The Affordable Care Act Breaks “The Medicare Promise”
December 26, 2012 at 11:25 am in News by Tea Party Patriots 60 Comments
With Christmas and New Year’s upon us, the National Support Team of Tea Party Patriots is taking some time to be with our families and clear our heads of politics, barring any major legislation passing through Congress. Please enjoy these posts from the last few months – a Best of Tea Party Patriots, if you will. Below is the third post, published on September 14, which highlights ways Obamacare breaks the promise of Medicare.
The Affordable Care Act Breaks “The Medicare Promise”
In a recent campaign ad, the Obama campaign claims Mitt Romney would “break [the] promise” of Medicare. The ad, seen below, cites myriad sources to back the claim.
Unfortunately, the ad never addresses the significant flaws in the President’s own health care law. Tea Party Patriots have spent the last two-and-a-half years working to overturn the law, but let’s look at some of its key components again:
1. Defenders of the Affordable Care Act claim its $716 billion cut in future Medicare spending isn’t a cut because the program’s budget still grows, just less quickly than it did before the Act became law. They use two arguments for this stance – first, that a cut in future spending isn’t a cut. Second, they note the cut is to providers, not patients.
Regarding the first claim, these defenders are being intellectually dishonest. Unlike most other federal programs, Medicare is governed by permanent laws that set spending based upon factors such as the number of people in the program and the cost of medical care. Unlike almost every other federal program, its budget is not approved by Congress. Thus, any cut to future spending is indeed a cut, not a spending reduction compared to future expectations.
Regarding where the cut hits, this too is a fallacious defense – while the cuts won’t hit patients directly, hitting providers means patients will suffer reduced access to care and other problems.
In short, the Affordable Care Act indeed cuts $716 billion from Medicare, and it will cause a great deal of harm to Medicare patients.
2. In order to reach a “deficit reduction” level of $109 billion in the newest Congressional Budget Office analysis of the law, the Affordable Care Act had to raise approximately $770 billion in taxes. To quote Charles Krauthammer:
Suppose someone – say, the president of United States – proposed the following: We are drowning in debt. More than $14 trillion right now. I’ve got a great idea for deficit reduction. It will yield a savings of $230 billion over the next 10 years: We increase spending by $540 billion while we increase taxes by $770 billion.
He’d be laughed out of town.
3. The law violates the First Amendment via the HHS Mandate, which forces religiously-affiliated institutions such as schools, adoption centers, and hospitals to provide insurance that covers (for “free”) sterilization, contraception and abortifacients…even if such coverage violates the principles of the organization.
4. As I noted shortly after the Supreme Court found the individual insurance mandate constitutional, the Affordable Care Act allows the government to violate the “free will” tradition Americans have always enjoyed under the Constitution.
5. And the most laughable part of the law, in relation to the ad? Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicare’s Trust Fund will still go bankrupt in 2024, which strikes me as a clear violation of “the Medicare promise.”
Unlike Social Security, Medicare is a complicated system of public-private partnerships that has a long history of fraud, waste, and other inefficiencies. Most efforts to prevent its oncoming bankruptcy are rooted in theory, which allows the ad to make its claims. However, claiming that a premium-support plan will destroy “the Medicare promise” while campaigning on a law that will literally destroy this same promise is intellectually dishonest, to say the least.

Merry Christmas to you and yours. May you have a day of happiness and celebration. May everyone smile and enjoy the company of their loved ones.
A Democrat breaking a promise. I’m shocked.
Just wait until the universal fact that money doesn’t grow on trees becomes impossible to ignore. Everything goes away.
The only way to avoid this catastrophe is to force the government to live within the means the economy provides.
NO MORE DEBT. NOT FOR ANY REASON.
Make the government grow up and live within the means provided. If an agency or department exhausts its appropriated funds, then shut it down until there are funds again to appropriate for it.
We need a Speaker that can make this happen. It’s obvious Boehner doesn’t represent the Republican membership in Congress. We need a new Speaker. If we continue with Boehner, then we should not expect any change from the previous two years when he caved on everything to the Democrats, and all we have to show for his leadership is a fiscal cliff. Well, then let it come.
