Reply With Quote
Medicare was quite profitable until the Bush administration and the do-nothing Congress signed one of the largest liberal expansion in the program since it's inception...
Medicare was quite profitable until the Bush administration and the do-nothing Congress signed one of the largest liberal expansion in the program since it's inception...
How was Medicare profitable? What bill signed are u talking about?
Medicare Part D.
Ever hear of the Medicare Advantage plan?
WikiThe costs of Medicare doubled every four years between 1966 and 1980.[35] According to the 2004 "Green Book" of the House Ways and Means Committee, Medicare expenditures from the American government were $256.8 billion in fiscal year 2002. Beneficiary premiums are highly subsidized, and net outlays for the program, accounting for the premiums paid by subscribers, were $230.9 billion.
Medicare spending is growing steadily in both absolute terms and as a percentage of the federal budget. Total Medicare spending reached $440 billion for fiscal year 2007, or 16% of all federal spending. The only larger categories of federal spending are Social Security and defense. Given the current pattern of spending growth, maintaining Medicare's financing over the long-term may well require significant changes.[36]
According to the 2008 report by the board of trustees for Medicare and Social Security, Medicare will spend more than it brings in from taxes this year (2008). The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will become insolvent by 2019.[36][37][38][39] Shortly after the release of the report, the Chief Actuary testified that the insolvency of the system could be pushed back by 18 months if Medicare Advantage plans that provide more health care services than traditional Medicare and pass savings onto beneficiaries were paid at the same rate as the traditional fee-for-service program. He also testified that the 10-year cost of Medicare drug benefit is 37% lower than originally projected in 2003, and 17% percent lower than last year's projections.[40] The New York Times wrote in January 2009 that Social Security and Medicare "have proved almost sacrosanct in political terms, even as they threaten to grow so large as to be unsustainable in the long run."[41]
Medicare Advantage is Part C. It passed in 1997.
My bad...the PDP is new I suppose
The lie is that they lied.
Haven't you learned that yet?
If you can find a credible lie, please start the appropriate thread/ le. Love to discuss it. However, I haven't seen any thing that cons utes a lie by the executive office. Just bad information.
I'm only guessing he means the fact that the 1.45%x2 payroll tax brings more revenue in than what it pays out in medicare, and is then referring to the change in prescription coverage for seniors. However, I think it still makes more in revenue that what is paid out. I could be wrong. We may have crossed that line recently, like we will with Social Security in a few years.
Correck.
Like media matters taking things out of context?Are you ever going to admit that MM does provide full contextual do entation? or are you just going to believe what you hear?
You overuse that ROFL icon.Like media matters taking things out of context?
No, they need a link. You have to have a link to prove it's true.
No, we need a link to prove that statements like the following are true:
We know where WMDs are.
there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
I finally got around to checking out MM's website. They're just another partisan hack website like all the others.Like media matters taking things out of context?
Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
So they're progressive and they're only interested in "conservative misinformation". Not exactly signs that this is going to be a source that anyone other than blue team cheerleaders will view as credible.
Last edited by coyotes_geek; 09-26-2009 at 01:08 AM.
They do do ent one side of the controversy, so there's that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions