• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Would Medicare cost $6400 more.

Wait, people on Medicare have to spend that much per annum out of pocket before actually getting their benefits?
 
ElasticNinja said:
Wait, people on Medicare have to spend that much per annum out of pocket before actually getting their benefits?
Click to expand...

That is the accusation from the Dems. The facts aren't on their side, but whatever. They are not lying they are "interpreting the facts." Just keep that in mind.
 
A.Nonymous said:
I'm not sure. I don't think so. The allegation is that whatever they're spending (if anything) will go up $6k.
Click to expand...

I clearly don't understand this anyhow.

What's the story with Romney's idea to give states responsibility for Medicare?
Sounds like a good idea, but a lot of states would not look after their people one would imagine.
 
Both web sites that the OP cited are right wing propaganda sites, and should be taken with a cowlick of salt.

A.Nonymous nailed it with factcheck.org which is the best, most accurate site I know of.

Policies aside, Medicare is funded by money that's taken out of your paycheck. Medicare isn't a handout; it's your money. So Medicare recipients have every right to go to their elected representatives and demand every last cent due them. All of the money borrowed from the Medicare trust fund isn't your fault, and shouldn't be your problem. But to be realistic you will have to hold Congress' feet to the fire on giving you your due, even if it makes them unpopular with certain lobbyists. Just remind them that lobbyists can't reelect them, and you can vote against them.
 
ElasticNinja said:
I clearly don't understand this anyhow.

What's the story with Romney's idea to give states responsibility for Medicare?
Sounds like a good idea, but a lot of states would not look after their people one would imagine.
Click to expand...

I'm not Medicare so I confess I don't have a clear understanding of exactly how it works. The OP would be a better person so hopefully he/she responds. In any case, Obama claimed that Romney's plan would require people on Medicare to pay $6k more a year than they're paying now. That's not true at all.

Romney argued that we've got bigger fish to fry than wasting two years trying to push nationalized healthcare. Obama argued that his plan is the same as Romney's in MA to which Romney basically replied that healthcare should be done by states if it's going to be done at all and not done at a national level. Sure, some states are probably going to do it better than others and people are always free to move states accordingly.
 
I will explain it the best I can. I am on disability, have been since 2008. My monthly benefit amount gets an automatic deduction of $110 for Medicare. I then have to purchase supplemental which costs me another $90. The confusing part is when I get my bills from Humana, they have what's called a Medicare Deduction. This is usually pretty large, about %80 of the bill. Then Humana pays, and I am responsible for the rest. Usually a small amount. Keep in mind, that once all the deductions are taken, I get just over $900 each month.

Not sure how it really works, but I suspect that each hospital gets a set payment or payments from Medicare and that is what they get paid. They might have several people use their services and the hospital wont make anything off of the treatment, but if they don't treat as many, then they will profit from Medicare. This is where I think the deduction to Humana comes from, the money set aside from Medicare. The excess is profit, or as many call it, waste.

The Romney/Ryan Plan would give each person on Medicare a voucher worth X amount of dollars and then they can buy insurance from whoever they want, basically removing the governments payments to the hospitals. Not really sure what the Dems are planing, I have heard they want to take $700 Billion from Medicare in the next several years and use that for Obamacare. Not sure where that $700 Billion is coming from, removing waste or a decrease in services, I have no idea. I plan on researching this as well because I try to stay informed best I can.

Not sure how accurate the last few paragraphs were, this is my understanding how things work. All I do know is things would not be in such a mess if both sides of the isle would keep their dirty rotten filthy hands off the money deducted from our paychecks all these years. Me and my employers have paid over $150,000 into Social Security and it burns my butt when they call it an entitlement. I view an entitlement as me wanting something from the government that I haven't paid for. That's not the case.
 
The problems with the vouchers and the lack of adjustments for inflation and/or market forces is bad enough. But the bottom line is that taking a project from a not-for-profit agency and giving it to a corporation which has a prime directive to make profit for its shareholders MUST create a loser to make all those profits from. And that loser would be the person who paid money into the Medicare trust fund under the promise that they would get every dollar back.

For those who aren't familiar with trusts, they exist to protect money from predators and then pay out to the beneficiaries as agreed. There are strict rules to enforce the trust.

If the trustees (in this case, Congress) borrow against the trust and spend it all, they can't say "sorry but the trust fund is empty". No, they have to return the money or face criminal charges while the US Marshal seizes and liquidates their assets to settle the debt. That might mean that the big building on the Hill gets turned into the new Chinese embassy. It might mean that Russia gets to buy back Alaska. It means all kinds of "unthinkable" consequences that no American wants to happen. But if it's a choice between saving members of Congress from shame and kicking the sick and elderly to the curb, I know what my choice is.

If Congress wants to negotiate a buyout with those of us who have paid into the trust funds and are on the verge of collecting, I might accept all of my money back with interest and penalties, along with a government-sponsored and regulated 501(c)(3) insurance company with strict limits on premiums and practicing physician only control of payouts. Then again I might not.

The one thing that I will not accept is "we're keeping your money, go away." I'll bet that a lot of people with their money in trust feel more or less the same way, or will as soon as it's explained to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom