Romney/ryan budget plan designed to kill

[buckeye45_73]

So, will Americans only live until 54 in the future?

In your case, I can only hope. If you don't know the particulars of the plan...like LilOasshole....maybe you should read up.

So, you wish death upon me? Thank you for proving that you are devoid of morals, ethics or anything that could be described as Christian.

I HAVE read up.

Seniors and the disabled would pay sharply more for their Medicare coverage under a new plan by House Republicans aimed at curbing the nation’s growing deficit, a Congressional Budget Office analysis shows.

For example, by 2030, under the plan, typical 65 year olds would be required to pay 68 percent of the total cost of their coverage, which includes premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs, according to CBO. That compares with the 25 percent they would pay under current law, CBO said.

The GOP budget proposal also would raise the eligibility age for the politically popular program – and repeal big chunks of the health care overhaul law approved by Congress last year.

Besides overhauling Medicare, his 10-year budget proposal also would give states more control over Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor, but cut the amount states would receive for the program from federal coffers by hundreds of billions of dollars over a decade.

Americans would not be required to buy health insurance, under the proposal – and employers would not have to offer it either. States would not be on the hook to set up new insurance marketplaces.

Medicare enrollees would be given a set amount from the government to purchase private plans. Those plans would cost considerably more than traditional Medicare, the CBO says, partly because private plans pay hospitals, doctors and other providers more and have higher administrative costs. At the same time, enrollees would also pay a higher percentage of the overall cost of their coverage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Medicare was a comprehensive—and comprehensible—program, available throughout the country and with a core set of benefits,” says Judith Stein, director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy.

In other words, it delivers the opposite of what the private insurance industry has been providing. And it is doing so with a better track record of controlling costs. Beginning in 1997, the growth in Medicare’s cost per beneficiary has been slower than the cost escalation in coverage delivered by private insurers. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicare’s cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues.

So why would Congress create a new health insurance system that doesn’t have a Medicare-like public plan for consumers to purchase?

Because conservatives, Democrats among them, never let the facts get in the way of their ideology. The Senate, in particular, seems intent on creating a new private health insurance “cooperative” that has never been tested, has no track record of delivering quality coverage at an affordable price, and which consumers would have to learn to navigate.

Forty-four years ago, on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the law creating Medicare. In its way, Medicare was a testament to our failure to create a national health insurance system that would cover everyone. With former President Harry Truman looking on, Johnson said the need was great, and urgent. “There are more than 18 million Americans over the age of 65. Most of them have low incomes. Most of them are threatened by illness and medical expenses that they cannot afford.”

At the time, about half of the elderly had no health insurance—they were too old and too likely to get sick, so the private market simply wouldn’t insure them. The elderly were the demographic group most likely to live in poverty, and about one in three older Americans were poor. Blacks and other minorities could not receive treatment in whites-only medical facilities, discrimination that was barred by Medicare.

Now the elderly are among the best-insured Americans, with upward of 95 percent covered by Medicare. The rate of poverty among those 65 and older is under 10 percent. The decline in elderly poverty began with the creation of Social Security—but it accelerated, according to Census Bureau data, only after Medicare coverage began.

“The need for this action is plain,” Johnson said in signing the law in Truman’s hometown of Independence, Mo. “And it is so clear indeed that we marvel not simply at the passage of this bill, but what we marvel at is that it took so many years to pass it.”

Now we marvel again at the long and contentious legislative path that health care revision is taking. We hear the same arguments against a national health insurance plan that were made nearly half a century ago.

But now we have Medicare, and its demonstrated history of delivering exactly what Johnson said it would. And the marvel of our own time is that we ignore this success, while promoting untried alternatives that may well fail.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Medicare enjoys popular support despite the initial bitter resistance to passing it. Before its enactment, the elderly were at high risk for falling into poverty because most people had health insurance through their employer. Upon retirement, many had difficulties paying for medical care.

Over the years, the program has expanded. You are probably unaware that the Medicare program also pays for much of the durable equipment for many hospitals. It also funds the vast majority of residency training in the United States, including resident physician salaries and benefits, and gives subsidies to teaching hospitals in exchange for training resident physicians.

The president's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform is considering cuts to the Medicare program. We are told that the purpose of the cuts in Medicare (and to Social Security as well) would be to reduce the national deficit and protect the nation's financial health. One has to ask: Are health care and insurance against poverty for seniors and the disabled no longer priorities for our society? And if Medicare is cut, where would the money come from to educate our future physicians and other health professionals?

