Post Number: 120
|Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 2:46 am: || |
"Medicare Rights Presidential Candidate Questionnaire"
From the Medicare Rights Center,
Questionnaire for 2004 Presidential Candidates
The Medicare Rights Center (MRC) surveyed all Republican
and Democratic presidential candidates in December 2003 on
key health care issues affecting the well-being of the 41
million Americans with Medicare. This survey, shows the
indication of the candidates' stand on health care issues
that affect older adults and people with disabilities, and
serves as a pledge of support for the improvement of such
vital Medicare issues. One page briefings on each of the
nine key issues accompany the candidate questionnaire.
Both Senators Kerry and Edwards pledged their support for
the nine reforms in written response earlier this year.
Other Democratic candidates surveyed also provided timely
responses, supporting some or all of MRC's initiatives.
Repeated efforts were made to elicit a response from the
Bush-Cheney campaign. The campaign finally refused to
respond, advising MRC staff to deduce the President's
position from his campaign web site,
http://www.georgewbush.com. We have done so.
As President, will you:
1. Support legislation to eliminate the 24-month waiting
period for Americans with disabilities to gain Medicare
2. Support legislation to make Medicare cover outpatient
mental health care at 80% of its approved rate, as Medicare
does for all other outpatient medical services?
3. Support administrative initiatives to expand Medicare's
coverage of durable medical equipment (e.g., wheelchairs)
to include devices needed to function outside the home?
4. Support legislation to extend Medicare home care
services to individuals who are not homebound?
5. Support legislation to guarantee people who have
Medicare because of disability the same right to access
Medigap policies as people who have Medicare because of
6. Support legislation to federalize administration and
financing of the Medicare Savings Programs?
7. Support legislation to permit adults ages 55-64 to
purchase health care coverage through Medicare?
8. Support legislation or administrative initiatives to
increase overall annual funding for State Health Insurance
Assistance Programs (SHIPs) to at least $3 per person with
9. Support legislation or administrative initiatives to
ensure that Americans pay no more for prescription drugs
than the median price paid by Canadians?
The Medicare Rights Center is a national, not-for-profit
consumer service organization dedicated to ensuring that
older adults and people with disabilities get good
affordable health care.
A copy of this survey is available at
The Democratic candidates' responses can be found at
Background and method: MRC is a non-partisan organization,
committed to sharing candidates' policy positions on issues
that impact the well-being of people with Medicare
Post Number: 69
|Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 11:52 am: || |
No offense to anyonw. But W. Bush needs to go.
Post Number: 567
|Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 1:50 pm: || |
You know, they have made a "deduced" decision, these are not Bush answers.
I have a masters in medical administration. Those questions are very narrowly focused and National health policy is not as simple as the few snipit questions asked above. Remember, I have a special needs child. This impacts me here and now, not somewhere in the future. Just to take the last issue on canadian drugs. Do you have any idea about the canadian medical system? Do you know how long the waits are for treatment in the canadian medical system? Do you know about any subsidies from the government for these medications? Canada has a socialized medical system. It is not what we have in the US. MANY Canadians cannot get the treatement they want when they want it, so they come to the US. I know some of these questions move into the other issues in these "deduced" answers that reflect negatively on Bush, but there is just way more to consider than adding a boatload more people to our medicare system without cause. I happen to know that the term "disability" is a broad term in the realm of medicare. I've heard the cases where parents who didn't want to work taught their children how to behave so they could get a certain DX from a psychiatrist and get government assistance...some of those parents make more to sit on their backsides than I make at a 40-hour per week job. Before we run willie-nillie into the night to support socialized medicine, someone needs to look at it very closely. I am not a Hiliary Clinton fan, but the presentation she gave to the congress on health care in America when her husband was president summed up much of my 2-years masters degree. And with all that fine study, Clinton did no more to change medicine in this country because our system is complex. People who read snippits like that above and have no idea how the funding and abuses work in this current system will set in motion something they will eventually regret. If Kerry passed all these initiatives he claims above, where is he going to get the money for all these things? How is he going to reform a huge conglomerate of industries including medical professionals, 3rd party payers (insurance companies) and all the ancillary services to boot? Is he simply going to put them all out of work?? This is not a simple issue. Do not be deceived into thinking it is...even when a democrat is in the white house... and do not take these "deduced" answers that were supplied for Bush as the full picture of the situation.
There is no win-win solution to the medical care issues in this country. It's will be painful to make the kinds of reforms that I think need to be made...and either taxes have to go up, while putting a large number of people out of work, and significantly increased wait-times, less choice, more rationing of services, etc. Is anyone ready to sweep in those kinds of changes rashly? The Canadian system is not perfect, everyone may have primary care, but specialist care is a different situation. B's family moved here from Canada years ago because they couldn't get the treatment his mother needed for her disease. I know the drug issue is not necessarily a complete endorsement into the Canadian system, and certainly some things should be addressed with our drug companies, but our drug companies are the ones taking the millions of dollars in risk for the R&D. It's like the flu vaccine. When prices for vaccines dropped to commodity prices, companies stopped making it because they couldn't make any money doing it. That is a Clinton policy in practice. Do we really want that in the future? All I'm saying really is that medicine in America is complex. Socialized medicine gets more complex.
Remember, Kerry wants to kill babies only an inch from birth...sometimes BECAUSE of their disabilities. Where's the compassion for those people?
I'll step off my soap-box now.
Post Number: 699
|Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 5:19 pm: || |
I am not taking one side or the other. I work with disabled people every day and have done so for many years. What I object to is that this is a form for former SDAs to talk about the things that made us leave the SDA church and now it is being used politically. It is for those associated is a close way with SDAs. I really dislike it when politics in any way is introduced.
Had to voice my opinion and my 2 cents worth.
Post Number: 1063
|Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 8:06 pm: || |
This very topic on this very forum irritates me. This is the Former Adventist Forum. Several weeks ago it was decided on here that the partisipants would not get into politics. As with respect to this being a discussion area on Christian issues, spiritual issues, issues pertanant to us who are former SDA, church issues, religious topics I will not respond to these sorts of comments on this forum. However, if you want to give a web address where these sorts of issues are the main topic I will look it up and even possibly respond.
Post Number: 181
|Posted on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 - 8:12 pm: || |
You did not mention one possible solution that I, as a RN, feel needs to be made for the medical care issues we face in this country - that is tort reform. Frivolous lawsuits and high malpractice rates for hospitals and physician are pushing health care costs beyond what the system can bare. Yes, there are some very valid malpractice suits out there but we need to have a reform of the entire system that is serving the lawyers while making the rest of us suffer.
There's my soap-box...
Post Number: 569
|Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 6:29 am: || |
Dd, I didn't mention that specifically, but that is most definately a significant part of medical costs issue and part of the overall reform needed.
And sorry, Susan. I missed the no politics decision. I was merely responding to what I thought was gross mis-information.
Post Number: 59
|Posted on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 - 7:48 pm: || |
If one is a Christian, politics and voting should be very important. The SDAs try to discourage involvement in politics and voting, but why do we need to continue such an unBiblical stance on this former SDA forum???
There are many political issues which are moral issues, which have to do with Christian values, etc.
As was said above, Kerry supports murder. He is absolutely anti-Christian, and even anti-moral. I don't see how Christians could vote for Kerry, but I know there are some who did.
I voted for George W. Bush. I'm so glad we have a true born-again Christian in the White House for another 4 years.
Anyway, I think it's sad if former SDAs hold onto the "no politics/no voting" legacy of the SDAs. In fact, even on at least one of the SDA forums, politics are discussed. I don't see why important issues and Christian values cannot be discussed on this forum.
Post Number: 64
|Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 3:31 am: || |
I'm among those on the forum who discouraged the political talk. I'm not anti-politics. I agree with you that as Christians we should be involved with the political process.
However, several weeks ago in one of the other threads, a political discussion was started regarding American politics, the presidential race, war on terror, etc. Some of the comments were of such nature that the discussion could have turned very ugly and hurtful. I don't think we need that on the forum. So I suggested that we focus instead on helping each other.
I think that it would be OK to discuss social/political issues here if we could all remember to be kind in what we say and how we say it. That can be difficult, but not impossible.
Just my opinion,
Post Number: 142
|Posted on Thursday, November 04, 2004 - 5:13 am: || |
The way I view politics has totally changed after Adventism. Now that I understand there is no division between the secular and spiritual sides of oneís life, I view each person as a minister in his particular marketplace. Iím looking for a candidate who understands that. Iím looking for someone who accepts that they are to do Godís will and seek his face for direction while in office. Their values and morals will match the Bible as closely as possible in their own lifestyle. Even if the opposite candidate may have some views that I agree with even a little better, I prefer to vote for the one who is checking in with God for daily direction.
But, I donít like political arguments so if this website or any other one not specifically for politics wants to discuss it, Iíd just like to see it clearly marked so it doesnít create animosity running through other threads.
Thatís probably not going to be an issue now that the elections are over. I was greatly impressed while waiting in line for over an hour to vote, that everyone in line seemed to be so excited to have the privilege to vote. They are happy to live in a country with freedom. Every once in awhile someone would kind of hint to a political opinion but no one started arguments, agreed or disagreed. (you could see there were vast differences) There were young first time voters all excited and the elderly waiting on chairs. God seems to be at work softening attitudes.