Help preserve Medicare Advantage
A new study conducted by health policy researchers from Emory University shows that funding cuts to the Medicare Advantage program would cause 134,845 beneficiaries in Colorado to lose their coverage while half of all states would lose more than 50,000 enrollees each if Congress adopted funding cuts.
Medicare Advantage is the lifeline for the 8.3 million beneficiaries it covers. The program acts as a single entity providing coordinated care for beneficiaries with multiple chronic diseases, many of whom are low-income or minority beneficiaries. Private-sector coverage options such as Medical Advantage strengthen the safety net for low-income Medicare beneficiaries and help expand access to critical health-care services.
We owe the seniors of today, as well as those of tomorrow, reliable, quality health-care coverage. Let’s urge Congress not to look at Medicare Advantage as a piggy bank but, instead, preserve funding for this successful program which as so effectively provided health care for more than 8 million Americans.
Beatrice Madison,
Colorado Springs
President,
Colorado/Montana/Wyoming NAACP State Conference
Bea, Let's control our borders and illegal immigration problems first before expanding social programs.
Posted by Andy on May 29, 2007 05:54 AMsorry but to say we 'owe' a handout to anyone is wrong. this is a social program that is not needed but what is need are people who will take care of themselves and not depend on the government to do it for them. we dont need more hand outs but more responsible people.
Posted by fish on May 29, 2007 05:58 AMfish,
"This is a social program that is not needed but what is need are people who will take care of themselves and not depend on the government to do it for them."
Can we pile the bodies of the prematurely dead on your lawn?
Somehow I think that if you lacked health insurance and were gravely ill, your rigid ideological stand would become a bit more "flexible". Or would you just take yourself out into the woods to die for honor's sake?
Posted by Charles B on May 29, 2007 07:29 AMcharles b said
Can we pile the bodies of the prematurely dead on your lawn?
no but you can close the abortion clinics. Oh wait that isnt what you are referring to is it.
how does anyones lack of health insureance make it the general publics responsibility to take care of them? [ that is really what you socalist want by your health care standards, let someone else pay the bill]
all of the people you are refering to could go to france or canada where they have free health care and they could be taken care of.
Posted by Sean on May 29, 2007 09:25 AMsean asked:
"how does anyones lack of health insureance (sic) make it the general publics responsibility to take care of them? "
Because it's in our best interest. Anyone who insists it's not beneficial to the overall health of our society (including the health of those who can afford health care like me) to provide basic care to everyone does not know anything about health-care. Tell me, should we shut down mandatory vaccination programs? Are you aware of the potential of pandemic illness to kill the wealthy right along with the poor?
You're being penny-wise and pound foolish in apposing universal health-care.
But I know it's easier to toss out easy rhetoric like calling me a "socialist" and non-sequitors about abortion, than to think through what you're saying.
Your selfishness could lead to your future, premature death and it would almost be enough to make me believe in Karma.
Posted by Charles B on May 29, 2007 09:59 AMAs an old-timer living in an old-timer's abode I see all these old-timers over-dosing on prescriptions because they don't have to pay for them. Everyone seems to carry inhalents and I can assure you, they would not carry them if they had to pay for them and they don't need them. How can it be healthy for an old-timer to pop fifteen pills daily? Which, he would not be popping if he had to pay for them. I still think Governor Gloom was correct in saying how dumb it is to spend a hundred thousand dollars on the last six months of a person's life. If you are religious, be happy; die and go with your god. Allah has paradise for you; Father Adam has Mormon paradise; Jews have heaven; Christians have a god with very big feet to accompdate all who will rest at his feet.
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape: Deicide r22037@yahaoo.com on May 29, 2007 10:18 AMGrimy is right. No more popping pills. After all, the pill popping has caused GMC all those problems by extending the lives of people many, many years longer than GMC anticipated when it set up its pension program. Many people are productively alive today because they popped pills. But I have to go now; I have some more pills to pop Sorry Grimy, I like to accommodate you but I want to stick around as long as possible because my granddaughters want me to and need me. And frankly I really don't favor your notion that only the rich should have long lives.
As to Sean's desire not to have to contribute to the health care of others. There is a way to do that. Move to some desert island. Not many desert islands have a constitution with a provision authorizing the government to look out for the general welfare of its people. And there are a lot of us who think that it is in the best interests of America to have a healthy people. If a government which cares for the health of its people is a socialist government, then that's what you are stuck with unless you take my advice.
Posted by Truth on May 29, 2007 10:59 AMHealth care ..for AMERICAN CITIZENS FIRST.
Why can't americans be FIRST in line?
THEN..All the illegal aliens? Lets face it, they won't be denied any services...So why should the american citizen? Why can't we be the head and not the tail? As it is now ...americans are competing with the illegals and recent fake legals that use their fake green card or an americans identity.,for doctors appt.s it takes 2 mo. for an appt. at the local clinic. 4 mo. for a referral to a hospital,and that dos'nt guaranty you can get in....Because the hospitals are jam-packed full..I'ts an outrage for the american citizen.
The Clinica Compasina was closed for a period of time a few yrs ago (2003-2004)
because the illegals 'drained' all the funds ..women having anchor babies.
My daughter worked at social services...they have one every yr...and say..no husband..he's in mexico ..(yea right).
All they need is birth control..and immunization for the diseases brought over,
being their pres.Fox/Calderon don't immunize their people.
HEALTH CARE FOR THE AMERICANS FIRST..IN LINE.THE POOR ,ELDERLY,DISABLED,VETERANS,OUR CHILDREN AND ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN.
So, Truth, Will the granddaughters that "need" you also be footing the bill to keep us all around?
Posted by bjs on May 29, 2007 12:34 PMTruth,
You said:
"Not many desert islands have a constitution with a provision authorizing the government to look out for the general welfare of its people."
I have two questions I'd like you to answer.
1) Why do you think the authors of the Constitution chose the term "general Welfare" instead of "universal Welfare"?
2) In the section of the Constitution that mentions "general Welfare", there follows a list of items the federal government is responsible for. James "The Father of the Constitution" Madison said:
"Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust."
And he also said this:
"Money cannot be applied to the General Welfare, otherwise than by an application of it to some particular measure conducive to the General Welfare. Whenever, therefore, money has been raised by the General Authority, and is to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises whether the particular measure be within the enumerated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the money requisite for it may be applied to it; if it be not, no such application can be made."
And Mr. Madison also said:
"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted."
And Thomas Jefferson said:
"[O]ur tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark which now divides the federalists from the republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently, that the specification of powers is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money."
So, my second question to you, Truth, is: In regards to the "general Welfare" clause you cited, do you disagree with Messrs. Jefferson and Madison?
Posted by John II on May 29, 2007 01:04 PMAlthough John II has indicated that any disagreement with his ideas amounts to "treason", it might help here to attempt to clarify the matter a bit, by keeping it current, and at least somewhat relevant.
Messrs Jefferson and Madison wrote in the 18TH Century. And, for their time, as well as for the social, economiic, industrial, and other status of the newly formed United States, their writings were germane and timely. We, however, are not living in the 18th Century.
Nor is society today, in the 21st Century, in any or all its areas of complex problems, an 18th Century society. Nor do 18th Century opinions have any real importance when dealing with modern questions. Therefore, John II's questions concerning the agreement, or disagreement, with 18th Century writings on, and/or interpretations of, the Constitution are, as is usual with hin, totally irrelevant, totally immaterial, and a total waste of time to bother with.
The clock does not run backwads, however much John II insists on taking any debate in that reverse direction. And the Constitution contains its own method of amendment and development, which makes it a living document today. One which continues to be the foundation of a government which develops policies and answers pertinent to current problems, rather than being nothing more than a shadowy, and almost mythical, approach to unity in a nation of separate and very disparate States, all competing for their own place at the top of the heap. And however proper to the 18th Century the writings of 18th Century politicians may be, they are merely historical examples of the day and age, not "cast in concrete" froms of absolutes, as John II would have them.
If you choose to waste your time committing what John II calls "treason", by attempting to move the debate out of the 18th Century into the present, that's up to you. I have already accepted his "compliment" concerning what I write; and have no further need for accomodating his kind of retrogressive foolishness further.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 29, 2007 02:18 PMWell, I certainly supplied the rope, but I thought Truth would be the one to hang himself with it, not Old Grouch.
Old Grouch, your last post makes it virtually impossible to debate issues concerning the Constitution since you no longer consider James Madison, known as the Father of the Constitution, relevant to our "modern" world.
And, how can we count on the wisdom and experiences of those who came before us, if, by a mere counting of the earth's revolutions around the sun, we can determine that those lessons learned are no longer relevant?
Perhaps, according to your logic, we should not even acknowledge the Bill of Rights since it was initially drafted by Mr. Madison. Since the Bill of Rights was drafted in the 18th century it must now be entirely irrelevant.
