Repeal or Replace

[Tunnelcat]

I thought I'd split this one from NS's topic since woodchip and I derailed it and because Trump will be be inaugurated on Jan. 20th. This surely is going to come up as a discussion as to how he's going to eventually deal with Obamacare, especially since it was one of his campaign rally cries. Repeal it, replace it with something else or break his promise and leave it be for now.

Like Obama didn't constantly lie. Hey TC, still believe if you like your insurance plan you can keep it. Or "It was a video that caused out ambassador to be killed.

Yeap, I got suckered on the first one, which royally pissed me off. But Trump may still yet put the screws to me because I didn't purchase any health insurance this year and NOW he's changing his tune on Obamacare. I just can't gag down over $7000 a year for insurance, and that's BEFORE I even pay up to the deductible and any co-pays. If the bastard waits until 2020, I'll be on Medicare by then, IF the Repuli-Cons don't get rid of THAT by then. In fact, there was an older person currently on SS who wrote a letter to the paper today asking why, even though SS is increasing his monthly check by 0.30% next year, he wasn't going to see any increase in his monthly SS checks next year. Poor sap. He doesn't realize that that extra 0.30% went to pay for his Medicare increases in 2017.

By the way woody, how do you like the fact that Trump appears to have lied TO YOU and now seems to be backing away from repealing Obamacare? I'd just like to know an answer to that question from a true blue Trump supporter.

As for the video, I believed that one at first, but I didn't stick with it though once the facts came out.

[callmeslick]

the video story lasted less than 48 hours. And the why of the attack doesn't have a bit of bearing on the loss of life due to underfunding for Security by Congress. Most of us DID keep our health insurance(Obama was referring to those employed, who indeed did). If you can't get past the clear fact that the only way to lower health care costs is Single Payer of some form, I can't help you with the Obamacare whine. Obamacare did NOT, in ANY WAY, cause your costs to go up. That you are forced to actually CARRY coverage is for the benefit of all those who would carry you in the event of a major medical expense. That so many STILL don't get that is a tribute to the power of lies and propaganda.

[Tunnelcat]

Obama DID lie. My health insurer couldn't afford to keep my plan in this state and they dumped me this year, all to go search for a far more expensive plan in ACA market. Dumping people who had individual old grandfathered plans was purposely built into the law too, which the insurers USED quite judiciously around the country to save themselves from having to insure those few individuals who weren't employed and weren't on Medicare and weren't profitable. I'm essentially in a new doughnut hole. Too sick to work and too young for Medicare. And Oregon's insurance costs within the ACA market are far higher than in many other markets around the country. Why? I don't know.

Slick, I know you're passionate about it, but you're wrong. Single-payer will not fix the problem of rising costs either. Why? Because of that elephant in the room, infinite inelastic demand, especially for end-of-life care and the very large group of Baby Boomers who are getting older and sicker and will want that care at all costs. Even Medicare costs are climbing at a rapid pace. Most people's SS payments will stay the same because of the transfer of those increases straight to Medicare. And market system like Republicans want won't work either as long as both of those facts are still in play. The ONLY way single-payer will work and NOT put a huge burden on all citizens is to RATION care for everyone. We just can't ALL have infinite demand for the best possible care and expect to keep costs in line. Something has to give. Mark my words, you'll see things implode in our health care system within this decade.

[Krom]

You might want to explain your reasoning to the majority of developed countries in the world who have successfully used single payer to control costs without having to ration care. It does work, it works so well in fact that many Americans travel to said countries for major medical work.

Also the elephant in the room of "infinite inelastic demand" is a lie. The demand may be inelastic, but calling it "infinite" is hyperbole, infinity doesn't work that way. The inelastic demand could be easily met with proper planning and infrastructure investment, which would unfortunately require looking and planning further ahead than just the next quarters profit margin.

[Tunnelcat]

I'm not arguing that single-payer doesn't work in other nations. But the main reason I don't think we'd ever get singler-payer here is the extreme loathing quite a few Americans have with anything or any system socialistic in nature. Capitalism and the free markets are God to at least half the country. But the free market doesn't work right in our health care system because of the type of demand and the built-in opaque costs we currently have. 2 main issues are happening in our system. One, the consumer definitely has inelastic demand for care because no one wants to be sick when help is available and 2, prices are hidden from the consumer so that they can't make informed choices about that care. Especially, most people are willing to spend as much as it takes just to survive when they're close to dying and are unable to make rational decisions when they're sick, so they're err on the side of medical help, even if it's having to use other people's money or go bankrupt themselves, and there's a LOT of older people now riding in that boat.

In order to have single-payer, the government would have to step in and negotiate and set prices for everything in order to keep costs under control. And the government would also have to ration our currently very expensive end of life care. There's just no way around it. Treating cancer is EXPENSIVE. Keeping older people comfortable in nursing homes until they die is EXPENSIVE. You'd hear howls of protest from every person who believes that they should be able to buy the best health care available and gripes or bankruptcies from every entity, doctor or hospital who wants more and more profit to remain sustainable. Government price controls goes against everything Americans are used to. I see too much resistance to change. Maybe I'm wrong, but I also see the attacks against Medicare by conservatives rising up again with the new Congress. Even though it's far more efficient cost wise, there is still considerable resistance by a segment of our society for even trying to keep it viable and functional.

As for inelastic demand, this paper might interest you Krom and Slick.

http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/t ... th-ca.html

Another key characteristic of health care is that demand is relatively inelastic. If you are sick and require care, you will purchase health-care services at almost any price. Of course, your ability to purchase health care is ultimately limited by your income, but you are likely to trade off spending on many other products to purchase the medical care you need. This is why we often read stories about people without insurance being bankrupted by medical expenses.

There is also the issue of cost transparency.

Health care is an example of a good for which the typical individual is unable to determine the quality of what is being purchased. You can think of other examples, such as legal services and used cars. In such situations, how can we make good decisions? Generally we do so by relying on the advice of experts. In the case of health, these are the doctors, dentists, and other health professionals who are trained to analyze our health situation and make suggestions to us. We listen, try to understand, and, using their advice, make an informed choice.

[woodchip]

Lets look at reality. I get a cost breakdown from Medicare for every bill presented by the doctors. So here are a couple of bills and what was actually paid:

833.00 billed, 97.17 paid by Medicare
5,607.00 billed, 518.27 paid by Medicare

I'm not sure how doctors would stay in business if a single payer govt. agency handled payments like Medicare does. Careful what you wish for if young people decide not to go into the health care profession if it winds up paying less than being a truck driver.

[Krom]

Lets look at reality. I get a cost breakdown from Medicare for every bill presented by the doctors. So here are a couple of bills and what was actually paid:

833.00 billed, 97.17 paid by Medicare
5,607.00 billed, 518.27 paid by Medicare

I'm not sure how doctors would stay in business if a single payer govt. agency handled payments like Medicare does. Careful what you wish for if young people decide not to go into the health care profession if it winds up paying less than being a truck driver.

Private insurance does the same thing, basically cuts a zero out of the bill every time. Medicare can go a little deeper just because it has more power over the market than the average insurance company, but everyone does it. Or what, do you think that stuff actually costs over $6000?

[callmeslick]

Once, back in the early 1990s, my employer(Quest Diagnostics) cut a deal with an insurer that essentially LOST us money on routine testing, so we could get an inflated full price reimbursement on speciality stuff(my allergy tests were billed at $55 per individual allergen and $200 for a common 10 test panel, a massive profit level). Therein the issue is illustrated. When the whole system is designed around for-profit care, when every provider makes an obscene profit, someone has to pay. That someone is us, and prior to Obamacare, that included guys like me picking up the tab for millions of uninsured people.

[sigma]

Private, but the state insurance company may do everything.

[Top Gun]

The bottom line here is that making basic healthcare services a for-profit enterprise is twenty kinds of fucked-up in the first place.

[Tunnelcat]

Now I'm glad I went without insurance. I just found out from my doctor that Providence, the insurer I WAS considering going with until sticker shock took hold, doesn't cover emergency room care or hospitalization for the one lone hospital, Good Samaritan, that's located in my county. Actually neither does Kaiser, the other choice I had and they didn't have my current doctor on their list of preferred providers. Now tell me how the ACA is making things better slick?

I also listened to a few Republicans talk about how they're going to repeal and change Obamacare. The one idea they had was to allow the patient to purchase insurance across state lines. I wonder how these out of state insurers will determine who I can have for a local doctor and which hospital I can get taken to in an emergency if the 2 local insurers are already restricting my choices in that matter right NOW?

