Why should I as a Senior not be worried about them taking five hundred billion from Medicare?

That is what I have been hearing from both the Republican and the Demopcrat sides. Democrats say it will be from fraud and abuse but will it really?

Fer cryin' out loud.

I gave her a hard time about not using the correct name.

So how can we expect our internet posters to do better?

By not letting 'stupid' be contagious.

She did have an excuse - she had worked for the local newspaper, the Tallahassee Democrat and was used to talking about "the Democrat". But I was not that sympathetic. She's now representing our party and the correct name is the Democratic Party.

She also tried to call me Mrs. XX, which I corrected her on. I'm a "Ms", married but not using my husband's name so I am never a "Mrs." anything. :evilgrin:

but I've never seen it sourced anywhere but in Republic hysterical rantings.

It's just a shame that DemocratIC old people are being frightened by the same horse shit.

Obama repeats it, too.

They all say it's savings from fraud, abuse and waste.

Frankly, I don't know what to believe.

Private insurers wanted a piece of the Medicare pie. So, they got the government to allow them to compete but we have to pay them an extra 14% to get them to compete. It's now a huge chunk of money in the Medicare budget.

It doesn't provide for more care, it just provides for more profit to the insurance companies.

Now, you might think this is stupid. Well, it IS stupid! But it's the Republican way of privatization. Privatize a government function and pay more.

Go figure.

They said that CBO projection comes from a table that is "one of the many steps in the process."

http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1701:cbo-house-discussion-draft-yields-more-than-500-billion-in-savings-from-medicare-improvements&catid=156:reports&Itemid=55

For me this is the biggest single cause of concern regarding health insurance reform. As a New Deal Democrat, it makes no sense to divert funds from single payer Meidcare to fund privatized whatever it is that we might eventually see.

to fund privatized whatever.

And that is where part of this money is going to come from. They are going to stop that and go back to the Medicare system we used to have.

Please elaborate.

so that tells me two things, one is the elimination of Medicare Advantage, which is currently a give-away to private insurance companies and does nothing to improve the care or outcome of Medicare patients, and the other thing is the probably re-negotiation with big-Pharma over Medicare Part D, which is waaaay too costly for the drugs being delivered.

I don't have a problem with that.

...politicians bend over backwards to appease seniors. About the only group they wouldn't throw under the bus in favor of seniors is maybe our military servicemen and women.

It's ironic how the people most protected are the ones the most worried. Or...maybe it's not?

About the only time they get any attention is when Democrats need to prove they aren't anti-military.

it's no wonder that they may be among the most-worried.

Right after they introduced some of the Medicare changes that need to be made, like saving money in the donut hole, the usual suspects showed up screaming about cutting grandma's medicare.

And I'm called the troll. :eyes:

is going to be continuous. As in never ending. As in Grover Norquist wants to drown entitlements in his bath tub. All for one and one for all in this struggle against the Screwges.

We're bi-partisan now.

:mad:

and what Dem said that re medicare?

Its one of those Socialist Systems. The Pubs wish to cut all social systems if they had their way

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/06/obama-identifies-313-billion-for-health-care-through-medicaid-and-medicare-savings-.html

The $313 billion savings is in large part made up of savings from three big areas: $110 billion from incorporating productivity adjustments and Medicare payments, $106 billion from reducing disproportionate hospital payments and $75 billion from better pricing of Medicare drugs.


Basically much of it seems to be from cutting subsidies to private medicare plans and allowing negotiation of drug prices.

I think you have mistaken the CEOs plan to cut costs for a savings of 500 billion for a Gov't proposal.

Most of the money to pay for this comes from eliminating the multi billion (taxpayer funded) government subsidy we give to fake medicare programs.

So, back to the astroturf mill with you. Come back with another canard.

You have your health care and that's great. We found a way to pay for yours, correct? In fact, I pay for yours. On the other hand, I have no insurance. I need to see a doctor for a number of reasons but can't. I can't afford it. I would happily pay into a public plan. How about I worry about me and I do my best to get rid of YOUR care that I am paying for? Sound fair to you?

It will be fine if they stop paying more for private coverage as a 'Medicare option.'

It would be fine if they were to completely redo Part D, and allow Medicare to negotiate prices as part of that.

It would be fine if they really did root out overcharging for some procedures.

But it would not be acceptable if they simply cut payment to providers -- that will only limit access for Medicare recipients as providers pull out of the program, or simply stop accepting new Medicare clients.

Nor would it be acceptable if they cut benefits or tighten eligibility for benefits.

Nor if they started at two-tier system, where the better off pay more -- that would destroy the unity of the program, what has kept political support so strong for Medicare over the decades.

So, watch closely what each reform proposal would do with regard to Medicare.