Why bother maintaining a Constitution at all? How about on January 1st of every year, all Americans vote for a new set of rules to follow? And ,if by March of that year, the citizens determine that since it is no longer January, we should again create a new set of rules to follow.
Old Grouch, do you think we should abandon our current Constitution and create a new one more suitable for these "modern" times?
Posted by John II on May 29, 2007 02:55 PMJohn II,
I don't think Old Grouch is arguing that eighteenth century writings and ideas should be excluded from debate about modern issues, but rather, that your arguments are based on eighteenth century ideas exclusively, and are therefore contextually useless.
It's probably a good strategy for you, considering that the reaction to your underlying motives would be strongly negative if you simply stated them outright.
Posted by Charles B on May 29, 2007 05:18 PMEt tu, Charles B?
You said:
"...that your arguments are based on eighteenth century ideas exclusively, and are therefore contextually useless."
My arguments are based on eighteenth century ideas because that's when the article that Truth originally referred to was written.
Truth used a quote from the Constitution out of context, deliberately I might add. All I did was refute him with quotes from the man referred to as the Father of the document that Truth quoted from.
Then, I simply asked Truth if he agreed with the two key figures of that era. I thought it was a fair and simple question. That's probably why Truth has not responded.
Old Grouch disagrees with Messrs. Jefferson and Madison on this issue? Do you disagree also, Charles B.? If so, why do you think the Constitution enumerated the specific uses of federal tax funds after the "common defense and general Welfare" statement?
Posted by John II on May 29, 2007 06:28 PMJohn II,
As usual, you don't know to handle a straight answer when you get one. Just as you constantly mis-quote, and mis-represent answers that do not meet your preconceived notions of what they ought to be. This is fundamentally dishonest both intellectually and otherwise; but it is also typical of you; since it is patently obvious that you have no intention to debate, or discuss, current issues rationally; fixated as you are in the premise that only an 18th Century concept, or interpretation, of anything in the Constitution is allowable.
Charles B., has clearly illustrated the way in which intellectually honest and capable people discern and understand both your motives and your tactics. And he has also demonstrated the ability to discern and understand clear and simple answers to your irrelevancies as well.
I am sure that the rest of those who seek the opportunity to participate in the exchange of information and understanding in the market place of ideas, as represented in this forum, have equal discernment and understanding. Thus, having once responded to your presetation, clearly and succinctly, there is no need for me to amplify further on my previous posting here; as your subsequent questions are both disingenuous and dishonest.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 29, 2007 08:06 PMOld Grouch,
What are you talking about? Where was I dishonest? Please provide specific examples.
You framed this debate in terms of the eighteenth century or the twenty first century. All I did was quote the Founding Fathers. You interjected that since what they said was in the eighteenth century, it is now irrelevant.
If quotes from Messrs. Madison and Jefferson are irrelevant because of the time period in which they said it, where does that leave our Constitution which was written in the same era?
My position is that we adhere to our Constitution and the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. What exactly is your position? Your position, as shared with Truth and Charles B., is that John II is dishonest, manipulative, and disingenuous. But, how does that disprove my position? I'm arguing in support of our Constitution. I offered actual quotes from the Father of the Constitution. Again, what exactly are you disputing?
Posted by John II on May 29, 2007 08:27 PMJohn II
You state: 2:55 PM: "Old Grouch, do you think we should abandon our current Constitution . . . etc."
I clearly stated: 2:18 PM: "And the Constitution contains its own method of amendment and development, which makes it a living document today."
Your question is disingenuous and dishonest.
You state: 2:55 PM "And how can we count on the wisdom and experiences . . . if by a mere counting of the earth's revolutions . . . etc."
I wrote: "Nor is society today, in any or all its areas of complex problems, an 18th Century society."
Your question is irrelevant and disingenuous, having nothing to do with the massive changes in societal structure over the Centuries.
You state: 6:28 PM "Old Grouch disagrees with Mrssers Jefferson and Madison . . . .."
I wrote: 2:18 PM "Messers Jefferson and Madison wrote in the 18TH Century. And for their time, as well as for the social, economic, indusrtrial, and other status of the newly formed United States, THEIR WRITINGS WERE GERMANE AND TIMELY." (Emphasis added to help you understand the sentence.)
Your response is dishonest, in that it fails to acknowledge what I wrote. I did not at all disagree with either of them as they wrote for their time and place. That that writing itself is outdated, and outmoded, today - made so by the massive changes in the whole structure of society - should be obvious. The changes in societal structure have led to changes in the format of the Federal Government as well. And these changes have been recognized, articulated, and implemented by Constitutional Amendments, thus making the 18th Century position concerning the matter in question moot, at best.
