|
Author
|
Topic: Proposed Medicare cuts.
|
|
|
SCWC
Player
Member # 2464
|
posted 06-22-2018 02:44 PM
Handy, they make a ton of money off me. I go to the doctor twice per year, take one prescription that costs me all of 4.85 per month and have not been in a hospital since I was 22 years old got a collapsed lung from playing basketball and getting a sharp elbow in the chest. I figure with my deduction from social security and my supplemental, I am paying about 5K per year for medical coverage and the medical deductions for my two visits to the doctor yearly just cover my deductible. And it seems the older we get, the less medical procedures they want to pay for. So much for our golden years, social security and medicare, the medicare part will probably break somme and that is sad.
Posts: 17777 | From: Myrtle Beach, SC | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
handycat
Player
Member # 2323
|
posted 06-22-2018 04:44 PM
SCWC, they make more off you than they do me as I'm diabetic and medicines associated with that disease is quite high. When I took early retirement I paid nothing for health insurance for me or my wife and had no co-pays or deductibles. I do realize that the world has changed and that probably was not equitable. Total medical expenses (including monthly Medicare payments) last year were over 8 grand. That's a chunk of change in my world and one that has shocked me. Naive on my part I suppose. We're fortunate enough that that has not changed our lifestyle but I know numerous people who can not say the same.
Be they Republican's or Democrat's, I see red when they start talking about cutting "entitlement" programs such as Medicare and Social Security.
Obama care contributed to the problem but IMO there were many many more things also. The biggest being greed. Good doctors being forced to charge outrageous prices due to medical malpractice insurance, drug companies being allowed to charge ridiculous prices and on and on.
Find me a politician who would take this problem seriously enough to offer practical solutions and he will have my vote.
Sorry, rant over.
[ 06-22-2018, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: handycat ]
Posts: 5416 | From: decatur ill. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
clydeh
Player
Member # 7
|
posted 06-22-2018 09:23 PM
Handy, what we doctors charge for our Medicare patients is not relevant to what Medicare pays. Medicare has a fee schedule that they base their payments on. I'm an old guy and my income is not so important to me anymore since all my children are through college. I do know that the younger guys are having to increase their volume of patients to cover overhead and education expenses and home expenses because of the Medicare fee schedule.
Posts: 845 | From: Cullman, AL, USA | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
|
|
MountainMafia
Player
Member # 2066
|
posted 06-23-2018 01:35 PM
If there is a "line too far" for the Trump base this might be it, unless Trump can convince them losing health benefits is a good thing for working Americans. Trump promised big time not to cut medicare or medicaid benefits, and what we like most about Trump is he keeps his promises:
"I was the first & only potential GOP candidate to state there will be no cuts to Social Security, Medicare & Medicaid".....Donald J. Trump
Trump repeated this assertion several times during the campaign:
INSURANCE FOR EVERYBODY’ ,
NO CUTS … TO MEDICAID’ ,
NO ONE WILL LOSE COVERAGE’,
NOBODY WILL BE WORSE OFF FINANCIALLY’,
and ‘EVERYBODY’S GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF’.
Trump also said he was going after Big Pharma:
“They’re getting away with murder,” Trump told reporters in January 2017. Guess what?....they still are.
Paul Ryan is leading the charge to cut "entitlement" programs...a longstanding pet project. He's been lobbying Trump hard for support.
Trump was standing on solid populist ground when he made these promises. As Trump likes to say...."we'll see what happens"
--------------------
"It's amazing what you can accomplish when nobody cares who gets the credit"....Tubby Smith after winning 1998 National Title.
Posts: 4694 | From: Alabama | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tiptree
Administrator
Member # 844
|
posted 06-23-2018 08:22 PM
Well, I certainly understand not wanting any benefits cut. And medicare is actually doing OK, compared to some of the other entitlement programs. I would think that instead of cutting benefits, the Medicare tax on workers will have to be raised. In fact, both Medicare and Social Security taxes will need to go up, and soon.