Rather than cut Medicare, if we want to dramatically reduce health care costs and thus lower our national debt, we need to build on what works and expand to a "Medicare for All" national health insurance program. Every other industrialized nation has some form of national health insurance. They pay half as much per person, cover everyone and have as good or better overall medical outcomes than we do. According to both the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund, our overall rankings are still at the bottom or near bottom when compared to other industrialized nations despite that fact that we spend twice as much.

How can these democratic nations spend so much less yet have such high-quality care? It's because none have for-profit private health plans that play central roles in financing health care. They are able to put a higher percentage of their health care dollars to actual health care because they are not paying for the waste and profiteering associated with the "middleman" private health insurance industry.

Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system with administrative costs of just 4 percent to 6 percent compared with for-profit health insurance administrative costs of between 16 percent and 26.5 percent. In a "Medicare for All" program, administrative savings would amount to about $400 billion each year by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. That's enough to provide high-quality health care for every American and end co-pays and deductibles. Americans could go to any provider they wished to see. And, as with Medicare, the majority of health providers and hospitals would remain private and could receive fair reimbursements for their services.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

Oh so you're an old fart Roosevelt supporter, who though the the New Deal brought us out of the Great Depression.....yeah nice. it worked so well that in 1938 we had a buttload of unemployment, but hey he only had 6+ years

Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938.[1] Manufacturing output fell by 37% from the 1937 peak and was back to 1934 levels.[2] Producers reduced their expenditures on durable goods, and inventories declined, but personal income was only 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. In most sectors, hourly earnings continued to rise throughout the recession, which partly compensated for the reduction in the number of hours worked. As unemployment rose, consumers' expenditures declined, thereby leading to further cutbacks in production.
Recession of 1937

 

[Bfgrn]

In your case, I can only hope. If you don't know the particulars of the plan...like LilOasshole....maybe you should read up.

So, you wish death upon me? Thank you for proving that you are devoid of morals, ethics or anything that could be described as Christian.

I HAVE read up.

Seniors and the disabled would pay sharply more for their Medicare coverage under a new plan by House Republicans aimed at curbing the nation’s growing deficit, a Congressional Budget Office analysis shows.

For example, by 2030, under the plan, typical 65 year olds would be required to pay 68 percent of the total cost of their coverage, which includes premiums, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs, according to CBO. That compares with the 25 percent they would pay under current law, CBO said.

The GOP budget proposal also would raise the eligibility age for the politically popular program – and repeal big chunks of the health care overhaul law approved by Congress last year.

Besides overhauling Medicare, his 10-year budget proposal also would give states more control over Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor, but cut the amount states would receive for the program from federal coffers by hundreds of billions of dollars over a decade.

Americans would not be required to buy health insurance, under the proposal – and employers would not have to offer it either. States would not be on the hook to set up new insurance marketplaces.

Medicare enrollees would be given a set amount from the government to purchase private plans. Those plans would cost considerably more than traditional Medicare, the CBO says, partly because private plans pay hospitals, doctors and other providers more and have higher administrative costs. At the same time, enrollees would also pay a higher percentage of the overall cost of their coverage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Medicare was a comprehensive—and comprehensible—program, available throughout the country and with a core set of benefits,” says Judith Stein, director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy.

In other words, it delivers the opposite of what the private insurance industry has been providing. And it is doing so with a better track record of controlling costs. Beginning in 1997, the growth in Medicare’s cost per beneficiary has been slower than the cost escalation in coverage delivered by private insurers. Between 2002 and 2006, for example, Medicare’s cost per beneficiary rose 5.4 percent, while per capita costs in private insurance rose 7.7 percent, according to MedPAC, an independent agency charged with advising Congress on Medicare issues.

So why would Congress create a new health insurance system that doesn’t have a Medicare-like public plan for consumers to purchase?

Because conservatives, Democrats among them, never let the facts get in the way of their ideology. The Senate, in particular, seems intent on creating a new private health insurance “cooperative” that has never been tested, has no track record of delivering quality coverage at an affordable price, and which consumers would have to learn to navigate.

Forty-four years ago, on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed the law creating Medicare. In its way, Medicare was a testament to our failure to create a national health insurance system that would cover everyone. With former President Harry Truman looking on, Johnson said the need was great, and urgent. “There are more than 18 million Americans over the age of 65. Most of them have low incomes. Most of them are threatened by illness and medical expenses that they cannot afford.”