You constantly refuse to recognize that, in reality, the Constitution has been amended, many times. And society today is not that of the 18th Century. Nor is the Constitution.
Your fundamental premise that only an i8th Century interpretation of the Constituion is allowable, is, of course, your opinion. And no one is attempting to stop you when you express your OPINION.
When others waste their time, either attempting to refute your opinion or carry on reasonable and rational discussion in relevant terms today, you resort to epithets -"treason" for one - and dishonest statements concerning the refutations and presentations. You certainly may, if you wish, adhere to the 18th Century position. Everyone well knows by now that that is where you are fixated.
And that fixation is the best reason for simply refusing to bother with you further.
Posted by Old Grouch on May 29, 2007 09:24 PMOld Grouch,
I asked you if you wanted to abandon our Constitution and you tell me it's a living document that allows for amendments. But, that is not an answer. I'm fully aware the Constitution allows for amendments. What amendment are you arguing for? Are you suggesting a universal health care system would be an amendment to the Constitution?
I asked you how we can count on the wisdom and experiences of those who came before us and you tell me we are not living in the 18th century. That doesn't seem like an answer to the question. Does anyone dispute that this is not the 18th century? You exclaim that we don't live in the 18th century as if that ends all discussion. Yet, the section in the Constitution that allows for amendments was written in the 18th century. So, where do you we go from there according to your logic?
I asked you if you disagreed with Messrs. Jefferson and Madison and you tell me "And for their time, as well as for the social, economic, indusrtrial, and other status of the newly formed United States, THEIR WRITINGS WERE GERMANE AND TIMELY." Well, that's great. But you don't live in their time. So, do you agree with them now, in the year 2007?
"You constantly refuse to recognize that, in reality, the Constitution has been amended, many times. "
When have I ever refused to recognize amendments. I'm the one who always argues that a Constitutional amendment is the proper way to pass laws.
"And society today is not that of the 18th Century. Nor is the Constitution."
Has Article I, Section eight of the Constitution been amended or altered?
I still do not know what you're arguing against, Old Grouch. I'm telling you what the Constitution says and what the author of the Constitution said, and you're telling me that's from the 18th century and we're no longer living in the 18th century.
Yes, we can amend the Constitution. But, the section that Truth and I are referring to has not been amended. Nor has anyone offered to add an amendment for universal health care. So, for the time being, until an amendment is passed that states otherwise, Article I, Section Eight specifically enumerates what the federal government is responsible for.
Posted by John II on May 29, 2007 10:44 PMJohn II since you went around recruiting for liberals to be in this discussion, I thought I would come see what the buzz was. ;)
I am unsure what position you are taking with regards the constitution.
Are you viewing it as an 18th century document to be viewed as they would have, or is it a “living document” that should be updated as views and times change? (or something else?).
Posted by Bango Skank on May 30, 2007 03:02 PMMr. Skank,
The original position I took was simply to understand Truth's position regarding Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Truth throws around the "general Welfare" sentence as if that was enough to justify any federal spending whatsoever. Yet, he conveniently ignores the rest of that section that enumerates the specific uses for federal tax funds.
Since Truth (and Charles B.) likes to characterize my positions as anarchic and contrary to American principles, I decided to bolster my own position by including quotes from the Father of the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson to see if Truth agrees or disagrees with them.
I thought it was fair question. For example, Alexander Hamilton felt the "general Welfare" clause was open-ended and I (and virtually all of his contemporaries) disagree with him on the issue.
What I was not expecting was the argument that since Mr. Madison stated the intention of Article I, Section 8 in the 18th century, that his observation was "irrelevant" today.
Old Grouch seemed to state that Mr.Madison was correct in the 18th century but wrong now. But, how can that be? Article I, Section 8 enumerates the powers of the federal government and Mr. Madison offered comments to back it up. If Old Grouch acknowledges that Mr. Madison was correct in the 18th century and there have been no amendments to alter Article I, Section 8, how can Mr. Madison now be wrong?
The fact that we can update the Constitution by adding amendments was not relevant to my original questioning. I'm not exactly sure what the term "living document" means unless it is just another way to say amendments. If thats the case, then fine, I'm all for a living document.
But, until an amendment has actually been passed, we must follow the Constitution as it is currently constructed.
I don't think I'm saying anything controversial here. I'm simply trying to untie the illogical knot Old Grouch has managed to create. It's a shame that he can't do it himself.