Posted by Tina
Medicare is unsustainable in its current form. This isn’t a Republican or Democrat opinion it is the opinion of the Trustees of Medicare and Social Security.
Republicans have been trying for decades to educate and inform he public about Medicare running out of money. Republicans have warned that doing nothing will mean that care for the elderly will be cut back drastically and the cost to future generations will be burdonsome. Republicans want to fix the problem so that the elderly are covered and young people are saved from the burden of having more money subtracted from their paychecks to pay for it. Republicans want to create a better system for younger Americans that won’t run out of funding and won’t burden future generations.
The Democrat plan is to keep the broken system and use Ryans plan to scare the elderly into voting for them in the coming election. This is insanity! It is insane to keep a wasteful, mismanaged program when there are other options. It is insane that democrats stoop to mud slinging for political gain rather than taking this problem seriously and offering their own ideas to fix it.
The Ryan budget plan includes a gradual painless fix for Medicare.
Paul Ryan is a serious guy. He has worked hard to create a budget and a workable solution to fix Medicare.
What are democrats doing? Acting like high school kids! Rather than coming up with a budget or Medicare repair plan of their own they are making silly (lying) political commercials.
This is how they explain what the Ryan plan proposal would mean for your grandma:
The video is clever, entertaining (and juvenile). The subject is deadly serious.
When confronted about their hateful, nonproductive, unhelpful position they become mouthy, disrespectful and pouty…and they run away!:
Think about this for a minute. Ryan’s plan is just a proposal. Democrats in Congress are capable and free to debate, alter, fine tune and and improve upon this plan. That is how the process is supposed to work. But just as they behaved when writing Obamacare, plotting and scheming behind closed doors and blocking participation by the entire elected body, they refuse to participate with Republican members to fix our medicare problem.
Ryan has vowed to continue to try to pass legislation to fix medicare. Democrats have decided that using the issue as a weapon is wise…they don’t have a plan and they won’t discuss the Ryan plan.
What would you do?
I guess denying that social security is trillions in the red is the same as fixing it, if you happen to be a democrat.
Dems have a plan…it’s called more taxes.
Good points Jack…same old dems…same old plan.
The current form of administration need some work, but, mostly, all we have to do to make it work is … altogether now … pay what it costs.
And as even those Republican farmers in New York seem to want it … well?
What you said, using this issue as a weapon – that’s how the Dems do everything. Look at Measure A! Oh my! We’re trying to DISENFRANCHISE THE STUDENTS! We’re making a power grab! Etc. Then Brown turns around and holds a gun to our college students’ heads – more fear-mongering.
Hey, remember those great paintings by Norman Rockwell, the Four Freedoms? One of those was Freedom from Fear. Our own president is trying to scare us like a bunch of 8 year olds in the garage room on Saturday night. I think he’s really scared!
Remember it was Bill Clinton and the Republican majority congress that revised social security in the 90s. Im one of those that had my full retirement raised to 67.5 years old.
It was also George W. Bush who got slammed by the Democratic congress for trying to address the social security problem his first years in office.
So why the problem now with fixing the problem? Look who is in charge the democrats again. Who would have ever thought Bill Clinton would offer to work with Paul Ryan to once again tackle the problem. Maybe pigs can fly.
Big deal Libby…you won one in a split contest with a phony tea party candidate acting as spoiler. I wouldn’t let it go to your head.
To “Pay what it costs” requires first that the people of America actually HAVE JOBS and/or the incentive to make money. A problem you say just “needs some work”. Man are you out of touch with what your guy has wrought!
Why don’t YOU come with a plan, Tina?
Ryan’s plan won’t work. Ryan’s plan depends on a 4% unemployment rate for ANY of his ideas to work. A 4% unemployment rate is NOT going to happen in a partisan environment.
We need an incentive to work.
Working for less than my father made is NOT an incentive. working hard and having it all stolen by the evil vermin who don’t work, but instead write laws for themselves to take my hard earned wages is NOT an incentive to work.
