Obamacare and the Destruction of the Elderly

Obamacare is designed to kill of Grandma. This isn't hyperbole, it's the truth. Obama wants to slow the growth in Medicare by reducing care to the elderly. This is the reason he cut 716 billion from Medicare.

This cut will lower reimbursements to healthcare professionals which will reduce healthcare services. Obama told one lady that maybe her mother should have taking a pain pill instead of getting the surgery that she wanted.

The IPAB(Independent Payment Advisory Board). This ghoulish board will decide what procedures are necessary and which ones are not from Washington D.C. See my thread on the horrible death panel called the IPAB.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obama thinks Seniors use too much healthcare and one way to slow the growth of life expectancy is to reduce the services to seniors.

So you cut Medicare and use that money to insure younger, uninsured folks that don't use healthcare as much.

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HELPING THE UNINSURED!!

It has everything to do with slowing the growth of Medicare and slowing life expectancy.

The Democrats just use the uninsured because they know it's an emotional issue that will blind reason. The reason Obama wants to force young people into these exchanges is because they don't use healthcare like the elderly. So again, you reduce services to the elderly and take that money and put into Obamacare and force younger folks to be insured because they don't use healthcare as much.

Obamacare is a system that's designed to kill people off as they get older.

See, these programs are Pyramid schemes. They depend on workers at the bottom of the pyramid to pay out benefits to those at the top of the pyramid. So the Government depends on a certain amount of people dying before they reach the top of the pyramid or soon after. So they spend all the money that comes in for these programs and they use new workers added to the system to pay out benefits. The scheme works until people start living longer and the pyramid turns into a diamond.

What Obama is doing is simply killing off the elderly in the name of the younger uninsured that don't use as much healthcare.

The Democrats don't want to admit that these programs are broken. So instead of changing the system because a person 25 today will not need Medicare and S.S. in the same way a person that was 25 in 1970, they want to preserve it as is because it's a slush fund for crooked Politicians..

If you change the system to Social Security and Medical Savings Accounts then the greedy, crooked Politicians can't spend all of the money coming in for these programs. With a Savings Account, you will be able to leave the money to a grandchild for College if you don't make it past the retirement age or if you love big government, you can leave that money to the crooked Politicians to spend. At the end of the day, it will be your choice.

So, you're telling me, that I get to give the finger to the Boomers no matter who I vote for? Haha, AWESOME. Take that boomers. Whether its Romney or Obama you can say good bye to those entitlements!

/cheekiness

OP:




You all act like children, then I'll continue to use child like aids to help you all grow.




Ctrl + F medicare: Obama Care explained for Paranoid Internet Posters

Its disgraceful how the elderly and disabled are having their much needed services taken from them.I am now permanently disabled from the result a near fatal beating by a youth gang.I've seen vital help being fazed out.

reply to post by neoholographic


The ACA will be the death knell for far more than the elderly.

But S&F for posting this.

I have yet to read and digest the entire structure - and what I have read so far does seem to support the notion of unsustainability. But I also recall the rhetoric of "death panels" from a few years back and am very cautious about leaping to judgment here.

In my humble opinion we should all read the legislation and garner non-partisan and unbiased sources to study from so that we can address our legislators as a group and not fragmented factions parroting whatever the talking heads are saying.

Liberal, conservative, moderate... it's all becoming moot at this point. It is not just our country and our own futures that we are risking these days... it's our legacies.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


Heff we can argue about this as a partisan politcal issue until we are all blue in the face...I am constantly telling people to just go and talk to your doctor and see what they have to say about it!

I rarely see a doctor for anything unless I am deathly sick or in severe pain. Maybe been to a doctor twice in the past 7 years. The last time I went, I called to make my appointment and one of the first things I was asked, "Are you already a patient?". From what I am hearing, general practitioners are either retireing or not taking on any new patients........

Originally posted by Hefficide


In my humble opinion we should all read the legislation and garner non-partisan and unbiased sources to study from so that we can address our legislators as a group and not fragmented factions parroting whatever the talking heads are saying.

Unfortunately, that will never happen.

You have to remember this... I still find this to be damning.



The same legislators that "passed" it, without reading it?






I am an Independent, BTW.

Originally posted by seeker1963

I rarely see a doctor for anything unless I am deathly sick or in severe pain. Maybe been to a doctor twice in the past 7 years. The last time I went, I called to make my appointment and one of the first things I was asked, "Are you already a patient?".

I didn't go to a doctor for 12 years. I just recently went because once you go on Medicare you get a free physical if you do it within the year.

I searched online for a doctor taking new patience with Medicare. Love my doc. Great choice.

I really think we're doctor happy. I think its weird people go to a doctor for a cold.

Anyway - - mostly when people are complaining about "killing gramma" - - - they're talking about the provision of not extending life. Which I fully agree with.

reply to post by neoholographic

Originally posted by neoholographic
Obamacare is designed to kill of Grandma. This isn't hyperbole, it's the truth.

It must be getting closer to the election! This is the Medicare Lie.

Obama wants to slow the growth in Medicare by reducing care to the elderly. This is the reason he cut 716 billion from Medicare.

He's slowing SPENDING growth. Not benefits. No benefits will be cut. In fact there are going to be ADDED benefits and the "donut hole" in prescription drug benefits will be gone. The cuts will affect the hospitals, drug companies, insurance plans, etc., NOT the Medicare beneficiaries.

Q. Is the federal government cutting its spending on Medicare?

A. No. Medicare spending will increase each year but at a slower rate. For example, before the health law was passed, Medicare was expected to grow by 6.8 percent a year for 2010 through 2019. With the health law, that yearly growth rate is projected to be 5.6 percent during that same time frame, according to an analysis from the Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is an editorially independent program of the Foundation).

Q: Where would Medicare spending be reduced?

A: The July report from CBO and JCT found that hospital reimbursements would be reduced by $260 billion from 2013-2022, while federal payments to Medicare Advantage, the private insurance plans in Medicare, would be cut by approximately $156 billion. Other Medicare spending reductions include $39 billion less for skilled nursing services; $66 billion less for home health and $17 billion less for hospice. The law does not make any cuts to the amount of benefits beneficiaries receive and adds some new benefits, including closing the "doughnut hole" gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage, and new preventive services, such as an annual wellness visit with a physician.

Kaiser Health News

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

He's slowing SPENDING growth. Not benefits. No benefits will be cut. In fact there are going to be ADDED benefits and the "donut hole" in prescription drug benefits will be gone. The cuts will affect the hospitals, drug companies, insurance plans, etc., NOT the Medicare beneficiaries.

If you can't find a doctor to accept you, how is that NOT cutting benefits??? I will say it again, "GO AND TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR!".

For crying out loud, stick your partisanship BS up your you know what for a change and go talk to the people who are actually responsible for taking care of you! Contrary to popular belief, neither party gives a rats A$$ about any of us! Would you like a few laughy faces too? Political talking points have been proven in the past to be nothing more than that............TALK!

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

He's slowing SPENDING growth. Not benefits. No benefits will be cut. In fact there are going to be ADDED benefits and the "donut hole" in prescription drug benefits will be gone. The cuts will affect the hospitals, drug companies, insurance plans, etc., NOT the Medicare beneficiaries.

If you can't find a doctor to accept you, how is that NOT cutting benefits??? I will say it again, "GO AND TALK TO YOUR DOCTOR!".

I went on line - - - searched "Doctor - new patient - medicare"

It was that simple.

reply to post by Annee


A search is easy to do, did you call and try to schedule an appointment? NOPE!

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Annee

 

A search is easy to do, did you call and try to schedule an appointment? NOPE!

Already had appointment. Love the doctor.

Now - - if you have a problem with culture/ethnicity/race - - - well then you might have a problem.

My doctor is a woman from India. I actually picked her because I thought her name was beautiful.

yep, as doctor availability dwindles, so will those who need them.

www.louisianamedicalnews.com...
In the national survey, 17 percent of physicians said they could no longer afford to see new Medicare patients. Currently, 10 percent of doctors report they do not see Medicare patients at all. Doctors reporting they can no longer take new Medicare patients include 43 percent of adult psychiatrists, 27 percent of internists and generalists, 25 percent of family practitioners and 24 percent of ob-gyns.

