if medicare is forecast to be non existent in less than 12 years

[Guest]

just exactly what is the Obama administration proposing to make sure there is a medicare for those coming after the predicted drying up of medicare funding?

The only dialogue put forth is criticism of the Ryan plan which intends to make sure there is a continuation for the future seniors.

The negative campaign being heralded by the current administration does nothing but bad mouth the Ryan proposal. They are doing their utmost to spin and scare current recipients that their benefits will be cut, which is not the case.
The label for these tactics is appropriate ....it is called mediscare!!! All bad mouthing of the opposition with nothing to offer as an alternative.

Yes the Ryan plan does in fact how future recipients MAY have to contribute to have ANY benefits. It is a known fact in congress (that would be both the senate as well as the house) that somethings needs to be reformed if there is to be any future benefits.

For the Obama supporters do you know what your party is proposing to be sure there is a future for medicare?
Do you know how the $700 billion in medicare cuts being proposed affects current recipients? Future recipients?

btk

[Guest]

btk, it's Obama doing the cuts. That is okay.

[Guest]

The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors.
The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors
The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors
The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors

Why do the opponents not understand the facts?
From Factcheck.org

"As we have written many times, the law does not slash the current Medicare budget by $500 billion. Rather, that’s a $500 billion reduction in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years, or about a 7 percent reduction in growth over the decade. In other words, Medicare spending would continue to rise, just not as much. The law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals.

Most of those savings come from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals and other providers (not physicians), and a reduction in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans to bring those payments in line with traditional Medicare. (MA plans have been paid more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.)"

[Guest]

The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors.
The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors
The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors
The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors

Why do the opponents not understand the facts?
From Factcheck.org

"As we have written many times, the law does not slash the current Medicare budget by $500 billion. Rather, that’s a $500 billion reduction in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years, or about a 7 percent reduction in growth over the decade. In other words, Medicare spending would continue to rise, just not as much. The law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals.

Most of those savings come from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals and other providers (not physicians), and a reduction in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans to bring those payments in line with traditional Medicare. (MA plans have been paid more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.)"

Explain how this quote of your is done ??

"Rather, that’s a $500 billion reduction in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years, or about a 7 percent reduction in growth over the decade."

Just tell me how and since you seem to be in the budget mode, or you were earlier, take a visit and get the criteria for paying for Obama care

[Guest]

[QUOTE=blueash;539755]The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors.
The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors
The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors
The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors

Why do the opponents not understand the facts?
From Factcheck.org

"As we have written many times, the law does not slash the current Medicare budget by $500 billion. Rather, that’s a $500 billion reduction in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years, or about a 7 percent reduction in growth over the decade. In other words, Medicare spending would continue to rise, just not as much. The law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals.


Medicare Advantage Plans need to be cut. When they started, they were less expensive than regular medicare, but now they've become more expensive. Why should people in MA plans get free prescription drugs, free eye glasses, free dental, free gym memberships, etc. There are some plans that even pay for your transportation to and from doctor visits.


These MA plans have become big business. If they want to stay in business, they need to cut their services and cut their prices.

[Guest]

The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors.
The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors
The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors
The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors

Why do the opponents not understand the facts?
From Factcheck.org

"As we have written many times, the law does not slash the current Medicare budget by $500 billion. Rather, that’s a $500 billion reduction in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years, or about a 7 percent reduction in growth over the decade. In other words, Medicare spending would continue to rise, just not as much. The law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals.

Most of those savings come from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals and other providers (not physicians), and a reduction in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans to bring those payments in line with traditional Medicare. (MA plans have been paid more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.)"

and you can take that to the bank, that is id there are any left after Dodd/Frank gets through with them:D

[Guest]

The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors.
The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors
The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors
The ACA does not cut benefits to seniors

Why do the opponents not understand the facts?
From Factcheck.org

"As we have written many times, the law does not slash the current Medicare budget by $500 billion. Rather, that’s a $500 billion reduction in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years, or about a 7 percent reduction in growth over the decade. In other words, Medicare spending would continue to rise, just not as much. The law stipulates that guaranteed Medicare benefits won’t be reduced, and it adds some new benefits, such as improved coverage for pharmaceuticals.

