• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: No Cuts To Medicare

cpwill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
75,605
Reaction score
39,893
Location
USofA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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? :confused:
 
every senior should know there is no cutting of your guaranteed Medicare benefits. Period.
Political double-talk? Maybe...

Just gotta know what he's really talking about. So, what are the "guarenteed Medicare benefits" he's referring to? And was Medicar Advantage part of that cluster of guarenteed benefits? Something tells me it was not. But you'd have to look at the law that applies to Medicare to really know.
 
Of course he won't cut medicare. He's just going to start growing medical services on the White House lawn and giving them out for free.
 
of course he won't cut medicare. He's just going to start growing medical services on the white house lawn and giving them out for free.

damn socialists
 
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? :confused:

Barack Obama would NEVER lie about cuts in Medicaid.

It's not like Medicaid and ObamaCare are a money-losing proposition.

Nah, according to Obama universal health care will save the country money... somehow, someway... :fart
 
Barack Obama would NEVER lie about cuts in Medicaid.

It's not like Medicaid and ObamaCare are a money-losing proposition.

Nah, according to Obama universal health care will save the country money... somehow, someway... :fart

UHC has saved money in literally every country that implements it, I don't see why it would do differently here. American unexceptionalism?
 
damn socialists

If we had socialists, we would have single payer. Let's start using the right terminology. We have no socialist with any power, hence we have this watered-down version of health care reform. The party of wimps vs the party of fools.
 
UHC has saved money in literally every country that implements it, I don't see why it would do differently here. American unexceptionalism?
How?? Anyone with a microgram of common sense (see also: Conservative) knows that once government gets its filthy mitts into anything other than what is Constitutionally mandated, it screws it up royally. And healthcare clearly does not belong in the purview of the government!
 
UHC has saved money in literally every country that implements it, I don't see why it would do differently here. American unexceptionalism?

There are several reasons why this country would never implement a replica of a foreign UHC system, primarily because of what you just mentioned - our strikingly different cultural values. Try getting the American public to sign onto something like the British NICE - people just recoil at the very notion. It's a huge problem, but I don't see it changing any time soon.

However, since the bill on the table doesn't really resemble UHC, it's sort of moot.
 
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? :confused:

Obama has to be the biggest liar of any president we have ever had........Everryone knows that if this bill passes there will be 500,000,000 in cuts in medicare.......
 
How?? Anyone with a microgram of common sense (see also: Conservative) knows that once government gets its filthy mitts into anything other than what is Constitutionally mandated, it screws it up royally. And healthcare clearly does not belong in the purview of the government!

What do you mean how? What I said is true and not debatable.

Like I said, literally every country with UHC spends less than we do, per-capita. In fact, we even spend more tax dollars per-capita than most of them.

I'll say it again just so everyone understands:

The US government spends more tax dollars per-person than Canada/UK/Australia/Germany/France/Japan/Etc spends in tax dollars per-person.

Americans also have to pay premiums on health insurance, so our private spending is drastically higher than the rest.

There are several reasons why this country would never implement a replica of a foreign UHC system, primarily because of what you just mentioned - our strikingly different cultural values. Try getting the American public to sign onto something like the British NICE - people just recoil at the very notion. It's a huge problem, but I don't see it changing any time soon.

However, since the bill on the table doesn't really resemble UHC, it's sort of moot.

Very true. That doesn't stop people from railing against socialist medicine that the administration is NOT proposing, though.

Obama has to be the biggest liar of any president we have ever had........Everryone knows that if this bill passes there will be 500,000,000 in cuts in medicare.......

Everyone knows but few seem to understand. The actual number has dropped, if I remember right, and the cuts aren't going to result in less care for the patients. They result in less fraud (in theory) and lowered payment to practitioners. (not that I agree with the idea)
 
Last edited:
Obama has to be the biggest liar of any president we have ever had........Everryone knows that if this bill passes there will be 500,000,000 in cuts in medicare.......

More lies and right-wing radio propoganda.
 
More lies and right-wing radio propoganda.

According to the CBO, the health care bill would:

*Reduce Medicare Hospital outlays by $156.6b
*Reduce Medicare Advantage outlays by $131.9b
*Reduce Home Health care outlays by $39.7b
*Reduce Medicare DSH payments by $22.1b
*Reduce Part D subsidy by $10.7b

That alone totals $361b, and I didn't even include the rest of the smaller cuts.

How, exactly, is that "lies and right-wing radio propaganda"?
 
According to the CBO, the health care bill would:

*Reduce Medicare Hospital outlays by $156.6b
*Reduce Medicare Advantage outlays by $131.9b
*Reduce Home Health care outlays by $39.7b
*Reduce Medicare DSH payments by $22.1b
*Reduce Part D subsidy by $10.7b

That alone totals $361b, and I didn't even include the rest of the smaller cuts.

How, exactly, is that "lies and right-wing radio propaganda"?

DD thinks all he has to do is call them lies and everyone will believe him....

I have seen estimates that half the doctors that take medicare patients now will drop them so there will be millions of more patients and half the doctors.......
 
Everyone knows but few seem to understand. The actual number has dropped, if I remember right, and the cuts aren't going to result in less care for the patients. They result in less fraud (in theory) and lowered payment to practitioners. (not that I agree with the idea)

Which will reduce the availability of medical care for people that rely on Medicare, which in turn will "force" the government to "save us" from the additional crisis they created.
 
What do you mean how? What I said is true and not debatable.

Like I said, literally every country with UHC spends less than we do, per-capita. In fact, we even spend more tax dollars per-capita than most of them.

I'll say it again just so everyone understands:

The US government spends more tax dollars per-person than Canada/UK/Australia/Germany/France/Japan/Etc spends in tax dollars per-person.

Americans also have to pay premiums on health insurance, so our private spending is drastically higher than the rest.

And unless the disparity is attributable to the organization of our health care system, it doesn't really matter that much.

Very true. That doesn't stop people from railing against socialist medicine that the administration is NOT proposing, though.

Nor does it stop people from clamoring for a public option that they don't realize wouldn't be available to them. Relying on the public to understand anything more complex than the plot of an average Law & Order episode is a risky proposition.

Everyone knows but few seem to understand. The actual number has dropped, if I remember right, and the cuts aren't going to result in less care for the patients. They result in less fraud (in theory) and lowered payment to practitioners. (not that I agree with the idea)

Which inexorably leads to:

1) More providers dropping out of the government system, and
2) An increase in the rate charged to private insurers by those providers who stay in the system

Both of those things lead directly to reduced availability of care for the poor and increased premiums for the privately insured.
 
Everyone knows but few seem to understand. The actual number has dropped, if I remember right, and the cuts aren't going to result in less care for the patients. They result in less fraud (in theory) and lowered payment to practitioners. (not that I agree with the idea)

get real

he says he's going to recover a half T of waste, fraud and abuse that apparently ted kennedy was just too stupid to find in all those decades of searching

ineed, that's how he pays for TWO THIRDS of all this crap

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1offvgT8hc"]YouTube- President Obama's Prime Time News Conference on Healthcare - July 22nd, 2009[/ame]


the assertion is insulting

it comes at about 4:45, i remember being stunned by his monumental gall when i saw him make it live, this summer

his bogus bid to bankroll 2/3 of his obamite ambitions with $500,000,000 of wfa was a centerpiece, as well, of his primetime presser which was ruined by the cop vs po po soap opera (gates and crowley)

you can't immensely expand medicare and medicaid while massively cutting funding without DESTROYING quality of care

hello

this is why so few believe him anymore, this is why his approvals and his plan's are in the crapper
 
Last edited:
say goodbye to the senate

RealClearPolitics - 2010 Election Maps - Senate No Toss Ups

rcp gives us nevada, indiana, colorado, delaware, arkansas, north dakota and pennsylvania

that's reid, bayh, bennet, biden, lincoln, dorgan and benedict arlen

plus: boxer, gillebrand, illinois (burris, obama's seat, the dem---giannoulis---is a mafioso with a bankrupt bank), wisconsin (tommy thompson will beat russ feingold)...

no nostalgia---the president's seat (illinois), the veep's (delaware), the leader's (nevada), the hillary's (if pataki runs)...

worry
 
say goodbye to the senate

RealClearPolitics - 2010 Election Maps - Senate No Toss Ups

rcp gives us nevada, indiana, colorado, delaware, arkansas, north dakota and pennsylvania

that's reid, bayh, bennet, biden, lincoln, dorgan and benedict arlen

plus: boxer, gillebrand, illinois (burris, obama's seat, the dem---giannoulis---is a mafioso with a bankrupt bank), wisconsin (tommy thompson will beat russ feingold)...

no nostalgia---the president's seat (illinois), the veep's (delaware), the leader's (nevada), the hillary's (if pataki runs)...

worry

Dayammmn!!! That first list alone would give control of the Senate safely into the GOP's hands. And unlike 1994, we would likely see much more Conservative candidates. Unfortunately, one Democrat I would love to see out on his ass is Schooma the Looza, but that ain't gonna happen.

BTW, how would the House shape up in your eyes?? Because I'm prediciting at least a 70 seat swing there.
 
Back
Top Bottom