Stop the Repub plan to send Medicare

[starcraftzzz]

2011 Medicare Trustees Report:

The financial projections shown for the Medicare program in this report continue to represent a substantial, but very uncertain, improvement over those prior to 2010 as a result of the Affordable Care Act. Compared to the projections in the 2009 annual report, projected Medicare costs as a percentage of GDP have decreased from 4.5 percent to 4.0 percent in 2020, from 8.7 percent to 5.9 percent in 2050, and from 11.2 percent to 6.3 percent in 2080. At the time of enactment, the legislation was estimated to postpone the date of exhaustion for the HI trust fund by about 12 years. At 0.79 percent of taxable payroll, the long-range actuarial deficit for HI is only one-fifth of its 2009 level. Projected long-range expenditures for SMI Part B are also substantially lower than before enactment of the law, while Part D expenditures are slightly lower.

Tell me something, why don't you post the study that shows how stupid and fill of lies that this study is?

The Fiscal Consequences of the Affordable Care Act | Mercatus

ROTFL so according to you Obamacare increase the deficit because we shouldn't include in the analysis of Obamacare the measures that it takes to reduce the deficit. Are you seriously this stupid and brainwashed?

 

[starcraftzzz]

Because those trustees I am talking about have said that Obamacare will cost money and make Medicare worse.

Yes and Iran says the holocaust never happened; the bible says the earth is 6,000 years old.
The fact remains that Obamacare extends the solvency of Medicare because in the first 10 years it cuts 500billion in wasteful spending and the next ten years that jumps . Furthermore the trustees report actually says that Obamacare extends medicare solvency. SO basically you are just brainwashed ignorant adn stupid
But go on denying reality.

The Bible doesn't say anything about how old the Earth is.

That $500 billion is not wasteful spending, it is a simple cut to Medicare, and, like the reduction in payments to doctors, only exists in the minds of fools.

I see so according to you excessive administration fees, spending on inefficient medical procedures and drugs and Paying for unneeded medical equipment/good are not wasteful spending. Perhaps you are to illiterate to know what wasteful is

 

[starcraftzzz]

Well, this post just came off looking so polished and bright.
Better luck next time.

Yes you not knowing the definition of efficient is total a reflection on me. Notice how your last 3 posts have resulted in me proving you wrong and showing that you are stupid; so you just keep trying to district from those facts.
Lets count the times you were ignorant and stupid
1) Medicares more efficient then private insurance
2) Doctors and hospitals accept medicare more then private insurance
3) You thought that Medicare being less expensive despite having better care mean it was less efficient
4) You were to stupid to know the difference between Medicare and SS.
5) You were to stupid to realize that raising SS taxes prolong SS solvency
6) You were to stupid to know the difference between efficiency and solvency
7) YOu wdre to stupid to know the difference between efficiency and projections.
I consider an accomplishment that youa re wrong 100% of the time

1. Actually, medicare is considerably less efficient than private insurance. Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

1. 
   ROTFL heritage, the company that thinks ending Medicare will bring 2% unemployment, the compnay that thinks incom,e taxes equal all taxes, the company that thinks teachers are overpaid because they make more the someone at McDonalds, the company whose analysis that regulations cost the economy excludes benefits.. ? Lets see how long it takes to debunk that bullshit.
   Oh wait you see when you compared apples-to-apples medicare administration costs are 20% less the private insurance. But I give props to Heritage for doctoring data and the brainwashing the dumb with it
   Administrative costs - NYTimes.com
   
   Lets delve deeper.
   Medicare costs have increased by 50% less then private health costs. This is despite medicare having higher heath outcomes.
   http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf
   

   [*]If I translate that into something that makes sense, you are arguing that more doctors and hospitals accept Medicare than accept any individual private insurance. I will agree with that, in principle, but the fact is that all doctors, and hospitals, accept some form of private insurance, or cash, not all of them accept Medicare.

   I see so in order to make the private market seem efficient you decide to cherry pick. The fact still remains that those whtth Medicare are 70% more likely to be accepted
   

   [*]No, I think that Medicare having higher costs proves it is less efficient.

