- Thread starter
- #41
No, no it wouldn't. It would change. Change and end are two entirely different things. Besides, you voted for "hope and change".
Given that this proposed change ultimately results in Medicare not existing anymore, change and end aren't two different things in this particular context.
Why the sensitivity to admitting this? I fully expected GOP politicians to tiptoe around the reality when they face angry constituents (as they have), but I've been surprised by the rightwing faithful's refusal to say out loud what they seek. You don't particularly care for the idea of a public health insurer (Medicare) paying doctors and hospitals to treat the elderly and offering a guaranteed benefit to beneficiaries. So you support eliminating the public health insurer and ditching the guaranteed benefit. But for some reason you're unable to acknowledge that this is ending Medicare.
It's very curious.
Greenbeard whats curious is you keep saying Medicare would not exist anymore and that is not true
It would change the way it serviced those who where under its umbrella. But it would not stop existing
Why do you keep saying that?
If you want to talk about ending it
e, back in 1965 we all entered into an agreement with Lyndon Johnson and his great society. We chip in three percent of our earnings into a trust fund and the government holds it for us until we retire, and then we can use it to help with our medical expenses. What a great idea!
A couple of years later, the Democrats realized they couldnt really afford to pay for the Vietnam war, so they started dipping into the Medicare and Social Security trust funds to cover current governmental expenses. But, not to worry, the government left its IOUs for the little loans. Today, these two trust funds contain nothing but government IOUs.
(McAdam/PhotoShop)
With the baby boomer generation now beginning to go over the hill, they have begun asking for the Social Security and Medicare benefits they paid for. The government is now forced to pay these benefits out of current tax revenues. They would like to pay seniors with government IOUs, but have discovered that the seniors doctors, grocers, and landlords wont accept any paper more worthless than greenbacks.
With the government once again in the control of the a little something for everybody Democrats, legislation is pending in the congress to extend health insurance benefits to a great number of personsillegal immigrants includedwho cant afford it; or for some other reason failed to pay for it. Where can the government find the money to pay for this new entitlement?
Heres an idea: Why dont we just swipe half of the current Medicare tax payments, and divert the funds over into ObamaCare? After all, the people didnt squeal too much when we robbed their trust funds, back in the day.
(animationlibrary.com)
Sure, the Republicans put up a fuss last Thursday. They proposed an amendment that would stave off Medicare cuts, and would have guaranteed coverage of mammograms and pap smears for women under ObamaCare. But the senators voted (pretty much along party lines) 58-42 to reject these ideas.
Medicare is already in trouble. The program needs to be fixed, not raided to create another new government program, said Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Continue reading on Examiner.com ObamaCare stealing $500 billion from Medicare trust fund - Louisville Public Policy | Examiner.com ObamaCare stealing $500 billion from Medicare trust fund - Louisville Public Policy | Examiner.com