Archive

Archive for the ‘Medi-care’ Category

AP-GfK Poll: Most Americans say they don’t believe Medicare has to be cut to balance the federal budget ditto …,


AP-GfK Poll: Medicare doesn’t have to be cut
May 23, 2011, 7:02 a.m. EDT
Associated Press

Journal By Calvin Lee Ledsome Sr.,

Hello Reader, What Party Do You Want Running The US Government 2013? Selection Poll B.O.Page!

WASHINGTON (AP) — They’re not buying it. Most Americans say they don’t believe Medicare has to be cut to balance the federal budget, and ditto for Social Security, a new poll shows.

The Associated Press-GfK poll suggests that arguments for overhauling the massive benefit programs to pare government debt have failed to sway the public. The debate is unlikely to be resolved before next year’s elections for president and Congress.

Americans worry about the future of the retirement safety net, the poll found, and 3 out of 5 say the two programs are vital to their basic financial security as they age. That helps explain why the Republican Medicare privatization plan flopped, and why President Barack Obama’s Medicare cuts to finance his health care law contributed to Democrats losing control of the House in last year’s elections.

Medicare seems to be turning into the new third rail of politics.

“I’m pretty confident Medicare will be there, because there would be a rebellion among voters,” said Nicholas Read, 67, a retired teacher who lives near Buffalo, N.Y. “Republicans only got a hint of that this year. They got burned. They touched the hot stove.”

Combined, Social Security and Medicare account for about a third of government spending, a share that will only grow. Economic experts say the cost of retirement programs for an aging society is the most serious budget problem facing the nation. The trustees who oversee Social Security and Medicare recently warned the programs are “not sustainable” over the long run under current financing.

Nearly every solution for Social Security is politically toxic, because the choices involve cutting benefits or raising taxes. Medicare is even harder to fix because the cost of modern medicine is going up faster than the overall cost of living, outpacing economic growth as well as tax revenues.

“Medicare is an incredibly complex area,” said former Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who used to chair the Budget Committee. “It’s a matrix that is almost incomprehensible. Unlike Social Security, which has four or five moving parts, Medicare has hundreds of thousands. There is no single approach to Medicare, whereas with Social Security everyone knows where the problem is.”

That’s not what the public sees, however.

“It’s more a matter of bungling, and lack of oversight, and waste and fraud, and padding of the bureaucracy,” said Carolyn Rodgers, who lives near Memphis, Tenn., and is still working as a legal assistant at 74. “There is no reason why even Medicare, if it had been handled right, couldn’t have been solvent.”

In the poll, 54 percent said it’s possible to balance the budget without cutting spending for Medicare, and 59 percent said the same about Social Security.

Taking both programs together, 48 percent said the government could balance the budget without cutting either one. Democrats and political independents were far more likely than Republicans to say that neither program will have to be cut.

The recession cost millions their jobs and sent retirement savings accounts into a nosedive. It may also have underscored the value of government programs. Social Security kept sending monthly benefits to 55 million recipients, like clockwork; Medicare went on paying for everything from wheelchairs to heart operations.

Overall, 70 percent in the poll said Social Security is “extremely” or “very” important to their financial security in retirement, and 72 percent said so for Medicare. Sixty-two percent said that both programs are extremely or very important.

The sentiment was a lot stronger among the elderly. Eighty-four percent of those 65 or older said both programs are central to their financial security. Compare that to adults under 30, just starting out. Just under half, or 46 percent, said they believed both Social Security and Medicare would be extremely or very important to their financial security in retirement.

Old, middle-aged or just entering the workforce, most people are keenly aware of the cost of health care, and that may be helping to focus more attention on Medicare.

“Health insurance these days is very costly, and it’s not something that most people can afford to go out and buy on their own,” said Tim Messner, 38, a technology quality assurance analyst from Barberton, Ohio. “I don’t know that we could possibly plan ahead for medical insurance, but if you had to replace Social Security or investments, you at least have an idea of what you can live on.”

