Sorry Jimmy but Obama's plan isn't any better. Neither have any longer range plan to fix the Medicare problem. They are just patching a leaky boat and neither patch will hold. If Obama has a viable plan, he needs to come forward now instead of attacking Romney so we don't look at how shaky he is on this subject. BTW, just to be fair, Romney is just as guilty of doing the same thing. Did anyone see BHO on letterman?
Alright ya all, I will let you pick at my complete lack of comprehesion of obomacare. The current rhetoric continues to be how much harder it is going to be finaicialy for certain demographics. I would like to set that aside for a minute and see if someone can riddle me this?
What will be the increased percentage of accesibilty to quality medical care for those who could not previously afford it?
How is this going to be funded?
What is the estimated cost?
How will it be regualated?
Does it help all Americans in the long haul?
I am all for a program that is well thought out, actually helps those who need it, and is sustainable. The basic questions I asked should be the basis for an informed decision on the surface at the very least. I fear of course that this will not be the case, an informed decision
So Vouchercare would mean higher costs and lower benefits for seniors. Over time, the Republican plan wouldn’t just end Medicare as we know it, it would kill the thing Medicare is supposed to provide: universal access to essential care. Sen
iors who couldn’t afford to top up their vouchers with a lot of additional money would just be out of luck.
Still, the G.O.P. promises to maintain Medicare as we know it for those currently over 55. Should everyone born before 1957 feel safe? Again, no.
For one thing, repeal of Obamacare would cause older Americans to lose a number of significant benefits that the law provides, including the way it closes the “doughnut hole” in drug coverage and the way it protects early retirees.
Beyond that, the promise of unchanged benefits for Americans of a certain age just isn’t credible. Think about the political dynamics that would arise once someone born in 1956 still received full Medicare while someone born in 1959 couldn’t afford decent coverage. Do you really think that would be a stable situation? For sure, it would unleash political warfare between the cohorts — and the odds are high that older cohorts would soon find their alleged guarantees snatched away.
The question now is whether voters will understand what’s really going on (which depends to a large extent on whether the news media do their jobs). Mr. Ryan and his party are betting that they can bluster their way through this, pretending that they are the real defenders of Medicare even as they work to kill it. Will they get away with it?
Having medical coverage does not mean, one, you can afford to use it or, two, that your doctor will accept it. More and more doctors are refusing medicaid and medicare clients due to the low reimbursement they receive. So, who does Obamacare really help?
@Up2sumptin- Obama-care has tough penalties in place for doctors who refuse to provide health care to those in need...Its not the doctors that don't want to assist patients; its the insurance companies not paying or keeping more than their paying out...That's why their fighting it so hard...Answer this? why would someone fight a system that's set up to help them...Poor people are fighting to stay poor and sick...
So now Obama is telling doctors who they will have as clients? I don't think so. Even this new electronic system that BHO requires is jacking the price of care up significantly. As a person with excellent health, I have paid into the system all my life. But guess what? Even though I pay over $120 per month for my insurance, the copays are so high that I cannot use it. That is what is killing folks. Not that they don't have insurance, it's they go bankrupt using it. It is expected to go up again this year (as it has done every year) along with the copays. IMHO, Obama was focusing on getting everyone insurance, he forgot what they were suppose to do when they got it.
"This is a 'government takeover' of the health care system"
This snappy talking point is used by Republicans repeatedly to bash Obama's crowing legislative achievement, but it is simply not true. In fact, PolitiFact.com labeled this claim the 2010 "lie of the year," but that has not stopped lawmakers from making this claim. It will surely be heard again on the House floor during the repeal debate.
In many ways, the health care law resembles the Massachusetts reform enacted in 2006 under then Gov. Mitt Romney (a potential Republican rival of Obama in 2012). It builds on the existing private insurance system but adds requirements and incentives to ensure that most people have some form of health insurance.
