Aa
Surrogates Admit Romney Will Cut Medicare Benefits For Current Seniors
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to neutralize Democratic attacks on their plan to turn Medicare into a voucher program for future seniors by replaying the GOP’s 2010 campaign against Democratic members of Congress: by attacking President Obama for Medicare cuts he signed into law.
As has been noted repeatedly, that strategy requires Romney and Ryan to disavow Medicare reforms the GOP recently endorsed overwhelmingly as a part of the party’s budget, which Ryan authored.
But the ticket also contends that a key difference between Obama and Romney is that Romney won’t change Medicare at all for existing beneficiaries — only future ones. Recent statements from his advisers and surrogates, suggest the claim is false.
As outlined in a memo the campaign released Saturday, Romney plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, and thus to spend over $700 billion more on the program in the coming decade than the government would spend if the health care law stands.
That commitment would leave Medicare poised for insolvency in 2016, years before he proposes to phase in the voucher system. Which means Romney would have two options: find new Medicare cuts or taxes to extend the life of the program, or preside over its demise.
On Fox News Sunday, Romney adviser Ed Gillespie tried to address the conundrum. “There are other reforms as well. As you know Governor Romney supports increasing over time bringing the Medicare eligibility age in line with the Social Security retirement age.”
But raising the Medicare eligibility age is a benefit cut, and implementing the increase before 2016 would violate Romney’s pledge to leave the program unchanged for people between ages 55 and 65.
Avik Roy, an outside health care adviser to the Romney campaign, admits that committing to billions of dollars in higher Medicare spending in the near-term will make it difficult for Romney to achieve its separate goal of reducing overall federal spending to modern lows. But he notes that Romney could make up the difference elsewhere in the budget or, by “mak[ing] other changes to the Medicare program, such as increased means-testing, that don’t alter the program’s basic structure.”
Further means-testing of Medicare would amount to a benefit cut to current seniors.
These admissions rest on top of the fact that by repealing the Affordable Care Act, Romney would wipe out new Medicare benefits included in the law. Repeal would result in higher payments to doctors and hospitals, and the restoration of overpayments to insurers participating in Medicare advantage. But for beneficiaries, it would re-open the Medicare prescription drug donut hole and eliminate coverage for preventive services and annual checkups that the ACA created.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/surrogates-admit-romney-will-cut-medicare-benefits-for-current-seniors.php
As has been noted repeatedly, that strategy requires Romney and Ryan to disavow Medicare reforms the GOP recently endorsed overwhelmingly as a part of the party’s budget, which Ryan authored.
But the ticket also contends that a key difference between Obama and Romney is that Romney won’t change Medicare at all for existing beneficiaries — only future ones. Recent statements from his advisers and surrogates, suggest the claim is false.
As outlined in a memo the campaign released Saturday, Romney plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, and thus to spend over $700 billion more on the program in the coming decade than the government would spend if the health care law stands.
That commitment would leave Medicare poised for insolvency in 2016, years before he proposes to phase in the voucher system. Which means Romney would have two options: find new Medicare cuts or taxes to extend the life of the program, or preside over its demise.
On Fox News Sunday, Romney adviser Ed Gillespie tried to address the conundrum. “There are other reforms as well. As you know Governor Romney supports increasing over time bringing the Medicare eligibility age in line with the Social Security retirement age.”
But raising the Medicare eligibility age is a benefit cut, and implementing the increase before 2016 would violate Romney’s pledge to leave the program unchanged for people between ages 55 and 65.
Avik Roy, an outside health care adviser to the Romney campaign, admits that committing to billions of dollars in higher Medicare spending in the near-term will make it difficult for Romney to achieve its separate goal of reducing overall federal spending to modern lows. But he notes that Romney could make up the difference elsewhere in the budget or, by “mak[ing] other changes to the Medicare program, such as increased means-testing, that don’t alter the program’s basic structure.”
Further means-testing of Medicare would amount to a benefit cut to current seniors.
These admissions rest on top of the fact that by repealing the Affordable Care Act, Romney would wipe out new Medicare benefits included in the law. Repeal would result in higher payments to doctors and hospitals, and the restoration of overpayments to insurers participating in Medicare advantage. But for beneficiaries, it would re-open the Medicare prescription drug donut hole and eliminate coverage for preventive services and annual checkups that the ACA created.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/surrogates-admit-romney-will-cut-medicare-benefits-for-current-seniors.php
I love the liberal sites they are so funny. They should have a link to comedycentral.com on them.
If this is indeed true (which I've been digging around and haven't been able to confirm it anywhere else), then I can't say I necessarily agree with it.
That said, it's not going to turn me into a Democrat, as hell would have to freeze first!
When the Ryan-Medicare topic first came to light, I said "You have to start somewhere", and I firmly stand behind that.
In my mind, it's a "plan". It might not be the greatest plan in the world, but YOU HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE.
I haven't seen anyone else present a plan, so this one's as good as any right now.
That said, it's not going to turn me into a Democrat, as hell would have to freeze first!
When the Ryan-Medicare topic first came to light, I said "You have to start somewhere", and I firmly stand behind that.
In my mind, it's a "plan". It might not be the greatest plan in the world, but YOU HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE.
I haven't seen anyone else present a plan, so this one's as good as any right now.
So you never heard of Obamas plan? Where are you getting your news el?
I am 60 years old and this subject is of HUGE importance to me. I take this VERY seriously. If something is going to affect me I want to know what, when, how and why of it all. My future depends on it.
I am 60 years old and this subject is of HUGE importance to me. I take this VERY seriously. If something is going to affect me I want to know what, when, how and why of it all. My future depends on it.
Then look at a credible source not some liberal site that is going to push you to vote for Obama and say how bad the other guys are.
If I want to figure something out I am not going to just Weekly Standard or conservative sites I will look for pretty neutral sites to see what someone straight is saying.
If I want to figure something out I am not going to just Weekly Standard or conservative sites I will look for pretty neutral sites to see what someone straight is saying.
Point taken, but honestly Teko, no matter WHEN it starts, it's going to negatively impact SOMEONE.
Applogies that it might effect you and your age-group, specifically, but it'll effect me as much as it'll effect you (once I get to your age).
They have to start somewhere, as I've said, and if they defer the change, and do it in 5 years, then those that are 55 NOW, will be up in arms about it.
Then if they wait 10 years, then those that are 50 presently, will be up in arms about it.
You see my point?
I completely understand your concern, and it's valid, but don't you agree that it has to start somewhere?
Applogies that it might effect you and your age-group, specifically, but it'll effect me as much as it'll effect you (once I get to your age).
They have to start somewhere, as I've said, and if they defer the change, and do it in 5 years, then those that are 55 NOW, will be up in arms about it.
Then if they wait 10 years, then those that are 50 presently, will be up in arms about it.
You see my point?
I completely understand your concern, and it's valid, but don't you agree that it has to start somewhere?
Stop attacking liberals. We are all AMERICANS ! We're in this mess together.
All news sources are biased. You don't have to like the source to discuss the ideas.
All news sources are biased. You don't have to like the source to discuss the ideas.
If the source is flawed then one person or group is already starting the conversation at a disadvantage.
Who is attacking liberals?
Who is attacking liberals?
Simple solution. Universal healthcare for all. Do away with medicare altogether and put those taxes toward universal care.
No way. Government should be out of health care. Tax too high to support a fair system and covers Americans not just anyone in the country. Just asking the rich to pay higher taxes again.
Don't believe all the ugly things you hear about Universal Health Care. I've lived under it my whole life and my experience has been a good one. I guess it's like any other medical program - there are good and bad, and it certainly has it's flaws. However, it does allow people easier access to preventative care which does save money long term. I guess it depends on if you consider health care a right or a priviledge. I consider it a right myself.
So, I know (or this is my understanding) that in the US, citizens aren't denied emergency treatment right? So if you go to the ER, have no insurance and can't afford to be treated, you will be anyway, no? So isn't that actually Universal Care, just done far more expensively because people aren't paying into the pot, they are just taking out? I mean, that costs the taxpayers doesn't it?
So, I know (or this is my understanding) that in the US, citizens aren't denied emergency treatment right? So if you go to the ER, have no insurance and can't afford to be treated, you will be anyway, no? So isn't that actually Universal Care, just done far more expensively because people aren't paying into the pot, they are just taking out? I mean, that costs the taxpayers doesn't it?
