The Medicare program will be cut $530B by President Obama’s controversial healthcare law, and used for brand new programs for someone else. Your Medicare Advantage choices are being reduced and unelected Medicare czars will cut payments to physicians and health care providers.
Physicians have written their version of “Medicare and You” in 2012. Physicians are dropping out of the Medicare program, costs are increasing and choices are being reduced. Medicare is paying a big chunk of Obamacare.
The CBO estimates that the Medicare is just nine years away (2020) from not being able to pay out current benefits. Medicare is unsustainable and faces financial insolvency because of three main reasons.
First, life expectancy has increased by almost 10 years since the programs inception in 1965. Second, Congress expanded the program and financing has not kept up.
An average wage, two income couple together earning $89,000 annually would have paid $114,000 in payroll taxes, but will receive medical services – from prescriptions to hospital care – worth $355,000, or about three times what they paid into the system.
Third is the $530B being taken from Medicare to pay for new programs. Obamacare increases taxes, health care costs, and increases government control over our healthcare costs.
Just raising taxes won’t work either, because respected economists estimate that tax rates would have to jump 28 percent for the wealthiest Americans, just to keep Medicare solvent for another 10 years, with the poorest seeing tax increases also.
While the Supercommittee was meeting to cut $1.2T from the budget over the next decade, Obama offered the committee another $250B in Medicare cuts, in addition to the $530B, while limiting future growth to 0.5% regardless of inflation – and most seniors think the current administration is making decisions to benefit their needs.
Obamacare creates a 15 member independent advisory board setting price controls, limiting pay to healthcare providers, who will not continue in Medicare when they are not adequately reimbursed for their services.
There are virtually no checks on the panel and their recommendations can’t be challenged in court the way the law is currently written. The president, under Obamacare, would be able to bypass Congress and the Senate’s constitutional role to confirm the president’s appointments to the committee.
Rationing of healthcare must follow in the face of the destruction of Medicare to fund Obama’s new healthcare plan. There will be only one healthcare plan standing after the smoke clears following the next election.
Related posts:
- Obamacare will impact seniors, who have a right to be skeptical about his health care plan
- Medicare – Did you actually expect to get what you paid for from the government?
- Speaking of Social Security and Medicare…
- Medicare successful for seniors, still costly program
- U.S. Medicare has its doctor problems, too
Brian,
“Terry the tea BAGGER. why do you keep bringing up Clinton?” Scroll back up and see how you stated “Bush knew everybody told them and they got alot of our Soldiers killed for NO weapons ever found of mass destruction. you cant re-write history.” This is where I pointed out that Clinton had the same intellgence data that Bush had. Do you remember that?
Brian, last year when Quinn raised the Illinois personal income tax rate from 3% to 5%, were you cheerleading this effort? Did you vote for Quinn knowing he was going to raise income tax rates? Quinn’s tax hike bascially cancelled out the SocSec tax rate cut we rec’d last year.
Also, will you ever support the SocSec tax hike going back to 6.2%?
Ted,
As I am sure you are aware of the term “Tea Bagger” has sexual overtones, it’s you call
Excuse me, Ted. It’s not a tax increase?
When reviewing statues, courts frequently turn to dictionaries to discern the intended meaning of the statute in question. We shall do so here: Merriam-Webster defines “increase” as “to make greater”. Oxford Dictionaries defines “increase” as “a rise in the size, amount, or degree of something”. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/increase and http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/increase?q=increase.
To use your example, Ted, if income taxes are 0% for one year due to a tax holiday, and then the following year the income tax rate is, say, 25%, 25% is greater than 0%, and that is, by definition, an increase, just as 6.2% is greater than 4.2% which is, similarly, an increase. The definition of “increase” is not controlled by the reason for a preceding decrease.
What are you hoping to accomplish by trying to change the definition of words? One can only surmise that you’re trying to obfuscate the issue at hand for some reason when you do that.
“This is just a political ploy so Obama doesn’t have to run on his record, which is dismal and people like you can’t see the difference! They are simply bankrupting Social Security faster than they were before and will make your kids and grandkids pay for it. How can you be so unloving to your children to force this on them in the future – you have to be smart enough to understand that this will happen. You are just part of the entitled generation I guess.”
Adam, answer my question before asking your own. Always change the subject – typical of a liberal. The question is – What about your kids and future generations having to do without due to your generations selfishness to get what you want now, at their expense by passing your debt to them – or don’t ask me another question.
Ted,
Please look back at prior posts; you directed that paragraph you just quoted toward Brian, not me. Indeed, my comment from 7:47 P.M. on December 22 was my first post in this thread, so how could I possibly know that you’d want me to respond to something you directed toward Brian before I was to speak? That simply defies logic.
Further, I did not change the subject — “typical of a liberal”. You averred that this potential upward change in payroll tax rate was not a tax increase and I succinctly addressed that point which you had brought up.
I think that everyone is tiring of hearing you call everyone younger than you selfish. I am not engaging you about future generations or any other topic; my comments were confined to your misunderstanding — perhaps willful misunderstanding — of the definition of the word “increase”, which, upon being proven wrong, you have neglected to address. Perhaps you should address that — “or don’t ask me another question”, especially one that you addressed toward another person.
Since no question was actually posed to me in this thread before I posted my comment, I reiterate my initial question to you which I asked in my very first post in this thread: what do you hope to accomplish by trying to confuse your readers by saying up is down, day is night, black is white?
So it appears after yesterday’s vote and what Boehner said, I was right huh guys !!
You can Thank me later if you wish.. Merry Christmas / Happy New Year Gentleman
Adam Ted wont answer when he is wrong on any subject. And he just likes to pick apart what someone says that fits his form.
Terry the tea bagger. The sexual overtones you keep refering to are confusing to me ? What do you mean. A tea bagger in my refrence is an anti tax person. If you read anything else into that your a sick person. Crying to Ted is kinda wierd you want him to stop me from calling out the proper name becuse of your sick twisted idea of what something means to you. Sorry if you completely misunderstand the meaning of tea bagger !!
Sorry about directing the response to you, instead of Brian. All you guys sound the same to me after awhile!
Fortunately, this blog system allows us to use our names so we can tell people apart. Why do “all [us] guys sound the same to [you] after awhile”? Is it because, rather than thoughtfully consider what anyone says you lump everyone with their own thoughts into the category of “you liberals” or “you idiots”? Whether we agree with you in premise or not, when you say things such as that an upward change in tax rate is not an increase, you’re surely going to have people object purely on the basis of poor argumentation.