GOP and trump considering Medicare cuts in his second term

[Redfish]

No it wasn't. Those who built the country became the government. It was founded on a distrust that the government would always do right.

Holy shit. This is why certain people should not vote

I wish I had a nickel every time someone turns to insults as opposed to arguments as to why they were wrong.

Want to give it a shot?

The constitution limited the federal govt to basically making sure the individual states didn't fuck over the citizenry.
Now, American totalitarians want them to control 20 percent of our economy, if not more(healthcare) take our weapons, basically destroy the concept of private property etc. Those people would be rolling in their graves.

What people might want today has nothing to do with what the founders thought about government.

Mostly I've agreed with you, but I disagree with this post. I think you are right that the founders - like Jefferson Adams and Madison - distrusted govt. And those are three different, and esp with Jefferson and Adams, very conflicting views of what our govt should do. I assume, all three were wise enough to even distrust their own views of what govt should do, because the common thread was issues and solutions should be clearly set out and debated, because when a consensus by a sizeable majority was reached, that was the best chance of doing something that posed the best likely outcome.

But they didn't "hate" govt. They realized it was a necessity and pure libertarianism was a sham in terms of being a way to govern, and governing was necessary.

The thread, or at least my link, showed the piss poor place the gop is right now. They avoid any bipartisan approach. THAT is contrary to the founders. Obama actually did try for some bipartisan approach on healthcare, but there was no way for any goper to buy into universal coverage without being primaried, because the gop voters decided mandatory insurance was bad, even though the idea originated with conservatives. So Obama had to choose between covering everyone or accepteing a lesser law. And in the end, Roberts rewrote it to avoid universal coverage. LOL Imo Obama should have accepted a smaller law, but only because bipartisan buy in generally results in more popular support for a law.

its the dems who are refusing to compromise, or even to meet to discuss finding common ground. Have Pelosi and Schumer offered to meet with the republicans to seek compromise solutions? Duh, no

 

[Oldstyle]

Let the fear mongering begin! You liberals never deviate from the script...do you, Jim? It tells me you don't have any solutions to the problems we face so you're going to go with the old "push grandma off a cliff" routine. The truth is we can't pay for the entitlements we have now but you on the left are running on Medicare for all, free college educations and the Green New Deal. How is it exactly that we're supposed to come up with the money for all of this, Jim?

Sanders advocates for things like Universal Health care and better access to higher education. He lays out how it will be paid for. You have to twist that in the way you do above.

Trump adds billions to the military and for bail outs for farmers and pays for none of it. He actually does the opposite but that is good.

Oh, bullshit! Sanders has never even come CLOSE to laying out how it will be paid for! You see the "goodies" he's promising and you've looked the other way when it comes to his explanations on how it will be paid for!

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file

Now how is Trump paying for his increased spending?

So Bernie is going to impose a "Robin Hood tax" on Wall Street? Good luck getting that passed! Bottom line is this (and it never changes!)…to pay for all the new entitlements that you progressives want...taxes WILL have to be raised and not by just a little! So be honest with America for a change. Tell the average American how much their share is going to be in order for you to have your progressive agenda put into place and let them make up their minds about whether that's something they really want!

No, we can discuss the program but the bottom line is you were wrong.

It's not rocket science...simple math will suffice! You could tax the wealthy at 100% and it STILL wouldn't pay for your proposed entitlements! The bottom line is that the only way you can make the numbers come close to working is if you raise taxes substantially on the Middle Class. So why aren't you and Bernie being honest with the American people about what your agenda will actually cost?

 

[TNHarley]

America was a country built on hating government you fucking retard.

No it wasn't. Those who built the country became the government. It was founded on a distrust that the government would always do right.

Holy shit. This is why certain people should not vote

I wish I had a nickel every time someone turns to insults as opposed to arguments as to why they were wrong.

Want to give it a shot?

The constitution limited the federal govt to basically making sure the individual states didn't fuck over the citizenry.
Now, American totalitarians want them to control 20 percent of our economy, if not more(healthcare) take our weapons, basically destroy the concept of private property etc. Those people would be rolling in their graves.

What people might want today has nothing to do with what the founders thought about government.

Yes, that's what I just said.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Trump Has Told Friends That Gutting Medicare Could Be a Fun “Second-Term Project”

That would teach the old toothless farts that believed every word the Liar says. Maybe instead of a nursing home...they can live under a bridge....

He is right. Actually no matter who wins, that person has to address entitlements in order to cure our deficit and begin paying down our debt.

There are actually proposals by some candidates to fully fund Medicare indefinitely. For all.

