GOP budget takes aim again at Obamacare, Medicaid

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans unveiled their latest budget outline on Tuesday, sticking to their plans to try to repeal so-called Obamacare, cut domestic programs ranging from Medicaid to college grants and require future Medicare patients to bear more of the program's cost.
The point is to prove it's possible to balance the budget within 10 years by simply cutting spending and avoiding further tax hikes, even though the fiscal blueprint released Tuesday by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., will be dead on arrival with the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate.
The latest Ryan plan generally resembles prior ones, relying on higher tax revenues enacted in January and improved Medicare cost estimates — along with somewhat sharper spending cuts — to promise balance.
Senate Democrats plan to offer a counterproposal on Wednesday with higher spending on domestic programs and additional tax hikes on top of the higher rates imposed on top-bracket earners in January. That plan will, in turn, arrive as a dead letter in the GOP-controlled House.
At issue on Tuesday and beyond is the arcane and partisan congressional budget process, one that is unlikely to illustrate a path forward in a gridlocked Washington. At stake are so-called budget resolutions, which are nonbinding measures that have the potential to stake out parameters for follow-up legislation cutting spending and rewriting the complex U.S. tax code.
But this year's dueling GOP and Democratic budget proposals are more about defining political differences — as if last year's elections didn't do enough of that — than charting a path forward toward a solution. Congressional budgets often simply state party positions, and invariably are partisan endeavors.
The partisan exercise comes even as President Barack Obama travels to Capitol Hill later on Tuesday to meet with Senate Democrats in an attempt to resuscitate his failed efforts for bipartisanship.
Ryan, who became a national GOP figure as the losing vice presidential nominee last year, has for now settled back into his wonkish role as Budget Committee chairman and chief tutor for dozens of relatively junior Republicans. He's also armed with a full battery of budget bromides.
"You cannot continue to kick the can down the road," Ryan said Tuesday. "You cannot continue to spend money we just don't have."
"On the current path, we'll spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Under our proposal, we'll spend $41 trillion," Ryan said in an op-ed in the Wall St. Journal. "On the current path, spending will increase by 5 percent each year. Under our proposal, it will increase by 3.4 percent."
Ryan's plan promises to cut the deficit from $845 billion this year to $528 billion in the 2014 budget year that starts in October. It would drop to $125 billion in 2015 and hover pretty much near balance for several years before registering a $7 billion surplus in 2023.
The White House weighed in against the Ryan plan, saying it would turn Medicare into a voucher program and protect the wealthy from tax increases.
"While the House Republican budget aims to reduce the deficit, the math just doesn't add up," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. "Deficit reduction that asks nothing from the wealthiest Americans has serious consequences for the middle class."
The House Budget Committee has scheduled a vote on the measure Wednesday, and the Senate Budget panel is slated to vote Thursday on rival legislation by new Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., who promises new tax revenues but few cuts from domestic programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
"We are working towards fair and balanced, which is what the American public has said time and time again that they want," Murray said. "We need to make sure that everybody participates in getting us to a budget that deals with our debt and our deficit responsibly."
For his part, Ryan has resurrected a controversial Medicare proposal that replaces traditional Medicare for those currently under 55 with a government subsidy to buy health insurance on the open market. Critics of the plan say the subsidies won't grow with inflation fast enough and would shove thousands of dollars in higher premiums onto seniors before very long.
The House GOP plan again proposes sharp cuts to the Medicaid health program for the poor, tighter food stamp eligibility rules and claims $1.8 trillion in savings over a decade by repealing Obama's signature overhaul of the U.S. health care system. It generally seeks to preserve the Pentagon budget, but only at the expense of proposing dramatic cuts to domestic agency budgets that may prove too low for GOP moderates and the pragmatists atop the Appropriations Committee responsible for guiding them into law.
A document released Tuesday offers few specifics on the proposed cuts to domestic programs, but it generally appears to incorporate spending levels for day-to-day agency operations significantly below levels called for by controversial automatic spending cuts. They are just starting to take effect though their bite has yet to cause broad-based pain.
Even as it proposes repealing Obamacare, the Ryan plan preserves more than $700 billion in the health care law's cuts to Medicare providers over a decade — just as more than $600 billion in tax hikes on the wealthy enacted in January make it easier for Ryan's budget to predict balance.
Ryan also proposes overhauling the tax code by eliminating many or most tax deductions and using the savings to lower income tax rates, with a top rate of 25 percent instead of 39.6 percent.
As the two side battle over future-year budgets, top Senate Democrats and Republicans late Monday released a catchall government funding bill for the ongoing fiscal year that denies Obama new money for implementing signature first-term accomplishments like new regulations on Wall Street and his expansion of government health care subsidies, but provides modest additional funding for domestic priorities like health research and highway projects.
Monday's measure was the product of bipartisan negotiations and is the legislative vehicle to fund the day-to-day operations of government through Sept. 30 — and prevent a government shutdown when current funding runs out March 27.
It sets a path for government after across-the-board spending cuts that took effect March 1. In most cases the minor changes in agency budgets amount to housekeeping within a trillion-dollar cap for the day-to-day operations of agencies in the current budget year.
Passage in the Senate this week seems routine and could presage an end to a mostly overlooked battle between House Republicans and Obama and his Senate Democratic allies over the annual spending bills required to fund federal agency operations.
The point is to prove it's possible to balance the budget within 10 years by simply cutting spending and avoiding further tax hikes, even though the fiscal blueprint released Tuesday by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., will be dead on arrival with the White House and Democrats controlling the Senate.
The latest Ryan plan generally resembles prior ones, relying on higher tax revenues enacted in January and improved Medicare cost estimates — along with somewhat sharper spending cuts — to promise balance.
Senate Democrats plan to offer a counterproposal on Wednesday with higher spending on domestic programs and additional tax hikes on top of the higher rates imposed on top-bracket earners in January. That plan will, in turn, arrive as a dead letter in the GOP-controlled House.
At issue on Tuesday and beyond is the arcane and partisan congressional budget process, one that is unlikely to illustrate a path forward in a gridlocked Washington. At stake are so-called budget resolutions, which are nonbinding measures that have the potential to stake out parameters for follow-up legislation cutting spending and rewriting the complex U.S. tax code.
But this year's dueling GOP and Democratic budget proposals are more about defining political differences — as if last year's elections didn't do enough of that — than charting a path forward toward a solution. Congressional budgets often simply state party positions, and invariably are partisan endeavors.
The partisan exercise comes even as President Barack Obama travels to Capitol Hill later on Tuesday to meet with Senate Democrats in an attempt to resuscitate his failed efforts for bipartisanship.
Ryan, who became a national GOP figure as the losing vice presidential nominee last year, has for now settled back into his wonkish role as Budget Committee chairman and chief tutor for dozens of relatively junior Republicans. He's also armed with a full battery of budget bromides.
"You cannot continue to kick the can down the road," Ryan said Tuesday. "You cannot continue to spend money we just don't have."
"On the current path, we'll spend $46 trillion over the next 10 years. Under our proposal, we'll spend $41 trillion," Ryan said in an op-ed in the Wall St. Journal. "On the current path, spending will increase by 5 percent each year. Under our proposal, it will increase by 3.4 percent."
Ryan's plan promises to cut the deficit from $845 billion this year to $528 billion in the 2014 budget year that starts in October. It would drop to $125 billion in 2015 and hover pretty much near balance for several years before registering a $7 billion surplus in 2023.
The White House weighed in against the Ryan plan, saying it would turn Medicare into a voucher program and protect the wealthy from tax increases.
"While the House Republican budget aims to reduce the deficit, the math just doesn't add up," said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. "Deficit reduction that asks nothing from the wealthiest Americans has serious consequences for the middle class."
The House Budget Committee has scheduled a vote on the measure Wednesday, and the Senate Budget panel is slated to vote Thursday on rival legislation by new Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash., who promises new tax revenues but few cuts from domestic programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
"We are working towards fair and balanced, which is what the American public has said time and time again that they want," Murray said. "We need to make sure that everybody participates in getting us to a budget that deals with our debt and our deficit responsibly."
For his part, Ryan has resurrected a controversial Medicare proposal that replaces traditional Medicare for those currently under 55 with a government subsidy to buy health insurance on the open market. Critics of the plan say the subsidies won't grow with inflation fast enough and would shove thousands of dollars in higher premiums onto seniors before very long.
The House GOP plan again proposes sharp cuts to the Medicaid health program for the poor, tighter food stamp eligibility rules and claims $1.8 trillion in savings over a decade by repealing Obama's signature overhaul of the U.S. health care system. It generally seeks to preserve the Pentagon budget, but only at the expense of proposing dramatic cuts to domestic agency budgets that may prove too low for GOP moderates and the pragmatists atop the Appropriations Committee responsible for guiding them into law.
A document released Tuesday offers few specifics on the proposed cuts to domestic programs, but it generally appears to incorporate spending levels for day-to-day agency operations significantly below levels called for by controversial automatic spending cuts. They are just starting to take effect though their bite has yet to cause broad-based pain.
Even as it proposes repealing Obamacare, the Ryan plan preserves more than $700 billion in the health care law's cuts to Medicare providers over a decade — just as more than $600 billion in tax hikes on the wealthy enacted in January make it easier for Ryan's budget to predict balance.
Ryan also proposes overhauling the tax code by eliminating many or most tax deductions and using the savings to lower income tax rates, with a top rate of 25 percent instead of 39.6 percent.
As the two side battle over future-year budgets, top Senate Democrats and Republicans late Monday released a catchall government funding bill for the ongoing fiscal year that denies Obama new money for implementing signature first-term accomplishments like new regulations on Wall Street and his expansion of government health care subsidies, but provides modest additional funding for domestic priorities like health research and highway projects.
Monday's measure was the product of bipartisan negotiations and is the legislative vehicle to fund the day-to-day operations of government through Sept. 30 — and prevent a government shutdown when current funding runs out March 27.
It sets a path for government after across-the-board spending cuts that took effect March 1. In most cases the minor changes in agency budgets amount to housekeeping within a trillion-dollar cap for the day-to-day operations of agencies in the current budget year.
Passage in the Senate this week seems routine and could presage an end to a mostly overlooked battle between House Republicans and Obama and his Senate Democratic allies over the annual spending bills required to fund federal agency operations.
What we need is serious discussion of the 28th Amendment. The reasons we hear nothing of substance from either party is obvious.Â
A republican???? Really???
Maybe we should ask rick scott to help out...Remember he left HCA just before the DOJ and IRS raided his business.
and then took a $350 million dollar payout then ran and won the governorship of Florida.
Us taxpayers lost $4.5 billion from the theft... the company was then sold to mitt romney...
Republicans they are mad that this bill will stop the theft from Medicare..
No one went to jail on that one....
Wasn't Paul Ryan saying the same old thing about four months ago? Â Someone should tell him that they lost the election, and if memory serves, he didn't even win his own state or either of Romneys two home states. Â The new face of the Republican party, The Biggest Loser.
Let's just do away with eddy munster. He's trying to find the lime light again and positioning himself for the 2016 elections. Middle income knuckle dragging republicans don't like the idea that a latino is being arshe kissed by the republicans as the great brown hope of the republican party. But the republican party, who really don't represent the middle income american want a latino  to get that latino vote, irregardless of what the knuckle draggers say.  Ya let's support the republican party, they represent YOU. lol  Â
Everyone knows the world is 100% completely fair. Everyone has an equal chance. In fact if you're not a millionaire by now it's either because of your own stupidity or you're just lazy. What the hell is wrong with you if you're not a millionaire. That's why it's absurd to lend a helping hand to others. They had their chance and they decided to be poor. If the poor weren't so lazy they could be rich simply by turning on a light switch and turning off the switch of laziness. In fact if it were not for the poor the rich would be much better off. We should make a law that you can not be poor. We could fine the poor and give the money to the rich, maybe that would help......oh wait that's what Paul Ryan want's to do. Yep, every single rich person has worked their knuckles to the bone 24 hours per day 7 days a week and every single poor person has never worked a day in their life.
@USCitizenI bet you've read & liked the Communist Manifesto by a one Karl Marx.
Oh looky there. Tax increases for Obamascare double. Didn't see that one coming. Nope !
