How should Medicare be paid for and to whom?

[Below, we ask you to respectfully and conscientiously consider the following for the good of the country toward coming to better solutions for us all.]

Given the guarantee that those who can't afford it otherwise will be covered as well as they are presently under Medicare, I would choose the following:

____ Yes, ___ No.   To have the government pay to a private insurer, with rules to assure mandatory coverage equivalent to what is there now.  This is anticipated to lower costs because of competition.

____ Yes, ___ No.   To have personal responsibility and to see what the costs are so that I make more responsible choices.  This has been proven to work better than where people have no responsibility and no awareness of the costs.  (See what happened in Indiana, below, before you make your choice.)

____ Yes, ___ No.    I believe the government is a good manager of services.

____ Yes, ___ No.    I only believe the role that government can do adequately is pay out the money.

Checkmark this if you agree with it:

___ If I am guaranteed the same benefits, I do not buy the accusation that Medicare is being taken away from us. 


Express any concerns you still have:

____ I'm not sure that competition will work to lower costs.

Other comments:  



Please send your answers to your congresspersons.

The Rational NonPolitician

P. S. I recommend that a polling organization do a statistically valid poll to see what the choices are once a person is more informed.


THE INDIANA RESULT: (Excerpts:)

Overall, participants in our new plan ran up only $65 in cost for every $100 incurred by their associates under the old coverage... It turns out that, when someone is spending his own money alone for routine expenses, he is far more likely to ask the questions he would ask if purchasing any other good or service:

Indiana covers the premium for the plan. The intent is that participants will become more cost-conscious and careful about overpayment or overutilization.

What we found:  individually owned and directed health-care coverage has a startlingly positive effect on costs for both employees and the state.

Most important, we are seeing significant changes in behavior, and consequently lower total costs.

They were much more likely to use generic drugs than those enrolled in the conventional plan,
resulting in an average lower cost per prescription of $18.

They were admitted to hospitals less than half as frequently as their colleagues.  Differences in health status between the groups account for part of this disparity, but consumer decision-making is, we've found, also a major factor.

Source:  WSJ article 

You, the public, make the choice on Medicare

We ask you to vote on the following, which affects only people under 55 on the future of entitlement programs you pay into.

Fact:  There are fewer dollars from taxes going into a theoretical program than are taken out, by about a 2 to 1 ratio.  One could, for instance, have a tough time justifing paying in $100,000 and drawing out $200,000.  Does that make sense?

You as a citizen can now vote on how to handle this.  Which do you vote for?

___ 1.  Pay more into the program so it will have financial integrity by having enough funds to cover costs.  Keep payouts the same with no changes.
___ 2. Reduce the payouts, so people are inadequately covered.
___ 3. Not pay in any more, nor reduce any payouts, and let future generations make up the difference for us, plus cover their own costs
___ 4. Not changing pay-ins or adequate coverage, but reallocating the benefits to the poor by giving reduced or no benefits to those who are at various levels of higher income, who can afford to pay more for their own care.

What are your choices?  Note that you could make a choice to combine some of them, such as paying in more plus also allocating benefits differently.  (There is another choice  also:  to have a later age for coverage to start.)

You choose.  Let your Congressman know what you will accept.

It is up to you, the Citizens, to responsibly understand the choices and then to actually make them.  So you are hereby asked what your choice is.

The Rational NonPolitician

The next blog is how to pay for the benefits, without reducing them at all.

(I would recommend also that a polling organization take a statistically valid poll as to the choices once one has been informed.)

Consider also reading from the site:Medicare, section called Which Of These Would You Support, If You Think It Out?

Are abortion rights endangered?

It would appear from all the data that those who are concerned with abortion rights being taken away have nothing to worry about. 

AND it is also true that those who do not want the federal government to pay for abortions have nothing to worry about. 

These are areas of intense emotional importance to many people.  That's just fine. 

But it is not fine for politicians to exploit this nor for anybody to not look at the facts and stick to rational discussion of it - neither should be acceptable if we want a well functioning society.

Nancy Pelosi flunks the objectivity, fact-based, rational test.  She accuses the Republicans of wanting to deny care to women who need abortions where there life is threatened, that they will be left to die on the hospital room floor.  It is not true by any reasonable interpretation of the actual words in the Protect Life Act recently passed in the House 251 to 172.  The exaggerative language is readily apparent to any discriminating thinker.

On Sep. 9, 2009, President Obama told Congress that under his legislation, “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”  The new proposed law only codifies his executive order, as executive orders can be changed at any time.
(See the contents, summary or full text: Act - and judge for yourself.) 

A March Pew Research Center poll shows that 54 percent of Americans surveyed support the right to a legal abortion in all or most cases.  As more and more young people enter adulthood, this is likely to increase, as that age group strongly favors abortion rights.   The Right To Choose will stay in place, so it is not wise for the "other side" to do battle against it - any temporary restriction would be overridden by popular movement.

About 2/3 of Americans are against federal funding of abortions.  That, too, appears to be irreversible.

In both cases, it is wisest to now focus attention on what we can change, while saying a version of the Serenity Prayer. 

Or, like the old song says, but in regard to these two issues:  "Don't worry, be happy...". 

Instead, focus on which candidate for President can actually run the country effectively to create a strong America for the future.

The Rational NonPolitician

Already in law: 4.7% extra tax for over $200,000

The Affordable Health Care Act has a number of provisions to make it "balance", in addition to taking $500 billion from Medicare [which of course must be paid for later; a bogus non-source of spending reduction!!!].

The President is currently lobbying for charging more taxes to the ultra rich. 

If he is successful, he will add to the already-in-law taxes added via the health act, to start in 2013.  Singles with income above $200,000 and marrieds above $250,000 must pay an additional 3.8% of income taxes above that level, plus they must pay an additional extra Medicare tax of .9%. 

That's a 4.7% increase in tax rates - and not just to the ultra-rich!

Despite the arguments on both sides, I thought it reasonable to point these facts out for the people in the US. 

The Rational NonPolitician