“you won one in a split contest with a phony tea party candidate acting as spoiler. ”
How was he a “phony” TEA party candidate?
Because he was a democrat?
But, but, but, you keep saying the TEA Party is open to all!!!!! I went to the meeting! They said ALL were welcome!
You mean, you mean, you baggerz LIED?
Oh NOOOOOOOO!!!!
Just kidding. Don’t sweat it, sweetie.
We NEVER believed you when you said it!
Perhaps entitlements do need to be cut, but why would Ryan open himself up to a boatload of criticism and Democrat misrepresentation by even mentioning Medicare and Social Security, especially since his plan would do nothing for many years to come? What we need are real cuts that happen immediately, like today. And forget cuts. We need outright elimination of many programs. Here is s short list: NASA, foreign aid, Department of Education, National Science Foundation, Department of Agriculture, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, UN, college loan program, HUD, Farm Bureau, food stamps, earned income credit, FEMA, Federal Reserve, IMF, Army Corps of Engineers, most of the Justice Department, most federal judges, all military on foreign land, etc. I’m sure other readers can add many more to this list. The point is, there are hundreds of programs to be cut long before you even have to consider Medicare or Social Security.
Q:”How was he a “phony” TEA party candidate?
Because he was a democrat?”
Ahhhh…you’ve stepped in it again. Making assumptions, running your crappy attitude, accusing when a little curiosity would serve much better:
http://theothermccain.com/2011/05/10/ny-26-special-election-stealth-democrat-crazy-jack-davis-plays-tea-party-spoiler/
Reminiscent of other elections:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20044674-503544.html
http://forums.cnet.com/7723-6130_102-521002.html
They cant win if they dont cheat and they certainly don’t bother to debate the issues…nor, it appears, do you.
Not to worry “sweetie”…you’re not winning any points by being a snarky butthead without an argument.
Cool…I get to be first on the block to be visited by an apparition…how’s it going Soaps Ghost?
Medicare (and SS) needs to be fixed whether or not we also make immediate cuts like the ones you listed. They will just keep raising the rates otherwise. Businesses will hire fewer people and young people will have smaller paychecks. When my dad started paying into SS they only took 1% out for SS.
There may be a better way than what Ryan has proposed. By refusing to discuss or debate it the Democrats in Congress prove they don’t care if it Medicare falls apart.
Hospitals and doctors are already refusing to accept Medicare…they are opting out. The path for democrats to a single payer system will be built on the misfortunes of senior citizens who lose treatment options and doctors and medical people who lose their jobs or practices.
http://www.aapsonline.org/newsoftheday/001097
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703649004575437311393854940.html
Also, Obamacare is set to cut Medicare to shreds:
That ad is very silly, and not very constructive to civil debate.
One could say the same thing about the “death panels” lie. I seem to recall you defending that one, Tina. How is that not a “scare tactic?”
Chris which ad is very silly and not constructive to civil debate?
When a few unelected bureaucrats in Washington DC have the power to decide whether or not a legal drug or treatment can or will be administered, “death panel” is not an inaccurate description. They have the power, not doctors and patients regarding personal care. This is exactly what the health care bill passed by Reid and Pelosi and signed into law by Obama is set up to do. It is not a “scare tactic” because it conveys the truth. I will grant you it is an attention grabbing method.
The ad above pushing grandma over the cliff is also attention grabbing…but it doesn’t have an ounce of truth in it. The Ryan plan is designed to preserve and strengthen Medicare for people over 55 while creating a more personalized and equitable plan for future generations that ensures they and their doctors have control over health care decisions.
Tina: “Chris which ad is very silly and not constructive to civil debate?”
The “throw Grandma from a cliff” ad. I was agreeing with you.
“When a few unelected bureaucrats in Washington DC have the power to decide whether or not a legal drug or treatment can or will be administered, “death panel” is not an inaccurate description. They have the power, not doctors and patients regarding personal care. This is exactly what the health care bill passed by Reid and Pelosi and signed into law by Obama is set up to do.”
