Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48

Thread: Obama: No Cuts To Medicare

  1. #31
    Why so serious?

    Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,285

    Re: Obama: No Cuts To Medicare

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain View Post
    You mean the government would cut a government program to force people onto another government program

    The fiends


    Forcing a socialist program on people who rely on a socialist program
    You missed the point. One of the so-called savings is reducing Medicare payouts and services. What I'm saying is if they do that, they will likely have to "fix" it later to reinstate those expenditures, so therefore there would be no savings at all.
    "I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."

    --Albert Einstein, 1929

  2. #32
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama: No Cuts To Medicare

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Here is President Obama speaking earlier this week on the outskirts of Cleveland:

    You know, the most insidious argument they’re making is the idea that somehow [Obamacare] would hurt Medicare. I know we’ve got some seniors here with us today. . . . But I want to tell you directly: This proposal adds almost a decade of solvency to Medicare. . . . And every senior should know there is no cutting of your guaranteed Medicare benefits. Period. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts." This proposal makes Medicare stronger, it makes the coverage better, and it makes the finances more secure. And anybody who says otherwise is either misinformed — or they’re trying to misinform you. Don’t let them hoodwink you. They’re trying to hoodwink you.

    The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), not known for hoodwinking, says that about 40 percent of Obamacare — about $1 trillion out of $2.5 trillion over the bill's real first decade (2014 to 2023) — would be financed by diverting money out of Medicare. Over $200 billion of that would come from cuts in Medicare Advantage payments — about $21,000 per enrollee over those same ten years, according to the CBO. Taking nearly $1 trillion out of Medicare and spending it on Obamacare wouldn't make Medicare more solvent — quite the opposite — and it wouldn't extend Medicare's solvency by ten years — or, for that matter, by ten months, ten days, or even ten minutes....



    maybe it's like his "no tax increases for anyone under 250,000" pledge, where he just assumes everyone knows he's full of it?
    Look up a fact check on this:

    Fact Check: Do the Democratic health-care plans cut Medicare?

    – According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the health care bill the Senate passed in December would wring $491 billion from the projected future costs of Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years. The bulk of the savings would be generated by reining in the growth of payments to doctors and hospitals and from cutting subsidies to the Medicare Advantage program, which pays private insurers to provide Medicare benefits.

    – The AARP, which supports an overhaul of health care, says the legislation would not cut Medicare benefits or increase out-of-pocket costs for Medicare, the federal health-care program for Americans over 65. But Republicans argue that there's no way to cut future costs that much without reducing services. The CBO says it is "unclear" whether the Senate bill - the rough template for the proposal the White House put forward last week - could reduce the growth of Medicare spending without reducing care.

    – Incidentally, the GOP has found itself on the business end of this claim before: A 1995 plan to cut projected Medicare spending by more than $250 billion over seven years triggered a budget confrontation with the Clinton administration that partially shut down the federal government. And Ryan is currently pushing a more drastic overhaul of Medicare, one that would largely replace the program with a system of vouchers that could be used to buy private health insurance. The vouchers would take effect for people joining Medicare in 2021.

    Bottom line:

    The claim is still misleading. Though the full impact of the Senate bill the CBO examined may not be known for years, the proposal is aimed at cutting the rate of growth of Medicare spending without cutting benefits.

    CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Fact Check: Medicare cuts, again? - Blogs from CNN.com

  3. #33
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Obama: No Cuts To Medicare

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Look up a fact check on this:

    Fact Check: Do the Democratic health-care plans cut Medicare?

    – According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the health care bill the Senate passed in December would wring $491 billion from the projected future costs of Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years. The bulk of the savings would be generated by reining in the growth of payments to doctors and hospitals and from cutting subsidies to the Medicare Advantage program, which pays private insurers to provide Medicare benefits.

    – The AARP, which supports an overhaul of health care, says the legislation would not cut Medicare benefits or increase out-of-pocket costs for Medicare, the federal health-care program for Americans over 65. But Republicans argue that there's no way to cut future costs that much without reducing services. The CBO says it is "unclear" whether the Senate bill - the rough template for the proposal the White House put forward last week - could reduce the growth of Medicare spending without reducing care.

    – Incidentally, the GOP has found itself on the business end of this claim before: A 1995 plan to cut projected Medicare spending by more than $250 billion over seven years triggered a budget confrontation with the Clinton administration that partially shut down the federal government. And Ryan is currently pushing a more drastic overhaul of Medicare, one that would largely replace the program with a system of vouchers that could be used to buy private health insurance. The vouchers would take effect for people joining Medicare in 2021.

    Bottom line:

    The claim is still misleading. Though the full impact of the Senate bill the CBO examined may not be known for years, the proposal is aimed at cutting the rate of growth of Medicare spending without cutting benefits.

    CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Fact Check: Medicare cuts, again? - Blogs from CNN.com
    So let me get this straight - a proposal that will reduce the amount of funds being allocated to Medicare is not considered a "cut" in Medicare funding, because it's simply being taken out of future funding increases?

    Do you honestly believe that?

    Let's say that Social Security benefits increase 2% every year in order to reflect a cost of living increase. If I propose a bill that would reduce that 2% annual increase to 1%, is that a "cut" in Social Security funding?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #34
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama: No Cuts To Medicare

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    So let me get this straight - a proposal that will reduce the amount of funds being allocated to Medicare is not considered a "cut" in Medicare funding, because it's simply being taken out of future funding increases?

