62% Federal Tax rate??!!

[Riot]

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news...upt-again.html

"Anywhere between five and the next 12 years, Medicare as we know it will go bankrupt....U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., appearing on Meet the Press, 5-1-2011

Hmm, that sounds familiar.... "

Chicago Tribune July 2, 1969: The Medicare hospital trust fund faces bankruptcy by 1976 and taxes must either be raised or benefits reduced the senate finance committee was told today.

New York Times July 7, 1981: Medicare payroll taxes already imposed by Congress, including two increases scheduled for 1985 and 1986, will only be able to keep the hospital insurance system solvent for eight to 10 more years, three Cabinet officers informed Congress. Even under the Reagan Administration's highly optimistic economic projections, the fund will be bankrupt before 2000, the three said.

Washington Post,March 6, 1983: Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici warned the nation's governors the other day, "Medicare can be bankrupt in 2 1/2 years," unless some way is found to put the brakes on its burgeoning costs.

Chicago Tribune: June 25, 1983: Medicare is in danger of bankruptcy as early as 1986, the system’s trustees declared Friday.

Chicago Tribune, March 10 1984: To avert Medicare’s expected insolvency, a federal advisory council proposed Friday raising the eligibility age to 67, taxing employer paid health insurance benefits and boosting the tax on alcohol and tobacco… the Congressional Budget Office said Medicare may be insolvent in 1989

New York Times, January 20, 1985: In the last few years, when it appeared that the Medicare trust fund would run out of money in 1987-89... But the need seemed less urgent after the Congressional Budget Office issued new estimates last September indicating that the Medicare trust fund would not go bankrupt until 1994.

Chicago Tribune February 6, 1985: Medicare is still expected to go bankrupt in 1991, and a new flood of red tape is not helping America's hospitals.

New York Times, March 27, 1985: Reagan Administration officials said tonight that new projections showed the Medicare trust fund would not go bankrupt until late in 1990's.

Chicago Tribune, Nov. 17 1985: Last spring, the government estimated that the Medicare trust fund would run out of money by 1998. Given less optimistic assumptions about the economy, it could happen as soon as 1992

Washington Post, April 1, 1986: The Medicare hospital insurance program faces bankruptcy by 1996, two years earlier than projected last year.

Chicago Tribune, June 29, 1986: Dr. Jerald Schenken of Omaha, an AMA trustee, said the doctors have worked for more than two years on formulating the plan, because they fear the current Medicare system will go bankrupt by the end of the century.

New York Times, May 22, 1988: Reflecting the view of the Reagan Administration, Dr. William L. Roper, the head of the Federal Medicare and Medicaid agency, said, ''With the Medicare Trust Fund expected to go insolvent shortly after 2000, it is hard for us to sign on for a major expansion of the Medicare program beyond the catastrophic care bill.''

New York Times, January 22, 1989: The fund that pays all Government reimbursement for hospital care of Medicare patients is projected to become insolvent in the next decade or so.

Washington Post May 4, 1990: Control of health costs is considered by many experts to be the number one health problem in the United States. Such costs are expected to bankrupt Medicare by the year 2003.

Washington Post December 13, 1994: The trust fund that finances Medicare is projected to become insolvent in the year 2001

Los Angeles Times May 31, 1995: For weeks, Republicans have been talking about a report that warns that Medicare is in danger of going bankrupt in the year 2002.

Chicago Tribune April 25, 1997: Medicare trustees said Thursday that the program providing health care to more than 38 million senior citizens is still headed for bankruptcy in 2001.

Chicago Tribune, January 7, 1999: [The National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare] was created in 1997 to deal with Medicare's projected bankruptcy in 2008.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news...upt-again.html

"Anywhere between five and the next 12 years, Medicare as we know it will go bankrupt....U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., appearing on Meet the Press, 5-1-2011

Hmm, that sounds familiar.... "

the squeeky wheel gets the grease. What Zorn neglects to mention is the times and amounts Medicare has been raised. If at anytime this warning had been acted on we wouldn't be where we are now.

BTW Might has well set off a nuclear bomb somewhere in the U.S. rather than follow thru with Obamacare as it is simply a Medicare program for all.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

the squeeky wheel gets the grease. What Zorn neglects to mention is the times and amounts Medicare has been raised. If at anytime this warning had been acted on we wouldn't be where we are now.

No. The "warning" was acted upon all the times listed.

Since inception of each program, it's always been known that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security would have to undergo adjustments to remain solvent. And that's what we've always done. And what we'll do again now.

BTW Might has well set off a nuclear bomb somewhere in the U.S. rather than follow thru with Obamacare as it is simply a Medicare program for all.

That is a complete falsehood. You know that. LOL - I wish we had single payer, Medicare for all - that would be awesome. Vermont just agreed to go down the path of healthcare for all, not just the rich. Good for them.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. The "warning" was acted upon all the times listed.

Since inception of each program, it's always been known that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security would have to undergo adjustments to remain solvent. And that's what we've always done. And what we'll do again now.

That is a complete falsehood. You know that. LOL - I wish we had single payer, Medicare for all - that would be awesome. Vermont just agreed to go down the path of healthcare for all, not just the rich. Good for them.

In 1969 total Fed spending was $183.6 billion, payments for medical services for seniors was $5.7 billion (3%) and total Fed spending for healthcare, including Public Health Services, Vendor Payments (welfare) and R&D was 10.9 billion
(6%)

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spend...ate=US#usgs302


In 2012 total spending is $3.728 trillion payments for medical services for seniors is $492.3 billion (13%) and total Fed spending for healthcare, including Public Health Services, Vendor Payments (welfare) and R&D is $866.1billion (23%)

http://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/spend...ate=US#usgs302

Yea they fixed it!!!!! Indications of how harmful Obamacare would be for the country's economic health.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

In 1969 total Fed spending was $183.6 billion, payments for medical services for seniors was $5.7 billion (3%) and total Fed spending for healthcare, including Public Health Services, Vendor Payments (welfare) and R&D was 10.9 billion
(6%)

In 2012 total spending is $3.728 trillion payments for medical services for seniors is $492.3 billion (13%) and total Fed spending for healthcare, including Public Health Services, Vendor Payments (welfare) and R&D is $866.1billion (23%)

Yes - and? How many people does that cover, for what services? We have had a bit - oh, millions - of a population explosion. And the healthcare industry has been taking record profits for some time now

Yea they fixed it!!!!! Indications of how harmful Obamacare would be for the country's economic health

Yeah. They did "fix it". It used to cover thousands, now it covers millions. Pretty well done, actually. One of the most successful social programs ever.

Which has nothing at all do with the few industry reforms implemented in the PPACA. Hoever, the CBO says the PPACA will be good for the countries economic health, btw - for example, it extends Medicare by 12 years, while reducing waste in that program by 5 billion dollars (which helps pay for the program)

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Which has nothing at all do with the few industry reforms implemented in the PPACA. Hoever, the CBO says the PPACA will be good for the countries economic health, btw - for example, it extends Medicare by 12 years, while reducing waste in that program by 5 billion dollars (which helps pay for the program)

With blinks off..

The CBO letter says that the health law spends $780 billion in the next decade and pays for it by raising taxes and fees by $410 billion, and by reducing future Medicare funding by $500 billion. The CBO argues that the law raises more money ($910 billion) than it spends, but that is hardly sufficient reason to keep it, or any law.

Projections from another federal agency—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—fill in the grim picture on what ObamaCare will do. The CMS figures, released Sept. 9, show that if you buy your own health plan, you will have to pay more every year than you would have if the law hadn't passed.

Amazingly, only 3% more people will have private health insurance in 2014 than would have it if the law hadn't passed. But a staggering 85.2 million people will be on public insurance—Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP. That's 31% of non-elderly Americans. The new health law is pushing the U.S. toward a European-style welfare state, making more people dependent on government, instead of on themselves, and undermining incentives to work. The new law stipulates that Medicaid must provide the same health benefits that employers will have to provide for their workers.

To expand Medicaid, the law eviscerates Medicare. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul, only it's robbing Grandma and Grandpa. The CMS shows that in 2019 the Obama health law reduces annual Medicare funding so much that it works out to $1,428 less for each elderly patient that year. Richard Foster, chief actuary for Medicare, has spoken with brave bluntness about the possible impact, warning that some hospitals may stop accepting Medicare. Where will seniors go?

Government projections are notoriously unreliable, but by the CBO's own numbers repeal would reduce government spending, lower taxes, and restore Medicare funding. Most important, repeal would protect your freedom and your medical care. The Obama health law lowers your standard of care, puts government in charge of your care, and shreds your constitutional rights—dangers these government projections do not address.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...133862774.html

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

With blinks off..

The CBO letter says that the health law spends $780 billion in the next decade and pays for it by raising taxes and fees by $410 billion, and by reducing future Medicare funding by $500 billion. The CBO argues that the law raises more money ($910 billion) than it spends, but that is hardly sufficient reason to keep it, or any law.

Projections from another federal agency—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—fill in the grim picture on what ObamaCare will do. The CMS figures, released Sept. 9, show that if you buy your own health plan, you will have to pay more every year than you would have if the law hadn't passed.

Amazingly, only 3% more people will have private health insurance in 2014 than would have it if the law hadn't passed. But a staggering 85.2 million people will be on public insurance—Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP. That's 31% of non-elderly Americans. The new health law is pushing the U.S. toward a European-style welfare state, making more people dependent on government, instead of on themselves, and undermining incentives to work. The new law stipulates that Medicaid must provide the same health benefits that employers will have to provide for their workers.

To expand Medicaid, the law eviscerates Medicare. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul, only it's robbing Grandma and Grandpa. The CMS shows that in 2019 the Obama health law reduces annual Medicare funding so much that it works out to $1,428 less for each elderly patient that year. Richard Foster, chief actuary for Medicare, has spoken with brave bluntness about the possible impact, warning that some hospitals may stop accepting Medicare. Where will seniors go?

Government projections are notoriously unreliable, but by the CBO's own numbers repeal would reduce government spending, lower taxes, and restore Medicare funding. Most important, repeal would protect your freedom and your medical care. The Obama health law lowers your standard of care, puts government in charge of your care, and shreds your constitutional rights—dangers these government projections do not address.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...133862774.html

Yawn..as you said..deal with it..4 more years and then Rahm..you are going to blow throw a lot of keyboards

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

With blinks off..

[i]The CBO letter says that the health law spends $780 billion in the next decade and pays for it by raising taxes and fees by $410 billion, and by reducing future Medicare funding by $500 billion. The CBO argues that the law raises more money ($910 billion) than it spends, but that is hardly sufficient reason to keep it, or any law.

Obamacare makes money. It pays for itself, and it makes money.

Blinks off, Dell - right?

Projections from another federal agency—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—fill in the grim picture on what ObamaCare will do. The CMS figures, released Sept. 9, show that if you buy your own health plan, you will have to pay more every year than you would have if the law hadn't passed.

A partisan right wing think tank comes out against CBO figures. Who to believe? Oh, it's so hard to look at who has the integrity here!

Amazingly, only 3% more people will have private health insurance in 2014 than would have it if the law hadn't passed.

Yeah, that's kind of the point of it, and the number of insured will continue to increase. We have 330 million people in the country, we have about 40 million uninsured, and we'll get about 30 million insured here. A good thing. Next.

But a staggering 85.2 million people will be on public insurance—Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or S-CHIP.

Yes, so what? We have alot of very, very poor people in this country. Getting them health care is good for all of us. Especially young children. We, as a society, don't want young children of the poor to be starving, or sick, or unvaccinated, do we? Do you, Dell?

If helping the poor doesn't give one warm fuzzies, go back to paragraph one, where it says that doing so will make us money.

The new health law is pushing the U.S. toward a European-style welfare state, making more people dependent on government, instead of on themselves, and undermining incentives to work.

Well, nonsense. And what "European-style welfare state" is the author referencing in particular? The imaginary one in his mind?

It is encouraging people to be responsible, rather than living off their neighbors.

C'mon Dell - at least come up with good, reasoned opinion articles to share. This is a ridiculous stretch made up of straw men.