As far as I’m aware, this is completely untrue. No such power exists. If you believe otherwise, please show me where in the ACA this is written.
Its official name: The Independent Payment Advisory Board
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Payment_Advisory_Board
This description sounds reasonable but how will it play out in practice? This is what concerns me and others who have looked at whats happening in other government run health care programs, including Medicare, Medicade, the VA, the Canadian and British systems and others.
This WSJ article shows how restrictive and limiting government health care becomes over time as these panels become entrenched decision makers:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574344900152168372.html
Criticism of these panels doesnt only come from the right:
http://familyfoundation.org/2010/11/left-wing-economist-guru-krugman-admits-to-death-panels-in-obamacare-amanpours-reaction-sustains-his-truth/
Advising Obama, Reid, Pelosi on healthcare is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Rahms brother, who loves the British system and has said some incredibly cold and calculating things about healthcare, human life and his admiration of death panel formulas:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/item_PU6S0iok2FbS368B7d7mAM;jsessionid=102496C4D42A483D0DEF15A722997DCA
I can’t imagine putting the health of my family in the hands of such indecent and calculating minds. My father enjoyed 12 years of life because of innovations made possible in our free market health care industry. I know a woman who was born with enough heart/lung problems that her mother was advised she likely would not live. Surgeons took a chance on Maria, her case made medical history. She is alive and well today because she was NOT deemed “unworthy” of treatment. She wouldn’t have been given the chance in England.
These are real world examples that tug at me warning of dark consequences when we embrace central planning. We must do everything we can to preserve our free market system.
Ryans plan may not be perfect but it does seek to put free market principles back into Medicare and our health care system. This is the direction America must take if we are to continue to be a humane and decent country.
Tina, you originally stated that the health care bill as written sets up a panel that decides which legal treatments can be administered and which will not be.
Now, you are admitting that this isn’t true, and that you are merely concerned about what might happen at some point in the future.
The “death panels,” as you admit, do not exist. They are a lie designed to “scare your grandma.”
The ACA does not set up a government-run healthcare plan, like England has. It is primarily a free market system; all Americans will be getting their insurance from private companies.
Also, the editorial by Betsy McCaughey you linked to is a gross distortion of Emanuel’s work. FactCheck puts it best when it says “the context makes it clear that Emanuel is describing the implications of a particular philosophical trend, not offering a policy prescription.” McCaughey’s out of context smears provide yet another example of conservatives not being able to read and understand academic writing. Emanuel never advocated for the positions she accuses him of–this is a guy who actually opposes euthanasia! The following links should help clear these misconceptions up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/health/policy/25zeke.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/12/michele-bachmann/bachmann-says-obama-health-adviser-thinks-health-c/
http://www.factcheck.org/tag/ezekiel-emanuel/
http://mediamatters.org/research/200908280011
I think Krugman’s statements were idiotic and irresponsible, but for the record, he claims that he did not mean to use the phrase “death panels” literally.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/death-panels-and-sales-taxes/
“I said something deliberately provocative on This Week, so I think Id better clarify what I meant (which I did on the show, but it cant hurt to say it again.)
So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on death panels and sales taxes. What I meant is that
(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what theyre willing to pay for not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much were willing to spend for extreme care
(b) well need more revenue several percent of GDP which might most plausibly come from a value-added tax
And if we do those two things, were most of the way toward a sustainable budget.
By the way, Ive said this before.
Now, you may declare that this is politically impossible. But medical costs must be controlled somehow, or nothing works. And is a modest VAT really so much more implausible than ending the mortgage interest deduction?
So thats my plan. And I believe that some day maybe in the first Chelsea Clinton administration it will actually happen.”
I am happy for your father and for the young woman who was treated, but they and others like them face no danger from the ACA; it is wrong to claim otherwise.
Chris writes: “you originally stated that the health care bill as written sets up a panel that decides which legal treatments can be administered and which will not be. ** Now, you are admitting that this isn’t true…”
Is that sowhat part of “The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, is a United States Government agency created in 2010 by sections 3403 and 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” was unclear to you?
