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.
One problem with social security is that while many people work 50 or more years and pay in huge amounts, all that is required is to work and pay in a mere 10 years. Imagine that!!! Pay in a minimal amount for only 10 short years and you're in. Someone who paid in since age 15 and retires at age 70 will never see his money but social security is an excellent deal for someone who worked only 10 years and retired as early as possible.
They could save social security easily be limiting checks to those who worked and paid in for at least 40 years.
How many people drop dead before collecting? That person who put in the minimal amount will receive the minimal monthly check. Pay in for many many years your monthly amount increases.
The fact is there is no fix to Medicare that will be popular with a majority of Americans. That is why both parties are very reluctant to tackle the issue.
There is a way to fix it but to do so would **** off the power brokers who make loads of money off of our fragmented, rationed, POS healthcare delivery system.
The American public is very hypocritical with entitlement programs. Some (tea party members for example) are against entitlements but when directly asked about medicare, 70% oppose medicare cuts.
It's like ok, lets cut entitlements like food stamps, student loan programs, etc. But than the tea party people quickly realize, "oh wait, crap, if we don't have medicare, we are screwed and will face jacked up health care premiums ourselves...please don't cut medicare".
It's this type of hypocrisy that drives me crazy. I am a fiscal conservative Republican. There needs to be a balancing act what to cut and what to keep.
Sadly, the truth (since I am a healthcare provider) is it's very easy to cut medicare spending. The public won't like it. It's called rationing of healthcare dollars.
Nationalize Health care systems do it all the time. It's a dirty little secret. But at the end of the day, do countries spend hundreds of thousands of people alive for a few months? Or do they ration it.
Remember the case of the ambulance chasing lawyer back in 2007? He was stuck in Italy with multi resistance TB. Remember Italy has a national health system. If we are to believe reports, the US health system sucks (it's like way down in the 30s in terms of health systems of 1st world countries).
Why on earth would this lawyer "escape" Italy to "sneak" back in the the US via the Canada border?
It's simple. National health systems will ration care to save money. The TB inflicted lawyer knew that. He didn't want to die in Italy cause they would with hold care.
That's how we save Medicare dollars. Ration care, especially near end of life when prolonging life may end up costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.
But as I said, the American public "wants to cut healthcare cost". But they don't want their health care dollars being rationed on themselves.
We just can't have it both ways.
No matter how "efficient" a system is (prevent fraud, overbilling, unnecessary procedures etc).. Remember the government has cut medicare fraud from about 10% down to 3% in the past 15 years. There's not much more fraud cutting that can be done. the end of the day, it's do we prolong life or not. And at what cost?
Finally, someone who is actually addressing costs instead of how to pay for the existing system. We need to fundamentally change the way we practice medicine.
I laugh every time I hear about cutting Social Securtiy, Medicare, Medicade, and every other program. Go ahead and cut, cut, cut away dumb asses. I Laugh at all these old fart republicans who Vote for these cuts. They are just shooting themselves in the foot. There is a huge amount of the population that are starting to retire, if not already retired. These are the people who will be directly affected by this. So go ahead republicans, cut all the money for your core voters. Let's see how long this will last. These old baby boomers who vote republican are really voting against their best interest. I am amazed how the GOP has brain washed their core voters, really, I am. If these cuts go into effect, I smell a very angry population.
It would not wash out like you think if the republican party has its way. It would effect pre-retirees, not those already retired or those close to retirement. Only those 54 and under would be sleeping under bridges and card board boxes in 15-20 years.
The GOP is demanding entitlement cuts for a raising of the debt ceiling, does this mean that the GOP will finally say how much they want to cut entitlement spending?
It has to be done. Right now, my retirement plan includes only about 2/3 of what I'm promised for social security. I'm HOPING to keep that much. I'm figuring it could be half. Or that SS will become a need based program and I'll get nothing until I'm broke. I'm hoping for the former. I'll be happy if I get 2/3 of what I'm promised. I realize I can't have it all because the system just can't pay it.
They can cut SS as far as I'm concerned. My worry is they'll cut medicare. I can plan for my living expenses but I can't plan for my medical expenses.
It would not wash out like you think if the republican party has its way. It would effect pre-retirees, not those already retired or those close to retirement. Only those 54 and under would be sleeping under bridges and card board boxes in 15-20 years.
I need the Democrats to delay it for four more months. I think I am safe.
I dont think they should cut actual dollars, but they should definitely raise the age. We all know that the system wasn't designed for people living into their 80s and 90s. I'm so glad that we are living longer, but the system needs to adjust for it.
A few weeks ago, I took my daughter to see The Rolling Stones in concert and we watched a bunch of 70 year old men running and jumping around stage for 3 hours. I certainly dont see why someone cant sit behind a desk until they turn 70.
70 year old very wealthy men jumpy up and down? Now go find some 70 year old bricklayers who are full of vigor. No groupies keeping them young, no Single Payer keeping them healthy.
70 year old very wealthy men jumpy up and down? Now go find some 70 year old bricklayers who are full of vigor. No groupies keeping them young, no Single Payer keeping them healthy.
70 year old very wealthy men jumpy up and down? Now go find some 70 year old bricklayers who are full of vigor. No groupies keeping them young, no Single Payer keeping them healthy.
I'm going to agree with you. There is a difference between putting on a concert every few days for a few weeks while on tour and getting up day after day to go to a job at 70. The famous have all kinds of people taking care of them and the time to take care of themselves. The average working person doesn't.
There is no way that the funds a single mother paid into Medicaid cover her medical expenses, nor all those millions of Medicaid babies being born. No way did the food stamp crowd ever pay into the food stamp program -- yet you don't complain about them.
And Section 8 recipients never had to pay a dime of taxes to qualify. Nor do WIC recipients have to pay into that program ever. They simply have to exist and be incapable of providing for themselves.
That's why the welfare handouts need to go. The pool of recipients keeps reproducing -- unlike the social security retirees who aren't breeding welfare babies like mad.
Imagine if everyone had to work and pay in at least 50 years before getting any kind of check?
I am a fiscal conservative Republican and like to see cuts also. But the WIC program is one of the few programs that's cost effective and helps the overall well being of its intended receipents. Pregnant women who need to be well nurished for the unborn fetus. And also for the kids up to 5 years old.
Unlike (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) otherwise known as food stamps.
WIC program have restrictions of certain foods a person can buy. (It excludes even organic costly foods to the taxpayer). Go to a grocery store and they will list WIC eligible items.
In my opinion the WIC program is effective and provides a real future cost savings to the taxpayers at the same time protects the most vulnerable (very young children).
I've worked in a grocery store in my teens. The majority of these women coming in with WIC vouchers do need these essential items to feed themselves and their very young children.
It's a sensible well done government "entitlement" program down for the overall health of a very vulnerable population.
Are there some fraud cases involving the selling of vouchers? Sure. Fraud exists everywhere. But with the restriction of foods that can be purchased fraud cases are usually limited to small town grocery store crooks who will buy those vouchers.
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.