Under the new law, there is no government alternative to the private system--this was a potential provision that was dropped during the congressional tussle--but the number of people who qualify for the existing federal-state Medicaid program for the poor will be expanded. States (or the federal government) will run "exchanges" -- essentially marketplaces -- in which private insurers will sell insurance to individuals and small businesses, but this should mean more people will get private insurance, not fewer. Tax credits will also be offered to people who have trouble buying private insurance.
Certainly, the law bolsters government regulation of the health care system, such as forcing insurance companies to no longer deny coverage to people who have existing medical conditions. People who currently do not have health insurance will be required to buy it. But the core of the health system in the United States will remain the existing private insurance market. So it in no way resembles the government-run health systems used in most industrialized countries in the world.
"Medicare benefits will be cut--and payments will be cut to Medicare doctors".
This was another GOP attack line during the campaign, though in many ways this was payback for the Democrats' very effective use of the same charge against Republicans after the GOP took control of Congress in 1994 and attempted to pass a balanced-budget plan that sought to restrain growth in Medicare spending.
The politically radioactive word "cut" is a misnomer. Under the health care law, Medicare spending will continue to increase year after year, but at a slower than anticipated pace. Both parties, in theory, agree this would be a good thing. Medicare is the venerable government-run health care plan for Americans over 65, and one of the fastest-growing parts of the federal budget.
Politics Nation, the federal government (Leviathan) has no right to enforce healthcare legislation by the powers of the US Constitution. Obamacare was rammed thru by Democrats in a partisan Chicago thug fashion in 2010 even though America didn’t want it. Romneycare is authorized by the Constitution by the 10th Amendment in addition to the citizens of Massachusetts approving of the legislation. The 10th Amendment:
Now if you are a progressive liberal democrat that doesn’t care about the rule of law other than a women’s uterus and gay rights (pathetic) then I understand your partisanship!
PoliticsNation commented on Monday, Sep 24, 2012 at 22:21 PM
@Funkentelecky...The Supreme court ruled it constitutional and that's enough for me
Typical progressive liberal non-principled response, it was supposed to be Constitutional by way of the Commerce Clause; however it was rendered Constititutional via the powers of taxation by Congress lwith a Republican casting the 5th vote. So Obamacare is a tax on all Americans who pay taxes, do I need to say more?
Look at the video below and justify that!
Politics please stop playing them because BHO has twice as many flip-flops and broken promises as Romney, see the lies here:
And what about this one too!
Over 5.5 Trillion in less than 4 years. Now that’s CHANGE we can believe in and I know you do sir as you have proclaimed by your Democrat allegiance rather than following the rule of law!
Are you serious? You go to the emergency room is a bill.Get out of the emergency room and you have prescriptions to pay and if you was rushed by the ambulace there is also that bill. Romney doesn't understand he has a doctor who follows him up and down, the 47% don't have doctors travelling with us everywhere they go.
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/23/mit...... - Cached
BHO and the rest of the politicos have the same thing. That is why they excluded themselves from Obamacre. This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black
It was announced today that Medicare prescription plans will be going up next year. Of the ten top providers, seven will be jacking up there prices between 11-23%. Two will raise their premiums by 3%. This even though Obama promised no increases in 2013. I guess if the man doesn't know how much the national debt is (per Letterman interview) then we can't expect him to know what is going on elsewhere.
Romney plan for Health Care is-Going to the E.R and setting the elderly up for failure...What 80 year old needs to spend her day trying to find a provider to accept a voucher...what happens if the elderly person is suddenly ill-spends time in the hospital and the voucher runs out? When the money runs out on the voucher the senior is left to find creative ways to fund care...Medicare is not a privilege- we pay for it!!This is not a hand out.
I have clients who have reached their life time limit on Medicaid. What happens to them? ERs are designed for ememrgencys. Most doctors are a whole lot closed to the elderly than the ER. Do you realise how many doctors refuse to accept medicaid or medicare or severely limit the number of patients they will accept. A LOT, I know first hand. It will no different with government backed insurance.
I think things will change because the limits on Medicaid will end. The plan is working well in Massachusetts.
Please read the article below.