@USCitizen
Â
do away with obamacare cut spending that sounds great to me then i can give less money to government to waste on stupid programs like obamacare which makes more money for insurance companys have you ever looked at your prescriptions to see what your insurance pays when you can pay half out of pocket. thats why insurance is a big scam
@r_hutz Can you say thanks bush for part D prescription plan...
If one actually listens to Paul's own words and not blindly regurgitating  the lefts talking points..... his plan actually makes sense.Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaPcjjStIAo
BarryCare is going to bankrupt the federal budget as far more people are expected to be on the federally subsidized  insurance   exchanges  than was used when the CBO was calculated the costs.Â
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvmaoWuRvEk
@kramr Gee, kramr, you better get in touch with the CBO and share your wisdom - they claim that Obamacare will reduce the deficit by $120 billion over 10 years.
@Max Quinn @kramr  """"Gee, kramr, you better get in touch with the CBO and share your wisdom - they claim that Obamacare will reduce the deficit by $120 billion over 10 years.""""""
The CBO  only scores WHAT IS GIVEN TO THEM.  the CBO estimates are based on  an  ASSUMPTION given to them regarding  of the  number of  folks estimated to sign up with the insurance exchanges.  If the estimate given to the CBO is low (which given the history of govt. estimates) it is most definitely low.Â
""
@kramr @Max Quinn So like the truth then right.???
@Max Quinn It will bankrupt us Max.
@Max Quinn @kramr Hey -- if Paul Ryan said otherwise, who ya gonna believe?  LOL!!
@kramr Ah ya, fauxe nooze
@sargerator @kramr  """""""Ah ya, fauxe nooze""""""
So because of  certain corporate logo in the corner of the screen, you immediately  close your mind  and don't even listen to the man's own words
If you could open you mind up for just a minute you'd realize that it really doesn't matter what  network he was on, it was just a chance for PR to explain himself.Â
@kramr For many of us, it frankly isn't about the cost, it's about helping those who find themselves financially unable to help themselves when it comes to healthcare.  That's the bottom line -- we are either a nation of compassionate people who care about the weakest/poorest, or we're not. Â
@Sundowner @kramr  """""""For many of us, it frankly isn't about the cost, it's about helping those who find themselves financially unable to help themselves when it comes to healthcare.  That's the bottom line -- we are either a nation of compassionate people who care about the weakest/poorest, or we're not.  """"""
There were far more cost efficient ways to get healthcare to the needy  that BarryCare.Â
SD,  medicare/medicaid is heading  going to be broke  in the not too distance future,  at least PR is at least trying to get the costs under control in a responsible manor whereas the left  is spending like there is no tomorrow.
What would you suggest to keep medicare/medicaid funded?
@Sundowner @kramr """"""I'd get rid of the $113,700 limit on earnings.  Once a person makes more than that, their withholding remains the same as a person earning $113,699. """""""
Which is perfectly fine since THEIR BENEFITS REMAIN THE SAME AS WELL meaning someone earning $113,699 Â and someone earning $900,000 Â both pay in the same and both will receive the same benefit......... seems fair to me.Â
What would you do about medicare/medicaid..... different tax than SS.Â
@kramr For starters, I'd get rid of the $113,700 limit on earnings.  Once a person makes more than that, their withholding remains the same as a person earning $113,699.  That alone would probably eliminate the threat of Social Security going broke for the foreseeable future. Â
Ryan is after the VA again (12% cut and caps on some benefits). Nothing like supporting the troops when they come home!
And it still hasn't occurred to the GOP that 80% of REPUBLICANS do not want to see major changes to Medicare or Social Security.
And they are still blaming their November debacle on anything other then the fact that people do not want to hear the message. 51% of Americans voted for Democrats in the House Races; but there isn't a problem with the message?
We could balance the budget this year if we wanted to, but that would mean compromise and some sacred cows of both parties getting gored, which ain't gonna happen.
@ShallowEnder As far as politicians who write budgets are concerned, troops that have come home are spent  - why send good money after bad? Just get more troops....
@ShallowEnder I already posted this link, but it bears repeating:  http://news.yahoo.com/jindal-gop-must-stop-being-stupid-party-014220693--election.html .  They don't even "get" it when their own party leaders say it.  Amazing.
Why is it that the right is so against a national heathcare system? I would think that republicons would like a level playing field with Europe and Asia. Businesses in other countries don't have to give their employees health care because it's provided by their government. It seems to me that would save a lot of money for most every company.
@hokeywolf Like a 'spoiler alert' when a news station is gonna tell you who got voted off on "Survivor", each of your comments should be prefaced with a "Facts/Logic Alert".
@Sundowner @hokeywolf yep you're right. I'm using facts today instead of trolling.
@hokeywolf because current republicans despise anything that helps the poor and middle class. Unless of course it helps the rich 1000x over, then they're split on it.
We wouldn't want to eliminate obamacare or even make significant changes if it upsets the deadbeats who got his highness elected twice. Â Don't forget, they are entitled according to his highness and they deserve and demand to have their handouts. Â By the time the smoke clears, obama will be out of office and this country will be well on it's way to ruin. Â
@Shadow Do you seriously believe that it was "the deadbeats" who got President Obama elected twice?  By that logic, since you believe they're such a major voting bloc then you'd readily admit they're the same ones who got Bush elected twice and the same ones who've made sure we've had a Republican-led House.  Hmmm...that almost doesn't make sense -- did you notice that?
@Sundowner @Shadow
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts:
Number of States won by: Obama-19; Romney-29.
Square miles of land won by: Obama-580,000; Romney-2,427,000.
Population of counties won by: Obama-127 million; Romney-143 million.
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama-13.2; Romney-2.1.
Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Romney won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."
@erudite @Sundowner @Shadow Well how is it...I mean you are looking at it...your azz
They say hind sight is 20/20 is it because sundowner just handed your's to you...
@erudite @Sundowner @Shadow would you like to source that?
@erudite Since the 'author' you quote says he had no involvement in the 'study', that speaks volumes, don't you think? Â
@Sundowner @erudite @Shadow As if Snopes is an accurate unbiased source! Not. They do debunk some very interesting things, but they get their "research" material off the net, make their own deductions and have been known to be very misleading or often, flat out wrong...... same with Wickipedia.
@erudite @Shadow Perhaps you've read this one too?  About how stupid Obama was in ordering the firing of 'cattle guards' in Colorado?  It's been updated on the internet to now lay it on the President, but it's still nothing but a pack of lies.  http://www.snopes.com/politics/humor/cattleguards.asp
@erudite @Shadow And a little factual info to counter what you said.  Tsk, tsk, shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet, especially the stuff that comes via email from those with political leanings just like your own.   http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp
34th time is the charm!
Is it just me or does the above picture need the Eddie Munster caption, "Is Grandpa eating weird stuff in the dungeon again?"
@Sundowner Well, at least he kept his shirt on.Â
SNAFU.Â
'"You cannot continue to kick the can down the road," Ryan said Tuesday. "You cannot continue to spend money we just don't have."
While what you are saying is true, Rep Ryan, it should also be noted that we are not going to simply 'cut' our way out of the budget problems either.Â
For all that the Senate has done that is party line, there are some proposals within their budget that could help. Among them are some serious revisions to tax code, and the elimination of several different tax writeoffs that do little but help those with more than 8 figures to the left of the decimal on their spreadsheets. A really, really good place to start would be with revisions to the so called 'capital gains' taxes.
Insofar as the House proposals, while I may not agree in whole with so called 'Obamacare', it is law and has been reaffirmed by the SCOTUS. Get over it. Move on. If something is to be done about it, it's not going to happen until the demographics of capital hill change. What they are getting right is something that is decidedly unpalatable, which is reforms to some of this countries welfare/medicare/medicade programs. Just pushing the 'retirement age' back 5 years would help dramatically, and sooner or later there is going to have to be major revisions to the SNAP program.Â
I'm still hopeful that somewhere before the mid-term campaigns swing into high gear that the kids can stop posturing and actually make efforts towards doing something... but I'm also a Cubs fan, so I'm a bit delusional by nature. Â
@MarkKpic Can we just go with a flat tax and make everyones life easier and fairer...
