the postwar period.
In 1986, Reagan lowered individual income tax rates again, this time in landmark
tax reform legislation.
As a result of the 1981 and 1986 bills, the top income tax rate was slashed from
70% to 28%.
And then, he had to raise them to make up for the mistake...
The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates
though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes,
and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks
and closing tax loopholes.
Yes Devdoc and then he raised them about a dozen times according to this Bloomberg article.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-22/democrats-recall-reagan-s-tax-increases.html
Actually Reagan raised taxes 7 times including the largest corporate increase in history.
Ronald Reagan was the most overrated president in history.
With his voodoo economics a term that was coined by President Bush Sr., the ridicules trickle down economic theory which we know doesn’t work and has even been rejected by Reagan’s economic architect David Stockman as a failure.
I don’t even think Regain even know what day it was. The country was being run by Bush Sr., Ollie North and Nancy Regain’s Astrologer.
It's that trickle down theory that ushered in decades of prosperity. Bush 1 was an idiot, a blue blood liberal of the north east school. Reagan won is first term in a landslide and his second term with the largest landslide in history, carrying 49 states. He was also saddled with a democrat house so what ever he did had to pass democrat muster.
It is only when we stopped using supply side economics and went to demand side Keynesian economics that the wheels fell off. Supply side has always worked, from Kennedy on. Demand side has NEVER worked.
Sure Phil, It worked so well when we had a GOP Congress, Senate and White House from 2001 to 2007. Bush balanced the budget and cut the national debt; oh wait, that was Clinton....
Oh another one using quotes from former president...came back to bite you in the a$$ didn't it. HAHAHAAA!!!!
CAL USA
That is not entirely true. Clinton showed a budget surplus during his second term with a republican congress. He showed a surplus by counting Social Security contributions on the budget. Clinton actually increased the national debt over 1 trillion dollars during his eight years in office.
Why was Social Security or Medicare put in the hands of the Federal Government in the first place? It was because the President at that time did not trust private industry in the first place to manage it. Private industry as anyone can see would not have the accountability that the Federal Government has.
The bills didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates
though. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes,
and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal
tax breaks and closing tax loopholes.
And, the economy tanked... Until President Clinton led us through most prosperous times...
Then, GWB tanked it again...
Great planning. GOP tanks it, Dems fix it. Same story over and over.
Thinker I think you are forgetting who controlled the house and senate under Clinton, ya know the ones that make the budget. REPUBLICANS!
Not the whole time, and they still needed a signature to get 'erdone. At least they weren't completely obstructionists. Kind of like Reagan and 'Tip" O'niel. They found a good middle ground that benefited the country instead of crash and burn politicking
"And, the economy tanked... Until President Clinton led us through most prosperous times..."
That's a pathetic lie. Reagan inherited double digit unemployment, double digit inflation and 20% interest rates from the Carter disaster. After 8 years the economy was vastly improved. Clinton was so incompetent, he lost congress to republicans after decades of democrat control. At least he was smart enough to make a hard right turn and work with republicans instead of digging in his heals like Obama is.
It is Gingrich that gave Clinton his second term, Clinton was just smart enough to go with the flow.
do you never do any fact checking? there is no sales tax on selling your
home. There is no transfer tax. The only thing that is stipulated is that for
some higher income "INVESTMENT PROPERTY" there "COULD" be a tax on the property
based on a handful of other criterial. I would think that ANYONE comfortable
spreading their opinions on the internet would benefit FIRST by checking the
facts to determine if it is based on actual truth. This is how the
"fear-mongering" spreads like wild fire, and many people like you will take YOUR
dribble as fact as well, rather than checking out the facts before spamming all
their friends.
Larry: You are wrong. There is a tax. Granted, not many people will have to pay it, but it does exist.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/a-38-percent-sales-tax-on-your-home/
Valhalla Phil
At least he was smart enough to make a hard right turn and work with republicans instead of digging in his heals like Obama is.