   So basically if you deny reality you think Medicare is less efficient.
   

   [*]They are both going to be defunct in a few years unless they are reformed.

   Irrelevant to the fact that they are both more efficient then the private market
   

   [*]If that is true, then cutting them actually makes it insolvent faster. Since Obama cut SS taxes that means he actually made it worse.

   ROTFL really you are so stupid you don't know the difference between SS and medicare.
   
   

   [*]You are the one that thinks that Medicare is efficient and solvent, what does that make you?

   Not a dumbass
   
   

   The reason you think people are always wrong is because you think you are always right. The truth is you are wrong.

   The reason you are wrong is because I am right. But go on ignoring reality

 

[starcraftzzz]

Actually, you've proved nothing other than you are an idiot with limited reasoning powers. One who also seems to read things into what are being written that are not there.

Yes you being wrong means I am an idiot. What an insight.

Yes, yes....if you listen the Kaiser Foundation...why not. They are only so biased it is laughable....

See this is the difference when I say the sources you use are biased I prove it; when you say it you just say it because they contradict the ignorance that you say.

Why you cannot compare Medicare with private insurance
First, private insurance plans must pay government taxes and assessments up to 5% of premiums. These add to the "overhead" costs. Medicare is exempt from these costs.

Irrelevant given that we have an apple-to -apple comparisinn that shows Medicare costs 20% (and this is when the private insurance companies get to piggy pack on Medicares system)

Fifth , the cost of servicing the public debt is not included in Medicare costs—and Part B is 75% subsidized by general revenues, not beneficiary premiums. If a private insurance company borrows money, the interest paid goes to its overhead.

Where the money comes is irrelevant its whats done with that money of which Medicare does significantly more with less

Another conclusion that belongs in the dung heap. I said that your claims to "reality" don't add up. I pointed to Carters MAJOR screw up in Social Security as an example. Sorry, were to stupid to get the translation.

I see so according to you SS is less efficient because it costs more then projected, despite SS costing 26% less then private alternatives. Notice how every time you post something it sounds as if you are a retard.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

2011 Medicare Trustees Report:

Tell me something, why don't you post the study that shows how stupid and fill of lies that this study is?

The Fiscal Consequences of the Affordable Care Act | Mercatus

ROTFL so according to you Obamacare increase the deficit because we shouldn't include in the analysis of Obamacare the measures that it takes to reduce the deficit. Are you seriously this stupid and brainwashed?

No, according to the guy Obama put in charge of Medicare. I just happen to think he knows what he is talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes and Iran says the holocaust never happened; the bible says the earth is 6,000 years old.
The fact remains that Obamacare extends the solvency of Medicare because in the first 10 years it cuts 500billion in wasteful spending and the next ten years that jumps . Furthermore the trustees report actually says that Obamacare extends medicare solvency. SO basically you are just brainwashed ignorant adn stupid
But go on denying reality.

The Bible doesn't say anything about how old the Earth is.

That $500 billion is not wasteful spending, it is a simple cut to Medicare, and, like the reduction in payments to doctors, only exists in the minds of fools.

I see so according to you excessive administration fees, spending on inefficient medical procedures and drugs and Paying for unneeded medical equipment/good are not wasteful spending. Perhaps you are to illiterate to know what wasteful is

Perhaps you are too stupid to understand English.

Scratch that, no perhaps about it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

ROTFL heritage, the company that thinks ending Medicare will bring 2% unemployment, the compnay that thinks incom,e taxes equal all taxes, the company that thinks teachers are overpaid because they make more the someone at McDonalds, the company whose analysis that regulations cost the economy excludes benefits.. ? Lets see how long it takes to debunk that bullshit.
Oh wait you see when you compared apples-to-apples medicare administration costs are 20% less the private insurance. But I give props to Heritage for doctoring data and the brainwashing the dumb with it
Administrative costs - NYTimes.com

Heritage is not a company, and doesn't think anything you just accused them of.You cannot compare administrative costs of Medicare unless you count the cost of collecting the money, and the other associated costs. Even your link admits that, even if they pretend they are counting them.

Lets delve deeper.
Medicare costs have increased by 50% less then private health costs. This is despite medicare having higher heath outcomes.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf

If Medicare costs have increased slower than regular insurance, why is the Medicare budget increasing so much faster than those of insurance?

I see so in order to make the private market seem efficient you decide to cherry pick. The fact still remains that those whtth Medicare are 70% more likely to be accepted

Wrong, whose with cash are more likely to be accepted.

So basically if you deny reality you think Medicare is less efficient.

I am not the one that insists that apples are lighter than air.

Irrelevant to the fact that they are both more efficient then the private market

This will help you understand English.

Newspeak Dictionary

Not a dumbass

You are correct, calling you a dumbass would be an insult.

To dumbasses.

The reason you are wrong is because I am right. But go on ignoring reality

 

[Greenbeard]

Medicare, Medicaid and the Deficit Debate (April 2012)

This paper has shown that a substantial share of the recent growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending has been due to enrollment growth and that CMS and CBO projections suggest this trend will continue. Growth in Medicare spending per enrollee was quite rapid at the beginning of the past decade but began to slow, particularly after 2007. The provisions of the ACA, as well as slower than expected underlying inflation rates, are projected to reduce spending growth in Medicare considerably. Spending growth on a per enrollee basis is expected to be close to the growth in GDP per capita over the next decade, even after accounting for a likely fix for the SGR cuts. Medicaid spending growth has been held down by a variety of policies adopted by states facing severe fiscal constraints and has resulted in per enrollee spending that has been slower than the rate of growth in GDP in the past decade. Projections indicate only slightly faster growth in the coming decade. We have also shown that Medicare and Medicaid have had slower growth in expenditures on a per enrollee basis than private alternatives; a trend that is also projected to continue.

In the debate over the federal deficit, however, many have argued for the need for entitlement reforms to further reduce the rate of growth of spending on Medicare and Medicaid. Some proposals involve modest adjustments to the existing programs, but others call for more fundamental restructuring. A Medicare premium support program, for instance, would use federal funds to provide seniors with a voucher to purchase coverage in the private market; in some proposals, beneficiaries would continue to have traditional Medicare as a choice. Savings are achieved over time assuming that private insurance premiums are less expensive than Medicare and grow more slowly. This paper shows that any premium support program that accounted for the underlying enrollment growth projected for the Medicare program would have a hard time doing better than the current program at controlling spending growth. Proponents have suggested that the level of subsidies or vouchers would increase by at least the growth in GDP per capita or GDP per capita plus 1 percent.36 But if the goal is to have Medicare spending per enrollee grow at the rate of GDP per capita, the projections by both CMS and CBO suggest that this will be achieved in the coming decade under current law.

This paper indicates that, after accounting for enrollment, both CMS and CBO project spending growth rates for Medicare and Medicaid over the next decade to be at or below the projected rate of growth in GDP per capita. Private spending growth per enrollee is projected to grow about 2 percentage points faster than Medicare, however.Thus, a major concern over the future course of Medicare and Medicaid spending growth is the rate of increase in private spending. It could be that more control over private spending is needed to ensure that the projections for Medicare and Medicaid are sustainable.

 

[Listening]

More studies and papers.....

Lies in print/propaganda.

Who trusts any of it any more ?

 

[Listening]

Yes you being wrong means I am an idiot. What an insight.

As I said before, you make stuff up and then argue against it.

The fact that you can't even win in your arguments against yourself is what is so fun to watch.

That you claim solvency was extended and that Carter claimed he had saved he system for 30 years sounds a great deal alike. 18 months (not years) after Carters claim, congress went to Reagan telling him he had no choice but to raise taxes to save Social Security. It has NOTHING to do with efficiency. Carters projections and claims were all based on extremely optimitic and pathetically incorrect assumptions about the economy.

Your claims are based on the same types of projections which means you could be as far off as Carter regardless of how "efficient" Medicare is.

A claim of extended solvency is as good as Franco's claims of being a school teacher.

