Raise Retirement age and cut benefits or not?

[Disir]

Do we touch Medicare and Social Security or not?

With Medicare, it's all about the government giving money to drug companies and rich doctors. We should gradually raise the retirement age, yes. But as far as cutting what Medicare is willing to pay, that would hurt seniors because the greedy doctors and drug companies would stop accepting Medicare. So the only viable thing there is health reform to cut the costs of healthcare paid by all so that what Medicare pays can also go down. Obamacare was supposed to work on that, but because of the toxic Washington environment they rushed out a Democrat only plan rather than working together with Republicans on the healthcare cost issue.

On Social Security, raise the retirement age, and tax benefits to more well off seniors. It's not fair, but there's no alternative. The money seniors put in to social security is gone and the current generation can't sustain the older generation at the current benefit level.

So fixing medicare is much tougher and must be done hand in hand with healthcare reform.

Bottom line: Huckabee, Christie, Bush, everybody had some good ideas. Get together with Democrats and come up with something.

We need to elect somebody who can do that because neither party will win absolute power in 2016.

Not.

 

[leftwinger]

incomes over 118K have no FICA

But, what you get back is based on what you put in? If you pay-in SSI up to millionaire rate, are they then due back $10K/mo? or whatever? If not then you may as well call it added tax on high income?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Do we touch Medicare and Social Security or not?

With Medicare, it's all about the government giving money to drug companies and rich doctors. We should gradually raise the retirement age, yes. But as far as cutting what Medicare is willing to pay, that would hurt seniors because the greedy doctors and drug companies would stop accepting Medicare. So the only viable thing there is health reform to cut the costs of healthcare paid by all so that what Medicare pays can also go down. Obamacare was supposed to work on that, but because of the toxic Washington environment they rushed out a Democrat only plan rather than working together with Republicans on the healthcare cost issue.

On Social Security, raise the retirement age, and tax benefits to more well off seniors. It's not fair, but there's no alternative. The money seniors put in to social security is gone and the current generation can't sustain the older generation at the current benefit level.

So fixing medicare is much tougher and must be done hand in hand with healthcare reform.

Bottom line: Huckabee, Christie, Bush, everybody had some good ideas. Get together with Democrats and come up with something.

We need to elect somebody who can do that because neither party will win absolute power in 2016.

Assuming that Social Security is a program that is worth salvaging, then yes. At the minimum, going forward (not retroactively), we will unquestionably HAVE to alter the age for eligibility.

And in the same going forward way, we will need to address how much gets doled out in SS payments.

The alternative will be that the SS system is going to go flat busted broke and then nobody will get diddly dick out of it.

The solutions are all difficult (which is a kind of inevitable outcome of building the foundation on the sand). But the fact that the solutions are difficult and even painful is no longer a sufficient excuse to refuse to address the problems and grapple WITH the alternative solutions.

 

[Arianrhod]

Eliminate welfare first. We paid into those programs, touch them last

What happens when you eliminate welfare? How many millions will starve to death in America? Welfare prevents us from being a third world country.

Please show me where anyone has starved to death in this country.

They haven't since the implementation of those programs you hate so much. Cause/effect.

 

[Davros]

Eliminate welfare first. We paid into those programs, touch them last

What happens when you eliminate welfare? How many millions will starve to death in America? Welfare prevents us from being a third world country.

Please show me where anyone has starved to death in this country.

While it might happen in the back woods of New York, it's likely not happening in large cities.

This argument is always one that kills a good discussion.

Well, duh. Welfare hasn't been eliminated.

 

[Davros]

Do we touch Medicare and Social Security or not?

With Medicare, it's all about the government giving money to drug companies and rich doctors. We should gradually raise the retirement age, yes. But as far as cutting what Medicare is willing to pay, that would hurt seniors because the greedy doctors and drug companies would stop accepting Medicare. So the only viable thing there is health reform to cut the costs of healthcare paid by all so that what Medicare pays can also go down. Obamacare was supposed to work on that, but because of the toxic Washington environment they rushed out a Democrat only plan rather than working together with Republicans on the healthcare cost issue.

