On Sep 14, 9:16�pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>
> Let us understand that Medicare "B" and "D" are the primary shortfalls
> but that the article is perpetrating a lie of sorts in insinuating that
> these were to be supported by the Medicare tax. �BOTH Medicare "B and "D"
> were passed as general revenue supported programs. �Those programs WERE
> NOT defined to be funded by the Medicare tax.

You are a little confused, or are trying to confuse the issue. The
article was talking about Medicare's hospital insurance program, not
part 'B' and 'D'. Medicare HI is going belly up without the help of,
'B' and 'D', that's another issue. Read the report first.

>1. The drug program (Medicare "B") as done by the Republicans and George
>butt sucker Bush is nothing other than big wet kiss for the drug
>companies.

SAY WHAT??????


http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshal...ts/RL32582.pdf


The Part B program is
financed through a combination of monthly premiums paid by
current enrollees and
general revenues.

When Medicare began in 1966, the Part B monthly premium paid by
beneficiaries was set at a level to finance 50% of Part B
costs; general revenues
financed the remainder. Legislation enacted in 1972 limited
annual premium
increases. As a result, beneficiary contributions dropped to
below 25% of program
costs by the early 1980s. Since the early 1980s, Congress
regularly voted to set Part
B premiums at levels to cover 25% of program costs. The
Balanced Budget Act of
1997 (BBA 97) permanently set the Part B premium at 25% of
program costs.
Certain low-income beneficiaries are entitled to assistance in
paying their Part B
premiums. Beginning in 2007, certain high income Medicare
enrollees will pay a
higher percentage of their Part B premiums.





PS I was againt the bill for 'D'. Oh and the Democratic plan for part
D was unfunded also.

Again, regardless, the article was about Medicare HI going belly up,
it was going belly up with the help of part 'D'.