The bill sets up a (unelected/unregulated) panel that will have the power of life and death in its decisions making process.
“all Americans will be getting their insurance from private companies.”
You are young and naive. (I know you’re not stupid)
What do you think all of the waivers are about? What do you thnk will happen when the year for those waivers is up and health insurers raise premiums and companies are forced to drop coverage and their employees then opt for the government option (because it’s cheaper)? How long till everyone buys the government (cheaper) option? (which is exactly what was intended by this complex, insane, covert piece of crap legislation)
“the editorial by Betsy McCaughey you linked to is a gross distortion of Emanuel’s work…”
The quotes were from the horses mouth! You can make excuses for him and explain them away but in the end the mind of the liberal is “we must make it fair” and to do so “we must control costs and when possible outcomes”. This thinking leads to central planning and the crushing of personal choice.
The panel will decide which treatments we Americans will have and which we will not and how long we must wait for treatment and which people are expendable because they just don’t have the potential to contribute that a younger person, a less disabled person has.
The language is all dressed up to sound very civil but when it is put into practice that is exactly what happens.
“…another example of conservatives not being able to read and understand academic writing…”
Chris that is a bit uncalled for. It makes you seem such a snob. Are you sure you want to go down this road? Adademic writing of this variety uses a lot of fancy words and phrasing but when you boil it all down there are basics that cannot be easily denied. Here’s the reality:
Medicare and Medicade have not been meeting obligations for years. They do not pay what treatments cost. Doctors and hospitals that accept Medicare/Medicade patients have to absorb the LOSS this represents (or refuse to carry those patients). They absorb the loss by raising prices on services and by charging other insurances and the uninsured more for their services. This is why medcal costs have risen so drastically since the sixties when Medicare was introduced.
Obama care will add MORE of these patients to the system. Once most Americans are forced into the government system savings will have to come from somewhere. The only thing left is to eliminate services…the death panel will decide what is no longer covered and allowed.
You can object to its being called a death panel buit you cannot deny its exostence or that its purpiose is to decide what services the government will allow. I don’t give a crap about emanuels philosophy…or how intellectual it is…the bottom line is I don’t what him and others like him making my healthcare decisions. I live in America! I want to make those decision with my doctor and my family. I may not be able to afford all that is available but I don’t want to deny others the option and I don’t wnat to be denied the chance to raise the money myself.
“(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what theyre willing to pay for…”
The liberal mindset does not allow talk about what would bring the cost of services down. They only want to discuss how to “control” costs. Why is that? Because to bring costs down the government has to back itself out of the health care market, that’s why. Liberals love big government and lots of control so they refuse to consider the option even if it works.
Liberals are willing for all of us to ultimtely pay a higher premium for an inferior product just so they can be in control! That is SICK!!!
“well need more revenue several percent of GDP which might most plausibly come from a value-added tax…”
Which will further KILL the economy and dry up the base from which said revenue is supposed to flow.
” But medical costs must be controlled somehow,…”
Are you at all interested in how to bring those costs down?
Let me ask you something. Why don’t we have to “control” the cost of vehicles, entertainment, furniture, laptops, refrigerators? Here’s another question. What do you suppose would happen to the price of those items if the government got involved? Just the bureaucratic layer would add significantly to the cost!!!
Big flat screen TV’s hit the market 5 years ago at $6K+. Not too many of us could afford them. Now they are down to $1000 to $2000. The same would happen in the medical industry if government bowed out and the free market were allowed to work.
You have a lot to learn my friend the least of which is there is no free lunch. Allso true…when lunch is heavily subsidised and controlled by giovernment it gets very very expensive.
“they and others like them face no danger from the ACA”
Cancer patients are already being denied certain drugs. This trend will continue and will get worse not better. In England they are waiting years for procedures and dying in the process. And yes, Obamacare wasn’t set up like Englands plan…but it will become exactly like Englands plan in no time…in time for you and Chelsea to be adversely affected by it. Of course she won’t notice because she is part of the elite exempt few.