At the time, about half of the elderly had no health insurance—they were too old and too likely to get sick, so the private market simply wouldn’t insure them. The elderly were the demographic group most likely to live in poverty, and about one in three older Americans were poor. Blacks and other minorities could not receive treatment in whites-only medical facilities, discrimination that was barred by Medicare.

Now the elderly are among the best-insured Americans, with upward of 95 percent covered by Medicare. The rate of poverty among those 65 and older is under 10 percent. The decline in elderly poverty began with the creation of Social Security—but it accelerated, according to Census Bureau data, only after Medicare coverage began.

“The need for this action is plain,” Johnson said in signing the law in Truman’s hometown of Independence, Mo. “And it is so clear indeed that we marvel not simply at the passage of this bill, but what we marvel at is that it took so many years to pass it.”

Now we marvel again at the long and contentious legislative path that health care revision is taking. We hear the same arguments against a national health insurance plan that were made nearly half a century ago.

But now we have Medicare, and its demonstrated history of delivering exactly what Johnson said it would. And the marvel of our own time is that we ignore this success, while promoting untried alternatives that may well fail.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Medicare enjoys popular support despite the initial bitter resistance to passing it. Before its enactment, the elderly were at high risk for falling into poverty because most people had health insurance through their employer. Upon retirement, many had difficulties paying for medical care.

Over the years, the program has expanded. You are probably unaware that the Medicare program also pays for much of the durable equipment for many hospitals. It also funds the vast majority of residency training in the United States, including resident physician salaries and benefits, and gives subsidies to teaching hospitals in exchange for training resident physicians.

The president's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform is considering cuts to the Medicare program. We are told that the purpose of the cuts in Medicare (and to Social Security as well) would be to reduce the national deficit and protect the nation's financial health. One has to ask: Are health care and insurance against poverty for seniors and the disabled no longer priorities for our society? And if Medicare is cut, where would the money come from to educate our future physicians and other health professionals?

Rather than cut Medicare, if we want to dramatically reduce health care costs and thus lower our national debt, we need to build on what works and expand to a "Medicare for All" national health insurance program. Every other industrialized nation has some form of national health insurance. They pay half as much per person, cover everyone and have as good or better overall medical outcomes than we do. According to both the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund, our overall rankings are still at the bottom or near bottom when compared to other industrialized nations despite that fact that we spend twice as much.

How can these democratic nations spend so much less yet have such high-quality care? It's because none have for-profit private health plans that play central roles in financing health care. They are able to put a higher percentage of their health care dollars to actual health care because they are not paying for the waste and profiteering associated with the "middleman" private health insurance industry.

Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system with administrative costs of just 4 percent to 6 percent compared with for-profit health insurance administrative costs of between 16 percent and 26.5 percent. In a "Medicare for All" program, administrative savings would amount to about $400 billion each year by eliminating unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy. That's enough to provide high-quality health care for every American and end co-pays and deductibles. Americans could go to any provider they wished to see. And, as with Medicare, the majority of health providers and hospitals would remain private and could receive fair reimbursements for their services.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy

Oh so you're an old fart Roosevelt supporter, who though the the New Deal brought us out of the Great Depression.....yeah nice. it worked so well that in 1938 we had a buttload of unemployment, but hey he only had 6+ years

Unemployment jumped from 14.3% in 1937 to 19.0% in 1938.[1] Manufacturing output fell by 37% from the 1937 peak and was back to 1934 levels.[2] Producers reduced their expenditures on durable goods, and inventories declined, but personal income was only 15% lower than it had been at the peak in 1937. In most sectors, hourly earnings continued to rise throughout the recession, which partly compensated for the reduction in the number of hours worked. As unemployment rose, consumers' expenditures declined, thereby leading to further cutbacks in production.
Recession of 1937

Yes, FDR and the New Deal were a HUGE success.

Top Five Years for GDP Expansion:

1942, +18.5%
1941, +17.1%
1943, +16.4%
1936, +13.0%
1934, +10.9%

Top Five Years for GDP Contraction:

1932, -13.1%
1946, -10.9%
1930, -8.6%
1931, -6.5%
2009, -3.5%



The greatest yearly increase in GDP occurred during the New Deal, AND, the LARGEST DROP IN UNEPLOYMENT in America history occurred during the New Deal...