Lol
Fuck that, Conservatives do not benefit from Medicare for all... And certainly cannot afford it. So keep that motherfucking shit yourselves you spineless motherfuckers

It would help a lot of Republican voters. And many even realize that:
Majority of Republicans supports 'Medicare for all,' poll finds

UH won’t work until we fix the 14th amendment and expensive education for future doctors.

 

[Agit8r]

Trump Has Told Friends That Gutting Medicare Could Be a Fun “Second-Term Project”

That would teach the old toothless farts that believed every word the Liar says. Maybe instead of a nursing home...they can live under a bridge....

He is right. Actually no matter who wins, that person has to address entitlements in order to cure our deficit and begin paying down our debt.

There are actually proposals by some candidates to fully fund Medicare indefinitely. For all.

Lol
Fuck that, Conservatives do not benefit from Medicare for all... And certainly cannot afford it. So keep that motherfucking shit yourselves you spineless motherfuckers

It would help a lot of Republican voters. And many even realize that:
Majority of Republicans supports 'Medicare for all,' poll finds

UH won’t work until we fix the 14th amendment and expensive education for future doctors.

What does the 14th Amendment have to do with medicare?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

He is right. Actually no matter who wins, that person has to address entitlements in order to cure our deficit and begin paying down our debt.

There are actually proposals by some candidates to fully fund Medicare indefinitely. For all.

Lol
Fuck that, Conservatives do not benefit from Medicare for all... And certainly cannot afford it. So keep that motherfucking shit yourselves you spineless motherfuckers

It would help a lot of Republican voters. And many even realize that:
Majority of Republicans supports 'Medicare for all,' poll finds

UH won’t work until we fix the 14th amendment and expensive education for future doctors.

What does the 14th Amendment have to do with medicare?

Medicare for ALL

What do you think? Take an educated guess

 

[dblack]

They realized it was a necessity and pure libertarianism was a sham in terms of being a way to govern, and governing was necessary.

Pure libertarianism isn't anarchy. It's a fine mechanism for self-government. It just doesn't indulge those who want to use the state to rule society. There's a big difference

 

[Wry Catcher]

Oh what would the oldsters do if it weren't for Big Daddy Big Gubmint breaking their legs, then handing them a crutch and telling them how lucky that they are to have "free" Medicare?!?

The more you post, the dumber you prove to be. You don't like government? Go somewhere you might find tolerable, a deserted tropical island could be your panacea for your hate of being governed.

America was a country built on hating government you fucking retard.

Those who call others "fucking retards" have nothing of substance to offer, and lack the ability to post anything thoughtful or thoughtfully provoking.

 

[bendog]

They realized it was a necessity and pure libertarianism was a sham in terms of being a way to govern, and governing was necessary.

Pure libertarianism isn't anarchy. It's a fine mechanism for self-government. It just doesn't indulge those who want to use the state to rule society. There's a big difference

but the Founders discarded it as a system of govt, despite at least some having those leanings.

 

[pknopp]

No it wasn't. Those who built the country became the government. It was founded on a distrust that the government would always do right.

Holy shit. This is why certain people should not vote

I wish I had a nickel every time someone turns to insults as opposed to arguments as to why they were wrong.

Want to give it a shot?

The constitution limited the federal govt to basically making sure the individual states didn't fuck over the citizenry.
Now, American totalitarians want them to control 20 percent of our economy, if not more(healthcare) take our weapons, basically destroy the concept of private property etc. Those people would be rolling in their graves.

What people might want today has nothing to do with what the founders thought about government.

Mostly I've agreed with you, but I disagree with this post. I think you are right that the founders - like Jefferson Adams and Madison - distrusted govt. And those are three different, and esp with Jefferson and Adams, very conflicting views of what our govt should do. I assume, all three were wise enough to even distrust their own views of what govt should do, because the common thread was issues and solutions should be clearly set out and debated, because when a consensus by a sizeable majority was reached, that was the best chance of doing something that posed the best likely outcome.

But they didn't "hate" govt. They realized it was a necessity and pure libertarianism was a sham in terms of being a way to govern, and governing was necessary.

I'm not the one who argued they hated government.

The thread, or at least my link, showed the piss poor place the gop is right now. They avoid any bipartisan approach. THAT is contrary to the founders. Obama actually did try for some bipartisan approach on healthcare, but there was no way for any goper to buy into universal coverage without being primaried, because the gop voters decided mandatory insurance was bad, even though the idea originated with conservatives. So Obama had to choose between covering everyone or accepteing a lesser law. And in the end, Roberts rewrote it to avoid universal coverage. LOL Imo Obama should have accepted a smaller law, but only because bipartisan buy in generally results in more popular support for a law.

On Obamacare, Obama said the GOP could get on the bus or not.

 

[pknopp]

Holy shit. This is why certain people should not vote

I wish I had a nickel every time someone turns to insults as opposed to arguments as to why they were wrong.

Want to give it a shot?

The constitution limited the federal govt to basically making sure the individual states didn't fuck over the citizenry.
Now, American totalitarians want them to control 20 percent of our economy, if not more(healthcare) take our weapons, basically destroy the concept of private property etc. Those people would be rolling in their graves.

What people might want today has nothing to do with what the founders thought about government.

Mostly I've agreed with you, but I disagree with this post. I think you are right that the founders - like Jefferson Adams and Madison - distrusted govt. And those are three different, and esp with Jefferson and Adams, very conflicting views of what our govt should do. I assume, all three were wise enough to even distrust their own views of what govt should do, because the common thread was issues and solutions should be clearly set out and debated, because when a consensus by a sizeable majority was reached, that was the best chance of doing something that posed the best likely outcome.

But they didn't "hate" govt. They realized it was a necessity and pure libertarianism was a sham in terms of being a way to govern, and governing was necessary.

The thread, or at least my link, showed the piss poor place the gop is right now. They avoid any bipartisan approach. THAT is contrary to the founders. Obama actually did try for some bipartisan approach on healthcare, but there was no way for any goper to buy into universal coverage without being primaried, because the gop voters decided mandatory insurance was bad, even though the idea originated with conservatives. So Obama had to choose between covering everyone or accepteing a lesser law. And in the end, Roberts rewrote it to avoid universal coverage. LOL Imo Obama should have accepted a smaller law, but only because bipartisan buy in generally results in more popular support for a law.

its the dems who are refusing to compromise, or even to meet to discuss finding common ground. Have Pelosi and Schumer offered to meet with the republicans to seek compromise solutions? Duh, no

That's true but that is exactly the way the GOP treated Obama. In a way both Obama and Trump has deserved it.

 

[Markle]

The Fed created billions out of nothing that the billionaires gained the most from. It was never theirs to begin with.

Believing any wealth simply created on paper should be more equally spread around is not coveting what others have.

But.....I'm all for stopping this practice completely if you prefer.

Please share with us specifically how this was done. You don't have a clue do you?

 

[pknopp]

Sanders advocates for things like Universal Health care and better access to higher education. He lays out how it will be paid for. You have to twist that in the way you do above.

Trump adds billions to the military and for bail outs for farmers and pays for none of it. He actually does the opposite but that is good.

Oh, bullshit! Sanders has never even come CLOSE to laying out how it will be paid for! You see the "goodies" he's promising and you've looked the other way when it comes to his explanations on how it will be paid for!

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=file

Now how is Trump paying for his increased spending?

So Bernie is going to impose a "Robin Hood tax" on Wall Street? Good luck getting that passed! Bottom line is this (and it never changes!)…to pay for all the new entitlements that you progressives want...taxes WILL have to be raised and not by just a little! So be honest with America for a change. Tell the average American how much their share is going to be in order for you to have your progressive agenda put into place and let them make up their minds about whether that's something they really want!

No, we can discuss the program but the bottom line is you were wrong.

It's not rocket science...simple math will suffice! You could tax the wealthy at 100% and it STILL wouldn't pay for your proposed entitlements! The bottom line is that the only way you can make the numbers come close to working is if you raise taxes substantially on the Middle Class. So why aren't you and Bernie being honest with the American people about what your agenda will actually cost?

Neither of us have argued it would all be funded by the "rich".

 

[pknopp]

The Fed created billions out of nothing that the billionaires gained the most from. It was never theirs to begin with.

Believing any wealth simply created on paper should be more equally spread around is not coveting what others have.

But.....I'm all for stopping this practice completely if you prefer.

Please share with us specifically how this was done. You don't have a clue do you?

Quantitative Easing.

 

[JimH52]

So, I will be able to collect SS after I am likely dead and buried?

We have two major groups of employees where I work. The older farts like myself who spend almost as much time in doctor's offices and VA as we do at work, just trying to hold it together until we hit 67, and then the youngsters (late 20s to early 30s) that are already on some percentage of disability, and all of that is due to military service.

I guess I can draw over $3000 a month VA disability versus $1800 a month SS rather than work.

You would not be impacted as you're over 55. My proposal would be those 55 and under must retire at 70 and those under 30 at 72. People are living much longer now and we have gyms, knowledge about diet, etc. to keep in better shape for when we do get older. Thank you for your service. NEVER FORGET.

Actually... last year was the first time in several decades that the average U.S. life-span went DOWN.

Your argument for retiring at a higher age only makes sense if the people retiring at that age can stay healthy... so you just made the argument for Medicare for all! Congrats you just argued away one social program to institute another.

