WHO is PAYING for the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan?

NOT ONE CENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO DATE!

from JoeUser Forums




The news is full of the initial problems to implement the new Medicare Prescription drug plan. Some of the confusion is because of the large number of plans and some is because many of the participants are older and are having trouble understanding the details. In time these initial problems will be solved and 55 plus million seniors will be receiving this new benefit.

Now lets ask the question, who is to pay for this new benefit that has an estimated initial cost of $60 Plus billion per year? As the baby boomers retire, the annual cost of this new benefit grows even more. President Bush told Americans how much of a future financial problem the Social Security System was and most economists now tell us that Medicare is a MUCH bigger and more imminent problem then Social Security. Then WHY did Bush and his GOP supporters in Congress ADD another $60 Billion per year to a system that is already in financial trouble? To date NOT ONE CENT has been provided to pay for one of the biggest new entitlement programs EVER approved by Congress. Bush is still talking about making his tax cuts permanent while ignoring the funding for his new entitlement program that was designed to get VOTES. Make no mistake about it, many Democrats also voted for this plan. However it was Bush that pushed it and it would never have become law without Bush and the GOP. It is also Bush and the GOP that refuses to pony up the new funding. The way this plan was enacted with NO MONEY to pay for it will make the problems of paying for Medicare a far more difficult problem to solve and bring the date when the problem begins much sooner! This is another example of how we are passing OUR financial problems to our children to solve!
politics
8,836 views 21 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
The news is full of the initial problems to implement the new Medicare Prescription drug plan.


Haven't seen one thing in the news about this. As usual you seem to make things up to blame Bush. How sad.


This is another example of how we are passing OUR financial problems to our children to solve!


Do you know that everytime you mention "our children" I just have to laugh. That is liberal rhetoric talking point #3.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

It is a FACT that we are ignoring our financial obligations. WHO do you think will pay for the debt we are creating? Who do you think will pay for this new entitlement. This has NOTHING to do with ANY RHETORIC. This has to do with REALITY. Someone MUST eventually pay the bill!
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Federal government borrows $1.5 Billion dollars EVERY day that our children will pay BOTH the interest and the amount borrowed SOME DAY. The Bushies must think the tooth fairy will pay the bills!
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Haven't seen one thing in the news about this. As usual you seem to make things up to blame Bush. How sad.


I hate to contradict you ID but I too saw a few reports about the problems. But, and that's a big but, the problems were discovered just a day or 2 after the new system started. It's obvious to anyone with an average inteligence to know that new things always have bugs in them that need fixing pronto. And it is to be fixed.

The funny thing is that Mr Col here is always complaining that Bush doesn't care about seniors, now this new Drug coverage, that Medicare never had before, is suppose to pay for the prescriptions and he is complaining about it. There is just no making Col happy.

It's like his article on the 2 Trillion that could be spent on the War that could have been spent in other places. Let's take his logic on this article and apply it to that article.

Let's say we did not use the 2 Trillion in Iraq and used it to improve the US. Now this is pretend not reality for those who don't get it. Let's say SS as he said we could use to "fix" the problem. Then who would have paid for it? We the American people today and our children in the future. So why is it OK to fix SS which he himself is saying is not as important as Madicare but he complains about fixing something in Medicare which is suppose to be worse than SS?

As far as I'm concerned he is no longer trying to find things that are a real problem, he is only looking to blame Bush for everything. Boring if you ask me.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is a FACT that we are ignoring our financial obligations. WHO do you think will pay for the debt we are creating? Who do you think will pay for this new entitlement. This has NOTHING to do with ANY RHETORIC. This has to do with REALITY. Someone MUST eventually pay the bill!


Funny, didn't you people say that the war in Iraq was for Oil? I mean if Oil was the deal, wouldn't that mean that we could get more Gas for cheaper prices and therefor have more money to pay off any debts created to get it? Contradictions, contradictions, contradictions.

People like you need to make up your minds.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Federal government borrows $1.5 Billion dollars EVERY day that our children will pay BOTH the interest and the amount borrowed SOME DAY. The Bushies must think the tooth fairy will pay the bills!


