What President Trump’s proposed budget cuts could mean for senior citizens

  
Via:  krishna  •  2 months ago  •  96 comments

What President Trump’s proposed budget cuts could mean for senior citizens
The president’s proposed budget for next year could spell trouble for older Americans

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


512

The record $4.7 trillion federal budget for 2020 calls for a 5% cut to social programs, including $845 billion from Medicare, $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and as much as $84 billion in Social Security disability benefits.

Fellow legislators and others criticized the budget on Twitter, saying such deep cuts to these social safety-net programs would hurt vulnerable Americans who are already struggling.

Many on social media also noted President Trump had vowed not to cut funding for these programs during his campaign, in debates as well as on Twitter.

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Krishna
1  seeder  Krishna    2 months ago

Fellow legislators and others criticized the budget on Twitter, saying such deep cuts to these social safety-net programs would hurt vulnerable Americans who are already struggling.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  Krishna @1    2 months ago

What "cuts" are we talking about here? Please be specific. Does this mean reductions in current benefits to current recipients?

All these programs should be updated and adjusted  to make them more efficient and less costly.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.1  Jack_TX  replied to  WallyW @1.1    2 months ago
All these programs should be updated and adjusted  to make them more efficient and less costly.

Nonsense.  

The point of these programs is to make white liberals "feel better" about doing "something" for the poor and elderly.  More efficient and less costly will be no help at all. Spending less money to get better programs is exactly the opposite of what is required.  The more money that is spent, the better they "feel".  

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.2  Kavika   replied to  Jack_TX @1.1.1    2 months ago
The point of these programs is to make white liberals "feel better" about doing "something" for the poor and elderly.  More efficient and less costly will be no help at all. Spending less money to get better programs is exactly the opposite of what is required.  The more money that is spent, the better they "feel".  

I would guess that is the counter point to conservatives ''feeling better'' about increased defense spending. It makes them ''feel'' safer. Not there is any fraud/waste in the DOD budget that could be hacked out. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @1.1.2    2 months ago
Not there is any fraud/waste in the DOD budget that could be hacked out. 

why....why...that is just untrue and you know it!!!!

How can we pay for Black Ops if they don't spend $500 for a hammer????

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.1.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Kavika @1.1.2    2 months ago
I would guess that is the counter point to conservatives ''feeling better'' about increased defense spending.

Or a border wall, or prayer in schools, or anti-Sharia Law legislation....yes.  You understand.

It makes them ''feel'' safer. Not there is any fraud/waste in the DOD budget that could be hacked out. 

Not to mention the "need" for 13 aircraft carrier groups.

 
 
 
zuksam
1.1.5  zuksam  replied to  Kavika @1.1.2    2 months ago

This is just a first draft, now that the Dems have the house he's going to have to negotiate. Since the Dems starting point these days is full on Socialism Trump has to counter from an equally extreme point so that they can come together at a reasonable point. We've already seen what happens when Trump makes a reasonable proposal to the Dems.

 
 
 
Krishna
2  seeder  Krishna    2 months ago

Many on social media also noted President Trump had vowed not to cut funding for these programs during his campaign, in debates as well as on Twitter.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Krishna @2    2 months ago

What count are we up to now? 8,532?

lies that is

 
 
 
Kavika
3  Kavika     2 months ago
Many on social media also noted President Trump had vowed not to cut funding for these programs during his campaign, in debates as well as on Twitter.

He's a liar, WTF did they expect. 

I can't wait to see the republicans tell their senior constituents that they support this and support taking money away from them...

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Kavika @3    2 months ago

I think very few Republicans will go along with this. Trump will lose this fight...

 
 
 
lib50
3.1.1  lib50  replied to  Krishna @3.1    2 months ago

I think he'll lose it too.  I don't care how much you support Trump, if he starts cutting senior benefits, he'll lose and so will the republicans.  Trumpers might not be the brightest, but they know what cuts to their support system will do to them. 

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.2  Ender  replied to  lib50 @3.1.1    2 months ago

I still wonder. I know people that would vote to kill these programs until they use them themselves. Then it is still everyone else that is the problem.

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1.3  WallyW  replied to  lib50 @3.1.1    2 months ago

What libbers call "cuts" always turn out to be slight reductions in the rate of increase of benefits. They use language like this to scare old people.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @3.1.3    2 months ago
What libbers call "cuts" always turn out to be slight reductions in the rate of increase of benefits.

Wally, why don't you go and actually read the proposed budget, then come back when you have actual knowledge of what is in it.

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1.5  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.4    2 months ago

I repeat, there are no cuts to current benefits,Ozzy. Provide a link if you can prove otherwise.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @3.1.5    2 months ago
I repeat, there are no cuts to current benefits,Ozzy. Provide a link if you can prove otherwise.