@FreedomRocks @MarkKpic I've read many, many different proposals labeled as 'flat tax'. It's pretty rare that they don't all have oversights within the text that would allow for those among us with deep enough pockets to afford large groups of CPA's to find places to park a couple of billion here and there.Â
The problem typically falls under one simple question; What, specifically, is being 'taxed'?Â
Income? Does that include passive income? What about non-liquid capitol that I can take out loans against? Â (IE-stocks, investment portfolios) Does that (loan) money qualify as 'income'? What about investment income returns? (IE-I buy the Empire State building, does the rent money qualify as 'income'?)
On the other end of the financial spectrum, if I am receiving SNAP or WIC, does that qualify as 'income'?
On the surface, I do believe that a real 'flat tax' could be a panacea to the current tax code. But, as Mark Twain so prophetically said; The fundamental problem with laws is they are written by lawyers.Â
Once the 'free speech' began flowing into whatever committee was charged with writing the laws for the flat tax, I guarantee you that there would be loopholes a plenty within it. Which would make it about as useless as the one we have now. Probably worse.Â
@MarkKpicI forgot to add that if you have ever dealt with that nasty pit bull they call the IRS you would really prefer a simpler tax code so you didn't have to deal with that mafia organization.
I now always have my taxes done by an accountant and only send them in via registered mail so I can prove that they have been sent and received.
One time they claimed they never received my tax information and started fining me $200 a month without telling me. Two years later I called up for a question and they said oh by the way we haven't received your tax returns from blah blah blah. I said no problem now is keep copies I will send one in. Once I did I received a $5000 bill for something where no money was owed to the IRS. It was simply missing paper work on there end.
Only the mafia and the IRS could find you $200 a month and never bother to notify you that they were doing it until years later...
@MarkKpic@FreedomRocksYou are correct in that 90% of the current clowns we have running our government at the moment would certainly find a way to corrupt, warp, and twist something simple like a flat tax into a 10,000 page bill filled with loopholes that their supporters could advantage of.
My concern is I believe that everybody should have some skin in the game regardless of how poor they are. We continue to vote in incompetent corrupt leaders time after time who make these poor decisions. I think if their decisions were painful to 100% of the population instead of 50% of the population that we would get better voting outcomes.
@FreedomRocks @MarkKpic I don't buy that. The rich should pay a higher % than the poor. A flat tax shifts the burdon the poor.
I think that all deductions should be removed. Then if the government wishes to make deductions they have to be defined as to why and a time limit to re-evalue the deduction and see if it worked.
@FreedomRocks   A true "flat tax" would never work. That would mean poor people would actually have to pay taxes. So, exemptions would be introduced for the poor, then the special interest folks would be sure to get their cut of discounts, and on we go, back to where we started.
@wondering @FreedomRocks Poor people pay plenty of taxes, though their income taxes may have exemptions that you don't like.  They pay the same Social Security taxes, the same percentages are withheld from their checks for State/Federal income taxes, they pay taxes on their phone bills, they pay taxes on fuel, and in almost every other state in the country, they pay sales taxes. Â
Obamacare should fall under it's own weight, so no worries. Once the general public, who are supporting the 1 in 5, see their bills go up because of the "not read" Obamacare, they'll be all for defunding & or repealing.
@TimBurr Whose damn fault was it that Republicans "didn't have time to read" the bill before voting on it?  Each and every member of Congress have scores of paid gofers (to the tune of salaries of $50,000+++) whose job it is to read bills and make appropriate recommendations.  The "didn't have time to read" BS is just that -- BS. Â
@Sundowner @TimBurr Republicans didn't vote for Obamacare. It was 100%% partisan. Nancy Piglosi & company were the ones who blindly voted.
