Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 29 May 2011

Various driveby media television networks ^ | 29 May 2011 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces

[Fishtalk]

Medicare Parts B and D are subsidized by the taxpayer to the tune of 75% of the costs.

Say what? I mean like the Democrats, hey, we can say anything.

First, define these "costs". People pay into Medicare all of their life. Had this money been saved and received even a modicum of interest, there would have been waaaay more money available than is now, that's for sure. But the politicos spent it.

So now a Medicare recipient pays $135 bucks a month for Medicare part B...this beyond all they paid in over their working lives. I argue there is no subsidy for Part D but there is that catastrophic coverage thing that could be a factor.

Now obviously a payment of $135 does not pay the health care costs for a 70 year old but do we forget that this fellow might well have paid 1.45% of his income for some fifty plus years of work, MATCHED BY HIS EMPLOYER...which was supposed to, silly us, have been set aside for his elder health care.

But since the politicos spent the money, I suppose 75% of this geriatric's health care might be "subsidized" by taxpayers because what the old guy paid in all his life has been spent. So the workers and THEIR Medicare payments must be used to pay for the old guy's health care as it was spent by the politicians.

Keep doing the Dems' job for them, yer doing great.

I always put a caveat on these types of posts because due to the greatly extended life span from when Medicare was first introduced and the major advances in health care coverage, I'll not assert in any way that what Medicare recipients paid in over the years will likely equal what they'll use, even if the politicos hadn't spent it. I'm not that naive, I know it's a problem, I think a Ryan plan might be step one to a solution.

But to say that Medicare is subsidized by 75% is a bit of a lie.

[Fishtalk]

You are absolutely correct. Well correct in that Ryan’s plan is based on a voucher system.

You elaborated with an assertion that increases in the voucher amount allocated would be based on the cost of living and NOT on the rising costs of health care.

I’m not sure if that’s true but it sounds right.

But what’s wrong with this?

You don’t think, knowing that the voucher money available is at say, this limit, the medical people wouldn’t get a bit more efficient.

do we really need all those medical specialists, those gazillion tests...they get referral fees...on and on and on it goes.

But see, I agree with you and I also agree that Ryan’s savings are probably extrapolated as you exemplified.

I think it’s entirely possible that this restriction will keep down the costs of health care more than a plan that will reimburse the cost of health care as it rises.

But there’s always the death panels. That will greatly reduce the cost of health care.

[9YearLurker]

You’re right, the vouchers are a better idea than Barry’s death panels, and they could contribute to some downward cost pressure. My biggest issue with it is that I don’t think it’ll fly politically and that’s a triple whammy for the GOP: they don’t get the plan through, the Dems campaign and win on it, and the voters are once again disillusioned with the GOP, like Charlie Brown and the football.

Ryan is a wonk. Few successful organizations count on their guys with green eye shades to draft their sales and marketing plans, but that’s what the Pubbies have done here. It’s also why 2012 candidates like Romney and Ryan are promising to come out with their own, different plans to campaign on instead.

[widdle_wabbit]

I don’t know a damn thing about the programs even though I’ve just reached my 56th years of age.

Is it footnote #7 you refer too?

Footnote #7 mentions no donut hole soo...

Please feel free to ignore any or all of this post but before I let you go 9YrLURKERI, MorganInDenver, Kabar, Fishtalk; I apologize for that other post. No way I would have done that on purpose.

[rodguy911]

Thanks Tom. I will check it out.

[9YearLurker]

Yes, footnote 7. See how the numbers for Parts A and B are in parentheses? That means they are negative. The are also very large, together creating more than the total negative referred to in the footnote. I was already aware that Obamacare closed the donut, so that explains the smaller positive number for Part D.

[kabar]

Say what? I mean like the Democrats, hey, we can say anything.

There is a difference. What I said is indisputable fact. Read the 2011 Trustee's Report

First, define these "costs". People pay into Medicare all of their life. Had this money been saved and received even a modicum of interest, there would have been waaaay more money available than is now, that's for sure. But the politicos spent it.

You don't seem to understand how the system works and why Medicare is bankrupting this country. Medicare is a pay as you go system. Revenue comes in, benefits are paid out and whatever surplus was generated was put into the General Fund and Treasury issued interest bearing, non-market T-bills in the amount of the "surplus" and deposited it into the HI Trust Fund. When outgo exceeds revenue as is now the case, the T-bills are redeemed by the General Fund to pay benefits.

If you look at the 2011 Trustees Report, you will see that the HI Trust Fund (Medicare Part A) started going into the red in 2008, i.e., outgo exceeds income including interest. Medicare is not going broke because "the politicos spent it." Medicare is going broke because it is unsustainable as currently structured. It doesn't work actuarily.

So now a Medicare recipient pays $135 bucks a month for Medicare part B...this beyond all they paid in over their working lives. I argue there is no subsidy for Part D but there is that catastrophic coverage thing that could be a factor. Now obviously a payment of $135 does not pay the health care costs for a 70 year old but do we forget that this fellow might well have paid 1.45% of his income for some fifty plus years of work, MATCHED BY HIS EMPLOYER...which was supposed to, silly us, have been set aside for his elder health care.

Payments from the General Fund finance about 75 percent of SMI Part B and Part D costs, with most of the remaining costs covered by monthly premiums charged to enrollees. Part B and Part D premium amounts are based on methods defined in law and increase as the estimated costs of those programs rise.

In 2011, the Part B standard monthly premium paid by about one-quarter of enrollees is $115.40. Under a "hold-harmless" provision, about three quarters of Part B enrollees in 2010 and 2011 paid or are paying the 2009 premium rate of $96.40 due to the zero Social Security COLA for those years. There is also an income-related premium surcharge for Part B beneficiaries whose modified adjusted gross income exceeds a specified threshold. In 2011, the initial threshold is $85,000 for individual tax return filers and $170,000 for joint return filers. Income-related premiums range from $161.50 to $369.10 per month in 2011.

In 2011, the Part D "base monthly premium" is $32.34. Actual premium amounts charged to Part D beneficiaries depend on the specific plan in which they are enrolled and are expected to average around $31 for standard coverage. Beginning in 2011, Part D enrollees with incomes exceeding the thresholds listed above must pay an income-related monthly adjustment amount in addition to their normal plan premium. For 2011, the adjustments range from $12.00 to $69.10 per month. Part D also receives payments from States that partially compensate for the Federal assumption of Medicaid responsibilities for prescription drug costs for individuals eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid. In 2011, State payments should cover about 10 percent of Part D costs.

NB: When the Trustees write about the solvency of Medicare Parts B and D, they are just talking about the 25% that comes from the revenue that is derived from the premiums, not the 75% the General Fund must pony up to pay all of the costs. And saying that the Medicare HI trust fund will have funds until 2024 means only that the IOU's in the form of interest bearing non-market T-bills will still be around to pay benefits, but the federal government must come up with the money to redeem them. There is a reason why the Trust Funds are included in the $14.3 trillion debt under Intragovernmental Holdings."

Even if the trust funds contained real assets rather than unfunded liabilities, Medicare and SS are unsustainable. The costs exceed revenue. Read the Trustee's Report.

Keep doing the Dems' job for them, yer doing great.

Such comments say more about your ignorance than what the facts are. The Dems have been lying as well about this issue. Medicare and SS are unsustainable. We can't afford them. The must be reformed or they will collapse, but not before they bankrupt the country. They are the biggest drivers of our deficit. In FY 2010 we took $2.2 trillion in revenue of all kinds. This was just enough to cover the enitlement programs, other mandatory expenditures, and debt servicing costs. Every thing else, including defense, must be funded thru borrowing.

But to say that Medicare is subsidized by 75% is a bit of a lie.

Please check and see what I wrote. By law, 75% of the costs for Medicare Parts B and D come from the General Fund. THAT IS AN INDISPUTABLE FACT. READ THE TRUSTEES REPORT.

We may criticize the Dems rightly for lying about the entitlement funds, but it is disturbing when alleged Republicans and conservatives do not even understand how the programs work and why they are going broke. They are unsustainable period. If you want to really become informed about the issue, read this by Tom Saving, a former Trustee. I had the honor of talking to him during a week long seminar on the entitlement programs.

Medicare: Past, Present and Future

[kabar]

Paul Ryan's proposal is bare bones. It proposes to give seniors...what? Some $1500 a month for them to go out and purchase health insurance?

An outrageous mischaracterization of the Ryan Plan. It sounds something like a hardcord Dem demogogue would say. You are dangerous.

The Heritage Foundation: Transforming Medicare into a Modern Premium Support System: What Americans Should Know

[norwaypinesavage]

"Million, billion, trillion......any one of the three is more than anyone can comprehend or understand"

Here's an attempt.
Imagine someone pays you a dollar a second, continuously.
In 17 minutes you would have a thousand dollars.
In 12 days you would have a million dollars.
A billion dollars would take 33 years.
A trillion dollars takes 33 thousand years.

[Fishtalk]

You are 100% correct.

I am wrong, I am dangerous, and I am ignorant.

Moving on.....

[kabar]

Get informed and help us defeat Obama in 2012.

[Fishtalk]

I am plenty informed...thank you. You do the same.

I said what I said and I stand by it.

Moving on....

[kabar]

I am plenty informed...thank you. You do the same. I said what I said and I stand by it.

LOL. Your ignorance is only surpassed by your arrogance. You don't need no stinkin' facts. It is how you feel that counts. God help us.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

Just reading the thread very late tonight, and think that the tone of the last few posts is inappropriate for the Sunday Morning Talk show thread. Perhaps you guys could use Freepmail?

[bitt]

THANKS FOR THE PING!

[Morgan in Denver]

One thing I’ve found over the years is there is not a simple answer to these things. There are many things that impact each decision or statement.

For example, the Democrats insist Ronald Reagan raised taxes on everyone. They do not separate lowered tax rates or closing loopholes or raising fees. One small item to support their argument taints the entirety of their position. The same is true for the claim 0bama lowered taxes for 95% of workers. 0 did that but raised taxes in other areas even higher. Yet to the Democrats, 0 lowered taxes.

We have a tax code but tens of thousands of pages of regulations that have the same effect as law. Figuring each law has similar rules and regulations, there are few simple answers to comments because there are too many exceptions and clarifications, etc.