Bestwifeever
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 17,774
Several posts have been removed for political content. Please do not repost them.
Would you please give a reference for where they say these things?In this campaign they are saying 1) Medicare and SS should be preserved in their current states and implying 2) the remaining liabilities and spending in Washington are not related to seniors.
Would you please give a reference for where they say these things?
2) the remaining liabilities and spending in Washington are not related to seniors.We can cut wasteful spending without cutting the benefits you’ve earned
Your benefits, its bills convey the meanings that I used above.so Washington can pay its bills
This quote does not imply that Medicare and SS should be preserved in their current states. An increase of eligibility age, for instance, deferred so it does not affect the "you" of the quote, or an increase in the SS/Medicare taxes, or even making Medicare cheaper to administer would all change the systems without cutting already earned benefits. But even if someone were to agree with you about the implications of what the AARP did say, they didn't say what you attribute to them.1) Medicare and SS should be preserved in their current states
We can cut wasteful spending without cutting the benefits you've earned
You’ve [-]worked hard your entire life, paid your dues, raised a family[/-] voted repeatedly for higher government spending, and lower taxes. You’ve [-]earned some[/-] enjoyed the peace of mind knowing that the money borrowed to fund the government programs you've long enjoyed will be repaid by someone else. Now, some in Congress want to make [-]harmful cuts to[/-] Medicare and Social Security live within their means. Cutting [-]your[/-] the benefits we promised ourselves without ever saving a dime to fund them so Washington can pay the other [-]its[/-] bills we ran up. AARP believes the country can [-]do better[/-] bend over. We can cut [-]wasteful spending[/-] other people's benefits without cutting our own [-]the benefits you’ve earned[/-]. Join us. Tell Congress to stop [-]the harmful cuts to Medicare and Social Security[/-] messing with an entitled class. We vote. Our kids don't.
I feel I've already reaped a substantial benefit in that my folks have lived on little more than SS for MANY years and, but for SS and medicare, I would have had to pony up a LOT of money for their support. Thus, if I never collect a dime, I've still received a significant benefit from both programs.
...
I dont care much for the term "entitlement" what is corporate welfare but entitlements of the monied class?
...
a total aside:
SS and medicare are "entitlements" because the american people were told/promised that because they paid (separate taxes) into these "systems" they were entitled to collect from them, which to me is totally reasonable and should be fulfilled! welfare, corporate bailouts, subsidies, etc are not "entitlements" since the recipiants are not entitled to them. instead they get them as a gift. it is a shame that the word "entitlement" has gotten a bad name.
I guess where I part with AARP is that many times their position is that sacrifices shouldn't be shared, but rather they should all be made by younger generations. And to that end, I think those who simply bash AARP as selfish and greedy are taking the wrong tack, just encouraging defensiveness and retrenching into their positions that they "earned the right" to everything they get and that others need to do all the sacrificing.I disagree with AARP . . . I wouldn't like it, but I'd accept a cut in my social security and medicare benefits if it was part of a fair and balanced plan to bring back some finanical sanity to the U.S. budget.
You're doing static analysis. A prime reason medical costs are rising is because Medicare keeps dumping money into that system (more dollars chasing the same basket of goods= higher prices). Medicare pays per procedure, so more procedures = more money for health care providers (which is sometimes the only way they can make up for low per-procedure reimbursement rates for some items--perform other procedures with higher reimbursement rates). There are better models for providing health care services, and private insurers will use them when they've gort an incentive to do so.Suppose Mr Ryan's $14k voucher plan became law, what would happen when folks reached 65 or whatever age deemed eligible? SS spent $14000 per recipient in 2004, and costs have risen dramatically since then, so seniors would have to make up the difference.
Private insurers now cover government employees of all ages, this is no different.However, that isn't the main problem. I predict that no for-profit insurance company would willingly write health insurance for those over the age of eligibility. That is one of the main reasons Medicare was created in 1967. Old people couldn't buy coverage at any price.
That makes sense to me, but of course just because something makes sense, that doesn't make it true. The "dumping money" description suggests that a Medicare paid for procedure is less carefully monitored and more freely approved than it would be if the insurer were private. I don't know this to be true. I kept an eye on my mother's expenses when she was on Medicare, and last summer when I went from private health insurance to Medicare, I haven't noticed any special laxity developing. For instance, last Fall I had a colonoscopy which was given after an interval of less than 5 years from my preceding colonoscopy, so Medicare refused to pay. Well, I was able to straighten that out, because the procedure was not just for screening, but was given for medical diagnostic reasons. But the point is, someone was watching, trying to make sure the rules were observed.A prime reason medical costs are rising is because Medicare keeps dumping money into that system (more dollars chasing the same basket of goods= higher prices).
Since we both lack data (for now), let's back up a step and look at incentives as a means to discern likely impacts on costs.The "dumping money" description suggests that a Medicare paid for procedure is less carefully monitored and more freely approved than it would be if the insurer were private.
Just to keep straight about the anecdote, it was actually a diagnostic procedure. Characterizing it as a screening was just a staff error. Previously, a radiologist interpreting my CT scan had reported an apparent thickening of the bowel wall and had explicitly recommended an endoscopic examination. There was a specific medical rationale for the colonoscopy, so it should not have been characterized as "screening".As your provider found out: call it a "diagnostic procedure" and not a "screening" and Medicare will still pay).
Paranoia? That may be a bit over the top. It's easy enough to compare costs of fee-for-service approaches to capitation approaches. Or HMO vs PPO. These give indications of the results produced by different incentives. This is an exercise left to the reader.. . . I don't think a sort of free-floating paranoia should lead us to the conclusion that it's actually happening, absent actual evidence.
You're doing static analysis. A prime reason medical costs are rising is because Medicare keeps dumping money into that system (more dollars chasing the same basket of goods= higher prices).
While I understand the suspicion that providers of health care might be tempted to work the system to maximize their incomes, I don't think a sort of free-floating paranoia should lead us to the conclusion that it's actually happening, absent actual evidence.
I'm thinking, thinking. Where exactly is the overhead? Everyone has to have staff to handle billing, anyway. Everyone has to pay Webzter for the computer software, anyway. If staff actually had to understand and work through the details of this arcane system that has evolved, I can see that we'd be in big trouble. But since Webzter's software handles the details, why should we care about the complications? We'll just let your programs figure it all out for us.Think of the overhead for that. Four different companies employing staff just to ensure payment for a single visit. High touch in paperwork is never good.
The GOP just wants to get rid of the problem. They are not interested in fixing it. How on earth can anyone actually believe the insurance would be cheaper with private insurers for seniors?
Yes, I agree there is waste and inefficiency in health care in both private and government insurers. There are so many things that could be fixed to lessen costs. I'm on medicare and recently at a visit to my GP office, the nurse I know was saying that the doctor regretted his decision to move his location. I asked her why and she said the seniors were getting to him. So I asked him about it and he said he just gets too many seniors coming in multiple times when there is nothing wrong with them. I said "there should be some kind of office visit co-pay for office visits maybe on a sliding scale, and he agreed whole heatedly and said if there was even a $25 co-pay this would stop 80% of the unnecessary visits." So I agree there needs to incentives as well as decentives for all parties involved.
Health care for profit is absurd, but private insurance for seniors (under whatever new name the GOP packages it) is insane. However, rational people (even liberals like me) have to be realistic and understand that we need to really overhaull the system and do everything we can to control costs. (In addition to cutting other areas and raising revenues at the same time)
People who shout "hands off my medicare" and in the same breath, say but do not raise my taxes, or weaken our military presence, or change social security in any way", are living in a dream world. But changes can be made and belts tightened without throwing grandma off the cliff and dumping the seriously disabled out on the street.
It is a time for re-evaluating priorities, and lots of fixing. If we could just stop fighting each other, we could actually effect change.