The Water Cooler
See other The Water Cooler Articles
Title: Rand Paul Says He Is Serious About Adding A Medicare Deductible
Source:
EXAMINER
URL Source: http://www.examiner.com/political-b ... t-adding-a-medicare-deductible
Published: Oct 7, 2010
Author: Ryan Witt
Post Date: 2010-10-07 13:08:49 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 19620
Comments: 23
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
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.
Reality check - Obama is more popular than the tea party
#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.
#3. To: Brian S (#0)
You gotta admire Rand for telling it like it is.
#4. To: go65 (#1)
Does Paul not realize he's a member of a party that has pledged not to cut medicare?
There's already a 1200/year deductible for Medicare taken out of one's SS check whether it's used or not.
#5. To: mininggold (#4) (Edited)
Ha...I was just googling this. I thought that my Mom had something taken out every month...
#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.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#8. To: Badeye (#7)
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.
Medical malpractice is a small part of health care costs.
Tort reform is usually just welfare for big business.
#9. To: Rhino (#8)
Medical malpractice is a small part of health care costs.
If you aren't the one writting out the check for the insurance.
Its no different than 'corporate taxes' Rhino. Corporations don't pay them.
We do, as consumers of the products, or in this case with doctors, the services.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#10. To: Badeye (#9)
If you aren't the one writting out the check for the insurance.
Its no different than 'corporate taxes' Rhino. Corporations don't pay them.
We do, as consumers of the products, or in this case with doctors, the services.
The fact that insurance companies will protect doctors doesn't mean the victims don't deserve compensation. And if there was no liability for medical malpratice, the patients would have to buy it for themselves, or risk baring the burden of the negligence all by themselves.
You are effectively arguing you shouldn't be liable for car crashes because that just raises everyone's rates.
#11. To: All (#10)
Though I will say, there needs to be some tort reform in re: class action suits. The firms who win the case shouldn't be able to take a third of the winnings in all cases.
#12. 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.
Paul is now running an ad claiming he never proposed a $2k deductible for Medicare even though he's on video advocating just such an approach:
The ad:
Reality check - Obama is more popular than the tea party
#13. To: Rhino (#11)
Though I will say, there needs to be some tort reform in re: class action suits. The firms who win the case shouldn't be able to take a third of the winnings in all cases.
that would have to happen at the state level - and it's worth noting that states like Texas, which have passed strict tort reform, have the highest levels of uninsured.
Reality check - Obama is more popular than the tea party
#14. To: Rhino (#10)
The fact that insurance companies will protect doctors
Protect?
Good Lord, they are DROPPING THEM. Via insanely high premiums.
See Missouri, and ob/gyn's.
Obama's first all-by-his-lonesome budget, btw, calls for a $1.17 trillion deficit.
#15. To: Brian S (#0)
It is so refreshing to hear a politician tell the truth for once.
Medicare in it's current form is unsustainable. Something has to be done. Making people pay a deductible is far less onerous than allowing Obama's death panels to completely refuse to pay for your treatment.
Rule of law: B students wind up working for C students. A students teach.
#16. To: jwpegler (#15)
It is so refreshing to hear a politician tell the truth for once.
Indeed! I hope the GOP/TPee Party make this a major campaign plank...
/ ;)
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
#17. To: go65 (#12)
Paul said for FUTURE people not current seniors. Pay attention.
#18. To: A K A Stone (#17)
You should watch the video:
Note: "imagine the whole country with a $2,000 deductible" and "if the deductible for everybody was $2,000"
Reality check - Obama is more popular than the tea party
#19. To: A K A Stone (#17)
"I got mine and I didn't pay a dime! So can you!"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberals are now pro nuclear proliferation and support fundamentalist religion.
#20. To: go65 (#18)
To try and make his viewpoints more acceptable Paul makes clear that he would keep full benefits for those currently covered by Medicare.
Is the article Brian Soros posted, wrong?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberals are now pro nuclear proliferation and support fundamentalist religion.
#21. To: Rhino (#6)
What you say makes sense I guess. In an unconstitutional world. Medicaid, medicaire, food stamps, social security are all unconstitutional.
#22. To: go65 (#18) (Edited)
Note: "imagine the whole country with a $2,000 deductible" and "if the deductible for everybody was $2,000"
And then he probaly looked it up and found out all eligible are already paying a 1200 deductible per year after they also paid Medicare Withholding for years.
#23. To: mininggold (#22)
And then he probaly looked it up and found out all eligible are already paying a 1200 deductible per year after they also paid Medicare Withholding for years.
Facts don't matter - witness badeye's claim yesterday that the poor don't pay federal taxes.
Reality check - Obama is more popular than the tea party
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]