YOU'RE ALL WRONG on that comment. It's the Republicans who are building the wall and they are out to ruin this man because they just don't like "HIM". They have vowed to ruin this country so "they" can build it back up. What egotistical jack holes! All for a personal vendetta.
Clinton led us through prosperous times but set up the government to trash his successor.
Clinton only prospered with a republican congress.
CAL USA
That is not entirely true. Clinton showed a budget surplus during his second term with a republican congress. He showed a surplus by counting Social Security contributions on the budget. Clinton actually increased the national debt over 1 trillion dollars during his eight years in office.
Even bush had enough sense not to tell people he wanted to privatize social security. Didn't say a word about it in the 2004 campaign. He just sprung it on us after the election. Went over like a lead balloon, just like this will.
Sorry, that's a lie. He wanted people to have the OPTION of investing SOME of their money privately in order do keep it away from greedy bureaucrats. Democrats demonized it, (even though it was a choice), because they want access to ALL your money! Considering the DOW outperforms SS two to one, despite the latest recession, we'd be much better off if it were allowed.
Again, it was an OPTION, what is wrong with giving people a choice? The only reason choice is wrong is if liberals want to spend it ALL and leave us with more worthless IOU's. Of course when it was proved a success, the public would demand more and that would really kill liberal spending.
Valhalla Phil: Liberals don't like choice - they like mandates. Choice would mean that people could decide for themselves what was best for their own lives - you know, like free people do.
Why was Social Security or Medicare put in the hands of the Federal Government in the first place? It was because the President at that time did not trust private industry in the first place to manage it. Private industry as anyone can see would not have the accountability that the Federal Government has.
The REPUBLICAN PARTY as b o r r o w e d billions and billions of dollars from Social Security and Medicare for their own private interest, their pet project they will n e v e r be able to pay this money back. And, now that the baby boomers are retiring and privatetize Social Security and Medicare they do not have to be accountable as to what or how they stole the money from the American people.
Oh yes, yes make this your platform along with women's contraception. Guaranteed a winner. Wow you repugs sure do have some great thinkers in your midsts. Now you will have the women and senior votes for sure. And Rick Santorem will have the Latinos if he is the candidate. You guys rock.
yeah...This stuff is just guaranteed to vault them into power any day now, they're just sure of it! Mandatory Vaginal Probes!! Contraceptives are for sluts!! It's midnight in America!! Keep at it Repubs...this is so much better than "let em eat cake"!! I think you're on a real roll now!!
jorjan
Are you saying women's contraception should be outlawed?
try reading this:
www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0
Uhmmm Hello Obamacare, is already planing to slash Medicare!!!
misstated untruth. More GOP kool Aid.
Do you get paid to spout nonesense or do you just do it because you are that dumb?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2011/07/medicares-chief-actuary-says-obamacares-cuts-program-likely
I believe the intellectually inferior fokes have a Jack Azz as their mascot!
I know the idiots can only call names and hide behind empty rhetoric.
Seriously, do you get paid to do this or are you really this ignorant?
Devdoc12able#17.3: And you have a very distinguishable Elephants trunk hanging from your rear end. If you're an intellect it is appropriate to the 3ed grade level only.
President Obama will never cut anything from Medicare. The GOP is hell bent to make sure people are in rotten jobs with no benefits with their privatization agenda. They are busy making women the victim of their wacko tactics against birth control. Republicans are good at spreading dishonesty and they sure did when they were talking about the money that President Obama will take from Medicare Advantage when it ends and move the money back to Medicare. No more Medicare Advantage, but all the money in Medicare. Republicans lie a lot.
Mac Forrester
If what you say about Devdoc is true he can always have it surgically removed but you can't fix stupid.
@Rick-312779: No, I can't. Hope you won't hold it against me though. You'll just have to stumble along as best you can.
Um. Obama is a Democrat. It is the REPUBLICANS who are putting forth this proposal. DUH!
I sure would like to see all the different plans, including what we have now, put side by side for a comparison. And I mean everthing: cost, benefits, age requirements, who's covered, what's covered, who benefits, the whole enchilada. Otherwise, it's just too confusing.
Republicans don't want you to see that. Private insurance is going to be much more costly for you but they are trying their best to hide that fact.
Sorry, that's a lie. If it were to democrats advantage they would publish it, they don't need republicans permission.
Republicans have said Obamacare will cost you, and the CBO and your prescription and insurance premiums show they were right. According to the CBO, Obamacare is twice what Obama promised and it isn't even fully implemented yet. He even had to steal $500,000,000,000 from Medicare to make it work.
@Valhalla Phil #18.2: You're lying through your dentures "Phil", and you know it. No for profit insurance plan can possibly cover all, at the lower cost of any government run system. You're lying again about the $500 billion. Doesn't come from Medicare. Comes from medicare advantage, or the management of medicare by private insurers put into existence by lil Georgee Bush. Fact, Vahalla, you do a lot of going around, omissions, and word dodges, just to commit yourself to the telling of lies. Should be getting real good at it by now, but too many still catch you.
Not enough money coming into Medicare?
Easy solution, cut the bloated and corrupted military budget and we will have money to cover Medicare for the next one hundred years.
Somebody warned us about the military/industrial complex, but thanks to the war mongers and the money makers the fact is there to see. We are manipulated by it.
A constant claim among liberals is that government spends more on defense than anything else in the federal budget. The reality is that even after paying for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, Washington spends twice as much on entitlement programs than on defense.
Bush's entire war effort was $877 billion, Obama borrowed close to twice that his first year in office. Also, military is not wasted spending, it goes to equipment, bought from Boeing, Raytheon, and many other US companies, as well as troop salaries, etc. A lot of the money goes right back into the economy.
Wrong wrong wrong Valhalla. Bush kept his real war costs off the books. That's how he convinced so many simpletons that not only could he launch two unnecessary wars without ever having to justify them, he could do it while passing tax breaks too...Shockingly, it led to the near financial ruin of this country. When Obama took office, he insisted all war costs be counted and transparent, right in the budget for all to see, which of course, you finally now do and have discovered they actually cost real money. And if you believe the billions in Iraq and Afghanistan on these longest and most unpopular wars in history aren't wasted...I've sure got some fine bridges to sell you.
@ Valhalla Phil-Devdoc12able: Lying again. Both of you. By far and away this country spends more of its GDP on defense than any other single item.
The republicans have been hearing on Fox how little war costs since their posts are about that. It is nonsense that war spending is all worthy. It sure is not. My husband and his unit saw piles of money that was put into a helicopter and flown away and left for someone. Who knows who? He has a picture of him standing in front of the piles of millions of dollars. Wars ruin countries because of the debt and there are way too many in the military industry that want war and don't care about how bankrupt they make the U.S. War was a driving agenda of the GOP and it has harmed all of us especially when Bush was cutting taxes several times. At the same time republican policies against regulations and against oversight brought about the banking meltdown and brought down the housing industry. Greed and corruption is what the GOP sells while attacking women's rights, gays, black people and making sure lots of fear for fools and their guns is drummed up. How ignorant republicans are who allow themselves to be played by the republican billionaires for corruption and continued greed.
Will you please oh please explain to me exactly what you mean by "off the books" when you talk about some of Bush's expenditures. I keep seeing you Bush haters post that but none of you will explain what you mean. I'm beginning to think you don't really know but you are parroting some George Soros/Peter Lewis talking points.
How is this different from how Bush funded emergency spending?:
Obama breaks promise to end war supplementals... again
Obama signs supplemental war funding bill
President Obama signed the $59 billion emergency war supplemental spending package on Thursday. The measure provides $33.5 billion for Defense Department expenses for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including adding 30,000 troops in the Afghan theater.
Looks like I was correct when I said the liberals posting here really don't understand what they are talking about when they say the cost of the wars was "off the books".
Rick-312779
You know exactly what books. The deficit, in general. You remember, the thing that doesn't matter to your leader Cheney. Bush kept the cost of two wars off the budget.
But, we don't have to tell you that. You know. You just want to ignore the facts to post your rhetoric.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html
http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/55667611.aspx
Weird you should post spending on the very wars your leader Bush started but never finished. We had to drag in a community organizer to get the job done. How sad is that? Bush was raised and trained to be the president. A common organizer has to clean up his mess and doing a better job at it.
It seems you don't understand the difference between supplement opposed to two full wars.
Looks like you don't know what liberals and independents know, either.
You don't just pull money out of a hat. Apparently you have been watching too much tv. If the government does not budget a project but need funding later it is done through emergency supplementals.
But Obama lied. He said he would not use supplementals to pay for the wars like Bush did. You completely ignored that or did you just try to spin it to the liberals favor like you always do.
Then you go and use obviously biased sources to prove your point. The New York times used OMB numbers based on Clinton's surpluses. Surpluses that were funded by the dot com boom that went away in 2000.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/24/the-dot-com-bubble-how-to-lose-5-trillion/
Bosslimo
BTW, I guess you are going to try and convince us that Anderson Cooper is biased toward the right. Good look on that one.
Rick-312779
You are stuck on being right no matter the source of the contrary.
I can find no proof that the president said he would not use suppliments for the wars if neccessary.
Secondly, the very fact that you post a suppliment for the very wars your leader started and then blame the president for paying the bills is laughable.
I don't know how Clinton's dot com bubble has anything to do with your post of the president signing an emergency suppliment for the wars.
The stance you took was that Bush did put the cost of wars on the "books". I'm showing you evidence that he did not.
So what are you. I showed you sources to the contrary but you won't buy it. BTW, one of your sources made a huge deal out of the Clinton budget "surpluses" that is why I included it. And Obama "pledged" to not use emergency supplementals to pay for the war yet he did in 2009 and 2010.
http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9850-commentary-obama-breaks-promise-to-end-war-supplementals-again.html
My po9st And from your NY times article
Then you go and use obviously biased sources to prove your point. The New York times used OMB numbers based on Clinton's surpluses. Surpluses that were funded by the dot com boom that went away in 2000.
Bosslimo
You are stuck on demonizing your political opponents by obfuscating the truth.....no matter what.
Ok, I'm having a hard time relaying my point, apparently. I'll be as plain as I can.
You asked "what books". I showed you "the books". There are thousands showing you that the wars were left off the budget.
The only point of posting them was showing a few places where said fact is mentioned. You read more into it than I intended, I am sorry to have mislead you.
Let me tell you why these republicans are a bunch of wimps...todays deficits are caused by todays seniors and their outsized benefits....notice they say they don't want to pass bills on to the grandkids but then turn around and pander to the generation that is sending the bills to the grandkids...I don't collect any benfits so I.m not the problem ...the seniors are
You are sorely misinformed. We seniors paid into the system, it should be our money. The problem is politicians spent it all and stuck us with IOU's. Now that we need to redeem them, the government has no cash so they have to borrow the money from China. THAT IS NOT OUR FAULT!!!
There are two issues, SS and Medicare. On paper SS, is not that bad, just a minor tweak will fix it. But that's only on paper. Since the government has no money, paying out the full SS amount means we need to borrow the difference and our debt is already out of control.
Medicare is a whole different animal, it is growing exponentially. We were promised health care reform, instead we got Obamacare which does NOTHING to reign in costs. Just the opposite it will, and already has, increase costs. Medical technology has shown great promise to decrease costs, so what does Obamacare do? Tax new medical equipment purchases 40%! It is guaranteed to relegate us to third world medical care if not repealed or at least greatly hobbled.
Again, that is not our fault. We wanted REAL health are reform.
First off you have to llok at the phase inproposals. And one of the problems too much is done at once. The secdond thing is the congress, not Obama miscalucated on the number of slots for new doctors-allowing for only 2,00 when infact 20,000 aRE NEEDED TO INCREASE MAN POWER NECESSARY FOR 47 MILLION NEW PATIENTS. tHEYWERE WARNED ABOUT THIS-AND FAILED TO HEED THE WARINGS.
We can't aploogize for congress. There were simpler systems offered-and Congress turned them down because lobbyists wrote the bill-specialcally United Health spearheaded by Tom Dashcle.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/beltway-confidential/2011/07/medicares-chief-actuary-says-obamacares-cuts-program-likely
Obamas cuts to medicare under Obamacare are going to kill the program. Sounds like the GOP is trying to save Seniors healthcare.
Quoting RWNJ blogs does not an argument make.
Look at actual numbers instead.
And the Fox new troll comments, "But they're doing it too!" Ha ha ha Dumb dee dumb-dumb
It cuts 500 Million dollars. You can deny it but it is true. And with the missbudgeting of Obamacare it must be twice that now
Debunked many times, you can't keep telling the same lie and hope it becomes more true. Take the tinfoil hat off, go back to school, get yourself some book learning.
Cant quote MSLSD they wont tell you obamazombies the truth they are totally in the bag for the current admin.
Altogether, ObamaCare cuts $818 billion from Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) from 2014-2023, the
first 10 years of its full implementation, and $3.2 trillion over the first 20 years, 2014-2033. Adding in
ObamaCare cuts for Medicare Part B (physicians fees and other services) brings the total cut to $1.05 trillion over the first 10 years and $4.95 trillion over the first 20 years.
Facts are lost on the ignorant. You sadden me.
Correction, not $500 million, $500 BILLION. And no, that has not been debunked, it is fact and right in the bill.
You're on a roll with that lying "Phil".
Devdoc12able
It cuts 500 Million dollars. You can deny it but it is true. And with the missbudgeting of Obamacare it must be twice that now
I think it was already twice that before they even got started. I remember reading somewhere that the administration deducted the same 500 billion twice
The Republican party in office doesn't like anyone other than the super rich. Vote them out for a breath of fresh air.
I guess you do not understand what means testing is. Just to help you out the Republican program has higher costs and less benefits for the rich and yet you still complain
they are giving it back and far more through taxes and subsidies and any other means they can. You should wake up. They aren't going to help the middle class.
Sorry, that;s a lie. It is the last five years of democrat control that has decimated the middle class. Democrats inherited 4.6% unemployment when they took over congress and it's been down hill ever since. The economy only started to recover when republicans took back the house and were able to block further democrat destruction.
Bush averaged 5% unemployment, Obama is averaging 9%. No amount of leftist propaganda will erase that.
Liar. The unemployment rate when Obama took office was 8.1%. Nice try though.
Republicans don't understand facts.
wrong
By the super rich do you mean Warren Buffet, George Soros, Bill Gates or the entire Hollywood jet set?
you people that argue on democrat or republican are very limited on your vision. divide and conquer..it's working , how many of you have an income of $20 million a year or more? thats the party running the world . not the democans or the republicrats. you sad characters might as well vote a football team to run our nation. is the issue of life a money issue? we invented money, yet we die from it?? idiocy abounds.
RCovit: Yes It does. Doesn't mean we who know, have to join the movement though.
Job1 is the Narwhal big brother information gathering on all American citizens for the past three years to find out what to say, thinking they know what we want to hear. Prove these fools wrong and vote out the current inept, racist crowd in our Whitehouse. I have heard racist racist against anyone who criticizes Obama but the racism I see is from those who voted for him because of the color of his skin. That is real racism.
Rick Perry just pushed Medicaid out of Texas for all women's health issues, not just abortion:
A US Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson told reporters on Thursday that the Obama administration's hands are tied on the issue. “Medicaid law is very clear; a state may not restrict patients’ choice of providers of service...s like mammograms and other cancer screenings, if those providers are qualified to deliver care covered by Medicaid. Patients, not state government officials, should be able to choose the doctors and other health care providers that are best for them and their families. In 2005, Texas requested this same authority to restrict patients’ choices, and the Bush Administration did not grant it to them either.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/texas-loses-entire-womens_n_1349431.html?1331847590
The G.O.P. has alienated Hispanics, blacks and women. I guess in one of their strategy sessions they decided it was time to wage war against seniors and people nearing retirement too.. Talk about a circular firing squad.
Look at the Reps base and it tells the story of what is so wrong with our society today. First of all we are not a theocracy, and thank God for that. Now I'm sure there are good people in the southern states and there are many of them. But the base of the GOP tends to be nothing more than heathens clinching bibles that have parts of it underlined to support their own hate and prejudices of everyone around them they don't agree with. Telling lies about someone is more than OK with them if it fits their needs and everyone who witnesses their deeds knows it. Since stupidity is no excuse, just look at the majority and what they say they believe in and spread about as if it is fact. The facts don't matter to them any more, only their beliefs based on their own wants. Lies are completely fine if they believe it is for their greater good. They want to destroy the soul's free will to embrace God's words or Christ's teachings and somehow try to force that WILL into another person's soul. That don't work and that is contrary to Christs teachings. Even Christ said "I am not your master"! So all these base GOP people wanting to be the Moral Power Brokers of America is real bad for the Christans who actually listen to the teachings and practice what is taught. The true Christians embrace those with the FREE WILL to want to join them just as Christ did. Not run people off pointing fingers at them and labling them some evil thing calling them names. There really isn't any resemblance of Christ's teachings to most of these folks in the GOP base. That's a fact. Just listen to them for a few minutes and you'll know what I'm saying. These people tend to think that Christ was some kind of a white southerner and the south will rise again. I'm sure Christ also knew that many folks want to stop seeking when they're satisfied with what they know. But Christ actually told them to seek the truth, and not be satisfied with the lies that they like. These people of the base will have none of it if they do not agree with the truth. That is their prejudice and indoctrination. They are the bubble people and nothing will ever penetrate those shieds around them to enlighten them. And that is the sad part. Until something shatters that bubble they are in, they see and hear only what they want to believe and their beliefs are based on that! Does that sound Christ like?
Now, I don't believe Medicare will ever become part of FEHB. And, as a Federal employee, I hope this proposal never gets a sniff. It states in the article that rates will go up - that's a no sh1tter... adding tens of millions of sick and dying to Federal employee health plans. How much more do the Republicans have to sh1t on us before enough is enough.
If those lies were really true you have nothing to worry about this fall right? Just like you had nothing to worry about Nov 2010. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Phil, I ain't worried...particularly if you esteemed gentleman gives us Santorum!
don't forget the lower middle class white males, we are the cows the vampire bats suck off of
I would much prefer insurance companies to having to be ruled by the government hacks, any day! The doctors I know would prefer it. It would make our health care system stronger not destroy it the way Obamacare will. The Narwhal room is working overtime, probably adding extra shifts to find in the big brother watching data they have collected what they can say to scare people into thinking this is a bad idea and as they have been doing try to convince us that it is the Republicans rather than Obama and Co. who are out to destroy Medicare. The Republicans are trying to find a way to save medical care for our seniors. Obamacare just wants us gone and out of the way.
Wanna save medicare? Take the "65 or older" out of it. Disband privitized healthcare and make it single payer. The government can pay the doctors instead of health insurances. Basically, cut out the middle men.
Why do we have middle men to determine our healthcare? To MAKE a PROFIT.
Remove the profit, you remove the greed. Remove the greed, you lower the cost across the board.
You can go to any third world country today and pay pennies on the dollar for the same drug, same operations, same everything.
Hell, even Cuba, for Christ sakes!
