RSS Feed
Twitter
4:24 PM
nintendo
PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE WRITTEN BY COREY CRAMER OF THE DES MOINES REPUBLICAN EXAMINER, THEN READ MY RESPONSE WHICH FOLLOWS IMMEDIATELY AFTER:
MEDICARE TAKES FROM WORKING POOR, GIVES TO THE RICH
August 20, 11:01 AM - Corey Cramer DES MOINES REPUBLICAN EXAMINER:
The recent debate over health care reform has taken an interesting turn. After public outcries of socialism, the Marxist-left in the media have all but admitted that the Pelosi bill in the House of Representatives does institute socialism on a grand scale. And when a speech by Ronald Reagan delivered against socialized medicine in 1961 went viral last week, commentators on the left like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman took a different tack. Rather then continuing to deny their plan was socialist-making the rediculous argument that socialism is the new "N" word, they sought to point out the hypocrisy of Republicans' and senior citizens' support for Medicare, while at the same time declaring that real conservatives, like Reagan, opposed Medicare.
I see this turn as a positive development in the health care debate. No longer are we living in a fantasy world in which we can get "free" health care with no loss of freedom, or money. Instead the President has finally admitted there is no magic bullet and all the Marxists who said there was a magic bullet were trying to pull a fast one on the American people.
Now we are having an actual debate-or at least something close to it-and the Marxist-left is using Medicare as both their white horse....and their Trojan Horse.
Logically, Maddow and Olberman are right, Republicans can't on one hand say Medicare is great (because it is politically popular) while on the other complain about socialized medicine. Because, when it comes down to it, Reagan was right, Medicare is horrible. In fact, it is one of the major problems with our health care system right now.
Here is How Medicare works:
Every one who works pays an 8% tax on every dollar they make, even people who only make minimum wage. The federal government takes that money, skims off the top, then sends it back to the states. The states then pay for health insurance for everyone over the age of 65.
This set-up alone is immoral, even by socialist standards. People over the age of 65 are BY FAR the wealthiest age-group in the country. Those under 35 mostly live in poverty, and have a net worth of less than zero. So, what Medicare does is collect money from the poorest working Americans and transfers it to the wealthiest non-working Americans. The system is wrong on so many levels-even socialists values say money should be redistrbuted from the rich to the poor, NOT the other way around. It's a system that gives free dialysis machines to 90-year-olds while 9-year-olds rely on the good graces of charity or the means of their parents for the same care. And its CRIMINAL.
But that isn't the only problem with Medicare. For a typical doctor visit in Iowa, Medicare might reimburse doctors $35.00. A typical insurance company will reimburse the doctor $55.00 for the same visit. A person without insurance who pays cash at the desk of treatment is charged $90.00 for the same service. That is roughly how things worked a few years ago when I went to the doctor without insurance (as explained by my doctor). Though the numerical values may have changed a little bit, the pattern is the same. Medicare doesn't pay doctors enough, so the rest of us have to make up the difference.
If we take someone who makes $20,000.00 a year--the most I ever made working full-time as a gas station clerk--and then look at how Medicare works, you can see the problem. Medicare takes $1,600.00 every year and in return, a person who makes $20,000 gets higher doctor bills because they are responsible for making up the difference that Medicare doesn't pay. So, not only does the gas station clerk not have $1,600.00 to pay the doctor (because the government took it and gave it to rich people who don't work), but the gas station attendant also has to pay almost Double what his doctor bill should be because of Medicare, too.
Am I the only person who sees a problem with this? Is this what America has come to? Taking from the poor working people and giving it to the rich non-working people? Letting children go without health insurance while we provide it for their grandparents?
If we are serious about health care reform, the first thing we need to do is end Medicare, or at least invert it. Use that money to give every child health insurance. They don't have a choice who their parents are, and they can't go out and work themselves. Maybe it IS time we pulled the plug on grandma so we have the resources to push the plug in on her grandchildren.
NOW FOR MY RESPONSE:
I am almost 65-years-old and the only money I have is my Social Security Disability. That is IT. I am NOT rich by any stretch of the imagination. Before I even get my monthly Social Security, the government takes $96.00 right off the top for my Medicare payment, then on top of that, I have to pay another $34.00 a month out-of-pocket for Blue Cross Excellus that pays for a small portion of what Medicare doesn't cover, and I am still responsible for the difference.
Nobody that I know, who is 65 or older and receiving Medicare is rich. They all, like me, live from month-to-month on what little they get from Social Security. Everything I own, my computer (which just broke down), my 1996 car, T.V., stereo, etc., were bought for me by my sons as either Christmas, birthday or Father's Day gifts. I could never afford them on what I get a month from Social Security (which I had paid into ever since I started working part-time at the age of 14). After becoming an ordained Orthodox Catholic priest, I had to work at a secular job while also running my ministry, to support my four adopted sons and myself since we are not salaried like the Roman Catholic priests. I never took a cent in help from the state. I paid for health insurance for my boys, I fed them and clothed them and kept a roof over their heads.
In 1994, when I became disabled with a neuro-degenerative disease, I was no longer able to work and had no choice but to go on Social Security Disability. As a bishop, I still manage to fullfill my obligations to the Church, but that does not bring in any funds to live on.
So, I have reason to resent what this moron has to say and I'll be damned if I will lay down and die because some young ass feels that I have lived too long. Besides, I cannot see how all the children are without medical care, when here in New York state they have Medicaid (which covers the poor children for a hell of a lot more then what we greedy seniors get covered for under Medicare) and they don't have to pay a cent into it. At the most they might have a $3.00 co-pay, and on top of all that, there are at least three other state run health insurance programs for children. Then there are those who receive state welfare assistance, getting food-stamps, but their children still receive free breakfast and lunch in school paid for by the taxpayers on top of the food stamps. Then if their mother decides to pop out another child out-of-wedlock, she gets WIC payments on top of the assistance and food stamps she already gets. The WIC program pays for extra milk and formula. this whole business of using the poor children as pawns to push health care reform (health care take over) and to pull the plug on "granny", is total B.S., and I for one resent the hell out of it.
Yes, we do have problems in our health care system, but having a complete government take over of the health care system by the government and knocking off the elderly is NOT the solution. Perhaps if you people who worry so much about the poor children would force the government to stop screwing around with Social Security and Medicare money, using it for other things, and if you worried more about our government giving health care to illegal immigrants and giving Medicaid and social service payments to people who refuse to work, there would be plenty of health care to go around.
More and more every day, I am coming to the belief that this whole financial crisis was purposely planned and put into motion, for the purpose of killing our job market, so that more and more people would lose their health insurance so that those in charge could then force their government take over of the health care system on to the people, and then continue on from there to take over more and more of the private sector and our lives.
Why the hell should we have to give up rights and freedoms and kill off our senior citizens just so that illegals and lazy people can reap the benefits of our health care, and the government can do something about tort reform and go after those who commit Medicare and Medicaid fraud. As for the children, I don't know of any child who is refused treatment, especially when we have St. Jude's Childrens' Hospital, the Shriners, Muscular Dystrophy Foundation, March of Dimes, Easter Seals, etc.
Perhaps if Corey Cramer and others are so damned concerned over children doing without health care, maybe they should seriously consider offing themselves first.
Oh, and by the way, I know a hell of a lot of 35-year-olds who far better off financially then most senior citizens.
MEDICARE TAKES FROM WORKING POOR, GIVES TO THE RICH
August 20, 11:01 AM - Corey Cramer DES MOINES REPUBLICAN EXAMINER:
The recent debate over health care reform has taken an interesting turn. After public outcries of socialism, the Marxist-left in the media have all but admitted that the Pelosi bill in the House of Representatives does institute socialism on a grand scale. And when a speech by Ronald Reagan delivered against socialized medicine in 1961 went viral last week, commentators on the left like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman took a different tack. Rather then continuing to deny their plan was socialist-making the rediculous argument that socialism is the new "N" word, they sought to point out the hypocrisy of Republicans' and senior citizens' support for Medicare, while at the same time declaring that real conservatives, like Reagan, opposed Medicare.
I see this turn as a positive development in the health care debate. No longer are we living in a fantasy world in which we can get "free" health care with no loss of freedom, or money. Instead the President has finally admitted there is no magic bullet and all the Marxists who said there was a magic bullet were trying to pull a fast one on the American people.
Now we are having an actual debate-or at least something close to it-and the Marxist-left is using Medicare as both their white horse....and their Trojan Horse.
Logically, Maddow and Olberman are right, Republicans can't on one hand say Medicare is great (because it is politically popular) while on the other complain about socialized medicine. Because, when it comes down to it, Reagan was right, Medicare is horrible. In fact, it is one of the major problems with our health care system right now.
Here is How Medicare works:
Every one who works pays an 8% tax on every dollar they make, even people who only make minimum wage. The federal government takes that money, skims off the top, then sends it back to the states. The states then pay for health insurance for everyone over the age of 65.
This set-up alone is immoral, even by socialist standards. People over the age of 65 are BY FAR the wealthiest age-group in the country. Those under 35 mostly live in poverty, and have a net worth of less than zero. So, what Medicare does is collect money from the poorest working Americans and transfers it to the wealthiest non-working Americans. The system is wrong on so many levels-even socialists values say money should be redistrbuted from the rich to the poor, NOT the other way around. It's a system that gives free dialysis machines to 90-year-olds while 9-year-olds rely on the good graces of charity or the means of their parents for the same care. And its CRIMINAL.
But that isn't the only problem with Medicare. For a typical doctor visit in Iowa, Medicare might reimburse doctors $35.00. A typical insurance company will reimburse the doctor $55.00 for the same visit. A person without insurance who pays cash at the desk of treatment is charged $90.00 for the same service. That is roughly how things worked a few years ago when I went to the doctor without insurance (as explained by my doctor). Though the numerical values may have changed a little bit, the pattern is the same. Medicare doesn't pay doctors enough, so the rest of us have to make up the difference.
If we take someone who makes $20,000.00 a year--the most I ever made working full-time as a gas station clerk--and then look at how Medicare works, you can see the problem. Medicare takes $1,600.00 every year and in return, a person who makes $20,000 gets higher doctor bills because they are responsible for making up the difference that Medicare doesn't pay. So, not only does the gas station clerk not have $1,600.00 to pay the doctor (because the government took it and gave it to rich people who don't work), but the gas station attendant also has to pay almost Double what his doctor bill should be because of Medicare, too.
Am I the only person who sees a problem with this? Is this what America has come to? Taking from the poor working people and giving it to the rich non-working people? Letting children go without health insurance while we provide it for their grandparents?
If we are serious about health care reform, the first thing we need to do is end Medicare, or at least invert it. Use that money to give every child health insurance. They don't have a choice who their parents are, and they can't go out and work themselves. Maybe it IS time we pulled the plug on grandma so we have the resources to push the plug in on her grandchildren.
NOW FOR MY RESPONSE:
I am almost 65-years-old and the only money I have is my Social Security Disability. That is IT. I am NOT rich by any stretch of the imagination. Before I even get my monthly Social Security, the government takes $96.00 right off the top for my Medicare payment, then on top of that, I have to pay another $34.00 a month out-of-pocket for Blue Cross Excellus that pays for a small portion of what Medicare doesn't cover, and I am still responsible for the difference.
Nobody that I know, who is 65 or older and receiving Medicare is rich. They all, like me, live from month-to-month on what little they get from Social Security. Everything I own, my computer (which just broke down), my 1996 car, T.V., stereo, etc., were bought for me by my sons as either Christmas, birthday or Father's Day gifts. I could never afford them on what I get a month from Social Security (which I had paid into ever since I started working part-time at the age of 14). After becoming an ordained Orthodox Catholic priest, I had to work at a secular job while also running my ministry, to support my four adopted sons and myself since we are not salaried like the Roman Catholic priests. I never took a cent in help from the state. I paid for health insurance for my boys, I fed them and clothed them and kept a roof over their heads.
In 1994, when I became disabled with a neuro-degenerative disease, I was no longer able to work and had no choice but to go on Social Security Disability. As a bishop, I still manage to fullfill my obligations to the Church, but that does not bring in any funds to live on.
So, I have reason to resent what this moron has to say and I'll be damned if I will lay down and die because some young ass feels that I have lived too long. Besides, I cannot see how all the children are without medical care, when here in New York state they have Medicaid (which covers the poor children for a hell of a lot more then what we greedy seniors get covered for under Medicare) and they don't have to pay a cent into it. At the most they might have a $3.00 co-pay, and on top of all that, there are at least three other state run health insurance programs for children. Then there are those who receive state welfare assistance, getting food-stamps, but their children still receive free breakfast and lunch in school paid for by the taxpayers on top of the food stamps. Then if their mother decides to pop out another child out-of-wedlock, she gets WIC payments on top of the assistance and food stamps she already gets. The WIC program pays for extra milk and formula. this whole business of using the poor children as pawns to push health care reform (health care take over) and to pull the plug on "granny", is total B.S., and I for one resent the hell out of it.
Yes, we do have problems in our health care system, but having a complete government take over of the health care system by the government and knocking off the elderly is NOT the solution. Perhaps if you people who worry so much about the poor children would force the government to stop screwing around with Social Security and Medicare money, using it for other things, and if you worried more about our government giving health care to illegal immigrants and giving Medicaid and social service payments to people who refuse to work, there would be plenty of health care to go around.
More and more every day, I am coming to the belief that this whole financial crisis was purposely planned and put into motion, for the purpose of killing our job market, so that more and more people would lose their health insurance so that those in charge could then force their government take over of the health care system on to the people, and then continue on from there to take over more and more of the private sector and our lives.
Why the hell should we have to give up rights and freedoms and kill off our senior citizens just so that illegals and lazy people can reap the benefits of our health care, and the government can do something about tort reform and go after those who commit Medicare and Medicaid fraud. As for the children, I don't know of any child who is refused treatment, especially when we have St. Jude's Childrens' Hospital, the Shriners, Muscular Dystrophy Foundation, March of Dimes, Easter Seals, etc.
Perhaps if Corey Cramer and others are so damned concerned over children doing without health care, maybe they should seriously consider offing themselves first.
Oh, and by the way, I know a hell of a lot of 35-year-olds who far better off financially then most senior citizens.
0 comments:
Post a Comment