GOP budget eliminates nursing home funding through Medicaid

page 94

Further, this budget does not condone any policy that would require
entities or individuals to finance activities make health decisions
that violate their religious beliefs. This budget repeals the President’s
onerous health care law for this and many other reasons.
Left in place, the health law will create pressures that will eventually
lead to a single-payer system in which the Federal Government
determines how much health care Americans need and what
kind of care they can receive. This budget recommends repealing
the architecture of this new law, which puts heath care decisions
into the hands of bureaucrats, and instead allowing Congress to
pursue patient-centered health care reforms that actually bring
down the cost of care by empowering consumers.
For Function 550, repeal of the insurance subsidies and other exchange-
related spending would save roughly $640 billion over 10
years. To be clear, this budget repeals all federal spending related
to the health law’s exchange subsidies and related spending. CBO’s
$800 billion estimate for the spending associated with exchange
subsidies combines a mix of both outlays and revenues. Function
550 reflects only the savings that would result from repealing the
federal outlay portion of this spending. The remaining $160 billion
in savings is associated with the revenues spent under the new law
for premium credits. This budget assumes full repeal of all of the
new health care law’s tax increases as part of comprehensive tax
reform.
Other Related Savings: Interactions from repealing unspent stimulus
funding and other associated provisions in the new health care
law save roughly $4 billion over 10 years. This is largely to do
streamlining discretionary programs and promoting efficiencies
within existing programs.

pdf
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET—
FISCAL YEAR 2013

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


What a crock of crap on so many levels it really wasn't worth responding to so whats the topic here?

Medicaid or war?

Last time i checked the only person who starts wars was the Potus and the last 3 years the furher started a lot of them oh and the Democrats.

Carry on with the bashing right wing thread people are delusional to think their own crap don't stink.

If you think that since the Democrats hold 2/3 of Government who the hell blocked anything?

From what i have seen as well as many others what the Democrats wanted they have gotten.

The GOP love the "Greatest Generation" !!
(unless they have to take care of them)

Biggest joke of all is that all the cuts are offset by more tax breaks for big corporations and millionaires.

If you're going to take anything away from grandma, can you guys please try and at least balance the budget? At this point your taking from grandma so that you can still give your buddies a dam break!

Problem stays the same.............grandma pays thousands for meds. Very nice.

Originally posted by neo96
Yawn

Name one Gop proposed legislation in the last 3 years that has ever became a law?

What's that you say?

Mandating Health insurance...

thanks

reply to post by braindeadconservatives


Huh last time i checked all Democrats voted for Obama care that mandated health insurance while NO REPUBLICAN voted for it.

Originally posted by spinalremain
Biggest joke of all is that all the cuts are offset by more tax breaks for big corporations and millionaires.

If you're going to take anything away from grandma, can you guys please try and at least balance the budget? At this point your taking from grandma so that you can still give your buddies a dam break!

Problem stays the same.............grandma pays thousands for meds. Very nice.

Is it possible to find all that in the proposals ?

We really need to see if a hidden and destructive agenda is in play.

"Grandma" really needs to know before it's too late.

pdf
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
ON THE BUDGET—
FISCAL YEAR 2013

It won't become law because ObamaCare will take care of them. Obama basically came out and threatened the SCOUTS so they won't strike it down. This is really a non-issue you bring up here but I think we know what the motive is.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by braindeadconservatives

 

Huh last time i checked all Democrats voted for Obama care that mandated health insurance while NO REPUBLICAN voted for it.

You asked for a GOP proposal, Health Care mandates are a GOP proposal, universal
healthcare is a Democratic proposal.


Thanks

braindeadconservatives

It is nice that the GOP wants to cut more things for vulnerable people.

I bet they will use that same money to give more tax cuts for billionaires

reply to post by braindeadconservatives


NO what i said name one law passed in the last 3 years by the gop and there arent any the best the gop bashers can come up with is "plans and proposals"

Which mean nothing.,

For those actually interested in what's happening, read the proposal. All others who wish to parrot what the media tells you please continue to skip from headline to headline and never bother reading what's actually in the details. Books. How the BLEEP do they work?

(Spoiler Alert!) Nursing homes are only referenced in the minority opinion. The proposal doesn't say a thing about nursing homes. That's called sensationalism.

Originally posted by xuenchen
Is it possible to find all that in the proposals ?

We really need to see if a hidden and destructive agenda is in play.

Apparently you're the only one interested in actually examining what's actually in the budget authority or in the outlays for each year. The majority of people in these discussion just want to parrot talking points. I have yet to see proof that there are more "tax breaks for the rich" or that "grandma gets the boot". I doubt anyone else in this discussion actually read a single sentence in the budget proposal. I'll throw out the cliff notes on the actual spending.

For those interested the Medicare section is Function 570 and begins on page 95. I don't know why I'm even bothering to state that. There's an index of page numbers to the sections at the beginning for those that are familiar with how books and documents are laid out. Another interesting page to start with is page 202. TITLE I—RECOMMENDED LEVELS AND AMOUNTS (of spending)

(12) Medicare (570):
Fiscal year 2013:
(A) New budget authority, $510,144,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $510,056,000,000.
Fiscal year 2014:
(A) New budget authority, $532,701,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $532,004,000,000.
Fiscal year 2015:
(A) New budget authority, $554,995,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $554,555,000,000.
Fiscal year 2016:
(A) New budget authority, $601,515,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $601,281,000,000.
Fiscal year 2017:
(A) New budget authority, $615,386,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $614,665,000,000.
Fiscal year 2018:
(A) New budget authority, $634,539,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $634,089,000,000.
Fiscal year 2019:
(A) New budget authority, $692,173,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $691,921,000,000.
Fiscal year 2020:
(A) New budget authority, $737,284,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $736,531,000,000.
Fiscal year 2021:
(A) New budget authority, $784,647,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $784,158,000,000.
Fiscal year 2022:
(A) New budget authority, $866,591,000,000.
(B) Outlays, $866,448,000,000.

Holy crap! The budget for Medicare went from $510 billion to $866 billion. Only in politics is an increase of $356 billion dollars heralded as reduction of spending. I wish someone would reduce my paycheck with this math.

As for the details of the changes to Medicare payments after 2022 there are no super specific details written into the proposal. It just states that

...for those 55 and older, the Medicare program and its benefits will remain as they are, without change.

For future retirees, the budget supports an approach known as ‘‘premium support.’’ Starting in 2023, seniors (those who first become eligible by turning 65 on or after January 1, 2023) would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside the traditional fee-for-service Medicare program on a newly created Medicare Exchange.

And to address the issue that the poorest will be kicked to the curb we again find that actually reading the proposal illustrates that the poorest have been taken into account and will be given greater assistance than those with more financial means to pay for their own care.

The Medicare premium-support payment would be adjusted so that the sick would receive higher payments if their
conditions worsened; lower-income seniors would receive additional assistance to help cover out-of-pocket costs; and wealthier seniors would assume responsibility for a greater share of their premiums.

Maybe I'm totally wrong about all this. Maybe I'm totally correct. Everyone should dig into the text for themselves and see what's in there. I'm not saying which side to take but just that people should read for themselves the text of the laws that Congress puts out there and don't just read a headline and freak out. Headlines are notoriously misleading and most of them have an agenda of some type.

reply to post by dbates


Good info on Medicare !

We will see what the Senate will do with the Medicare spending.
(assuming they actually address the issues)

They might stall as much as possible until the SCOTUS rules on ObamaCare.

I can tell Grandma not to worry yet, unless the Senate tries to cut her.

Originally posted by xuenchen
We will see what the Senate will do with the Medicare spending.
(assuming they actually address the issues)

They might stall as much as possible until the SCOTUS rules on ObamaCare.

That is the heart of why the minority in Congress wrote an opinion that it would hurt those in nursing homes. This proposal makes several specific references to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Specifically it stops the ACA from stealing Medicare dollars since you can't spend the same dollar twice. The proposal rips the guts out of the ACA by taking away quite a bit of it's money. The money that's being removed from the ACA is what all the fuss is about. Clearly Medicare itself is not hurting for funds or losing money with this budget, but Obama's ACA is getting flushed down the toilet.

I doubt Obama would ever sign this budget but he's not going to get the money he wants for the ACA even if the Supreme Court upholds the mandate as long as the GOP has a majority in either house. As you said this whole issue could be rendered invalid by the end of Spring.

Originally posted by grey580
This is a death sentence for many in nursing homes.
Many families can't afford to take care of a loved one full time.

Not just for those in the nursing homes, but for already impoverished and out of work families. They are already taking care of themselves and sometimes kids. Maybe they lost their job recently or have been out of work for a while. Either way, how can they take in grandma and grandpa who need constant care and attention when they can barely take care of themselves?

myh usband is 55, I am a few years younger.
when I look back through the years, well, it seems that well...
hubby has had more earning power...
hubby has always had more say as to where that money went...
hubby has always had more spare time to run and play....
and well....of course, hubby will have a retirement, me, I will be expected to work till I drop!!!

think I will go out and make a little investment myself....
a gun, and a box of ammo!!!
and well, come retirement time...
by God', I will retire!!!

there is no problem with social security and medicaid!!
the problem is in the gov't and their desire to raid whatever they can to fund their outlandish spending!! and well they've wiped the funds out of the social security, and now, no one want's to replace the funds!!!

so, well, that's all fine and good....
but, it still doesn't solve the one problem that the younger generations are gonna find themselves in!! hubby and all his machinist friends will still be retiring, and well, everyone in my shop will still be retiring...one way or another....
and ain't none of the younger generations able to replace us!!
so, have a nice life!!!

Paul Ryan’s poor ‘savings’ plan

“Cuts in low-income discretionary and entitlement programs likely account for at least $3.3 trillion — or 69 percent — of the $4.8 trillion in non-defense cuts.”

www.washingtonpost.com...

Only a republican would claim that somehow cutting 3.3 trillion dollars isn't a cut. But I guess that shouldn't be surprising as anyone who would support Ryan has something wrong with them anyways.