Has anybody paid any attention to the life expectancy age, it is 78 years old. What do you think is going to happen to the size of the senior population in the year 2026? The size of the Senior pool is going to diminish drastically. The current pressure on Medicare will evaporate!!!! We should be working on methods to keep Medicare solvent until such time, not trying to privatize it. America's cost of health care is at 17% of GDP, while plans that cover every citizen in Taiwan, Sweden, and Canada cost respectly are 7%, 11%, and 10%. Of the 33 industrial nations, America is the only nation that allows insurance companies and employers to own your insurance policy. These companies tack onto the cost their profits before retailing their product. Single payer plans include no proftis of private companies. How many of us believe that insurance companies have the financial incentive to pay benefits? Has anyone looked at how insurance value their products? They forecast premiums against the risk of having to pay benefits and price their products and design their coverage accordingly to make profits. Also, where is it written that I as a Medicare user do not have a choice of doctors, hospitals, and insurance providers? I have a choice of insurance companies each and every year. These companies compete for my business. In a single payer system, health care providers compete with each other and innovate new technologies to attract a greater number of patients, and the middle men in insurance and employers is eliminated. If employers did not have to compensate for providing insurance, then the price of their products would compete more favorably with foreign companies. Employers only cover 64% of their employees now! Did you know that 85% of uninsured Americans are employed? What kind of a country picks winners and losers, fit and unfit while leaving 43 million citizens uncovered and another 50 million uninsured? None of the top 33 that is a fact, except our country. In the three nations mentioned above, in comparison to the U.S. they have higher life expectancy rates, lower infant fatality rates, and higher patient satisfaction rates. It is time to debunk the American Exceptionalism Myth and realize we do not have a monopoly on good ideas. Who can believe that private insurance companies are not rationing health care based on who can financially afford insurance and are least likely to make claims? Did you know that poor health in America places a one trillion dollar drag on America's productivity? A healthy population makes a healthy and competive nation, and that is just a fact. Another fact, in the three countries I mentioned, none of their governments own hospitals or employ doctors. Doctors are paid on a fee for service basis.
Reagan's policies were very socialist compared to the baggers today. Does anyone ever get through the Fox bubble?
Love the way the libs lie about Reagan. They also like to spew the lies that Jesus was a Socialist.
So, the quotes "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's" and "it is easier for a camel to cross the needle's eye than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven" makes you think JC was a Tea Partier??? He hung out with tax collectors, hookers, fought against organized religion, fed the poor, and went to the Desert for 40 days to"Find himself" - I think he was AT LEAST a Democrat!!!
Van Man,
Not to mention the descriptions of the early church as "having all things in common" (their property) or the New Testament saying that "True Religion" is helping "widows and orphans".
The Republicans would turn orphans into school janitors and take away the widows Social Security and Medicare.
Christ had a friend named Saul, changed his name and lifestyle to hang with Jesus(Yeshua, Isa). What Saul had to change to, to hang with Christ , I would assume is the "politics and religion " that Jesus stood for. BTW Saul changed his name to Paul and gave up his fortune. Ironically , unlike todays evangelical lot, Jesus didn't take Pauls money.
Fights: ok..that is just hilarious! Seriously. I've never heard anyone argue Jesus was only out for himself and told the poor to what, pick themselves up by their bootstraps and stop whining? LOL!! Go with that!! You might start a whole new branch of Christianity with that one!! (Wait, wasn't their some preacher who told his followers God wanted them all to be rich? That greed was good? Maybe that branch is taken?)
I'm not going to say that Jesus was a socialist; mainly because I don't think he'd care about political ideology. What I am going to say that some of his ideas and teachings are relatively moderate to liberal. Take for example him throwing out the money-lenders out of the Temple. I would relate that to a political "messiah" (not Obama, even though I like the guy), who would go to the Supreme Court and demand the repeal of Citizens United, and then he would march down to K Street with anti-lobbying activists and throw out the lobbyists. Christ also taught equality and egalitarianism, something that liberals tend to support. I mean, the abolitionist Republicans were pretty liberal on equality, while the anti-abolitionist Democrats were "severely conservative." That, of course, being before the Radical Political Schism of the 20th century.