NO MORE DEBT. NOT FOR ANY REASON.
I’m for shutting down the DEA, NASA and ther Coast Guard right now.
The DEA is a very obvious failure. Terminate it.
We don’t have a space program anymore. Terminate NASA.
People that needed the Coast Guard have very uncomplimentary things to say about them. I am one of those people who was in a dire situation a couple of miles off the coast IMMEDIATELY IN FRONT OF THE COAST GUARD FACILITY and spent the entire night stranded without power proximal to a heavily-used shipping lane. My family alerted the Coast Guard, in person, of the situation immediately after sundown when I didn’t return as planned. About an hour before dawn a shrimp boat stopped and towed my boat after they colided with me with a glancing blow.
This is the common type of story about the Coast Guard from people along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico shore. If the Coast Guard can’t fix this problem, cut all funding for this type of effort and shut down all the facilities.
DB,
Fully agree. Let the Navy partol the coast
Jerry, Not sure about shutting down the DEA, NASA or the Coast Guard.
Firstly, unless we legalize drugs, there will be a substantial increase in drug use resulting in more people in the court system and prisons. All costing even more money. Everyone talks bad about welfare, but it is quite cheap compared to incarceration.
Second, we need NASA if we ever plan on taking over the moon and fighting a potential alien invasion.
Thirdly, the Navy is ill-equipped to take over for littoral operations. All their equipment is for long stays in the open ocean not coast line duties. Also, we need the Coast Guard for the pacifist Americans who love freedom.
What is the “Medicare promise”?
Unlimited “free” healthcare paid for by others?
It will bankrupt the country.
All the talk about “fixing” Medicare is nothing more than talk about how long the inevitable collapse can be delayed.
Health care, like everything else, will only “work” if it is a part of a free market.
Hasn’t anyone noticed that eye care, which has until very recently escaped the destructive forces of socialized medicine, has been getting both very much better and also cheaper? Eye care, unlike the rest of our health care “system”, has been a part of the free market. It works. It doesn’t need to be constantly “fixed”.
Medicare is not FREE. between my wife and myself we are paying over $700. a month and we are informed that this is going up next year. Medicaid for the bums is free. Now that we have that straight what the hell are we going to do about it? As a vet I believe in live free or die and not live for free or die. This coming year might be the test to see who believes in what this country is really all about. As for myself, I will stick with what I believe is true. Freedom!
Richard,
Didn’t the Supreme Court just decide that the commerce clause couldn’t be stretched far enough to require that people be forced to buy health insurance?
It seems to me that the government is forcing you to buy health insurance, and that’s unconstitutional.
I suppose they could tax you if you didn’t buy it… but they’d have to change the Medicare law to do it, since there is no provision in the law currently that does that.
You would have to sue in Federal Court. Maybe somebody like the Institute for Justice would be interested in helping? I’m a few years away from Medicare myself, but I plan to sue when it gets to me, if we still have a country by then.
Then you’d have to have a justice that actually adheres to the Constitution, and not one that ignores the Constitution whenever it interferes with the socialist/communist/Marxist agenda of the Democrats.
We need to fix that about the Supreme Court. Where is the Speaker of the House when we need him? Still cowering in the corner after Holder and Obama told him to GFY?
Vomit soaked, repulsive, shiit for brains teabaggers. What a steaming heap.
How’s this for vomit:
Money doesn’t grow on trees.
Now, how about you Democrats come up with some plan that doesn’t require money growing on trees. We haven’t seen anything that even resembles that from you. Come to think of it, we haven’t seen anything at all from you. In case you have been in a coma the past 4 years, we haven’t had a budget since Obama took office.
Well? Where’s the plan?
Yes, budgets require restraint. Obama wants no restraint, therefore, no budget. He wants tax revenue, he WANTS us to go over the fiscal cliff so that taxes are increased not only on the rich, but on every American taxpayer. He can always blame it on Republicans. HE is the one who refuses to bargain and compromise.
