National Health Reform and You (Part VII)
Oct 01 2009
As advocates, the MOAA lobbying team is paid to watch out for the interests of military and veteran beneficiaries. From that standpoint, we do our utmost to recognize the nation’s special obligation to do right by those who have accepted the extraordinary demands and sacrifices inherent in a 20- to 30-year career in uniform.
By and large, I believe Congress is making a good faith effort to do that in the ongoing thrash in Congress over national health reform.
But as a taxpayer, I have growing concerns on several fronts.
First, we face a harsh reality that, unless Congress acts relatively soon, Medicare will go broke in the very near future because of the coming wave of baby boomer retirements. In fact, many of those boomers will be retiring sooner than they planned to because the economic crunch of the past year has left lots of folks in their early-to-mid 60s downsized, bought out, and with less continued employment prospects than they had expected.
Second, unless current law is changed, Medicare and TRICARE payments will be cut by 21% this coming January — a disaster that would cause thousands more doctors to stop seeing elderly and military patients. Fixing that alone will cost about half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Where, exactly is that money going to come from (keep reading)?
Third, every legislator’s concern is to protect seniors from any cuts. But we’re living in some kind of dreamland if we think we can add new expensive benefits (such as increasing doctor payments or subsidizing care for all of America’s poor) without either bankrupting the country or making some hard decisions on cutbacks for somebody somewhere or raising a healthy chunk of new taxes on somebody.
All of the various bills would address the doctor payment fix somehow, but none of them in a particularly rational way.
The Senate bills would provide a one-year “patch” to prevent the doc payment cut just for 2010. That’s so they can claim that it’s “budget neutral”. What they don’t say is that that approach creates an even bigger ticking time bomb in the form of a 25+% payment cut that would have to happen in January 2011. (That’s what we’ve done every year for the last several years, and each successive year’s cut has ballooned from 5% to 10% to 21%. That budget rock just gets bigger and bigger, and the slope we’re pushing it up gets steeper and steeper…and that exercise just cannot go on much longer.)
The House bills would provide a longer-term formula fix and still claim to be deficit neutral. How? By simply not counting the cost of the doc payment fix in the equation! Talk about head-in-the-sand budgeting/economics…that’s no different than a college kid going wild with a credit card and pretending there’ll never be a bill to pay.
Like all other Americans, I want to fix Medicare for the long term. But we’re dreaming if we think we can just keep everyone where they are, add new benefits, and keep kicking the budgetary time bomb another year in the face of huge and unprecedented deficits.
The job ahead is to find the least objectionable cuts to make. Pretending that we can hold everyone harmless, not raise taxes, and pay for massive new programs and benefits as well is denying budgetary reality.
That’s how we got into this mess, and continuing to do the same thing isn’t a viable way out of it.
Do I have the answers? I could only wish.
But I know when the budgetary emperor has no clothes…and when it’s time to stop thinking we can do everything for everybody even though we’ve already maxed out multiple national credit cards.
27 Responses to “National Health Reform and You (Part VII)”
Well said
Seems to me that we are condeming Medicare even before we identify why the fund is almost broke. First, how many times has our government taken Medicare funds and used them elsewhere? How many visits by ilegals to MDs and ER rooms–which drive up costs that we pay? Why haven’t we got our troops out of Iraq and save the operational costs to keep them in place? The Iraq war has been nothing but a endless money pit!! Why do we let Senators put “earmarks” for billons in the defense budget? Why do we give millions out in foreign aid–and at the same time we have American cities that are slum ridden?
I could go on for ever!
I believe that congress should pass a bill and get rid of the medicare cap on wages and have all wages subject to the medicare tax on wages, up to and including bonus money and stocks options.
The low to middle income workers already pay medicare tax on bonus money. They will not be hurt. The small business enterprise will not be hurt by this as 99 to 100 percent of the employees are not subject to the cap on medicare as they do not make that much money.
There are certain industries that do not pay medicare tax. The railroad comes to mind as they are not allowed to collect medicare due to the way their retirement is structured.