Before you trust what government agencies and representatives, or intellectuals, tell you consider this short history lesson:
1965 CBO estimated that Medicare Pt. A cost would be $9 billion by 1990; instead the cost was $66 billion in 1990. They were wrong by a mere 633%.
1965 CBO estimated that all (Part A plus Part B) Medicare cost would be $12 billion by 1990; instead the cost was $107 billion in 1990, and today it has a stratospheric total unfunded liability of $61.6 trillion.
1987 CBO estimated that subsidy for Medicaid special hospitals would be $100 million by 1992; instead the cost was $11 billion in 1992. Theres a nice 10,900% cost markup for you.
These statistics were alarming for the timethey are worse now just for the sheer insanity of the numbers. But when you realize that these numbers also represent the degree to which government will make future decision (what will be allowed and what will not) it becomes a real healthcare nightmare scenario. It will be even more unsustainable than the current entitlement programs.
A VAT tax will mean that you pay a lot more for EVERYTHING you buywhich means the buying power of your personal paycheck will decrease. THINK MAN!
Tina: “Is that sowhat part of “The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, is a United States Government agency created in 2010 by sections 3403 and 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” was unclear to you?”
How about the part where it says “this board determines who gets what kind of care and when?” Oh, wait. It doesn’t say that. You’re only pretending that it does. In fact, the bill explicitly PROHIBITS the board from regulating coverage.
“The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary costsharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf
“What do you think all of the waivers are about?”
I don’t know, why don’t you look them up and find out? Anyone can apply for a waiver. Has your business tried? (Is your business even big enough to be effected by the ACA?)
“What do you thnk will happen when the year for those waivers is up and health insurers raise premiums and companies are forced to drop coverage and their employees then opt for the government option (because it’s cheaper)? How long till everyone buys the government (cheaper) option?”
What on earth are you talking about? As you well know, THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT OPTION available under the ACA. I’m completely baffled as to why you would say something like this; you know it’s not true, and it’s pointless to lie about something that everyone who hasn’t been living under a rock for the past two years knows is not true. So again, what on earth are you talking about?
“The quotes were from the horses mouth!”
The quotes were cropped, and Emanuel’s other statements which prove he does not favor rationing or withholding care from certain patients were ignored. If you read the full context, it is clear that he is not endorsing rationing care.
“The panel will decide which treatments we Americans will have and which we will not and how long we must wait for treatment and which people are expendable because they just don’t have the potential to contribute that a younger person, a less disabled person has.”
I’ve asked you to provide just one citation from the ACA which proves any of these incredible accusations. The closest you’ve come to doing this so far has been to describe a panel which is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN from doing any of the heinous things you list above.
If you can’t provide any evidence for these claims, then why do you continue to believe they are true?
Tina, let’s look at the history of the “death panels” lie for a moment. When Sarah Palin first trotted it out, it wasn’t even about the IPAB; it was about voluntary end of life counseling for dying patients. She and others lied, and claimed that seniors would be FORCED to receive this counseling, and that the purpose of the counseling was to encourage them to end their lives sooner.
The IPAB only began being referred to as a “death panel” once the original lie was publicly demolished. Doesn’t that tell you something about how honest the perpetuators of such nonsense are?
Is there any lie you won’t defend, as long as it comes from your side of the aisle?
Excuse me Chris you said death panels werent in the ACA and I showed you the portion of the bill that creates it. Why are you denying the existence of this newly created government panel by changing the subject?
“The proposal shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums under section 1818, 1818A, or 1839, increase Medicare beneficiary costsharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and copayments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.”
Which is why a “panel” has been created!