 

[Oldstyle]

ObamaCare extends Medicare solvency by like 5 years. Also republicans have all voted twice now to completely eliminate Medicare

There is an old saying...better to keep ones mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Words you should live by, Starcraft...

ObamaCare does nothing to extend Medicare solvency

Ok I was wrong. Obamacare extends Medicares solvency by 12 years. Sorry.
Trustees: Improved Medicare Outlook due to PPACA...n' Other Stuff n' Junk - Pathophilia

K they have all voted to eliminate Medicare twice, and their President Nominee Romney has come out in support of eliminating Medicare. Ironically they want to make Medicare.
Senate GOP vote to end Medicare.
Senate Republicans Vote Overwhelmingly To End Medicare | TPMDC
Mitt Romney advocates ending Medicare
Mitt Romney Promises to Raise Retirement Age, Privatize Medicare and Slash Government Jobs at Koch Brothers Event | Video Cafe
House GOP votes again to end Medicare
Boehner: Ryan budget 'vision' of what GOP would do if in control - The Hill's Floor Action

Republicans like Paul Ryan are trying to come up with solutions to SAVE Medicare...

So according to you to save Medicare we have to eliminate it... why the hell save it if the solution is to eliminate it? Furthermore repealing Obamcare increase wasteful Medicare spending and causes it to go insolvent 12 years earlier; also furthermore the problem with Medicare is high costs, Ryan plan causes seniors health care costs to increase by 50%.
God its just like US soldiers destroying Vietnam villages and responding that we were saving them.

Democrats like Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have kicked the problem of Medicare solvency down the road to let someone else fix...basically refusing to address unfunded entitlements at all and attacking anyone who DOES try to find solutions.

Yes they passed Obamacare which kicked the issue o f insolvency in Medicare by 12 years.

I'm curious, Starcraft...did you actually READ the report your blogger cited? Here it is. Tell me where it is exactly that it says things are better.

"Medicare costs (including both HI and SMI expenditures) are projected to grow substantially from approximately 3.6 percent of GDP in 2010 to 5.5 percent of GDP by 2035, and to increase gradually thereafter to about 6.2 percent of GDP by 2085.

The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the HI Trust Fund is 0.79 percent of taxable payroll, up from 0.66 percent projected in last year’s report. The HI fund fails the test of short-range financial adequacy, as projected assets drop below one year’s projected expenditures early in 2011. The fund also continues to fail the long-range test of close actuarial balance. Medicare’s HI Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in income in all future years. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is 2024, five years earlier than estimated in last year’s report, at which time dedicated revenues would be sufficient to pay 90 percent of HI costs. The share of HI expenditures that can be financed with HI dedicated revenues is projected to decline slowly to 75 percent in 2045, and then to rise slowly, reaching 88 percent in 2085. Over 75 years, HI’s actuarial imbalance is estimated to be equivalent to 21 percent of tax receipts or 17 percent of program outlays.

The worsening of HI's projected finances is primarily due to lower HI real (inflation-adjusted) non-interest income caused by a slower assumed economic recovery, and by higher HI real costs caused by higher assumed near-term growth in real economy-wide average labor compensation. The resulting increases in HI real deficits are concentrated in the near term, which is why trust fund exhaustion occurs five years earlier than was projected last year despite a relatively modest increase in the 75-year actuarial deficit."

What's scary about THAT report is that it's that bad even using wildly optimistic projections of economic growth. In case you haven't been following along (I would suggest fewer video games and more current events) original projections on costs keep getting revised and it's ALWAYS higher.

 

[whitehall]

Another Alinsky post designed to fool the public into believing that Medicare is solvent and there is a Social Security locked box. The truth is that Medicare is broke and the federal government spends every dime in Social Security. Something needs to be done and it ain't gonna happen by hiring a thousand IRS agents to confiscate your property under barry-care. All these opinions that start out as "stop republicans " are a smokescreen designed to hide the failures of Barry Hussein's administration.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Tell me something, why don't you post the study that shows how stupid and fill of lies that this study is?