Lets have many of the baby boomers start paying towards their own retirement.
David Rivedal, CW4, USA (Ret)
Legislative Chairman
OHIO WESTERN RESERVE CHAPTER OF MOAA
Predictable. You must have known, or should have known, that this administration would inevitably reach into the pockets of miliftary retirees to fianance the massive transfer payments that so called “health care reform” will entail. I spent more than 36 years on continuous active duty, including a tour in Viet Nam, and now in my 68th year I am learning that TFL is to become TFLH! (i.e., Tricare for Life–HAH!).
Let’s put the cards on the table here.
When we put off the “doc-payment cut” and say it grows like the “ticking time bomb in the form of a 25+% payment cut,” as a specific action, it is actually less likely to happen.
The larger problem is our group narcissism.
We cannot prevail if we continue to view health reform through a political lens of an America balkanized by groups: age group, union, veteran, faith, class, or otherwise.
Viewed this way, we arrive at an alignment with all these groups on one side of the line, and the health-care industry on the other side. Attrition warfare is not pretty.
We actually have to defend the health-care industry if we expect to have one. Not just to care for ourselves, but for our children and our grandchildren.
This can only be done by allowing the free-market to prevail. The free-market does not have perfect solutions. But by pretending government can do far better, we will end up with far worse.
Personally, I want a robust and well compensated health-care industry that attracts a highly talented work force. Without that, I cannot imagine how health-care consumers can be well served.
Medicare was intended to cover seniors who were not being served by private insurers. Private insurers put profits first by denying coverage to older and less healthy people. Medicare covers all seniors, no matter their pre-existing conditions or state of health, but not young and healthy people who don’t cost much. No plan, private or public, could survive in that environment, let alone make a profit, without government subsidies. Medicare could be “saved” and made self-sustaining simply by opening it up to everyone, including the young and healthy, and charging appropriate premiums.
H.R. 676 (introduced in 2003 and has 86 co-sponsors) does exactly that, with no copays, and adds desirable features (such as long-term care and dental care) that Tricare for Life doesn’t offer. The bill includes provisions for funding, including a payroll tax just like those that fund Medicare and Social Security. That tax could be increased substantially before it would rival the premiums charged by private insurers.
All other advanced nations have healthcare systems that cut for-profit insurance companies out of the game, and some of them look a lot like an expanded and improved Medicare for all (that’s the title of H.R. 676), but neither MOAA nor many members of Congress seem to want to consider this simple, straightforward, 30-page bill. (The insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies are throwing billions of dollars at Congress to keep H.R. 676 out of sight. What’s MOAA’s excuse?).
If everyone who ends a military career could go into a single-payer plan along with everyone else in the country, then the DoD could reduce its responsibility for health care, which suffers from conflicts of interest both within the DoD (people vs. weapons and everything else) and within Congress (76% of members have no military experience and thus have other priorities besides the military community). Members who separate from service would no longer have to choose from among myriad Tricare plans or VA medical centers that–except for Tricare for Life–satisfy nobody, either beneficiary or provider.
H.R. 676 provides for continued autonomy of military and VA treatment centers. Nobody thinks MTFs should merge into a civilian system, but the VA serves people who will never wear a uniform again while leaving their family members to fend for themselves. Except for specialized treatment of certain service-related problems, no veteran I know would prefer to drive many miles to a VA medical center rather than see a local family doctor. Integrating veterans into public healthcare would result in enormous savings.
A simple provision that military retirees would receive this benefit free as a result of having paid the premium through service to our country would finally fulfill the promise the government made to us decades ago. It would also preserve a recruiting and retention incentive MOAA wants to guard.
MOAA and its members need to rid ourselves of the “us vs. them” mentality that pervades everything from “Storming the Hill” to the recent conversation initiated by Col. Strobridge on flexible savings accounts, in which allegations of government discrimination against the military were flung by officers of all ranks. Having separate patchwork programs exclusively for veterans and retirees makes no sense when civilians, including most of our spouses and children, suffer the same illnesses and injuries we do.
“Everybody in and nobody out” makes good fiscal sense as well as a good community. I agree that “it’s time to stop thinking WE can do everything for everybody.” Just join the rest of the country and ALL work together.
Maybe I’m just too simple to know the ramifications of the following:
Why not charge a $20.00 co-pay for ALL Medicare visits? It would give the system more money to throw in the big hole and may stop some of the people from going to the doctor to socialize or for minor problems such as splinter removal, etc.
Why not:
1. Remove the cap on medicare withholding. I agree with Dave Rivedal
2. Get the troops out of Iraq NOW and bill Iraq for our services rendered.
3.Collect the debts from foreign countries to whom we’ve loaned money all these years.
4. Open medicare to all rather than come up with another government program to provide “health care for all ” and approve the 80% items that the Republicans and Democrats are in agreement on. I agree with James Bruner
The problem is with the problem solvers. They think inside the box as if patches would take the place of new blankets Here are some suggestions each of which gores somebody’s ox
First, we treat health care as a public utility and regulate the rate of return to the insurance companies.
Second, we can get the waste, fraud and abuse with the huge savings suggested by our president without this Obama health care. It would result in savings equal to — he alleged — two thirds of the cost of the bill. The President says it is there. Just get it out. No bill Universal Health care Bill necessary
Third, we can get the estimated $100 Billion plus cost of defensive medicine practiced by Doctors with lawyers looking over their backs sharply reduced by eliminating punitive damages resulting from any government funded health care program errors. — a matter not included in the Obama Health Care Plan. This is the tort reform provision
Fourth, we can save billions by making doctors pay for corrective actions resulting from their own errors instead of re-billing the third party payers for additional procedures required by their errors. Let them use their own errors and omissions insurance.
Fifth, we can save hundreds of billions by using Physicians Assistants and Nurse Practitioners more widely. Pharmacies are showing us the way by doing FastCare solving small problems acting as triage practitioners sending cases on to hospitals when necessary as necessary.
Sixth, we can save billions by packaging suites of procedures and even nursing home days into a Dutch Auction on which qualified medical professionals would bid — reselling them to insurance companies for the use of their customers.
Seventh, insurance law will be common across all state and patient insurance will be portable..
Eighth, Government insurance activity will be limited to reinsurance across the fifty states, wherein a portion of the expected costs from higher risk insured will be placed with the Reinsurance company.
Ninth, coverage will be limited to legal residents of the United States except where the country or origin agrees to pick up the costs of the care of illegal aliens. Otherwise illegal aliens will be retuened to their home country for treatment.
I’d like to know the answers to James Bruner’s question to MOAA on H.R. 676.
So far, the government manages one health care system, created in 1954 to replace the care provided by the indian agent msytem. The name of the system is IHS or indian health-care system. I served with Native Americans on several times and they said thier family members in the tribal areas only had health care for the first half of the year as the system was flawed and it ran out of money in June or July each year. How would the rest of us like to join that system? I wonder how many in congress even know about this system?
There is more to Veteran Healthcare than VA considerations – like TRICARE for instance. Refreshing that folks that should be involved have finally awakened to the fact that Tricare For Life (TFL) and Medicare are inexplicably linked —Hello!!!. The President is advertising a $500 Billion “Cut” in Medicare –currently underfunded by $38 trillion — to help pay for Obamacare, so how can TFR not be affected. Restricted access to medical care/service, limits on treatment options, reduced payments for medical treatment/services, etc., etc. Ergo, how can they not affect my “Veteran Healthcare benefits”? Regarding “Medicare Fraud” – if it exists and it does, then why isn’t it corrected before destroying the best healthcare system in the world and affecting one-sixth of our economy. And, why aren’t “savings” found in Medicare not dedicated to making that program solvent. As an aside, the President’s proposal also cuts $125 billion out of Medicare Advantage – which would break his promise, that Americans can keep the health plans they have.
