Obamacare's Medicare Scam

Townhall.com ^ | May 13, 2012 | Susan Brown

[Kaslin]

America's senior citizens deserve to enjoy their golden years in security rather than be faced with the uncertainty of having their beloved Medicare benefits yanked away thanks to provisions within the Democratic Party's darling, Obamacare.

Mathematicians Congressional Democrats are not. Democrats failed to inform seniors nearly half of Obamacare's cost would be funded initially by taking more than $500 billion from Medicare. When this information was made public, Democrats promised the cost-shifting would not in any way lead to benefit cuts. In addition, they were told Obamacare would reduce the deficit and were told everyone could keep their doctors. If Democrats genuinely believed what they were saying, they obviously failed to factor into their quirky calculations that pesky little fact that Medicare reimbursement cuts to doctors would send them packing in droves, making it a bit tricky to use the same doctor if he or she no longer treats Medicare patients.

Moreover, another side effect from this pernicious legislation is what seems to be the ultimate destruction of the Medicare Advantage (MA) program as seniors know it today. It is to no surprise that this program elected by millions of seniors has been in Obama's crosshairs for quite some time. After all, MA allows beneficiaries the ability to receive Medicare benefits via private health insurance plans. In Obama's world, MA is a waste of money but spending countless tax dollars on green energy pipedreams is considered smart investing.

Obviously, Democrats failed to consider the timing of these cuts when Obamacare was enacted. Many seniors are in the process of losing their MA plans or will discover they are about to lose them - just before the 2012 election. Most sadly, according to the Heritage Foundation, low-income seniors and minorities will be the hardest hit by these cuts. Once again, Democrats claim to be the party for minorities and the poor, but contradict their claims with stunts like this.

More than 25 percent of Medicare recipients are MA participants. Of those, a large percentage lives in key swing states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. The Obama administration knew they had to do something to protect the senior citizen vote so they pulled another trick out of their trusty Chicago politics top hat when they conjured up $8.3 billion taxpayer dollars to supplement MA benefits until after the 2012 elections. After the election, all bets are off and seniors will be left to figure it out.

The Weekly Standard suggests this ploy is illegal in that "a president isn't generally thought to possess the power to reallocate American's resources to shore up his political vulnerabilities." The Government Accountability Office (GAO) apparently concurred, recently telling the administration to stop this charade the administration fronts as a "demonstration project."

This Medicare funds siphoning will continue, according to a January 3, 2011 Wall Street Journal article, "Obamacare's Medicare Cuts in the New Year." The article discloses that Obamacare will extract from "Medicare and related federal programs," $638 billion over the next ten years, and an additional $1.6 trillion in the seven years thereafter, "for a total of $2.2 trillion" in cuts.

Democrats will use their best "Mediscare" tactics to deflect the blame to Republicans for the mess they've created. You can read an informative article about this "mess" at the Galen Institute online at: http://www.galen.org/topics/obamacare-a-dozen-more-damaging-disclosures/.

In stark contrast, Republicans have common sense solutions that will leave Medicare benefits intact for today's seniors and those nearing retirement. The plan also gives younger Americans the opportunity for a far superior program to work toward, while allowing today's seniors the ability to rest in the promises America made to them long ago.

[Jim Noble]

America's senior citizens deserve to enjoy their golden years in security rather than be faced with the uncertainty of having their beloved Medicare benefits yanked away

Why?

According to what theory of justice could this possibly be true?

[mongo141]

Anyone that believes a word of anything the government says should be thought of as a complete fool and that goes double for anything spouted by the governments lapdog media! Just my O2 worth of course.

[RowdyFFC]

WHY? Because our seniors have paid into these programs all their adult lives and it’s your opinion that they should be robbed...just like it’s Obama’s opinion that they should be robbed? If we could apply criminal charges to our government officials they would all be in jail for bank robbery!

[kabar]

Because our seniors have paid into these programs all their adult lives and it’s your opinion that they should be robbed...just like it’s Obama’s opinion that they should be robbed?

This graph below shows that the average man and woman (average defined in the study as average income over their working lives and living to the average life expectancy) who start receiving benefits in 2010 get over 3 times more in benefits than they pay in to the system! Of importance, the study accounts for inflation by calculating all past taxes and future payments in 2010 dollars to provide an accurate comparison.

Medicare is unsustainable. It will bankrupt the country unless it is reformed. No system can survive that pays out three times more than the person contributed. We have 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day and will continue to do so for the next 20 years. By 2030, one in five will be 65 or older, twice what it is now. And by 203 there will be just two workers for every retiree.

Medicare is a pay as you go system. Today's workers pay for the benefits of today's retirees.Medicare Part A has been running in the red since 2008. And 75% of the costs for Medicare Parts B and D come from the General Fund. By law, the premiums only pay for 25% of the costs.

[Jim Noble]

And I favor paying back what’s been paid in, with interest.

Most seniors, however, are taking out large, even huge, multiples of what justice allows.

THAT is the problem.

[suthener]

“In stark contrast, Republicans have common sense solutions that will leave Medicare benefits intact for today’s seniors and those nearing retirement.”

And that is why this country is financially doomed. I am not specifically against Medicare, but how can we possibly afford it with $16 trillion of debt?

[PGalt]

Socialism is about plunder and death. The socialist schemes, Social Security and Medicare, have been funded by dead Americans (assets...units of labor FORCED to “contribute” who did not live long enough to be a net liability...long-term drain). When there aren’t enough dead Americans to fund these schemes, the costs go up.

The answer: More dead Americans and more funds. Hence, Obamacare/Totalitariancare, IRS agents (plundering Americans) & death panels (terminating Americans).

US Unfunded Liabilities: Social Security 15+ trillion, Prescription Drugs 20+ trillion, Medicare 82+ trillion.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

R.I.P. Americans. “Free at last”

[RedMDer]

Click

[RowdyFFC]

Well, much to your chagrin, the baby boomers are not having the expected longevity that the liberal whacko’s screeched about. It’s funny that you are allowing their math to confuse you on this issue. Are you denying that they robbed the social security funds in which baby boomers created HUGE surpluses to cover their social security payments? Do you understand how much money in interests those dollars should’ve added to it over the years, but have now been robbed. And you’re willing to throw seniors to wolves? Do you even understand when a person dies off they don’t get one dime of return on their money? Do you have a chart showing how much ADDED money to social security is never recovered by people who die before they collect it?

[Aetius]

Seeing as how Republicans have been eviscerated for suggesting reductions in the rate of spending increases, the Democrats should suffer even more for actual, genuine cuts in Medicare.

But the GOP will have to make sure the voters know this, as they won’t have the media carrying their message for them as the Democrats do. This really could be an election-sealing issue.

[RowdyFFC]

That is just not true. The pittance of the average $800 a month is not much money calculated over the few years one has left when they retire. Especially rated against inflation. AGAIN, the baby boomers created HUGE surpluses to cover their payments. AND the baby boomers are not having the great longevity that the democrats were screeching about. I know that SS and Medicare are not sustainable in the long term. But those who have contributed to it the many will not collect on it. In my own little high school class of 31 there are already 11 of dead that won’t collect a dime.

[kabar]

It’s funny that you are allowing their math to confuse you on this issue.

It's not my math or liberals math. Why don't you read the SS/Medicare Trustee's Report for 2012 or The Heritage Foundation analysis of the 2011 Report, Social Security 2011 Trustees Report Shows Permanent Deficits

Are you denying that they robbed the social security funds in which baby boomers created HUGE surpluses to cover their social security payments? Do you understand how much money in interests those dollars should’ve added to it over the years, but have now been robbed. And you’re willing to throw seniors to wolves?

I don't think you understand how SS works. When SS contributions are collected thru the payroll tax, the benefits are paid out. Any "surplus" is deposited into the General Fund and Treasury issues interest bearing, non-market T-bills in the amount of the "surplus" and deposits it into the SS Trust Fund. The SSTF contains about $2.6 trillion in what amounts to IOUs, that is the full faith and credit of the USG to honor them. They are held as part of the $15.6 trillion national debt under "Intragovernmental Holdings." They represent an unfunded liability.

SS has been running in the red, spending more on benefits than it has been taking in revenue since 2010. The shortfall is being made up by cashing in the IOUs in the SSTF. The reason SS is going permanently in the red is due to an aging population and a system that does not link payouts to revenue collected.

Source: CBO "Combined OASDI Trust Funds; January 2011 Baseline" 26 Jan 2011. Note: See "Primary Surplus" line (which is negative, indicating a deficit)

Matters are even worse than this chart shows. In December, Congress passed a Social Security tax reduction. Workers are temporarily paying 2 percentage points less, from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, in Social Security payroll taxes this calendar year. Since the government is making up the shortfall out of general revenues, CBO’s deficit projections for the trust funds do not include that. But CBO’s figures predict that the "payroll tax holiday" will cost the government’s general fund $85 billion in this fiscal year and $29 billion in fiscal year 2012 (which starts Oct.1, 2011.) Since every dollar of that will have to be borrowed, the combined effect of the " tax holiday" and the annual deficits will amount to a $130 billion addition to the federal deficit in the current fiscal year, and $59 billion in fiscal 2012.

Social Security has passed a tipping point. For years it generated more revenue than it consumed, holding down the overall federal deficit and allowing Congress to spend more freely for other things. But those days are gone. Rather than lessening the federal deficit, Social Security has at last — as long predicted — become a drag on the government’s overall finances.

Why Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme

Do you even understand when a person dies off they don’t get one dime of return on their money? Do you have a chart showing how much ADDED money to social security is never recovered by people who die before they collect it?

The money you contribute to SS doesn't belong to you. We have had a Supreme Court case, Flemming vs. Nestor that determined that. Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.

Yes. there are plenty of people who paid into the system and never got benefits, but there are others who get benefits without paying into the system like spouses, children, etc. And then there are those who collect disability benefits and have a shortened earning life.

SS is a Ponzi scheme.

[SaraJohnson]

Let me take a wild wack at that.

Because they and their employers paid for medicare coverage throughout their working lives. Maybe that is why the “deserve” to get the money back that was supposedly for health care in their old age.

If the government liberatarians want to say there is not money for the benefits people paid for, then give them back the money with interest so they can buy their own health care coverage. You bailed out the banksters, poured billions into failed alternative energy business and paid off GM’s unions. These fascists paid no insurance premiums at all.

[kabar]

Because they and their employers paid for medicare coverage throughout their working lives. Maybe that is why the “deserve” to get the money back that was supposedly for health care in their old age.

The truth is that people get three times more out of Medicare than they paid into the system. Medicare is a pay as you go system. The benefits for today's retirees are paid by today's workers thru the payroll tax. Medicare Part A has been running a deficit since 2008. And the premiums collected for Medicare Parts B and D cover only 25% of the costs. The rest must come from the General Fund.

Medicare is Bad Medicine for Young America

[nascarnation]

Thank you for posting that.

I’m a senior myself but realize this scheme IS totally unsustainable.

The only part that makes me sad is the fact that the b@stards who are responsible for the system will skate on the blame.

[RowdyFFC]

What do you mean, I don’t understand. I understand all that BS perfectly well. And I also know the republicans are trying to preserve it only for the ones that are collecting now. You didn’t even freaking read my post. So any answer you have is irrelevant now. I am in perfect agreement that those coming after need a better retirements system and said so.

[nascarnation]

And I favor paying back what’s been paid in, with interest.

Well there's nothing to pay it back with.

But sure, just print more Geithner/Bernanke minibucks and it will all be good.

[RowdyFFC]

My objection was to Jim Noble’s belief that our seniors programs can be just ‘yanked’ away. And it is my belief that such a step would not be ‘JUSTICE’ to do so. It needs to be phased out. I also don’t buy the ponzi scheme math. I am but one person, contributing. I have two children contributing who already have two children contributing and will eventually have six children contributing. The many many years before my children or their children are collecting a dime. Exponentially, the ponzi scheme thingie maybe needs to be re-calculated. I’m not even drawing social security yet, but I’m already responsible for four more that are paying in besides myself and another four soon to be contributing. lmao

[Notary Sojac]

kabar, Jim - looks like you guys have woken up the "It's only an 'entitlement' when someone -else- is getting it" crowd.

They can be vicious, hope you've got Kevlar handy.

If the thread goes long enough, you will be likened to a Nazi eugenicist for daring to run the numbers on the actuarial future of Medicare.