Still haven't read it, huh?

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @3    2 months ago

I see your point but the democrats want access to my wealth which is worse.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @3.2    2 months ago

That makes no sense MUVA.

Your 'president' wants to gut Social Security, Medicaire and Medicaid to pay for the billions and billions of dollars that he gave to the wealthy and you're saying that the Democrats want access to 'your' wealth.  You say that's worse?  jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

You're hilarious!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.2  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.1    2 months ago

The democrats want to tax wealth and when you die they want to tax it again I ask you the same question what is worse?They are not trying to gut SS or medicaid they are trying to bring cost under control something that is far over due.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.1    2 months ago
Your 'president' wants to gut Social Security, Medicaire and Medicaid to pay for the billions and billions of dollars that he gave to the wealthy and you're saying that the Democrats want access to 'your' wealth. You say that's worse? 

Please list some of the amounts he "gave" to the wealthy, and the act that Congress passed which would allow any such payments.

Please tell us all how a budget cut is "gutting" anything.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.4  XDm9mm  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.1    2 months ago
Your 'president' wants to gut Social Security, Medicaire and Medicaid

Actually, it was OBAMA that actually DID GUT MEDICARE by BILLIONS....

Fact-Checking the Obama Campaign's Defense of its $716 Billion Cut to Medicare

Source:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2012/08/16/fact-checking-the-obama-campaigns-defense-of-its-716-billion-cut-to-medicare/#1ab2c910385f

But, be that as it may, Trump is only proposing cutting INCREASES to future spending....   not stealing from the cookie jar as Obama did.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.4    2 months ago

I suspect your post will be met with the same silence mine did.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.6  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.5    2 months ago
I suspect your post will be met with the same silence mine did.

Not necessarily.   The usual response is done several hours or a day later hoping it will be missed and not responded to giving the bullshit the respondent spews the air of truth and legitimacy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.6    2 months ago

jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.6    2 months ago
Not necessarily. The usual response is done several hours or a day later hoping it will be missed and not responded to giving the bullshit the respondent spews the air of truth and legitimacy.

Well, that is a lot easier than trying to debate in good faith.

Or maybe they secretly know they are wrong and simply are slow to admit it?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.9  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.8    2 months ago

See the post immediately prior to yours.

 
 
 
WallyW
3.2.10  WallyW  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.4    2 months ago

A point I made earlier. And now the libbers want to boost spending on current programs and create new ones.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.9    2 months ago

right on cue!

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.9    2 months ago

jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.13  XDm9mm  replied to  WallyW @3.2.10    2 months ago
A point I made earlier. And now the libbers want to boost spending on current programs and create new ones.

I've always questioned how cutting future 'growth' can be equated with "cutting" anything.   The amounts being allocated are still LARGER than today, just not as large as some want.

And they wonder why we laugh at politicians, FROM BOTH major political parties, claiming they're 'cutting' anything.  All they're doing is limiting the caloric intake of the obese bureaucracy to SLOW the likely coming fatal heart attack.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3.2.14  XDm9mm  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.11    2 months ago
right on cue!

And yet again, immediately below!!

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.14    2 months ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.16  bugsy  replied to  XDm9mm @3.2.6    2 months ago
The usual response is done several hours or a day later

I remember a lib on NV that would get pissed that conservatives would respond to her posts late at night when she was asleep and couldn't reply right away.

 
 
 
Sparty On
3.2.17  Sparty On  replied to  bugsy @3.2.16    2 months ago

Oh yeah, there was some real dandies over there.  

A few of them have moved their "dandiness" over here but NT does a MUCH better job of keeping them in check.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.2.18  1stwarrior  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.17    2 months ago

However, there are some that seem to need a little more attention.

 
 
 
Ender
4  Ender    2 months ago

Is Paul Ryan still in congress? His wet dream.

 
 
 
JBB
4.1  JBB  replied to  Ender @4    2 months ago

Ary Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and Paul Ryan. OH MY! What could go wrong?

 
 
 
JBB
5  JBB    2 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6  Jack_TX    2 months ago

85% of the cuts are reduced payments to providers.

We've been listening to Democrats tell us for nearly 10 years that reduced payments to providers don't count as Medicare cuts. 

 
 
 
JBB
6.1  JBB  replied to  Jack_TX @6    2 months ago

Providers denied payments equals patients being denied needed treatments...

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.1  loki12  replied to  JBB @6.1    2 months ago

Have you read the budget? what year is medicare spending cut?

From the budget.