In addition, Americans, increasingly angry about the government’s impotent response to the avalanche of illegal immigrants, are told by the administration that national health care won’t cover illegals. Not only that, but we’re told, we “must not be able to read if we think it does”. … Section 246 of the bill, which distributes taxpayer-funded ‘affordability credits’ to people who can’t afford to pay for their own health care, states: ‘Nothing in this subtitle shall allow federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.’ In other words illegal aliens are excluded from precisely one section of the thousand-page+, goodie-laden health care bill: Section 246. This minor restriction would likely be overturned by the courts; however, except for vouchers, the bill does not even pretend to exclude illegals from any part of national health care — including the taxpayer-funded health insurance plan. The bill contains no mechanisms to ensure that the health care vouchers aren’t going to illegal aliens, prohibit states , prohibit states from providing taxpayer-funded health care vouchers to illegals, nor ensure citizens are in fact citizens. ACLU have and will continue to a field day with this one.
Like too many other unknowns/blanks in healthcare legislation, they are “pass it without reading (or understanding) – trust us” deals — quite frankly I don’t.
Medicare is without funds needed to provide adequate and reasonable health care for seniors because:
1. The fund has been raided so many times by lawmakers looking for ways to pay for projects that enhance their chances of getting reelected such as wars of political opportunity in Afghanistan and Iraq that except for carloads of worthless ‘crow-bait’ (IOU’s) it’s insolvent!
2. Years of appalling abuse of the system by crooked power wheelchair and medical device vendors, hypochondriacs with imaginary illnesses, gluttonous physicians, etc.
3. Lack of oversight by procrastinating lawmakers.
I am a life MOAA member and rely on their efforts to protect the benefits that I actually earned serving my country. I believe in capitalism and the free market. How can any of us believe in a health care program coming out of Congress that they will not accept as their only health care program.
It is obvious that we cannot rely on a government health care program. How absolutely absurd is it that the discussion is even going on right now. What government run program, be it Post Office, railroad, Medicare, or Education to name a few are efficient. The free market will provide those services more cost efficent and effective than any government agency with their instant expertise and unlimited checkbook(taxes).
If we have billions in waste, fix that now. If we have lawsuit problems fix those now. If we can’t insure across state lines fix that now. Why are we all going through this very disruptive experience of changing all health care, unionization,carbon credits, when we need so to be uniting to rebuild the economy of our Republic with real jobs and not short term handouts that are not sustainable.
Thomas Abrials hit the nail on the head. All of his comments are appropriate and should be read by all of our elected congress. There are many areas to save Medicare; one of the first, stop raiding the fund for areas that should not be covered. Go back to the original intent of Medicare. W.D.Anderson
I am a retired Navy Medical Service Officer. I have had the benefit of and the priviledge of working in one of those “government health programs” which have been much maligned in the past few months.
I find some of the comments offered in the responses above seem to be cut fom whole cloth. I have heard nothing about any reduction or elimination of Tricare for Life. Please correct me if I am wrong. As for a robust private health insurance industry. I can’t imagine this industry being any more robust than it is at present. Honestly, if a CEO earning 26 million dollars a year is evidence of robustness, I would be in favor of a little less
It seems to me that many of us who benefit from great healthcare seem to cry out “hooray for me and screw the rest of the people”.
I have a long memory and the only thing which was promised to me and my shipmates when we joined was that the navy would provide for our health needs while we were on active duty. Our dependents would be seen on a space available basis at military medical facilities. As for care after retirement, it would be on a space available basis.
We have made great progress since then and I am more than pleased, but it has come from the generosity of the American taxpayer and the hard work of lobbying organization such as MOAA. I wonder why we are so unwilling to allow others the same opportunity
I t5hink Mr James Bruner has most of the answer in the bill HR676. I would think we should get rid of this idea it is me virsus them. We are all Americans wheather we served or missed the service. We are a country and our citizens all citizens, politicans, presidents of the country or company, veterans, disable veterans, Native Americans, ALL should have health care not just our Representatives, Senators, and other wealthy citizens.
For once, I would like to hear and/or see someone tell us what the problems are in our health care system they are trying to fix. I submit that the real problem is cost and as such should be addressed as a separate issue. We must revamp our laws of incorporation and reduce the “cost center”mentality of the monopolistic health care industry. While we pay increassing premiums, the health care industry continues to create, at a runaway pace, the stand-alone corporations for each segment of the industry.
Col Strobridge should correct his opinions above about the federal Deficit in light of the CBO report today that says:
According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting the Chairman’s mark,
as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of
$81 billion over the 2010–2019 period (see Table 1)
We already have two models that could be used to provide healthcare to all citizens that allow for some level of government controls to prevent capitalistic abuses, provide control by those who use the services, and allow for competition; these are the regulated public utility and the rural electric cooperative. Both these models must be tailored to the specific needs of healthcare, but they have proved themselves to be much more effective than our health care management history shows of our present “system.”
Many will cast these models aside, out of hand, as unacceptable socialistic models, but is our present construct seen as successful? It is very successful for insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, for certain providers of health care, and for politicians who divert collected revenues for other political purposes. Why should insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, politicians, or medical providers have free reign to exploit the emotional nature of health care? Healthcare is a universally required service / product that does not fit the purely competitive environment of the capitalistic business model.
The cooperative model, similar in concept to the very successful rural electric cooperatives, seems to offer individual / group / local / regional control over management practices which affect the quality of the service, places quality service at the least cost as the primary business objective instead of corporate profits (profits are returned to the members), allows for incentives to attract top quality practitioners, and fosters competition in the provision of goods and services to the cooperative.
Considering health care, Americans need to make a fundamental moral decision. As the world’s richest nation, should we tolerate a health care system that leads to large numbers of avoidable deaths and bankruptcies among fellow citizens?
All of the other developed countries on earth have made a different moral decision. These countries guarantee medical care to anyone who gets sick.
Contrary to the hype and beliefs of some, these countries have done this without resorting to “socialized medicine.”
We can learn from these countries. (Read from “the Healing of America” by T. R. Reid for an expansion of the ideas in this letter.)
The U.S. Performs below other wealthy countries in matters of
Cost, Quality, and Choice. In quality and fairness of national health care systems America ranked 37th Behind Coastal Rica and Dominica according to a Harvard Medical School study with WHO..
Because of many Americans passionate belief in Free Markets, Low Taxes, and Aversion to “Big Government”, they have avoided looking at the basic solutions to health care that have been successfully implemented in other wealthy nations.
“But it’s socialized medicine” some say, to end all discussion of changing our broken and flawed system. But, most national health care systems are not “socialized.” Most countries use private doctors, private hospitals, private insurance plans. (Reid explains 4 basic health care systems from which we could learn a great deal.)
Many countries offering universal coverage have a smaller government role than the U.S. Americans switch to government-run Medicare when they are 65.
In practice, Americans rather like Government-run medicine such as U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, which is one of the purist models of socialized medicine at work. Medicare covers about 44 million and the federal government makes the rules and pays the bills..
The problem is not “socialism”, it’s xenophobia.
A foreign idea offends the mind-set of American exceptionalism. “We don’t need to borrow ideas from the rest of the world because it’s unpatriotic Anti-American.”
The other wealthy countries spend considerably less than the U.S. and produce better results in terms of overall national health sand longevity than the U.S.
Fear that a universal health care would cost more appears to be false. In fact, A better organized system covering everybody would certainly cut our health care costs. Every other rich nation’s health care system is cheaper than ours.
As to choice, all countries limit choice of doctors, hospitals, and treatment.
The U.S.- does the same thing – with insurance plans and Medicare with provider networks approved formularies, etc.
As it appears to me, we do not have a fair system, and the free market in the medical industry is not functioning for the good of the nation. The free market is not a fair market. (See the Catechism of the Christian Church for more information.) The excess profits and executive compensation of the insurance industry are the largest contributors to the problem, although excessive fees and prices of others in the medical industry are culprits.
We need to change some of our cherished beliefs – particular the ones that are not serving the health of the nation in a favorable manner.
FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE AN ESTIMATED 80 PEOPLE + 2 IN CONGRESS THAT ARE SOCIALISTS THAT NEED TO BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE. TO TAX, FINE, IMPRISION THE MASSES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE FEW IS UNAMERICAN AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL–AND WHO IS ENFORCING THAT THESE DAYS, BUT SHOULD BE? I ALSO FEEL THAT CONGRESS HAS NO RIGHT TO FORCE YOU TO BUY ANYTHING INCLUDING HEALTHCARE. TAXES YES, HEALTHCARE NO.
OUT OF THE 47 MILLION THAT SUPPOSEDLY DO NOT HAVE HEALTHCARE, 12 MILLION ARE ILLEGALS, 28 MILLION DON’T WANT IT BUT COULD AFFORD TO BUY IT, AND THE BALANCE STILL GET HEALTHCARE AS THEY BECOME WRITE-OFFS WHEN THEY CANNOT PAY AT THE HOSPITALS THEY GO TO FOR HEALTHCARE. IN TURN, HOSPITAL CHARGES ARE INCREASED TO TAKE UP FOR THE NO-PAYS. ITS A HECK OF A LOT CHEAPER THAN WHAT GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE WOULD IMPOSE MANAGED BY SOCIALISTS.
NEXT, IF OUR GOVERNMENT WAS SERIOUS ABOUT MEDICARE, THEY WOULD PLACE THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND IN A REAL TRUST FUND (RATHER THAN LET IT REMAIN IN THE GENERAL FUND) AND THEY WOULD PROHIBIT TOUCHING OR BORROWING FROM IT. THEY WOULD ALSO MAKE IT ILLEGEAL TO BORROW OR OTHERWISE TOUCH THE SS TRUST FUND OR FACE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE WOULD MANDATORILY AUDIT THE TRUST FUND MONTHLY TO MAKE SURE IT REMAINS WITHOUT BREACH OF LAW, AND ANY INFRACTIONS DETECTED WOULD BE REPORTED FOR PROSECUTION. DO THIS AND THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND WILL NEVER GO BROKE IN OUR LIFETIME.
EVERY ONE NEEDS TO BOMBARD THEIR SENATORS AND REPS TO PROTECT AND SAFEGUARD OUR SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM BY DOING THE ABOVE TO PUT REAL TEETH IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND.
NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT. IF GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE GETS APPROVED FORGET GUN OWNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, BANKING, INVERSTMENTS, AND FREEDOMS THAT YOU NOW HAVE.
I THINK WE HAVE MADE A MISTAKE BY ALLOWING PEOPLE WITH MONEY INTO OUR CONGRESS AND SENATE. WHEN THEY GET THERE, THEY FORGET WHY THEY WERE ELECTED AND COMPETE TO BE A MEMBER OF AN ELITE GROUP BEGGING FOR ATTENTION FROM THEIR PEERS. MANDATING COVERAGE IS EASY FOR THEM, BUT THE MIDDLE CLASS AND OTHERS DRASTICALLY SUFFER FROM THE LAWS THEY CREATE. I DOUBT A MAJORITY REALIZE THAT THEIR ACTIONS NEED TO BE GUIDED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
HOW DOES GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTHCARE, CAP AND TRADE, CLEAN WATER ON FARMS LEGISLATION, CONTROL OF BROADCASTING, REMOVAL OF ARMS (SECOND AMMENDMENT RIGHTS) AND ON AND ON BENEFIT AMERICANS? INSTEAD, WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT GREEN ENERGY AND GET OFF IMPORTED OIL, PROTECT LIFE AND COUNTRY,
MANUFACTURE HERE AND NOT THERE–OVERSEAS, ELIMINATE DANGEROUS IMPORTED ITEMS–DOG FOOD THAT KILLED THOUSANDS OF PETS, LEAD IN TOYS AND COOKING DISHES, ETC, THAT MAKE SENSE TO DO INSTEAD OF FIGHTING FOR OUR FREEDOMS EACH SECOND OF THE DAY.
