2018 Oct 14, 7:28pm
5,426 views 67 comments
« First « Previous Comments 28 - 67 of 67 Last »
Guess what ? Nobody has even tried.
Prove to us you are better or admit you cant make a case for trump being a liar.
In practice, the Democratic Party’s so-called Medicare for All would really be Medicare for None," Trump wrote. "Under the Democrats' plan, today’s Medicare would be forced to die."Tapper on Sunday interviewed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a proponent of Medicare for all who has been harshly critical of Trump’s op-ed.“He said we are going to weaken Medicare coverage for the elderly. That is an outrageous lie,” Sanders told Tapper. “We expand coverage to include dental care, vision care and hearing aids.”
Most single individual lies, are no worse than the worst lie other politicians tell. But with Trump it's all you get. 24/7.
I agree, and Universities should be #2. We may need to take tenure power from State Universities and invest it in a board picked by the Governor/State Legislature, since the State is subsidizing it.
You’re not supposed to go there, you might trigger the GOPe Cult45
Anything else you need clarified?
Medicare for all would increase the medicare tax rate, and everyone would be on medicare.
Wouldn't be easier for once in your life to admit it was a total lie designed to get the republican senior vote out in even higher numbers than usual ?
I'm upping the offer to $200. Any takers from the left?
Welfare gives more. Can you match it?
I have pointed out where Bernie is lying to you. Medicare as we know it will absolutely be pillaged in favor of Medicare for all.
Where did "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" disappear?
When the Left began talking about “hate speech” as being too dangerous to be allowed. Of course, since the Left also gets to define “hate speech,” it can designate any speech it doesn’t approve of as hate speech. And since they’ve decided that some speech is “too dangerous to be protected,” that means that “dangerous” speech is also fair game for censorship and retribution. And since they control what is defined as “dangerous speech,” they control the conversation. And Free Speech is effectively dead.
Tenpoundbass what did the Hitler family do to you for you to associate them with the likes of Hillary Clinton?
georgeliberte saysTenpoundbass what did the Hitler family do to you for you to associate them with the likes of Hillary Clinton?He was a Socialists too!
CBOEtrader saysI have pointed out where Bernie is lying to you. Medicare as we know it will absolutely be pillaged in favor of Medicare for all.You made a ridiculous assertion based on nothing. Please point me to a thoughtful analysis of this topic done by a serious (AND HONEST) source. I
If Conservatives don't like pissed-off Liberals,they shouldn't piss Liberals-off.
Let's review: Medicare benefits have already been sacrificed to help finance Obamacare. Fact.
One, the flow to and from medicare relating to Obamacare are far more complicated than what you implied with your empty assertion.
As for the cuts, they come from eliminating a massive subsidy to private insurers and gradually reducing the rate of growth in payments to some providers. These changes, while not catastrophic for Medicare, are important. Under the ACA, the federal government will substantially reduce the amount it spends funding Medicare Advantage, which is privately administered insurance offered to Medicare beneficiaries. About one-quarter of Medicare recipients are enrolled in private Medicare Advantage. In theory, these plans are supposed to manage health care spending better than fee-for-service Medicare. But they don’t actually save the federal government any money. They cost, per patient, 14% more than traditional Medicare. (See Figure 3 of this fact sheet from the Kaiser Family Foundation. And see here for more.) The ACA eliminates this subsidy and pegs Medicare Advantage payments to quality metrics.The second bunch of money that gets cut from Medicare under Obamacare comes from providers. Hospitals, home health agencies and others will see Medicare payments grow more slowly than they have in the past.Medicare benefits will not change – in theory. However, providers who get paid less from Medicare in the future may be less inclined to accept Medicare patients, thereby reducing access. The frequently criticized Independent Payment Advisory Board, created by the ACA, could cut provider payments even more to keep the growth in Medicare spending under a benchmark. If Medicare per capita spending grows faster than a rate pegged to inflation and later GDP, IPAB will be empowered to recommend provider payment cuts. If Congress can’t find alternative ways to keep Medicare spending growth under the inflation or GDP benchmark, the IPAB recommendations will automatically go into effect. This too could reduce access. Bonus Medicare Advantage benefits – like free gym memberships – may go away.In exchange for these kinds of reductions in Medicare spending, funding for the program was bolstered in other ways by the ACA. Preventive care is now covered at 100% for Medicare beneficiaries and a gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage will slowly close under the law. Some Medicare beneficiaries, primarily wealthy Americans, will pay higher Medicare premiums and taxes under the ACA.The idea, however, that the Affordable Care Act struck a dangerous blow to Medicare that will change the program in fundamental ways is untrue. Under the new law, Medicare will remain a wildly popular, public single-payer health insurance system that provides comprehensive coverage to millions of Americans.
No offense intended, but your assertions are political spin, and downright silly.
As for the cuts, they come from eliminating a massive subsidy to private insurers and gradually reducing the rate of growth in payments to some providers.
You have gotten to the point where you believe the propgandized lies, this is a dangerous time for our country
this is a dangerous time for our country
Medicare as we know it dying in favor of a medicare for all is NOT a lie.
Let me get this straight. A policy that doesn't exist yet, that is, a policy that could come to exist and be structured in an infinite number of different ways, negotiated by congress, can not be done in a way that doesn't damage another policy, even though a huge and powerful and growing interest group (old people) that votes, is deeply moved to politically support the well being of the latter policy.
Economies of scale baby ! And everyone is paying in. So of course the cost is less.
Economies of scale baby !
Just look at how the government has handled the VA.
Or medicare part D. Or Obamacare.
CBOEtrader saysOr medicare part D. Or Obamacare.Part D was R's. Obamacare was D's. Both are budget- and commons-sense busting monstrosities, enacted to pay off Big Pharma and Insurance. And we are arguing here if R's or D's are worse...
marcus saysEconomies of scale baby !Economies of scale only works if you have a reasonable assumption that the firm (or in this case gov't entity) is going to act like a profit seeking firm. Often the advantages of "economies of scale" are lost to inefficiency, outright corruption, and incompetence for government institutions. Just look at how the government has handled the VA.
Big government is great at waste.
Medicare - for - all implies everyone is paying into it. You said this yourself multiple times.Seniors have already paid into medicare. Why should they risk a good system for them which is already paid for?
« First « Previous Comments 28 - 67 of 67 Last »