Col, you are still playing out the liberal handbook. It's "all for the children". Very pathetic.


I hate to contradict you ID but I too saw a few reports about the problems.


It's not a contradiction. I haven't seen any reports like this and as usual col never shows sources. Most of col's articles are his own opinions anyways.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Island Dog
I do not know what play book you are talking about but the fact still remains the debt we are piling up EVERY day will have to be paid. If you are still paying taxes you will help. The truth is that the debt Bush has added will be paid by the future generations. How in the hell does anyone who is already spending more then they have add another 60 Billion per year to the tab. Only an idiot like Bush would do that and then propose to make the tax cuts permanent so the deficit can continue forever.

Earlier the financial page had an article that said Greenspan and the incoming Fed Chief both warned that the deficit CAN NOT CONTINUE. The article also said the deficit this year will be $400 Billion AFTER they deducted the SS and Medicare Surplus which means the actual deficit for 2006 is expected to be about $575 Billion. That article also said the Federal deficit is causing interest rate to increase which will impact home and home sales. They also warned about the credit card debt and the higher interest rates charged by the banks because of the increasing federal deficit!
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well if you don't mind ID, here are some links

Link

and

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2006/01/03_scheckt_medicaredrugplan/

Bit it's not as bad as Col makes it sound.

BTW Col, get a clue already, anything that can help improve the life of an American will always cost alot of money and guess who will have to pay for it? Another thing, there could have been a war in our future where we would have been in the right in many peoples eyes and it too would have cost alot as well. War will always be part of human nature and it will always cost alot whether we did it for the right reasons or the wrong reasons and our children and their children will have to pay for it either way So give up this non-sense about who's gonna pay for it.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are correct, the difference today is that we have not increased the Federal Revenue to match the increases in our expenses. In other wars there has been a surtax imposed to pay for the war. Not with Bush. He puts the war and all other expenses like Katrina on the Charge Card so we can not only pay for the war, storms, Medicare etc, but we can also pay the interest. We have not increased the revenue to meet our increased expenses and the $60 Billion for the Prescription Drug plan is just ONE of MANY such expenses we are not paying for today!
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let's cut welfare and that will be a start. How about it col?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
WE have already cut welfare. It would be far better to return the tax rates on those that can afford to pay to the rates in the 1990's to help solve our problems. If we have the wealthy pay a little more they suffer NO impact on their life style. The only change is they may have a few less zeroes on the new worth statements. To make the cuts you are suggesting creates REAL hardship especially to those that CAN NOT help them selves or can not get a job that enables them to live.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
WE have already cut welfare.


Cut it completely.


It would be far better to return the tax rates on those that can afford to pay to the rates in the 1990's to help solve our problems. If we have the wealthy pay a little more they suffer NO impact on their life style.


Here we go with the "we" thing again. Just say raise taxes. Stop with the "return of tax rates" bs, just admit you want to raise taxes on successful people.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
To cut all help would harm many Americans. Yes increase tax rates on the wealthy (Top 5%) to the rates that were in place during the 1990's. The wealthy will not experience ANY financial harm. They will still be able to buy the third Mercedes and live in multiple mansions.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The wealthy will not experience ANY financial harm. They will still be able to buy the third Mercedes and live in multiple mansions.


So who are you to tell someone they can't have four mercedes?
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
No one is hurt by not having a "Fourth Mercedes"

Not being able to afford food or a place (ONE) to live or medical care is causing HARM! If the choice is a little higher tax on the wealthy or having poor people starve or live on the street, ANY one that would choose to help the wealthy is a poor excuse for a human being! That is what Bush and those that support his policies are doing!
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
If the choice is a little higher tax on the wealthy or having poor people starve or live on the street, ANY one that would choose to help the wealthy is a poor excuse for a human being!


Being poor in this country is a choice. It has nothing to do wtih the rich. Penalizing people who are successful is not the way to go.


That is what Bush and those that support his policies are doing!


Wrong. We do not want a welfare state, and the punishment of successfull Americans.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Being poor is NOT a CHOICE. That is the conservative answer and for millions is NOT TRUE! There are many jobs that do not pay a living wage. No matter how much training people have, we still have many jobs that do not enable those with those jobs to live. The influx of illegal works drives the wages even lower. That is NOT the fault of the poor or a choice they make. Millions are too old and did not accumulate the wealth during their working years to be able to live. Still others are disabled which is NOT a CHOICE.

People like GWB have money because of the help he received from his family. He did very little of worth and if it had not been for his father's contacts he would be one of those that have very little given his performance in the REAL WORLD! He was NOT a good student, did not meet his obligations in the military and failed with the two businesses he formed with the help of investors from his father's contacts. BEING POOR IS NOT A CHOICE for millions. There are some that are poor because they did not try and help themselves. However that is not true for millions of others.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Being poor is NOT a CHOICE.


Yes it is.

There are many jobs that do not pay a living wage. No matter how much training people have, we still have many jobs that do not enable those with those jobs to live. The influx of illegal works drives the wages even lower. That is NOT the fault of the poor or a choice they make. Millions are too old and did not accumulate the wealth during their working years to be able to live. Still others are disabled which is NOT a CHOICE.


We have gone over this with you before col. There will always be jobs that don't pay much. People have lived on them before and will continue to. Creating a welfare state is not the answer. Do not penalize successful people.


People like GWB have money because of the help he received from his family. He did very little of worth and if it had not been for his father's contacts he would be one of those that have very little given his performance in the REAL WORLD! He was NOT a good student, did not meet his obligations in the military and failed with the two businesses he formed with the help of investors from his father's contacts.


Col, do you just copy the same paragraphs over and over? What does it matter to you how Bush got his money? His grades were the same as Kerry who you voted for. He got an honorable discharge from the military. I bet he sold more books than you can ever dream of also.


BEING POOR IS NOT A CHOICE for millions. There are some that are poor because they did not try and help themselves. However that is not true for millions of others.


Yes it is a choice. There are so many ways to get yourself out of so-called "poverty", but most are too lazy or incompetent to do it.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is just BS for anyone that is working or has worked and is now too old or for those that are disabled. None of these people would choose to be poor. Only those who just do not work on a regular basis is your statement true. This is what is wrong with the conservative policies. You would rather see people who do not have enough to eat or have a place to live go without so the wealthy can add more zeroes to their net worth. Anyone that has worked or has attempted to contribute (by working) even though they had a job that does not enable them to live and needs help should be helped.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Something that Gene & I can agree on - how sweet is that?

The Part D plans just took effect 1-1-06 so not much, other than the pre-implementation hype (Carol Burnett's commercials, etc.), has hit the mainstream media. There has been a lot of coverage in AMA News and other medical economics news publications, however, and probably in the WSJ (which I don't read).

The problems of implementation haven't had a chance to bubble up much to the MSM as yet, though I'm sure they'll pick up on it soon as it's mostly bad news. Footing the bill is another issue and I fundamentally disagree with the whole concept of expanding government involvement in and micromanagement of medicine. The more the government tries to "help" the less efficient and more expensive provision of healthcare becomes.

The unintended consequence of the effort to "help seniors" will be fewer physicians accepting Medicare. Until a week ago, we had no real idea how many plans would be out there hustling seniors, how needlessly complex their choices would be, and how difficult it would be when the s--t hit the fan this month - our staff have suddenly found themselves on hold for up to 2 hours trying to get phone authorizations for individual drugs that the health plan sales staff said would be covered "with your doctor's approval." Sounds simple enough, doesn't it? It isn't.

Part D, it turns out, is the straw that has broken our Medicare back and prompted us to close our 4-physician Internal Medicine practice to new Medicare patients, just today in fact. In adult primary care, "margins" are too thin to take on all the additional uncompensated work that Medicare now requires, especially when reimbursements under Medicare, presently what they were in about 1990 in constant dollars, are scheduled to be cut by 26% over the next 4-5 years.

I plan to do an article with more detail about what we've seen happen to medicine over the past 20 years and the unintended consequences of those changes. When I have a week or two.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Best games to play, best strategies to win. User ratings & reviews of top online casinos & pokers with largest bonuses & highest payouts.