So we'll all have to endure yet another tax hike?
Just curious how a truly 'universal healthcare' system would be paid for.
In the UK, you could say that they have universal healthcare, right? Their income-tax base is in the 55-60% range.
In Canada, you could say that they have universal healthcare, right? Their income-tax base in the 55% range.
I'm not arguing that we SHOULDN'T have universal healthcare, I'm just curious how we're going to pay for it.
Just curious how a truly 'universal healthcare' system would be paid for.
In the UK, you could say that they have universal healthcare, right? Their income-tax base is in the 55-60% range.
In Canada, you could say that they have universal healthcare, right? Their income-tax base in the 55% range.
I'm not arguing that we SHOULDN'T have universal healthcare, I'm just curious how we're going to pay for it.
I have to ask El, why do you think our income tax base here is 55 to 60%? I don't pay anywhere close to that and my family is fairly average I think. I wonder if your combining federal and provincial taxes? If you are, then I suppose if you combine federal, provincial and sales tax in some provinces you might come up with that, but certainly not where I live.
However, even if that were true...don't you all pay huge premiums to Insurance companies? And if you actually get sick, don't they cancel them? I guess I have heard as many horror stories about your system as you have about mine..lol. Truth is probably some where in the middle as it always is.
However, even if that were true...don't you all pay huge premiums to Insurance companies? And if you actually get sick, don't they cancel them? I guess I have heard as many horror stories about your system as you have about mine..lol. Truth is probably some where in the middle as it always is.
My cousin lives in TO, and said that his taxes are in the 55% range. Not sure of the exact numbers, but the last conversation I had with him, he said his salary was approximately $100K a year. He said his take home was $50K. I had to assume that his tax-base was 50%'ish.
If I'm off base, I'll stand corrected.
So, that said, what IS the median tax-base in Canadia?
If I'm off base, I'll stand corrected.
So, that said, what IS the median tax-base in Canadia?
How is a service provided to you by other people a right? Not to be rude but that is a liberal mentality that services are rights and not priviledge.
No people are never denied treatment, they my have to go to a different hospital but nothing is denied.
If I had no healthcare and went to the ER I would have a bill. I could apply for medicaid (state assistance program), hospitals have assistance programs, and they also can set up a payment plan. If it is not paid then it goes back to the hospital to write off. So the hospital takes a loss.
The healthcare system in the US I beleive is amazing. We have great Dr's, great techonology and great service. Is it also screwed up...yup.
No people are never denied treatment, they my have to go to a different hospital but nothing is denied.
If I had no healthcare and went to the ER I would have a bill. I could apply for medicaid (state assistance program), hospitals have assistance programs, and they also can set up a payment plan. If it is not paid then it goes back to the hospital to write off. So the hospital takes a loss.
The healthcare system in the US I beleive is amazing. We have great Dr's, great techonology and great service. Is it also screwed up...yup.
And ya know, I have to go along the same lines as Vance on this one.
A homeless person can walk into ANY emergency-room in the country (give or take a handful), and get treatment.
By law, hospitals MUST treat you and stabilize you.
Just do like the Mexicans do, and go to the ER for a cut finger, or a cold, or when your tummy hurts. I see that so much it makes me ILL, and would like it to change. But given the choice of having to fund "universal healthcare", or deal with overcrowded ER's... I'll take an overcrowded ER any day of the week.
A homeless person can walk into ANY emergency-room in the country (give or take a handful), and get treatment.
By law, hospitals MUST treat you and stabilize you.
Just do like the Mexicans do, and go to the ER for a cut finger, or a cold, or when your tummy hurts. I see that so much it makes me ILL, and would like it to change. But given the choice of having to fund "universal healthcare", or deal with overcrowded ER's... I'll take an overcrowded ER any day of the week.
Premiums from an employer can vary. Mine is on the low side and insurance is not cancelled because I get cancer or something like that where your bills are going to be high. Some cheap run by night companies where people buy insurance might be a little fradulent but the major companies are very good.
I think the "Voucher Plan" will include a "Legalize Euthanasia" clause and a free gun to commit suicide!
The old people will need it when their health care money runs out!!!
I keed, I keed!
The old people will need it when their health care money runs out!!!
I keed, I keed!
