Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. I would maintain medicare, social security and medicaid. However, I would markedly change these programs to insure solvency. Changes?
1. Raise social security eligibility to age 72
2. Raise the payroll tax
3. Raise medicare eligibility to age 72
4. Mandate that medicare pay for only generic drugs
5. If statistical mortality for a condition is 95% +, refuse Medicare payment. Most medicare expenses are made in the last three months of life.
6. Eliminate social security disability. In most instances it is a scam for people who can work.
7. Make Medicaid co-pays of 5-10%. This would essentially eliminate the $5,000 ambulence rides and er visits for colds.
8. Mandate generic drugs only for medicaid recipients
Take a look at this. This is not the views of "evil conservatives", as the left would suggest. I am sure that nearly EVERYONE on the right (myself included and I am very far right) agrees that there must be some form of safety net for those who are poor and under priveledged to make sure that they survive and have some componant of human dignity. Everyone knows and understands that must happen in a modern, civil society- this is not the middle ages. However, the abuses of the entitlement system have gone well beyond what a rational and "modern" individual would consider to be acceptable. The system has been abused and raped and has superceded its original intent.
Let's help out the poor and disadvantaged to maintain a life that is consistent with acceptable human dignity and expectations, but let's not be fools as well and provide a free ride to those leeches, who are otherwise capable, riding on the backs of the working people of America. Our generosity and sense of Christian kindness has been ABUSED and EXPLOITED by scammers and grifters. Let us be compassionate to those less advantaged, but ferret out and punish those who are abusing the grace and kindness of the nation.
Constitutional issues aside (which is its own unique problem that often interferes with peoples ability to answer this question quite so easily), I am sure that most conservatives could agree from a philisophical perspective (again, if temporarily ignoring Constitutional ramifications) with the following plan for what to do with "social safety nets:"
Make all safety net programs:
(1) Opt-in programs,
(2) With no clever accounting backdoor funding tricks,
(3) With no penalties and other sleazy bureaucratic tricks that attempt to penalize for opting out (sound familiar?),
(4) And in an attempt to prevent the people who opted out from "gaming the system," you get the government bean counters to do their best math, and come up with a plan based on statistical averages for what procedures have to be followed if people want to opt-in (i.e. how long do they have to wait for benefits to kick in, how much money do they have to pay in before the benefits kick in, etc...). This is relatively simple math for the bean counters which all revolves around averages. Just make the people who want to opt-in pay the same amount, on average, as the people who already opted in before they collected their benefits, so that the averages between the two groups is at parity, and in doing so, neither group gets shafted as they both paid identical average amounts.
(5) The above rules apply to each safety net program individually (or something approximating that), such that people can elect the ones they want to be a part of which best suits their needs and desires in life.
The aforementioned, of course, requires a transition from what we have now. That should be quite implicit in how the aforementioned should work. This may require some "phase-in" time that is done over a number of years. The exact mechanism of transition being beside the point.
People are always talking about compromise. That is it right there. It's win-win for many reasons.
With this methodology, the people who like their social safety nets can literally have as many of them as they want... they can have a dozen.... two dozen... hundreds.... thousands of safety nets. They can have safety nets from here to eternity, until their hearts content. They can be just like their favorite European nation they are always bragging about. Or, they can be something even beyond their favorite European nations.... a whole new paradigm with thousands of safety nets covering whatever your little heart desires. Follow the five point plan above, and knock yourself out. Enjoy.
Constitutional issues aside (which is its own unique problem that often interferes with peoples ability to answer this question quite so easily), I am sure that most conservatives could agree from a philisophical perspective (again, if temporarily ignoring Constitutional ramifications) with the following plan for what to do with "social safety nets:"
Make all safety net programs:
(1) Opt-in programs,
(2) With no clever accounting backdoor funding tricks,
(3) With no penalties and other sleazy bureaucratic tricks that attempt to penalize for opting out (sound familiar?),
(4) And in an attempt to prevent the people who opted out from "gaming the system," you get the government bean counters to do their best math, and come up with a plan based on statistical averages for what procedures have to be followed if people want to opt-in (i.e. how long do they have to wait for benefits to kick in, how much money do they have to pay in before the benefits kick in, etc...). This is relatively simple math for the bean counters which all revolves around averages. Just make the people who want to opt-in pay the same amount, on average, as the people who already opted in before they collected their benefits, so that the averages between the two groups is at parity, and in doing so, neither group gets shafted as they both paid identical average amounts.
