Despite the fact that election time is just around the corner, it seems that neither Obama nor Romney can propose a complete solution to the Medicare issue as of yet. Aside from the obvious slurs each party is throwing about how the other wants to cut Medicare funding, the key details behind said parties' ideas have not yet come to fruition. While Romney's proposal mainly focuses on a voucher system, he is still being surprisingly vague. On the other hand, Obama firmly believes that a voucher system is definitely the incorrect way to go and that, perhaps, a bill might be the solution.
According to The Huffington Post, Romney's plan would opt to change Medicare so that "competition among insurers will keep costs in check." Romney believes that shifting people under the age of 54 onto a different type of Medicare plan will cut costs, but that it would not affect current beneficiaries. While this may seem like an interesting proposal, it can be detrimental to people who are permanently disabled. As of today, many people receiving Medicare are capable of working at least a part-time job and simply choose not to. As a future consequence of this, the people who are permanently disabled and unable to work at all may end up paying more out of pocket than they can afford.
Obviously against a voucher system, Obama plans to increase the amount of money collected from Medicare recipients who make over a certain salary each year. Additionally, "he also would hit newly joining baby boomers with a series of fees." While this could perhaps be a potential issue solver, the proposal may not go over well with the generation before us, who are rapidly closing in on retirement age. This generation has paid countless taxes towards insurance systems and as a consequence for being forced to pay said taxes, they are being rewarded with more fees and a possible drop in quality of insurance coverage for themselves when they reach the age for retirement.
Perhaps the Democrats and Republicans should focus on solidifying their plans and actually putting thought into them instead of wondering how they can get more votes by ruining the reputation of their opponent.
Full Articles:
Romney
Obama
I must say that after doing just a little research on Obama-care I came to a conclusion that this program is Unconstitutional, even though Supreme Court decided that it is not . Because of Obama-care, our health insurance premiums, co-pays, Rx costs and all other possible medical costs have been increased 70-100%/ Health Care became simply unaffordable. I think it is wrong that people are forced to buy insurance. They should do so if they choose. Our employers also should not be forced to pay more for the benefits they provide, because those costs will be passed on an employee anyway. Obama-care is leading to a world in which you are told what to do, where to live, where to work, what to eat and what to think. The IRS will come after you if you don't comply and impose a “tax “on you. Yes, “Tax”… Supreme Court of United States concluded after all that it not a penalty. What this reform will bring is that doctors will quit their jobs, and perspective medical students will think twice before going into the medical field. American Citizens shouldn’t be forced to purchase anything, even healthcare!
ReplyDeleteWhat I'd really like to delve into, depending on the information available, is how Obamacare is actually taking funding away from Medicare. Whether Obamacare itself is unconstitutional, I really can't say. I don't like making judgments on things without fully understanding them and seeing as how Obamacare is supposedly a 2400 page bill (apparently shortened to a 961 page law: http://obamacarewatcher.org/articles/350), I haven't read it. There are thousands of different opinions out there and plenty of viewpoints, but how do we know which is right and which is wrong? Even if something is said in a summary, how do we know that it is not contradicted in the rest of the plan?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that it is completely convoluted to even think about making a bill of that length. I'm positive that there are hundreds of people who comment on it who can't fathom the time or effort put into it, whether it is the correct path for our future health care or not. I'm not saying that I agree with it, because there is definitely going to be a substantial amount of money getting "shifted" that is perhaps not going to be put to the best use. Furthermore, when that much money is being moved around, there is a significant chance that some of it may be lost in transit. If the bill was perhaps shortened, to an actual readable piece of work, more people would be aware of the actual situation.