[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
The Water Cooler Title: Rand Paul Says He Is Serious About Adding A Medicare Deductible
Yesterday in an interview with Neil Cavuto from Fox News Rand Paul was asked about his previous statements regarding a Medicare deductible. In years past Paul had said he supported a $2,000 Medicare deductible to reduce the costs of the program. Under Paul's proposal, every year an individual would have to pay $2,000 out of their own pocket before receiving an health care coverage from the government under Medicare. For many senior citizens on fixed incomes this cost would be burdensome if not prohibitive to them getting health care. Since winning the Republican nomination Paul has generally shied away from talking about his Medicare viewpoints, but he was confronted with some pointed questions from Cavuto. To his credit, Cavuto has been challenging Republican candidates for real proposals to cut spending. To the surprise of many Paul did not back down on his proposal, but reiterated that he was completely serious about trying to implement a $2,000 Medicare deductible for future beneficiaries (video to the left). With his viewpoints Paul is testing the limits of what a candidate can propose while still getting elected. In previous decades Medicare was considered the "third rail" of politics, in that any politician who dared propose cuts to the program suffered a political death in the next election. Paul may be the closest thing to a true libertarian among the current Republican nominees, believing government has a very limited role in society. His viewpoints extend even to the relatively government popular programs of Social Security and Medicare, which he believes should be reduced, if not completely fazed out. To try and make his viewpoints more acceptable Paul makes clear that he would keep full benefits for those currently covered by Medicare. However, Paul suggests that his deductible could be implemented for individuals currently age 55 and younger. As a result, people age 55 who were currently counting on being covered by Medicare ten years from now would need to budget an extra $2,000 per-year after retirement to pay for Paul's deductible. Someone who is 55 has also paid into the Medicare system for over 30 years if they worked in the United States. Their payments into the system were made under the presumption that they would be fully covered upon turning 65. Under Paul's proposal the government would essentially revoke its promise to these workers, taking away some of the coverage they were previously guaranteed. Subscribe to *Elections 2010* Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 7. Does Paul not realize he's a member of a party that has pledged not to cut medicare?
Don't cut Medicare. The reform bills passed by the House and Senate cut Medicare by approximately $500 billion. This is wrong." So declared Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House, in a recent op- ed article written with John Goodman, the president of the National Center for Policy Analysis.
#2. To: go65 (#1) Paul is right. Everything shouldn't be free for some people. It just shifts the burden over to someone else. It is not right.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#2) Paul is right. Everything shouldn't be free for some people. It just shifts the burden over to someone else. It is not right. A 2000 dollar deductible is a poor way to cut costs. It incentivizes not going to the doctor when ill, because they will have to pay for the first 2000 dollars of treatment. That is a lot. It would be smarter to say, cover 80% of the cost, and make the patient pay 20% up until a 2000 dollar limit is paid. This would penalize people from going to the doctor for no reason, but not keep people from getting routine health care done.
#7. To: Rhino (#6) It would be smarter to enact meaningful tort reform, allow open competition by insurance companies across all state lines. And ask the UN to send a peace keeping force to stop the genocidal war being waged against ob/gyn's by the Trial Lawyers Association, or whatever the hell they call themselves these days.
Replies to Comment # 7. It would be smarter to enact meaningful tort reform, allow open competition by insurance companies across all state lines. Medical malpractice is a small part of health care costs. Tort reform is usually just welfare for big business.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 7. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|