Reminder: The house passed the 2012 budget 12 weeks ago

[JRK]

What budget have the Dems put forth again?

The problem isn't a shortage of budgets. Obama produced a budget, House Democrats introduced a budget, the House Progressive Caucus produced a budget, Kent Conrad produced a budget. The challenge, as we've seen, is finding the mix of these proposals that can pass.

But doesn't it sound so much better to keep saying, Obama never produced a budget?

Funny, that another poster said, "reform isn't ending Medicare". If you take Medicare and turn it into a "voucher" program. Then it's not Medicare, Medicare is ended, it's a "voucher" program. I just don't get it.

But only one budget has made it thru the house and did not even get the respect to have been debated on the senate floor

And as far as this ending Medicare, that was me who said reform is not ending it
do you have a link that states that come date XX-XX-XXXX that Medicare stops and from that point forward what was at one time 100% Medicare will become 100% a voucher program?
let me help
Conservative Patriot: WHEN OBAMA SAYS RYAN'S BILL WILL RUIN MEDICARE HE KNOWS HE IS LYING!
this is called a link
The truth is, the Obama health law, passed by Democrats last year, already eviscerated Medicare -- though seniors won't feel the effects for some time. And the reform plan Democrats are attacking -- Rep. Paul Ryan's entitlement-reform vision -- would undo much of the damage, while charting a new course to ensure Medicare doesn't run out of money.

"Medicare as we know it" can't survive ObamaCare's cuts of $575 billion from the program's funding over the next decade. Just as outrageous is that the Obama law stole $410 billion of those "savings" to expand eligibility for Medicaid.

Ryan's reform, passed by House Republicans early this year, would repeal the ObamaCare law in full, thereby restoring the $575 stolen from Medicare and ending IPAB. But, to keep the program sustainable in the decades ahead, the Ryan plan would (starting in 2022) give each new Medicare enrollee a choice of private health plans and pay a premium to the policy chosen. He argues that seniors would be safer choosing their own health plan rather than putting their care in the hands of the cost-cutting IPAB panel.

Let's hope voters examine the plain facts -- because one thing is clear: Obama and the Democratic Party are not saving Medicare "as we know it."

 

[kwc57]

Do you have a link to a thread that will confirm that?
Its not what I recall Ryan stating

You want a link confirming the most basic and well-known feature of the budget you created a thread to tout? Okay.

Admittedly I did not read the whole 8 page document, but I did scan a good portion of it and even used the find feature. I couldn't find any reference to ending medicare. It did talk about projections up thru 2022......11 years from now, but no ending.

In addition, you really need to provide documentation where Ryan has stated this as a goal.

 

[Zoom-boing]

You mean the budget that cuts $1.1trillion . . . over 10 years? Worse than Boehner's what is it, $3trillion over 10 years? Both are a ******* joke.

My bad, boys. I said 'proposed' rather than 'passed'.

What budget have the Dems passed again?

 

[Greenbeard]

And as far as this ending Medicare, that was me who said reform is not ending it
do you have a link that states that come date XX-XX-XXXX that Medicare stops and from that point forward what was at one time 100% Medicare will become 100% a voucher program?

Beginning in 2022, no one is allowed to enroll in Medicare. That year, folks hitting retirement age would instead get to experience the joys of RyanCare or VouchCare or whatever you want to call the "replace" in the Republican repeal-and-replace of Medicare.

People who turn 65 in 2022 or later years and Disability Insurance beneficiaries who become eligible for Medicare in 2022 or later would not enroll in the current Medicare program but instead would be entitled to a premium support payment to help them purchase private health insurance.8​

Ryan's reform, passed by House Republicans early this year, would repeal the ObamaCare law in full, thereby restoring the $575 stolen from Medicare and ending IPAB.

No, it wouldn't. It would repeal parts of the ACA (listed in the CBO's analysis of what Ryan gave them) but the savings to Medicare are not among them. "Most of the other changes that PPACA and the Reconciliation Act made to the Medicare program would be retained." How do you think he saves money in the 10-year budget window while still telling folks that only people under 55 will get screwed by his dismantling of Medicare?

Admittedly I did not read the whole 8 page document, but I did scan a good portion of it and even used the find feature. I couldn't find any reference to ending medicare.

You didn't make it halfway down the first page? Beginning in 2022, no one will be allowed to enroll in Medicare. Instead, they'll need to find coverage in the private insurance market.

Beginning in 2022, all newly-eligible Medicare beneficiaries (i.e., individuals turning 65 as well as younger, disabled individuals becoming eligible for Medicare) would only have access to health coverage through private insurance plans, rather than through the current government-run Medicare program (i.e., traditional Medicare), or under a Medicare Advantage plan.​

Medicare as a health insurer offering a defined benefit and paying the medical bills of seniors will gradually cease to exist as the remaining enrollees who are grandfathered in die or are forced out by its declining market power. The end result is that Medicare will cease to exist (certainly it effectively ceases to exist immediately for anyone not grandfathered in--i.e. folks under 55 who are prohibited from enrolling in Medicare when they reach retirement age).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What budget have the Dems put forth again?

The problem isn't a shortage of budgets. Obama produced a budget, House Democrats introduced a budget, the House Progressive Caucus produced a budget, Kent Conrad produced a budget. The challenge, as we've seen, is finding the mix of these proposals that can pass.

The Dems haven't passed a budget in over 2 years and you're claiming there's not a shortage?

 

[JRK]

And as far as this ending Medicare, that was me who said reform is not ending it
do you have a link that states that come date XX-XX-XXXX that Medicare stops and from that point forward what was at one time 100% Medicare will become 100% a voucher program?

Beginning in 2022, no one is allowed to enroll in Medicare. That year, folks hitting retirement age would instead get to experience the joys of RyanCare or VouchCare or whatever you want to call the "replace" in the Republican repeal-and-replace of Medicare.

People who turn 65 in 2022 or later years and Disability Insurance beneficiaries who become eligible for Medicare in 2022 or later would not enroll in the current Medicare program but instead would be entitled to a premium support payment to help them purchase private health insurance.8​

Ryan's reform, passed by House Republicans early this year, would repeal the ObamaCare law in full, thereby restoring the $575 stolen from Medicare and ending IPAB.

No, it wouldn't. It would repeal parts of the ACA (listed in the CBO's analysis of what Ryan gave them) but the savings to Medicare are not among them. "Most of the other changes that PPACA and the Reconciliation Act made to the Medicare program would be retained." How do you thing he saves money in the 10-year budget window while still telling folks that only people under 55 will get screwed by his dismantling of Medicare?

Admittedly I did not read the whole 8 page document, but I did scan a good portion of it and even used the find feature. I couldn't find any reference to ending medicare.

You didn't make it halfway down the first page? Beginning in 2022, no one will be allowed to enroll in Medicare. Instead, they'll need to find coverage in the private insurance market.

Beginning in 2022, all newly-eligible Medicare beneficiaries (i.e., individuals turning 65 as well as younger, disabled individuals becoming eligible for Medicare) would only have access to health coverage through private insurance plans, rather than through the current government-run Medicare program (i.e., traditional Medicare), or under a Medicare Advantage plan.​

Medicare as a health insurer offering a defined benefit and paying the medical bills of seniors will gradually cease to exist as the remaining enrollees who are grandfathered in die or are forced out by its declining market power. The end result is that Medicare will cease to exist (certainly it effectively ceases to exist immediately for anyone not grandfathered in--i.e. folks under 55 who are prohibited from enrolling in Medicare when they reach retirement age).

I cannot find that verb age in your link
lets see what we do find
CBO has not reviewed legislative language for the proposal, so this analysis does not
represent a cost estimate for legislation that might implement the proposal. Rather, it
is an assessment of the broad, long-term budgetary impacts of the proposal, with
results spanning several decades and measured as a share of GDP

People who turn 65 in 2022 or later years and Disability Insurance beneficiaries
who become eligible for Medicare in 2022 or later would not enroll in the current
Medicare program but instead would be entitled to a premium support payment to
help them purchase private health insurance.
So we take it from the govt and allow the free market to compete and runmedicare

Those plans would have to comply with a standard for benefits set by the Office of
Personnel Management. Plans would have to issue insurance to all people eligible
for Medicare who applied and would have to charge the same premiums for all
enrollees of the same age. The premium support payments would go directly from
the government to the plans that people selected.
B The premium support payments would vary with the health status of the
beneficiary. In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would
collect fees from plans with healthier enrollees, on average, and convey the proceeds to plans with less healthy enrollees, on average,
Sounds good so far

The premium support payments would also vary with the income of the beneficiary. People in the top 2 percent of the annual income distribution of the
Medicare-eligible population would receive 30 percent of the premium support
amount described above; people in the next 6 percent of the distribution would
receive 50 percent of the amount described above; and people in the remaining
8. In 2022 or later, people who are newly diagnosed with end-stage renal disease or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, would receive premium support
payments as well.Page 9
CBO
92 percent of the distribution would receive the full premium support amount
described above.
So far, so good

Whats the issue hear again?
Thats verbiage, your stating it would end
nothing is ending

I will say good link

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And as far as this ending Medicare, that was me who said reform is not ending it
do you have a link that states that come date XX-XX-XXXX that Medicare stops and from that point forward what was at one time 100% Medicare will become 100% a voucher program?

Beginning in 2022, no one is allowed to enroll in Medicare. That year, folks hitting retirement age would instead get to experience the joys of RyanCare or VouchCare or whatever you want to call the "replace" in the Republican repeal-and-replace of Medicare.

People who turn 65 in 2022 or later years and Disability Insurance beneficiaries who become eligible for Medicare in 2022 or later would not enroll in the current Medicare program but instead would be entitled to a premium support payment to help them purchase private health insurance.8​

Ryan's reform, passed by House Republicans early this year, would repeal the ObamaCare law in full, thereby restoring the $575 stolen from Medicare and ending IPAB.

No, it wouldn't. It would repeal parts of the ACA (listed in the CBO's analysis of what Ryan gave them) but the savings to Medicare are not among them. "Most of the other changes that PPACA and the Reconciliation Act made to the Medicare program would be retained." How do you thing he saves money in the 10-year budget window while still telling folks that only people under 55 will get screwed by his dismantling of Medicare?

Admittedly I did not read the whole 8 page document, but I did scan a good portion of it and even used the find feature. I couldn't find any reference to ending medicare.

You didn't make it halfway down the first page? Beginning in 2022, no one will be allowed to enroll in Medicare. Instead, they'll need to find coverage in the private insurance market.

Beginning in 2022, all newly-eligible Medicare beneficiaries (i.e., individuals turning 65 as well as younger, disabled individuals becoming eligible for Medicare) would only have access to health coverage through private insurance plans, rather than through the current government-run Medicare program (i.e., traditional Medicare), or under a Medicare Advantage plan.​

Medicare as a health insurer offering a defined benefit and paying the medical bills of seniors will gradually cease to exist as the remaining enrollees who are grandfathered in die or are forced out by its declining market power. The end result is that Medicare will cease to exist (certainly it effectively ceases to exist immediately for anyone not grandfathered in--i.e. folks under 55 who are prohibited from enrolling in Medicare when they reach retirement age).

Dems 2008: These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Dems 2011: These two entities — Social Security and Medicare — are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Obama and Geithner have already told us Social Security is broke! Hello!

We don't last until 2022 if Obama is threatening our Seniors with destitution and hunger in 2011!!

 

[Oddball]

Do you have a link to a thread that will confirm that?
Its not what I recall Ryan stating

You want a link confirming the most basic and well-known feature of the budget you created a thread to tout? Okay.

Admittedly I did not read the whole 8 page document, but I did scan a good portion of it and even used the find feature. I couldn't find any reference to ending medicare. It did talk about projections up thru 2022......11 years from now, but no ending.

In addition, you really need to provide documentation where Ryan has stated this as a goal.

He won't even tell us how much Cass Sunstein is paying him to post here.

 

[JRK]

And as far as this ending Medicare, that was me who said reform is not ending it
do you have a link that states that come date XX-XX-XXXX that Medicare stops and from that point forward what was at one time 100% Medicare will become 100% a voucher program?

Beginning in 2022, no one is allowed to enroll in Medicare. That year, folks hitting retirement age would instead get to experience the joys of RyanCare or VouchCare or whatever you want to call the "replace" in the Republican repeal-and-replace of Medicare.

People who turn 65 in 2022 or later years and Disability Insurance beneficiaries who become eligible for Medicare in 2022 or later would not enroll in the current Medicare program but instead would be entitled to a premium support payment to help them purchase private health insurance.8​

No, it wouldn't. It would repeal parts of the ACA (listed in the CBO's analysis of what Ryan gave them) but the savings to Medicare are not among them. "Most of the other changes that PPACA and the Reconciliation Act made to the Medicare program would be retained." How do you thing he saves money in the 10-year budget window while still telling folks that only people under 55 will get screwed by his dismantling of Medicare?

Admittedly I did not read the whole 8 page document, but I did scan a good portion of it and even used the find feature. I couldn't find any reference to ending medicare.

You didn't make it halfway down the first page? Beginning in 2022, no one will be allowed to enroll in Medicare. Instead, they'll need to find coverage in the private insurance market.

Beginning in 2022, all newly-eligible Medicare beneficiaries (i.e., individuals turning 65 as well as younger, disabled individuals becoming eligible for Medicare) would only have access to health coverage through private insurance plans, rather than through the current government-run Medicare program (i.e., traditional Medicare), or under a Medicare Advantage plan.​

Medicare as a health insurer offering a defined benefit and paying the medical bills of seniors will gradually cease to exist as the remaining enrollees who are grandfathered in die or are forced out by its declining market power. The end result is that Medicare will cease to exist (certainly it effectively ceases to exist immediately for anyone not grandfathered in--i.e. folks under 55 who are prohibited from enrolling in Medicare when they reach retirement age).

Dems 2008: These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Dems 2011: These two entities — Social Security and Medicare — are not facing any kind of financial crisis

Obama and Geithner have already told us Social Security is broke! Hello!

We don't last until 2022 if Obama is threatening our Seniors with destitution and hunger in 2011!!

That should cover it

 

[Greenbeard]

Whats the issue hear again?
Thats verbiage, your stating it would end
nothing is ending

Medicare would end under their proposal. Preventing anyone from ever enrolling in Medicare after a certain arbitrary date and instead telling seniors to go look for health insurance from Blue Cross or Aetna or whoever--even if the feds will kick in an inadequate voucher to defray some of the costs--represents an end to Medicare.

You might think that getting rid of Medicare and instead subsidizing Aetna plans is a fine idea, but have the courage of your convictions enough to call a spade a spade.

 

[JRK]

Whats the issue hear again?
Thats verbiage, your stating it would end
nothing is ending

Medicare would end under their proposal. Preventing anyone from ever enrolling in Medicare after a certain arbitrary date and instead telling seniors to go look for health insurance from Blue Cross or Aetna or whoever--even if the feds will kick in an inadequate voucher to defray some of the costs--represents an end to Medicare.

You might think that getting rid of Medicare and instead subsidizing Aetna plans is a fine idea, but have the courage of your convictions enough to call a spade a spade.

according to your own link, which was a very good link
The only difference was that private insurance firms would be dealing with the Drs and not the US govt
Obviously there would be major changes beyond that, I am not high on the kool aid so many on the left are drinking
But I see this to have been a great place to start

The premium support payments would also vary with the income of the beneficiary. People in the top 2 percent of the annual income distribution of the
Medicare-eligible population would receive 30 percent of the premium support
amount described above; people in the next 6 percent of the distribution would
receive 50 percent of the amount described above; and people in the remaining
8. In 2022 or later, people who are newly diagnosed with end-stage renal disease or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, would receive premium support
payments as well.Page 9
CBO
92 percent of the distribution would receive the full premium support amount
described above.

Look this was not even debated. you know why?
it makes to much sense

 

[Greenbeard]

according to your own link, which was a very good link
The only difference was that private insurance firms would be dealing with the Drs and not the US govt

I think it might be prudent at this point for me to ask: do you know what Medicare is?

 

[Zoom-boing]

What have the Dems proposed to fix Medicare . . other than just bashing any Republican plan?

 

[Greenbeard]

What have the Dems proposed to fix Medicare . . other than just bashing any Republican plan?

They've gotten the ball rolling over the past few years with a series of Medicare reforms. For example:

• Value-based purchasing in Medicare.
• Building on quality measure advancement begun for children two years ago under CHIPRA by extending it to adults and expanding public reporting on quality.
• Incentives for accountable care.
• Upping AHRQ's in health care delivery system research and building technical assistance capacity to assist providers in implementing delivery system innovations.
• Launching one of the largest patient safety initiatives in recent memory, aimed at curbing unnecessary expenditures due to preventable errors and hospital-acquired conditions, is not a price control.
• Supporting community-based prevention efforts, particularly those aimed at chronic illness (one of the big cost drivers in our system).
• Offering financial incentives for Medicare and Medicaid providers who adopt electronic health records with clinical support tools and quality measurement capabilities.
• Seeding models of advanced primary care aimed specifically at high-utilization, high-cost beneficiaries.
• Payment reforms to discourage unnecessary spending.
• Improving care coordination, particularly for those needing the most complex and expensive care regimes (and thus likely to benefit the most from it).
• Transitioning enrollees from institution-based long-term care to community-based care where possible.
• Learning which treatments are the most effective and using that knowledge.
• Creating a body dedicated to testing payment and delivery system innovations to determine which ones improve quality an reduce costs, and a mechanism for using that knowledge.

