Medicare Trustees Cast Doubt on ObamaCare Health Savings

[Guest]

Wonder how long it will take the main stream liberal media to report on this.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/medicare-trustees-cast-doubt-obamacare-h

[Guest]

Wonder how long it will take the main stream liberal media to report on this.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/medicare-trustees-cast-doubt-obamacare-hLook, I'm not fan of the bill that was passed that is now referred to as ObamaCare. I would have preferred a Medicare-based single payer system that covered all Americans, with people who could afford it paying a lot for such coverage, with strong tort reform built-in, with strong limitations on what would be paid for and what wouldn't, with a much greater emphasis on paying for results rather than treatment--more like the Mayo Clinic/Cleveland Clinic model.

But to now lay the total responsibility for the faulted plan that was passed solely on the doorstep of the POTUS doesn't seem right. What about all those members of the 535 who passed this abomination, who were paid by the lobbyists to include or exclude what the special interests wanted, who created such a Rube Goldberg piece of legislation? The President wanted dramatic expansion of healthcare coverage for tens of millions of Americans who relied solely on ER treatment or had no healthcare at all. He got that. But Congress mucked up the rest of it pretty badly.

There sure is enough blame to go around with this legislation. But other than the fact that the POTUS didn't simply veto the doggone thing and demand better, I find it almost entertaining that his political opponents want to lay the blame for the entire abomination of a bill in his lap, asserting that it was all of his design. It seems to me that nothing could be farther from the truth.

[Guest]

Look, I'm not fan of the bill that was passed that is now referred to as ObamaCare. I would have preferred a Medicare-based single payer system that covered all Americans, with people who could afford it paying a lot for such coverage, with strong tort reform built-in, with strong limitations on what would be paid for and what wouldn't, with a much greater emphasis on paying for results rather than treatment--more like the Mayo Clinic/Cleveland Clinic model.

But to now lay the total responsibility for the faulted plan that was passed solely on the doorstep of the POTUS doesn't seem right. What about all those members of the 535 who passed this abomination, who were paid by the lobbyists to include or exclude what the special interests wanted, who created such a Rube Goldberg piece of legislation? The President wanted dramatic expansion of healthcare coverage for tens of millions of Americans who relied solely on ER treatment or had no healthcare at all. He got that. But Congress mucked up the rest of it pretty badly.

There sure is enough blame to go around with this legislation. But other than the fact that the POTUS didn't simply veto the doggone thing and demand better, I find it almost entertaining that his political opponents want to lay the blame for the entire abomination of a bill in his lap, asserting that it was all of his design. It seems to me that nothing could be farther from the truth.

The blame (credit?) for the passage that is the abomination known as Obamacare can be directly and succinctly laid on the heads of Barack Obama and The Democrat Legislature. NOT ONE Republican voted for this bill. 28 Democrats had enough American values left in them to vote with the 178 Republicans who voted against this massive government power grab.

To summarize; THE BLAME IS TOTALLY ON OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS, PERIOD.

http://keyboardmilitia.com/2010/05/18/the-obamacare-voting-record-we-wont-forget/

[Guest]

The blame (credit?) for the passage that is the abomination known as Obamacare can be directly and succinctly laid on the heads of Barack Obama and The Democrat Legislature. NOT ONE Republican voted for this bill. 28 Democrats had enough American values left in them to vote with the 178 Republicans who voted against this massive government power grab.

To summarize; THE BLAME IS TOTALLY ON OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS, PERIOD.

http://keyboardmilitia.com/2010/05/18/the-obamacare-voting-record-we-wont-forget/

So Obama and the other Democrats have un-American values? I'm really beginning to dislike you. One could make an argument that you and others like you who berate and belittle and otherwise show disdain and hate for our President are the ones who are un-American.

[Guest]

Look, I'm not fan of the bill that was passed that is now referred to as ObamaCare. I would have preferred a Medicare-based single payer system that covered all Americans, with people who could afford it paying a lot for such coverage, with strong tort reform built-in, with strong limitations on what would be paid for and what wouldn't, with a much greater emphasis on paying for results rather than treatment--more like the Mayo Clinic/Cleveland Clinic model.

But to now lay the total responsibility for the faulted plan that was passed solely on the doorstep of the POTUS doesn't seem right. What about all those members of the 535 who passed this abomination, who were paid by the lobbyists to include or exclude what the special interests wanted, who created such a Rube Goldberg piece of legislation? The President wanted dramatic expansion of healthcare coverage for tens of millions of Americans who relied solely on ER treatment or had no healthcare at all. He got that. But Congress mucked up the rest of it pretty badly.

There sure is enough blame to go around with this legislation. But other than the fact that the POTUS didn't simply veto the doggone thing and demand better, I find it almost entertaining that his political opponents want to lay the blame for the entire abomination of a bill in his lap, asserting that it was all of his design. It seems to me that nothing could be farther from the truth.



Kahuna,

I love reading your posts because you can tell that you put a lot of thought into them. You are well informed, rational and logical. Thank you for keeping or at least attempting to keep it real.

I got an email the other day and it wasn't attributed to anyone. I'd just like to pass on a small portion of the message as it could help us all understand others and how we might better react to them.

"Many people are like garbage trucks. They run around full of garbage, full of frustration, full of anger, and full of disappointment. As their garbage piles up, they look for a place to dump it. And if you let them, they’ll dump it on you.

So when someone wants to dump on you, don’t take it personally. Just smile, wave :wave:, wish them well, and move on. Believe me. You’ll be happier.”

I haven't been very good at doing this, but I'm going to really give it a try.

Xavier

[Guest]

... NOT ONE Republican voted for this bill. 28 Democrats had enough American values left in them to vote with the 178 Republicans who voted against this massive government power grab...Richie, if you simply count the votes, you are 100% correct.

But are you going to try to convince any of us that all those that didn't vote for the bill got nothing inserted into it that they or their lobbyists might have wanted? This abomination of a piece of legislation is the product of back-room wrangling by members of both parties? Large parts of the bill were written by the special interests who benefitted. This thing was passed with the Democrats in control of all three branches of government. For that they must accept the responsibility.

But if you're going to try to convince us all those who didn't vote for the bill struggled to get a much better bill created, were all clean as the driven snow as far as special interest influence was concerned, and all kept their hands in their pockets as the tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions were being passed around by the lobbyists trying to get "their stuff" included in the bill, if you're going to suggest that the "no" votes were something other than the GOP simply refusing to vote for a Democrat bill, key parts of which were desired by the POTUS...then I'm going to tell you, no I am not in the market for that bridge in Brooklyn that you're trying to sell.

This was a failure of the entire administration and Congress at the time the bill was passed. No one should get a free pass because they acted in a high-minded and responsible fashion, because they didn't. No one should be complimented for voting yes or no on this bill. No, this was a Congress who voted the way they did for purely political reasons, not in an effort to serve the American public. No way should any of the "no voters" be complimented for having a better idea and simply losing the good fight. That's not the way it was, and you know it!

[Guest]

VK; are you kidding me. Republicans were shut out of the process, period and you know it. Don't b.s. me. Their input was not welcome and not sought and not accepted.

You sure can talk, but your thesis is fatally flawed.

[Guest]

So Obama and the other Democrats have un-American values? I'm really beginning to dislike you. One could make an argument that you and others like you who berate and belittle and otherwise show disdain and hate for our President are the ones who are un-American.

American values, such as individual freedom and self determination. Yes, I said "UnAmerican Values", and I meant it. Obamacare is categorically UnAmerican.

I'll say it again. I respect and honor this President as much as you did the last.

[Guest]

American values, such as individual freedom and self determination. Yes, I said "UnAmerican Values", and I meant it. Obamacare is categorically UnAmerican.

I'll say it again. I respect and honor this President as much as you did the last.

I did not agree with much that Bush did....but I did not hate him, I did not think he was un-American, I did not wish for his failure; he was my President. I doubt that you can claim the same feelings for Obama.

[Guest]

American values, such as individual freedom and self determination. Yes, I said "UnAmerican Values", and I meant it. Obamacare is categorically UnAmerican.

I'll say it again. I respect and honor this President as much as you did the last.

He's the President of the United States, and you are a chronic, right wing malcontent who doesn't have an objective bone in your body.

[Guest]

He's the President of the United States, and you are a chronic, right wing malcontent who doesn't have an objective bone in your body.

You're correct that I'm not "content" with this progressive corporatist president. I don't like where he's taking this country, and I don't want to go there. I don't have to support him or wish him success if I disagree with him.

Obamacare is one of the things that will destroy the fabric of what makes America, America.

[Guest]

I did not agree with much that Bush did....but I did not hate him, I did not think he was un-American, I did not wish for his failure; he was my President. I doubt that you can claim the same feelings for Obama.

I don't hate Obama. I just want him sitting on a porch somewhere and causing no more harm to our country. Obama wants to change this country into something none of us will recognize as America and I do not wish him to succeed. I would be crazy if I did.

I didn't say the president was unAmerican. I said Obamacare is.

I respect the president as much as you respected the last. I stand by that.

Don't rewrite history either. President Bush received far more unadulterated hate than any public figure in my memory from the left. Obama is fortunate that Republicans are much more level headed.

[Guest]

...Obama wants to change this country into something none of us will recognize as America and I do not wish him to succeed. I would be crazy if I did....Richie, I'll begin by saying, as I have several times before, that personally I'm a fiscal conservative with left leanings on social issues. I guess that puts me somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of political idealogy.

But if you so vehemently disagree with what the current POTUS stands for, do you think it's reasonable that there might be others who might feel similarly about what some of the GOP candidates are saying they stand for? Would you be offended if I said that people like Michelle Bachmann, Jim deMint, Rick Perry and even Sarah Palin scare and offend me as much as President Obama does you? Would you take offense if I said I believe that any of them, if elected to POTUS, would likely try to take the country to a place I don't want to go either?

At the end of the day, Richie, I think what's best for the country very likely lies somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. In a place where the distance between idealogical beliefs is close enough that maybe some agreement can be reached by those elected to represent us which will benefit all Americans. Maybe we can all get close enough to the middle that all of us who elect those representatives might agree on the direction that America needs to go, giving and taking in the legislative process in a way we'd all like our democracy to work.

[Guest]

Richie, I'll begin by saying, as I have several times before, that personally I'm a fiscal conservative with left leanings on social issues. I guess that puts me somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of political idealogy.

But if you so vehemently disagree with what the current POTUS stands for, do you think it's reasonable that there might be others who might feel similarly about what some of the GOP candidates are saying they stand for? Would you be offended if I said that people like Michelle Bachmann, Jim deMint, Rick Perry and even Sarah Palin scare and offend me as much as President Obama does you? Would you take offense if I said I believe that any of them, if elected to POTUS, would likely try to take the country to a place I don't want to go either?

At the end of the day, Richie, I think what's best for the country very likely lies somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. In a place where the distance between idealogical beliefs is close enough that maybe some agreement can be reached by those elected to represent us which will benefit all Americans. Maybe we can all get close enough to the middle that all of us who elect those representatives might agree on the direction that America needs to go, giving and taking in the legislative process in a way we'd all like our democracy to work.

The difference is Obama is the president as we speak and is enacting an agenda on the nation I think, along with many conservatives, will have disastrous results for our economy, our freedom and our world position.

When any of those people you mention are the president and you think what they're doing as president is unwise, that'll be the discussion then.

If Obama was what he presented himself to be in running for President it wouldn't be as much of an issue as the reality of his actions revealing himself as the socialist corporatist progressive administrator he's become.

[Guest]

Umm.. Can you explain "socialist corporatist" - those two words have mutually exclusive meanings. A socialist believes in government control. Corporatist is the same but for corporations. What am I missing here?

[Guest]

Umm.. Can you explain "socialist corporatist" - those two words have mutually exclusive meanings. A socialist believes in government control. Corporatist is the same but for corporations. What am I missing here?

Using "new word" of the day? :wave:

[Guest]

Umm.. Can you explain "socialist corporatist" - those two words have mutually exclusive meanings. A socialist believes in government control. Corporatist is the same but for corporations. What am I missing here?

Most people don't understand what a corporatist is and do understand socialist. Obama is a blending of both and so my combining of the term has validity. Maybe I'll start a trend.

[Guest]

I would only add that just because RL "says it is so", doesn't mean it is a fact, it's ONLY an opinion, an opinion that I respect BUT most of the time, I DO NOT agree!....Which is also an OPINION that I know RL respects....lol




Richie, I'll begin by saying, as I have several times before, that personally I'm a fiscal conservative with left leanings on social issues. I guess that puts me somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of political idealogy.

But if you so vehemently disagree with what the current POTUS stands for, do you think it's reasonable that there might be others who might feel similarly about what some of the GOP candidates are saying they stand for? Would you be offended if I said that people like Michelle Bachmann, Jim deMint, Rick Perry and even Sarah Palin scare and offend me as much as President Obama does you? Would you take offense if I said I believe that any of them, if elected to POTUS, would likely try to take the country to a place I don't want to go either?

At the end of the day, Richie, I think what's best for the country very likely lies somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum. In a place where the distance between idealogical beliefs is close enough that maybe some agreement can be reached by those elected to represent us which will benefit all Americans. Maybe we can all get close enough to the middle that all of us who elect those representatives might agree on the direction that America needs to go, giving and taking in the legislative process in a way we'd all like our democracy to work.

[Guest]

I would only add that just because RL "says it is so", doesn't mean it is a fact, it's ONLY an opinion, an opinion that I respect BUT most of the time, I DO NOT agree!....Which is also an OPINION that I know RL respects....lol

Of course I respect your opinion, even if I believe differently. Most people, I hope can distinguish facts from opinions.

Interesting that you think the other posters on this forum are maybe not smart enough to distinguish my reporting of facts from my opinion about them.

You top it off with your trite little "lol" at the end. Very grown-up

[Guest]

Have you not taken your medication today.....lighten up!....Cheeeeez!



Of course I respect your opinion, even if I believe differently. Most people, I hope can distinguish facts from opinions.

Interesting that you think the other posters on this forum are maybe not smart enough to distinguish my reporting of facts from my opinion about them.

You top it off with your trite little "lol" at the end. Very grown-up

[Guest]

Umm.. Can you explain "socialist corporatist" - those two words have mutually exclusive meanings. A socialist believes in government control. Corporatist is the same but for corporations. What am I missing here?

I do not know if this is how Richie mean them, but I would use the term to describe the situation when government maintains control of the corporation and all its activities while the corporation participates in the private market while conforming to government dictates. In this country I think immediately of GM, Chrysler, AIG, the major Banks, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc.

Government control of these corporations is unquestioned.

[Guest]

The report citied by Richie was objective and informative. Whether we like it or not, Medicare as we know it today, is unsustainable. If you cannot accept this, then I suggest you move immediately to the nearest ostrich farm. You can feel at home there.

The basic underlying cause is demographics. Not only are we living longer, the population make-up is changing. Total fertility rate for the United States in 1964 when Medicare became law was 3.7 live babies per female. (Sorry guys, we don’t count here). Today, TFR is 2.07 lives babies per female during the course of her life. The long unspoken truth is that you do not put your money into Social Security and Medicare – you put in your children, they are the ones that will be paying the bills.

There are many models of providing care and VK cited the one I believe the best we have at this time – the Mayo Clinic. Having been to and had relatives treated at the clinics in Rochester and Jacksonville, I know that there is a way to deliver better care than we are now receiving in this nation. Unfortunately, Mayo has suspended its acceptance at its Arizona facility and may soon do the same at its Jacksonville and Minnesota facilities.

This nation needs to relook at its entire medical delivery system, including the tort system. For example, does HIPPA help or hurt the individual? I believe it hurts more than it helps. The gain in privacy may not be worth the cost of having your treating physician be unable to access your latest health records.

What I am sure of is that the existing plan, frequently referred to as Obamacare, must go and be replaced by one that can accept open and public scrutiny from the time of its inception and through the entire political process. It must also be able to stand without ‘sweetheart’ exceptions or deals of any kind.

[Guest]

I do not know if this is how Richie mean them, but I would use the term to describe the situation when government maintains control of the corporation and all its activities while the corporation participates in the private market while conforming to government dictates. In this country I think immediately of GM, Chrysler, AIG, the major Banks, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, etc.

Government control of these corporations is unquestioned.

That's exactly what I'm referring to and he's not done. He's already pressuring the drug firm, Forest Laboratories, to dump their CEO as they won't do business with their company if their CEO, Howard Solomon, is at the helm. This was reported by the Wall Street Journal. I don't have an online subscription to the WSJ, so I post this link.

http://balancedgovernment.org/2011/04/26/obama-administration-wants-a-new-ceo/

But I also believe where it comes to the citizens there is plenty in Obama's redistribute the wealth policies that can be construed as socialist, by nature.

That's why I referred to him as corporatist socialist.