jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (26 posts)

The facts about Medicare.

  1. peoplepower73 profile image85
    peoplepower73posted 4 years ago

    Since Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney have appeared on the scene, there has been much controversy about Medicare.  Here is the link to a very informative piece about The six myths of Medicare. I would make a hub out of this, but it would probably get flagged for duplication.  So I decided to use the forum to get the word out.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-six-m … icare.html

    1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image92
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You've done a very good thing here.  I knew Romney and Ryan were lying through their teeth about the financial cuts in Medicare...they want to scare all the senior citizens!  Nice guys.

    2. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A few things.

      The latest trustees report indicates:

      Medicare spending will outpace GDP consistently, and continue to grow until it is increasing by 6.7% in 2086. It would actually be over 10% growth by 2086, but they took into account some assumed changes to the program.

      In addition, the trustees report that figures are likely conservative, so the real situation is likely going to be worse than what they are telling us. Last time I checked, medicare was underfunded by over $20 trillion. That is in today's dollars, we would need to inject over $20 trillion into the fund today to keep it solvent over the next 70 years.

      Obama's cuts to Medicare costs are cuts to providers. As many as 50% of physicians aren't taking new medicare patients already, do you think that will get better when they aren't getting paid as much as they are now? My friends have a child with a developmental problem, and they were on medicaid. It took them 4 months of waiting to get a first visit with a specialist.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image85
        peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In reference to 50% of the doctors.  Here is what this article says: "This issue is monitored closely by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), an independent Congressional agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare. The agency's most recent annual survey of Medicare patients found that just 2 percent of beneficiaries had problems of any kind finding a new primary care doctor willing to accept Medicare - the same percentage of patients aged 50-64 with private insurance who report problems.

        Likewise, just 2.1 percent report trouble of any kind finding specialists willing to accept Medicare, compared with 2.3 percent for patients with private insurance."

        I don't know if you are right or they are right!

      2. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You do know that the ACA also invests in health care delivery. This includes $$$ to her new physicians and health care staff.
        In other words, it does not simply add to the demand by covering more citizens.
        It also addresses the other side of that equation so that there is supply (or "capacity") to handle the influx.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'm not extremely familiar with the details of ACA...

          that being said, investing money for new healthcare professionals, and forcing healthcare professionals to take pay cuts for medicare patients, are two different topics.

          Hiring more doesn't help the physicians who are going to be getting paid less.

    3. Jillian Barclay profile image86
      Jillian Barclayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent article you have posted!
      Many people do not realize that there are over 10 million Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage programs. These are run by the private insurance companies--- Kaiser Advantage, Secure Horizons (Pacificare), SCAN, etc.
      In addition to paying the private insurers for providing care, the government was giving them a bonus (subsidy) of $900 to $1200 per year per patient. Each and every year...

      The math: Over $10 BILLION a year bonus check to private carriers.

      That bonus check is one of the things that the Affordable Care Act has stopped. It is just one of the ways money is saved.

  2. peoplepower73 profile image85
    peoplepower73posted 4 years ago

    Thanks timetraveler2.

  3. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    As a note:

    To put the equivalent of $20 trillion into the fund over the next 70 years, we would have to spend an extra 12% of total federal revenues on Medicare, each and every year.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image85
      peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Why are we worried about the next 70 years. If you are eligible for medicare now.  Do you think you are going to live another 70 years?  I know this sounds selfish, but politicans have a way of projecting everything into decades from now.  When the problems are immediate.  Who knows what form of government we will have in the next 70 years. Every administration wants to make their laws permanent...until the next administration gets into office and then all bets are off.

  4. peoplepower73 profile image85
    peoplepower73posted 4 years ago

    Jillian Barclay:  Thank you for that.

  5. S Leretseh profile image60
    S Leretsehposted 4 years ago

    One thing I hv found consistent with seniors that support DEMS is that they do NOT care one iota about the exorbitant cost of their FREE medical care plan ... created by LBJ. The critics in LBJ's time promised this outrageous creation of his was going to bankrupt the country when baby boomers hit their 60s (about 84% of Medicare payments today go to seniors).  I still believe that if the US gov't excised everything LBJ singed into law (1964 to 1968), the US would become self- sufficient,  job creating and wealth creating country again.

    1. Jillian Barclay profile image86
      Jillian Barclayposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Your assertion that Medicare is free shows how little you know about the program.

      Excise everything LBJ signed into law?

      Wow!

      1. S Leretseh profile image60
        S Leretsehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10043.html#a0=2

        everyone over 65 was covered under the original LBJ 'goon' plan. Then eligibility was limited to those over the age of sixty-five who qualified for some type of Social Security benefit, usually as a worker, non-working spouse or dependent. --about 98 percent of all persons age sixty-five and older qualify. 

        Anytime one exceeds what he/she put into the system in contributions, future services become FREE.  This would include virtually EVERY Medicare recipient over 78. FREE.

        LBJ was a buffoon.

  6. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    I know this forum thread is about Medicare, but until conservatives like Romney and Ryan care as much about our bloated defense spending as they do about earned benefits like Medicare that actually return something of substance and value to our citizens, they have no credibility on the subject of decreasing spending.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image85
      peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      They don't want to touch defense spending because they are Reagan conservatives and they want a strong military presence. Translation: The defense contractors are helping fund their campaigns.

      1. S Leretseh profile image60
        S Leretsehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What I find so remarkable about liberals is their short -term memories. From 2008 thru 2010 the DEMS had a SUPER majority in the House and the Senate --meaning they could hv passed ANY law they wished. They could hv completely gutted the military (as Carter did); and they could hv raised Romney's (and all the other filthy rich) tax rate to 100% of his income.  The DEMS also could hv refused to bail out the Wall Street boys

        1. peoplepower73 profile image85
          peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          S Leretseh:  That's not true that's not how super majorities are used.  Read my hub on Super Majorities. http://peoplepower73.hubpages.com/hub/W … t-Used-for

          1. S Leretseh profile image60
            S Leretsehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            okay

            1. S Leretseh profile image60
              S Leretsehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Q... Did the House have a super majority in 2009? Also, did the Senate hv a super majority? If I remember correctly, Obama Care passed both Houses without a single republican voting for it. Isn't that a super majority?

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
                Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Because Obama was under the misguided impression that being president meant trying to find a common ground between both sides.  He didn't realize they had already decided to make him a one-term president.

              2. peoplepower73 profile image85
                peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I guess you didn't read my hub on Super Majority. Here are the only reasons a super majority can be used.  The first set of numbers is for least amount of votes by the house and second set of numbers is fot the senate:
                Remove the President from Office 218 67
                Expelling a Member of Congress 218 67
                Override a Presidential Veto 218 67
                Temporarily Suspend Rules of Debate 218 67
                Ending a Fillabuster With Cloture (see note below*) Does not apply 60
                Amending the Constitution 2/3 of those present 2/3 of those present
                Ratify a Treaty 218 67
                Senate passing a motion to postpone a treaty indefintetly Does not apply 67
                *A cloture is required to end a fillabuster with at least 60 votes in the senate, but it does not apply to the house.

                1. S Leretseh profile image60
                  S Leretsehposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  peoplepower, thanks. Perhaps I'm misusing the term Super Majority.  Let me rephrase my question:  Did the DEMS from 2009 thru 2010 have enough party votes in the House &  Senate to pass any law they wished? ie. they did not need a single republican vote

  7. profile image0
    screamingposted 4 years ago

    Peoplepower 73, excellent information! Thanks!

    1. peoplepower73 profile image85
      peoplepower73posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You are welcome.  Please spread the word.

  8. Uninvited Writer profile image82
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    http://ofdw.org/blog/?viewDetailed=00000

    You'd be surprised how much passed between 2009 and 2010.

    This is telling:

    CONGRESS    MAJOR BILLS PASSED
    111th (Dem House/Dem Senate/Dem Pres.)    43 (with four months left)
    110th (Dem House/Dem Senate/GOP Pres.)    30
    109th (GOP House/GOP Senate/GOP Pres.)    45

 
working