Census document HS-29 (available in PDF). Quoting directly from Census data, here are the unemployment rates and total number of official unemployed at the beginning and end of the presidential terms since the Great Depression:

ROOSEVELT PRE-WWII NEW DEAL
1932 Unemployment Rate: 23.6% (12.8 million total unemployed)
1940 Unemployment Rate: 14.6% (8.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -9.0
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.7%

ROOSEVELT WWII
1941 Unemployment Rate: 9.9% (5.5 million total unemployed)
1944 Unemployment Rate: 1.2% (670,000 total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -8.7
Total unemployment percentage change: -87.9%

TRUMAN
1945 Unemployment Rate: 1.9% (1.0 million total unemployed)
1952 Unemployment Rate: 3.0% (1.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +1.1
Total unemployment percentage change: +81.0%

EISENHOWER
1953 Unemployment Rate: 2.9% (1.8 million total unemployed)
1960 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (3.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: +110.03%

KENNEDY
1961 Unemployment Rate: 6.7% (4.7 million total unemployed)
1963 Unemployment Rate: 5.7% (4.0 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.0%
Total unemployment percentage change: -13.6%

JOHNSON
1964 Unemployment Rate: 5.2% (3.7 million total unemployed)
1968 Unemployment Rate: 3.6% (2.8 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -1.6%
Total unemployment percentage change: -25.6%

NIXON
1969 Unemployment Rate: 3.5% (2.8 million total unemployed)
1974 Unemployment Rate: 5.6% (5.1 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: +82.0%

FORD
1975 Unemployment Rate: 8.5% (7.9 million total unemployed)
1976 Unemployment Rate: 7.7% (7.4 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -0.8%
Total unemployment percentage change: -6.6%

CARTER
1977 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (6.9 million total unemployed)
1980 Unemployment Rate: 7.1% (7.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: 0.0
Total unemployment percentage change: +9.24%

REAGAN
1981 Unemployment Rate: 7.6% (8.2 million total unemployed)
1988 Unemployment Rate: 5.5% (6.7 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: -2.1%
Total unemployment percentage change: -19.0%

BUSH I
1989 Unemployment Rate: 5.3% (6.5 million total unemployed)
1992 Unemployment Rate: 7.5% (9.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change: +2.2
Total unemployment percentage change: +47.2%

CLINTON
1993 Unemployment Rate: 6.9% (8.9 million total unemployed)
2000 Unemployment Rate: 4.0% (5.6 million total unemployed)
Unemployment Rate Change -2.9
Total unemployment percentage change: -36.3%

As you can see, in terms of the unemployment rate - that is, the percentage of the total workforce not working - the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the single largest drop in American history. Yes, I'll say that again for conservatives, just to make sure they get it: The PRE-WWII New Deal era from 1933-1940 - not the WWII era - saw the largest drop in the unemployment rate in American history. And by the way, that even includes the recession of 1937-1938.

Now, it is certainly true that the percentage drop of total unemployed was bigger in WWII than it was in the pre-WWII New Deal era. But as the data show, even by that metric, the pre-WWII New Deal era saw the second largest percentage drop in total unemployed in the 20th century, going from 12.8 million unemployed in Roosevelt's first year in office to 8.1 million unemployed at the end of his second term in 1940. That's a 36.7 percent drop - larger than the Clinton era (36.3%) and, yes conservatives, larger than the Reagan era (a mere 19%). At the absolute minimum, that would suggests the New Deal was a positive - not negative - economic force (and empirically more positive than, say, Reagan's free-market agenda).

These are the hard and fast numbers conservatives would like us all to forget with their claim that history proves massive spending packages like the New Deal will supposedly harm our economy.

The Forgotten Math: Pre-WWII New Deal Saw Biggest Drop In Unemployment Rate in American History

And you keep forgetting that your right wing austerity approach doesn't work. FDR found that out. FDR had his own right wing regressives to contend with, HERE is where that led.

The Recession of 1937–1938 was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn, but agree that government austerity reversed the recovery. wiki

 

[buckeye45_73]

The plan specifically says no one over 55 is affected.

Now, why don't you quit lying and go to hell.

Pull out the particulars of the plan that back your sorry liberal government loving claims or shut up.

So, will Americans only live until 54 in the future?

Rep. Alan Grayson had it right, RepubliCON$ want you to die quickly.

Plain & simple.

Nope...so what is the cut off age for the death panels?
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo"]Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill - YouTube[/ame]