Bush vs. Gore... how much will YOU save/pay in taxes?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
I would be curious to know where Tripleshot's grandma story originated since he now says that it really wasn't "his" grandma. While I may not know a whole lot about a whole lot of things, when it comes to Medicare I happen to know a little bit.

First of all the Medicare program is an insurance program consisting of two parts, one which pays for physician and related services and the other for hospitalization and related services. Both parts carry certain deductibles and a premium that must be paid just like any other insurance policy, but in this case the beneficiary pays the premium for one part in the form of a deduction from their monthly benefit check and the government pays the premium for the other part.

Secondly, a Medicare beneficiary's income or assets has NO bearing whatsoever on any decision to approve or disapprove ANY procedure. Unless its deemed to be experimental that decision is entirely up to the doctor and the patient, within certain guidelines of course. The statement that "Grandma" has to sell her house before Medicare will approve her hip surgery is totally and utterly false. Where this misinformation came from and why it was posted here I won't speculate but I would encourage everyone to research the facts for themselves.

Thirdly, there is a State/Federal program known as Medicaid. This program, put simply, is for those persons who are not eligible for Medicare and cannot afford healthcare. There is also a joint program between Medicare and Medicaid with eligibility based on income and assets that will pay the Medicare premiums for a beneficiary in addition to paying all the deductibles involved. In most if not all states if the participant's income and assets are at or near a certain level the Medicaid program will pay either a percentage of or all of the costs for prescription drugs, medical equipment, eyeglasses, dentures, hearing aids and a host of other items and services that are not covered under Medicare.

Based on what I know the only way that Tripleshot's Grandma could be denied any medical procedure because she has too many assets is she is either A.) not enrolled in the Medicare Program because she isn't old enough and has no other insurance and therefore must rely solely on Medicaid, or B.) wanting to enter a Nursing Home environment for an extended period of time. In that case, Medicare will only pay for the nursing home room and board charges (medically necessary items and services are still paid for) for the first 100 days and after that either the patient or Medicaid must pay. The only way that Medicaid will pay under these circumstances is for the beneficiary to have no assets above a certain amount. A home or property would definitely fall under that stipulation, as would a life insurance policy, stocks & bonds, savings accounts, etc.

 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
BINGO!

1)>>has no other insurance and therefore must rely solely on Medicaid and
2)The only way that Medicaid will pay under these circumstances is for the beneficiary to have no assets above a certain amount. A home or property would definitely fall under that stipulation, as would a life insurance policy, stocks & bonds, savings accounts, etc

Grandma was fictisous. The problem was my Grandfather and the surgery was open heart. He died. Later, Grandma suffered dementia and needed full time care. The nursing home required she be destitute to be able to be covered for care in the California nursing home.

I raised the point to show that the coverage that people think they will have will not be there because of the rules for coverage under medicare/medicaid exclude all but the most destitute in order to be covered for anything but a routine doctors office visit.(sarcasm)BTW,not all states have medicaid as I understand the program. The post was to show the medicare system is broken,and niether candidate is trying to fix it. That is why I also posted both candidates narrow focused attention to the problem. Prescription drug coverage is not the answer unless these issues are also adressed.

The part on prescription drugs going to 800 from 200 are based on real numbers from my neighbor who is in the home healthcare business and takes care of the elderly here where I live. These things are happening all over and the drug prices just went up within the last few months. I think it is a fast grab because soon ,the government will be paying the prescriptions and they want the prices set high now before the govt. posts them in thier data base.

Etech,

I wont hold my breath waiting for a conservative to help these people. It's not in there nature,IMHO. I do hold out more hope for a "liberal" to recognize the problem and work for a compassionate and fair solution.also IMHO.

To all the others who read this post,my apology for making up grandma. I thought it better than than the whole family and my neighbors. I am driving a point home that it is too late for the elderly to gain any benifit from either candidates proposal but I feel it more likely a democratic congress could enact the necessary legislation to fix the system,rather than the republicans who want t oturn it to private insurance companies and HMO's that the elderly on a fixed income cannot afford(Unless they sell thier homes and liquidate all assets.Just look now at what insurance coverage costs.That is the business my father was in and my wife is in now.)
 

MrChicken

Senior member
Feb 18, 2000
844
0
0
Trip:
I think GW would go for this kind of care, if there was a way to afford it now and in the future. The trick is to find a way to do this. I for one would lobby my representative and GW to push this kind of program if it is feasable. I will urge everybody to do the same.
When GW talked of priorities I thought in my own terms of things like this.
Do we want to spend money on keeping our elders healthy and alive or do we want to spend all our money elsewhere such as money to the IMF, sending our troops overseas to be somebody's policeman, or any of the thousands of pork barrel legislations in effect?
What I dont want to is for the Fed to start new programs based on the projected surplus. A surplus that is not guaranteed. There is money in the budget now, if we get rid of the pork and watch our international spending. I dont want us locked into into expenses that we wont be able to pay when the economy returns to normal again, and that surplus disappears because of it.
Maybe just maybe if we can all get behind one good idea and push it on Congress as the will of the people and we have president that agrees, we can get something like this done. Maybe pigs will fly, but we can try.
Lets start a push to find pork money that will be funnelled into health care for the elderly, or for everybody. I'm not talking about socialized medicine, but maybe assistance funds for people to use help pay for private insurance.
 

DirkBelig

Banned
Oct 15, 1999
536
0
0
Tripleshot: You're a LIAR JUST LIKE GORE!!!!! "Oh, I'm sorry that I made a mistake. I'll try to do better." BULLSHIT!!!

Everyone, gaze upon the tactics of the LIEberals. They make up a story, make you feel guilty, pick your pocket and THEN, you discover that they were lying from the jump.

Gore brings out that Winifred Skinner old bat who says she needs to pick up cans to pay for her prescriptions. "Awwwww....that's terrible. OK, I'll forego a tax cut so that she can have free drugs." FOOLS!!!! The TRUTH came out and she has a wealthy (evil?) son who's offered to help her,but she refuses his assistance. Oh, I get it...Pride prevents he from taken assistance from her own family, BUT, she has no problem sticking her hand out and saying, "Gimme free drugs, everyone."

Then this piece of hate speech:

"I wont hold my breath waiting for a conservative to help these people. It's not in there nature,IMHO. I do hold out more hope for a "liberal" to recognize the problem and work for a compassionate and fair solution.also IMHO"

Not to put to fine a point on it, but YOU HAVE SURPASSED RED DAWN AS THE HANDS-DOWN, STUPIDEST, MOST DISHONEST, PATHETIC, LYING WASTE OF FOOD, WATER AND AIR!!!!!

Where the fook do you get off saying that "it's not in there (SPELLING, YOU MO!!!!) nature". What the hell do you think (alright, you don't think) conservatices want? Dead old folks so that they can sell their souls on eBay?!?!

Then, you say that a liberal will recognize and solve the problem. Well, listen up dipweed, WE HAVE SPENT SIX MOTHERLOVING TRILLION DOLLARS IN WEALTH TRANSFERS TO FROM THE PRODUCERS TO THE NON-PRODUCERS AND, YA KNOW WHAT?!??! THE PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE IN POVERTY HASN'T BUDGED IN 35 FRICKIN' YEARS!!!!!!!

How much more compassion at the hands of you people are we supposed to finance?!?!?!?

You are an empty-headed, LYING, POS, who would rather rob me than kick in yourself for your family. I have MY OWN family and obligations to take care of, DON'T ASK ME TO PAY FOR WHAT YOU DON'T WANT TO!!!:|
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
"Young Men have Fantastic Dreams"

Red Dawn, i think you just put up the best post i have ever seen from you. Balanced, sensible, reasonable, and your viewpoint supported. Bravo.

The only thing i would point out to you to consider is your thoughts on how Bush would be lead in a crisis. Unless or until either man were to truly be tested in the position, I don't think we could know how much resolve he would show facing down a potential enemy. I think that Clinton and Kennedy were perhaps underestimated before they took the office, and perhaps Reagan a touch overestimated beforehand (i'm talking perceptions here). I don't think that either man would be a disaster - both have different personalities for sure, and would bring different strengths and weaknesses to the table. I think Bush's more down-to-earth style and resolve would have greater effect on the more thuggish countries, and Gore's more cerebral style might work better with the Chinese. Your thoughts ?
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
<< The only thing i would point out to you to consider is your thoughts on how Bush would be lead in a crisis. >>

glenn1,

Do you remember where Albert Gore was the night of our last crisis? When the first bombs fell on Yugoslovia, Vice President Albert Gore was at....drumroll please...a fund-raiser.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Red,

Gore's fund-raising activities on the eve of the Yugoslavia operations showed me where his priorities were. One inference from that action is that Gore was more concerned about making money than he was about the lives of american soliders going into harm's way. IMO, he should have been in the Oval Office alongside his boss watching the operation unfold.

It's funny you feel the Chinese would prefer Bush. After all of the Clinton/Gore ?Chinese Connection? campaign finance scandals, it's hard to believe they'd want anyone except who they bought and paid-for: Gore.

In a time of crisis, top officials gather with the president at a big table in the Oval Office to discuss options. I know you feel Bush would pull out a red crayon from his crayon box, spin it, and whoever it points to has the right option. But at least he'd be at the meeting and not in some fund-raiser!

Bottom line though: there's really no way to know how either Gore or Bush would behave under crisis-threat pressure. Situations like that tend to bring out the best in people. Gore has been closer to foreign policy issues, giving him an advantage. But remember how long it took Clinton to actually decide anything regarding Kosovo? Hell, months before he issued that stupid ultimatum, he just dragged his feet watching the polls. The freakin' polls!? It wasn't until the country was getting upset with inaction that he finally made his wonderful decision to destroy the country. Gore was with him all the way on that but he wasn't waving Old Glory in support, he was busy pecking at his calculator trying to figure out how much money he could still leech from Johnny Chung. At least Bush wouldn't look to polls to decide his foreign policy issues. But anyway, like I said, there's no way to tell who'd be better in a pinch.
 

littlelilith

Member
Jul 15, 2000
157
0
0
pidge - I believe that a couple in that situation (making $250,000 a year with three kids) pays $57,800 in taxes, not $125,000.. big difference. When you still have nearly $200,000, that extra money is not as necessary as it is for that single mother of two, who will save absolutely nothing on Bush's plan.. (at least, going by this article).

Another thing.. someone said the government has extra money.. Did we forget that the gov't is billions of dollars in debt? Or that they will always underestimate the cost of programs and projects? Not to say that tax cuts are bad - I am for them, however, giving back too much will require other things to be cut. Taxes pay for everything in the public sector, including education. People are already complaining that schools do not get enough funding (and very very few do get enough).. wouldn't you think we would take care of some of the many problems first, and maybe give some back, rather than giving all back and cutting funding to necessary programs?
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
littlelith

It looks like you agree with Gov. Bush.

Governor Bush believes that roughly one-quarter of the surplus should be returned to the people who earned it through broad tax cuts ? otherwise, Washington will spend it. His plan will promote economic growth and increase access to the middle class by cutting high marginal rates. It will also double the child credit, eliminate the death tax, reduce the marriage penalty, and expand Education Savings Accounts and charitable deductions. The largest percentage cuts will go to the lowest income earners. As a result, 6 million families will no longer pay federal income tax.

Cut Taxes Responsibly: Governor Bush?s $460 billion tax cut over five years will contribute to raising the standard of living for all Americans. His budget uses only about a quarter of the surplus for tax cuts, reserves all Social Security funds for Social Security only, and still leaves extra money for debt reduction, defense, education, and other priorities.
Bush's plan
 

Anyone2u

Member
Aug 12, 2000
32
0
0


<< It's painfully obvious nobody is supporting Bush because they think his a Man with strong Leadership Qualities and the Chinese would be right to feel that he wouldn't be able to rally the American Public to support any action Militarily to stop them. Sure he might take action, but when Americans Servicemen start coming home in body bags by the hundreds I can't envision him being able to convince the People to keep sacrificing their sons and daughters with him at the >>



Red Dawn

I recall someone once saying to me Liberals argue with their heart and Conservatives argue with facts. Obviously that's painting with a broad brush, but generally I have found that to be pretty true. Tripleshot's Grandmother story really bothered me because I (as well as most people) took it to be fact when it ended up being fictitious. If you are going to use an analogy, then why not state it? Obviously I would assume the answer is because it would not have the same impact. I really believe this is what bothers most people about Gore's &quot;mistakes&quot;. When I listen to someone I generally will take them at their word, with some obvious exceptions. If it's a point that really bother's what I had thought, I do a little research and find out for myself.

When I read the above comment I assumed that there was a little bias there on your part, but I generally assumed that you must have based it on something you had heard or read. It was only after I happened to hear the latest CNN/Gallup poll on the news at 5 PM (EST) that stated that Bush would be favored in the role of president in the area of World Affairs. Hmmm, your comments came rushing back to me and I had to go verify who was correct. Now granted, you did not state any poll (I know I know, a poll mean absolutely nothing when you don't agree with it, and I will always take poll results with a grain of salt) so I will make the assumption that you based your &quot;...it's painfully obvious...&quot; comment on something else. Would mind saying what it was based on? I have only heard Bush actually speak (sound bites don't give enough time) during the two presidential debates. I did watch the primaries, but I was more biased toward McCain and he is no longer an option. Was it something he stated during the debate that formed this opinion, because I really didn't see anything that was &quot;painfully obvious&quot; (actually to the contrary).

Following is a link to the Gallup poll http://www.gallup.com/Election2000/issues.asp (probably won't work without cutting and pasting-I'm new here) that shows that Bush has consistently gained the support in the eyes of the voters. Unfortunately they don't have the latest poll that was mentioned on the news, but you get the idea.

Your posts are very well written (I had a good laugh about that Kennedy comment) and thought provoking, but please help me understand where your comments are comming from. Unfortunately I won't be able to read them (if you respond) until tomorrow as I have to go out to a charity event (non political) right now. :D Thanks.
 

DirkBelig

Banned
Oct 15, 1999
536
0
0
Red Dawn: I made NO claims as to your honesty in your business dealings, trades or PC skillz. I don't know and it doesn't matter HERE.

As for your POLITICS, you totally tipped your hand when you admitted how old your are. YOU'RE A BABY-BOOMER!!! The WWII has been called the &quot;Greatest Generation&quot;, well, I consider the Boomers to be the &quot;FULL OF SHIT GENERATION&quot;. You guys walk around acting like you've changed the world for the better with your bleeding heart socialism. YOUR generation gave us AIDS, abortion, profilgate government spending and tyranny, among other goodies. You fought for NOTHING, built NOTHING and have bred the current generation of ignorants who will continue this country's decline as they pass along your valueless, selfish, high-self-esteen-without-actual-quality philosophy. Generation X and beyond will suffer from YOUR generation's sins!

The only thing that makes me smile is the knowledge that when you plan to collect Social Security in 2020 (or so), the system will be in ruins (assuming Gore wins) and the generation you'll try to stick your hand out to, will just look at you like, &quot;What?!&quot; They've been raised to believe life is worthless from the womb to the old (Dr. Jack anyone?) and what the hell makes you think that Gen X and Y, when given the choice between paying stratospheric taxes to pay for your dotage or putting a bullet in your head, are going to choose in a manner that you'd enjoy? They won't. Your life won't be woth anything to them and you'll be eliminated. The future will be a cross between &quot;Logan's Run&quot; and &quot;Blade Runner&quot;. See ya in Hell, Red. Think of me when you're going down.

Your worship of Kennedy shows your generation self-importance. You prolly sit around watching Oliver Stone movies wailing, &quot;WHY??!?!?&quot;, at the loss of such a giant. Hey, how about his STARTING the Viet Nam war? Hmm? Y'all act like he was gonna take them out if the Military-Industrial Complex and the Mob hadn't whacked him first. Right? Puh-leeze...

Funny thing is, Kennedy CUT taxes to spur growth,something that you and Gore are opposed to. What's the truth, huh? Who's right? Your god Kennedy (only elected because the Chicago Mob did Daddy Joe's bidding and stole the vote) or Gore? Pick one. Who's the third great on your list? LBJ?

JFK never got a even judgement by history because he didn't serve a full term and his martyr status with you Boomers prevents and criticism, though the rest of the family got beatn down already.

Lilith: How much would you say people need? Your comments that poor people need money more than the rich indicates that you think some people have too much money and that they should be punished for their hard work and success.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
<< Oh well, tax cuts are more important than national Security right ? >>

Oh oh, Red's going into line-by-line, critical analysis mode. Danger, Will Robinson, Danger! :)

It's been half a century since our national security was directly threatened. The Cold War is over. China, our only really serious global threat, is currently being embraced economically by America. Americans are weighed down with the biggest monkey of a federal government it's ever had to wrestle and our overall tax burden is at an historic high. In my mind at least, tax rate reductions do indeed rank highly. And again I don't feel Bush would necessarily be a terrible foreign policy leader, so you can have your cake and eat it too on this issue. Now if this was 1980, and we had the same choice to make, would I suggest differently? Bush Lite is no Reagan. Could he have intimidated Gorbie into &quot;tearing down that wall&quot;? Perhaps. But Like I said, our modern situation is different.
 

Tominator

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,559
1
0
Trust Clinton in a crisis? Give me a break! Clinton has never done a thing for anyone but Clinton!

Remember how GW was demogued about his comments in the debate concerning the Middle East? Specifically how negotiations be tied to a timetable set by the other two parties and not a timetable set by the US. Remember? Clinton was trying to FORCE a resolution on Israel and the peace process in general. Clinton went so far as sending HIS advisors to Israel to affect their elections! Then Clinton has the absolute gaul to suggest that if a solution was not found during the last conference, hostilities were eminent. The guy is a complete moron!

Then just 2 days after GW made his comments, near war breaks out because in a large part of Clinton's meddeling!

Want More? Vote Gore!
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
<< near war breaks out because in a large part of Clinton's meddeling >>

Tominator,

A case of Jimmy Carter envy on Bill's part?

You'd think after what has happened, the Israelis and Palestinians would prefer diplomat-negotiators from any other country but the US. Just too much US money and influence in the mix not to mention bias for one side. :(