The dupes blindly gobbling up the Democrat propaganda party line will always do so. That won’t change. What needs to change is that they are forced to actually pay for what they vote for. The Republicans will get blamed by the so-called “mainstream” so-called “news” networks for everything from the dinosaurs becoming extinct to the fiscal cliff.
As long as half the country is able to mooch off the other half, they will not be interested in any truth that will cause them to get off the dole and become self-reliant. We need to increase the number of people paying taxes. Boehner won’t do that. He’s actually a Democrat wearing a Republican constume. We need a different Speaker, one who actually opposes the obviously Marxist agenda of the Democrats.
LOL
NoBaggers,
If you’re an adult, your country is ashamed of you. If you are a child, you’re parents are embarrassed for you. In either case, please go away until you are part of the solution.
Merry Christmas to you too Mr Obama
As ill informed as this person obviously is, I know this “subject” had to seek out help in getting their comment in writing. I believe without outside help, this person could not put two words together.
Plan? How about put all baggers in FEMA camps and outlaw the republican party? Works for me.
Good Solid American,
Your plan is vapid. Your thinking, thus far, does not reflect your moniker.
Wassilla will Obama does’nt have anything better to do than register under cute leftistbrained usernames and insult the people who can think. He has’nt writen a bill or budget I guess because it would cut into his golf at taxpayers expense.
Perhaps I should change my name to Good Dense American?
I’m thinking you don’t even realize you are a fascist. (That’s in accordance with the actual definition of the word, and not as it was used by Demcrats to characterize everyone not mindlessly repeating their indoctrinated party line mantra.)
Just another lost cause!
As I read that atrocity called “affordable care” I observe several things, first, it loots social security, the va, medicare, then medicaid. After which, it sets in place funding of medicaid after 2014 at a legally mandated inflation of approximately 30% per annum over the next 5 years, compounded. At that rate, by 2019, it will quadruple its cost with no provision to fund.
I have only the url provided by my congressman, an abridged version that prints to a little over 1200 pages, a mere 85 dollars at kinkos. If any of you folks have landed the full 2700 page bill and read it, I’d love to know what part of Dr. Mengele’s dream works I missed
Here’s something the Supreme Court seems to have forgotten about…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_for_vagueness
Excellent point. It’s 2 years after the fact and it’s still not clear what’s in this bill.
Under the precedent set in your referenced Supreme Court decision, that makes the so-called “afforcable” care act unconstitutional, among a whole list of other unconstitutional aspects.
DB,
Since some states have started to implement it, some one understands it well enough to write the program code for the web site.
As ruled, “In American constitutional law, a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand.”
You can’t really believe the average person in the United States understands what’s in this law.
I’m relatively well educated and informed, and it confuses me.
But, let’s put this to the test and see if you understand what is in the law.
Who is going to pay the Penalty that was ludicrously ruled to be a tax?
If it is a tax, then it must be paid, right?
You’re going to tell us that a person who is considered to be too “poor” to pay income tax is going to be required to pay the Obama Tax?
What in that law defines who pays the Obama Tax?
The law itself isn’t going to matter as much as the “interpretation ” of the law that is given it by the bureaucrats in the DHHS. That may or may not actually relate to the law itself.
“Someone” might understand it, but lawyers are going to be contesting it’s meaning for years, which will certainly prove it’s incomprehensible to almost everybody.
If the Supreme Court didn’t like these huge, vague and confusing laws, they’d stop them.
Unfortunately, they do like them, since the end result is more power to the government.
DB,
Here is a link an article in Forbes on the taxes; http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2012/12/25/in-2013-millions-of-americans-face-obamacare-tax-hikes/
The SCOTUS already ruled on ObamaCare so I guess they understood and read the 2700 pages. I haven’t had time yet.
Jerry, what about the fact we are the only developed nation without nationalized Healthcare?
Hellfire,
It is odd. My girfrined is a Canadian citizen and their national hero is not some general but the guy who invented their health insurance system. They love it.
To assert that we need nationalized healthcare because everybody else has it is a sheeps mindset. There are several aspects to a free market, most notably competition. Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to rice doctors when you are bleeding profusely. At that point another aspect of a free market should be allowed to kick in, that the patients ability to pay determine the services tendered. Something we have denied our medics. If there was no insurance permitted, the medics would find themselves in a marketplace without carte blanche billing and collection, driving them, to provide their services at a plebeians price . I do not own Rolls-Royce
To assert that we need nationalized healthcare because everybody else has it is a sheeps mindset. There are several aspects to a free market, most notably competition. Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to rice doctors when you are bleeding profusely. At that point another aspect of a free market should be allowed to kick in, that the patients ability to pay determine the services tendered. Something we have denied our medics. If there was no insurance permitted, the medics would find themselves in a marketplace without carte blanche billing and collection, driving them, to provide their services at a plebeians price . I do not own Rolls-Royce because I can’t afford one, so my Chevy does ok.
It seems there were 4 justices who can be considered qualified who thought it wasn’t a tax. And, 4 justices that ignore any part of the Constitution that interferes with their socialist/communist/Marxist agenda. Then, we have Roberts. For some reason, he ignored the stated intent of the law, which is as stated by the members of Congress, who are assumed to be able to understand what it is that they write in the English language. So, we have a case where the stated intent of the authors is diametrically opposed to what Roberts understood the law to mean.
This screams ambiguity and confusion.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation”
I have to break it up again to find the specific word the censoring algorithm is detecting. Forgive the multiple posts. It seems there were 4 justices who can be considered qualified who thought it wasn’t a tax. And, 4 justices that ignore any part of the Constitution that interferes with their socialist/communist/Marxist agenda. Then, we have Roberts.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation”
I have to break it up again to find the specific word the censoring algorithm is detecting. Forgive the multiple posts. For some reason, he ignored the stated intent of the law, which is as stated by the members of Congress, who are assumed to be able to understand what it is that they write in the English language.
“Your comment is awaiting moderation”
I have to break it up again to find the specific word the censoring algorithm is detecting. Forgive the multiple posts. For some reason, he ignored the stated intent of the law
There is something in this sentence the censor algorithm is programmed to detect and not allow the post to be viewed:
w h i c h i s a s s t a t e d b y t h e m e m b e r s o f C o n g r e s s, w h o a r e a s s u m e d t o b e a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d w h a t i t i s t h a t t h e y w r i t e i n t h e E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e.
So, we have a case where the stated intent of the authors is diametrically opposed to what Roberts understood the law to mean.
This screams ambiguity and confusion.
DB,
Well like it or not the Court has spoken and the law is the law.
Courts don’t make law Jerry.
Saying that a law means something that it doesn’t say is actually making a new and different law.
It’s not a hard concept.
Only Congress can write laws.
Craig,
SCOTUS did not strike down the law so it remains the law as passed by Congress. The law remains as a valid law.
The SCOTUS ruled on one issue, the issue of whether the penalty is a tax. There are other issues. Just because one aspect has been ruled upon, that doesn’t make the law constitutional in all aspects. There are many arguments for this law being unconstitutional. Each can be argued. But, we have an obvious problem with the Supreme Court writing what it thinks the Constitution should say, and not what it actually says.
Steps of the Capital Building on the first day of the 113th Congressional Session.
The goal is to remove Boehner as Speaker of the House.
Who’s there?
DB – Looks like Boehner isn’t going anywhere. Maybe they’ll vote in Eric Cantor who is even worse. They just won’t vote in a real fighter. That’s all…
They crushed his proposed “Plan B”. That means something. They don’t like him any more than we do. What they need is to feel the heat. If they feel the heat, they’ll do something about the biggest problem we have – Boehner being a Democrat and also the sitting Speaker for a Republican-majority House.
They tried to pull a real shady act, letting the 112th Congress select the leadership for the 113th Congress, at the request of Nancy Pelosi. We can’t let that blatant charade go unchallenged.
