Medicare cost to go up
Friday, April 21, 2006
Time : 9:11 AM
he Medicare drug plan will increase this year by about 7%. This means the $250 annual deductible could rise to $265. Premiums and co-payments might also change. And the coverage gap known as the doughnut hole could expand from $2,850 to $3,051 next year. After meeting the deductible, seniors would be covered for up to $2,400 of prescriptions, but beyond that they would have to pay the full bill until drug costs reached $5,451, with an out-of-pocket maximum of $3,850. Medicare would pay 95 percent of further costs.T
o our legislators who wrote the new Medicare bill a couple years ago this doesn't seem like much. But to millions of seniors who live on small fixed incomes this may prove devastating. (correction: Our legislators didn't write the new Medicare... the health industry did) You can bet that the number of serious illnesses among senior citizens will increase as more begin to decide food or medicine, housing or medicine. We've already seen an increase in the amount of amputations due to diabetes. Is this how the wealthiest country in the world cares for it's elderly? read more here.
Tags: medicare HealthmedicineBlogs
Yes, it seems it is the way this country treats our people. You see the elderly aren't a big corp handing out giant money to the GOP, so they don't really matter much, if at all.
Our values system is so messed up these days, that it could make one go into a deep and mighty funk.
I would help out my parents if they needed it. The problem is with the liberals who want a consequence free life. Liberals think when Mom and Dad need help, it must be the government's responsibility to help them and not their own.
Yes, our value system deteriorated in the 1900s, but not in the way you imagine it.
Societies will always have those that for some reason will not be able to provide for themselves jason. Illness, Corporate rip offs of pensions and a host of other reasons beyond a persons control play a role. All seniors do not have children to step in and takae care of them. A society can be judged by the way it treats the lesser of it's members. It's not about liberals or conservitives, it's about people. The vets center I volunteer at is filled with poor seniors that worked their asses off their whole lives. yea I would probably like more time to read philosophical tomes, but people are more important to me. thats why I'm a liberal.
Much has been written about the evolution of poor laws, and it isn't necessary to make it into a "damned liberals" rant. Which liberal policies currently involve a consequence free life? If you can name one entitlement program that has NO catch, please do. Name one that is totally based in wholesome liberal goodness!
OK. I can name one. Corporate welfare! Subsidies to billion dollar industries. Tax credits in exchange for jobs. Because you know, employees are optional.
Why is it that fucktards always think THE GOVERNMENT should pay for Sam Walton to take care of his workers? It must be the government's responsibility to help them, not their own!!!!!!!
The trouble is that people do not know enough about social programs or their history and so they make judgements in a vacuum as though one policy has no effect on another.
I think liberals can recognize a role in personal responsibility but know that poverty and dependence is not a HYPOTHETICAL. But we do not need to even make the case for reasonable policy based on empathy and concern. People used to be thrown into almshouses along with orphans, the infirm, the retarded, the ill, the diseased, the destitute, the dependent, the raped, the abused.
The solutions need to lie somewhere between hand outs and almshouses in the form of fiscally responsible, effective programs that meet the basic needs of societal members because it makes sense financially to do this. Government should step in when it is of benefit to the greater good to do so. Not to provide a consequence free life. Thats just the hand that has been played for years to capitalize on resentments when workers see "lazy shiftless people" getting handouts.
Here's where the logic falls apart: Why put out fires? Why do liberals expect other people to put them out? Such handouts! Why control infectious epidemics? Why provide immunizations, surely fatal diseases can't be that bad.Why do stupid liberals expect other people to build roads for THEIR damn cars? Why do these liberals expect the GOVERNMENT to pay for my kids education? Pay for bridges? Swim like a man, dammit and drive on dirt. Old people? Fuck em!
Tell us more about the value system please Jason.
I support investing in the environment, energy, transportation and so forth. What I don't support is uppity liberals in the suburbs scoffing at the notion of giving their parents financial assistance. They have the money to do it, but that would entail giving up the gas-guzzling SUV or this year's vacation in the Bahamas.
We can debate the merits and sustainability of government health care. But if you can't put $3,000 dollars on the credit card to help out mom and dad, you're a really sick person. It doesn't matter if you're a construction worker or an investment banker.
Empathy and concern for liberals do not mean helping real people. You guys pretend to have big hearts so you can push a Soviet-style economy. This is what happens when one is dependent on intellectual giants like George Clooney, Noam Chomsky and Markos Zuniga for thoughts.
But if bashing capitalism and Walmart makes you feel better for not helping Mom and Dad, knock yourselves out. The rest of us will continue to be a responsible and moral community.
You miss the main point which is that not all people have somebody to help. I am not exactly a bleeding heart person. I refer to what conservatives call "the undeserving poor". The poor by circumstance, fate. There will never be a society of total citizen self sufficiency. But there will ideally be enough societal resources where a little safety net can be managed. I agree that when social welfare is not kept in check the burden becomes more than just a few...
I do agree that consumerism and poor priorities,i.e. working for a Mercedes while five year olds are home alone- is misguided. I agree with you that sometimes liberals do not place responsibility in the hands of citizens but look too much for government to solve everything. I think that the scope of government is already too large.
I am suggesting that your position does not have to rest on Limbaugh-fed rhetoric any more than liberals should parrot. State your case without getting into "those commie" types of assumptions.
Simply answer the question of who should provide for those without suburban families with Suv's? Both yuppies on the left AND the right neglect their elderly parents. Thats the American culture of greed and consumption. Looks like we both oppose that.
Its a question of how the public wallet is spent. You say no to the poor elderly, I say no billionaire subsidies that outweigh social spending at a 100:1 ratio . Is that where we differ?
Spend your way, we trim 1/100th of the budget. Cut my way, the deficit could be gone in two years. Which answers to the taxpayer? Which is more communist?
Sorry to be antagonizing Mr. Bowden on your turf, he's an interesting one though.
Duke it out, sister LILY, I'm taking photos.
Actually, forget it, I gotta jump in.
To summarize: not all elders have caretakers or money. Deal with it, you cheapskate swine.
In a country this wealthy where we are just tearing up the carpet spending billions in Iraq, surely we could help the really needy to get, for example free or more cheaply subsidized medicine.
Besides being the right thing to do, isn't it the Christian thing to do that all you rightwingdings are always talking about? Where is your morality when it comes down to human need and not just semantics? Kind of like the abortion pro-life shit you guys sling? Yeah, don’t kill a fetus, but we don’t want to pay for programs like HeadStart.
Oh, LoC, you get another gold star this week for volunteering with the vets. Excellent job.
I used to volunteer at a VA hospital too, we must talk more about this sometime. And YOU are a vet besides, right? You are something.
You wonder how they can afford the casinos, don't you?
What Mr. Bowden doesn't realize is that not all children, with families of their own, have a spare $3,000 to spare for their parents because their jobs were outsourced, or cut so some executive could get a bonus. The way we treat our elderly in this country is similar to the way the Soviet Union treated theirs.
LOC, are you retreating yet?
Retreat? me? never. But I'm glad that Mr. Bowden would be glad to spend $3000 on his credit card to pay for one weeks worth of chemo therapy for a parent if needed. What they might do the rest of there lives will be sad because in Mr. Bowdens world they would just have to die and be buried in the backyard by some guest worker.
I only wish I could be in a postion to throw down $3,000.00 for my parents. I had to stop working because 'I' became ill and it isn't going to go away. My parents will probably be helping me financially at some point in the future...and probably cleaning my diapers and wiping my mouth because I won't be able to. Ack! I really detest when smartypants types bring in the 'commie' comments. JERKS!