The Fiscal Consequences of the Affordable Care Act | Mercatus

ROTFL so according to you Obamacare increase the deficit because we shouldn't include in the analysis of Obamacare the measures that it takes to reduce the deficit. Are you seriously this stupid and brainwashed?

No, according to the guy Obama put in charge of Medicare. I just happen to think he knows what he is talking about.

ROTFL. Charles Blahous was appointed by Bush and he wasn't even in charge of Medicare.
Furthermore the reason he says Obamacare increases the deficit is because he says we should not include measures in Obamacare that reduce the deficit.
Are you really this ignorant?

 

[starcraftzzz]

The Bible doesn't say anything about how old the Earth is.

That $500 billion is not wasteful spending, it is a simple cut to Medicare, and, like the reduction in payments to doctors, only exists in the minds of fools.

I see so according to you excessive administration fees, spending on inefficient medical procedures and drugs and Paying for unneeded medical equipment/good are not wasteful spending. Perhaps you are to illiterate to know what wasteful is

Perhaps you are too stupid to understand English.

Scratch that, no perhaps about it.

You are the one who thinks that spending money on drugs that do not work is not a waste of money

 

[starcraftzzz]

ROTFL heritage, the company that thinks ending Medicare will bring 2% unemployment, the compnay that thinks incom,e taxes equal all taxes, the company that thinks teachers are overpaid because they make more the someone at McDonalds, the company whose analysis that regulations cost the economy excludes benefits.. ? Lets see how long it takes to debunk that bullshit.
Oh wait you see when you compared apples-to-apples medicare administration costs are 20% less the private insurance. But I give props to Heritage for doctoring data and the brainwashing the dumb with it
Administrative costs - NYTimes.com

Heritage is not a company, and doesn't think anything you just accused them of.You cannot compare administrative costs of Medicare unless you count the cost of collecting the money, and the other associated costs. Even your link admits that, even if they pretend they are counting them.

I do realize that Heritage does not care that everything it says is bogus incorrect and fabricated.
Furthermore as I already posted when you included all the shit you stated private insurance costs more

Lets delve deeper.
Medicare costs have increased by 50% less then private health costs. This is despite medicare having higher heath outcomes.
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf

If Medicare costs have increased slower than regular insurance, why is the Medicare budget increasing so much faster than those of insurance?

So according to you the fact that Medicare spending has increased by 50% less than private insurance means its cost have increased more. Are you to stupid to read?

Wrong, whose with cash are more likely to be accepted.

Nope according to the data Medicare carriers are more likely to be accepted. However i do realize that you are to pathetic to admit you are wrong so you will continue to deny reality.
Notice how you always fail to respond to the points and just go on to say even stupider things?

 

[starcraftzzz]

There is an old saying...better to keep ones mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. Words you should live by, Starcraft...

ObamaCare does nothing to extend Medicare solvency

Ok I was wrong. Obamacare extends Medicares solvency by 12 years. Sorry.
Trustees: Improved Medicare Outlook due to PPACA...n' Other Stuff n' Junk - Pathophilia

K they have all voted to eliminate Medicare twice, and their President Nominee Romney has come out in support of eliminating Medicare. Ironically they want to make Medicare.
Senate GOP vote to end Medicare.
Senate Republicans Vote Overwhelmingly To End Medicare | TPMDC
Mitt Romney advocates ending Medicare
Mitt Romney Promises to Raise Retirement Age, Privatize Medicare and Slash Government Jobs at Koch Brothers Event | Video Cafe
House GOP votes again to end Medicare
Boehner: Ryan budget 'vision' of what GOP would do if in control - The Hill's Floor Action

So according to you to save Medicare we have to eliminate it... why the hell save it if the solution is to eliminate it? Furthermore repealing Obamcare increase wasteful Medicare spending and causes it to go insolvent 12 years earlier; also furthermore the problem with Medicare is high costs, Ryan plan causes seniors health care costs to increase by 50%.
God its just like US soldiers destroying Vietnam villages and responding that we were saving them.

Democrats like Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have kicked the problem of Medicare solvency down the road to let someone else fix...basically refusing to address unfunded entitlements at all and attacking anyone who DOES try to find solutions.

Yes they passed Obamacare which kicked the issue o f insolvency in Medicare by 12 years.

I'm curious, Starcraft...did you actually READ the report your blogger cited? Here it is. Tell me where it is exactly that it says things are better.

"Medicare costs (including both HI and SMI expenditures) are projected to grow substantially from approximately 3.6 percent of GDP in 2010 to 5.5 percent of GDP by 2035, and to increase gradually thereafter to about 6.2 percent of GDP by 2085.

I see so according to you because Medicare costs increase it means that them increasing less due to Obamacare is not valid...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see so according to you excessive administration fees, spending on inefficient medical procedures and drugs and Paying for unneeded medical equipment/good are not wasteful spending. Perhaps you are to illiterate to know what wasteful is

Perhaps you are too stupid to understand English.

Scratch that, no perhaps about it.

You are the one who thinks that spending money on drugs that do not work is not a waste of money

I do? Where did I say that?

 

[tigerbob]

Protect Your Care | Stop the Republican Plan to End Medicare

Not that the R's will ever do what the country wants or needs but here it is anyway ...

Did you know that Medicare will pay for a wheelchair for you to be able to get around in your house, but not for a ramp so you can get out of the house if there's a fire?

A ramp is considered a luxury. As apparently is not burning to death.

Medicare is an almighty fuckup.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

ROTFL heritage, the company that thinks ending Medicare will bring 2% unemployment, the compnay that thinks incom,e taxes equal all taxes, the company that thinks teachers are overpaid because they make more the someone at McDonalds, the company whose analysis that regulations cost the economy excludes benefits.. ? Lets see how long it takes to debunk that bullshit.
Oh wait you see when you compared apples-to-apples medicare administration costs are 20% less the private insurance. But I give props to Heritage for doctoring data and the brainwashing the dumb with it
Administrative costs - NYTimes.com

Heritage is not a company, and doesn't think anything you just accused them of.You cannot compare administrative costs of Medicare unless you count the cost of collecting the money, and the other associated costs. Even your link admits that, even if they pretend they are counting them.

I do realize that Heritage does not care that everything it says is bogus incorrect and fabricated.
Furthermore as I already posted when you included all the shit you stated private insurance costs more

If Medicare costs have increased slower than regular insurance, why is the Medicare budget increasing so much faster than those of insurance?

So according to you the fact that Medicare spending has increased by 50% less than private insurance means its cost have increased more. Are you to stupid to read?

Wrong, whose with cash are more likely to be accepted.

Nope according to the data Medicare carriers are more likely to be accepted. However i do realize that you are to pathetic to admit you are wrong so you will continue to deny reality.
Notice how you always fail to respond to the points and just go on to say even stupider things?

According to the NYT Medicare spending has increased at 8.8% annually, while insurance premiums have increased at 9.9% annually. Comparing those two numbers is a bit like comparing apples and oranges, but there is no way that insurance spending could have increased 50% faster than Medicare spending unless the premiums had gone up a lot faster than they did.

Medicare versus insurers - NYTimes.com

The problem here is that Medicare spending does not count the administrative cost of collecting the tax. tracking fraud, and insuring compliance with the law, nor does it count the costs of tracking the individual premiums and outlays. All of those are laid off on other agencies in the government, but are part of the insurance companies expenses. I am sure that most people understand that amounts to a lot more than the 1.3% of the difference in cost that the NYT found. Even the government realizes that, which is why they allow insurance companies 10% to 15% for administrative costs, depending on the type of policy.

Want to try again?

 

[starcraftzzz]

Perhaps you are too stupid to understand English.

Scratch that, no perhaps about it.

You are the one who thinks that spending money on drugs that do not work is not a waste of money

I do? Where did I say that?

"That $500 billion is not wasteful spending, it is a simple cut to Medicare, and, like the reduction in payments to doctors, only exists in the minds of fools."
Perhaps the problem is that you are 100% clueless about what you are talking about resulting in you having no idea what you are saying because you are so stupid