[callmeslick]

the 'across state lines' is a ruse to give you WORSE coverage, with no responsibility to answer to your State Insurance commissioner's office when they rip you off, or fail to cover expenses. You are playing a DANGEROUS game, TC.

[Tunnelcat]

I didn't say I agreed with it slick. I was commenting on those several Republicans who were floating their "solutions" for repealing Obamacare during discussions on how Trump and his crew were going to solve our looming health care problem on the Sunday morning news shows. The other "solution" they came up with was tort reform. The same old saws Republicans keep trotting out. Personally, I agree with you. It's a recipe for disaster, for the patient. Personally, I'm hoping for a Medicare for all fix, but that ain't happening with a Republican majority in EVERYTHING this year.

[callmeslick]

this sums up my disgust with the idea of no ACA without a replacement:

[woodchip]

and you think there are no uninsured people who still show up at the emergency room door?

[Top Gun]

About 20 million fewer than there used to be, soooooo.

[Tunnelcat]

Even if I'd bought insurance from the provider I'd selected this year TopGun, if some local EMT's took me to my local emergency room after say an accident and I wasn't conscious to make a decision otherwise, I'd either have to pay cash up front to get admitted, despite having insurance, or get transferred to a preferred provider in another town and then pay cash for the ambulance ride to that new hospital. All the local insurance providers on the marketplace I had a choice from in 2017 that would've paid for care at my local hospital wanted at least $900 to a $1000 a month just for the monthly premiums.

[callmeslick]

and you think there are no uninsured people who still show up at the emergency room door?

it's down in my region by 92%. Quit demanding absolutes, and you might figure out how Progress works.

[woodchip]

About 20 million fewer than there used to be, soooooo.

And 27 million still uninsured, sooooo...your point?
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-obamacare/

[Tunnelcat]

And I'm one of those statistics.

[woodchip]

and you think there are no uninsured people who still show up at the emergency room door?

it's down in my region by 92%. Quit demanding absolutes, and you might figure out how Progress works.

And quit using your ancillary local data as a picture of reality.

[callmeslick]

Even if I'd bought insurance from the provider I'd selected this year TopGun, if some local EMT's took me to my local emergency room after say an accident and I wasn't conscious to make a decision otherwise, I'd either have to pay cash up front to get admitted, despite having insurance, or get transferred to a preferred provider in another town and then pay cash for the ambulance ride to that new hospital. All the local insurance providers on the marketplace I had a choice from in 2017 that would've paid for care at my local hospital wanted at least $900 to a $1000 a month just for the monthly premiums.

how old are you? For a middle aged couple, $1000 per month is NOT BAD for what you are getting. This isn't about handholding every goddamned expense for adults, it's about catastrophic situations and chronic conditions which cost real money. You have to be eligible for a good sized tax rebate off that $1000(hell, they give me a couple hundred thanks to having the grandkids under my guardianship) so you should JUMP at the chance to sign up.Sadly, my take on your collective posts is that you really don't give a damn about burdening others with potentially paying for your care, and you don't find your own health enough of a priority to make it a top financial expense priority.

[callmeslick]

and you think there are no uninsured people who still show up at the emergency room door?

it's down in my region by 92%. Quit demanding absolutes, and you might figure out how Progress works.

And quit using your ancillary local data as a picture of reality.

quit fabricating reality. The numbers nationwide are down in a similar fashion, as was pointed out to you. Creating some sort of issue out of not having the problem absolutely 100% resolved is garbage thinking based on ideology, not upon helping your fellow citizens.

[woodchip]

quit fabricating reality. The numbers nationwide are down in a similar fashion, as was pointed out to you. Creating some sort of issue out of not having the problem absolutely 100% resolved is garbage thinking based on ideology, not upon helping your fellow citizens.

So Bloomburg News is fabricating reality. At least I link a source, unlike the vapours you present.

