“The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped,” Hubert Humphrey, Vice President US 1965-69, 11/1/1977.
The ZERO cost of living adjustment scheduled for social security is an unveiling of the hypocrisy, cold-heartedness and brutality of this country's new liberalism--SELECTIVE morality, SELECTIVE tolerance and SELECTIVE kindness. Such is the blind-spot of the new liberalism, the inherent elder abuse incorporated into Obamacare.
Elder abuse is defined by our government (Administration for Aging) as many actions including, “The knowing, intentional, or negligent act by a caregiver or any other person that causes harm or a serious risk of harm to a vulnerable adult,” “The failure by those responsible to provide food, shelter, health care, or protection for a vulnerable elder,” “The illegal taking, misuse, or concealment of funds, property, or assets of a senior for someone else's benefit,” “Inflicting mental pain, anguish, or distress on an elder person through verbal or nonverbal acts, e.g. humiliating, intimidating, or threatening.”
Obamacare legalized elder abuse.
What would you call making it illegal to use relevant insurance information such as illness history (pre-existing conditions) or drug addiction (as long as its non-tobacco), or weight as a justifiable reason to charge a group of people more in insurance premiums but allowing AGE as a justification for such an increased charge?
AGING is one of only TWO categories (tobacco use) that can legally be used to discriminate against a particular group and charge more.
What would you call it FORCING American workers to pay into Medicare/Social Security for their entire working lives only to CHANGE the provisions of Medicare so that those individuals cannot obtain the promised benefit if they survive long enough to become eligible?
What would you call a CMS push for a proposal incorporating “end of life counseling” and PAYING Medicare doctors to give such counseling that involves discussing whether medical care is “worth it” for sick seniors in order to discourage them and reduce those pesky end-of-life health care expenses in spite of the fact that an individual has paid for health insurance for a lifetime and likely has spent less than some of the chronically ill?
If there’s ONE THING that liberals don’t own it’s their own bias, their own endless compassion for some without an honest examination of who they’ll abuse in order to achieve their goals.
It’s a real weakness that makes the alleged “kindness” of liberals not only suspiciously selective but currently indicates an intentional brutality towards older fellow citizens that is to me, without precedent.
And now the COLA increase for Social Security, scheduled to be ZERO for only the third time in the history of the payments, all three in recent years.
There should be a bright side. Baby boomers should be using their inconvenient numbers to pressure for changes that will end elder abuse scheduled to make their survival irrelevant if they live to an age where the American promises and principles provide them with emotional, physical and financial security in their last years.
Because of the decision to provide a ZERO cost of living adjustment (COLA) payment to social security recipients this year, consumers, especially the “next” group of retirees who are scheduled under the PPACA to face the least benefit from their lifetime of paying into the system are getting the opportunity to stop being stupid and press for reforms to the reality of Obamacare—they will pay more for less and will be victimized by “outcome-based” medicine that will deny them care by discouraging it or making it so expensive out of pocket that dying will be their only choice. (What did you THINK all that research about how the most money is spent in the last years of life was about?)
The COLA debacle is an unexpected twist that presents baby boomers with an opportunity because it has gummed up another feature of the scam of Obamacare, the clever timing of Obamacare provisions that so effectively allowed his re-election based on lies that didn’t come to the surface until 2014’s staggering exploitation of the American public kicked in. Suddenly, current retirees who are protected from the misery (the timing scam) are facing the real brutality of Obamacare—Ageism.
Even The NY TIMES, often home to some of the most misleading articles supporting Obamacare couldn’t avoid noticing that for only the third time in its history that the Cost of Living Adjustment for social security recipients for next year will be ZERO and that this places seniors in financial peril who are also facing gigantic increased Medicare expenses. (See THE NEW YORK TIMES, Robert Pear, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/us/politics/medicare-premiums-social-security-cost-of-living.html). Mr. Pear tries desperately to paint the Democrats as the good guys, (after all this is THE NEW YORK TIMES).
The voting CURRENT oldsters who thought they were safe because of Obamacare’s TIMING that delays the sacrifice of the old for the up-and-coming generation of retirees rather than current retirees through strategies like the Independent Payment Advisory Board and increased out-of-pocket requirements and diminished coverages called “outcome based” that discourage treatments for those seniors who want to try what’s available to survive based on the “odds” that it will work, is getting noticed because of the COLA zero adjustment.
For every morally superior claim made by a politician of the right thing, the American way, there should be at least one person telling them to hang their heads in shame because of how we treat our elders and the plans we have justified for ridding ourselves of the next generation of elders. It’s a disgrace.
