Posted on 08/24/2009 8:33:21 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
What should happen is we, the people, decide how much we want the government to spend on health care. Let’s say we set aside $100,000,000 (or whatever). People can use that money until it is gone. Then it’s gone. End of story. That is the only prudent way to provide health care - and it would be only for those who really need it. Only by limiting money can money be used economically and frugally.
WHY did this take so long? I understand some delay, but this “o” will destroy HC, and those who need it most will suffer most. Why do you think Congress exempted themselves?
The Pubs put this out awhile ago but the dems did not want anyone to know it or hear about it and brushed them off.
http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/
As well as 0bama himself voted againt health care reform measures.
Think what you want about the pubs (I don’t think much of them) But...0bama is only in it for the power and gov take-over. The facts are all there.
Socialists fighting over the spoils.
Democrats: Kill Grandma.
Republicans: Save Grandma, but enslave the grandchildren.
If Steele had a pair he would tell us the truth that the country is broke and hard choices are needed to be made w/ SSI, Medicade & Medicare.
Anything else is a dereliction of duty.
Of course I prefer Republicans to black panthers....but must the choice always be the lesser of 2 evils?
A Health Care Mantra for the GOP
A clear GOP response for health-care’s next big fight
By ROBERT A. GEORGE
Updated 3:51 AM CDT, Tue, Aug 25, 2009
Marilynn Garfield of Delray Beach, Fla., left, raises her hand when the audience was asked how many are on Medicare during the Florida Alliance for Retired Americans fifth annual town hall meeting on
AP
With Democrats divided on key parts of health-care reform, Republicans can push the teetering enterprise over the edge.
House liberals reached full-fledged revolt when word began to spread last week that President Obama was okay with a bill coming out of the Senate without a public insurance option. New York politicians took the lead in firing back that the so-called public option remained essential to reform. Sen. Chuck Schumer pushed the notion that Democrats had 60 members and could vote on a bill — one that included the public option — despite each Republican voting no. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) has been showing up everywhere, making the case that expanding Medicare is one public option that works.
This is where Republicans should swoop in, building on their summer successes.
The GOP has managed to put Democrats on the defensive throughout most of August. The town hall meetings kept members of Congress off balance. Meanwhile, the president seems like a character in a cartoon trying to prevent the dam from bursting: No sooner does Obama think he has one portion of the Democratic base under control than criticism arises from somewhere else.
Now is the ideal time for the GOP to push its strategic advantage: Deep suspicions of what health-care “reform” might mean has caused Obama’s poll numbers to drop precipitously along with support for any kind of major overhaul.
And so, Republicans should just adopt one simple mantra when Congress returns from the August recess. Call it the Anthony Weiner Postulate: “There already is a health-care ‘public option’: It’s called Medicare — and it’s already going broke.” “There already is a health-care ‘public option’: It’s called Medicare — and it’s already going broke.” “There already is a health-care ‘public option’: It’s called Medicare and it’s already going broke.” This works because it happens to be true:
As a result, the administration said, the Medicare fund that pays hospital bills for older Americans is expected to run out of money in 2017, two years sooner than projected last year. The Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2037, four years earlier than predicted, it said.
So, less than a decade from now, Medicare will be bankrupt — and that’s under present-day liabilities. How could adding millions more people to the program do nothing more than accelerate that process? Now, obviously, Weiner would argue that creating something called “Medicare for All” is part of the bill drafting and voting process. But, in this instance, Republicans are under no obligation to be “responsible” and dig Democrats out of the health-care hole in which they have found themselves.
So, if “Medicare for All” could be a viable policy issue, it is incumbent upon Democrats to show how they would gain costs controls — when ordinary, everyday Medicare is seeing its bankruptcy within eight years. Once again, with feeling, Republicans: “There already is a health-care ‘public option’: It’s called Medicare — and it’s already going broke.”
Let American voters hear that enough times and that could spell the end for the whole plan.
New York writer Robert A. George blogs at Ragged Thots. Follow him on Twitter.
Once the Boomers hit Medicare in a big way and the multi-trillion yearly deficits begin, rationing care is inevitable, and those who have lived the longest will find their care the most restricted.
This will happen irrespective of whether Obamacare is enacted or not, or whether conservatives or liberals are in power. It’s simply impossible to tax employers and employees enough to support unlimited access to unlimited medical technology at the ratio of 2 taxpayers per recipient.
If there is a Medicare program in 2035, it will be so different from today’s program as to be unrecognizable. Or - there will be no Medicare, and retirees’ health care will be determined by what they and their families can afford to pay out of pocket.
I’m not prepared to let the GOP ignore these facts any more than I would be prepared to let the Rats ignore them.
America’s senior citizens deserve access to quality health care and coverage that will not bankrupt them. Republicans believe that reforms to America’s health care system are necessary, but that reform should first do no harm, especially to our seniors.
That’s why Republicans are calling for a Seniors’ Health Care Bill Of Rights that will:
Any kind of declaration of ‘rights’ that includes government entitlements is an embarrassment to the Republican Party. There’s higher principle that the GOP should be responding to than just that they’ll out-traditional Democrat the Democrats. And that higher principle pertains to older people having control of their own healthcare, too.
Any sign of any recognition that the federal government is limited by the Constitution’s Enumerated Powers?
its just as hard to get gop to do the right thing as it is the dems.....after all they never want to offend their friends across the isle......they also like filling thier pockets....
would love an answere to your question
I agree with all of you who oppose all these programs on Constitutional grounds. I believe that it would be morally wrong to end them abruptly, though. There has to be a phasing out. That is what Republicans have been working toward for a long time (seriously since 1994) as a general statement. This is consistent with the current statement.
Unfortunately, the Republicans, though they controlled the reins of government for years, didn’t act to “phase them out,” as you say. They grew them.
Why should I believe any of their pretty rhetoric now?
In fact the GOP did act. Are you forgetting the uproar the Democrats successfully caused by their “privatizing Social Security” BS when criticizing President Bush’s proposed reforms?
Legislation was advanced, but ran into Senate filibuster garbage, and there was insufficient support for passage, as a result. All that was able to be managed was the Health Savings Accounts, and some other steps, at that time. At least steps toward a better system HAVE been advanced by the GOP, but until the country sees fit to elect a sufficient number of conservative Republicans or honestly moderate Democrats, we can’t get more than such incremental improvements.
You’re right. They couldn’t even manage to rearrange the deck chairs successfully.
Bull!
Yes things will be difficult, even if we do not stack more entitlements on top of what we already have promised.
However, there are ways to approach the problems of Social Security and Medicare without rationing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.