On Social Security, raise the retirement age, and tax benefits to more well off seniors. It's not fair, but there's no alternative. The money seniors put in to social security is gone and the current generation can't sustain the older generation at the current benefit level.

So fixing medicare is much tougher and must be done hand in hand with healthcare reform.

Bottom line: Huckabee, Christie, Bush, everybody had some good ideas. Get together with Democrats and come up with something.

We need to elect somebody who can do that because neither party will win absolute power in 2016.

Assuming that Social Security is a program that is worth salvaging, then yes. At the minimum, going forward (not retroactively), we will unquestionably HAVE to alter the age for eligibility.

And in the same going forward way, we will need to address how much gets doled out in SS payments.

The alternative will be that the SS system is going to go flat busted broke and then nobody will get diddly dick out of it.

The solutions are all difficult (which is a kind of inevitable outcome of building the foundation on the sand). But the fact that the solutions are difficult and even painful is no longer a sufficient excuse to refuse to address the problems and grapple WITH the alternative solutions.

I agree completely. Those who just yell "don't touch it" and "leave it the f alone" are not dealing with reality.

 

[kaz]

Do we touch Medicare and Social Security or not?

With Medicare, it's all about the government giving money to drug companies and rich doctors. We should gradually raise the retirement age, yes. But as far as cutting what Medicare is willing to pay, that would hurt seniors because the greedy doctors and drug companies would stop accepting Medicare. So the only viable thing there is health reform to cut the costs of healthcare paid by all so that what Medicare pays can also go down. Obamacare was supposed to work on that, but because of the toxic Washington environment they rushed out a Democrat only plan rather than working together with Republicans on the healthcare cost issue.

On Social Security, raise the retirement age, and tax benefits to more well off seniors. It's not fair, but there's no alternative. The money seniors put in to social security is gone and the current generation can't sustain the older generation at the current benefit level.

So fixing medicare is much tougher and must be done hand in hand with healthcare reform.

Bottom line: Huckabee, Christie, Bush, everybody had some good ideas. Get together with Democrats and come up with something.

We need to elect somebody who can do that because neither party will win absolute power in 2016.

Couldn't hear you over the gurgling kool-aid, what was that again?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Eliminate welfare first. We paid into those programs, touch them last

What happens when you eliminate welfare? How many millions will starve to death in America? Welfare prevents us from being a third world country.

Please show me where anyone has starved to death in this country.

While it might happen in the back woods of New York, it's likely not happening in large cities.

This argument is always one that kills a good discussion.

Well, duh. Welfare hasn't been eliminated.

So you have nothing to back up your statement except some right wing thought experiment ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Eliminate welfare first. We paid into those programs, touch them last

What happens when you eliminate welfare? How many millions will starve to death in America? Welfare prevents us from being a third world country.

Please show me where anyone has starved to death in this country.

They haven't since the implementation of those programs you hate so much. Cause/effect.

Please show me where I said I hated those program.

Links or shut up.

You argue like a left wing pompous ass (or a right wing pompous ass).

You are full of yourself.

Prove it or admit you are a liar.

Oh, and thanks for showing us that you've really got now way to support your stupid claim.

 

[S.J.]

Build the wall, cut off all welfare to illegals and able bodied citizens who just plain don't feel like working for a living. S.S. was paid into without being given a choice, now the Dems want to screw millions of people over who paid into it because Dems used the money to create programs to buy votes with. Make all registered Democrats pay a stupidity tax for putting these bastards in office. Privatize S.S. for everyone under the age of say 30. Cut the budget across the board for everything except S.S. and Medicare. Stop all foreign aid to unfriendly countries (make it illegal). Punish companies who ship jobs overseas. Eliminate Dept. of Energy, Education, DHS, and others that aren't worth a shit. Replace the income tax system with a consumption tax and pass a balanced budget amendment. There are a lot of ways to solve the problem without screwing over those who had no choice but to participate in the system.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Single payer with government negotiating the costs with the suppliers.

Medicare already is single payer. How would expanding single payer to everybody cut healthcare costs? It would allow the government to dictate what it will pay, but that would cause all kinds of healthcare availability problems. Now, it's available but expensive. Under single payer, there are long wait lists for critical care.

I have had government medical care since I was military dependent, on military active duty, and as a VA disability recipient. I have never had an unreasonable waiting period. If the government negotiates reasonable prices, there will be no such problem. Now before you ask me to prove it, you made the statement that there will be long waits for critical care. Prove it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Do we touch Medicare and Social Security or not?

With Medicare, it's all about the government giving money to drug companies and rich doctors. We should gradually raise the retirement age, yes. But as far as cutting what Medicare is willing to pay, that would hurt seniors because the greedy doctors and drug companies would stop accepting Medicare. So the only viable thing there is health reform to cut the costs of healthcare paid by all so that what Medicare pays can also go down. Obamacare was supposed to work on that, but because of the toxic Washington environment they rushed out a Democrat only plan rather than working together with Republicans on the healthcare cost issue.

On Social Security, raise the retirement age, and tax benefits to more well off seniors. It's not fair, but there's no alternative. The money seniors put in to social security is gone and the current generation can't sustain the older generation at the current benefit level.

So fixing medicare is much tougher and must be done hand in hand with healthcare reform.

Bottom line: Huckabee, Christie, Bush, everybody had some good ideas. Get together with Democrats and come up with something.

We need to elect somebody who can do that because neither party will win absolute power in 2016.

Assuming that Social Security is a program that is worth salvaging, then yes. At the minimum, going forward (not retroactively), we will unquestionably HAVE to alter the age for eligibility.

And in the same going forward way, we will need to address how much gets doled out in SS payments.

The alternative will be that the SS system is going to go flat busted broke and then nobody will get diddly dick out of it.

The solutions are all difficult (which is a kind of inevitable outcome of building the foundation on the sand). But the fact that the solutions are difficult and even painful is no longer a sufficient excuse to refuse to address the problems and grapple WITH the alternative solutions.

The part about it "going broke" is a fallacy.

If the trust fund drys up, benefits will be cut to 65% of current in order to match up with incoming revenues. We pay money in every month...it has to go somewhere.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Leave ssi and medicare the fuck alone!!!!

That's an emotional argument that ignores the fact that projected medicare and social security deficits are huge. How are we going to pay for that? Tax workers at 100%? Starve the workers so that seniors can live fat? Who will provide services for the seniors then if all the workers have died off?

That is a nonsense comment. Try again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Build the wall, cut off all welfare to illegals and able bodied citizens who just plain don't feel like working for a living. S.S. was paid into without being given a choice, now the Dems want to screw millions of people over who paid into it because Dems used the money to create programs to buy votes with. Make all registered Democrats pay a stupidity tax for putting these bastards in office. Privatize S.S. for everyone under the age of say 30. Cut the budget across the board for everything except S.S. and Medicare. Stop all foreign aid to unfriendly countries (make it illegal). Punish companies who ship jobs overseas. Eliminate Dept. of Energy, Education, DHS, and others that aren't worth a shit. Replace the income tax system with a consumption tax and pass a balanced budget amendment. There are a lot of ways to solve the problem without screwing over those who had no choice but to participate in the system.

S. J. demonstrates an ideology that the great majority rejects.

 

[Care4all]

Yes, we raise the retirement age.

We don't cut benefits at the bottom.

We means test people off the top.

We then add some additional taxes for people who make over 1 million.

And we prosecute the hell out of anyone scamming the system.

The last has to happen. It's not fun to watch Granny and Grandpa go off to jail, but they must be accountable.

It's really not grandma and grandpa as much as the health care facilities, that scam Medicare, billing for things that were never done, and stuff like that.... but they do it in MASS so it has cost us...but they are also getting caught...so that is the good news.

 

[Davros]

Single payer with government negotiating the costs with the suppliers.

Medicare already is single payer. How would expanding single payer to everybody cut healthcare costs? It would allow the government to dictate what it will pay, but that would cause all kinds of healthcare availability problems. Now, it's available but expensive. Under single payer, there are long wait lists for critical care.

I have had government medical care since I was military dependent, on military active duty, and as a VA disability recipient. I have never had an unreasonable waiting period. If the government negotiates reasonable prices, there will be no such problem. Now before you ask me to prove it, you made the statement that there will be long waits for critical care. Prove it.

Single payer works without waitlists when it applies to limited segments of the population. When the entire population is on it (Canada, UK, etc) there is over - demand for a limited supply. When prices are fixed by the government, prices cannot adjust for the over - demand and the result is waitlists due to supply shortage.

Plenty of proof of that from Canada and the UK. Single payer was rejected when Democrats had near super majority.

 

[Davros]

Do we touch Medicare and Social Security or not?

With Medicare, it's all about the government giving money to drug companies and rich doctors. We should gradually raise the retirement age, yes. But as far as cutting what Medicare is willing to pay, that would hurt seniors because the greedy doctors and drug companies would stop accepting Medicare. So the only viable thing there is health reform to cut the costs of healthcare paid by all so that what Medicare pays can also go down. Obamacare was supposed to work on that, but because of the toxic Washington environment they rushed out a Democrat only plan rather than working together with Republicans on the healthcare cost issue.

On Social Security, raise the retirement age, and tax benefits to more well off seniors. It's not fair, but there's no alternative. The money seniors put in to social security is gone and the current generation can't sustain the older generation at the current benefit level.

So fixing medicare is much tougher and must be done hand in hand with healthcare reform.

Bottom line: Huckabee, Christie, Bush, everybody had some good ideas. Get together with Democrats and come up with something.

We need to elect somebody who can do that because neither party will win absolute power in 2016.

Assuming that Social Security is a program that is worth salvaging, then yes. At the minimum, going forward (not retroactively), we will unquestionably HAVE to alter the age for eligibility.

And in the same going forward way, we will need to address how much gets doled out in SS payments.

The alternative will be that the SS system is going to go flat busted broke and then nobody will get diddly dick out of it.

The solutions are all difficult (which is a kind of inevitable outcome of building the foundation on the sand). But the fact that the solutions are difficult and even painful is no longer a sufficient excuse to refuse to address the problems and grapple WITH the alternative solutions.

The part about it "going broke" is a fallacy.

If the trust fund drys up, benefits will be cut to 65% of current in order to match up with incoming revenues. We pay money in every month...it has to go somewhere.

Well, nobody would be happy with an automatic 35% cut in benefits across the board, so just letting the trust fund dry up is not a good solution.

 

[Davros]

Eliminate welfare first. We paid into those programs, touch them last

What happens when you eliminate welfare? How many millions will starve to death in America? Welfare prevents us from being a third world country.

Please show me where anyone has starved to death in this country.

While it might happen in the back woods of New York, it's likely not happening in large cities.

This argument is always one that kills a good discussion.

Well, duh. Welfare hasn't been eliminated.

So you have nothing to back up your statement except some right wing thought experiment ?

I have the 19th century in the industrialized world, especially England. I have current third world countries.

No welfare ... people starve.

It's not just a thought experiment.

 

[Davros]

Leave ssi and medicare the fuck alone!!!!

That's an emotional argument that ignores the fact that projected medicare and social security deficits are huge. How are we going to pay for that? Tax workers at 100%? Starve the workers so that seniors can live fat? Who will provide services for the seniors then if all the workers have died off?

That is a nonsense comment. Try again.

Well, the post I was replying to was a nonstarter, so it doesn't matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Single payer with government negotiating the costs with the suppliers.

Medicare already is single payer. How would expanding single payer to everybody cut healthcare costs? It would allow the government to dictate what it will pay, but that would cause all kinds of healthcare availability problems. Now, it's available but expensive. Under single payer, there are long wait lists for critical care.

I have had government medical care since I was military dependent, on military active duty, and as a VA disability recipient. I have never had an unreasonable waiting period. If the government negotiates reasonable prices, there will be no such problem. Now before you ask me to prove it, you made the statement that there will be long waits for critical care. Prove it.

Single payer works without waitlists when it applies to limited segments of the population. When the entire population is on it (Canada, UK, etc) there is over - demand for a limited supply. When prices are fixed by the government, prices cannot adjust for the over - demand and the result is waitlists due to supply shortage.

Plenty of proof of that from Canada and the UK. Single payer was rejected when Democrats had near super majority.

One, UK and Canada and Australia are satisfied with national health care. So was Winston Churchill and Maggie Thatcher. No reason exists, except for greed, that such health care will not work here.