    Do you honestly believe that?

    Let's say that Social Security benefits increase 2% every year in order to reflect a cost of living increase. If I propose a bill that would reduce that 2% annual increase to 1%, is that a "cut" in Social Security funding?
    Growth and not benefits. There is a difference. And we're not talking normal cost of living, but something more expansive.

  5. #35
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama: No Cuts To Medicare

    More fact check:

    The bill cuts Medicare by $500 billion.

    Whether these are "cuts" or much-needed "savings" depends on the political expedience of the moment, it seems. When Republican Sen. John McCain, then a presidential candidate, proposed similar reductions to pay for his health care plan, it was the Obama camp that attacked the Republican for cutting benefits. Whatever you want to call them, it’s a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It’s true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage’s private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The Democrats’ bill also boosts certain benefits: It makes preventive care free and closes the "doughnut hole," a current gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors.

    A Final Weekend of Whoppers? | FactCheck.org

  6. #36
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Obama: No Cuts To Medicare

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Growth and not benefits.
    Growth of expenditures, which are commonly known as benefits.

    There is a difference.
    No, there's not. If Medicare would have $750b in funding under the status quo, but only $700b under the new proposal, then the proposal cuts $50b in Medicare funding. That simple.

    And we're not talking normal cost of living, but something more expansive.
    Which doesn't matter in the slightest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    More fact check:

    The bill cuts Medicare by $500 billion.

    Whether these are "cuts" or much-needed "savings" depends on the political expedience of the moment, it seems. When Republican Sen. John McCain, then a presidential candidate, proposed similar reductions to pay for his health care plan, it was the Obama camp that attacked the Republican for cutting benefits. Whatever you want to call them, it’s a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It’s true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage’s private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The Democrats’ bill also boosts certain benefits: It makes preventive care free and closes the "doughnut hole," a current gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors.

    A Final Weekend of Whoppers? | FactCheck.org
    So in order to prove that this isn't a cut of benefits, you post a article showing that Obama himself once called this a cut in benefits? Interesting angle.

    And I'm not sure why you keep on going back to the fact that this will only affect future benefits. That has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not these are cutting funding.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #37
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama: No Cuts To Medicare

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Growth of expenditures, which are commonly known as benefits.



    No, there's not. If Medicare would have $750b in funding under the status quo, but only $700b under the new proposal, then the proposal cuts $50b in Medicare funding. That simple.



    Which doesn't matter in the slightest.



    So in order to prove that this isn't a cut of benefits, you post a article showing that Obama himself once called this a cut in benefits? Interesting angle.

    And I'm not sure why you keep on going back to the fact that this will only affect future benefits. That has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not these are cutting funding.
    You're missing the point. Talk doesn't matter. never does, which is why I'm always tickled by all the quoting republicans do. What matters is what it actually does. And that is what I keep highlighting for you.

    And yes, it makes a difference. A more stream lined effort that does more for less is better and not something we can call a cut. So read it again:

    . . . it’s a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It’s true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage’s private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The Democrats’ bill also boosts certain benefits: It makes preventive care free and closes the "doughnut hole," a current gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors.

  8. #38
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Obama: No Cuts To Medicare

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    You're missing the point. Talk doesn't matter. never does, which is why I'm always tickled by all the quoting republicans do. What matters is what it actually does. And that is what I keep highlighting for you.
    I don't have the slightest clue what you're trying to say here.

    And yes, it makes a difference. A more stream lined effort that does more for less is better and not something we can call a cut. So read it again:


    So if Bush had "streamlined" Medicaid by reducing reimbursements by 50%, you would have been out there applauding him for achieving savings and laughing at those who had the temerity to call it a cut?

    Sounds likely.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #39
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obama: No Cuts To Medicare

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I don't have the slightest clue what you're trying to say here.
    It's pretty simple. Quoting politicians is a silly thing to do. It's more important to actually read what the bill does. That's what I'm trying to high light for you.



    So if Bush had "streamlined" Medicaid by reducing reimbursements by 50%, you would have been out there applauding him for achieving savings and laughing at those who had the temerity to call it a cut?
    No, if he had actually tried to do something like this, it would be presented the same way. And it would be about what was actually written and what it actually did.

  10. #40
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Obama: No Cuts To Medicare

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    It's pretty simple. Quoting politicians is a silly thing to do. It's more important to actually read what the bill does. That's what I'm trying to high light for you.
    You're highlighting, but you're not understanding. A proposal that reduces the amount of money being allocated to something is cutting the amount of money being allocated to something.

    I also find it amusing that you're criticizing me for quoting Obama saying that this would be a cut, but your entire argument is based on quoting the opinion of some junior staff writer at CNN or factcheck.

    No, if he had actually tried to do something like this, it would be presented the same way. And it would be about what was actually written and what it actually did.
    Why don't you answer my question?

    It's 2001. Medicaid reimbursement rates are scheduled to increase by 5% a year to keep pace with medical inflation. Bush proposes a law that will cut that rate of increase down to 0.1%. Under the status quo, Medicaid expenditures would total $2.5T over the next decade. Under the Bush proposal, Medicaid expenditures would total $2T over the next decade.

    Yes or no: Would Bush's proposal cut Medicaid funding?

    If not, what would it do?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •