Well done Mitt, you took it to him last night...

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/40#post_3495790
Ok, lets compare costs.
Military heathcare costs 50 billion a year.
Medicaid costs 275 billion.
Military heathcare costs cover an estimated 33 million people.
Medicaid costs cover an estimated 64 million people.
One group of people are covered because they served their country.
One group of people are covered because they are poor.
Now looking at those numbers.....which ones need the cuts?
Also, Obama had entered a proposal to congress earlier this year to raise tricare costs to military from 480 a year to 2500 a year. I believe congress shot it down, but i can not find any news on where thebill is currently.
Military health costs are so low because they keep the majority of their healthcare services in-house. When you set your own prices, when you pay a cardiologist what a Captain, Major, or maybe a Colonel earns, as opposed to what they could make in the private sector, of course they don't spend as much. It's counterintuitive to "charge" excessive rates when you're essentially sending the bill to yourself. They own their hospitals, their clinics, their emergency facilities, etc. They do their own blood work in their own labs, they do their own MRI's, CatScan's, and X-Ray's with their own equipment that WE pay for. You think if they'd had the same expenses that the private sector healthcare systems have, that military patients would only be paying $450 - $500 per year in premiums?
Individuals covered by Medicare are in that situation because there's no other alternative. Hey, cut Medicare to the bone. I've said that all along. But when you do, be ready to see 64 million angry "silver hairs" come beating down the doors at the White House claiming the Feds are causing genocide on the American elderly and disabled.

 

[darthtang aw]

Military health costs are so low because they keep the majority of their healthcare services in-house.  When you set your own prices, when you pay a cardiologist what a Captain, Major, or maybe a Colonel earns, as opposed to what they could make in the private sector, of course they don't spend as much.  It's counterintuitive to "charge" excessive rates when you're essentially sending the bill to yourself.  They own their hospitals, their clinics, their emergency facilities, etc.  They do their own blood work in their own labs, they do their own MRI's, CatScan's, and X-Ray's with their own equipment that WE pay for.  You think if they'd had the same expenses that the private sector healthcare systems have, that military patients would only be paying $450 - $500 per year in premiums?
Individuals covered by Medicare are in that situation because there's no other alternative.  Hey, cut Medicare to the bone.  I've said that all along.  But when you do, be ready to see 64 million angry "silver hairs" come beating down the doors at the White House claiming the Feds are causing genocide on the American elderly and disabled.
I said medicaid...Not Medicare. Over half the military costs of Tri care are in Private hospitals.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3495807
I said medicaid...Not Medicare. Over half the military costs of Tri care are in Private hospitals.
Ah, so you're talking drugs. You realize that those same military personnel are eligible for Medicaid/Medicare services, even while they are eligible for Tricare. Tricare becomes the SECONDARY payer after Medicaid or Medicare pays their allowable amounts. Also, look at the age differences of those on Tricare, and those on Medicaid. I don't know what the average is, but my mother, my father, and my other elderly relatives had or have 12 - 14 prescriptions they fill every month. Most of my mother's aren't generic capable. She has one script for her blood pressure and heart that cost $250/month. Multiply that by 64 million and see what you come up with.
Tricare recipients can only use private hospitals if there's no military facility in their area. Needless to say, that doesn't happen in San Antonio.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3495838
Ah, so you're talking drugs. You realize that those same military personnel are eligible for Medicaid/Medicare services, even while they are eligible for Tricare. Tricare becomes the SECONDARY payer after Medicaid or Medicare pays their allowable amounts. Also, look at the age differences of those on Tricare, and those on Medicaid. I don't know what the average is, but my mother, my father, and my other elderly relatives had or have 12 - 14 prescriptions they fill every month. Most of my mother's aren't generic capable. She has one script for her blood pressure and heart that cost $250/month. Multiply that by 64 million and see what you come up with.
Tricare recipients can only use private hospitals if there's no military facility in their area. Needless to say, that doesn't happen in San Antonio.
I don't think you are correct in the case of Medicaid, they are always secondary if other insurance is available.

 

[darthtang aw]

Ah, so you're talking drugs.  You realize that those same military personnel are eligible for Medicaid/Medicare services, even while they are eligible for Tricare.  Tricare becomes the SECONDARY payer after Medicaid or Medicare pays their allowable amounts.  Also, look at the age differences of those on Tricare, and those on Medicaid.  I don't know what the average is, but my mother, my father, and my other elderly relatives had or have 12 - 14 prescriptions they fill every month.  Most of my mother's aren't generic capable.  She has one script for her blood pressure and heart that cost $250/month.  Multiply that by 64 million and see what you come up with.
Tricare recipients can only use private hospitals if there's no military facility in their area.  Needless to say, that doesn't happen in San Antonio.
Read up on Medicaid. You clearly do not know what system this is.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3495875
I don't think you are correct in the case of Medicaid, they are always secondary if other insurance is available.
http://www.tricare.mil/mybenefit/ProfileFilter.do;jsessionid=Q0ZcvnLvSJyy7WHQMHTR87m7g11zKG5lTQ5QQXvstplPFhq3JrNQ!1787486194?puri=%2Fhome%2FLifeEvents%2FMedicareEligible
TRICARE For Life
When you have Medicare Parts A and B, you will be covered by TRICARE For Life (TFL), TRICARE's Medicare-wraparound coverage available to all Medicare-eligible TRICARE beneficiaries, regardless of age or place of residence.
While Medicare is your primary insurance, TRICARE acts as your secondary payer minimizing your out-of-pocket expenses. TRICARE benefits include covering Medicare's coinsurance and deductible