Steps of the Capital Building on the first day of the 113th Congress. The goal is to remove Boehner as Speaker.
Come if you care.
DB – We need someone to replace him. Who do you think? Paul Ryan? Nah – I’m not going to fly across the US on vacation time to support Paul Ryan. I’ve expressed in previous post how I feel about him.
There is no perfect candidate. I like things about many Congressman.
But, one thing is for certain, and there is no escape from this fact, if Boehner isn’t replace there will be no change to Boehner arranging for the Democrats to get everything they want.
At this point, I’d take Buggs Bunny over Boehner. At least there would be a chance to change things. With Boehner, there’s not even that chance. It’s a certainty we will continue to see the disaster we observed in the past 2 years.
In truth, it was Boehner’s lack of leadership that caused the ultimate loss of the election. We waited for leadership to unite and energize the party. Boehner had the exact opposite effect. If for no other reason, he has to be replaced because of that.
We need ex-military to be our next Speaker. Someone like Lt. Col. Allen West or General Petraeus. These are the real leaders, and the Liberals know it, so they destroy them politically.
Hellfire,
General Petraeus is dead politically for not keeping it in his pants.
It didn’t seem to be too damaging to our “respected elder statesman” Slick Willie Clinton.
Craig,
The House voted to impeach Clinton over it. No law specifically forbids Presidents from fooling around. About half of them did.
The CIA has strict rules against sexual stull that coul get you blackmailed. The good Genreal broke those rules. He is deader than disco poliically.
Jerry,
Clinton proved that an otherwise popular President CAN fool around and remain politically viable. Whether Petraeus is or is not will depend on him, any message he might want to project, and the voters.
OOps! I forgot about the Democratic/Republican lock on the electoral process… I guess for sure the Democratic Republicans can keep him out!
That’s true! The Liberal made sure of that…
What about Stanley McChrystal? That Rolling Stone’s article wasn’t too bad. In fact, I bet most Conservatives agree with what he said about Obama.
Hellfire,
It wasn’t just the Liberals. I don’t know any Conservatives that specifically favor adultry.
Anyone who is honest will work.
Hey baggers got no reason to live. None. Sukit and likeit
There is something in this sentence the censor algorithm is programmed to detect and not allow the post to be viewed:
w h i c h i s a s s t a t e d b y t h e m e m b e r s o f C o n g r e s s, w h o a r e a s s u m e d t o b e a b l e t o u n d e r s t a n d w h a t i t i s t h a t t h e y w r i t e i n t h e E n g l i s h l a n g u a g e.
As to Allen West, a fine officer and a loyal american, unfortunately his constituency would rather engage in theft and thank Santa Obama than grow up and realize that a man who promises to rob my neighbor and cut me in is a thief and a liar and is telling my neighbor the same thing about me. So, he is no longer in congress, as to Ptraeus, he was Pelosi’s boyo, and she got torqued at him for doing his job. Not a conservative, the sex thing is indicative of an Obama smear, throughout his career, Obama has 5 times covered his rear by having his potential problem sexually exposed. We do need a speaker who will stand on principle and do his duty. Or perhaps Bachmann might do quite well.
Loon,
Petraeus admitted fooling around to Congress and the FBI. He sent thousands of sexy emails. If Obama did it why hasn’t Petraeus said so? Do you think mind control is at work here?
When someone can throw his male page off a New York hotel balcony and run a male prostitution ring out of his home, and still be the Chariman of the House Financial Services Committee because he’s a Democrat, it’s obvious nobody will pay much attention to any indescretion by Obama. So, why even mention it?
Petraeus is just one person in a system of scape goats. If we want to actually pursue any issue, we have to get a new Speaker. Boehner has demonstrated beyond any doubt he cowers to the Democrats and will not, ever, stand firmly up to them. Obama and Holder tell Boehner to GFY, and what does Boehner do? He runs away to the corner of the playground away from the bullies and cries.
Yeah. We really need to keep leadership like that. Anybody but Boehner. Anybody.