“Where will all these seniors go when doctors can’t afford to see them?” Jackson said. The physicians’ survey found the states where doctors were least likely to accept new Medicaid patients were New Jersey and California. Among the states where doctors said they were least likely to see new Medicare patients included Vermont, Mississippi, Texas and California.

Jackson Healthcare's research on physician capacity for Medicare and Medicaid patients is based upon survey invitations emailed to physicians nationwide and completed online. The survey was completed by 2,232 physicians across all specialties. It was conducted between April 19 and April 26, 2012, and had a margin of error of + or - 2.1 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. To see the survey and its impact on physicians go to jacksonhealthcare.com...

since this is only one survey of many ... i guess it's a case of we'll see.

reply to post by seeker1963


I haven't seen ANYTHING that would indicate the doctors would be HARDER to find.

Myth: People don’t like Medicare and it is hard to find a doctor that accepts Medicare.

Reality: First, we hear all the time that more and more doctors no longer accept Medicare because of declining reimbursement rates. We’re even warned that a public health insurance plan would cause even more doctors to bail out of Medicare if the reimbursement rates were universal. But you know what? Private insurance is worse: Ten percent of Medicare beneficiaries’ physicians did not accept their insurance, compared with 17 percent with employer-sponsored plans. If you want a choice of doctors, you’ve got slightly better odds with Medicare. All of us know people on Medicare. It has its problems – so does any healthcare system – but it also has strengths. Lower costs. Better satisfaction. Better health outcomes.

Where this got started: Some seniors have had problems with Medicare Part D and stories about Part D were all over the media when people began having problems, but according to a recent Commonwealth Fund survey, elderly Medicare beneficiaries are 2.7 times more likely than enrollees in employer-sponsored plans to rate their health insurance as excellent, and are less likely to report negative experiences with their insurance plans. Medicare beneficiaries are also one-third more likely to say they couldn’t get health care because of cost than are those covered by employer private insurance plans. The survey also found that elderly Medicare beneficiaries were more likely to report being very satisfied with the care they received compared to those with private insurance (62% vs. 51% respectively).

Health Care Reform Myths

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


This makes no sense.

First, Obama himself said they're CUTS.



Secondly, if you cut money that goes to healthcare providers then you're cutting benefits. It's a way to try and say you're not cutting benefits but you're cutting money that goes to the people that give out those benefits.

How do you think they will make up the cost? Some of them will stop accepting Medicare patients while others will reduce services for Medicare patients.

Obamacare is designed to kill Grandma and take money away from the elderly healthcare providers because they use too many healthcare services and put that money into younger, uninsured people that don't use a lot of healthcare.

reply to post by neoholographic


Before I respond to your post Neoholographic, I just want to clarify your position quickly. Do you support medicare as a programme? Do you support it to be left untouched? Or do you support medicare privatization, which will require seniors in the future to sign up with private corporations?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


The other part that is being left out is that the cuts are on Medicare Advantage. You know the money we use to sweet talk and subsidize the private insurance companies with. Those wonderful private businesses that are supposed to be the model of efficiency. The only thing insurance companies are efficient at it s figuring out how to get more of your money in their pocket.

Romney/Ryan are planning on giving them a voucher for x amount every year that increases with the rate of inflation. Sounds good until you figure out the rate of inflation is not the same as rate in which your insurance premiums will be going up. So in about four years Grandma will have to sell her house to cover what the voucher won't.

Under the PPACA, the Medicare Advantage Plans will be going away as of January, 2014...NO MORE Part A money subsidizing the Part C advantage plans...they were due to go away in October of this year, but with the elections in November, they pushed it back to Jan of 2014...Cannot have 8 million pissed off seniors voting your hinky ass out of office...

Originally posted by totallackey
Under the PPACA, the Medicare Advantage Plans will be going away as of January, 2014...NO MORE Part A money subsidizing the Part C advantage plans...they were due to go away in October of this year, but with the elections in November, they pushed it back to Jan of 2014...Cannot have 8 million pissed off seniors voting your hinky ass out of office...

The advantage plans are a rip off.

They need to go away.