I've seen many pro's and con's about healthcare reform, and I think there are very few -- if any -- people who fully understand what it's all about. However, there are organizations that do look out for us old farts, and this is what AARP has to say about healthcare reform.
This, coupled with the lies that have been exposed by Truth or Fiction and Snopes, makes me believe that someone is desperately trying to sabotage something that could -- with some adjustments -- be a very good thing for Americans. My main question at this point would be: Why is Obama trying to push this through so quickly? As I said, there are few -- if any -- people who know what it's about. The "transparency" seems to be getting rather "opaque".
Don't Let the Myths About Health Care Reform Scare You. There are special interest groups trying to block progress on health care reform by using myths and scare tactics. Like the notion that health care reform would ration your care, hurt Medicare or be a government takeover. Actually, these are false statements.
All of the health care reform plans currently being debated in Congress would ensure that you and your doctor are the ones making decisions about your health. The majority of working Americans will continue to receive their health care through their employer. In addition, health care reform will strengthen Medicare by eliminating billions of dollars in waste while lowering prescription drug prices.
Throughout the debate on how to fix what's broken about our health care system, AARP pledges to help you cut through the noise and find the facts about what health care reform means for you and your family. When we see special interests using scare tactics, we'll make sure you're given the facts so you can make informed decisions about health care reform.
The following are some of the most common myths being spread about health care reform and the facts that prove them wrong.
*********************** What is the essence of America? Finding and maintaining that perfect, delicate balance between freedom "to" and freedom "from." ~Marilyn vos Savant, in Parade
This message has been edited by barbhardi on Aug 4, 2009 6:59 PM
Bloomberg - Caroline Baum - ýAug 3, 2009ý
Surely Obama spent enough time at the University of Chicago to understand his P's and Q's. Obama says his advisers have identified $500 billion to $600...guardian.co.uk
If you can show me where OBAMA says he wants to cut 600 billion from Medicare and the poor to pay for healthcare, I'll say "boo". I'm not saying he didn't say that, I just can't find it anywhere except as quoted by someone other than Obama. Of course, as stated above, I've not waded through the entire thing. Has anyone else been able to do that?
***********************
What is the essence of America? Finding and maintaining that perfect, delicate balance between freedom "to" and freedom "from." ~Marilyn vos Savant, in Parade
Moniker, whatever AARP's political leanings, I have found them to be a more reliable source than many other organizations. Not to say they are always 100% correct.
***********************
What is the essence of America? Finding and maintaining that perfect, delicate balance between freedom "to" and freedom "from." ~Marilyn vos Savant, in Parade
Ok ---- see below from Reuters a very liberal source ..
According to them the ONe's Directions amouts to a total of 950 biilion in cuts to the programs when all of Obama's cuts are totaled ..
See full article below ..
PULL QUOTE---
Altogether, the Obama administration is now asking Congress to trim spending on Medicare and Medicaid by more than $600 billion over the next decade, which is more than some Democrats are willing to swallow.
To address those concerns, Obama has pledged to come up with enough spending cuts and new revenue to pay for reforms.
"So today, I am announcing an additional $313 billion in savings that will rein in unnecessary spending, and increase efficiency and the quality of care -- savings that will ensure that we have nearly $950 billion set aside to offset the cost of health care reform over the next ten years," Obama said.
About $110 billion of the new cuts would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments. That would encourage healthcare providers to increase productivity, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.
Obama also proposed cutting payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients by $106 billion on the assumption those ranks would decline as healthcare reforms phase in.
An additional $75 billion would come from "better pricing of Medicare drugs," Orszag said, adding the White House was in talks with stakeholders over the best way to do that.
The remaining $22 billion in proposed cuts would come from smaller reforms, such as adjusting payment rates for physician imaging services and cutting waste, fraud and abuse.
The new cuts are in addition to a $635 billion "down payment" on healthcare reform that Obama outlined in his budget to Congress earlier this year.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Saturday proposed an additional $313 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other programs to pay for healthcare reforms expected to cost about $1 trillion over the next decade.
"I know some question whether we can afford to act this year. But the unmistakable truth is that it would be irresponsible to not act," Obama said in an advance text of his weekly radio address.
Obama wants a healthcare reform bill on his desk by October, but faces opposition from Republicans who oppose creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.
Many of his fellow Democrats are wary of making deep cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the U.S. healthcare programs for seniors and poor people, to pay for reforms.
With the cost of U.S. healthcare continuing to rise rapidly, Obama argued the country could not afford to wait another year for sweeping changes.
But he acknowledged the ambitious plan would increase government costs in the short run.
To address those concerns, Obama has pledged to come up with enough spending cuts and new revenue to pay for reforms.
"So today, I am announcing an additional $313 billion in savings that will rein in unnecessary spending, and increase efficiency and the quality of care -- savings that will ensure that we have nearly $950 billion set aside to offset the cost of health care reform over the next ten years," Obama said.
About $110 billion of the new cuts would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments. That would encourage healthcare providers to increase productivity, White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters.
Obama also proposed cutting payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients by $106 billion on the assumption those ranks would decline as healthcare reforms phase in.
An additional $75 billion would come from "better pricing of Medicare drugs," Orszag said, adding the White House was in talks with stakeholders over the best way to do that.
The remaining $22 billion in proposed cuts would come from smaller reforms, such as adjusting payment rates for physician imaging services and cutting waste, fraud and abuse.
The new cuts are in addition to a $635 billion "down payment" on healthcare reform that Obama outlined in his budget to Congress earlier this year.
About half of that came from cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and the rest from revenue proposals such as cutting tax deductions for families that make over $250,000 a year.
Altogether, the Obama administration is now asking Congress to trim spending on Medicare and Medicaid by more than $600 billion over the next decade, which is more than some Democrats are willing to swallow.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel told reporters after a closed-door meeting with fellow Democrats on the panel that the committee would include about $400 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings in the healthcare overhaul legislation being drafted.
"We don't think we can do all the things he (Obama) is recommending. ... We think his 600 (billion) is our 400," Rangel told reporters.
(Reporting by Doug Palmer and Donna Smith; Editing by Peter Cooney)
Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only.
This message has been edited by Ablevins on Aug 4, 2009 7:53 PM
Remember beginning in 2010 Medicare will cut by 21.4% the amount it pays doctors for each patient service .BILLED....
withouT any of the newest cuts ...
USNews.com: Political Bulletin: Thursday, February 26, 2009
Feb 26, 2009 ... Tax Hike On Rich, Medicare Cuts To Test Obama Clout; Defying Obama ... a job has been lost or someone in their household has suffered a pay cut. ... before beginning in earnest to meet the August 2010 target for removing ...www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/.../bulletin_090226.htm - http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:gZGSfxcORXUJ:www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090226.htm+21.4%25cut+medicare+2010&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us','','','clnk','1','')" href="http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:gZGSfxcORXUJ:www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_090226.htm+21.4%25cut+medicare+2010&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us">Cached - Similar
[PDF]
2009 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobattotal SMI, and total Medicare estimates shown for 2010 and thereafter are likely to be somewhat ...... the currently scheduled physician payment cut of about 21.5 percent. ...... 21.4. 9.2. 10.6. 9.3. 2.9. 6.2. Intermediate estimates: ...www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2009.pdf - Similar
AMNews: March 2, 2009. Recession, Medicare cuts not enough to stop ...
Mar 2, 2009 ... The roughly 21% Medicare physician pay cut on tap for 2010 would dramatically shrink Medicare spending increases and would even have a ...www.ama-assn.org/amednews/.../gvl10302.htm - 20 hours ago - http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:W3_pDMT70rcJ:www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/03/02/gvl10302.htm+21.4%25cut+medicare+2010&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us','','','clnk','3','')" href="http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:W3_pDMT70rcJ:www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/03/02/gvl10302.htm+21.4%25cut+medicare+2010&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us">Cached - Similar
Open Left:: Obama's "Mandate" To Slash Medicare, Medicaid & Social ...