Numbers tell the story. As health care goes up, the value of Medicare benefits is catching up to Social Security’s. A two-earner couple with average wages retiring in 1980 would have expected to receive health care worth $132,000 through Medicare over their remaining lifetimes, and $446,000, or about three times more, in Social Security payments.

For a similar couple who retired last year, the Medicare benefit will be worth $343,000, compared to Social Security payments totaling $539,000, less than twice as much. The numbers, from economists at the nonpartisan Urban Institute, are adjusted for inflation to allow direct comparison. For low-income single retirees and some couples, the value of expected Medicare benefits already exceeds that of Social Security.

The poll found a deep current of pessimism about the future of Social Security and Medicare. As much as Americans say the programs are indispensable, only 35 percent say it’s extremely or very likely that Social Security will be there to pay benefits through their entire retirement. For Medicare, it was 36 percent.

Again, there’s a sharp difference between what the public believes and what experts say. Most experts say the programs will be there for generations to come. But they may look very different than they do today, and Americans should take note.

“Do they have a basis for worrying that these programs are going to pay them much less than they’re currently promising?” asked economist Charles Blahous. “Yes, absolutely. Do they have a basis for being concerned that the programs may have to be structurally changed in order to survive? The answer to that is yes, too.” A trustee of Social Security and Medicare, Blahous served as an economic adviser to President George W. Bush.

Republican lawmakers don’t inspire much confidence right now when it comes to dealing with retirement programs, the poll found. Democrats have the advantage as the party more trusted to do a better job handling Social Security by 52 percent to 34 percent, and Medicare by 54 percent to 33 percent. Often, but not always, major revisions have been accomplished through bipartisan compromise.

Sue DeSantis, 61, a store clerk from West Milton, Ohio, worries she won’t be able to rely on either program. Both are important to her well-being, but she thinks changes are inevitable. And she has little confidence in lawmakers.

“I don’t put my faith in politicians, and I don’t put my faith in the government,” said DeSantis. “I’m a Christian. I believe that God will take care of me. That doesn’t mean I should be foolish and not look at anything, but I don’t believe that the politicians are necessarily going to do the best for the common ordinary person like myself.”

The Associated Press-GfK poll was conducted May 5-9, 2011, by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications. It involved landline and cell phone interviews with 1,001 adults nationwide and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.2 percentage points.

____

Associated Press Polling Director Trevor Tompson, Deputy Director Jennifer Agiesta and AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.

____

Online:

Poll results: http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com

_________________________________________________________

Video Section:





_________________________________________________________________

Calvin Ledsome Sr.,

Owner and Founder of: 

Thank you for visiting, do come back for more news…
Warmest regards,

PS., Hello Reader, What Party Do You Want Running The US Government 2013? Make Your Selection Below!

Don’t expect to find an easy answer in his new budget – Obama’s budget offers few clues on health overhaul


Obama‘s budget offers few clues on health overhaul
Feb. 22, 2011, 3:51 p.m. EST
Article Published by Associated Press Writers
Article Posted Here by Public Blog News Posting Service Group

WASHINGTON (AP) — How many federal bureaucrats does it take to carry out President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul? Don’t expect to find an easy answer in his new budget.

It has no line item for health care implementation, a task delegated to agencies in several government departments, each with its own procedures — and quirks — to account for spending and hiring.

Republicans suspect a dodge to make it harder for them to track the money as they strategize over how to block the law by shutting off the spigot of federal funds.

“They are absolutely hiding the ball with this budget,” complained Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees Medicare and tax laws. “We don’t know the cost of the health care bill or how many people they are going to hire. All of this needs to be flushed out.”

Administration officials say the $3.7 trillion budget may be hard to read, but it’s all in there. Somewhere.

“Nothing is being hidden,” said Richard Sorian, a spokesman for the Health and Human Services Department, which is leading the effort to expand health coverage to more than 30 million uninsured people by 2014.

It’s just that it may not be easy to see.

Part of the reason, the White House says, is that multi-tasking government workers are expected to carry out the health care law along with their other duties. “When you look at an agency, it’s very hard to say this person works only on that law,” explained Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the president’s budget office.

“The Affordable Care Act is built on top and interwoven with existing statutes and authorities, and it would be extremely difficult to separate or disaggregate the impact of that on the budget,” said Baer.

Some agencies have been more helpful with details than others.

The Internal Revenue Service, for example, says it will need 58 revenue agents to enforce the law’s 10 percent sales tax on indoor tanning, which went into effect last year.

“As many as 25,000 businesses provide indoor tanning services,” says the agency’s budget. “These entities typically do not have experience filing federal excise tax returns.” It looks like that will soon change. The IRS expects to close 1,000 tanning tax cases annually by 2013.

Overall, Treasury’s budget includes $473 million and 1,270 employees to administer the health care law. A spokeswoman said most of them won’t be working on enforcement. Many will be helping with tax credits intended to make health insurance more affordable for small businesses and households. Others will be setting up new technology. The IRS will eventually be responsible for collecting fines from taxpayers who ignore a new requirement to carry insurance.

HHS, the hub of health care implementation, is providing less budget detail. The department says only 252 people will be working full-time on the new law, all of those in the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight. The new agency was part of Secretary Kathleen Sebelius‘ office last year and has been transferred to the HHS division that oversees Medicare.

Most of the rest of the work will be handled by multi-tasking employees, said spokesman Sorian.

Overall, HHS says it’s getting $465 million to carry out the law. About $120 million goes to the Administration on Aging, which is trying to salvage one of the law’s major new programs, a voluntary long-term care insurance fund intended to help elderly and disabled people avoid going into nursing homes. The Community Living Assistance Services and Support program would provide a benefit of at least $50 a day in cash to help with expenses such as paying a caregiver.

But Sebelius told lawmakers last week she’s concerned the program as written by Congress is financially unsustainable, while confident that premiums, eligibility rules and other factors can be tweaked to fix the problems. The law gave HHS authority to make significant changes in the long-term care plan.

Republicans want to repeal the whole law, but if they can’t succeed, they’ll try to pick off the long-term care plan. Last week, the GOP-led House voted to deny the administration any money to carry out Obama’s overhaul.

___

Online:

Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight: http://www.hhs.gov/cciio/

Government’s health care site: http://www.healthcare.gov

Administration on Aging: http://www.aoa.gov
______________________________________

Video Section:

Warmest regards,
Calvin L. Ledsome Sr.,
Owner of Public Blog News Posting Service Group and
Economic News Blog
https://economicnewsblog.wordpress.com

http://pbnpservice.wordpress.com
http://www.online-moneymakingsites.com

GOP mocks Obama budget, House weighs spending cuts


GOP mocks Obama budget, House weighs spending cuts
Feb. 15, 2011, 2:09 p.m. EST
Published by Associated Press Writers
Posted by Public Blog News Posting Service Group

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans on Tuesday disparaged President Barack Obama’s proposed $3.7 trillion budget for next year for taking a pass on tackling long-term deficits by not calling for structural changes in big-ticket entitlement programs for the elderly.

“In our nation’s most pressing fiscal challenges, the president has abdicated his leadership role,” said House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis. “When his own commission put forward a set of fundamental entitlement and tax reforms … he ignored them.”

Obama told a news conference that the budget he sent Congress will help meet his goal of cutting the deficit in half by the end of his first term. He said he looked forward to negotiations with Republicans in coming months on how to fix Social Security and Medicare.

“This is not a matter of, ‘you go first, I go first,’ ” he said. “It’s a matter of everybody having a serious conversation about where we want to go and then ultimately getting in that boat at the same time so it doesn’t tip over.”

House Republicans, meanwhile were eager to launch a week long debate on their own package of deep cuts in domestic spending for the current fiscal year.