Most of those savings come from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals and other providers (not physicians), and a reduction in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans to bring those payments in line with traditional Medicare. (MA plans have been paid more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare.)"

blueash - you selected just one small piece of the material on factchecker re the aca...so i will post the link for all to look at the bigger picture...both the obama and romney exaggerations and misspeaks. here's just a few of them along with my thoughts:

obama said:

“if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” not true according to cbo

"the law would set minimum benefits packages" and if more than the minimum pkg is needed, folks will have to pay more for it; as opposed to their being able to receive the care their doctor determines they need and not having to paying more money for that care under the current system. and perhaps this is where charging for medicare advantage plans will com into play? that system panders to insurance companies, not to patients.

"While Medicaid will be expanded to more people, most Americans will continue to get their insurance through a private carrier." thus requiring those who pay taxes to pay more in order to support the increased number of people on the medicaid rolls.

"And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses and not enough on your health care." has anyone received that rebate payment? probably because the rebates to to employers. neither you nor the other 12,999,999 insureds will be receiving any rebate.

and by clarifying that the $500 billion is a "reduction in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years" can you explain how such economy is achieved if other than by reducing services, reducing payments to providers, and/or charging users a higher premium or co-pay? if you cannot, it would appear that future medicare could potentially offer users less while costing them more....no?

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-obama-uphold-health-care-falsehoods/

[Guest]

blueash - you selected just one small piece of the material on factchecker re the aca...so i will post the link for all to look at the bigger picture...both the obama and romney exaggerations and misspeaks. here's just a few of them along with my thoughts:

obama said:

“if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” not true according to cbo

"the law would set minimum benefits packages" and if more than the minimum pkg is needed, folks will have to pay more for it; as opposed to their being able to receive the care their doctor determines they need and not having to paying more money for that care under the current system. and perhaps this is where charging for medicare advantage plans will com into play? that system panders to insurance companies, not to patients.

"While Medicaid will be expanded to more people, most Americans will continue to get their insurance through a private carrier." thus requiring those who pay taxes to pay more in order to support the increased number of people on the medicaid rolls.

"And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses and not enough on your health care." has anyone received that rebate payment? probably because the rebates to to employers. neither you nor the other 12,999,999 insureds will be receiving any rebate.

and by clarifying that the $500 billion is a "reduction in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years" can you explain how such economy is achieved if other than by reducing services, reducing payments to providers, and/or charging users a higher premium or co-pay? if you cannot, it would appear that future medicare could potentially offer users less while costing them more....no?

How about these and the first two are just plain basic and the first three he repeated so many times to get elected in 2008, they were his mantra on health care...

.....My bill, now law, will address and correct the rise of Health care COSTS. They are rising and will continue

.....My bill , now law, will have significant tort reform. This law has NONE

.....Discussion on my bill, now law will be super transparent and discussions will include both parties. The negotiations were held in secret back rooms, except for one dog and pony show AND the way it passed even with total control of both houses was paying blackmail to at least two states to get their vote (LA and SC) They also used the senate tricks to even get it passed then. CAN you imagine passing a law of this magnitude and cost with not one single vote from the other party, having to buy your own party votes also...can you imagine that.

I invite everyone..I have posted the supposed method of paying for this law and nobody ever comments on it. The CBO has revalued the cost at about 30% higher or more than when it was passed, UNREAD by those voting by their own admission

[Guest]

blueash - you selected just one small piece of the material on factchecker re the aca...so i will post the link for all to look at the bigger picture...both the obama and romney exaggerations and misspeaks. here's just a few of them along with my thoughts:

obama said:

“if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” not true according to cbo

"the law would set minimum benefits packages" and if more than the minimum pkg is needed, folks will have to pay more for it; as opposed to their being able to receive the care their doctor determines they need and not having to paying more money for that care under the current system. and perhaps this is where charging for medicare advantage plans will com into play? that system panders to insurance companies, not to patients.

"While Medicaid will be expanded to more people, most Americans will continue to get their insurance through a private carrier." thus requiring those who pay taxes to pay more in order to support the increased number of people on the medicaid rolls.

"And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses and not enough on your health care." has anyone received that rebate payment? probably because the rebates to to employers. neither you nor the other 12,999,999 insureds will be receiving any rebate.

and by clarifying that the $500 billion is a "reduction in the future growth of Medicare over 10 years" can you explain how such economy is achieved if other than by reducing services, reducing payments to providers, and/or charging users a higher premium or co-pay? if you cannot, it would appear that future medicare could potentially offer users less while costing them more....no?

FactCheck.org : Romney, Obama Uphold Health Care Falsehoods (http://factcheck.org/2012/06/romney-obama-uphold-health-care-falsehoods/)

I received a rebate check of $720 or the equivalent of 13% of what I paid in annual health insurance premiums. The rebate was sent to the person who paid the costs of the premiums. I know of, at least, 20 people who received rebate checks that ranged from $7.50 to $1300.00 - depending on how much they paid for their health insurance and what percentage their health insurance company paid for benefits and health improvement services.

If you are interested, Ezra Klein had an excellent column of Medicare in today's Washington Post. Both the ACA and the "Ryan budget" project $500 billion reduction in Medicare. Also both project a growth rate of Medicare of GDP +0.5%.

[Guest]

I received a rebate check of $720 or the equivalent of 13% of what I paid in annual health insurance premiums. The rebate was sent to the person who paid the costs of the premiums. I know of, at least, 20 people who received rebate checks that ranged from $7.50 to $1300.00 - depending on how much they paid for their health insurance and what percentage their health insurance company paid for benefits and health improvement services.

If you are interested, Ezra Klein had an excellent column of Medicare in today's Washington Post. Both the ACA and the "Ryan budget" project $500 billion reduction in Medicare. Also both project a growth rate of Medicare of GDP +0.5%.

i'd love to read the article - do you have the link? i'd appreciate it. and thanks for the info about the rebates - factcheck did indicate that some rebates would go to insureds but most would go to employers - my bad!

found it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/13/the-white-houses-medicare-plan-isnt-that-hard-to-find/

by the end of the article i was leaning to the romney/ryan philosophy/plan - and was then convinced of it after i read wpReader15's summary in comments section; perhaps because i have been a part of the sub-bureaucracy that has to straighten out and make practical all of the regulation that the bureaucracy enacts and boasts about without really understanding the impact of their regulations and the expectations they create that aren't really there!

[Guest]

....Medicare Advantage Plans need to be cut. When they started, they were less expensive than regular medicare, but now they've become more expensive. Why should people in MA plans get free prescription drugs, free eye glasses, free dental, free gym memberships, etc. There are some plans that even pay for your transportation to and from doctor visits.

These MA plans have become big business. If they want to stay in business, they need to cut their services and cut their prices.

Yes, tax-exempt AARP is "big business", too, and they are certainly cashing in as Medicare Advantage plans are cut by $717 billion so those funds can be shifted toward paying for all the added enrollees going onto Medicaid.

"As a result of the new health care law, the Obama Administration estimates more than 7 million seniors will lose their current Medicare Advantage plans, resulting in a massive migration of seniors to Medigap plans. AARP is the nation’s leading provider of Medigap plans and has a contract in which AARP financially gains for every additional Medigap enrollee.

Based on low, mid and high-range estimates, AARP stands to financially gain, over and above the millions of dollars they currently receive from United, between $55 million and $166 million in 2014 alone as a result of new Medigap enrollees stemming from the health care law’s cuts to MA, which AARP strongly endorsed.