Employer sponsored health insurance is relatively inexpensive, for many; however, once you no longer have the employer paying part of it, the whole ballgame changes, drastically.
When my husband and I both worked, we each had insurance from our individual work, which cost us each approx $30/week..... not bad and the coverage was pretty good............ now that we are both retired and no longer have the employer kicking in a portion, we pay nearly $1000/mo for that same coverage (we used to pay less than that to cover our whole family for a year)...... not to mention that when my husband's cobra ran out, he couldn't get another policy because of high cholesterol, even though he has no other medical issues, so he had to go on my policy.... Because I was able to maintain the same policy I had when I worked (just have to pay the whole premium myself), it's a group policy so we wouldn't get cancelled if one of us gets ill, but if it weren't a group policy, we would.
We've already been told that premiums will go up the first of the year, so we'll probably have to opt for a higher deductible and less coverage in order to keep premiums where they are.
When my husband and I both worked, we each had insurance from our individual work, which cost us each approx $30/week..... not bad and the coverage was pretty good............ now that we are both retired and no longer have the employer kicking in a portion, we pay nearly $1000/mo for that same coverage (we used to pay less than that to cover our whole family for a year)...... not to mention that when my husband's cobra ran out, he couldn't get another policy because of high cholesterol, even though he has no other medical issues, so he had to go on my policy.... Because I was able to maintain the same policy I had when I worked (just have to pay the whole premium myself), it's a group policy so we wouldn't get cancelled if one of us gets ill, but if it weren't a group policy, we would.
We've already been told that premiums will go up the first of the year, so we'll probably have to opt for a higher deductible and less coverage in order to keep premiums where they are.
Many countries believe the health and welfare of their residents is important and they all are not necessarily ones considered liberal by any means. Some have horrid governments yet they manage to take care of the basic needs of their people.
The health care system in this country is deplorable.
If we stopped the wars right now, we could fund these programs. The only taxes that should be increased are corporate taxes, and ones on the very top.
The health care system in this country is deplorable.
If we stopped the wars right now, we could fund these programs. The only taxes that should be increased are corporate taxes, and ones on the very top.
I do consider it a basic human right and yes, that is probably very much a liberal thought process. Although not sure if it's just a liberal thought as here, when there is an election, the issue of changing the basic structure does not come up at all. Like your system, changes are necessary - we have an incredible amount of fraud and no question it's a huge problem, but the basic structure is good. We also have excellent Dr.'s and as I said I am very happy personally. You'll meet people who are not happy just as you will anywhere, but for people I know, it works. I believe that all should have access to as a healthy population is both more successful and more productive. Preventative is a big deal for sure. And trust me, our Dr's still make a lot of money and, like everywhere, we have good ones and bad ones. We have some world class medical schools.
Here is what I have been told about the US system (now, keep in mind, I have no doubt we too are fed lies about a privatized system just as you are about a Universal system - that's why I say the truth is probably somewhere in the middle).
In a privatized system the Insurance companies dictate what Dr. you can see, when you can go to a hospital, whether or not you get certain meds or procedures. Here, that is completely between the Dr. and patient. No interference. In a privatized system they can cancel if they want to should you become too expensive, or if they consider it a pre existing condition. Here, you are covered at birth end of story until you die. No need for special programs for seniors, etc. You cannot, under any circumstances, lose your insurance. I have heard your premiums can be really expensive. Here, I guess it depends on where you live.
El - as for taxes. The percentage you pay is based on income. I make around $60 K, my husband just over $100. We file as a family. We pay federal taxes of about 36%. We pay no Provincial taxes here at all - it doesn't exist in Alberta. We do both pay Unemployment Insurance and CPP (Canada Pension Plan) on top of it, but that is fairly minimal). Ontario is for sure higher (they have a provincial tax of about 6 or 7 % I believe, so on $100,000 they pay about 43% on average. That's if your single..it's lower if you have children. Highest in the country is Quebec at app. 45%, lowest is Nunavut at 35%. Again, this rate is based on $100,000 a year. Percentages are based on income, but of course you have things like RRSP (same as your 401K) and other things you can do to lower your taxes just like the US. Hope that helps a bit.
Here is what I have been told about the US system (now, keep in mind, I have no doubt we too are fed lies about a privatized system just as you are about a Universal system - that's why I say the truth is probably somewhere in the middle).
