Sep 22 2009

Obamacare Rightly Scares Seniors

Medicare Advantage is the only thing in Medicare working well, because it is a private-government partnership that allows seniors with the means to enhance their coverage over the paltry basic Medicare program – which keeps cheating on its bill by under paying for services rendered (making all of us pay more in treatment costs and premiums). Ed Morrissey and Karl Rove note the electoral damage attacking this successful program will incur on dems in 2010.

Also out today, an analysis by Gallup showing Obama is only slightly above President Clinton in approval at this same point in his first term – this indicates 2010 could be another 1994 if the liberal dems in DC keep heading down this path. Talk about screwing up in reverse.

12 responses so far

12 Responses to “Obamacare Rightly Scares Seniors”

  1. kathie says:

    What a supplemental does. One thing that it does is that it pays a higher rate then medicare. Why is that important? Doctors, hospitals and other care givers can only take so many Medicare/Medicaid patients. In thinking about the possibilities of what older age might bring, a thoughtful person would want as many options as possible, for themselves and their family members who might have to care for a sick one. So to that end I pay $130.00 a month for the privilege of choices.

    People, the problem with government programs is that at a whim they can be taken away. Do not let this happen to ordinary American citizens, it is HORRIBLE TO BE IN THIS POSITION.

  2. Toes192 says:

    I pay $96.40 per month for pretty good health insurance under Medicare… So Tx again to you youngsters for this old age benefit that won’t be available when you are my age … [71] … As you continue to pay _?_$ for your health insurance plan … But I repeat my comment in an Alzheimerish haze…
    I support my [read seniors on Medicare] paying more but they won’t let me… I [no lie here] asked the Doc to make up the difference between cost and what Medicare paid him… “Sry, can’t take anything from you… against the law”
    We Seniors with good incomes should pay more… Say…
    25-50K$/year gross income… $100.oo/mo
    50-75K … $200.oo//month
    75-100 … $300.oo/month
    Numbers just off the top of my head but you get the idea…

  3. Frogg1 says:

    I heard an analysis of Medicare Advantage on the news the other day. It sounds like a wonderful program, which is probably why seniors love it so much. Anyway, supposedly it has reduced the overall cost of health care and improved the health of seniors (a lot of preventative incentives, etc). Why would you trash a program that is so successful, and so well liked?

    And, why is Obama so against insujrance companies competing across state lines if he thinks competition is good?

    The top of the reform should be allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines and tort reform. That’s just common sense.

  4. AJ,

    More than the elderly are being affected by Democratic domestic policies:

    Job-killing policies could doom Democrat hopes
    By: Michael Barone
    Senior Political Analyst
    September 16, 2009

    The Office of Management and Budget now projects unemployment at 9.7 percent, the same as last month, in the fourth quarter of 2010, when the off-year elections take place. Maybe the administration and congressional Democrats should consider job-creating rather than job-destroying policies right now.


    When Work Doesn’t Pay For The Middle Class
    Janet Novack and Stephane Fitch, 09.16.09, 06:00 PM EDT
    Forbes Magazine dated October 05, 2009

    Eighteen months after being laid off, Judith Lederman, a 50-year-old divorcee who lives in Scarsdale, N.Y., is ready to consider jobs paying half the $120,000 she earned as a publicity manager at Lord & Taylor. That’s mostly because she’s desperate, but it also makes sense when you consider how this country punishes work effort. While the first $60,000 of her income would be lightly taxed, the next $60,000 would be hit with what is in effect a 79% tax rate. Given a choice between a part-time or easy job paying $60,000 and a demanding, stress-ridden job paying $120,000, Lederman would be wise to take the former. In the tougher job she would be contributing twice as much to the economy. But she wouldn’t be doing herself much good. It would make more sense to take it easy and spend more time with her high school senior daughter, Casey.

    How did a middle-class single mom wind up with a 79% marginal tax rate? At $120,000 she would pay $16,500 a year more in federal and state taxes, wouldn’t qualify for the five-year $12,000-a-year cut in her mortgage payments she’s applying for and would be eligible for $19,000 a year less in need-based college financial aid.

    The Democrats are out to kill our economy, and they are succeeding.

  5. AJ,

    To quote a friend of mine:

    “There are two kinds of Americans, those who remember Jimmy Carter and those who will find out.”

    The following appears to be the source of Michael Barone’s “9.7% unemployment in Nov 2010” number:

    william galston
    Tuesday September 15, 2009
    Unemployment Numbers May Put Democrats out of Work

    Indeed, the most recent OMB projections show unemployment remaining above 7 percent until 2012, and above 5 percent through at least 2019.