Cut federal income taxes for 95% of working families, 57%, 53%. Withdraw most U.S. combat troops from Iraq ... About Right, 16.8, 19.0, 27.5, 21.4 ..... Nov 1, 2009. if not rescinded. one month general strike. May 2010. ...www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10969 - http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:TM4D9LMEbbEJ:www.openleft.com/showDiary.do%3FdiaryId%3D10969+21.4%25cut+medicare+2010&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us','','','clnk','4','')" href="http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:TM4D9LMEbbEJ:www.openleft.com/showDiary.do%3FdiaryId%3D10969+21.4%25cut+medicare+2010&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us">Cached - Similar
This message has been edited by Ablevins on Aug 4, 2009 8:12 PM
Did you know that Obama has a mandate to slash Medicare and Medicaid? Probably not, I'd wager. But it seems that Obama believes he has such a mandate, according to an item at the Washington Posts' website ( h/t Digby ), that reads, in part:
Obama To Hold Fiscal Responsibility Summit
President-elect Barack Obama will convene a "fiscal responsibility summit" in February designed to bring together a variety of voices on solving the long term problems with the economy and with a special focus on entitlements, he said during an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors this afternoon.
"We need to send a signal that we are serious," said Obama of the summit.
Those invited to attend will include Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.), ranking minority member Judd Gregg (N.H.), the conservative Democratic Blue Dog coalition and a host of outside groups with ideas on the matter, said the president-elect....
Obama said that he has made clear to his advisers that some of the difficult choices--particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare - should be made on his watch. "We've kicked this can down the road and now we are at the end of the road," he said.
This is not just something he didn't run on. It is, in fact, the exact opposite of what he ran on-or at least appeared to, as can be seen from economist Dean Baker's op-ed in The Guardian, a few days earlier, in which he wrote:
Although Social Security is paid for long into the future, Medicare does face problems due to the explosion of private sector health care costs. The way to address Medicare's shortfall is to fix the private health care system, as President Obama has pledged to do.
The truth of Baker's statement is readily apparent from the following chart, which I presented in my diary from last April, "Medicare Myths--Don't Blame The Boomers". Our medical costs are far higher than other countries with a significantly larger share of older citizens:
Not only is Obama's "fiscal responsibility" kick at odds with his actual mandate and his own health care proposals, it reflects a deeply ideological worldview that--far from being bipartisan or "post-partisan"--is strongly opposed by solid majorities across the political spectrum. It is the very essence of Versailles insiderism.
Those invited to attend will include Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.), ranking minority member Judd Gregg (N.H.), the conservative Democratic Blue Dog coalition and a host of outside groups with ideas on the matter, said the president-elect....
So, Blue Dogs in. Progressives? Not so much. Surprised? Didn't think so. The agenda here "difficult choices--particularly in regards to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare" is straight out of the fiscal slasher movie on CNN last weekend, IOUSA, which Digby blogged about earlier in the week, and which was thoroughly debunked by economist Dean Baker and his associates at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), which he co-directs, when it first came out in theatrical release last fall.
The materials CEPR put together included a viewer guide (PDF), a brief snippet of which gives some quick insight into who the players are, But first, a little taste of how the guide debunks one of the underlying lies behind this "documentary":
15:10 - The film refers to ways to balance the budget, implying that this should be a target for fiscal policy.
In fact the government can run deficits forever, as long as the growth of debt does not exceed the growth in GDP. The essential condition for fiscal stability is that the ratio of debt to GDP does not rise over time.
16:00 - The films refers to deficits of $200-$300 billion as not doing well.
In fact, the government could sustain deficits of this size forever. With deficits at these levels, the ratio of debt to GDP would be falling.
16:29 - These deficits are described as being unsustainable over the long run.
Deficits in the range of $200 billion to $300 billion can be sustained indefinitely. If the U.S. government ran a deficit of $300 billion annually for the next hundred years, then the ratio of debt to GDP would fall to less than 4 percent.
And now, some of the co-conspirators in putting this over on the American people:
18:59 - Senator Judd Gregg says the debt absolutely guarantees that our children will have a worse quality of life than we do.
None of the standard projections from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget or any other authoritative source supports Senator Gregg's assertion.
19:40 - Alice Rivlin blames just 3 programs (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) for most of the deficit problem.
The problem with Medicare and Medicaid is the broken U.S. health care system. Social Security will be fully financed from its designated tax until 2049. Therefore, it makes no sense to blame Social Security for the budget problem. The projected increase in its outlays over the next four decades is covered by taxes already collected or that will be collected....
27:00 - Robert Rubin says that there are very difficult trade offs in cutting spending or raising taxes.
It would have been worth mentioning reforming the health care system as a third possible way to deal with excessive deficits.
So, that's Judd Gregg, who's going to be at Obama's "Fiscal Responsibility Summit," and a couple of quinitessential Democratic insider heavyweights on fiscal affairs. Not Paul Krugman. Not Joseph Stiglitz. None of that Nobel Prize riff-raff. Also quoted elsewhere in the movie were Ron Paul and Warren Buffett. Who knew that they were the very embodiment of Obama's victory?
Obama's ACTUAL Mandate
In sharp contrast to Obama's plans to slash Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, there were some things he talked about quite freely during the campaign, and USA Today recently did a poll on them. So let's take a quick look at the poll, beginning with a bit of an intro from the story, "Poll: Americans believe Obama will deliver despite down times" [emphasis added]:
WASHINGTON - Americans are as down as they've been in decades about the state of the country and its polarized politics, even as they express soaring confidence that Barack Obama will be able to turn things around.
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds stratospheric expectations for the incoming president that his own supporters acknowledge may be unrealistic. A majority of those surveyed say Obama will be able to achieve every one of 10 major campaign promises, from doubling the production of alternative energy to ensuring that all children have health insurance coverage....
The towering ratings Obama receives from most Americans will give him political capital as he tries to pass his proposals, including a mammoth economic stimulus package that he says will cost about $850 billion. Those high hopes could give way to disenchantment, however, when problems erupt or promises are delayed - something Obama already has warned Americans to expect.
Those surveyed distinguish among his campaign promises, ranking some as more crucial than others.
Their clear priorities are the issues that hit home. On a list of campaign promises, five pocketbook issues take the five top spots, among them expanding health care for children and reducing health care costs. They include doubling the production of alternative energy, a step Obama says would help reduce reliance on gas and its volatile market.
Seven of 10 call it "very important" to them personally that he keep those promises. His pledges to cut income taxes for working families and pass a stimulus package that will build and repair bridges, roads and schools also are among the top five issues.
Slashing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security obviously is not on the list of promises. No one is clamoring for him to do that. No one voted for him to do that.
Here is the summary table of results from the USA Today poll:
How important is it to you, personally, that Barack Obama keep these promises? And, just your best guess, will he be able to accomplish them?
Promises
Those who said "very important"
Yes, he will be able to accomplish them
Ensure all children have health insurance coverage
73%
62%
Double the production of alternative energy
70%
59%
Reduce health care costs for the typical American family by up to $2,500 per year
70%
56%
Enact a major spending program to strengthen the nation's infrastructure of bridges, roads and schools
60%
80%
Cut federal income taxes for 95% of working families
57%
53%
Withdraw most U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months
51%
54%
Increase U.S. military strength in Afghanistan by at least two brigades
43%
68%
Lift restrictions on government funding of embryonic stem-cell research
42%
61%
Close the U.S. prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo
32%
59%
Make it easier for labor unions to organize
28%
59%
Source: USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,031 adults taken by landline and cellphone Friday-Saturday. Margin of error: +/- 3 percentage points.
So, #3 on the list--with 7 in 10 saying it's "very important" that Obama deliver--is "Reduce health care costs for the typical American family by up to $2,500 per year." And this is precisely what Baker is saying would be key to controlling the deficits that Obama is so worried about--but somehow forgot to explicitly hammer home during the campaign.
"...In fact I would have preferred they do it in parts so we could have a better chance to understand what was being changed..."
WHAT?
I mean, WHAT?
