Medicare

I would prefer getting the federal government out of medicine altogether, with the possible exception of helping to fund research into cures for disease.

Scrat
The federal government will be up to their armpits privatized or not. Remember they pay the bills. The question is which would be more efficient and less costly. The HMO's have not been very effective and responsive to the needs of the elderly.

Why?


This is the problem. The solution is not to merely change the way they pay, but to remove them from the equation.


To me the first question is "What does the Constitution allow the federal government to do?" It doesn't allow them to manage the nation's health care business. The second question--given that they ignore that point--is "How do we minimize the negative impact on the health care economy by the government's intrusion therein?" We do that by beginning to reassert competition and market forces rather than centralized control by the government.


See my response above.

I'll put my trust in the government on this issue.

Scrat


How many times are you going to state that constitution does not allow the government to get involved in social works. You are obviously wrong since they are and they do. It is obvious that your interpretation of the constitution is faulty. It is time you recognize that.



What then should we put the elderly and the destitute on ice floes and let them drift out to sea. Have you any idea what the lot of the elderly was before Medicare.



And that will do what? Lower the cost of medical care or allow for only the wealthy to avail themselves of it.

Question: Do you think that Medicare should be discontinued?

au - Are you actually suggesting anything and everything the government can be shown to be doing or have done is by definition appropriate and Constitutional? Ever hear of slavery? Remember the Japanese internment camps during WWII? Your argument suggests that since the government did (or allowed) these things they had to be Constitutional and appropriate and that anyone who argued against them had to be wrong?

The fact that the government does X does not mean that they are supposed to do it. The fact that activist judges have stretched the Constitution to justify what they wanted the government to do--rather than simply consulting the Constitution to ascertain what position it took on the issue--does not make their "interpretation" correct.

I understand that you join many in our government (past and present) in preferring to ignore the clearly expressed intent of the framers and the critical limits they placed on federal powers, but I do not.

Sometimes those in power choose wrongly, and when it results in greater power for them, they tend to continue down the wrong path, once chosen.

And yes--I thought it was quite clear that I think Medicare should be discontinued.

Au

I don't think you are going to get anywhere with Scrat.

She just doesn't get it.

The constitution does not forbid social programs like Medicare -- I guess someone is getting free drugs off the street and taking them. Just what does one think "provide for the general welfare" means?

Scrat is representing herself as a constitutional authority. Interesting -- where are her credentials?

Posted: Fri Jun 20, 2003 4:29 pm    Post subject:

Frank




I know she has her standard answers and they are always in tune with the radical right.
As is said: I may not agree with what she has to say but I will fight for her right to say it. Or something to that effect.

Lawmakers: Employers could dump retiree health coverage

Thursday, June 19, 2003 Posted: 5:48 PM EDT (2148 GMT)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Lawmakers are fretting over an unintended consequence of the Medicare reform bill winding through Congress: that it could spur employers to dump health coverage for retirees.
Democrats and Republicans in Congress fear that if Medicare expands to pay for prescription drugs, private employers will be tempted to skim their retiree coverage. Government economists and private analysts share their concern.
According to an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, up to 37 percent of employers would drop health benefits for retired workers under the Senate bill.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, told reporters Thursday that Democrats and Republicans were working together to try to fix the problem.
"I'm asking all of our smartest staff people how you do that," he said. "Everybody's working on it."
Roughly 41 million seniors and disabled people get health coverage through the government-run Medicare health program.
Faced with rising health care costs, more employers are cutting back on retiree medical benefits -- even without the massive new Medicare program, which may offer skimpier benefits than many seniors now get in their retirement packages.
Underlying medical costs soared 9.6 percent last year after a 10 percent rise in 2001, according to a study released this month by the Center for Studying Health System Change.
Punishing the good

Private health insurance cover after retirement could drop to 10 percent of overall health costs by 2031, down from the 50 percent employers contribute now, according to Watson Wyatt research.
"I've heard the concern that employers might be inclined to eliminate their coverage," said Joe Martingale, national strategy leader for health care at Watson Wyatt consultants. "If Congress wants to keep employers, they need to do something to make this benefit fair all around."
The Senate bill covers half of drug costs up to $4,500 a year and then has a coverage gap until drug costs hit $5,800. Analysts say the bill inadvertently penalizes retirees and companies with good benefits because it does not include company payments on deductibles and co-insurance. This means seniors may struggle to reach the "catastrophic" threshold and could therefore end up paying a lot more out of pocket.
Authors of the Senate bill thought they had incentives to keep employers paying, but they are now revisiting the issue.
"I would think that if the government provides a reasonable benefit of the nature being talked about, that many employers would have their retirees look to Medicare first," before offering private coverage, said Harvey Sobel, a principal at Buck Consultants, which advises large employers.

It would seem that anything this congress touches it screws up.
The prescription benefit will only help those people who have catastrophic prescription costs. For the average Medicare recipients it will be an added expense.

Whether it's Medicare or private, the government will pay the bills. Fraud will happen either way, and nothing is guaranteed one will succeed over the other. The interesting aspect of this issue is the ability for the government to continue paying all the benefits of Social Security and Medicare from a Trust Fund that doesn't exist. c.i.

C.I.
It is called deficit spending. It is very popular with our present administration the entire economic system is now based upon it. Bush you must remember has an MBA.

Monumental Budget Abomination. Unfortunately, this bondoogle began many years before GWBush took over the WH. c.i.

Senate OKs buying Canadian drugs

Vote may cut costs for U.S. pharmacists; obstacles remain




WASHINGTON, June 20 — The Senate voted Friday to allow U.S. pharmacists to buy prescription drugs in Canada, where the same medicines sell for less, and resell them here, another attempt to drive down the rising cost of drugs. The 62-28 vote attached the measure to the pending Medicare prescription drug bill moving through Congress, where approval in the House and Senate was expected by the end of next week.
 LAWMAKERS, ESPECIALLY those living in states bordering Canada, have been pressing for the change for years, spurred in particular by senior citizens in their states who board buses to cross the border and buy cheaper drugs.
       But the provision includes a measure that could prevent it from ever becoming law: It requires the secretary of health and human services to certify that the reimportation can be done safely.
A similar law is already on the books, but former HHS Secretary Donna Shalala would not certify that it could be done without risk to patients. Her successor, Tommy Thompson, said the same.


Our Government at work or should I say jerking us around.. Note the underlined sentences.

If you had done your homework, you would know that the framers explained exactly what "provide for the general welfare" meant: that the powers with which the federal government was to do so were enumerated EXPLICITLY within the Constitution. It was absolutely and expressly not a catch-all for justifying any action the federal government decided it wanted to undertake.

Oh, and my credentials? I read... Things like the Constitution... Things like the Federalist Papers... You know, those documents the framers left us to tell us what they meant so we couldn't pretend we didn't know?

Can't argue with scrat (whom I think is a he). He's always right. No room for discussion. It's not adhering to a party line - it is an absolute conviction of rightness.

89% of those surveyed in AARP said they would rather stay with traditional medicare than go to an HMO. They trust medicare - they do not trust HMOs. And there are so many cases of privatization that make the point - the aviation industry, all the MVDs, ...

Scrat, The only problem is that our government seems to ignore those documents. c.i.

Scrat wrote:



That is incorrect! In fact, that is stunningly incorrect!