Skip to comments.Ruling on health care law may affect Medicare [BO Tries to Intimidate SCOTUS]
Posted on 05/04/2012 4:22:04 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
... In papers filed with the Supreme Court, administration lawyers have warned of extraordinary disruption if Medicare is forced to unwind countless transactions that are based on payment changes required by more than 20 separate sections of the Affordable Care Act.
Opponents say the whole law must go. The administration counters that even if it strikes down the insurance mandate, the court should preserve most of the rest of the legislation. That would leave in place its changes to Medicare as well as a major expansion of Medicaid coverage.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonglobe.com ...
So the BIG LIE allows THEMto take our money our whole working careers and then tell us we are out of luck when the imaginary trust fund runs dry.
Notice that everyone who gets on TV repeats THE BIG LIE!
” Notice that everyone who gets on TV repeats THE BIG LIE!”
Most Americans have figured out that “trust funds” on this are just an IOU. They just hope for the best......too bad.
At the same time, we are going broke, and I don't know how to fix that without adjusting entitlements. Maybe the GOP should have not produced a budget, and then been more "flexible" after 2012?
sadly, from my first real paycheck 30 yrs ago, i didnt believe that the cash was being 'saved' for me...didnt take but a few yrs to KNOW that it was all smoke and mirrors...
too bad the greatest generation didnt hoist the pirate flag and start slittin throats back in the beginning of it all...
the first time the sinate failed to bother with a budget, the house shouldve simply made it known that no allocations will be made beyond military...
they also couldve refused to spent time considering anything else on the floor w/o a budget, as theres no sense in *cough* legislating anything that cant be paid for...
too bad we didnt have noot greengrinch as speaker the last few yrs...
You mean proposing ‘adjusting’ future entitlements 10 years in the future so that those Republicans proposing it will be safely retired, or voters memory of the act will, before anyone can claim it affected them?
I would have been much more sympathetic if they didn't split the voters into groups by age, the BIG winners and the BIG losers, based on who they need the most, similar to what Dems do.
In 2010 when they were using the Obama-care medicare cuts to their advantage we heard little from them about requiring medicare cuts for the deficit.
” too bad the greatest generation didnt hoist the pirate flag and start slittin throats back in the beginning of it all... “
it happened slowly.....those are the worst : )
” You mean proposing adjusting future entitlements 10 years in the future so that those Republicans proposing it will be safely retired..”
I don't think the budget changes are supposed to wait 10 years before they begin. Here is a chart of Ryan's 2011 budget. Do you have a chart for the 2012 budget? In the chart, Ryan's deficits are purple (yes, the Ryan budget will borrow money, but not as much as the govt. is planning to do). The red bars are what would happen in a perfect world.
You raise some good questions:
1) If the Ryan budget, even if it works as advertised, will not balance the budget, is it worth losing votes to sucklings of the govt. teat (many through their own fault, but not all of them)? Is the best we can hope for a last minute "continuing resolution" that grants Obama only 90% of what he wants? Theoretically, a Ryan (house) bill would wrestle with a Reid (senate) bill, but they don't seem to do that in congress any more. Clinton's vetoes of Newt's bills in the 1990s are the stuff of legend for Dems.
2) Bearing in mind that the Gramm-Rudman bill failed to control spending, is there any hope that congress can behave itself in a 10 year period?
Bump that. I really think the Supreme Court will throw it out on the religious freedom grounds.
Maybe they should have made it a more gradual change, but "gradual" changes tend to become perverted over time. I don't know any sensible way to do it without making age the main variable.
**basically it was stealing from American senior citizens to provide healthcare to illegal aliens.**
I’m chronoligically gifted, and this is the first time I have heard about this.
” Bearing in mind that the Gramm-Rudman bill failed to control spending, is there any hope that congress can behave itself in a 10 year period? “
No evidence of it.
I see a total collapse in 5-8 years....after that, who knows? Social Security will be means tested...God knows what else will happen. 20+ trillion debt....ouch
I was specifically referencing his Medicare reform which was the big one and safely delayed for 10 years.
Medicare is the program that is bringing us down $$$ and Ryan and CO added a 10 year delay as a political trick trick which didn't make it sell anyway,
BTW : I still am paying those Medicare taxes, what for?
maybe because you choose life, rather than eating multiple federal submachinegun rounds for failure/refusal to comply ???
in reality, is there even a way to refuse to pay it, assuming non self employed ???
I’m not chronologically gifted, and I know when that congressman said “you lie” it turned out he was right - they were lying. There was nothing to prevent illegals from being covered (that was what prompted his outburst).
It was reported by Obama’s media that the funding was to come from mandatory charges to younger healthy people and a huge amount of money (Obama’s media gave the figure) from MediCare.
The first part of the equation is what is before the Supreme Court as we speak; the justices are concerned that the relationship between citizen and country is being changed to the point where the citizen has become an involuntary (enforced) consumer of a product they don’t want.