I have a question

[BigRob]

"The status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. So reform is not a luxury, it's a necessity." -President Obama.

He has argued that Medicare and Medicaid will be in the red within a decade, and that we cannot continue to spend at current levels, thereby we must have reform.

So here is my question... The President has stated that he will generate savings in Medicare (through cuts) to help pay for his national healthcare plan. However, if we keep Medicare in place, continue to fund it, and spend the savings elsewhere, what have we saved?

Does this not just ensure the status quo of spending to much money, which he has argued we cannot continue to do?

(Edit: I just found a similar argument on a web page, but lost the site.)

 

[top gun]

"The status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. So reform is not a luxury, it's a necessity." -President Obama.

He has argued that Medicare and Medicaid will be in the red within a decade, and that we cannot continue to spend at current levels, thereby we must have reform.

So here is my question... The President has stated that he will generate savings in Medicare (through cuts) to help pay for his national healthcare plan. However, if we keep Medicare in place, continue to fund it, and spend the savings elsewhere, what have we saved?

Does this not just ensure the status quo of spending to much money, which he has argued we cannot continue to do?

It would imply spending the same amount of money... but on a lot more things.

The a lot more things being the key. The a lot more things makes the spending more justified because it does... a lot more things.

It's like saying we're spending to much on the military (which we always do) but we could now get the military paid for plus say the National Park & Federal Prison System all for the same amount of money.

I know what you're saying though. You're saying government spending overall needs cut.

There will be additional money raised as well for Health Insurance Reform by raising taxes on those making over 250K per year... taking the tax code back roughly where it was under President Clinton. There's also a lot of high end & corporate tax loopholes that can be plugged to generate more revenue.

For instance one that came up during the Town Hall I spoke at by a wealthy gentleman citing the present unfairness in the system (yes he was asking to have his taxes raised because of this). He pointed out that under Bush investment earnings were changed to a flat tax of 15%. He thought that made no sense. He felt that the brackets should be adjusted back to Clinton levels with investment income taxed at whatever tax bracket one was in just like any other income.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

"The status quo is unsustainable and unacceptable. So reform is not a luxury, it's a necessity." -President Obama.

He has argued that Medicare and Medicaid will be in the red within a decade, and that we cannot continue to spend at current levels, thereby we must have reform.

So here is my question... The President has stated that he will generate savings in Medicare (through cuts) to help pay for his national healthcare plan. However, if we keep Medicare in place, continue to fund it, and spend the savings elsewhere, what have we saved?

Does this not just ensure the status quo of spending to much money, which he has argued we cannot continue to do?

What PBO speaks of is no less than tyranny of the few. With polls ranging anywhere from 60% to over 80% of people being either satisfied or pleased with their health care insurance.

To answer your question: we have saved nothing. In fact, the cost will be huge in many ways. So why the subterfuge? The claimed 47 million without coverage, the significantly high percentage of satisfied people, the feigned urgency, the false claim of creating competition; it is all a purposefully crafted diversion.

It goes beyond ensuring the status quo, increasing the spending (his hollow argument aside) at a dizzying pace. It will create a whole new dependency status for millions of Americans.

 

[BigRob]

It would imply spending the same amount of money... but on a lot more things.

The a lot more things being the key. The a lot more things makes the spending more justified because it does... a lot more things.

It's like saying we're spending to much on the military (which we always do) but we could now get the military paid for plus say the National Park & Federal Prison System all for the same amount of money.

I know what you're saying though. You're saying government spending overall needs cut.

So lets cut it, not just move the move the money around.

As for military spending, I will spare you my rant on that lol.

There will be additional money raised as well for Health Insurance Reform by raising taxes on those making over 250K per year... taking the tax code back roughly where it was under President Clinton. There's also a lot of high end & corporate tax loopholes that can be plugged to generate more revenue.

I doubt this really generates the revenue they want. I saw a prediction by a pretty reliable source arguing that this would not come close to making up the shortfall. (I cannot find that report again however)

For instance one that came up during the Town Hall I spoke at by a wealthy gentleman citing the present unfairness in the system (yes he was asking to have his taxes raised because of this). He pointed out that under Bush investment earnings were changed to a flat tax of 15%. He thought that made no sense. He felt that the brackets should be adjusted back to Clinton levels with investment income taxed at whatever tax bracket one was in just like any other income.

This has never made sense to me. Under the lower capital gain rates, the government collected more dollars. If you need to generate money to pay for programs, it would seem to make sense to leave those rates lower, or lower them even further.