Showing posts with label Medicare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medicare. Show all posts
Friday, October 16, 2015
Thursday, August 30, 2012
The Mean-ing of America: Elderly, Children and Women First? Think Again.
From my seat, both the President and Mitt Romney are arguing their case to become the next Francesco Schettino, the infamous captain of the Concordia whose behavior became notorious as he saved himself at the expense of others on a cruise ship as it sank. (It should be noted here that his most publicized offense, abandoning ship, in fact is not against the law and that there is no technical requirement that a captain go down with his ship.)
Both candidates, President Obama and Mitt Romney, while not guilty of breaking the law, much like our infamous Captain keep reminding Americans of what we need to sacrifice from the safety of their lifeboats. And, like all those who elbow their way into a lifeboat knowing that someone else will not have that spot, we’re being coaxed, reprimanded and legislated into accepting our captain’s views.
The difference is our response to these “captains.” Instead of showing outrage, as the passengers and personnel of the Concordia did at the cowardice, irresponsible conduct, and plain old fashioned non-chivalrous behavior of Francesco Schettino, we’re allowing ourselves to be soothed into supporting our captains at the expense of our elderly, women, and children.
The changes that are coming include further implementation of the Affordable Care Act (which as indicated are based on ifs so numerous that no one can assure us of what it will look like, see report from Chief Actuary Richard Foster in April 2010). For Republicans, the voucher system of Medicare is proposed. Incomplete and inaccurate information, as well as guesswork have the American people cowed into accepting the Medicare target.
It is put forth here that in spite of everything being said and cited that this election indicates an overriding attempt on the part of our captains to achieve election and save themselves off the backs of our elderly, our women, and our children. For in fact these are not the only places where budgets can be trimmed, responsibility can be encouraged and respect for life can be pursued, they are simply convenient places for candidates to capture large groups of votes, those against big government, those against “entitlements,” and those who are pro-life.
We must protect America not through the election of any single self-interested politician but through the selection of issues and possibilities that reflect our values as a nation. That requires truth, evaded and incomplete in presentations by both sides as they mix ifs with facts.
Let’s start with the pitch…We’ve got a tremendous deficit that requires cuts to Federal spending. Yep, the ship is sinking.
Sacrifice is necessary, much like that required during any catastrophe, such as that experienced on the Concordia. Yep, probably true.
The sacrifice will be made by the elderly, women, and children. What? But, of course, no right-minded American believes that our country’s fiscal crisis will be cured by sacrificing the elderly, women, and children, do they? And if we do…if any of us do believe that this is likely, then perhaps they also believe that our Captain Schettino fell into the lifeboat. Candidates go for votes, citizens go for values.
Using statistics offered by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, (www.cbpp.org/) “Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?” we accept that the biggest three expenditures from the Federal government are NUMBER 1, Medicare AND Medicaid AND CHIP, 21%, $769 billion, NUMBER 2, Social Security, 20%, $731 billion, and NUMBER 3, the military, 20%, $718 billion.
Wait a second, we may not be accountants but we can see a Captain’s choice here and it’s obvious we’ve chosen to sacrifice the ill and elderly based on flawed reasoning. Medicare is only part of the 21% attributed to Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP. Medicare accounts for two-thirds of that spending or $486 billion, making Medicare expense not number one, but number three in the Federal budget.
So, this Medicare problem is actually 13% of our federal spending, not 21%. This is significant because making cuts to programs that account for 13% of Federal spending (two-thirds of 20%) brings in additional possibilities for gutting programs rather than throwing letting our sickest and oldest fend for themselves.
(For instance, according to the same document Safety Net programs defined as those that include assistance in meeting home energy bills as well as more significant programs such as food stamps account for $466 billion, also considered 13% of the Federal budget.)
Other ways to save 13% without cutting Medicare? Let’s see, benefits including pensions for federal civil servants, amount to 7% of the budget AND the government’s interest payments on the national debt account for 6 percent of the Federal budget, ($230 billion), hmm…13%.
We also find that 4% of the Federal budget goes to “other”, which includes salaries for Federal employees, as reported in October 2011 by Ed O’Keefe and Eric Yoder in “The Washington Post” in their article, “How much money is spent on federal workers?” This money, $200 billion went to governmental civilian workers in both the Defense Department and other departments.
So, 4% plus the 7% spent on retirement benefits like pensions for federal workers account for 11% of our budget. Hmm…only 2 percent shortfall to achieve the desired Medicare savings.
Now for our children. We know that in the fattened category that includes Medicare AND Medicaid AND CHIP, the programs that benefit children through healthcare, we know that expenses cannot exceed more than one-third of the money spent on the government category of Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP since we know that Medicare uses two-thirds of the budget. Therefore, the federal costs of Medicaid and CHIP cannot exceed $283 billion, the amount left after the removal of Medicare costs.
These programs providing support and medical coverage for children therefore can only account for 7% of our budget, less than the 11% that our civilian federal workers cost our budget every year in salaries and benefits. But, when it comes to the preservation of life, we know from our doomed Captain Schettino that self-preservation is a strong motivation and, we’re sorry but, something’s got to go and children, you too are less important than government workers. That is the mean-ing of America.
And our women, the “war” against women as it’s been called has illustrated with clarity that our government is very capable of shifting its priorities from fiscal to social concerns, on both sides. After all, the cost to taxpayers of supporting health services to organizations such as Planned Parenthood come in at $363.2 million, a crumb in our governmental budget pie chart that cannot seriously be considered a budget concern. (According to Factcheck.org in an April 18, 2011 article entitled, “Planned Parenthood,” indicates that for the year ending 2009 Planned Parenthood received $363.2 million from Title X and Medicaid, that’s million, barely relevant in a country that spends $200 billion annually on federal salary and benefits packages.)
Women are being used as tools to obtain votes, by the Democrats by discussing how they are worthy of having the rights they legally have and by Republicans arguing they should not. However both arguments reflect contempt for women, who unlike any other group afforded rights have to worry that theirs will be taken away at any time by a shift in the political wind.
Certainly, Americans do not have to worry that literacy tests will be re-established as requirements before voting. Similarly, President Obama cheapens the importance, legitimacy and legality of a woman’s right to have abortion when today, he spouts off his “in this century” argument and argues for women’s rights in the same sentence as defending his unilateral action via Executive Order suspending enforcement of our immigration laws as applicable to certain illegal immigrants.
Why not include literacy tests in that argument, also covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Why not threaten by implication that if one party gets in or another that literacy tests will be reinstated? It is the negotiability of women’s rights that represent the war on women and both parties have compromised women by entertaining the possibility of illegalizing abortion.
Captain Schettino was not evil, he was cowardly, self-centered and unable to lead effectively in the face of crisis, and willing to lie and make excuses when he was called on for his behavior. Our current candidates are the same. They are not part of this sinking ship, they are apart, financially immune from our sinking ship yet hoping to captain it, and lecturing everyone else to show the courage they themselves do not exhibit. But, they are just captains. We must support values not candidates and sweet talking the good news about sacrificing women, children and the elderly are not values traditionally associated with America.
Both candidates, President Obama and Mitt Romney, while not guilty of breaking the law, much like our infamous Captain keep reminding Americans of what we need to sacrifice from the safety of their lifeboats. And, like all those who elbow their way into a lifeboat knowing that someone else will not have that spot, we’re being coaxed, reprimanded and legislated into accepting our captain’s views.
The difference is our response to these “captains.” Instead of showing outrage, as the passengers and personnel of the Concordia did at the cowardice, irresponsible conduct, and plain old fashioned non-chivalrous behavior of Francesco Schettino, we’re allowing ourselves to be soothed into supporting our captains at the expense of our elderly, women, and children.
The changes that are coming include further implementation of the Affordable Care Act (which as indicated are based on ifs so numerous that no one can assure us of what it will look like, see report from Chief Actuary Richard Foster in April 2010). For Republicans, the voucher system of Medicare is proposed. Incomplete and inaccurate information, as well as guesswork have the American people cowed into accepting the Medicare target.
It is put forth here that in spite of everything being said and cited that this election indicates an overriding attempt on the part of our captains to achieve election and save themselves off the backs of our elderly, our women, and our children. For in fact these are not the only places where budgets can be trimmed, responsibility can be encouraged and respect for life can be pursued, they are simply convenient places for candidates to capture large groups of votes, those against big government, those against “entitlements,” and those who are pro-life.
We must protect America not through the election of any single self-interested politician but through the selection of issues and possibilities that reflect our values as a nation. That requires truth, evaded and incomplete in presentations by both sides as they mix ifs with facts.
Let’s start with the pitch…We’ve got a tremendous deficit that requires cuts to Federal spending. Yep, the ship is sinking.
Sacrifice is necessary, much like that required during any catastrophe, such as that experienced on the Concordia. Yep, probably true.
The sacrifice will be made by the elderly, women, and children. What? But, of course, no right-minded American believes that our country’s fiscal crisis will be cured by sacrificing the elderly, women, and children, do they? And if we do…if any of us do believe that this is likely, then perhaps they also believe that our Captain Schettino fell into the lifeboat. Candidates go for votes, citizens go for values.