BRING FORTH A PATRIOT-DRIVEN PRO-AMERICAN THAT LOVES HIS OR HER COUNTRY AND ITS CITIZENS AND TRULY WANTS TO IMPROVE OUR COUNTRY AND SAFEGUARD IT, REDUCE TAXES, BUILD A STONG DEFENSE, ELEMINATE PORK BARRELL SPENDING, AND WORK FOR WE THE PEOPLE.
THE ELECTORIAL SYSTEM NEEDS TO GO. THE MAJOITY NEEDS TO BE THE DECIDING VOTE.
ALSO WE DO NOT NEED ACORN OR ANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS REGISTERING VOTERS AND TAKING VOTES. EITHER REGISTER WITH YOU LOCAL VOTING PRECINCT OR DONT VOTE PERIOD. THIS ELIMINATES FRAUD AND THE STEALING OF ELECTIONS.
KEEP E-MAIL YOUR CONCERS TO ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE SENATE.
the only reason the CBO says the plan would result in a net deficit reduction is that it only fixes the Medicare/TRICARE doctor payment problem for one year. If it tried to fix it for the longer term….which will have to be addressed next year or a 26% Medicare/TRICARE payment cut will kick in in January 2011…it would bust the budget. This is the point I was making. It’s a successful one-year fix. The CBO scoring is the equivalent of saying, “I know you lost your job, but you have enough savings to make your mortgage payment for the next twelve months, and we won’t talk about what happens after that.” Under those strict criteria, your budget is ok. But ignoring the humongous outyear problems that we know exist is an exercise in self-delusion.
Let’s be truthful about this so called Health Care problem. The problem is the government runs Medicare. That is why it is likely to go bankrupt. Our current CINC and those of his ilk are stacking the deck to provide free health insurance to all of those illegal aliens and non-taxpaying freeloaders in our society who will be grateful and vote for them in the next election. Now he didn’t really lie about illegals being covered under his health care reform, he just neglected to tell the common folks (that’s you and me) that when a Health Care plan with a government option in it passes without covering illegal aliens they will get coverage because the plan will not stand up to Supreme Court constitutional scrutiny. It will not have to include illegals aliens because the constitution requires there can be no distinction. The country voted for CHANGE, and he told us he would fundamentally change the U.S. It is only now that we see slowly but surely what CHANGE really means. We do need change but not the kind envisioned by a marxist community organizer from the corrupt environs of Chicago. “One is known by the company one keeps.”
Comments by all respondents make a lot of sense but Carl Jeffries has it right when he says: “THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM NEEDS TO GO. THE MAJORITY NEEDS TO BE THE DECIDING VOTE.”
Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. The medical industry has turned into hogs.
Its time to reign in medical costs by negotiating prices with all concerned. I watched this industry incerase it prices each year since 1982 by far in excess of the rate of infaltion. They have been preparing for this day for twenty seven years.
All of their arguments againts government negotiated prices are specious and cannot standup to close examination.
This alone will save Medicare billions.
Lets bring all federal employees under the Medicare system instead of their private system. Profits to these insurance companies would fall as they should for they are hogs.
Fee for service payments should be closely examined. Check the salaries and bonus compensation for hospital CEO’s in ‘non-profit” hospitals as an example. Malpractice costs must be brought under control by limiting awards. Malpractice insurance for physicians is out of control. Once more the insurance companies are driving up the cost of practicing medicine. Does Congress have the backbone to do what is necessay? If not then we must throw the bums out.
Writing e-mail notes in upper case is really frowned upon in polite internet society. Spouting tea bag blather at the same time is unforgivable. Let us discuss the issue civily and succinctly.
Lenny Julius