HEALTHCARE CONT'D
. . . Under the Medicare plan, consumers ages 55 to 64 would for the first time be allowed to buy into the federal program for the elderly, starting as soon as 2011. Congressional aides estimate that two million to three million people would participate.
. . . The Medicare plan could be good news for some in the 55-64 bracket who currently don't have an easy way to get coverage. Those who must buy coverage on their own often face high premiums or are shut out entirely because of pre-existing conditions.
. . . Senate Democrats have yet to release a formal plan and haven't said how much it would cost younger people to buy into Medicare. While these people are likely to receive subsidized coverage, their payments would be far greater than those over 65, who pay $100 a month or more for coverage, depending on their income. Based on data from the Congressional Budget Office, a report by the seniors' lobby AARP estimated that an earlier proposal to expand Medicare to a narrower group would cost participants $634 a month.
Opponents of the idea see no way to make premiums affordable without running up the total cost of the legislation -- something Democrats have pledged to avoid.
The new Medicare program would attract a more expensive pool of enrollees since it is designed for people whose health status makes private coverage unaffordable, and who don't have access to employer-sponsored insurance.
Huffington Post - Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, a physician, said Wednesday he believes opening up Medicare to people 55 to 64 years old gives momentum to the quest for a health care overhaul, putting it "on the right track." The former Democratic presidential candidate and party chairman said on CBS's "The Early Show" that Medicare already is "a single payer run by the government. This moves things forward."
Institute for America's Future - A few days ago, Ben Bernanke encouraged Congress to act like bank robber Willie Sutton and raid Social Security and Medicare, saying, "That's where the money is." In his re-appointment hearing on December 3rd, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke called for cuts in Medicare and Social Security, reminding Congress that it could even repeal Social Security and Medicare. "It's only mandatory until Congress says it's not mandatory," he stated.
A conservative group of Democrats and Republicans in Congress are trying to scare us into thinking that the only way to reduce the budget deficit is by cutting Social Security and Medicare. These fear-mongerers are telling us that those programs must be cut now -- not in the open by elected officials who are accountable to us, but behind closed doors by an unelected commission. . . . Senators Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, along with a group of colleagues, say that they'll hold the budget hostage until their fast-track commission is appointed, a commission that's hostile to Social Security and Medicare.
FACT: Social Security is not contributing to the deficit. The 2009 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees stated that Social Security ran a surplus of $180 billion last year with a reserve of $2.4 trillion. The Congressional Budget Office, in its August 2009 forecast, said that full benefits can continue to be paid until 2043.
FACT: There is ample time for Congress to review options for adjusting the Social Security system through the usual legislative process. Congress should do its job, not hide behind an unelected, unaccountable commission.
FACT: Such a hasty and undemocratic procedure would be unprecedented. Since 1935, Social Security legislation has always had the benefit of full hearings before the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, executive sessions giving all members a chance to offer amendments, and unlimited debate and opportunity for amendments in the Senate and the House of Representatives.
FACT: More than 52 million people are depending on monthly benefits this year.
FACT: The solution to Medicare and Medicaid's rising costs can be found by cutting the cost of health care and fixing our broken system, not by cutting services. The bills under consideration in Congress, though not perfect, would help do that.
FACT: The projected deficit--which seems like a huge number--isn't that huge. As pointed out by Paul Krugman on his blog, our debt-service burden is about the same as that of 1992 under President H.W. Bush.

1 Comments:
Amiable fill someone in on and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you seeking your information.
Post a Comment
<< Home