@Khre'Riov Ael i-Mhiessan t'Rllaillieu I assume you're talking about Spiriva and Advair?  Part D truly is a godsend for many, but it totally depends on the company one signs up with.  An elderly gentleman told me that during open enrollment last Fall, he had over 9" of paperwork he'd received from all the insurance companies trying to get him to switch.  He gave up and just went with what he already had.  That being said, lives will truly be saved once the 'donut hole' is eliminated....I know of too many seniors who, once they hit it, stop taking their meds for the remainder of the year, oftentimes beginning in August.  By the time the first of the year rolls around, they're sicker than they were and require more expensive medication.  Can't win for losing, I guess. =(
@yesiam I wouldn't know, but it does need to be addressed. And I've been writing letters, but the Chicken S's in our capitol don't seem to be overly responsive.. Â Just goes to show they could care less about what happens to the elderly! They only want to rob more $$Â
@Sundowner Most of the inhalers do not have lower cost generics as of yet. I would hope this will happen sooner or later. And some folks can't use the powder stuff as it messes up the throat. And I agree, they are greedy.  Part D was supposed to help, but is now becoming a hindrance. What I highly take offense at is them playing Dr without a license... But in a way, they are playing death panel, and thats abuse on its own. Â
@Khre'Riov Ael i-Mhiessan t'Rllaillieu So why did bush sign the part d into law Without oversight??
@Khre'Riov Ael i-Mhiessan t'Rllaillieu Without revealing too much, I work in the healthcare industry and am quite aware of how costs have been affected.  But when you're talking about medication costs for Social Security recipients, you're talking about Medicare Part D supplements....supplemental insurance that's purchased from privately-owned insurance companies.  They are the ones who determine what they consider appropriate dosages to be and what the co-pays shall be.  If they feel an Rx for Symbicort should be changed to a lower-cost generic, they will insist on the lower-cost product being used first -- step therapy.  Again, private insurance companies dictating how things will go.  I do NOT laugh at those who fall victim to the greed of insurance companies.  Â
@Sundowner @TimBurr @hokeywolf  Sun, I can tell you that the insurance company's got together and made a drug list that cut almost all of the peoples medications in half or less. For instance, if your Dr. prescribed symbicort, 120 inhaler, thats 2x2 puffs a day, you just got it cut in half, the insurance will only pay their share for a 60 dose inhaler so they could save a measly 50 a month. ( People with asthma got their inhalers cut to half or less.) So the other 60 doses is all out of pocket, which they count against you in your policy limit. Thats what they are doing to the elderly on SS. By the time you buy two of those, you also paid more then the outright cost of one would be. Â
Maybe its ok with you if elderly people suffer and die .. maybe you don't think thats a death sentence on elderly people who shouldn't have to fight to get medications. But when they over ride a Dr. they just as well be passing a death sentence. And you know, there are disabled kids who get benefits also.. hmmm...  Hate to rain on your parade of laughing..Â
@TimBurr @hokeywolf I laugh out loud at those who fell for Sarah Palin's 'death panel' malarkey -- you're probably one of them.  The true 'death panels' have been in existence for decades....they're called health insurance providers.  When your 'side' allowed them to exclude those with pre-existing conditions for all these years, can you comprehend how many people died or became even more seriously ill?  $1.76 trillion is NOTHING compared to the money spent by those merely trying to stay alive.  I'd love it if just once all of you who are opposed to universal healthcare came on here and made a comment saying how you truly feel instead of barking up the "staggering price tag" tree:  You lack compassion for your fellow citizens, you don't care about anyone other than yourself and your own little family.  Personally, I wouldn't be bothered reading that -- the honesty would be refreshing. Â
@hokeywolf@TimBurrIt was proposed to counter Hillarycare, the greater of the two evils. Now we have 20,000 pages of regulations which is the blotted Obamacare at a staggering price tag of $1.76 trillion.
@hokeywolf @TimBurr Did you just try to insert facts/logic into this?  Whatsamatter you?
@TimBurr You do realize that "Obamacare" is actually a republicon idea? It was preposed back in the 90's during the Clinton administration.
And it might have been pure democrate in the house but it had to have some support in the senate or it would not have passed.
@TimBurr So then why are you whining about the "not read" part?  Are you saying Republicans voted against something they didn't even bother becoming fully-acquainted with?  You're not saying The Party of No didn't do the job they're paid to do, are you?  They're not being paid to go to Washington and pull the "This is a bill the President wants, so I'm not going to bother researching it, I'm just gonna vote 'NO'".  Are you one of those who wonders why your party keeps losing the elections that matter?  Take a listen to the speech Bobby Jindal made and get back to us.  http://news.yahoo.com/jindal-gop-must-stop-being-stupid-party-014220693--election.html