(5) The above rules apply to each safety net program individually (or something approximating that), such that people can elect the ones they want to be a part of which best suits their needs and desires in life.
The aforementioned, of course, requires a transition from what we have now. That should be quite implicit in how the aforementioned should work. This may require some "phase-in" time that is done over a number of years. The exact mechanism of transition being beside the point.
People are always talking about compromise. That is it right there. It's win-win for many reasons.
With this methodology, the people who like their social safety nets can literally have as many of them as they want... they can have a dozen.... two dozen... hundreds.... thousands of safety nets. They can have safety nets from here to eternity, until their hearts content. They can be just like their favorite European nation they are always bragging about. Or, they can be something even beyond their favorite European nations.... a whole new paradigm with thousands of safety nets covering whatever your little heart desires. Follow the five point plan above, and knock yourself out. Enjoy.
You know, I think your plan is fine, but here is the thing. Private business would really achieve the same as this program and likely would have less draw backs and conditions.
The reason that government programs often seem as if they provide "better" deals is simply because they operate on the fact that they are often losing on the deal.
I think that the government entering business is a bad idea as they can not compete without fixing the books or using private influence to gain advantage over another in the market through legislation.
Government is best being slow, bureaucratic, unresolved, and in constant flux with itself. This is not a foundation for any means to provide any services to the people. The private market should provide and if it sees that such is without merit, it shouldn't be that of a business venture of the government. Charity will provide for such lost causes.
SS and Medicare should not be lumped in with other handouts because people pay into the system. I often see people make the argument that tea partiers are hypocrites for collecting SS.. They had no choice, they were forced to participate.
Meanwhile the system was abused. Money was taken out of the SS trust fund and used for other spending. The system needs to be reformed. The Democrat solution of doing nothing is just going to make things worse in the long run. The sad thing is that many people who paid in all their lives will get nothing back.
Since participation in FICA is 100% voluntary - voluntary servitude - I support the withdrawal of consent by the productive classes. Then, only those who want to support the non-productive will remain funding the system. Then we shall see how long it lasts.
True Conservatives are simply against too much government
The term conservative has been hijacked by the cable show whackos. Going back over the years, Conservatives often voted alongside Democrats as well as Republicans.
The real problem with the entitlement programs is that they have become too many things to too many people, and many of those people simply take advantage of the programs.
That show currently running on cable, I think it's "The Wonderful Whites of West Virginia", really shows the abuse of the system that takes place. ( I don't mean to plug the show, but it does show a situation and mentality that exists in this country).
And we have too many organizations that encourage people to take advantage of every opportunity...(taking advantage as in abusing).
No one deserves a piece of my pie for the simple act of existing and I don't deserve a single freaking thing I didn't earn. I would like a refund for 30 years of payments to SSI that I'll never see a penny of but since it's already water under the bridge, I'd just as soon see it go away. If I become too weak to survive in this world and have no one to care for me beside the state, I'd as soon check out anyway.
While I don't believe in gods, devils, heaven, or hell, the thought of being decrepit and dependent on the state for survival seems like a type of Hell I'd rather not experience.
I was reading an article on Socail Security today from CATO Institute. It said that as of 2012, more will be paid out of this trust fund, than it receives. It will be defunct by 2029. Something must be done to save it for those in need. I notice Congress started paying into the program in 1984, but they only pay 6% of salary or less. We pay Congress enough that they can take care of their own retirement, IRA's, 401k's, as Ron Paul has vowed to do. Pelosi is worth something like 43 million, she doesn't need this entitlement. If it's not reformed, it simply won't exist.
Yes. Private sector charities, churches, and other organizations can help the needy much more efficiently than the government.
private sector charities should be doing more since they are taking tax exemptions.
maybe those tax exemptions should go away-especiallly in light of the fact that some churches help provide resources (and listings of government resources) for illegal immigrants against the wishes of american citizens.
they EXACERBATE the problems we are having keeping american citizens employed and wages livable.
that is another issue we shouldn't be ignoring in this country. problems don't go away just because you ignore them.
conservatives understand that entitlements are UNSUSTAINABLE the way that we are going and we need to fix the problem before it "fixes" itself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True Conservatives are simply against too much government
