Senate Votes to Keep Medicare Cuts That Will Fund Health-Care Reform
One Senator mentioned how funny it was that the same Republicans who fought so hard to stop Medicare now paint themselves as the program's champion:
The Senate voted Thursday to keep nearly $500 billion in Medicare cuts in its overhaul of the health care system, protecting the bill's major source of financing against a Republican attack.
On a vote of 58 to 42, the Senate rejected a proposal by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to send the bill back to committee with orders to strip out the cuts, a move that would effectively have killed the measure. Two Democrats -- Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jim Webb of Virginia -- voted with all 40 Republicans on the amendment.
The vote was among the first cast on proposed changes to the package, which would spend $848 billion over the next decade to extend coverage to more than 30 million additional people and implement the most dramatic revisions to the nation's health-care system in more than 40 years. Though debate officially opened on Monday, legislative progress has been hampered by disagreements between the two parties over the terms of debate and the timing of votes. But Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) still hopes to hold a vote on final passage before the Senate adjourns for the Christmas holidays, and on Thursday he told senators to plan on working throughout the coming weekend.
The vote on Medicare cuts was the most significant of four votes held Thursday. Republicans argued that the cuts, which would slow the projected increase in Medicare by about 5 percent over the next decade, would decimate the popular program for people over 65 in order to finance an expansion of insurance coverage for younger people. Any cuts to Medicare, they argued, should instead be dedicated to preserving the program, which is scheduled to start running out of money in 2017.
"If we're going to take money from Grandma's Medicare, let's spend it on Medicare," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).
Democrats, backed by an array of major senior organizations, including the AARP, argued that the cuts would extend the financial life of Medicare by several years. The cuts would not reduce guaranteed benefits or increase co-payments, they said. And because hospitals and other providers have agreed to absorb the cuts by working more efficiently, Democrats said they would not affect access to medical services.
"I think it's pretty clear that the main organizations that care about seniors support this bill," said Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which drafted the bill that formed the foundation for a compromise package assembled by Reid.
They are taking funding from the existing single payer system that is already in place and working well.
This money is then transferred to the new system which hands it over to for-profit insurance companies.
The entire process is then called 'reform'.
Someone will need to explain to me in much more compelling detail exactly how this is reform, because I don't see it.
Having AARP on your side is the kiss of death for me. 'Extending the financial life' has an ominous sound to it.
Easy to say but difficult to believe.
This flies totally in the face of logic.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I'm all in favor of making things more cost effective ...
But as you said, it doesn't make any sense.
We agreed to leave out any sort of prescription drug cost controls, which would have been a very effective method of reining in costs, in order to shore up support with big pharma. I mean, what the hell...
But you're absolutely right. The bill in the works now is a private insurance backed piece of junk. Unfortunately, the democrats have tied their political future to the future of this horrible, horrible bill. On the one hand, I want it to fail, since it's a bad excuse for a completely nutless reason for ditching any prospects of a single payer system, and on the other, right wing nutjobs are going to be running the white house in a little under 3 years.
If you think Obama is bad now, watch what happens when the entire supreme court is stacked with conservative jackasses like Scalia ...
didn't work well for me and one of my friends. I couldn't find a provider that would except their plan even though they listed many providers in my area. My friend had the same plan and they wouldn't pay his provider. It's another ripoff Alice.
It sucks. We're pretty much on the side of the teabaggers now, that the Health care reform bill is just a recipe for socialism. Except this socialism is much like the bank bailouts: it is a big cash giveaway to the rich corporations, who get guaranteed new customers and are made into entities that are too big to fail.
Privatize profits and socialize losses.
It's a bad way to pay private companies to get ... exactly what you would get with Medicare. It was a horrible, horrible attempt to privatize as much of Medicare as possible. The government pays the insurance companies, then *you* end up paying them as well. It's a horrible, horrible scam.
But don't confuse Medicare "Advantage" with Medicare. They are *not* the same thing.
Read up:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2...
I rarely trust anything from WaPo but this is an exception.
From your link, Ezra Klein:
The point is, the Congress is not in the service of the people (with several important though numerically overwhelmed exceptions) but of the corporations.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
The "defunding" would apply to the subsidies that are now paid to private insurance companies for the Medicare Advantage Plans. These seem to be the slow privatization of Medicare in general. The money will still go to private insurance companies, just not through the "advantage plans." This just means that you would have to pay your co-pays out of your own pocket, instead of having to pay a monthly premium to private companies so they would cover your co-pays. For most seniors, not a big deal. Oh, yeah. And that gym membership you were looking forward to when you get to be a senior citizen? The one that many advantage plans don't pay for? That selling point? Save up for it. You're on your own with that one. Bummer, huh? I know I was looking forward to going to Gold's Gym to watch, smell, and listen to the sweaty muscle heads.
that many seniors, especially those 70 plus people, believe that Medicare Advantage Plans and Medicare Part D plans are mandatory. They believe they are legally required to purchase these things or they will forfeit their Medicare coverage. NOT true. If you know anyone laboring under this misconception put forth by the insurance companies, disabuse them of this big lie. Plain Medicare will take very good care of them for the monthly premium that already comes out of their SS payments ($96.40), and there are many pharmacies, like those at Hannaford and Wal-Mart, that so deeply discount for cash payers, that it's hard to believe. But it is true. The extent of my hatred for the health insurance companies is equal to their greed and lack of integrity. Damn them all.
But Democrats are wimps.
Why don't Democrats wave copies of that 1961 record Reagan recorded for the AMA in the Republicans' faces and say, "Hey, you guys *want* Medicare to fail, remember? Your savior, Ronaldus Magnus, predicted that Medicare would destroy America and turn it into Soviet Russia! You don't want Comrade Franken running things, do you?"?
DC is dysfunctional. Now here's our top story: Tiger's Wood.
... the word 'compromise' with the names of Democratic leaders all the time.
I mean, they're writing instruction books on how to shove it up your compromising, bipartisan asses, and you're bending over begging for it.
when it comes to funding and extending insane wars, passing draconian legislation like FISA and the Patriot Act, or shoveling money down WallStreet... for example.
Funny that, eh?
Another case of the GOP just being against anything of which Obama or democrats are in favor.
It really has become a simple formula.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
It is also another of seeing the false dynamic between the Right Wing Party IE the Democrats and the Ultra Right Wing Party IE the Republicans.
Both Parties are captured by Corporate interests.
Detailing the slight difference is a waste of time and bandwidth if you are actually concerned about the great majority.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
See it, study it, meditate on it, think hard about it . .
Repeat repeat repeat
Both Parties are captured by Corporate interests
Both Parties are captured by Corporate interests
Both Parties are captured by Corporate interests
Both Parties are captured by Corporate interests
Getting it yet?
Simply position the Republicans as against and to the right of any proposal - no matter how right wing that proposal might be in the first place.
Hearing of this faux opposition, millions of self-described "centrists" will then support even the most blatant corporate give-aways or human rights violations claiming that the alternative is so much worse.
Driving "centrists" to the the far right has become child's play. The only major problem is that "centrists" have already become so right wing that the faux opposition has been forced to the KKK regions of the political spectrum as it remains the only region to the right of the "centrists."
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I see and hear that a lot lately.
GW was a pretty awful president. (Of course, if he had been successful in holding off the financial meltdown a few more months, he wouldn't be viewed as quite so much of an abysmal failure... Instead the crisis would have been blamed on Obama, had he been elected.)
Being better than a horrible president isn't exactly a selling point. Let's just hope we get out of the Afghan quagmire, fix healthcare, and somehow salvage the reputation of the democratic party before some real jackass gets elected in 2012.
But so is my cat. What's the point?
If Bush had a third term, we would: continue his tax cuts for the rich (check); proceed in Iraq according to the timetable Bush arranged (check); address economic issues solely with regard to the extremely wealthy (check); direct much of any "stimulus" toward tax cuts for the wealthy as opposed to job creation (check); deny that the US tortures (stating further that "waterboarding" is no longer practiced) while at the same time keeping people imprisoned without cause (or access to the Red Cross) and locking down government secrecy as much as possible to protect war criminals (check); allow slime like Halliburton and Blackwater billions to continue dishonor our name (check); refuse to allow progressives at the health care reform bargaining table while insurance executives draft the "reform" bill (check); and on and on....
I'm sure there's differences somewhere, but it's difficult to find a difference in any resulting policy.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
... he nominated a moderate like Sotomayor, which is a welcome change from the insane wingnuts installed in the court during the past couple of decades. And some other legislative crumbs here and there...
What I am entertained by though, it is all these moderate conservatives and centrist which are starting to consider themselves progressives. To the point they feel comfortable enough to berate real progressives for daring to expect and propose real progressive agendas...
But on the big items of legislation, you are correct, it is very hard to find a significant difference between the past few administrations... at least substance-wise
I suppose that's change.
But more importantly, you wrote:
I think I finally found an explanation.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Although I don't think Souter was ever much of a liberal.
We the American Tax Payer are paying the asshole who fucked every thing up he put his hands, gave millions to the rich, let corportaions run a muck, start 2 wars, vetoed kids health care,ect,ect, One hell of a Retirement for the rest of his sory ass life.
except for a couple million slaves would just drop dead so they can continue to plunder their "playground earth" but why let a good opportunity to make more cash go to waste with boomers hording so much retirement cash they will need to be kept alive another 5-10 or 15 years.
It's written by the insurance industry, for the industry.
"Courtesy is owed. Respect is earned. Love is given." --Unknown author, found in Guide to Texas Etiquette by Kinky Friedman
Nelson I expect but what's the matter with Jim Webb? Does sanity start at the waters edge? Or maybe he's given up on this bad bill.
http://liquiddaddy.blogspot.com/
Truth and its companion logic cannot exist in a partisan world where one-sided viewpoints must dominate and coalitions are for wimps.
.
the congress person has a D or a R after there name. As long they are for American people and not a hore for the corporations.
one thing is for sure, if there is an R after their name... they are guaranteed to not be for the American people. So it helps significantly in the process of elimination.
people who Call themself D but are Rs.
I did not say they did not exist, there are plenty of them. I am just saying that one can speed up the pruning process significantly by simply culling any R right off the bat.
Not hard to recognize DINOS when they use repug talking points to justify their stances on issues. Primary them and let them defend their Democratic principles to Democratic voters in their states. Blanche Lincoln is a good candidate to be primaried.
The porn stars of DC? Those who constantly screw their constituents?
Start!!! We do not need Helth "CARE" refotm.... What We need "is" health "Insurance" reform. But as we all see the insurance made sure it was NOT called health Insurance reform. You gota know they (insurance companies) were putting 1.4 million dollars in this to stop any kind of reform. Gota protect there Billions of dollars in profits........fire up the retards in this country to go out and piss and moan about bullshit. WTF. we went down to the mall to picket for health insurance reform( my sign said "health Insurance Reform) and people yealed at me calling me a socialist???? My wife is right, there are just to many Dumb-ass rednecks out there. so said.
Apparently C&L doesn't get it. These cuts will end up screwing everyone and lower the bar for an acceptable public option.
I hope the bills are killed. I'm praying for them to die.
At this juncture, no healthcare (insurance) reform bill is better that either the House OR the Senate bills, OR the in-bred red-headed step-child of their union. It still boils down to a HC bill written BY and FOR the benefit of the Healthcare Industry Complex, NOT the American Public. FAIL this monstrosity, Obama.
Here's a concept to wrap your minds around:
The health and well-being of all in this country is vital to its' continued functioning. Only the latest example of a pandemic like the H1N1 influenza strain illustrates this. Unchecked H1N1 will destroy travel & related industries, and therefor impact commerce. It has already affected public and private school systems across the country. The pandemic will stifle any and all public meetings -- sports arenas, shopping malls, and grocery stores. Get the picture?
Okay, now factor in the proclaimed (loudly by Bush/Cheney) threats of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical terrorist attacks. If such an event should take place, do the well-insured get treatment while the un-insured and under-insured expire, stacked up like cord-wood outside hospitals?
When a natural disaster, be it earthquake, tornado, hurricane, flood strikes, will the medical profession and the government be faced with that same scenario - stacked bodies of the dead?
In every other industrialized nation, public health and the well-being of its citizens is considered a strategic National Security Prerogative. So, WTF happened here in the USA?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-- John F. Kennedy
Comments are closed on this entry