Eager to please their conservative tea party supporters, Republicans are championing $61 billion in cuts to hundreds of programs for the remaining seven months of this federal fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, under a bill the House planned to debate Tuesday. AmeriCorps and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be completely erased, while deep cuts would be carved from programs for feeding poor women and children, training people for jobs and cleaning the Great Lakes.

Reductions of that magnitude this late in a fiscal year would have a jarring impact on many programs. The GOP-run House planned to approve the measure Thursday.

The proposed reductions have “showdown” written all over them. Republicans included them in a must-pass bill financing the government, which otherwise runs out of money on March 4. The Democratic-controlled Senate and Obama himself are sure to turn them down.

“We have consistently said it’s not our intention to shut down this government,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Monday of one possibility should there be an impasse. “That’s political talk and we ought to get that off the table and we ought to go about the real business of trying to cut spending.”

White House budget director Jacob Lew kicked off the administration’s defense of its proposed 2012 budget on Capitol Hill with an appearance before the House Budget Committee. Rep. Mike Simpson spoke for most of the Republicans on the panel in saying he doesn’t view the proposal — which mostly ignores the recommendations of Obama’s fiscal commission — as a serious one.

Lew countered that the Obama plan is a “tough budget” filled with cuts to programs the president himself supports.

Lew downplayed the possibility of a government shutdown.

“If we all work together in a bipartisan way to look for the things we can agree on and take some of the things that we can’t agree on off to the side, we can accomplish a great deal,” he said.

Obama unveiled his fiscal blueprint a day earlier, a plan that mixes tax increases on the wealthy and some businesses, a five-year freeze on most domestic programs, and boosts for elementary schools, clean energy and airport security. The outline is a first step in what is likely to be a bitter partisan fight as Congress translates it into a parade of tax and spending bills.

Despite its savings, Obama’s budget projects a record $1.65 trillion deficit this year, falling to $1.1 trillion next year and easing thereafter. Even so, it stands to generate a mammoth $7.2 trillion sea of red ink over the next 10 years, a number that would be even larger had the president not claimed over $1 trillion in 10-year savings by winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Glaringly missing from the president’s budget was a substantial reshaping of Social Security, Medicare and other massive, automatically paid benefit programs that bipartisan members of his deficit-reduction commission had recommended last year. That leaves the nation under a black fiscal cloud as its aging population, prolonged lifespans and ever costlier medical procedures leave the government with enormous I.O.U.’s.

Most Republicans have also shied away from calling for savings from so-called entitlement programs, but that has not stopped them from criticizing Obama’s failure to do so. Ryan, R-Wis., chairman of the House Budget Committee, has called for such reductions, but would not predict whether they would be included in the 2012 spending plan his panel plans to write this spring.

“The president punted on the budget, he punted on the deficit,” Ryan told reporters. “That’s not leadership, that’s an abdication of leadership.”

Overall, Obama’s budget claims $1.1 trillion in deficit reduction from tax increases and spending cuts over the next decade while protecting some — but not all — programs that Democrats cherish.

By 2021, Obama projects that $844 billion out of the $5.7 trillion federal budget would go toward paying interest on the government’s debt. Such interest payments would exceed the size of the entire federal budget in 1983.

Federal budgets often burrow into the minutest details of the bureaucracy, and Obama’s was no exception.

The State Department said it expected to save $5.3 million over the next three years by painting the roofs of its embassies and other offices in a heat-reflecting, energy-saving white color. And the U.S. Agency for International Development projected hundreds of thousands in savings by reducing the font size in its documents to reduce paper usage.

___

Associated Press writer Matthew Lee contributed to this report.
______________________________________

Video Section:

Warmest regards,
Calvin L. Ledsome Sr.,
Owner of Public Blog News Posting Service Group and
Economic News Blog
https://economicnewsblog.wordpress.com

http://pbnpservice.wordpress.com