    The number of people who want full-time jobs but have been forced to settle for part-time work has risen from 5.9 million a year ago to 9.1 million today. The number of discouraged workers—people who would like to work but aren’t looking because they believe that no jobs are available—has nearly doubled.


    In times of high unemployment and weak job generation, a slowdown in those leaving their jobs at the end of their careers is bound to have ripple effects throughout the rest of the system.

    If OMB’s projections are correct, unemployment will average 9.8 percent during 2010 and will likely stand above 9 percent on the day of the mid-term election.

    The Democrats are dead and damned in Nov 2010, if these OMB economic projections run true.

    I think we may see the House flip Republican and the Senate stay Democratic for the first time ever.

  6. crosspatch says:

    Something that bothers me:

    Harry Reid probably isn’t going to be re-elected to his seat in the Senate. He trails everyone running against him. He is basically history. If he figures he is out of a job next November, what is to prevent him from doing things like the Nuclear Option to avoid Senate rules and bypass cloture? What does he have to lose? There is no down side for him. He could pretend to be some champion of Lies, Injustice, and the Democrat Way, and “take one for the team”.

    These Democrats can do a huge amount of damage to this country before they leave and I don’t trust them not to.

  7. Terrye says:

    When Bush signed on to the drug prescription plan it was in part because he wanted Medicare Advantage and Health Savings Accounts, they were all part of the same deal.That is why the Democrats want to kill all this.

  8. ivehadit says:

    Where are the leaders of the democrat party? Are they ALL far left radicals now? Are they all blinded by Kos, mooooove on, and soros? The party is being destroyed and I have heard some dem strategists say as much. Calling Pat Caddell…

  9. WWS says:

    I think the nuclear option is a bluff. Oh, he may want to try it – but there are some very destructive retaliatory gestures a minority can do. Just refusing to ever grant “unanimous consent” to standard motions and requiring the reading of each bill in it’s entirety anytime it is discussed (required by the rules, but always waived) would virtually shut the Senate down completely until the next election. *Nothing* would be passed, not even ordinary funding bills. It would be chaos, and tantamout to civil war on the floor of the Senate, but McConnell and others have already warned that’s where we’re going if Reid tries to go the reconciliation route.

    And notice that only Reid is talking big about this – none of the other Dem. Senators who *Do* hope to be around for awhile are saying anything.

    I don’t think Reid has the votes to do even this.

  10. kathie says:

    If you want to know more about the health care bill, you should read this at FREEREPUBLIC, who wrote this bill, and what do they think of America? Is this bill really to cover 30 million citizens or something else. In my opinion it is something else. It answers the question, who is Obama?

    Looking Past the Bait: Breaking Down the House Health Care Bill
    The Woodward Report ^ | September 22, 2009 | Jack Curtis
    Posted on 09/22/2009 2:10:53 PM PDT by thisisthetime

    The Administration has used the financial collapse that government brought us very well: It gave Congress a “Stimulus” bill that provided more pork than Congress itself might have had the nerve to include while effectively repealing the Clinton/Gingrich reform of federal welfare; it budgeted spending in numbers only computers can handle and it took command of the major banks, a huge chunk of insurance and the U.S. auto industry; to that, it is preparing to add a takeover of the student loan business and wage control of banking and possibly others. Not bad for less than a year’s work!

  11. Redteam says:

    “Medicare Advantage is the only thing in Medicare working well,”

    I’m not sure if that is accurate or not. I’m on medicare and I opted to not sign up for Advantage, I stayed with Medicare with a good supplemental.

    I looked into the differences for quite some time before making a decision.

    Advantage costs ‘less’ (monthly payment) at the present time than a supplemental, but whereas my supplemental has no co-pay, Advantage does.

    The % deductible can change with Advantage, my supplemental has no deductible.

    But as misfortunes occur that highlight differences, it happens that my brother who is very near my age went with Advantage. hardly no sooner than he was covered (his family), his wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. She has pretty much completed treatments now and her deductible worked out to over $4000 over about a 6 month period. Had they had the supplemental I opted for, it would have been $0.

    Whereas his Advantage monthly payment is about 60% of what my supplemental payment is, I figure that $4000 will take a long time to overcome. Not withstanding if she has to have more treatments, her costs will continue.

    As the insurance companies that provide Advantage get experience with the costs, the co-pays can go up or down, the deductible can go up or down and the coverage benefits itself can go up or down.

    So, I’d say the verdict is not in yet on whether Advantage is working well. I’m pretty sure it depends on whether a person has a lot of medical problems or not.

    If someone else has some experiences, I’d like to hear about them.

  12. AJStrata says:


    I meant in terms of a balance between patient coverage and taxpayer burden. Glad you get all this free health care at our expense 😉