But if your goal is to slash the Federal budget without raising taxes, you pretty much have to start and end with entitlement programs. The problem is that they are not 'discretionary' budget items. From this rather balanced article on politifact:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/17/facebook-posts/pie-chart-federal-spending-circulating-internet-mi/
quote:
Most federal spending can be categorized as discretionary or mandatory. The levels of discretionary spending are determined through the congressional appropriations process, with both houses of Congress and the president ultimately signing off on an agreed level of spending. Most spending by cabinet departments and independent agencies falls under this category, and it’s "discretionary" in the sense that if political leaders want to raise, or lower, the amount of spending for a given purpose, they can do so by tinkering with appropriations bills.
The other major category is mandatory spending, which is sometimes referred to as "entitlements." Spending within this category is determined by a formula, and the big pieces are three familiar programs: Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. For each mandatory program, the amount spent is tied directly to the number of people deemed eligible by age or income level. These programs effectively run on autopilot unless Congress changes the formula, making this type of spending more insulated from lawmakers and the president than discretionary spending.
So, entitlements are not 'budgeted' as are other line items... they are calculated from some formulae. Changing the formula would be semi-permanent. Thus, entitlements are not part of the "horse trading" that goes into every federal budget.
quote:
About 60 percent of all federal spending is considered mandatory, with 34 percent considered discretionary and 6 percent devoted to interest.
So, when you look at the share of the ENTIRE budget, "Health" (Medicare and Medicaid) represent 26% of Federal spending, and Social Security is another 25%. Add in 3% is for Food Stamps and agriculture subsidies, and 4% for veterans, and you have mandated spending that is the largest (by far) part of the Federal budget.
So, to reduce the deficit, the place to look is in the entitlement programs. But NOBODY wants to lose THEIR entitlements, and a significant portion of the population wants them expanded.
BTW, for comparison, the one thing that the left screams about is Military spending, which comes in at 16% of the Federal spend. And isolationists like to say we spend too much money supporting foreign governments, but the State Department budget, including foreign aid, is a paltry 2% of the spend.
So, where DO we cut the budget???
--------------------
Tiptree
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 13629 | From: Terre Haute, IN | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
handycat
Player
Member # 2323
|
posted 06-23-2018 09:33 PM
quote:
So, where DO we cut the budget???
--------------------
I'm smart enough to know that I'm not qualified to answer that question. What I think I do know is that if Social Security was administered the way it was intended, there would never have been a need to cut benifits. I may be wrong about this but I believe when Social Security was enacted it was intended as a retirement program that "paid" (not entitled you to) a monthly amount based on what "you" paid into. Not what your spouse paid into nor based on any disability you may or may not have. IMO, Social Security has evolved into a welfare program. Maybe there does need to be changes but it should not affect those who paid into it in good faith all their life's. Give me the money I paid into Social Secutity and allow me to invest it through out my life and I guarantee you I would be much better off financially.
If Medicare is doing ok I think that is great but they sure as hell keep raising monthly premiums every year.
[ 06-23-2018, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: handycat ]
Posts: 5416 | From: decatur ill. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tiptree
Administrator
Member # 844
|
posted 06-23-2018 11:27 PM
I agree about Social Security. If it had been limited to paying out based upon what you put in, the system would be solvent. But the growth of disability (especially) and spousal/child benefits has destabilized the system.
But you are correct. The premise of Social Security is to protect you from yourself. If anyone had the fortitude to pay themselves the amount they pay to Social Security (and forego the company's matching contribution), and invest it for all their life without touching it, they would be MUCH, MUCH better off. But the fact is that few people have that kind of willpower.
Let's take an example. If I recall, the 'yield' or investment return on your social security deposits is between 5.5% and 6.5%. So, a person who makes $2000/month, and sends the normal 6.2% (rounded to $120), can expect that to have grown to about $735,000 after 45 years of working. Not too shabby!
But I get a MUCH higher return on my own investments. If I had invested that same amount ($120 per month) for the same 45 years, and at the same average annual return I have had as an investor, I would have a whopping $112 million dollars by the time I retired. Of course, I didn't start so early, so I will never get a whiff of that much money. The forced savings of Social Security are important because we humans will find any excuse NOT to save and invest.
--------------------
Tiptree
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 13629 | From: Terre Haute, IN | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic