• 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

disneydude said:
More lies and right-wing radio propoganda.
Click to expand...

DD you are so blinded by your love for Obama that you can't see the truth when it is staring you right in the face.......Someday all these cuts in medicare might affect you.......
 
Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
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
Click to expand...

Your buddy deuce does not think its a socialist program....He thinks it capitalism.........:rofl
 
Navy Pride said:
Your buddy deuce does not think its a socialist program....He thinks it capitalism.........:rofl
Click to expand...

It is not really

But I get a kick out of people complaining about a government program having its budget cut to fund another government program, and stating it is because it is a government funded program

The irony is strong in them
 
Bassman said:
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.
Click to expand...

oh, yes! my friend

that IS the landscape senatorially

it's been that way, it's solid

and sign CERTAIN is---if kennedy's seat can go...

barbara boxer REALLY IS in big trouble

i'm a lifetime californian

my state is gonna go red

new york has all those scandals, all blue corruption, from albany to the city to the capitol

the house is much less famous, i just don't know, there's so many seats, i haven't dug deep enough

BUT WE'RE GONNA TAKE IT, that's almost for sure

cuz the house always swings more freely than the staunch senate

if we can take the senate, if we can come close, even, upstairs, then pelosi's place is ours

check out obama's personals since the word DEEM became coast to coast common knowledge

party on, progressives

your move, "moderates"

we're all, the rest of us, mesmerized

even the liberals in this forum were STUNNED that leadership would even suggest a DEEM, on this, here, now, reform so big, after all we've all been thru...
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
cpwill said:
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:
Click to expand...

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
 
Boo Radley said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
RightinNYC said:
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?
Click to expand...

Growth and not benefits. There is a difference. And we're not talking normal cost of living, but something more expansive.
 
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
 
Boo Radley said:
Growth and not benefits.
Click to expand...

Growth of expenditures, which are commonly known as benefits.

There is a difference.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't matter in the slightest.

Boo Radley said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
RightinNYC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Click to expand...

:rofl

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.
 
RightinNYC said:
I don't have the slightest clue what you're trying to say here.
Click to expand...

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.

:rofl

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Boo Radley said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
RightinNYC said:
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.



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?
Click to expand...

You're giving an apples to oranges comparison. You're talking about Bush taking away from the pace of medical inflation, which is different than what this bill would do. If Bush was doing what this bill was doing, not attacking inflation, but streamlining in which the cost was shifted to more important areas at less cost, then I would see it the same as this plan and treat it just as it is, not a cut. The present plan is still meeting normal cost of living elements.

So, if you are going to make a comparison, do so with things that are alike. it's much easier to answer questions about things that actually compare.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're giving an apples to oranges comparison. You're talking about Bush taking away from the pace of medical inflation, which is different than what this bill would do. If Bush was doing what this bill was doing, not attacking inflation, but streamlining in which the cost was shifted to more important areas at less cost, then I would see it the same as this plan and treat it just as it is, not a cut. The present plan is still meeting normal cost of living elements.

So, if you are going to make a comparison, do so with things that are alike. it's much easier to answer questions about things that actually compare.
Click to expand...

:rofl Where are you getting this from? You realize that a decrease in future outlays has the exact same effect whether its nominally because of an inflation adjustment or because of "streamlining," right? Unless you're prepared to argue that this $400b being cut from future spending is all coming out of waste, your argument is ridiculous.

How is reducing reimbursement rates not a cut? Jesus.
 
RightinNYC said:
:rofl Where are you getting this from? You realize that a decrease in future outlays has the exact same effect whether its nominally because of an inflation adjustment or because of "streamlining," right? Unless you're prepared to argue that this $400b being cut from future spending is all coming out of waste, your argument is ridiculous.

How is reducing reimbursement rates not a cut? Jesus.
Click to expand...

No, they are not the same. One is just a cost of living increase. The other is setting priorities and shifting priorities. There has been no call to cut costs across the board with no structure or plan. Again, read what I linked. It in no way matches your orange.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, they are not the same. One is just a cost of living increase. The other is setting priorities and shifting priorities. There has been no call to cut costs across the board with no structure or plan. Again, read what I linked. It in no way matches your orange.
Click to expand...

Last attempt to try to explain this to you:

Say that as of 2001, federal law states that each public school will receive $6,000/student in order to offer them an education. The CBO says that under this law, total federal expenditures on education will equal $500b over the next decade.

Now, say that Bush proposes to change the law to give each public school $5,000/student, but to give every student below a certain income level a $1,000 voucher to use at the school of their choice. The CBO says that under this law, total federal expenditures on education will equal $450b over the next decade.

Would Bush's proposal cut federal education funding, or merely "set and shift priorities"?
 
RightinNYC said:
Last attempt to try to explain this to you:

Say that as of 2001, federal law states that each public school will receive $6,000/student in order to offer them an education. The CBO says that under this law, total federal expenditures on education will equal $500b over the next decade.

Now, say that Bush proposes to change the law to give each public school $5,000/student, but to give every student below a certain income level a $1,000 voucher to use at the school of their choice. The CBO says that under this law, total federal expenditures on education will equal $450b over the next decade.

Would Bush's proposal cut federal education funding, or merely "set and shift priorities"?
Click to expand...

Your math seems fuzzy. 6000 for each student would still be 6000 for each student. No cut. How you make that cheaper would be interesting to see, as if it added up to 500b before, it still should.

But even this is not exactly the same. The change in the medicare system is larger, more program related. Some benefits are being added and others decreased, for a net gain in benefits at less cost. Calling it a cut ignores the truth and dishonestly tries to paint it as something it isn't.
 
Boo Radley said:
Your math seems fuzzy. 6000 for each student would still be 6000 for each student. No cut. How you make that cheaper would be interesting to see, as if it added up to 500b before, it still should.
Click to expand...

It seems fuzzy because you missed this:

but to give every student below a certain income level a $1,000 voucher to use at the school of their choice
Click to expand...

The additional $1,000 would not be given to students above that income level.


But even this is not exactly the same. The change in the medicare system is larger, more program related. Some benefits are being added and others decreased, for a net gain in benefits at less cost.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this from? You're literally making things up out of whole cloth.

It's exactly the same. In both scenarios, the president is redirecting funding from a portion of the program that he finds to be somewhat inefficient and allocating a portion of that redirected funding to something that he believes is more beneficial. In both scenarios, the total expenditures are decreasing. In both scenarios, the president can claim that he's not cutting funding, he's merely "streamlining" the program and finding new efficiences.

The only difference is that when Obama does it, you praise it, but if Bush did it, you'd be furious.
 
RightinNYC said:
It seems fuzzy because you missed this:
Click to expand...

Yes I did miss that. Gottcha.



Where are you getting this from? You're literally making things up out of whole cloth.

It's exactly the same. In both scenarios, the president is redirecting funding from a portion of the program that he finds to be somewhat inefficient and allocating a portion of that redirected funding to something that he believes is more beneficial. In both scenarios, the total expenditures are decreasing. In both scenarios, the president can claim that he's not cutting funding, he's merely "streamlining" the program and finding new efficiences.

The only difference is that when Obama does it, you praise it, but if Bush did it, you'd be furious.
Click to expand...

I got it from what I linked for you. They are not the same at all. being inefficient is different than what you posted. And adding more efficient portions for less cost makes a net gain.
 
Politics101 said:
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
Click to expand...
That's right! He promised.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom