Republicans Spread the Holiday HATE By Trying to KILL MEDICARE for Christmas

[Segami]

- " In fiscal cliff negotiations, the only specific proposal Republicans have made to date is demanding $600 billion in Medicare cuts over ten years by denying Medicare coverage to Americans during their first two years of eligibility by raising the eligibility age to 67. Because the elderly are prone to chronic conditions like cancer and diabetes which can be treated more effectively, and less expensively, with early diagnosis and intervention, it makes little fiscal sense to deny coverage to people aged 65 and 66. The result will lead to more severe infirmities, higher Medicare costs, and early death which may be the Republican’s ulterior motive and another means of cutting Medicare costs over the long haul.



If Republicans are serious about cutting Medicare costs, they should look at expenditures for unnecessary care, and fraudulent billing for care that is given. Of course, that means Republicans will have to address overtreatment that boosts corporate profits, and especially unnecessary procedures that can lead to pain, disability, and even death in older Americans. Republicans have rejected attempts to rein in unnecessary treatment in the past, and ironically, they used the government-imposed death panels argument to ward off attempts to control excessive treatment when the reality is seniors often suffer ill-effects of profit-driven overtreatment.

Fraudulent Billing:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/sick-money-how-mitt-romneys-bain-investments-are-exploding-deficit-and-harming-our

Overtreatment:
http://www.dartmouthatlas.org

Medicare needs adjustments to account for the certain rise in participants as the population ages, but there are other means than raising the eligibility age. Since Medicare’s inception in 1965, the survival rate for older Americans increased by 13%, and if more Americans are forced to fend for themselves between age 65 and 67, the death rate is sure to rise with the eligibility age. As it is now, senior citizens participating in the Medicare program spend on average $4,600 per year in out-of-pocket medical expenses which is a major outlay for seniors surviving on meager Social Security retirement income. That amount is significantly higher for older Americans who are severely or chronically ill, and their numbers will explode if they put-off early detection and treatment by waiting two extra years before they are eligible for Medicare enrollment. One fact that is lost on Republicans is that by age 65, Americans’ bodies are worn out after working at physically demanding jobs that makes postponing medical care a tortuous proposition.

Spend On Average:
http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/info-02-2012/medicare-get-the-facts.html

Americans already are more productive, work harder, longer, and are paid less than their counterparts in most industrialized nations, and yet the Republican remedy to deficit reduction is forcing them to go without medical care until they are 67 and choose between overpriced healthcare or food and shelter. A couple of weeks ago, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said Americans would have to work longer and “entitlements have to be slowed down,” and yet if Blankfein spent a lifetime doing manual labor and then two years without healthcare when he most needed it, he may have an entirely different outlook.

Lloyd Blankfein:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57552173/goldman-sachs-ceo-entitlements-must-be-contained/

http://www.politicususa.com/republicans-spread-holiday-hate-kill-medicare-christmas.html

[macwriter]

1. And the math doesn't make sense, either

One thing that is overlooked in the discussion is that younger seniors -- 65-67 -- in the system makes it more financially solvent since seniors need more health services as they age. If we reduced the Medicare age to 55 as was discussed during the health care debate Medicare would be financially sound for generations to come. This move by the GOP is simply -- as Nancy Pelosi said -- a trophy to compensate for caving on tax hikes. Shame on all of them.

[tryingtounderstand]

3. I don't understand

How does adding millions of american to Medicare make it more financially stable? I am not trying to be sarcastic jusy trying to understand. That sounds like a totally painless solution and if it works I am not sure why everyone wouldn't be for it.

[macwriter]

4. I could be wrong but...

I have watched some debates on this and the argument is younger people paying premiums to buy Medicare coverage before age 65 would not only bring in income to the Medicare Trust but also cost the system less per person because they are healthier. At least that's the theory.

[tryingtounderstand]

7. better check how the system works

I am not sure that's how the system works. People pay into medicare through payroll deductions and start receiving benefits later. Lowing the eligibility age would make matter worse.

[DURHAM D]

5. Are you making the claim that Paul Ryan wants to lower the Medicare age to 55?

ETA: "What's wrong with Paul Ryan's idea. Everyone 55 and older get's the deal that a 65 year old gets today?"

[tryingtounderstand]

6. no I am not

I am saying Ryans plan to keep the status quo for those 55 and older while giving thouse under 55 time to plan to work a little longer before they receive benifits makes sense. I haven't heard any other idea that doesn't eventually bankrupt medicare.

[forestpath]

8. And no REAL Democratic Party push back against them, why?