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.
So we should increase spending on Medicare, which is one of the largest driver of government debt?
But, but that evil pick for VP wanted to do the same thing to save SS, and he got vilified like he wanted to kill seniors. Now here you are defending Obama for doing it. Typical.
Until this change, Democrats would never allow any cut, modification, nothing to Medicare. Now, under Obama, this is a "good thing"?
Republicans warned about starting Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security years ago because they recognized it was an unaffordable idea that eventually would bankrupt the nation.
They were correct.
Actually, Republicans warned that Medicare was Socialism and that it would dictate where doctors lived, how much they earned and we 'would tell our grandchildren what freedom was like." Here is Ronald Reagan stating so. Nothing he said ended up happening. It was designed to cause fear.
Actually, Republicans warned that Medicare was Socialism and that it would dictate where doctors lived, how much they earned and we 'would tell our grandchildren what freedom was like." Here is Ronald Reagan stating so. Nothing he said ended up happening. It was designed to cause fear.
But, but that evil pick for VP wanted to do the same thing to save SS, and he got vilified like he wanted to kill seniors. Now here you are defending Obama for doing it. Typical.
Actually, Republicans warned that Medicare was Socialism and that it would dictate where doctors lived, how much they earned and we 'would tell our grandchildren what freedom was like." Here is Ronald Reagan stating so. Nothing he said ended up happening. It was designed to cause fear.
If Medicare is unaffordable, so is private insurance, which has to keep up with the same rising medical costs.
Medical insurance has already gone up or are you not paying attention? There are only 23% of Dr's that are in the AMA and that is who they said speak for all Dr's in the country. How convenient no Dr I know is on board with obamacare.
Many dont like to take any medicare or medicaid because of the gov if they do they consider them charity cases because they dont get paid hardly anything for them and that is going to get worse as obama care in implemented.
This has been denied by the liberals and the sheeple just go with it and do not question it everything the Gov wants to change should be questioned no matter who is in office
So we should increase spending on Medicare, which is one of the largest driver of government debt?
No, we should reform things.
The cost of government healthcare programs is going up because the cost of healthcare is going up. The cost of healthcare is going up because government spending on it is going up. It's a cycle.
Spending more causes the cycle to continue. But simply spending less leaves people without necessary care. What we need to do is bring government healthcare program costs down by bringing healthcare costs down. Break the cycle.
This is exactly the same as education. The liberal response to problems in education is invariably to spend more money on education. If I had a dime for every time Obama made a reference to investing in education I'd be a rich man. The more guaranteed student loans we provide, the more universities raise their tuition and fees, while providing the exact same services they already provided. The solution to the high cost of education is not to spend more money on education. It's to get better education for each dollar spent.
But, but that evil pick for VP wanted to do the same thing to save SS, and he got vilified like he wanted to kill seniors. Now here you are defending Obama for doing it. Typical.
Where was I defending Obama?
Quoting me and then not making any sense. Typical.
Actually that was their lie then and this is the truth now!
A big chunk of those Medicare cuts came from the market-oriented Medicare Advantage program. Cleverly, the Obama administration postponed the Medicare Advantage cuts until after the election, so as to persuade seniors that everything would be just fine.
But the election is over. On Friday, the administration announced that it would be significantly reducing funding for the popular program. Obama’s proposal, according to one analyst, “would turn almost every plan in the industry unprofitable.
MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PENETRATION BY STATE 2012 MAP....
It hasn't really been talked about recently, but it used to be said by both conservatives and liberals that the whole Obamacare wasn't really designed to work well in the first place. The idea was to get a socialized medicine foot in the door and collapse the healthcare market, then replace it with a single payer system. Slashing existing healthcare programs, forcing companies to pay for pre-existing conditions, causing healthcare costs to rise, etc was all predicted from the start. The idea was to leave the entire system in such a mess that government would be forced to come in and nationalize it to save the day. I saw both liberals and conservatives say this quite a bit a couple years ago when the whole Obamacare debate was raging.
I'm starting to believe that.
Conspiratorially...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker
Obama does not have the authority or ability to spend on NOT spend one dime of Federal money. The Congress appropriates all funding and THEY are the sole arbiters of where it is spent. I don't recall any laws being passed that changed the funding formulas for existing programs.
Uh, I can't speak to that directly.
Presidents have full authority over discretionary spending: they can freeze discretionary spending, cut it, or discretionary funds from one department or agency to another.
With respect to mandatory spending, it depends entirely on how the law was written. Often, under certain conditions, secretaries or agency directors have the authority to alter mandatory spending, and that usually also grants authority to the president.
I don't know what the situation is for Medicare.
Remember that you now have Medicare Part A, Part B, Part C and Part D.
Parts B & D are backed by the SMI Trust Funds (one each for Part B and Part D), which is not the same thing as the HI (Medicare) Trust Fund.
You would have to read the law, because it could be that the president and secretary H&HS have authority to alter mandatory spending for Parts B & D, even more so since Part B is effectively Obamacare-Lite™ with 1/3 less stupidity.
Funding...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks
So we should increase spending on Medicare, which is one of the largest driver of government debt?
Wait a minute...you're all hot and bothered over national health care, and yet you claim Medicare spending is one of the largest driver's of government debt?
You might want to reconsider your contradictory position.
Suggesting...
Mircea
Quote:
Originally Posted by rorqual
On the other hand Reagan did sign into law the Emergency Room bill which is socialized medicine..
Well, I see that neither reality nor truth stops you from spreading disinformation....
You have distorted and misrepresented the EMTALA (which is why you won the Straw Man Award).
EMTALA definition of ‘emergency medical condition’* The term “emergency medical condition” means— (A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in— (i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy, (ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or (iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or (B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions– (i) That there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or (ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.
EMTALA definition of ‘stabilized’ To provide such medical treatment of the condition as may be necessary to assure, within reasonable medical probability, that no material deterioration of the condition is likely to result from or occur during the transfer of the individual from a facility, or, with respect to an emergency medical condition described in paragraph (1)(B) [a pregnant woman who is having contractions], to deliver (including the placenta).
You'll never lower yourself to read the congressional testimony, will you? Nope, too comfy in your Ivory Tower.
So.....you're seriously injured in a traffic accident.....your wallet/purse with your insurance info is.....uh, somewhere between the ambulance and the accident site....you arrive at the hospital...near death....no evidence of insurance....you're dressed slummy....so you get dumped onto another hospital...
....and you die en route.
That actually happened.
And if you would lower yourself to read the congressional testimony, you would see that. Even though people had insurance, it was assumed by ER staff or administrators that they did not have insurance, and so they were dumped.....and the result was they died.....and for those who did not die, they suffered further serious injury....for example, partial blockage of the airway resulted in reduced oxygen to the brain.....had they been immediately treated upon arrival, they would have been okay.....but they were dumped.....because it was falsely believed they had no insurance...and so that person suffered permanent brain damage.
The whole purpose of the EMTALA was stop patient dumping.....because it was killing and seriously injuring people.
What EMTALA does is say treat the near-dying seriously injured first, then ask about insurance coverage, instead of just making false assumptions and dumping them.
There's nothing "socialist" about EMTALA. It only states that people who are near-death or have injuries/conditions that could lead to more serious injuries/conditions should be stabilized, and nothing more.
Fact: you can never trust Republicans to safeguard Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security - the GOP was never a fan of these programs and their sole purpose is to slowly rid of them. These are all programs introduced by Democrats and the Democrats will ensure them.
OMG, it really is worse than I thought. You can't possibly believe the crap you're posting!
Newsflash: You don't have the vaguest idea what's in 0care or what it will do. Not the slightest idea. Nobody does. Not even that hitch Pelousy!
Did you miss that part?
Guess so.
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.