An “independent” panel!! Do you think the word independent is an accident? The “proposal” doesn’t impose any of these restrictions, exclusion, etc…THE INDEPENDENT PANEL CAN AND WILL DO WHAT IT DEEMS NECESSARY TO HOLD COSTS DOWN AS IT IS CHARGED TO DO!
http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/?p=3478
How will they hold costs down, Chris, with magic beans…fairy dust?
This effectively changes the way we even think about health care. Instead of the focus being on patients and care by consumers and doctors we will now have bean counters in DC adding up figures and making decisions based solely on cost control needs.
Right now the EPA is making decisions that were once made in Congress by our representatives. The same thing will happen in this system with HHS and other government agencies taking the initiative to enact regulations the panel recommends.
Waivers (1000 of them as of March 7)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20040244-503544.html
The waivers are being granted because the cost for these companies to comply with the law would be excessive and/or the mandates impossible to meet. The waiver is designed to exempt these companies (temporarily) from compliance until 2014 when all of these employees (some 2.6 million people) will shift from an employer paid plan to an Obamacare plan. (Reids entire state got an exemption) How dumb is the legislation when so many people have to be exempted from it and how convenient that so many of them helped shove this monster through (like AARP and unions)?
All businesses will be affected by this bill. I buy very good insurance for my employees. I think my insurer is one of the companies that got a waiverNEXT year (if Im still in business) I expect we will lose this good coverage when the premium goes through the roof and I cant cover it for my employees anymoreat least a 30% higher premium is expected. (Remember, we were told we could keep our insurance and costs would not go up)
THERE IS NO GOVERNMENT OPTION available under the ACA and I’ve asked you to provide just one citation from the ACA which proves any of these incredible accusations.
There is no government option (see #4 below) and there is no takeover of hospitals or anything that would look like a government takeoverHOWEVER:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2010/12/obamacare-government-takeover
1. For the first time in our nation’s history, the government will order citizens to spend our private money on a private product — health insurance — and will penalize us if we refuse.
2. Any employer with more than 50 employees will be told it must provide government-decreed health insurance to its workers — or face financial penalties.
3. Government has the authority to the destroy the private insurance market by preventing insurers from earning a reasonable return. If companies charge “unreasonable” premiums, as determined by Health Sec. Kathleen Sebelius, she can block them from participating in a huge sector of the market — as she already has threatened to do. Michael Barone calls this “gangster government.”
4. The law provides the foundation — and $6 billion — for a stealth public plan. The Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP) program will help set up non-profit, member-run health insurance companies in all 50 states.
5. As many as 80 to 100 million people will not have the option of keeping the coverage they have now, per President Obama’s promise. According to analyst Allisa A. Meade of McKinsey & Company, they will be switched into other policies after the insurance mandates take effect in 2014 ?– whether they like it or not.
6. The federal government will determine what health benefits are essential — or not.
7. Doctors and hospitals will face an avalanche of new reporting rules to make sure they are providing health care that fits the government’s definition of “quality care.”
8. The legislation creates the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute that is modeled on rationing boards in other countries with government-run health systems. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence in the U.K., for example, has a record of denying access to the newest drugs, with government officials often deciding they just aren’t worth the cost. That’s already happening here with the FDA’S withdrawal of its approval for Avastin last week.
9. States are being treated like contractors to the federal government, ordered to expand Medicaid to levels that could bankrupt them, and to set up new Health Exchange bureaucracies lest the federal government sweep in and do it for them.
10. Obamacare expands Medicaid, the worst health plan in the country, to cover 84 million people by 2019, stretching yet another of our government-run health programs to the bursting point.
These represent massive government intrusion into our health care system and choices.”
The bill doesn’t create a public option, per say, but it creates a path to complete government control. Private care will wither and die because the government sets it up to be squeezed out…you’d think it was conceived in Chicago!
Sarah Palinblah blahDoesn’t that tell you something about how honest the perpetuators of such nonsense are?
Sarah Palin made a statement and the left decided what she meant by her remarks then went about discrediting her based on their assumption (and pompous dislike of Palin). I dont give a rip about what Palin said, it has nothing to do with my position or concerns.
The fact that you dont have even the slightest concern about having your healthcare controlled by the government is very troubling to me. Your lack of concern about what it will cost you, in money and freedom, in the future is even more troubling. I chalk it up to a couple of factors. You are used to being subsidized by government and experience it as a good thing and you have yet to face paying the tab or being unreasonably constrained by government regulation.
Chris I dont lie on these pages. I have no reason to lie. As far as Im concerned we are being conned by a bunch of pros. The left has wanted to take over healthcare since the thirties. It represents a big chunk of GDP and they want to control it.
I have explained to you what I mean by death panel and how I arrived at my conclusions. I have shown you where in the law this panel is put in place and described how I think it will work. I have shown you how the government has made assertions about Medicare costs in the past that proved to be grossly inaccurate, a lesson we should heed today when the governmenttells us what it proposes to do and how much it will cost. You have a right to disagree but you dont have a right to call me a liar simply because you disagree.
Tina: “Excuse me Chris you said death panels werent in the ACA and I showed you the portion of the bill that creates it. Why are you denying the existence of this newly created government panel by changing the subject?”
I have not changed the subject. I responded directly to your unfounded accusations. I asked you to prove to me that this panel can do any of the things that you claim would make it a “death panel.” You have failed to do this. I even showed you that this panel is specifically prohibited from doing any of the things that would make it, according to you, a “death panel.” It cannot make recommendations that ration care. You are ignoring this fact.
“Death panels” IS a lie. The ACA is a pressing subject, and deserves to be debated and discussed seriously. Those who use the phrase “death panels” are not interested in discussing it seriously, and I am not interested in discussing the topic with any of them.
In response to the question that was asked in this article. What would you do?
I would offer congress an alternative plan to that of the Ryan plan.
The following is my plan that I would offer congress.
Congress needs to pass legislation which clarifies the exact intent and purpose of section 13301 of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 which made it a violation of federal law to use Social Security revenue for non-Social Security purposes and then update it to include the terms Medicaid and Medicare revenue and the use of these funds for non-Medicaid and Medicare purposes.
This would eliminate the current problem congress has with double taxation of the taxpayers when they borrow money from these types of funds and use it for other purposes than that which it was originally intended.
This double taxation of the people for the same purpose (the funding of social security, Medicaid. and Medicare) occurred due to the fact that the revenue received from social security, Medicaid, and Medicare, and the revenue receive to replace these funds comes from the same source, the taxpayers.
More importantly, this would eliminate governmental overspending which increases the federal debt instead of reducing it.
This is due to the fact when the federal government borrows from the social security fund, the Medicaid fund, and the Medicare fund, it does nothing more than increase the debt that they owe to the above stated funds which the federal government has an obligational duty to repay.
Furthermore, the congress needs to include a clause within the new legislation which would define the intent and purpose of The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
(PAYGO)
Thus assuring congressional compliance to the current section of PAYGO which states
PAYGO subjects mandatory spending to sequestration, with specified exemptions. Exemptions from sequestration include Social Security; most unemployment benefits; veterans benefits; interest on the debt; federal retirement; and the low-income entitlements such as Medicaid, SNAP (food stamps), and Supplemental Security Income.2 The major remaining mandatory programs, which are subject to sequestration, include most Medicare payments, farm price supports, vocational rehabilitation basic state grants, mineral leasing payments to states, the Social Services block grant, and many smaller programs (Sequestration is also defined as confiscation)
________________________________________________________________________
The following is something one needs to remember.
Why did congress originally set up the social security, Medicaid, and Medicare, spending as being off-budget spending?
OFF-BUDGET SPENDING AND THE POLITICAL PROCESS
Off-budget spending is the epitome of fiscal irresponsibility and governmental hypocrisy. OMB’s proposal to include off-budget outlays as part of the budget should be welcomed by all those who are seriously concerned about budgetary control. The political role of off-budget spending is to allow politicians to preach fiscal responsibility and to practice political profligacy. (extravagance- reckless spending)