Wait a minute. I might be mistaken. I thought you were for the "reform." If you are for the reform, your statement is very telling.
i.e It tells us you don't expect to know very much about this bill if it passes. A bill that is, perhaps, the biggest reform of an industry and the biggest instant establishment of a bureaucracy in history? A bill that will dictate, in part, your behavior for the rest of your life?
The government will be spending more money on this program than we spent on WWII.
I, for one, would like to have a voice in that!
Why not at least have what the FCC does when they change policy: They have a period of comment from the public, then they go back and implement any changes and bring it out again for review.
*****
We'll be friends until we're old and senile. Then we'll be new friends.
-Anon.
AARP has been very vocal and agressive as anti-gun on that issue for decades. I have thrown away a truckload of their mail since I became eligible for membership. Beyond that, they are notoriously Liberal first, principle second, just like all other Liberal activist groups.
With the pall of confusion and lack of information in this "reform" on the future of seniors and their coverage, I find the blind partisan support of the AARP to be par for the course. I may start throwing their mail away twice...
AARP is good for me. I saved over $10,000 just for my co-payments with their sponsored supplemental ins. during my cancer treatment and follow ups.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We are all equal, but we definitely are not the same"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose being anti-gun is enough to make anything or anybody worthless. Always throw the baby out with the bathwater.
***********************
What is the essence of America? Finding and maintaining that perfect, delicate balance between freedom "to" and freedom "from." ~Marilyn vos Savant, in Parade
I suppose being anti-gun is enough to make anything or anybody worthless. Always throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It's an issue I find important, you have some problem with that? Otherwise, go ahead and be stupid like Jim lately. I oppose the anti-gun position, and I oppose Obamacare that the AARP is supporting, so you jump up like a typical Liberal demagogue, and make this assanine claim about "enough to make anything or anybody worthless"??? In the future, I would be more carefull about *supposing* if I were you. It's too revealing, I suppose...
I'm not supposing, Gus. I've read your posts for many years now and I know your stance on the gun issue and I know how you feel about those who do not agree with your position on guns. It's your opinion. You're entitled to it and entitled to expres it, but don't get all self-righteous when everyone doesn't agree with you.
***********************
What is the essence of America? Finding and maintaining that perfect, delicate balance between freedom "to" and freedom "from." ~Marilyn vos Savant, in Parade
I've learned that the people you care most about in life are taken from you too soon and
all the less important ones just never go away.
And the real pains in the ass are permanent.
I'm not supposing, Gus. I've read your posts for many years now and I know your stance on the gun issue and I know how you feel about those who do not agree with your position on guns. It's your opinion. You're entitled to it and entitled to expres it, but don't get all self-righteous when everyone doesn't agree with you.
Fair enough, so name one time in all of your reading, that I have declared people of the opposition "worthless". Things like laws, policies, and opinions? Of course they're worthless! But I have *always* considered the rank-and-file, non politician people in the anti-gun ranks to be well-intentioned, but mis-informed. Hardly worthless.
I'm afraid Gus is right. AARP consistently takes liberal stands. It's not surprising that they were founded by a guy who also founded Colonial Penn and made a freaking fortune with AARP offers.
AARP is a huge MARKETING company lucky enough to maintain their "non profit" status. All of their medical insurance and car insurance and travel programs make them a lot of money, and their lawyers and board members make a load of coin.
Okay.... my major point: AARP has been in the tank for Obama since the beginning. And, they espouse the same culling of the American aged population as Obama's health/insurance reform. (Or whatever they call it today.)
On page 22 of this month's magazine, they present an option for men with less than a 10-year life expectancy: Don't treat your prostrate cancer.
So, if you are 70, and expect to live to 80, skip it. Since the life expectancy in America is 78, I guess men who are 68 with prostrate cancer are advised to take a "wait and see approach" as outlined in the issue. Once they get past that option, they go on to describe other options.
LOL!
*****
We'll be friends until we're old and senile. Then we'll be new friends.
-Anon.
Email this story
![[linked image]](http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a313/Mawahka/greedy_grape.jpg)