I don't know if you count Obama as a Democrat but he's shown a willingness recently to go much further, adopting some of the Lieberman-Coburn reforms.

 

[JRK]

What have the Dems proposed to fix Medicare . . other than just bashing any Republican plan?

They've gotten the ball rolling over the past few years with a series of Medicare reforms. For example:

• Value-based purchasing in Medicare.
• Building on quality measure advancement begun for children two years ago under CHIPRA by extending it to adults and expanding public reporting on quality.
• Incentives for accountable care.
• Upping AHRQ's in health care delivery system research and building technical assistance capacity to assist providers in implementing delivery system innovations.
• Launching one of the largest patient safety initiatives in recent memory, aimed at curbing unnecessary expenditures due to preventable errors and hospital-acquired conditions, is not a price control.
• Supporting community-based prevention efforts, particularly those aimed at chronic illness (one of the big cost drivers in our system).
• Offering financial incentives for Medicare and Medicaid providers who adopt electronic health records with clinical support tools and quality measurement capabilities.
• Seeding models of advanced primary care aimed specifically at high-utilization, high-cost beneficiaries.
• Payment reforms to discourage unnecessary spending.
• Improving care coordination, particularly for those needing the most complex and expensive care regimes (and thus likely to benefit the most from it).
• Transitioning enrollees from institution-based long-term care to community-based care where possible.
• Learning which treatments are the most effective and using that knowledge.
• Creating a body dedicated to testing payment and delivery system innovations to determine which ones improve quality an reduce costs, and a mechanism for using that knowledge.

I don't know if you count Obama as a Democrat but he's shown a willingness recently to go much further, adopting some of the Lieberman-Coburn reforms.

Does this count as reform?

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 couldn’t 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 won’t 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 persons—illegal immigrants included—who can’t 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?”

Here’s an idea: “Why don’t we just swipe half of the current Medicare tax payments, and divert the funds over into ObamaCare? After all, the people didn’t 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

 

[kwc57]

Whats the issue hear again?
Thats verbiage, your stating it would end
nothing is ending

Medicare would end under their proposal. Preventing anyone from ever enrolling in Medicare after a certain arbitrary date and instead telling seniors to go look for health insurance from Blue Cross or Aetna or whoever--even if the feds will kick in an inadequate voucher to defray some of the costs--represents an end to Medicare.

You might think that getting rid of Medicare and instead subsidizing Aetna plans is a fine idea, but have the courage of your convictions enough to call a spade a spade.

No, no it wouldn't. It would change. Change and end are two entirely different things. Besides, you voted for "hope and change".

 

[JRK]

Whats the issue hear again?
Thats verbiage, your stating it would end
nothing is ending

Medicare would end under their proposal. Preventing anyone from ever enrolling in Medicare after a certain arbitrary date and instead telling seniors to go look for health insurance from Blue Cross or Aetna or whoever--even if the feds will kick in an inadequate voucher to defray some of the costs--represents an end to Medicare.

You might think that getting rid of Medicare and instead subsidizing Aetna plans is a fine idea, but have the courage of your convictions enough to call a spade a spade.

No, no it wouldn't. It would change. Change and end are two entirely different things. Besides, you voted for "hope and change".

And them we add this to the mix and await rebuttle


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 couldn’t 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 won’t 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 persons—illegal immigrants included—who can’t 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?”

Here’s an idea: “Why don’t we just swipe half of the current Medicare tax payments, and divert the funds over into ObamaCare? After all, the people didn’t 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

 

[8537]

"A couple of years later, the Democrats realized they couldn’t 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."

Let me ask ya something, JRK - where do you believe the excess revenues from SS / Medicare were kept before "Democrats...started dipping into the Medicare and SS trust funds to cover governmental expenses"?

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

 

[JRK]

"A couple of years later, the Democrats realized they couldn’t 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."

Let me ask ya something, JRK - where do you believe the excess revenues from SS / Medicare were kept before "Democrats...started dipping into the Medicare and SS trust funds to cover governmental expenses"?

I have always thought these programs should have been removed form the general pool
I also believe the entire tax system is broken
That we should go to a system Like Florida and Texas has

And that if you receive Social Security That you should pay some portion of the Medicare benefits you receive
small of course. Nothing should be 100% free if you're getting well fare and or SS

I also like the drug testing thats becoming a mandate for well fare recipients
I have to to have the job i have