In a privatized system the Insurance companies dictate what Dr. you can see, when you can go to a hospital, whether or not you get certain meds or procedures. Here, that is completely between the Dr. and patient. No interference. In a privatized system they can cancel if they want to should you become too expensive, or if they consider it a pre existing condition. Here, you are covered at birth end of story until you die. No need for special programs for seniors, etc. You cannot, under any circumstances, lose your insurance. I have heard your premiums can be really expensive. Here, I guess it depends on where you live.
El - as for taxes. The percentage you pay is based on income. I make around $60 K, my husband just over $100. We file as a family. We pay federal taxes of about 36%. We pay no Provincial taxes here at all - it doesn't exist in Alberta. We do both pay Unemployment Insurance and CPP (Canada Pension Plan) on top of it, but that is fairly minimal). Ontario is for sure higher (they have a provincial tax of about 6 or 7 % I believe, so on $100,000 they pay about 43% on average. That's if your single..it's lower if you have children. Highest in the country is Quebec at app. 45%, lowest is Nunavut at 35%. Again, this rate is based on $100,000 a year. Percentages are based on income, but of course you have things like RRSP (same as your 401K) and other things you can do to lower your taxes just like the US. Hope that helps a bit.
I'm old enough to remember when the insurance companies didn't run everything. Health care was affordable.
In my opinion the mafia protection racket went legal, now they call it health insurance.
As someone who hasn't had it I can tell you that if you are self pay, you automatically get a huge price reduction because you aren't' paying to keep the middle man, the insurance companies afloat.
Health care decisions should not be made by insurance companies. They are in it for the health of their business not for the health keeping people healthy.
In my opinion the mafia protection racket went legal, now they call it health insurance.
As someone who hasn't had it I can tell you that if you are self pay, you automatically get a huge price reduction because you aren't' paying to keep the middle man, the insurance companies afloat.
Health care decisions should not be made by insurance companies. They are in it for the health of their business not for the health keeping people healthy.
I think that would be my fear over health care becoming privatized here. I have no issue with Dr.'s making lots of money...they have a whole lot of education and knowledge and I completely respect that. I do have a problem with other companies profiting that have no real vested interest in keeping people healthy. Universal is run as non profit (not the Dr.'s, just the administration) and I know that helps keep costs down. Plus, preventative care is proven to keep costs down as well. And we know what happens to a society in general when it's population does not have access to health care. We know how important it is.
Yes, I can't help it. I do see it as a basic human right and think it very important to any country. The Dr.s should continue to be well paid, but that middle man must cost gazillions.
Yes, I can't help it. I do see it as a basic human right and think it very important to any country. The Dr.s should continue to be well paid, but that middle man must cost gazillions.
Do you know about Bhutan that small Himalayan country ?
The judge how well the country is doing not by the GNP but by GNH, gross national happiness.
I feel it is a human rights issue. When in Thailand, the people I spoke with were shocked when we described health care in the US.
They have different levels of hospitals there depending on what you can afford.
When a street person disappeared from his usual spot, I asked about him only to discover he'd been taken to the hospital.
How anyone can still claim that we are the greatest country with such a lack of care for our citizens, is beyond me. It's sad, really.
The judge how well the country is doing not by the GNP but by GNH, gross national happiness.
I feel it is a human rights issue. When in Thailand, the people I spoke with were shocked when we described health care in the US.
They have different levels of hospitals there depending on what you can afford.
When a street person disappeared from his usual spot, I asked about him only to discover he'd been taken to the hospital.
How anyone can still claim that we are the greatest country with such a lack of care for our citizens, is beyond me. It's sad, really.
No, I didn't know about Bhutan, but sounds to me like they have their priorities straight. I like that...gnh. And really, when people are happy they are more productive and prosperous and I bet if one looked, there is a low crime rate as well. Probably low substance abuse too. I remember having a moment in Jamaica. I'm not much of a resort dweller, I like to meet real people living their lives. I was up in the mountains in a small village. These folks were living in little one room shacks. They had very little in terms of material things. But they looked out for one another. They had music, they were smiling, and what little they had they were happy to share with me if I wanted. I remember thinking these folks know some secret to life that we in North America don't. I have had experiences like that in so many countries....it makes one think doesn't it.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