Nope. I did not. We are not as healthy because we are fat. Stop eating so damn much. Most persons have private pay nothing wrong with that but those who don't have it and are indigent and are citizens have medicaid. You're just trolling now. Congrats for being a douche.

Nice try, but no cigar. Your argument is that people need to work longer in order to retire older. In order for that to work people are going to need better healthcare and the ability to afford their medicines.

Then you pivot into eating better and being less obese. Well... if you want that to work you are going to need some more programs to send people to eating the right foods, getting federal hands into the fast food restaurants forcing them to serve healthier food, and spending lots of extra money on proper exercise awareness, especially in youth.

You see where this is going? You are arguing for supplementing a social program with more social programs.

Either that or we let the unhealthy people that can not work yet aren't old enough to retire, to be left out in the cold and die, or spend federal money to open assisted suicide centers to get these leeches off the government tit! Congrats, you are just as much a socialist as they people you hate.

#1) You assume old people need meds. My parents are old (71 and 78) and don't take meds.

#2) People know how to eat and most companies provide free gym memberships or reimburse their employees. There is zero excuse for being out of shape sans laziness.

#3) I am saying people retire later so they collect SSI later and get on medicate later. Stay on their private insurance longer.

#4) If you're fat and cannot work anymore but you're too young to retire that is a you problem. Take better care of yourself.

Does #4 apply to the fat POS in the WH....How often does he work out....and golf doesn't count. The fat ass rides around in a golf cart...

 

[JimH52]

Conservatives do not benefit from Medicare for all.

Yea...conservatives are super human right?

Lord help us with these cretins

You mean those trump humpers in WV and Kentucky that are all sucking off the public system....

 

[JimH52]

IDC. If would have zero impact if you're 55+. Nothing changes if you're under you wait three more years and stay on your private insurance and if you're 30 or under you wait til you're 72. You have 40+ years of warning to eat better and be healthy or stay on your insurance longer.

That made absolutely NO sense..and didn't even attempt to respond to this

Do you realize that well over half of the readers of this board are retired conservatives...most of whom have health issues which INCLUDE obesity, diabetes and heart issues?

In fact it's the internet. YOU are probably overweight and on 14 different meds

No debating this one....YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

You would not be impacted as you're over 55. My proposal would be those 55 and under must retire at 70 and those under 30 at 72. People are living much longer now and we have gyms, knowledge about diet, etc. to keep in better shape for when we do get older. Thank you for your service. NEVER FORGET.

Actually... last year was the first time in several decades that the average U.S. life-span went DOWN.

Your argument for retiring at a higher age only makes sense if the people retiring at that age can stay healthy... so you just made the argument for Medicare for all! Congrats you just argued away one social program to institute another.

Nope. I did not. We are not as healthy because we are fat. Stop eating so damn much. Most persons have private pay nothing wrong with that but those who don't have it and are indigent and are citizens have medicaid. You're just trolling now. Congrats for being a douche.

Nice try, but no cigar. Your argument is that people need to work longer in order to retire older. In order for that to work people are going to need better healthcare and the ability to afford their medicines.

Then you pivot into eating better and being less obese. Well... if you want that to work you are going to need some more programs to send people to eating the right foods, getting federal hands into the fast food restaurants forcing them to serve healthier food, and spending lots of extra money on proper exercise awareness, especially in youth.

You see where this is going? You are arguing for supplementing a social program with more social programs.

Either that or we let the unhealthy people that can not work yet aren't old enough to retire, to be left out in the cold and die, or spend federal money to open assisted suicide centers to get these leeches off the government tit! Congrats, you are just as much a socialist as they people you hate.

#1) You assume old people need meds. My parents are old (71 and 78) and don't take meds.

#2) People know how to eat and most companies provide free gym memberships or reimburse their employees. There is zero excuse for being out of shape sans laziness.

#3) I am saying people retire later so they collect SSI later and get on medicate later. Stay on their private insurance longer.

#4) If you're fat and cannot work anymore but you're too young to retire that is a you problem. Take better care of yourself.

Does #4 apply to the fat POS in the WH....How often does he work out....and golf doesn't count. The fat ass rides around in a golf cart...

You moron, he is rich. Do you think he cannot afford healthcare? What a loser you are.

 

[HenryBHough]

[


Hey stupid, "cuts" means cuts to waste and fraud and abuse, not cuts to benefits, you half-witted imbecile.

"Half"?

I admire your charitable generosity!

 

[Oddball]

Those who call others "fucking retards" have nothing of substance to offer, and lack the ability to post anything thoughtful or thoughtfully provoking.

While Jacobin asswipes who tell others to move to a desert island are engaging in meaningful discourse of substance.