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3495879
Read up on Medicaid. You clearly do not know what system this is.
Wow, I was off base. My mother has both. I was always under the impression that her Medicaid covered most of her medicines, and Medicare took care of the doctors and treatments.
Based on this incorrect interpretation, the easiest solution to Medicaid is to whack it completely and use those funds to help pay for Obamacare. Correct me if I'm wrong on this - Medicaid is primarily state-funfded, with some federal funds assiting it. Guess I should know this since our illustrious Governor Slick Rick Perry refused most of the Federal Medicaid assistance, and has cut Texas' Medicaid program to the bone. Some Texans already accuse him of "kicking grandma to the curb".

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3495892
http://www.tricare.mil/mybenefit/ProfileFilter.do;jsessionid=Q0ZcvnLvSJyy7WHQMHTR87m7g11zKG5lTQ5QQXvstplPFhq3JrNQ!1787486194?puri=%2Fhome%2FLifeEvents%2FMedicareEligible
TRICARE For Life
When you have Medicare Parts A and B, you will be covered by TRICARE For Life (TFL), TRICARE's Medicare-wraparound coverage available to all Medicare-eligible TRICARE beneficiaries, regardless of age or place of residence.
While Medicare is your primary insurance, TRICARE acts as your secondary payer minimizing your out-of-pocket expenses. TRICARE benefits include covering Medicare's coinsurance and deductible
READ my post. I said in the case of MediCAID, not medicare. Found that out dealing with the Sister in Law who has pension insurance and Medicaid, they always come in as secondary insurance.

 

[darthtang aw]

Wow, I was off base.  My mother has both.  I was always under the impression that her Medicaid covered most of her medicines, and Medicare took care of the doctors and treatments. 
Based on this incorrect interpretation, the easiest solution to Medicaid is to whack it completely and use those funds to help pay for Obamacare.  Correct me if I'm wrong on this - Medicaid is primarily state-funfded, with some federal funds assiting it.  Guess I should know this since our illustrious Governor Slick Rick Perry refused most of the Federal Medicaid assistance, and has cut Texas' Medicaid program to the bone.  Some Texans already accuse him of "kicking grandma to the curb".
It averages out to a 50/50 split between the fed and the state governments. Some states take more others less.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3495893
Wow, I was off base. My mother has both. I was always under the impression that her Medicaid covered most of her medicines, and Medicare took care of the doctors and treatments.
Based on this incorrect interpretation, the easiest solution to Medicaid is to whack it completely and use those funds to help pay for Obamacare. Correct me if I'm wrong on this - Medicaid is primarily state-funfded, with some federal funds assiting it. Guess I should know this since our illustrious Governor Slick Rick Perry refused most of the Federal Medicaid assistance, and has cut Texas' Medicaid program to the bone. Some Texans already accuse him of "kicking grandma to the curb".
Actually it is primarily federal funded but state managed. Part of FICA taxes are collected to fund the program. States pick up like 40 percent of the costs now since things like CHIP and some other tag on programs have been added to it in recent years. I personally think they should do the same thing with Medicare but roll the Medicaid services into medicare, one program, state managed to handle both jobs. Local control with federal oversight is best in my opinion plus you could cut a lot of bureaucracy

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3495902
Actually it is primarily federal funded but state managed. Part of FICA taxes are collected to fund the program. States pick up like 40 percent of the costs now since things like CHIP and some other tag on programs have been added to it in recent years. I personally think they should do the same thing with Medicare but roll the Medicaid services into medicare, one program, state managed to handle both jobs. Local control with federal oversight is best in my opinion plus you could cut a lot of bureaucracy
That looks good on paper, but then you have the disparity between the states. Some states may offer more services, some less. So now you have 50 different versions of the same healthcare plan, and each state's taxpayers will have to paymore/less taxes based on the services provided in their respective states. You want a few million homeless people "invading" Montana because they have the most affordable and complete healkthcare options than any other state that offers their version of Medicare/Medicaid?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3495953
That looks good on paper, but then you have the disparity between the states. Some states may offer more services, some less. So now you have 50 different versions of the same healthcare plan, and each state's taxpayers will have to paymore/less taxes based on the services provided in their respective states. You want a few million homeless people "invading" Montana because they have the most affordable and complete healkthcare options than any other state that offers their version of Medicare/Medicaid?
But medicaid is already done by the states. They have federal guidelines they have to follow but each state has a slightly different system. Thing is 50 state solutions don't work well for most programs. When I lived in Montana I lived just outside the 2nd biggest city in the state. That whole county's population is about a third of that in the city I live in in Colorado. Because of the low population concentration I couldn't even get a Medicare advantage plan there. There aren't enough people. Do you think a system to provide health care in New York will work in Montana?