[Tunnelcat]

Even if I'd bought insurance from the provider I'd selected this year TopGun, if some local EMT's took me to my local emergency room after say an accident and I wasn't conscious to make a decision otherwise, I'd either have to pay cash up front to get admitted, despite having insurance, or get transferred to a preferred provider in another town and then pay cash for the ambulance ride to that new hospital. All the local insurance providers on the marketplace I had a choice from in 2017 that would've paid for care at my local hospital wanted at least $900 to a $1000 a month just for the monthly premiums.

how old are you? For a middle aged couple, $1000 per month is NOT BAD for what you are getting. This isn't about handholding every goddamned expense for adults, it's about catastrophic situations and chronic conditions which cost real money. You have to be eligible for a good sized tax rebate off that $1000(hell, they give me a couple hundred thanks to having the grandkids under my guardianship) so you should JUMP at the chance to sign up.Sadly, my take on your collective posts is that you really don't give a damn about burdening others with potentially paying for your care, and you don't find your own health enough of a priority to make it a top financial expense priority.

That quote is just for me, a single person, 60 years of age in Oregon. I also don't qualify for ANY subsidies because my retirement income is just a little bit above the subsidy cutoff point. I could get rid of all my investments that generate income, become poor and THEN get a subsidy. The other way is to get divorced so that I become poor enough to get that subsidy. But what's the point of doing THAT? I would like to be able to buy catastrophic insurance with a really high deductible and a low premium just to protect our savings because I can afford to pay for most of my simple healthcare needs out of pocket. But the ACA has NOTHING along those lines. It considers a $6750 deductible as high. BS. Give me a $10,000, or even a $50,000/$100,000 deductible and a low premium, then I'll quit griping. That's wealth protection. What we have now is wealth bleeding. Besides, I already have to pay cash for all my vision and dental needs and that ain't cheap either. No insurance there. 4 years, that's all I need to get through to Medicare. I paid into that for years. Better yet, get rid of for profit insurance, bring health care costs in line with reality or cap the amount people can spend on healthcare in their lifetimes if everyone is required to have some sort of insurance and make those costs transparent to the consumer like any commodity and let the consumer make his or her own choices.

We worked hard to build up our savings, even though early retirement was forced upon both of us by health reasons. We also both have health issues that no doctor has been able fix either. At what point do I pay for more and more for insurance at the expense of buying anything else, including food and shelter? When does this affect our whole economy in general? I say it's going to be sooner than later.

[Spidey]

So the uninsured go to the emergency room, and the taxpayers have to pay for it…well that sounds bad…right.

So instead these same people now show up at a health provider just as before, but instead of the cheaper direct payments made to reimburse the hospitals, their care now has an additional layer of profit involved…and guess what…the taxpayer is still paying the bill.

Genius!

Ha Ha

[woodchip]

TC, the problem with what slick is telling you is he's trying to justify the ACA. The real question, TC, is what were you paying and getting on your old insurance policy. In my case I was paying 230.00 a month 50 a 20/80 plan with a max 5000.00 deductible (before it got eliminated). I suspect that would be heaven if it was offered now.

[callmeslick]

quit fabricating reality. The numbers nationwide are down in a similar fashion, as was pointed out to you. Creating some sort of issue out of not having the problem absolutely 100% resolved is garbage thinking based on ideology, not upon helping your fellow citizens.

So Bloomburg News is fabricating reality. At least I link a source, unlike the vapours you present.

no, they are correct, we have that many folks in our borders without health insurance. Still, uncompensated claims at emergency rooms are way down, and thus the federal tax dollars that subsidized such care, which comes, by the way, from the Medicare budget or ties in somehow, as I recall.

[callmeslick]

TC, the problem with what slick is telling you is he's trying to justify the ACA. The real question, TC, is what were you paying and getting on your old insurance policy. In my case I was paying 230.00 a month 50 a 20/80 plan with a max 5000.00 deductible (before it got eliminated). I suspect that would be heaven if it was offered now.

obviously, rates vary with region, but at my age, here in Delaware, I could buy a 20% copay plan for myself with a $7500 out of pocket max for no more than $350 per month right now. The plan my wife have is $15 copay, $2500 deductable and $5000 out of pocket max for two people over 55 years old, and that one is $1325 per month. Is Michigan in the exchanges for policies? To the topic of rises in costs, when I worked for one, I was insured via my corporate plan, generally there were choices. The total premium costs between the company share and mine went up FAR faster than the average rate since the ACA came into being, at least during the period of 2000-2010. The fact that my wife and I could get insurance without severe limits and waivers under the ACA made retirement an easy call.......there might have been a chance that neither of us could get insurance until we hit Medicare, at any price, before then.

[Top Gun]

About 20 million fewer than there used to be, soooooo.

And 27 million still uninsured, sooooo...your point?
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-obamacare/

Could you maybe pull your head out of your ass for long enough to acknowledge that the number decreasing is a good thing in and of itself? Oh right, no, you're sucking the Republican schlong of demolishing the entire system without having any goddamn plan for a feasible replacement.

[callmeslick]

oh, and TC, for just a bit more(and better outcomes):
http://www.bu.edu/research/articles/lux ... gn=PRburst

[callmeslick]

good read on the matter from a fiscally conservative website, from a retired insurance exec:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/im-a-f ... 2017-01-02

[callmeslick]

a pretty evenhanded summary of the current state of the political process.
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/04/508242215 ... -obamacare


NPR seems to take the view that both sides are focused on the optics and the politics, and(as usual) overlooking the welfare of the actual populace in the big picture. This is where I actually(sit down, quickly, Woody) have some hope for a populist who thrives on public acclaim like Trump to serve the public interest. If he really wants the nation to carry him on their shoulders in acclamation, all Trump really has to do is REALLY address healthcare costs for the whole nation. He does that, for real, and to far greater sweeping effect than the ACA, he'd have tremendous political capital.

[callmeslick]

I note with a bit of wry amusement, today's headlines, across all media sources:

To wit--Trump asks Dems and GOP to develop healthcare plan



in other words:

1. There never was, and still isn't, a plan to replace the ACA.

2. They don't even have the balls to put forth a Republican proposal for fear of public backlash.



Here's your strong, new leadership.

[woodchip]

Or it takes time to write up a new plan.

[callmeslick]

Or it takes time to write up a new plan.

they've been calling for repeal for 6 ★■◆●ing years. Give us a break, we aren't all stupid.

Oh, and here's a link to some DATA to digest:
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... story.html

[Tunnelcat]

TC, the problem with what slick is telling you is he's trying to justify the ACA. The real question, TC, is what were you paying and getting on your old insurance policy. In my case I was paying 230.00 a month 50 a 20/80 plan with a max 5000.00 deductible (before it got eliminated). I suspect that would be heaven if it was offered now.

I had something similar, a $247 monthly premium and a $7500 deductible and I was quite happy with it, until it was dropped because it didn't meet the ACA's minimum requirements and for the real reason, the insurance company wasn't making enough money off of me to make it worth their bottom line. Plus, it was legal for insurers to leave a state market if they weren't being profitable. It was perfectly adequate for me however and I never even used that much health care while I had it, so they made money off of me anyway.

obviously, rates vary with region, but at my age, here in Delaware, I could buy a 20% copay plan for myself with a $7500 out of pocket max for no more than $350 per month right now. The plan my wife have is $15 copay, $2500 deductable and $5000 out of pocket max for two people over 55 years old, and that one is $1325 per month. Is Michigan in the exchanges for policies? To the topic of rises in costs, when I worked for one, I was insured via my corporate plan, generally there were choices. The total premium costs between the company share and mine went up FAR faster than the average rate since the ACA came into being, at least during the period of 2000-2010. The fact that my wife and I could get insurance without severe limits and waivers under the ACA made retirement an easy call.......there might have been a chance that neither of us could get insurance until we hit Medicare, at any price, before then.

Some more information on that state by state slick. But unfortunately, all those low sounding rates aren't age adjusted for anyone above age 60, which is that magic age to start seeing much higher premium rates, nor are they for individuals who aren't working, so they look downright cheap to me, even with the rising premium trends. The problem that I and a lot of other non-working older middle class individuals who were thrown onto the mercy of the individual Obamacare market is that we DO NOT have any bargaining power. We are the few and the forgotten by Obamacare. We have no way to pool ourselves together like employers can to help with rate negotiations and we aren't poor enough for subsidies thanks to the ACA. That means a large percentage of our income will go towards health insurance and not towards anything else in the economy. Besides, most people who are employed are typically in a low risk pool anyway. If they're working, they're most likely younger and not sick, so of course they'll see lower premiums.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/hea ... miums.aspx

oh, and TC, for just a bit more(and better outcomes):
http://www.bu.edu/research/articles/lux ... gn=PRburst

Good lord, that puts my crappy and dirty local hospital to shame. When my husband had the misfortune to stay there for just one night, it was so gross that he checked out post haste the next day. That setup looks cleaner and more luxurious than even my own house. Plus, there's no way in hell I could EVER afford that!

I'll have to say one thing about Trump, at least he knows that repealing Obamacare without something to replace it with would be a catastrophic mess, all on his watch, especially for those 22 million currently on Medicaid subsidies, courtesy of the ACA. The Republicans however, are still champing at the bit to get rid of it no matter what. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! And woody, they had YEARS to come up with some sort of replacement in a few backroom deals, but as usual, it was all bluster. They never even tried to come up with an alternate plan. If they had, we'd have see something ready to go on the books in the first session of Congress.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-wa ... 11784.html

Let's see if the Republicans have the balls to pull this maneuver. We'll get see how much disunity actually exists between the Republicans and how much they're willing to risk going against Trump, which will make HIM look bad, and you know, he doesn't like to look bad at all.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... yptr=yahoo

[callmeslick]

just to clarify, TC.....I am over 60. For the second straight year, dammit. My wife is a couple years shy still, but we are dealing with pricing firmly in that gap age. Given that I was involved with the process that resulted in the ACA, I'll assure you that those who designed it back at Heritage and later in the state of Massachusetts, on to the Obama healthcare team(a large group) ALL focused specifically on the needs of the ages 55-65. That is actually, despite your perception, the PRIME beneficiary group. Why?
1. Young people aren't, being less likely to use chronic care, albeit more likely to have accidental trauma needs
2. Prior to the ACA insurers ROUTINELY denied policies altogether to individual plans, would have done so with corporate or group plans if they could,
and, in fact, ACTIVELY assessed group rates to employers based upon the demographics of the workforce.
3. Prior to the ACA, people over 50, especially women, could only get coverage for conditions not considered pre-existing. The definitions included
the secondary effects of post-menopausal physiology, which writes off everything from neurological symptoms to broken bones(post meno calcium leeching is considered 'pre-existant'), and also type 2 diabetes, among many others. Thus, if you've had any sort of long-term conditon, no coverage or reduced coverage. This was addressed in the ACA.
4. The gap between the rates for young people and the 'golden age' group is fixed by the law, keeping your rates far lower than they would be.
5. Those 'minimum' coverages you cannot buy anymore probably fell afoul of either the precondition thing, or insufficient hospitalization coverage. You don't want either, but especially so if in our age group.



bottom line is that the ACA, when examined closely, did not cause your issues. In fact, it positively impacted taxpayer costs for hospital reinbursement, Medicare funding, the actual lives and well being of millions of US citizens. The issues you complain about are inherent so long as insurance companies determine the rates, so long as every step of healthcare is a profit center for someone, so long as our healthcare delivery is fee for service and flat fee for outcomes or some other method.

[Tunnelcat]

....bottom line is that the ACA, when examined closely, did not cause your issues. In fact, it positively impacted taxpayer costs for hospital reinbursement, Medicare funding, the actual lives and well being of millions of US citizens. The issues you complain about are inherent so long as insurance companies determine the rates, so long as every step of healthcare is a profit center for someone, so long as our healthcare delivery is fee for service and flat fee for outcomes or some other method.

Yes it did, although I agree that hitting 60 was a very big factor in the increase. If I'd bought insurance for 2017, I'd be paying $657 a month for pretty much the same kind of insurance, with maybe a slightly lower deductible. I WAS paying $247 a month in 2016. That 3X increase outpaces inflation too. The only preexisting condition I have is Fibromyalgia, which has no treatment for it anyway. If the ACA was supposed to make insurance affordable, why is it that seniors are being stuck with the highest bill? I thought the ACA was supposed to spread out the costs for everyone by having a large pool of people to keep those costs in line? We seniors can least afford the price increases since we're retired, even though our group has the most risk for illness.

Speaking of inflation, it seems that SS recipients are having some sticker shock for 2017. There have been several retirees writing into our local paper wondering what happened to their supposed 0.3% SS COLA. Well, it went towards their Medicare Part B cost increases and they can't figure that out. In some cases, retirees have had their SS checks DECREASE because the rise in Medicare Part B costs have outpaced the COLA. Medicare has the same problem. Sharply rising costs with no end in sight.

[callmeslick]

it always is a matter of money. We can absorb this hit, right?
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthca ... bfcN&pfr=1