That is one of the most frightening reads I've encountered in a long time. What's most frightening is that, even if I assumed your characters are fictional, this story has, no doubt, played out more than once for a few others.

As her physician, it made me feel kind of useless.
The battle goes on.
jcs

If we had universal health care or Medicare for all, most if not all of this insanity would be history. We have 50 million uninsured (US Census) and about 30 million underinsured (Commonwealth Fund). We have the best health care system in the world except for all those tens of millions uninsured and under insured.

I have a nephew who takes (and abuses) pain medications and I am sure if he would be able to get more medications he would claim someone stole his medications every month. What solution do you propose that would help in situations like your accountant but stop people like my nephew from crying theft to get more meds?

You are absolutely correct that diversion and abuse need to be prevented. As per the post it strikes me that a default protocol relying perhaps on a police report with a note/presciption from the original prescibing doctor would work. Apparently in this case the default was "no", placing the patient in harms way.
jcs

People are the priority in the Presidents health-care plan as it was under Mitt Romney's plan in Massachusetts. Why has so much money been spent to mislead the American People that they are forced unconstitutionally against their will to accept inferior care? It is not true. Insurance works because the many help the few, and that requires everyone participate. How can you be so heartless as to not care for those people who are too poor, or are too sick to qualify for basic insurance coverage? There are problems in the plan, but working together it can be refined, if we put people ahead of profit.

@NJarhead: The for-profit health insurance companies are the problem. Or as James Salwitz states: "I understand the need to control costs and limit abuse, but I remain baffled by the apparent concept of saving dollars over the body of Alice." That kind of thing does not happen in a universal health care system, single payer or Medicare. The for-profit insurance companies have had decades to prove that they could provide affordable health care to all Americans and they have failed miserably. It's time for Medicare for all.

I agree with you 100% Joe!

Under single payer or Medicare for all, the government would not be running the hospitals or hiring the doctors. Hospitals and doctors would still be in the private sector. Medicare does not run the health care system, it provides insurance so seniors can afford medical care and it does it much more cheaply than private insurance because there are no CEOs in the Medicare administration earning multi-million dollar salaries. Gee, Rufus, we trust the government to run the military or should we turn it over to multi-national corporations which have no allegiance to the US?

There are two problems. The first is that this was a theft of property from the patient's residence, so it really is a residential insurance problem. If she had no homeowners or tenants insurance, it is a shame, but that is the route you have to take to get financial compensation for your stolen or damaged property.
The second is the fact that the third party system - and it doesnt matter if it is private or government insurance - has the power to step in and tell you what you can have by virtue of telling people - mostly poor people - what they will and will not pay for. In an ideal scenario, the patient would have reported the theft, worked with her doctor and pharmacy to replace the stolen medicines and been compensated by her home or tenant insurance.
In the matter of property insurance, it really is on her - if she has possessions she has to think what she would do if they were damaged or stolen and try to avoid that or be willing to eat the loss. But in the case of her medical treatment, the only job of the insurance co is to examine the claim and compensate the injured party.

Two intersting things I learned lately by working with physicians from other countries:
1) In India, there are no prescriptions need to get medications. You simply walk in and get what you need. Interestingly, there is little to no prescription drug abuse. Is it really just a matter of wanting what you can't have?
2) Working in healthcare, MANY doctors do not accept Medicare patients since they get paid next to nothing. The unfortunate truth is that many doctors are going to stop taking insurance all together and if you want access to great care, it's going to have to come out of the patient's pocket. Kinda goes against the "equal care for all" idea

"MANY doctors do not accept Medicare patients.." Really? I know plenty of people (neighbors, friends and relatives in different states) on Medicare and NONE of them have ever complained about doctors not accepting Medicare. I'm beginning to think that this business of doctors not accepting Medicare patients is an urban myth. So what are you saying, Kelly? Are you saying that Medicare is a bad idea and should be abolished? You do realize that before there was a Medicare, seniors could not afford health care and just went untreated and died. Do you want to go back to the bad old days before Medicare? Are you against Medicare?

Kelly, to your second point... It also goes against the Hippocratic Oath, and becomes the more common hypocritical oath. The Med schools and the AMA allow only so many doctors a year into school when we need five times the amount to allow supply and demand create lower prices. We also need to protect honest doctors against frivolous lawsuits, which cause doctor expenses to rise and pass on to the patient. Universal care needs to look into these areas but because Pres Obama allowed the insurance industry, such a huge say as a compromise to get the legislation the rich corporations took care of themselves, even under Obama-Care. Money talks, and BS walks. Oops, off topic again but could not resist.

I dont know about medicare except that it pays maybe 50-60 cents on the dollar that is billed but i have been told by a couple doctors that they cannot take medicaid because it literally costs them money to bill for a medicaid patient - that medicaid pays so little that by the time the patient is seen and the required paperwork filled out and filed and the claim put through and rejected and put through again, etc etc, they are in a financial loss. One doctor said that a simple checkup that might take 15 minutes could result in a half hour of forms to be filled out, or 45 minutes on the phone trying to get approvals for medication. So i guess if you are sitting around in the waiting room for your appointment and they are running 45 minutes behind thats why.

from tucsoncitizen.com, 8-23-2011:
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) is an independent congressional agency established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to advise the U.S. Congress on issues affecting the Medicare program. The March 2011 MedPAC report addressed the question of Medicare beneficiaires’ access to doctors, especially primary care doctors.
MedPAC found that over 90% of doctors who accept Medicare are taking new patients. Another independent study found that 92.9% of doctors accept Medicare patients. This was reported in a New York Times article in July.
[snip]
Medicare beneficiaries, the commission reported, have fewer access complaints than 50- to 64-year-olds with private insurance.

Medicaid is for the extremely direly poor and also pays for seniors in nursing homes who have used up all their life savings and are destitute. If they slash Medicaid, what are they going to do, dump 88 year olds with dementia and alzheimers on the street? These are people who can no longer take care of themselves and many are confined to a bed or a wheelchair. Geezus, what kind of hateful cruel country do we live in? Oh I forget, are there not prisons and poor houses?

Joe R - You're on the money about Medicaid. God forbid you're on Medicaid and lose your dentures! There's not a dentist in the area that can help, unless you pay out of pocket, which I did a few times - I mean, how can you deny your Mother her teeth, at any expense? If she had no family, or if I couldn't afford it, then what? If you "give" your assets to say, Wesley Manor, to live in the assisted living/nursing, please pray that you die before having to go on Medicaid. And try getting in if you're already ON Medicaid.... they only, by law, reserve 10% of beds for "those" people. Shameful. They may be church-run, or associated, but they're for-profit businesses. If Christ ever shows up again, they'd better run!

Medicare won't pay for hearing aids. I know that for a fact.
That's OK Mom, You don't need to hear what we are talking about anyway.

Great system having the government run things.

Medicare is a great system, without it we would have another 45 to 50 million uninsured. Medicare doesn't cover everything but it sure beats the GOP "solution," it sure is better than no Medicare at all. LBJ had to make some compromises getting Medicare passed since the AMA and most Republicans were fighting him tooth and nail. I am just astounded and shocked that so many (average right wing) Americans appear to hate Medicare and love knocking it and demeaning it at every opportunity. What's your solution? Oh yeah, free market laissez-faire solutions, that have always worked so well in the past (sarcasm alert).

I see.
The second I point out that some of your comments are incorrect I get a label.

Evil Republican

Any system that is subsized by others is a great system. According to published reports, 2012 Medicare spending will be $478 billion and Medicare taxes will pay less than 50% of that. That is irresponsible no matter how much the program is valued.

What did I say that was incorrect? I never said that Medicare covered 100% of everything. Yes, Medicare does not pay for everything but it pays for most of the medical needs of seniors. The GOP solution is: drop dead grammy and pappy or it's your fault if you didn't save 3 or 4 million for your health care in your senior years. Our public roads are subsidized by others, our public schools (and that would include charter schools and vouchers) are subsidized by others. But health care for grandma or grandpa, HOW HORRIBLE!

Joe R, are you ok that the country is borrowing the money to pay for the current benefits provided and that this will most certainly affect future benefits? If your town or family borrowed money every year to pay its daily expenses, would you support that also? What I am pointing out is that it is irresponsible to spend money that we do not have - even unpatriotic.

@ JoeR
"That kind of thing does not happen in a universal health care system"
Wrong

"I Never said Medicare pays for everything"

Of course you did. You made the implication that nothing would be left uncovered with a single payer universal system of healthcare. You then endorse medicare as that system even after I show you that Medicare doesn't cover everything now.
And I give you examples of other countries (with universal plans) that fail to provide services.
Yet you'll still insist that Medicare for all is the way to go.

