This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Elijah3. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
Elijah, you have an imagination! First, the columnist quoted here appears to have gotten well ahead of herself. She's apparently privy to documents the rest of us haven't seen, and in fact cannot possibly see yet since the budget is still in negotiation. Nevertheless, she claims the details are available on the OMB web site. Wrong.
Here's a link to the 2010 budget proposals on the OMB website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf
As you'll see, there's nothing about cost-sharing, co-pays, or any of the other horrors she references. However, I realize you're trying to draw parallels between Ms. Armstrong's imaginary VA horrors and Medicare. This is where your analysis becomes amusing. You've thrown in so many red herrings here that it's difficult to sort them all out.
What is the "Universal Health Care Program" that is "already set up for expansion"? You have no idea, and neither do I. That's because no program has been proposed. You then toss in apples and oranges, everything from S-Chips to the OctoMom, and claim that Democrats are involved in a conspiracy to deprive you of Medicare and force you into this imaginary Universal Health Care Program. Your imagination is on overdrive.
Democrats have no intention of depriving you of Medicare (or Social Security) because both of these are Democratic programs that they heartily believe in. Historically monthly fees have risen over time, so I'm sure they'll rise again, but this is not a conspiracy to deprive you of your well-earned right to Medicare. In fact it would be impossible to force you out of Medicare since at least the hospital portion is fully subsidized.
Unemployment insurance comes from state funds that all workers in the state pay into. Apples and oranges. Social Security Disability payments do not come out of the Social Security fund--they are paid from general revenues, as is Medicaid. State employee pensions and healthcare benefits have nothing to do with any of these issues. In other words, your arguments make no sense whatsover since you do not appear to understand the differences between any of these programs.
As for Ms. Armstrong, I have no idea where she gets her information, but it's not from the OMB web site. Since the OMB web site does talk about expanding funding for VA benefits by $25 billion over baseline over the next five years, I have no doubt that the Obama administration fully intends to keep its promise to care for our vets.
CAt09, Sadly it did not take a imagination of any kind to come up with my theory (you call conspiracy) as to how people could be made, forced or decide to drop out of Tri-Care or Medicare, for what ever program is implemented as the Universal Health Care. As I only hypothicized that S-Chips or Medicaid would be the obvious source or vehicle for a universal system, because as many pols have already stated about the Bail out funds, "their are already systems in place that can quickly be used to get funds out from the bailout". It made sense to me that Medicaid and S-Chips were health plans already in place, if a universal system is implemented as fast as seems evident.
You are quick to say I don't understand any of these programs or how they are funded and I don't think you know much more than possibly me. I even mentioned that the health plans are very intricate and inter-related. I assumed the article was wrong in saying it came from OMB, because of the last item saying "do away with lifetime Tri Care entirely"., but I am not such a told you so as you seem to be, and assumed she had listed the items from POSSIBLY a old recomendation or the CBO or possibly a analysis or audit by GAO. I never said or thought that your beloved Democrats would do away with the vets benefits, but did mention that Congress has already messed with the original formula for Social Security, cutting many benefits (mine) by 1/3. So I don't think that was mixing apples and oranges so much as saying, they are not above changing names, benefits and promises made to programs like Vets benefits, Medicare and Social Security.
I am not worried about losing my Medicare, and rather think you are so defensive and nasty in pointing out my deficiencies and mixed metaphores, that it is possibly you who "fear" these changes. Your using "the supposed veteran benefit horrors" statement, shows a little lack of knowledge on your part of what past and current vets do go through, even though the system is much increased and improved over say Viet Nam Era policies. You also seem unaware of how general funded State Insurance plans are indeed, creating the same scenario or conflict that my theory protrays. So make a list, like the old pro and con list, only label this General Funded or Tax funded Health Programs, like Medicaid and the other line should be privately or Medicare and/or individual contribution funded health care. Then list all the programs that you think you know are funded totally by workers and vets through taxes, and the other put Medicare and private Medical Trust funds.
As you can see, regardless of our disagreement over how much of SSI is totally funded by the general fund, the general entitlement liability for healthcare is longer under the general fund, State and Federal Tax supported title. But the people who pay for Medicare and the Medical Trust Funds, paid taxes for all entitlements, plus a separate fee or tax or rate for expected Medicare and sometimes a third payment for a retiree healthplan, to supplement early retirement insurance or Medicare when eligible. Perhaps you are not aware of these State trust funds, but they were set up by some public employees to help them and retirees on low wage retirements, to supplement or defer cost of insurance either private or Medicare when eligible.
When government, whether Dems or Reps try and figure out how to get people to pay for the General Taxes fund list of entitlements which includes Medicaid or a new Universal Health plan, with SSI etc. The question is how do you get say vets and medicare recipients or contributors to drop the expectation of medicare or Tri-corp for life benefits, for the universal plan and higher taxes and increases, that will be required to pay for the increased number of people in the universal program? If they don't do away with or incorporate the other general fund programs into universal, it will be on top of existing Tax funded programs. I only theorize that one method of getting you to give up your Medicare benefits for the universal program, or the vets to give up tri corp for universal, would be to make the costs, co-pays and deductibles higher and more difficult to maintain, on a fixed income, with existing taxes and new taxes, so that you just give up and drop Medicare or Vets entirely and pay the higher Universal taxes alone. Or as the article or CBO gave as a last option, drop Medicare entirely and mix the hospital subsidy you say is garunteed with Medicaid and S-chipps or universal and general fund taxes, by making all benefits the same. In some ways it is what happened to people retired and on Medicare, who end up qualifying and using Medicaid also. It is happening in the States that have started S-chipps and General Fund Private partnership plans. When the cost of the State subsidied plan is cheaper and deductibles lower, than the same plan subsidied by your own life work trust fund, the decision is often whether to forfeit your investment for the daily savings for the Tax funded plan. Its only a theory based upon existing strategies that States have planned and some implemented, and now have so many people dropping their work insurance for the government insurance, that deficits and Medicaid have run amuk.
This is not imagination Cat9, its reality, though possibly not explained to your understanding. I don't know if Tri Care for life is just a promise, or if it is a deduction on top of Medicare that the vet pays into. As it is they often have different options available to them, because they have paid into several systems and can move back and forth. For younger ones, Tri Care and medicare may be the only thing available, and changes to deductibles and co-pays difficult on SSI or disability benefits could force them to switch to something like universal or medicaid etc. If Tri care is free or a promised benefit without contribuiton from paychecks, then no problem with increased costs, right?