 

[acrylic51]

Hmmmmm

 

[reefraff]

Give 0bama a win but nothing overwhelming. But yet again Benghazi raises it's ugly head and will be the story of the night. The moderator after the debate admitted Romney was right on the Libya attack. CBS Snap Poll had it 36 30 0bama. CNN had it 39 32 0bama with 33 calling it a tie.
One bit of troubling news in the CBS poll for 0bama is that by 65 to 34 those people thought Romney was better on the economy.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3496963
Give 0bama a win but nothing overwhelming. But yet again Benghazi raises it's ugly head and will be the story of the night. The moderator after the debate admitted Romney was right on the Libya attack. CBS Snap Poll had it 36 30 0bama. CNN had it 39 32 0bama with 33 calling it a tie.
One bit of troubling news in the CBS poll for 0bama is that by 65 to 34 those people thought Romney was better on the economy.
Neither candidate has a viable plan for the economy. Based on what each want's to spend, neither has enough cuts to keep the deficit from rising. The issue will come down to who will make the most dramatic and realistic tax increases in order to somewhat reduce the deficit, or keep it balanced at a minimum.
Benghazi is a futile attempt at the Republicans trying to deflate Obama's foreign policiy experience. Romney has zero, zilch, nada experience. Hillary came out yesterday and stated neither Obama nor Biden had any knowledge about security issues in Libya. She took full blame for the incident because international security falls underneath her jurisdiction.

 

[beth]

Yes, but Obama is ultimately responsible for the actions, or in-actions of his administration--whether crediting him or blaming him for something, that is how it works. I'm sure Hillary didn't know anything about the request for more security either, but its her department. Obama is overall responsible for the whole of his administration. Keeping on top of what is going on in hot-spots with our embassies should be something he is briefed on regularly.

 

[dragonzim]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3496967
Hillary came out yesterday and stated neither Obama nor Biden had any knowledge about security issues in Libya. She took full blame for the incident because international security falls underneath her jurisdiction.
You dont think she is being used as a fall-girl for Obama? She's already stated that she isnt planning on running for any other offices after she's done as SOS, so it seems apparent that she was asked to take the blame for this to try and take heat off Obama.

 

[slice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3496969
Yes, but Obama is ultimately responsible for the actions, or in-actions of his administration. Obama is overall responsible for the whole of his administration.
How can you say that?!? We all know that the reason for every calamity during the last 4 years is:
1) Its Bush's fault
2) Tax Breaks for the rich
3) Japanese Earthquake
4) Republican House
5) The TEA Party
6) "Headwinds"
7) Eurozone crisis
8) The Weather
9) ATMs/automation
10) Oil Speculators
11) Arab Spring
12) Super Pac ad spending
13) "Bad Luck"
14) Businesses not expanding
15) "Americans have become soft and lazy"
16) "You didn't build that"
17) Debate moderators
and now, that pesky Freedom of Speech that allowed some a$$ to make a video...

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonZim http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3496980
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3496967
Hillary came out yesterday and stated neither Obama nor Biden had any knowledge about security issues in Libya. She took full blame for the incident because international security falls underneath her jurisdiction.
You dont think she is being used as a fall-girl for Obama? She's already stated that she isnt planning on running for any other offices after she's done as SOS, so it seems apparent that she was asked to take the blame for this to try and take heat off Obama.
Most certainly, she's been asked to take the fall. That is so glaringly obvious that it sticks out like a sore thumb. However, she is responsible because it is her department. However, Obama does himself a disservice by making Hillary the scapegoat. I'd have more respect for him if he came out and assumed some responsibility. Everyone with half brain knows that the president has to rely on others to do their jobs; he is not directly responsible for every decision making process. The "I didn't know" position can't get any lamer. But, there it is.

 

[theclemsonkid]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/393144/well-done-mitt-you-took-it-to-him-last-night/60#post_3496982
Most certainly, she's been asked to take the fall. That is so glaringly obvious that it sticks out like a sore thumb. However, she is responsible because it is her department. However, Obama does himself a disservice by making Hillary the scapegoat. I'd have more respect for him if he came out and assumed some responsibility. Everyone with half brain knows that the president has to rely on others to do their jobs; he is not directly responsible for every decision making process. The "I didn't know" position can't get any lamer. But, there it is.
Here's the thing... Anytime anything "unexpected" happens, you can't say "Well he/she should have known it was coming and done something more to stop it!" If that's the case, then obviously GW Bush should have known 9/11 was coming, FDR should have known what those pesky Japs were up to, Nixon should have known about Vietnam, JFK's secret service should have had a better grasp on Dallas security, etc, etc.
No one wants American lives lost. Period. I am so, so, so sick of people trying to politicize things like this. I can guarantee you Obama didn't want Chris Stevens dying, just like W didn't want 9/11 to happen. Sometimes things happen.
Unless there was GLARING intelligence that said this was going to happen, which as far as anyone can tell, there WASN'T. Then let it go...