Mandatory programs:
Social Security .....     .982 1,041 1,102 1,165 1,234 1,307 1,384 1,465 1,550 1,638 1,733 1,831 6,192 14,408
Medicare ...............   582 645 679 711 800 822 840 949 1,025 1,109 1,251 1,212 3,851 9,398

Those numbers get bigger every year, where is the cut?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  JBB @6.1    2 months ago
Providers denied payments equals patients being denied needed treatments...

Oh....so the Affordable Care Act did actually cut Medicare??  

How does that work, exactly?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  loki12 @6.1.1    2 months ago
Those numbers get bigger every year, where is the cut?

We're doing Liberal Math.  It's not like regular math.  

 
 
 
lib50
6.1.4  lib50  replied to  loki12 @6.1.1    2 months ago

They ARE trying to cut social programs, and have for years.  It's Paul Ryan's wet dream come true.  They also want to replace paid benefits with block grants to states, the purpose is to CUT.  You can't shine this turd, this attempt to destroy our safety net.  All the talking points in the world won't change the intent and result of implementing this.  Here are some articles. 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/12/18260271/trump-medicaid-social-security-medicare-budget-cuts

The 2020 budget’s Medicaid reforms include adding work requirements and repealing Medicaid expansion and one of the most successful policies within the Affordable Care Act. Medicaid expansion reduced the uninsured rate by more than 6 percent in states that enacted the policy; it continues to show better health outcomes and is popular in conservative states. But Trump is envisioning changing Medicaid altogether; his budget proposes transforming the current pay-as-needed system to a block grant, where states are given a capped lump-sum fund that doesn’t grow with increased need or rising costs. The budget proposes a $1.2 trillion “Market-Based Health Care Grant.”

In isolation, the Medicaid budget cuts amount to $1.5 trillion over 10 years, but looked at in the context of the new block grant as well the work requirements and ACA cuts, the cuts round out to about $777 billion — which could leave millions more uninsured.

The budget also continues an attack on Social Security, including to a program that gives assistance to those who have disabilities that prevent them from being in the workforce. In all, the cuts to Social Security amount to $25 billion over the next 10 years, cutting roughly $10 billion from the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program, which the administration says will be found through cutting down on fraud — a common conservative talking point.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/12/trump-2020-budget-proposes-reduced-medicare-and-medicaid-spending.html

https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2019/medicare-medicaid-trump-budget.html

Here’s a brief look at a few of his proposals for Medicare and Medicaid. His plan would:
  • Cut $845 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years, mainly, the proposal says, by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse and by cutting payments to certain hospitals and other providers. For example, it would reduce payments to hospital outpatient departments and teaching hospitals and provide less money to compensate hospitals for treating patients who don’t — or can’t — pay their bills. The proposal also calls for requiring Medicare beneficiaries to get prior approval for certain medical services that the administration says are ripe for waste and fraud, although it doesn’t specify which services. The budget also says that some savings would come from lowering prescription drug prices, something that would save Medicare beneficiaries and the government money.
  • Reduce Medicaid spending by nearly $1.5 trillion over the next decade. It would eliminate the extra Medicaid funding for states that expanded their programs under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). About 15 million more Americans have joined Medicaid since the ACA expansion was enacted. The budget plan would also give states more power to design their Medicaid programs, including allowing states to get a block grant or institute a per-person cap for Medicaid recipients.

“We are heartened that President Trump’s budget continues to highlight the need to address prescription drug prices,” says John Hishta, AARP’s senior vice president for campaigns. “But we’re also concerned about proposed cuts to programs important to seniors.”

The budget plan would also cut $220 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program (SNAP) — formerly known as food stamps. It also would expand work requirements to those able to work up to age 65 and use food box delivery services for some recipients instead of cash payments.

“These boxes would stigmatize people struggling to make ends meet by taking away their right to select food for their families, and would not be attuned to families’ particular dietary needs,” Jim Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, says in a statement. Nearly 5 million households who receive SNAP benefits have at least one member who is 60 or older.
 
 
 
MUVA
6.1.5  MUVA  replied to  lib50 @6.1.4    2 months ago

Sounds good to me.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @6.1.5    2 months ago

Of course it does!  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
WallyW
6.1.7  WallyW  replied to  JBB @6.1    2 months ago

Not true.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.8  loki12  replied to  lib50 @6.1.4    2 months ago

So I give you the actual numbers that show no cuts to SS and Medicare, and you provide somebody’s bullshit opinion. We get it trump bad! 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  loki12 @6.1.8    2 months ago
So I give you the actual numbers that show no cuts to SS and Medicare, and you provide somebody’s bullshit opinion. We get it trump bad!

Well, hating on Trump is easier than dealing with the facts.

