Not an ACA Bashing Thread, But A Question On Medicare Cuts (Congress, generation)

[BMORE]

To pay for the ACA, about $700 billion was cut from Medicare because it was considered wasteful or over spending, correct? So doesn't that mean that we can find more cuts in other places where that same logic applies or is it that we just don't want to find those cuts? I'm sure every department has some element of wasteful or overspending, but why aren't we looking for those cuts? I understand that we can't balance our books immediately, but I also realize there are things that could be cut that aren't being cut as of yet.

[Finn_Jarber]

Originally Posted by BMORE

To pay for the ACA, about $700 billion was cut from Medicare because it was considered wasteful or over spending, correct? So doesn't that mean that we can find more cuts in other places where that same logic applies or is it that we just don't want to find those cuts? I'm sure every department has some element of wasteful or overspending, but why aren't we looking for those cuts? I understand that we can't balance our books immediately, but I also realize there are things that could be cut that aren't being cut as of yet.

No, it is more important to have another 13 Benghazi hearings.

Yes, we should be looking to cut waste.

[HappyTexan]

Hate to tell you this but those cuts are actually affecting services.
While they told you it was "fraud and waste" no auditing got done.

My MIL is currently trying to find a specialist she need to see and is getting a rather short list of doctors who will see her.
5 years ago she went through this very same thing and had an unlimited number of choices.

[Goinback2011]

Originally Posted by BMORE

To pay for the ACA, about $700 billion was cut from Medicare because it was considered wasteful or over spending, correct? So doesn't that mean that we can find more cuts in other places where that same logic applies or is it that we just don't want to find those cuts? I'm sure every department has some element of wasteful or overspending, but why aren't we looking for those cuts? I understand that we can't balance our books immediately, but I also realize there are things that could be cut that aren't being cut as of yet.

Obama is making Medicare and Medicaid equivalent.

People over age 65 don't vote Democrat.

[mohawkx]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Hate to tell you this but those cuts are actually affecting services.
While they told you it was "fraud and waste" no auditing got done.

My MIL is currently trying to find a specialist she need to see and is getting a rather short list of doctors who will see her.
5 years ago she went through this very same thing and had an unlimited number of choices.

Health care, the cost of and the choices available, have changed dramatically over the last 5 years with or without the effects of the ACA. I know this, as I'm a frequent user of the heath care system requiring extensive procedures, with private insurance, with just medicare and with only the VA system.

[mohawkx]

Originally Posted by BMORE

To pay for the ACA, about $700 billion was cut from Medicare because it was considered wasteful or over spending, correct? So doesn't that mean that we can find more cuts in other places where that same logic applies or is it that we just don't want to find those cuts? I'm sure every department has some element of wasteful or overspending, but why aren't we looking for those cuts? I understand that we can't balance our books immediately, but I also realize there are things that could be cut that aren't being cut as of yet.

The republicans decided early on that they would reject all attempts to find bi-partisan solutions to the nation's problems with the current administration.

[Memphis1979]

There are cuts that can be made in several programs.

Devils in the details. I can say that we spend twice what the entire world combined spends on defense. If I say we should cut that, some say no, it's needed.

Guess it all boils down to what you consider needed

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by BMORE

To pay for the ACA, about $700 billion was cut from Medicare because it was considered wasteful or over spending, correct? So doesn't that mean that we can find more cuts in other places where that same logic applies or is it that we just don't want to find those cuts? I'm sure every department has some element of wasteful or overspending, but why aren't we looking for those cuts? I understand that we can't balance our books immediately, but I also realize there are things that could be cut that aren't being cut as of yet.

It was an arbitrary number picked out of the blue (no, actually, it was picked because they needed to make a "zero revenue and spending change" legislation so it could not be filibustered in the Senate) and they decided that sometime in the future they would "find" 700 billion reduction in the predicted growth of future Medicare spending.

That's like coming home tonight and "affording" that new car by saying that "in the future, we're going to cut spending so much at the grocery store and restaurants". And go out to eat to celebrate the new car.

[gomexico]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

There are cuts that can be made in several programs.

Devils in the details. I can say that we spend twice what the entire world combined spends on defense. If I say we should cut that, some say no, it's needed.

Guess it all boils down to what you consider needed

We all know there is an enourmous amount of fraud and waste in the Medicare/Medicaid programs. Has been for a generation. When both parties led the government. I don't know why more rooting-out doesn't take place. But it doesn't. So, yes ... I think there are billions to be saved by cutting waste. Problem can be, however, that in t heir zeal to attack the federal government, federal employees ... and average Americans ... the Tea Party types, the American Taliban, in Washington cut things to the bone, which hurts many people. Both sides of the debate should find a way to truly reduce waste without trying to score 'points' against the other side. That's easier said than done, we know.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

It was an arbitrary number picked out of the blue....

The number is based on productivity in general, every year productivity per person increases. The medical community is expected to meet those same levels of increased productivity so they will simply pay them less. There is similar law that has been on the books since the mid 90's, that's the one that comes up around January every year that Congress votes to suspend for another year... each and every year.