[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

I support reducing them-- Teh burden of debt needs to go back to where it constitutionally belongs - to the individuals or the states therein. If we want a fed health care program- we need to amend the constitution to allow the fed this. It is not witrhin their constitutioanl perview as of now. It belongs to teh states. or the individuals. None of it at any level is debt free- why shouild states and the fed go into the red when the fed has no authority to do it?

OK. So then you would disagree with someone who opposed something on the grounds that it "cut medicare spending"?

I'm not saying you would support anything that included cuts. You might oppose a bill. But a cut to medicare would not be the reason. Is that correct?

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

OK. So then you would disagree with someone who opposed something on the grounds that it "cut medicare spending"?

I'm not saying you would support anything that included cuts. You might oppose a bill. But a cut to medicare would not be the reason. Is that correct?

No.

Teh cut in medicare ws not to reduce federal burdens in health care- it was just simply redistributiing that money to others instead.

If they proposed legislation that just simply cutr medicare- I would not necessarily oppose it.

Teh fed needs to get out of health care. Our problems have arisen largely to continued growth of the fed in the health care industry. I have been around long enough to know the before and after effect of federal medicare.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Teh cut in medicare ws not to reduce federal burdens in health care- it was just simply redistributiing that money to others instead.

I didn't ask if you opposed "giving money to others". I asked if you opposed or supported cutting medicare.

If they proposed legislation that just simply cutr medicare- I would not necessarily oppose it.

What do you mean "neccessairily"? Under what condition would you oppose cutting medicare.

Try *really hard* to give an answer that does not rely on something additional to cutting medicare to occur. That's not what I've asked.

Teh fed needs to get out of health care. Our problems have arisen largely to continued growth of the fed in the health care industry. I have been around long enough to know the before and after effect of federal medicare.

I find it unlikely you were old enough to have received medicare before it was implamented in 1945.

Heck, you would need to be 65 merely to have been born. You would have to be 85 to have been around voting age when it was implamented. There's no way you are old enough to have experienced both being a recipient, and not being a reciepient at an appropriate age.

[nolidad]

I

find it unlikely you were old enough to have received medicare before it was implamented in 1945.

Heck, you would need to be 65 merely to have been born. You would have to be 85 to have been around voting age when it was implamented. There's no way you are old enough to have experienced both being a recipient, and not being a reciepient at an appropriate age.

I Never said I was receiving medicare- I said I was around to know the before and after effects.

And medicare was born in 1965 under Johnson It was signed into law on July 30,1965.

I didn't ask if you opposed "giving money to others". I asked if you opposed or supported cutting medicare.

I have answered this several times already. But again - I support a gradual phase out of medicare and returning the burdens to the states or individuals barring an amendment ot he constitution authorizing the fed to be involved in health care as it is unconstitutionally today. I would vote no to that amendment.

What do you mean "neccessairily"? Under what condition would you oppose cutting medicare.

If it was just an instantaneous jerking the rug out from people after running it in to the ground for 45 years. It needs to phased down and out.