Under the midrange estimate and under their current contract, AARP’s financial gain from the health care law could exceed $1 billion during the next 10 years. This is because AARP will see their royalty payments increase as seniors are forced out of MA plans and buy AARP Medigap plans instead."

AARP (http://amac.us/aarps-financial-gain-from-health-care-law)

Congressional Report Details AARP's Financial Gain From Health Care Law
Congressional Report Details AARP (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=232179)

[Guest]

and AARP is only one example. Add to that the Obamacare confidence cruncher called companies with approved waivers to not offer what was proposed.

What title would the creative supporters on this forum have for companies that are seeking and getting approval to not offer the wonderful benefits of Obamacare?

btk

[Guest]

U.S. retirement expert: Medicare woes mostly rooted in myth (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120809133801.htm)

[URL="http://http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120809133801.htm"]

[Guest]

I know what we can do. Lets cut medicare by 2.4 trillion and finally just get rid of it for anyone under 55. Then we can give those under 55 vouchers whose value goes down over time and they can go to any insurance company they want and negotiate their healthcare. I'm sure the insurance companies will be very generous to them. Sorry ,just realized that Ryans plan.

[Guest]

I know what we can do. Lets cut medicare by 2.4 trillion and finally just get rid of it for anyone under 55. Then we can give those under 55 vouchers whose value goes down over time and they can go to any insurance company they want and negotiate their healthcare. I'm sure the insurance companies will be very generous to them. Sorry ,just realized that Ryans plan.

and i thought that it was obamascare that granted susidies and payments caps! silly me!

How the Affordable Care Act of 2010 Will Help Low and Moderate Income Families, By Sara R. Collins, Ph.D., Vice President of Affordable Health Insurance, The Commonwealth Fund - Spotlight On Poverty (http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/exclusivecommentary.aspx?id=ba21673c-b1ac-44b7-8f76-50e856cdb9b5)

[Guest]

and i thought that it was obamascare that granted susidies and payments caps! silly me!

How the Affordable Care Act of 2010 Will Help Low and Moderate Income Families, By Sara R. Collins, Ph.D., Vice President of Affordable Health Insurance, The Commonwealth Fund - Spotlight On Poverty (http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/exclusivecommentary.aspx?id=ba21673c-b1ac-44b7-8f76-50e856cdb9b5)

When people refuse to read anything except what makes them feel good, and do not realize that there are two sides, and nobody is 100% correct.

They continue to embarass themselves with things that are just patently wrong and not true.

There are questions to be answered by both sides. Seems on here, the one side does not feel that way...whatever it takes to get votes NO MATTER where that might take the country, and to not even want to investigate both sides boggles my mind.

As one poster from that group said this morning....it is all about attacking the character !!!


PS...the Affordable Health care Law relies on making Medicare payments more efficient by linking them to the quality of health care delivered rather than the sheer number of procedures performed. This wouldn't affect the benefits elderly Medicare recipients draw, but would curtail the amount of Medicare dollars flowing to health care providers. The savings would be used to pay for other parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). We all know how that efficiency thing works with our government......and the CBO estimate on cost keeps going up.

[Guest]

and i thought that it was obamascare that granted susidies and payments caps! silly me!

How the Affordable Care Act of 2010 Will Help Low and Moderate Income Families, By Sara R. Collins, Ph.D., Vice President of Affordable Health Insurance, The Commonwealth Fund - Spotlight On Poverty (http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/exclusivecommentary.aspx?id=ba21673c-b1ac-44b7-8f76-50e856cdb9b5)

You've pointed out what I find interesting. Both the ACA and the Ryan Plan for Medicare have essentially the same features. Both set up exchanges and individuals will go to these exchanges to purchase health insurance from private companies. Both provide varying subsidies for certain income levels.

The difference is that the Ryan plan proposes (10 years after enactment) to replace a curently existing universal health care program (Medicare) for those age 65 and older and the ACA uses these features to ensure that those under age 65 for whom health insurance is either not available or not affordable can purchase health insurance.