Using statistics offered by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, (www.cbpp.org/) “Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go?” we accept that the biggest three expenditures from the Federal government are NUMBER 1, Medicare AND Medicaid AND CHIP, 21%, $769 billion, NUMBER 2, Social Security, 20%, $731 billion, and NUMBER 3, the military, 20%, $718 billion.
Wait a second, we may not be accountants but we can see a Captain’s choice here and it’s obvious we’ve chosen to sacrifice the ill and elderly based on flawed reasoning. Medicare is only part of the 21% attributed to Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP. Medicare accounts for two-thirds of that spending or $486 billion, making Medicare expense not number one, but number three in the Federal budget.
So, this Medicare problem is actually 13% of our federal spending, not 21%. This is significant because making cuts to programs that account for 13% of Federal spending (two-thirds of 20%) brings in additional possibilities for gutting programs rather than throwing letting our sickest and oldest fend for themselves.
(For instance, according to the same document Safety Net programs defined as those that include assistance in meeting home energy bills as well as more significant programs such as food stamps account for $466 billion, also considered 13% of the Federal budget.)
Other ways to save 13% without cutting Medicare? Let’s see, benefits including pensions for federal civil servants, amount to 7% of the budget AND the government’s interest payments on the national debt account for 6 percent of the Federal budget, ($230 billion), hmm…13%.
We also find that 4% of the Federal budget goes to “other”, which includes salaries for Federal employees, as reported in October 2011 by Ed O’Keefe and Eric Yoder in “The Washington Post” in their article, “How much money is spent on federal workers?” This money, $200 billion went to governmental civilian workers in both the Defense Department and other departments.
So, 4% plus the 7% spent on retirement benefits like pensions for federal workers account for 11% of our budget. Hmm…only 2 percent shortfall to achieve the desired Medicare savings.
Now for our children. We know that in the fattened category that includes Medicare AND Medicaid AND CHIP, the programs that benefit children through healthcare, we know that expenses cannot exceed more than one-third of the money spent on the government category of Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP since we know that Medicare uses two-thirds of the budget. Therefore, the federal costs of Medicaid and CHIP cannot exceed $283 billion, the amount left after the removal of Medicare costs.
These programs providing support and medical coverage for children therefore can only account for 7% of our budget, less than the 11% that our civilian federal workers cost our budget every year in salaries and benefits. But, when it comes to the preservation of life, we know from our doomed Captain Schettino that self-preservation is a strong motivation and, we’re sorry but, something’s got to go and children, you too are less important than government workers. That is the mean-ing of America.
And our women, the “war” against women as it’s been called has illustrated with clarity that our government is very capable of shifting its priorities from fiscal to social concerns, on both sides. After all, the cost to taxpayers of supporting health services to organizations such as Planned Parenthood come in at $363.2 million, a crumb in our governmental budget pie chart that cannot seriously be considered a budget concern. (According to Factcheck.org in an April 18, 2011 article entitled, “Planned Parenthood,” indicates that for the year ending 2009 Planned Parenthood received $363.2 million from Title X and Medicaid, that’s million, barely relevant in a country that spends $200 billion annually on federal salary and benefits packages.)
Women are being used as tools to obtain votes, by the Democrats by discussing how they are worthy of having the rights they legally have and by Republicans arguing they should not. However both arguments reflect contempt for women, who unlike any other group afforded rights have to worry that theirs will be taken away at any time by a shift in the political wind.
Certainly, Americans do not have to worry that literacy tests will be re-established as requirements before voting. Similarly, President Obama cheapens the importance, legitimacy and legality of a woman’s right to have abortion when today, he spouts off his “in this century” argument and argues for women’s rights in the same sentence as defending his unilateral action via Executive Order suspending enforcement of our immigration laws as applicable to certain illegal immigrants.
Why not include literacy tests in that argument, also covered by the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Why not threaten by implication that if one party gets in or another that literacy tests will be reinstated? It is the negotiability of women’s rights that represent the war on women and both parties have compromised women by entertaining the possibility of illegalizing abortion.
Captain Schettino was not evil, he was cowardly, self-centered and unable to lead effectively in the face of crisis, and willing to lie and make excuses when he was called on for his behavior. Our current candidates are the same. They are not part of this sinking ship, they are apart, financially immune from our sinking ship yet hoping to captain it, and lecturing everyone else to show the courage they themselves do not exhibit. But, they are just captains. We must support values not candidates and sweet talking the good news about sacrificing women, children and the elderly are not values traditionally associated with America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)