"Medicare is a great system" " It's time for Medicare for all."

PS- the Romney plan is very similiar to the Obamacare plan.
Who do you think put the plan in place in Mass first?

PS- Romney is running, not on his record, but from it. He's distancing himself from all his previous (as Gov of Mass) moderate positions on Unions, health-care, and abortion rights. As far as i can figure, he doesn't have a plan, other than to repeal Obamacare, which is really Romneycare.

Medicare could save billions if it were allowed to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for lower prices and to buy drugs in bulk. Bush's Medicare Part D forbids Medicare from negotiating with the drug companies for lower prices. Bush never paid for Medicare Part D and lied about its true cost...it all went to the deficit. So here we are with huge deficits and in a deep recession and the austerians (austerity lovers) say cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut the programs that help the poor, the old, the disabled and by the way, cut the taxes of the rich some more. Oh dear me, tsk, tsk ,tsk, we just don't have the money anymore so of course we have to cut Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security, tsk, tsk, so sorry but times are tough and everyone (except the top 1%) must tighten their belts, seat belts and draw strings. Translation: Whoopee, we finally have the chance to kill off Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, whoopee!!!

@ joeR
"Bush's Medicare Part D forbids Medicare from negotiating with the drug companies for lower prices."
Wrong again. Where do you get your info ?

From AARP FAQ on how Medicare Part D works:
Why does one plan charge a lot more for the same drug than another plan?

Each plan negotiates the price of each drug with its manufacturer.

http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/info-11-2009/how_medicare-part_d_drug_coverage_works.3.html

From politifact.com:
"We have written into law, under Tommy Thompson's watch, a prohibition for the federal government to be involved in negotiating with pharmaceutical companies for better prices for seniors for drugs. That's unbelievable. You know, if you buy in bulk, you get a better deal."
Our rating

Baldwin said federal law adopted "under Tommy Thompson's watch" prohibits the federal government from negotiating for "better prices" on prescription drugs for senior citizens.

Her reference was to the Medicare Part D prescription program, which Thompson lobbied for and which includes the prohibition she stated.

We rate Baldwin’s statement True.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/sep/04/tammy-baldwin/uncle-sam-barred-bargaining-medicare-drug-prices-s/

From wikipedia: By the design of the program, the federal government is not permitted to negotiate prices of drugs with the drug companies, as federal agencies do in other programs. The Department of Veterans Affairs, which is allowed to negotiate drug prices and establish a formulary, has been estimated to pay between 40%[26] and 58%[27] less for drugs, on average, than Medicare Part D. For example, the VA pays as little as $782.44 for a year's supply of Lipitor (atorvastatin) 20 mg, while the Medicare pays between $1120 and $1340 on Part D plans.[27] [those are the private insurance plans]

From The National Center for Biotechnology Information:
The government is prohibited from directly negotiating drug prices for Medicare Part D, resulting in substantial policy debate. However, the government has an established mechanism for setting prices with pharmaceutical manufacturers for certain other federal programs - the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS).
[snip]
Federal negotiation of prescription drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries is a contentious, but timely, issue. In authorizing Medicare Part D in 2003, Congress explicitly forbade the federal government from directly negotiating prices with pharmaceutical companies.1 The rationale was that the market would lower prices and that each of the private prescription drug plans, in competition to attract more Medicare beneficiaries, would negotiate with prescription manufacturers to reduce costs.
Me: those private insurance plans have done a lousy job lowering drug prices. Drugs are much cheaper in Canada or Europe where the governments directly negotiate for cheaper prices.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2517993/

From the Kaiser Family Foundation:
The law explicitly prohibits the federal government from negotiating drug prices directly with manufacturers, pharmacies, or plans;
http://www.kff.org/medicare/h08_7821.cfm

I'm sure it varies depending on the specialty, but in my department (psychiatry), the doctors get paid so little to see Medicare/Medicaid patients that they just don't do it. Anyone who calls in with that insurance is stuck seeing a resident. By law, in order to accept any insurance, you have to accept government insurance, so to get around that, many of the doctors here just don't take insurance at all. So what I am saying is not that I am against Medicare/Medicaid, just that the universal health care plan to cover everyone has the potential to result in substandard care (residents, fellows, students treating patients) for the majority while those that can afford it out of pocket will be the only ones able to access the quality physicians.

