On Sep 16, 10:33*am, Michael Coburn > wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:09:29 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:
> > On Sep 15, 3:15 pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
> >> >http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Medicare/2008/8-03-26-
>
> >> NewTrusteesReport.htm
I found some of your insights interesting Michael. I took the liberty
of selecting a few just for fun.
> They actually did take the time and think about it. *
24 hours from committee to floor vote.....and Rangel et al said they
didn't read it (or need to). Yes, they sure took the time to think
about how they were going to stuff this one through.
> We will have 3 years to get it fixed before it goes into effect. *If it
> is on the books then the lies will cease. *Where there is legitimate
> concern legislation can be amended. *Budget forecasts get more real the
> shorter the time frame.
Now that is too funny. Get on the books and then we'll fix it? What,
fix it so it is even "better"?
>I would like to know the real > costs of providing ADEQUATE health care to all. *
Whose adequate are we talking about? Yours, mine, or my money for
yours? I don't want adequate, I want Cadillac. Why? Because I've
paid for it.
> > Now if these people are going to go on a public plan where is the money
> > coming from? Medicare HI is going broke now, adding 47 million more
> > people is just going to make it go broke faster. It's like *the old
> > business joke of losing money on each individual sale, but hoping to
> > make it up on volume.
> The current battle is about whether or not government can be trusted to
> make things fair. *
There's that word again...FAIR. Fairness as defined be a
redistributionist is far different than that of an economist. I'm a
bit tired of a political interpretation of fairness.
>There is no safe
> haven other than representative government.
I don't need a Washington Daddy to watch out for my interest, thank
you very much.
>It is far easier to hold government accountable than to hold
> the insurance companies accountable. *
I can fire my insurer right now - can you fire Obama? How about Harry
or Nancy?
> Step 1 is to cut the medicare expenses without cutting the benefits. *
Impossible - mathematically impossible UNLESS there is fraud and
waste.
>Cut
> the amount being GIVEN to insurance companies (Medigap) and cut the
> amount paid for a hospital bed (specifically Medicare "A"). *
Both cut services - no question. And Medicare doesn't pay for beds,
it pays for discharges. It is the ONE thing about Medicare that
actually makes any sense at all - DRGs.
>I hope that is "slow" enough for you.
That was a real coffee spitter.
>*The most obvious problem with
> government at present is the totally corrupt Senate. *
And I would ad House and Administrative Branch
Agreed - 100%
>*And if
> Medicare "A" funds had been kept OFF BUDGET and funded by a flat tax on
> AGI at the rate of 2% then the Mecicare fund would be very fat indeed.
So it becomes a Welfare program not a health insurance program....By
the way, it is already being funded by an across the board 2.9% income
tax.....and shifting it to AGI is stealing from seniors who have
already paid into the system...
Can you say Ponzi V2.0?
allan