I challenge anyone to post anything telling us how any SS or Medicare beneficiaries will suffer because of any alleged cut to them. Or what the amount cut will be per person.

 
 
 
lib50
6.1.10  lib50  replied to  loki12 @6.1.8    2 months ago

WTF did those numbers even mean?   No context at all.   

trump bad!

Well, since he lies about everything, why would you believe anything?  I didn't even say 'trump bad', but 'trump policies bad'.  Although I do agree with you, funny how you made that leap.  Trump's plans for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security undermine the institutions and our already fragile safety net.  There has been reams of material over decades highlighting their plans to being the cuts/transition to block grants and start squeezing the life out of us.  Before the gop lost the house, this was their plan:

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/20/medicare-social-security-cuts-budget/

House Republicans released a budget proposal Tuesday that would balance in nine years – but only by making large cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicare and Social Security, that President Donald Trump has vowed not to touch.

The House Budget Committee is aiming to pass the blueprint later this week, but that may be as far as it goes this midterm election year. It’s not clear that GOP leaders will put the document on the House floor for a vote, and even if it were to pass the House, the budget would have little impact on actual spending levels.

Nonetheless the budget serves as an expression of Republicans’ priorities at a time of rapidly rising deficits and debt. Although the nation’s growing indebtedness has been exacerbated by the GOP’s own policy decisions – including the new tax law, which most analyses say will add at least $1 trillion to the debt – Republicans on the Budget Committee said they felt a responsibility to put the nation on a sounder fiscal trajectory.

“The time is now for our Congress to step up and confront the biggest challenge to our society,” said House Budget Chairman Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.). “There is not a bigger enemy on the domestic side than the debt and deficits.”

(love that last line, from the party of massive deficits)

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.11  loki12  replied to  lib50 @6.1.10    2 months ago

They are the numbers from trumps budget showing increases in spending every year.  Do you want me to copy and paste the entire thing for you?

Here is a link to the actual budget without the bullshit talking heads "opinions"  Show me the 845 billion dollar cut in Medicare.  

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/budget-fy2020.pdf

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  JBB @6.1    2 months ago

Exactly!

Looks like they're following the TriCare formula now. I used to have the best GP in town and then TriCare decided they didn't want to pay him anymore so his practice dropped me. Now I get cut rate care

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.13  XDm9mm  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.12    2 months ago
I used to have the best GP in town

Damn....

My wife said that when she was forced into Obamacare after she lost the plan she liked and the doctor she liked and the premiums nearly doubled for less coverage.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.13    2 months ago

TriCare and Obamacare are not the same

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.14    2 months ago

Well ain't that a corker?

I'm surprised some don't know that what with THEIR vast knowledge and experience.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.17  XDm9mm  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.14    2 months ago

TriCare and Obamacare are not the same

Wow...   do you really think that's news?
But, do try to stay on topic.   Exactly how is increasing spending a cut?   
 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.17    2 months ago

Trying to save face now?

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @6.1.10    2 months ago
Trump's plans for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security undermine the institutions and our already fragile safety net.

Did Obama's cuts to Medicare undermine our already fragile safety net?  

Or is that only a thing when a Republican does it?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.20  Trout Giggles  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.17    2 months ago

I am on topic.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.21  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.1.11    2 months ago

From reading a little bit about that, it looks like any increased spending is for CDR, enforcement and re-determinations. They are spending money looking at cases to determine people to kick off the roles. That is where their savings come from.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.22  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.1.21    2 months ago

So no cuts?  And kicked off Medicare?  Isn't enrollment mandatory? Or are you talking about Medicaid? 

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.23  Ender  replied to  loki12 @6.1.22    2 months ago

Haven't read enough to see about any cuts. So far what I have read is about giving more money to enforcement and kicking people off of SSI and Medicaid.

I am reading a little about Medicare and so far it seems vague. Talking about payments that they only deem as a medical necessity.

 
 
 
loki12
6.1.24  loki12  replied to  Ender @6.1.23    2 months ago

My main question is where do the come up  with the 845 billion in cuts over 10 years, the article we are commenting on makes that claim. If you go to page 114 in the budget, it is just the total numbers,  in 2019 the Medicare Budget was 645b for 2020 they are asking for 679b  that is a 34 billion dollar increase, and the numbers never go down, So........Somebodies full of crap with the whole 845 billion cut.   

This seems like a perfect example of this poor kind of logic.

I pay employee X 20 dollars an hour,

He asks for a 5 dollar a hour raise, and i give him 2 instead, I am the boss after all.

He goes home and tells his wife he got a 3 dollar pay cut.

This kind or thinking is insanity. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
7  Freedom Warrior    2 months ago

I'm surprised the left wingers don't support such a move given their antipathy towards those in high earning professions.  Wasn't it their desire to wring out the excesses in the healthcare system by enacting obamacare.  Or, was that also just another well camouflaged strategy to screw over upper middle income families and further advance their socialist agenda.

 
 
 
luther28
8  luther28    2 months ago

What President Trump’s proposed budget cuts could mean for senior citizens

Perhaps we will finally get those death panels the GOP promised us in 2008.

 
 
 
WallyW
8.1  WallyW  replied to  luther28 @8    2 months ago

It will surely happen if the libbers have their way and try to foist single payer upon us.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
8.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @8.1    2 months ago

It will surely happen if the libbers have their way and try to foist single payer upon us.

Otp3p.jpg

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.2  lib50  replied to  WallyW @8.1    2 months ago

That comment shows you do not understand single payer at all.  Have you ever investigated how all the more successful countries (that pay FAR less) implement their healthcare?  Have you ever utilized said care?  We are among the worst right now and pay almost double for that than most of the world. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
8.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  lib50 @8.1.2    2 months ago
Have you ever investigated how all the more successful countries (that pay FAR less) implement their healthcare?

If you've ever talked with Wally before, you know that he never investigates anything.  He'll state his claim, then if you call him out for proof to back up that claim, he bails.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
8.1.4  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @8.1.2    2 months ago
Have you ever investigated how all the more successful countries (that pay FAR less) implement their healthcare?

Why don't you tell us all with YOUR vast knowledge and experience.

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.5  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.4    2 months ago

First of all, I've been interested in this subject for decades, so I've paid a lot of attention over the years.  Second, I've lived overseas and utilized the care in two countries, and never had a bad experience.  I know how it works and how much less everything costs.  I also keep up with current information.  Try it sometime.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
8.1.6  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @8.1.5    2 months ago

Then EXPLAIN it in DETAIL using your vast personal knowledge and experience.   That's what I asked for earlier, and you provided absofuckininglutely NOTHING.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.6    2 months ago

You sound angry.  Chill!

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.8  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @8.1.6    2 months ago

We worked there.  Paid taxes there and here.  Got sick there.  Had a baby there.  Various surgeries on my daughter.  Medicines.  Visitors from overseas also utilized the care.  Less waiting than this country.  Free medicine for children in some countries.  Never worrying about the costs or impact on our health.  Father-in-law was a PIC for a large Kaiser in CA back in the day, many discussions, much information.  Have had employer coverage.  Have had individual coverage.  Had medical problems that utilized many facets of the care (and costs), here and there.  Read copious amount of information on the topic because I'm passionate about it.  Keep up with current information.  Don't put blinders on to avoid information that goes against my political party (because I don't belong to one).  (I'd include ideology, but the gop has thrown that out when Obama took their policies, leaving them with nothing but lies, misinformation and mindless bitching.)

FEEL FREE TO POST YOUR EXPERTISE ON THE SUBJECT.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @8.1.5    2 months ago
First of all, I've been interested in this subject for decades, so I've paid a lot of attention over the years. 

Nobody who understands the full ramifications of US implementation of such a scheme thinks it's remotely plausible.

Second, I've lived overseas and utilized the care in two countries, and never had a bad experience.

That many, eh?  I guess that makes you an expert on insurance regulation, current public health insurance programs, healthcare finance, capitalization, fraud management, taxation and utilization.

  I know how it works and how much less everything costs.

This is like saying you've had an Iphone and a Samsung so you know why one is cheaper than the other.  

  I also keep up with current information.  Try it sometime.

I'm sure you think you do.  But if that were true, you would not be defending single payer as a viable option for the US.  Even Nancy Pelosi says it's idiotic.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  lib50 @8.1.8    2 months ago
FEEL FREE TO POST YOUR EXPERTISE ON THE SUBJECT.

I've got some experience on the topic.   It's been a lot of years but i worked in Healthcare for about ten years and made a lot of contacts, some of them in high places, some of them still active in the field.

One current example involves Canada.   A good friend of mine was in charge of the Bariatric Surgery program for a US hospital that borders Canada.   He liaised regularly with his Canadian counterpart across the border.   Canada has a much heavier capacity controlled system than we do.   So if something isn't an emergency, like most bariatric  surgeries, their wait times are significantly longer.   They also don't have the density of diagnostic equipment that we have in the US so blow your knee out and need an MRI.   Too bad .... you're waiting for months sometimes to get one.

There is no magic pill to fix all this.   If we go single payer their WILL be capacity control and longer waits when compared to todays standard and people are not going to like it one bit.

His words not mine.   He's a guy who has been in Healthcare management for nearly 40 years.   He knows what he is about better than anyone i know on topics like this.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.1.11  Jack_TX  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.10    2 months ago
So if something isn't an emergency, like most bariatric  surgeries, their wait times are significantly longer.   They also don't have the density of diagnostic equipment that we have in the US so blow your knee out and need an MRI.   Too bad .... you're waiting for months sometimes to get one.

The longest waits are for orthopedic surgeries, which average 39 weeks.   

Other types of care happen sooner, but it's still completely unrecognizable by American standards.

Specialist physicians surveyed report a median waiting time of 19.8 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment

So....5 months between initial visit and actual care.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
8.1.12  XDm9mm  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.11    2 months ago
The longest waits are for orthopedic surgeries, which average 39 weeks.   

When I had my total left hip replacement in 2007,  there were quite a few Canadians with me in immediate post surgery rehab.   Four had been waiting for almost a year for hip replacement surgeries and there was three people that had knees done.  Because of the Canadian wait times, there was one hip patient and one knee patient that had BOTH left AND right replacements done as they didn't want to go back to Canada only to have to come back again.  Now having both hips or knees replaced at the same time definitely says something bad about the Canadian system.

 
 
 
WallyW
8.1.13  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1.3    2 months ago

I don't bail out, I just have better things to do than trying to educate liberals all day.

If we ever get to single payer, the inconvenient truth is that care will be based on priorities and need. Appointments will take longer to get, as well as referrals to specialists. Treatments and procedures will be on waiting lists. And believe it or not, some bureaucrat, perhaps not even medically trained, will determine what care you get. That's how it works in those "successful countries".

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.14  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.9    2 months ago

FYI, I give zero fucks about what any politician says, my views stay the same no matter who says it.  Try it sometime.  Second,  if single payer is so impossible, why does the rest of the developed world have a variation of national healthcare that has better outcomes and costs almost half than we pay?  They have better outcomes and pay less.  I can list example after example.  I never said I was an expert, but I sure as hell know more than 90% of congress, who have been lying and misrepresenting this for decades.  So how much expertise do you have?  What have YOU utilized and experienced?   Try backing up your bullshit for a change.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.1.15  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @8.1.14    2 months ago
Second,  if single payer is so impossible, why does the rest of the developed world have a variation of national healthcare that has better outcomes and costs almost half than we pay? 

Ah yes.  The ever popular "Emily has a pony, why can't I have one" logic. It allows supporters to stay in denial and avoid the actual math on the subject.

The rest of the world pays less because they pay their providers less.  This is the very thing Democrats and other liberals are howling about in the Trump budget, BTW.  They also administer care at lower cost points.  In France, for example, a pharmacist can prescribe most medications. 

Many of those programs came into existence in the post WWII rebuilding.  Governments started paying for care as an emergency measure and just never stopped.  Had the US instituted such a program back when healthcare was 2% of GDP, we would be having very different conversations today.  But we didn't.  

The reason they have better outcomes is that they're healthier.  They work less, they eat less and they exercise more.  The data on this approaches the "ad nauseam" level. 

I never said I was an expert

You have several posts defending your expertise and/or challenging that of anyone who disagrees with you, including 8.1.2, 8.1.4, 8.1.6. and now 8.1.9.

So how much expertise do you have?

I've consulted on HIPAA, COBRA, TEFRA and ERISA compliance (among many other things) for over 20 years and ACA compliance since the law was passed.  Part of that includes the integration of Medicare and Medicaid as related to compensation and benefits regulations.

What have YOU utilized and experienced?   Try backing up your bullshit for a change.

The biggest bullshit going in this seed is that expertise can somehow be derived from utilization.  Sending 20,000 text messages/mo did not make my teenage daughter an expert on cellphone technology.  4 million frequent flier miles does not certify you for jet engine repair.  Visiting a physician in a foreign country does not give you any expertise whatsoever in how that healthcare system is financed.  All you know is your very limited personal end user experience.

Since you are the one advocating a complete overhaul of our healthcare system, I challenge you to demonstrate the fiscal advantages of such a scheme.  Your posts up to this point are conspicuously devoid of any actual math.  How much will it cost?  How much will it save?  How will you ensure we don't all have 10 month waits for a knee replacement like they do in Canada?  Where will the money come from?  Understand before you undertake this endeavor that the CBO has already dismissed "BernieCare" representations as erroneous.

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.16  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.15    2 months ago

First of all, I'm not a 'single payer' only person.  There are many ways to make it work, and looking at successful world models is a start.  You don't even mention that (HIPPA thrown in for s & g?  Privacy isn't the topic), you throw out a few 'I've consulted on TEFRA and COBRA.  What exactly does TEFRA have to do with this?  Its a damn tax bill from the 1980's.   You have the nerve to minimize my actual experience on this, along with the information I've studied for decades.   I know about COBRA because I've had to deal with it MULTIPLE times, I didn't just read about it.  Experience suddenly has no value? 

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/how-do-healthcare-prices-and-use-in-the-u-s-compare-to-other-countries/#item-on-average-other-wealthy-countries-spend-half-as-much-per-person-on-healthcare-than-the-u-s

Lots of good charts and information in this.

https://www.joepaduda.com/2018/08/16/u-s-healthcare-vs-the-world-in-one-chart/

Screen-Shot-2018-08-16-at-5.00.29-AM-300https://www.joepaduda.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Screen-Shot-2018-08-16-at-5.00.29-AM-768x597.png 768w, https://www.joepaduda.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Screen-Shot-2018-08-16-at-5.00.29-AM.png 777w" sizes="(max-width: 567px) 100vw, 567px" width="567" height="440" >

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-article/2018/mar/health-care-spending-united-states-and-other-high-income

Read it and get back to me.  With REAL information.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
8.1.17  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @8.1.16    2 months ago
First of all, I'm not a 'single payer' only person.

And yet you are championing it in this discussion.  Comment 8.1.2

There are many ways to make it work, and looking at successful world models is a start.

Ways to make what work, exactly?  You just said you're not committed to single payer, so what is the "it" you're talking about now?

  You don't even mention that (HIPPA thrown in for s & g?  Privacy isn't the topic), you throw out a few 'I've consulted on TEFRA and COBRA.  What exactly does TEFRA have to do with this?  Its a damn tax bill from the 1980's.

TEFRA, HIPAA, and each of those other laws contain provisions governing our current government-run health insurance programs.  But I'm sure I don't need to explain that to a person with "experience" as vast as yours. 

  You have the nerve to minimize my actual experience on this, along with the information I've studied for decades.

You're doing that quite well on your own without my help.   

   I know about COBRA because I've had to deal with it MULTIPLE times, I didn't just read about it.  Experience suddenly has no value? 

Depends on the experience.  Once again, utilization does not equal expertise.  Just because you've elected to continue coverage under COBRA doesn't mean you know very much about it, any more than using your iPhone gives you any expertise on its circuitry.

You link to further documentation of the cost of care in the US, like they represent some sort of revelation and that everybody and their basset hound is not already aware.  But you then fall into the batshit trap of presuming that your favored "solution" is the only way forward...and that it actually represents a "solution".  It is the logical equivalent of "my car has a flat tire....therefore I must paint my car, and anyone who opposes painting the car must not understand that the tire is flat."

You have yet to explain how single payer solves the problems you describe.  

Bernie Sanders is the nation's most notable proponent of single payer healthcare, yet he is currently loudly opposing the very thing that must be done to control healthcare costs.  But both he and you would somehow have us believe that this program represents an improvement and will save us all trillions of dollars.  We're just supposed to trust the vast knowledge of whackjob socialist and somebody who has elected COBRA.

Read it and get back to me.  With REAL information.

"Real" information.  Like the basic numbers I asked for you do not seem able to provide?  You know....the details on how much single payer will cost, how much it will save, where the money will come from, and how changing who pays claims will somehow make Americans thin and healthy?  Where are your numbers??  Where are your details on your "solution"?  

One can either do the math on single payer...or one can support single payer.  One cannot do both.

 
 
 
lib50
8.1.18  lib50  replied to  Jack_TX @8.1.17    2 months ago

I'm flexible and know there is more than one way to a desired outcome, and I don't think in black and white, all or nothing.    That rigid thinking isn't for me and I won't apologize for it.   And I'm done with this 'debate', impossible to think that narrowly.  Single payer is a tool in the chest that can be implemented in different ways.  And its not the only one.  Republicans have......nothing.

 
 
 
Texan1211
9  Texan1211    2 months ago

I challenge anyone to provide ANY numbers that show any person's SS will be reduced, or that their Medicare benefits will be cut.

 
 
 
lib50
9.1  lib50  replied to  Texan1211 @9    2 months ago

Social Security covers more than retirement benefits.   But make no mistake, the gop would like to cut that as well, proven from past budgets. 

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/03/14/trump-outlines-a-significant-social-security-cut-i.aspx

Trump's budget calls for a big change to Social Security's disability program

While Trump's budget proposal aims to curtail a number of perceived inefficiencies with the Social Security program, the bulk of the savings ($10 billion total between 2020 and 2029) are expected to be realized from a single change to the Social Security Disability Insurance program.

However, not all disability recipients file their claims with the SSA right away. Should you choose to apply for Social Security Disability Insurance long after you've actually become disabled, you may be able to receive retroactive benefits. These retroactive disability benefits would cover the time period from when you actually became disabled through when you applied for Social Security Disability benefits, with a maximum collectible period of 12 months.

It should be noted that the SSA will subtract the five-month waiting period from your filing, meaning you must apply for benefits 17 months or longer after the onset of your disability if you're to receive the full 12 months of retroactive disability pay. 

Trump's budget proposal for fiscal 2020 aims to halve the amount of retroactive pay disabled persons can recover to six months from 12 months. Doing so would reduce program outlays by $3.61 billion between 2020 and 2024, and almost $10 billion on the dot, in aggregate, over the next decade. 

I'm sure this budget will never go through, but it DOES exist to cut benefits, especially in the future when they think they can get away with it.  But don't say it doesn't harm SS, if it went through, it would.  And it is easy to google previous gop plans to cut entitlements.  Instead of pretending they don't exist, try looking deeper and don't skim the surface all the time. 

Oh, heck, here is another one:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-president-trumps-proposed-budget-cuts-could-mean-for-senior-citizens-2019-03-12

The record $4.7 trillion federal budget for 2020 calls for a 5% cut to social programs, including $845 billion from Medicare, $1.5 trillion from Medicaid and as much as $84 billion in Social Security disability benefits, all to be implemented over the next 10 years if passed.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/teresaghilarducci/2018/10/16/senate-republicans-set-sights-on-cutting-social-security/#5a87039c5da1

 
 
 
XDm9mm
9.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @9.1    2 months ago
but it DOES exist to cut benefits,

No....   it cuts POTENTIAL future expenditures...

NO ONE WILL SEE A REDUCTION IN THEIR MONTHLY CHECK.

If someone desires to claim SS Disability benefits, they simply need to do so in a more timely manner.   See how easy it is to fix that problem?

 
 
 
lib50
9.1.2  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1.1    2 months ago

I have nothing for people who don't want to see what is right in front of their faces.  Go ahead and defend this with word parsing and blinders, but don't expect people with a brain to buy it.  Like I said, the gop have not been shy about their desire to cut the safety net.  The information is out there.  Don't try to pretend they don't want to cut important programs, they use the 'savings' in their budget projections (which NEVER add up to squat).  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
9.1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @9.1.2    2 months ago
Go ahead and defend this with word parsing

Who the fuck is parsing words?  It's RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU TO READ IF YOU WANT TO:

Trump's budget proposal for fiscal 2020 aims to halve the amount of retroactive pay disabled persons can recover to six months from 12 months.

If you want it, APPLY EARLIER and you won't lose a fucking penny.   READING is fundamental.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1.3    2 months ago

Chill out dude.  

 
 
 
lib50
9.1.5  lib50  replied to  Tessylo @9.1.4    2 months ago

Sounds like they want everybody to just sign up immediately before all is known.  Seems expensive.  Also doesn't take into account all the bullshit people are going through when they suddenly need it.  Little things like comas or recovering from a massive accident.  Stop the workd and deal with paperwork.  I wonder how many people he knows that have dealt with any of this?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
9.1.6  XDm9mm  replied to  lib50 @9.1.5    2 months ago
Sounds like they want everybody to just sign up immediately before all is known.

RETROACTIVE is PAST TENSE.

It seems that if you're going to claim SS Disability, you would actually want to do so as soon as possible.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
9.1.7  Jack_TX  replied to  lib50 @9.1.5    2 months ago
Sounds like they want everybody to just sign up immediately before all is known.

Possibly.  It's also possible they're just trying to lower the payouts.  SSDI is a problematic program.  The percent of Americans recieving benefits is 2.5 times what it was 50 years ago.  Our jobs are easier...yet we're much more likely to become disabled?  Seems improbable.  

Lots of people believe the program has rampant fraud and abuse, but that has not been definitively proven yet.

Seems expensive.

I believe that's what we refer to as "the law of unintended consequences".  

 
 
 
Krishna
9.1.8  seeder  Krishna  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1.3    2 months ago
READING is fundamental.

Not for Trump!

(He's one of the least knowledgeable president we've had! :-(

 
 
 
lib50
9.1.9  lib50  replied to  XDm9mm @9.1.6    2 months ago

I know someone in a coma and extensive rehab.  Some things just don't happen perfectly.  There can be a lot going on and not everybody is thinking straight in the beginning.  Things like life and death have a way of overshadowing everything, especially in the beginning.  Sometimes I think people don't have a clue what other people go through when tragedy strikes.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Bob Nelson
lady in black


30 visitors