From your Politifact article
"That isn’t to say there isn’t any negotiating.
prices are worked out between drug makers and the dozens of large and small Part D drug plans run by commercial insurers."
"and one could argue, as Baldwin does, that costs could be even lower if the federal government did the negotiating."

Yes I guess one could argue that. But stating it could save Medicare billions is nothing but an opinion.
And to say Bush lied about it's cost is ridiculous. If that was true, why does your article state this ?
"In rating as Half True a claim by former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum -- that Medicare Part D came in 40 percent under budget because of its design -- ."
PolitiFact National found in June 2011, in rating Santorum’s claim, that the program came in under budget ."

Interesting bit of info here:
Obama vowed to change the program to allow Medicare negotiate lower prices. But he backed away from the pledge during negotiations over his health care reform bill, and no provision on negotiating drug prices was included in the bill that became law in 2010."

Same old thing , just a different puppet being controlled by big business.

Can't believe were even having a discussion about how great Medicare is when Obama just made over 700 million in cuts to it just to keep it running.

Obamas cuts to Medicare will increase the cost of prescriptions for seniors.
http://www.obamacarewatch.org/primer/medicare

"The Medicare drug benefit, enacted in 2003, provides insurance coverage for annual above a deductible but below $2,700 and above $6,154 (these are 2009 levels). The gap between $2,700 and $6,154 is called the “donut hole.” ObamaCare phases out this gap by gradually increasing the $2,700 limit. "

"The Congressional Budget Office has determined that this plan will raise per prescription costs in Medicare because it will discourage generic substitution in the “donut hole.” With full government-subsidized insurance coverage, many seniors will end up using more expensive branded products with no measurable change in the quality of their care."

If anyone believes you can cut payment to providers and not lose services, you're nuts.

Remember Pres Bush signed into law Part D (prescription coverage) under Medicare, and as the President did with two wars, he did not fund the program. Reagan said to the effect if we pass legislation we have to be able to pay for it, even if it means cutting something else. Reagan raised taxes multiple times (18, I think). Pres Bush by executive order did away with such a silly notion as a responsible fiscal policy, and gave tax-cuts to boot. Medicare and Medicaid are as sacred as social security, and a president or political party should not try to put these programs in the hands of Wall Street.

In 2003, Richard Foster, the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the top independent Medicare cost analyst, revealed he had been threatened by the Bush administration that he would be fired if he told Congress the true cost of the policy. He received orders in June 2003 from his boss, Thomas Scully, the Bush-appointed director of the Medicare program, instructing him to ignore information requests from members of Congress who were drafting the drug bill. In the past, lawmakers had free access to the actuary’s estimates. And they assumed they were getting a true statistic as they considered the bill this time. The Bush administration low-balled (lied) about the true cost of Medicare Part D because some Republicans were balking at passing the bill. So the chief actuary for Medicare was told to shut up about the true cost or else. Bush's Medicare Part D was not paid for, it was shoved to the deficit, just like his two wars.

Kelly said: ".....the doctors get paid so little to see Medicare/Medicaid patients that they just don't do it." There you go again, Kelly, spreading a lie, an urban myth that doctors are not accepting Medicare patients. Medicare and Medicaid are two distinct separate programs, stop lumping them together. Have you no shame? It's obvious that you have an anti Medicare bias. Medicaid is for the extremely poor who could not afford health care much less private health insurance; at least with Medicaid they have a chance at getting care. Without it, they definitely will not be able to see any doctor EVER. Except in the ER when things are desperate and may be too late to do anything about it. And after the ER, they won't be able to get regular care but if they have Medicaid they at least have a possibility of seeing a doctor for follow up care. I find your remarks to be very slippery and disingenuous. Gee, do you get it now Kelly?

And this from my employer. I can assure were not in the business of spreading urban myths.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/31/8/1673.abstract

"Although 96 percent of physicians accepted new patients in 2011, rates varied by payment source: 31 percent of physicians were unwilling to accept any new Medicaid patients; 17 percent would not accept new Medicare patients;"

Looks like I have to post this again.
from tucsoncitizen.com, 8-23-2011:
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) is an independent congressional agency established by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to advise the U.S. Congress on issues affecting the Medicare program. The March 2011 MedPAC report addressed the question of Medicare beneficiaires’ access to doctors, especially primary care doctors.
MedPAC found that over 90% of doctors who accept Medicare are taking new patients. Another independent study found that 92.9% of doctors accept Medicare patients. This was reported in a New York Times article in July.
[snip]
Medicare beneficiaries, the commission reported, have fewer access complaints than 50- to 64-year-olds with private insurance.

Medicaid funding varies from state to state. Some states (GOP dominated) have been slashing their funding and cutting benefits because, you know, it's much more important to give tax breaks to millionaires. Chris loves to do snarky little gotchas about Medicare and nit pick at a great program. He didn't know that Medicare was banned from negotiating for lower drug prices. Doctors don't accept some private health care plans and are very frustrated with doing battle with PREDATORY PRIVATE FOR PROFIT HEALTH INSURANCE VAMPIRES!!!!!!!

Joe - being as I work for a hospital don't you think I would be happier if Medicare & Medicade were actually as great as you say ? If it was the case, our reimbursement rates would be better. Thus our financail situation would be better.
Do you know any business that isn't better off when they recieve more pay for services rendered ?
I wish I could agree with you. But sadly after 17 years here and knowing what's really going on , I can't.
So you can trust a study done by a Medicare Advisory Commision. I'll trust what I see on a daily basis. And what doctors I know and work with are telling me.

Medicare does not pay well but still pays something. medicaid is the bigger problem because many doctors say it actually costs them money to see a medicaid patient. Last month Forbes reported on a study of the percentage of drs in each state that will accept new Medicaid patients. NJ came in dead last with only 40% of doctors saying they take medicaid. Wyoming had the most drs who would see medicaid patients.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/07/health-affairs-study-one-third-of-doctors-wont-accept-new-medicaid-patients/

When my husband retires next year I am going to lose my medical benefits. Obama can kiss my rump on imposing any types of fines on me. When that happens I'm going to do like the illegals. Use the ER like my primary care doctor and use fake names.

@JOE R - The Forbes article was written by a health care policy analyst who now is with the Romney campaign but who has written for several magazines of different political slants and appeared on MSNBC and HBO as well. I might as well say that an AARP article is from an organization that is invested in health care products and services that will benefit from Obamacare and a big donor and supporter to the democrats. Besides, it is not about private health care, it is about medicaid.
The article basically laid out access to medicaid by office based doctors and the research and graphs show that the states where doctors are reimbursed the lowest - NJ, NY, California - have the least number of doctors willing to take new medicaid patients, and the states where they are reimbursed the highest - Wyoming and Alaska - have the most doctors. It is not political bias, its simple math - if you have 40% of doctors in NJ who will provide a certain service and 90% of doctors in Wyoming who will provide it, what is the factor that influences that decision? The article references NJ a lot and quotes from a dr in Cherry Hill, which is why it should be of interest to those of us in NJ, especially the ones in government based health insurance programs.

Ric, We don't tolerate commenters addressing other commenters as "Honey" or any other such sexist, deprecating language. Please watch the type of vocabulary you are using.

No, obscenity is not OK. I don't know what comment that was or what story or blog post it was under. Had I seen it, I would have deleted it. This blog post (above) and many other blog posts and articles run on multiple Patch sites, so I cannot be familiar with every comment under every blog and article. If you see a problematic comment in the future from a story related directly to Point Pleasant or Point Pleasant Beach, please email me at denise.distephan@patch.com. If you see one related to other stories, please email Tom Davis, Patch Jersey Shore Regional Editor, at tom.davis@patch.com.

There is probably not a way for readers to tell, unless the subject matter clearly relates to one specific town or area. What I meant was if the subject matter is related to Point Borough or Point Beach, chances are I'm responsible. If not, please contact our regional editor. Thank you.

I'm not positive that this is all about insurance coverage. A big part has got to be people's houses being "robbed" simply to get more drugs, all of the drugs listed have huge street value, not to mention millions of people are addicted to them and would do almost anything to get them, including filing a police report saying that their home was robbed of drugs simply to be able to get more, if it were as simple as getting a police report and a prescription to get more pain killers the police would be a lot more busy with homes being burglerized. I am certainly not insinuating that Alice would do that, but I'd guess it happens more often than drugs being stolen legitimately.

I didn't read the comments, because they usually turn into shouting matches. For the author: Was her insurance private? Twice now I have had to refill prescriptions that were "lost" under two different companies and they went through. Cigna and Blue Cross. What I'm trying to understand is if the denial was due to the type of drug or her insurance. I didn't even know when the first item was lost (inhaler thrown out by a 12 year old on accident) that the insurance had a built in yearly lost items line item. Walgreens did and activated it for me. They did it again when a bottle of heart pills went missing a year later. I had it so easy two times I am stunned she did not with such a horrific well documented one time instance.

I have a different kind of story, I had a blockage in my heart and needed a stent, I have a great insurance package and they covered everything, I get a bill but just to let me know what has been paid. After my follow up doctors visit I get the bill and everything is paid for except something called a "Smoking Sensation Therapy" which I had to pay half of. I looked at the bill thinking when did I have that? Then I recalled the doctor during that follow up visit asking me "Have you quit smoking, I replied " I've cut down immensely" He said, "Glad to hear it" and that was the whole conversation about anything to do with smoking. That bastard billed me $25 for that two line conversation. There was no "therapy". So I paid it and then during my next visit I brought that bill with me and I showed it to the doctor, I told him if he ever pulled that shit again, that there were plenty of other cardiologists in Ocean and Monmouth counties and I would find one that didn't pad bills. He never asked me if I had quit smoking again, which I have! I quit and I'm saving a lot of money both from not smoking and having a doctor that now knows that I read all the bills even if the insurance pays it and doesn't pad my bill anymore. Doctors and hospitals will bill the insurance companies up the wazoo cause the know they can get away with it. It's YOUR responsibility to keep them honest!

There are stories like Joe's where we see how doctors abuse the system. My mom, in a first-rate nursing facility, this home not only charged her six grand a month over the Medicare payments, but compounded by severe Alzheimer's Disease; the single doctor for the whole facility would come by a couple of times a week and ask her (like she could answer) how she was doing... Then the doctor would charge seventy-five dollars for the question, by calling it a visit. Pres Obama is correct that abuse in the Medicare program must be curtailed, saving billions of dollars before we start cutting already insufficient medical payments for the elderly. Those of us who are Baby Boomers are faced with spending our life savings and any inheritance to Health Care. That is a hell of a way to live the golden years! How about a "reverse mortgage" to pay medical bills so you have nothing left to pass on to your children. This Health Care system cannot continue its current trajectory. Don't blame illegals, because all the legal persons in this country who don't have or cannot afford health coverage, are the major reason costs are so high for those that carry ins. and can pay. Health Care is going to be paid no matter the cost, because they have the strongest lobby in Congress next to energy.

@Da Poppa: "The level of care this patient is getting is amoungst the greatest in the world because we are NOT forced into a socialized medical system. Don't believe me? Look how many Canadians come south to the US to get care they can't get in Canada, or are denied." The greatest care? Maybe, but 50 million uninsured (US Census) and tens of millions under insured aren't getting good care and what about all the personal bankruptcies due to medical costs, even those with insurance can go bankrupt in the US. That does not happen in the other advanced countries with universal health care.

Terrible story. Truly reflects horribly on the insurance company. They should step up, period. It's wonderful that this woman had friends who could help her.

Joe R. Medicare already borrows 50 percent of its spending annually. Same for Medicaid. Look it up. All I hear is so what we need to spend more. How? Where is the money coming from? Enough already of borrowing today to give things away and hope for the best. Its time to live within our means.

@Da Poppa: "Look how many Canadians come south to the US to get care they can't get in Canada, or are denied." That's an urban myth, it's a zombie lie that never dies. Canadians DO NOT come to the US for health care. An actual study was done by the universities of Michigan and British Columbia and they found that the number of Canadians who came to the US for health care was INFINITESIMAL. Canadians live longer, their infant mortality rate is much lower and Canadians do not go bankrupt from health care expenses. Any time Canadians are polled about their health care system, it gets ratings in the high 90% plus range and the Canadians do not want our God awful cruel health care non system which leaves tens of millions uninsured or under insured. The Canadian system is not socialized, doctors and hospitals are private. I guess Da Poppa is against Medicare, Medicaid and the VA, which is really socialized medicine. Just let all those old folks, the poor and the veterans die in the gutter because we can't have no stinkin socialized commie medicine in the US (sarcasm alert). When Canadians come to the US to vacation, they buy special short term insurance (just for the US vacation) in case they get sick in the US. They are terrified if they get sick in the US, they could go bankrupt from the outrageous US hospital bills, especially in the ER. Too many Americans are ignorant how we are being ripped off by the for-profit health insurance companies. WE NEED MEDICARE FOR ALL NOW!!!

Medicare spending will rise 50 percent in next 5 years to 700 billion with nearly 2/3 of the funding coming from money borrow from china. That's a great plan

Odd spending more money that we collect is wise? obamas budget shows 10 year medicare spending to be 3 trillion and medicare taxes equal 1.2 trillion. Where is the other 1.8 trillion coming from?

Military spending is 700 billion and income tax revenue is 1.6 trillion. This means that military spending is paid for.

I'm surprised Patch reporters don't do a better job educating the readers on the Federal Budget. If people knew the truth about borrowing money to pay the bills they would not be happy.

Gee, we're out of money, no more money. I guess we will have to disband the FBI, CIA, the military. So sorry, no more money. The military is unsustainable, costs too much. Odd spending more money that we collect is wise? Military costs keep rising, that's unsustainable, there's just no money. Tut, tut, tsk, tsk, we can't spend money we don't have so ta, ta military, adios, FBI and adieu, CIA, bye, bye.

Are you afraid to have a real discussion on the budget other than yelling MEDICARE for all? As I pointed out income taxes pay for those things whereas as Medicare tax doesn't!

Joe I don't think anyone is arguing from the premise our country is financially unsustainable with its current spending. The problem is how do we raise more money and sustain important benefits such as social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The idea that these programs be dropped or privatised is a cavalier approach that would harm millions of Americans. The idea that the military budget is off limits is ludicrous. The idea that tax cuts on one hand and playing the role of the world policemen on the other is also insane. I do not know the answer, but I know it will only be found by compromise. Politicians who won't compromise should not hold office. There are no ideas put forward that everyone likes. However, in this country unlike so many other countries around the world, we can all give a little to get a better country for all. Mistakes have been made on both sides of the isle but that's in the past. The future is what we need to work on with level heads. I do not believe trickle-down economics has ever worked, maybe that is because it never trickles down to me. I don't understand CEO making in excess of 400 times more money than the average middle class worker, so I sure don't see how giving them more tax breaks help me. They earned it and I am happy for them, but to burden the poor or middle with any more debt and not the very wealthy makes no sense.

This is actually fairly simple if it allowed to be, Medical providers to any insurance company have already vetted and know who this doctor is, he is taking responsibility for medications that are prescribed, a simple encrypted ssl certificate that proves who the doctor is and that the request is a medical necessity should by law override any previous limitations to a prescription renewal. To bad life is not simple. Any way to send donations?

Just as cavalier as to suggest an expansion of a federal program that is already borrowing money to meet its obligations. We can't spend a trillion a year more than we have and still have 24 million unemployed out there because more government spending and more debt will lose more jobs not create them. Think about it income tax paid is 1 trillion and the annual budget shortfall is 1.3 trillion. If you doubled taxes we still add 300 billion to the 16 trillion debt. More debt means higher interest costs means more debt.

Someone was correct. We got way off topic; someone else too pointed out the crisis for Alice and family, is the crisis for millions of Americans. Play your games with numbers... Both political parties play the game well, and no one has an answer. However, the government has put forth many plans spending our taxes to create jobs. (ie INFRASTRUCTURE) Our roads, electrical grid, and sewer systems, are in dire need. Thousands can go to work tomorrow, if the Congress and Senate stopped playing politics. If you looked beyond spending money ( which would make money and put people to work) and stop believing in the NON-Policies of Mitt and his VP running mate, policies that would destroy the most valuable entitlement programs in American history, and STILL NOT BALANCE the budget. I ask where is your heart?

Medicare is not bankrupt, you need to change your "name" or handle to reflect the TRUTH. Chris Welch said: "When Canadians travel anywhere out of thier home province it is recommended they purchase travel insurance. Yes, even within Canada." Yes, there are some differences between provinces but Canada has universal health care, so they don't need to buy extra insurance if they travel to another province. The Canadian Medicare card is good for any province.