Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you suggesting that with 20 years advanced notice that people cannot begin to save for their own retirement and healthcare? Really?[/quote]
Ah, what planet are you living on? Do you have any realization at all how many millions of working people in the USA have zip left for anything at the end of the month. In fact many run out of money before they run out of month.
Your comment is just so typical of the right in the USA. Marie Antoinette said it just the same a long time ago and the people cut her head off for it. It was her comment when told the people had no bread. "Well, let them eat cake".
Pretty good ad! What would you call the attempt to end Medicare?
If you normally pay $500/rent and find a way to drop your rent by $500 and you go get a new apartment for $500, if you're a democrat you just saved $1000.
But the democrats didn't stop there. They went in a burned the house down and went over to the republicans house and left the gasoline and the matches and are now claiming Republicans are killing old people.
Reports on HI trust fund balances from the Medicare trustees and others show the extent of prefunding of benefits that theoretically is occurring in the trust fund. However, because the government has used the cash from the trust fund surpluses to finance other current activities rather than saving the cash by running unified budget surpluses, the government as a whole has not been truly prefunding Medicare benefits.
The key point is that the savings to the HI trust fund under the PPACA would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs. Trust fund accounting shows the magnitude of the savings within the trust fund, and those savings indeed improve the solvency of that fund; however, that accounting ignores the burden that would be faced by the rest of the government later in redeeming the bonds held by the trust fund. Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the PPACA and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund to pay for future Medicare benefits. To describe the full amount of HI trust fund savings as both improving the government’s ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government’s fiscal position.
Since when did Obama bashers care about granny and anyone else? Stop playing that stupid theater. It's generally known that the Republicans could care less about sick people.
Didn't Obamacare slash $500 billion from medicare ?
Ah, what planet are you living on? Do you have any realization at all how many millions of working people in the USA have zip left for anything at the end of the month. In fact many run out of money before they run out of month.
Your comment is just so typical of the right in the USA. Marie Antoinette said it just the same a long time ago and the people cut her head off for it. It was her comment when told the people had no bread. "Well, let them eat cake".
Michelle Obama is the Marie Antoinette of today. Failed personal attack.
Yes, I realize we are in difficult times. However, if we don't cut spending drastically and get our debt under control it is going to get a lot more difficult for a whole lot more people. Thus far the Democrats have not been willing to behave responsibly when it comes to cutting spending across the board.
Isn't it better to transition Medicare responsibly over time rather than to just keep conducting business as usual and crash the entire system so that more people get hurt and there is nothing left at all? Oddly enough, none of the posters on the left seem to care to answer that question.
Read the Law. It will cut 500 bil in waste and programs that are too costly and provide little benefit. One big area, about 200 bil, will be cutting back on giveaways to private ins Advantage plans. These cuts will not degrade the Medicare services to any major extent.
NEWS FLASH.. You dont need Obamacare to cut $500B in waste.. If there was actually $500B in waste, they could have cut them and expanded the programs to provide for $500B in more care for others, and wouldnt have had to raise taxes another $672B in the bill, and they could have provided insurance for EVERYONE.. Not NO ONE
Or you could try reading the actual assessment by the CBO.
Where to start...
Quote:
The table below shows average net federal spending on Medicare for a typical 65-year-old and for Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older in 2022 under the extended-baseline scenario and the alternative fiscal scenario. It also shows the premium support payment under the proposal for a typical 65-year-old in 2022. (Because CBO assumed that no beneficiaries who were eligible for traditional Medicare would switch to the premium support system, there would be no beneficiaries older than 65 receiving premium support payments in 2022.)
2022:
Extended-Baseline Scenario
Average net federal spending on Medicare For a typical 65-year-old -7,900
For all beneficiaries age 65 or older - 14,800
Alternative Fiscal Scenario Proposal
Average net federal spending on Medicare For a typical 65-year-old - 8,500
For all beneficiaries age 65 or older - 16,000
Proposal
Average premium support payment For a typical 65-year-old -8,000
Source: Congressional Budget Office The extended-baseline and alternative fiscal scenarios are as described in Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budget Outlook (June 2010).Notes: The proposal that CBO analyzed is as specified by Chairman Paul Ryan and his staff.Extended-Baseline ScenarioAlternative Fiscal ScenarioProposal
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We know where they are...
Oddly enough, none of the posters on the left seem to care to answer that question.
If there was actually $500B in waste, they could have cut them and expanded the programs to provide for $500B in more care for others, and wouldnt have had to raise taxes another $672B in the bill, and they could have provided insurance for EVERYONE.. Not NO ONE 
