Presidential campaigns continue their battle over Medicare on the TV airwaves

Does Obama still have David Plouffe working on his campaign?

Plouffe has drawn criticism for his paid speaking engagements abroad while on hiatus from advising Obama. In early 2009, Plouffe spoke in Baku, Azerbaijan for $50,000. The event's sponsor had ties to the authoritarian government in the country. Following complaints from human rights groups, Plouffe donated his speaking fees to the National Democratic Institute.

In December 2010, Plouffe received $100,000 for two speeches in Nigeria from an affiliate of the South African telecommunications company MTN Group. At the time, MTN had been doing business with the government of Iran since 2005. Recently, MTN has come under increased scrutiny by the U.S. for allegations that the Iranian government has used the MTN network in the country to track and monitor dissidents. MTN has been listed on the "Iran Business Registry" of prominent watchdog group United Against Nuclear Iran since 2009.

Can anyone truthfully explain what the medicare debate truly means For Democrats or for Republicans?

there is more than just medicare that needs attention! it is like we get stuck in certain categories and can't come out of them.

What is the hold up in fixing economy? If there is No jobs here, if they keep letting all these immigrants in where will the money come from to feed, clothe and educate these people?

voice in the Wilderness wrote:

Can anyone truthfully explain what the medicare debate truly means For Democrats or for Republicans?
....

The meaning for both parties is that they think they can hoodwink people into voting for them.

voice in the Wilderness wrote:

Can anyone truthfully explain what the medicare debate truly means For Democrats or for Republicans?
there is more than just medicare that needs attention! it is like we get stuck in certain categories and can't come out of them.
What is the hold up in fixing economy? If there is No jobs here, if they keep letting all these immigrants in where will the money come from to feed, clothe and educate these people?

Well it's prince DumBama that just did let more illegals in. The Democrat governor in California just made it legal for illegals to obtain drivers licenses. And what could an illegal do with a drivers license? He or she can vote, that's what they can do.

Medicare is an issue because like most social programs, it's becoming a failure. Remember too that one of the most active voting blocks are senior citizens. Republicans will never end the program and the Democrats don't want anybody to touch it even though it's heading for a brick wall.

voice in the Wilderness wrote:

Can anyone truthfully explain what the medicare debate truly means For Democrats or for Republicans?
there is more than just medicare that needs attention! it is like we get stuck in certain categories and can't come out of them.
What is the hold up in fixing economy? If there is No jobs here, if they keep letting all these immigrants in where will the money come from to feed, clothe and educate these people?

Here is what you need to know that they all leave out. Medicare was a pay as you go program from its inception with no provision for the increase what would come because of the population bubble (baby boomer generation). It is just as well because if they did it right and set the premiums at a level that would allow them to invest the excess in order to have the money available for the baby boomer generation when they needed it congress would have raided the fund and spend it on other programs to buy votes anyway. N

ow we are about 12 years away from starting to need that extra money that is not there, something very similar to what is going on with social security except that the shortfall for medicare is much much worse.

The only way to fix the problem is to turn back the clock, give us a slight increase and invest the excess funds. That is impossible so a simple painless solution is out of the question.

That leaves us with pain. Someone or a lot of someones has to take the pain of paying for our past mistakes. No politician wants to be responsible for anyone's pain so they ignore the issue or give it double speak. If any politician talks about a plan and it does not involve hurting one group or another then they are talking about an ineffective solution. Mostly they are waiting for it to blow up then they can address a crisis, it would be better to do something now because the sooner we act the less it will hurt.

Robert wrote:

<quoted text>
Here is what you need to know that they all leave out. Medicare was a pay as you go program from its inception with no provision for the increase what would come because of the population bubble (baby boomer generation). It is just as well because if they did it right and set the premiums at a level that would allow them to invest the excess in order to have the money available for the baby boomer generation when they needed it congress would have raided the fund and spend it on other programs to buy votes anyway. N
ow we are about 12 years away from starting to need that extra money that is not there, something very similar to what is going on with social security except that the shortfall for medicare is much much worse.
The only way to fix the problem is to turn back the clock, give us a slight increase and invest the excess funds. That is impossible so a simple painless solution is out of the question.
That leaves us with pain. Someone or a lot of someones has to take the pain of paying for our past mistakes. No politician wants to be responsible for anyone's pain so they ignore the issue or give it double speak. If any politician talks about a plan and it does not involve hurting one group or another then they are talking about an ineffective solution. Mostly they are waiting for it to blow up then they can address a crisis, it would be better to do something now because the sooner we act the less it will hurt.

Except for the fact that the politicians today will be long gone by the time the crisis hits. So what they do is tell everybody what they want to hear and forget the facts.

In my younger days, I worked in the healthcare field. Our company would rent medical equipment to patients and bill it to Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance. What we would do is purchase (lets say) a folding walker for $40.00 We would then rent it to government patients for $20.00 per month. After the first two months, everything else was pure profit. Medicare and Medicaid would pay for the rental year after year.

There was a whole host of products where we did the exact same thing: wheelchairs, wheelchair cushions, hospital beds, portable commodes, trapeze's, oxygen tanks and gauges, oxygen concentrators, aluminum canes, aluminum quad canes, and so forth.

How did we not get busted for this abuse of our government payouts? Because it was their criteria that we followed. In other words, if we knew a patient was going to use this equipment for many years to come, we couldn't sell it to them through Medicare or Medicaid if we wanted to. Government insisted we rent it to them instead.

When Reagan got elected, some of that stopped, but the abuse of funds continued in many other ways.

Now the system is broke, and the politicians who created these parameters for medical equipment are long gone. It's somebody else's problem. That's the way it really works.

It's a democrat dreamt up ponzi scheme just like social security, that relies on continually screwing the producer class in order to buy votes from an ever increasing moocher class.
.
They are practically at the point where they, democrats, don't need anymore new voters to stay in control, therefore Dems could care less if its headed over a cliff in 2017. As long as they can spin it in the willing media that it's totally not their fault.

Good Morning XXX

Have you noticed that California has no voter id law, and that the deportation rate under Obama far exceeds that under Bush?

Got some more lies to spew?

woof

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Except for the fact that the politicians today will be long gone by the time the crisis hits. So what they do is tell everybody what they want to hear and forget the facts.
In my younger days, I worked in the healthcare field. Our company would rent medical equipment to patients and bill it to Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance. What we would do is purchase (lets say) a folding walker for $40.00 We would then rent it to government patients for $20.00 per month. After the first two months, everything else was pure profit. Medicare and Medicaid would pay for the rental year after year.
There was a whole host of products where we did the exact same thing: wheelchairs, wheelchair cushions, hospital beds, portable commodes, trapeze's, oxygen tanks and gauges, oxygen concentrators, aluminum canes, aluminum quad canes, and so forth.
How did we not get busted for this abuse of our government payouts? Because it was their criteria that we followed. In other words, if we knew a patient was going to use this equipment for many years to come, we couldn't sell it to them through Medicare or Medicaid if we wanted to. Government insisted we rent it to them instead.
When Reagan got elected, some of that stopped, but the abuse of funds continued in many other ways.
Now the system is broke, and the politicians who created these parameters for medical equipment are long gone. It's somebody else's problem. That's the way it really works.

You are right there is a tremendous amount of fraud in both systems more or less for the same reasons with medicare having more. The basic reason that happens is that the right person is not concerned about cost.

Typical insurance is employer sponsored healthcare- Doctor or medical company says I am providing a service someone is going to pay me, insurance company administering the plan says they are providing the service, forms are filled out pay them. Patient is going is it covered, yes, ok I will get it. The only person concerned with cost is the employer who takes no part in the decision.

With government insurance like medicare it is worse- doctor or medical company says Ii am providing the service someone is going to pay me, the government says forms are filled out right so pay him, patient says it is covered so I will get it. Congressman says I am not changing their plan they like it, tax payer is the only one concerned about cost and is even more left out of the decisions than the employer was. Government is even more removed than the employer was so invites fraud.

On top of all this nether is major medical which they both should be, they both pay for the little stuff like your example of the folding walker, just how many times did you have the patients balk at renting a $ 40 walker for $20 a month or buying a $10 cane for $30. If patients were paying the bill they would. This is how nickle and dime stuff becomes quarters.

We should not re invent healthcare just the way we pay for it. Insurance needs to go back to being insurance only paying for the things you have no hope of paying for. We don't have $20 co pays on our homeowners insurance and we should not have it on our bodies either.

Duke for Mayor wrote:

Good Morning XXX
Have you noticed that California has no voter id law, and that the deportation rate under Obama far exceeds that under Bush?
Got some more lies to spew?
woof

I spewed no lies. Correct, no voter id laws mean higher ability for those not legally allowed to vote to cast their ballot. DL's can surely tip the scale towards the Democrat side. Of course, we know the lib Governor didn't think of that, now did he?

Robert wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right there is a tremendous amount of fraud in both systems more or less for the same reasons with medicare having more. The basic reason that happens is that the right person is not concerned about cost.
Typical insurance is employer sponsored healthcare- Doctor or medical company says I am providing a service someone is going to pay me, insurance company administering the plan says they are providing the service, forms are filled out pay them. Patient is going is it covered, yes, ok I will get it. The only person concerned with cost is the employer who takes no part in the decision.
With government insurance like medicare it is worse- doctor or medical company says Ii am providing the service someone is going to pay me, the government says forms are filled out right so pay him, patient says it is covered so I will get it. Congressman says I am not changing their plan they like it, tax payer is the only one concerned about cost and is even more left out of the decisions than the employer was. Government is even more removed than the employer was so invites fraud.
On top of all this nether is major medical which they both should be, they both pay for the little stuff like your example of the folding walker, just how many times did you have the patients balk at renting a $ 40 walker for $20 a month or buying a $10 cane for $30. If patients were paying the bill they would. This is how nickle and dime stuff becomes quarters.
We should not re invent healthcare just the way we pay for it. Insurance needs to go back to being insurance only paying for the things you have no hope of paying for. We don't have $20 co pays on our homeowners insurance and we should not have it on our bodies either.

It's much deeper than that. We were only one out of thousands of medical equipment rental companies across the country. We had under two dozen employees, but larger companies had far more. You can imagine the votes or employees who worked for these companies being cast for Democrat leaders during that time.

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
I spewed no lies. Correct, no voter id laws mean higher ability for those not legally allowed to vote to cast their ballot. DL's can surely tip the scale towards the Democrat side. Of course, we know the lib Governor didn't think of that, now did he?

We know you talk in circles, without knowledge.

How about those deportation rates?

woof

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
We know you talk in circles, without knowledge.
How about those deportation rates?
woof

How am I talking in circles?

Yes, DumBama's deportation rates are higher, however the deportation rate has been on an increase since Bush's first term increasing every year after 2002. The peak was in 2009 and has been on the decline since. 2012 statistics are not available as of yet, but I'm sure it will be lower than 2011 the way the trend is now moving.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RfTs0HfF3uY/T8Puzb5...

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
How am I talking in circles?
Yes, DumBama's deportation rates are higher, however the deportation rate has been on an increase since Bush's first term increasing every year after 2002. The peak was in 2009 and has been on the decline since. 2012 statistics are not available as of yet, but I'm sure it will be lower than 2011 the way the trend is now moving.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RfTs0HfF3uY/T8Puzb5...

Circles:

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
The Democrat governor in California just made it legal for illegals to obtain drivers licenses. And what could an illegal do with a drivers license? He or she can vote, that's what they can do.

Duke for Mayor wrote:
Good Morning XXX
Have you noticed that California has no voter id law...?

woof

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
I spewed no lies. Correct, no voter id laws mean higher ability for those not legally allowed to vote to cast their ballot. DL's can surely tip the scale towards the Democrat side. Of course, we know the lib Governor didn't think of that, now did he?

woof

Obama'a Administration has deported more illegal aliens in three years than GWB did in eight.

What the diddly do heck are you talking about?

http://fairimmigration.files.wordpress.com/20...

http://www.usimmigrationnewspaper.com/index.p...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/immigration-...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/11/d...

woof

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
Circles:
<quoted text>
Duke for Mayor wrote:
Good Morning XXX
Have you noticed that California has no voter id law...?
woof
<quoted text>
woof

Thanks for the post that made absolutely no sense.

Duke for Mayor wrote:

Obama'a Administration has deported more illegal aliens in three years than GWB did in eight.
What the diddly do heck are you talking about?
http://fairimmigration.files.wordpress.com/20...
http://www.usimmigrationnewspaper.com/index.p...
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/immigration-...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/11/d...
woof

Did I say he didn't? What I said was that deportation has been on the rise since 2002, and has declined in the last two years.

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for the post that made absolutely no sense.

Your welcome.

You claimed that California's Democratic Governor purposefully changed the law to permit illegal aliens to get driver's licenses so as to permit voter fraud in favor of Obama.

Then, after being shown that California presently has no voter id law that would require any voter to show a photo id, including driver's licenses, you wrote this:

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
I spewed no lies. Correct, no voter id laws mean higher ability for those not legally allowed to vote to cast their ballot. DL's can surely tip the scale towards the Democrat side. Of course, we know the lib Governor didn't think of that, now did he?

It really does make no sense, does it?

I think you should check your truck for CO in the cab.

woof

Duke for Mayor wrote:

<quoted text>
Your welcome.
You claimed that California's Democratic Governor purposefully changed the law to permit illegal aliens to get driver's licenses so as to permit voter fraud in favor of Obama.
Then, after being shown that California presently has no voter id law that would require any voter to show a photo id, including driver's licenses, you wrote this:
<quoted text>
It really does make no sense, does it?
I think you should check your truck for CO in the cab.
woof

Maybe you should:

FAQ - ID Requirements

What are the "ID Requirements" for Voting Under HAVA?

Section 303 (b) of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) sets forth requirements for some voters to provide ID to vote.

Implementation of the specifics of this requirement can be quite complicated for election officials, but in general: If a voter registers to vote in a county on or after January 1, 2003, the registration is by mail, and the voter has not previously voted in that county, then the voter must either provide ID when he or she registers or provide ID when he or she votes.

How does a voter prove ID?

Section 303(b)(2) specifies the ID requirements for voters who vote in person or by absentee ballot.

"In person" voters must show a "current and valid photo identification" or "a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter."

"Absentee voters" must submit with their ballot one of the documents listed above.

The Secretary of State, in accordance with Elections Code section 14310 (e), has promulgated emergency regulations defining the documents a voter may use to prove ID to vote (see FAQ #3 --- Standards for proof of residency when proof is required by HAVA – Section 20107 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations).

Is there any way a voter can avoid having to show ID when he or she votes?

Yes.

First, the requirement only applies to voters who have never voted in the county in a federal election. Persons who were already registered as of January 1, 2003, or who change address within the county and re-register, are not required to show ID to vote.

Second, voters who do not register to vote "by mail" are not required to show ID to vote.

Third, Section 303(b)(3) states that if the voter provides his or her driver's license number, or the last 4 digits of his or her social security number, on the form to register to vote, and the elections official can verify the number is correct, then the ID requirement does not apply.

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/hava_id_requi...

Regardless of HAVA, or any other voter ID law imposed by any state, a driver's license doesn't verify citizenship. Every single member of a county board of elections, and every single secretary of state in this country fully understand that. Sadly, you don't.

Can you say "red herring"?

woof