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.
I'm not less liberal, just focused on ending Medicare specifically.
Why just Medicare? Recipients pay specifically for that via the Medicare tax, ongoing premiums, and co-pays. Why not end the benefits for which recipients DON'T pay, which would be Medicaid? Why punish contributors but reward full-on takers? Are you trying to incentivize the latter? Sure seems so.
And the long term care industry will take off as more people start planning for their old age in their 40s and 50s.
Private insurers will insure older people. Because older people will prepare and have more supplemental insurance.
So your point about Medicare vouchers not working is?.......
With Obamacare, it's a sweet deal for seniors. Insurance companies can't charge appropriately risk-adjusted premiums anymore. That means seniors will get their insurance cheaper than they could have prior to Obamacare, and many will get subsidies because they're retired and now have lower incomes. So, seniors still have their health care insurance and the younger working folks will STILL have to pay through the nose for it.
Seacove is arguing for something that'll still cost the younger generations plenty. Poetic justice.
No, it isn't. It's 2.9%. The employer pays 1.45% and the employee pays 1.45%. The total contribution is therefore 2.9%. And for very high income individuals, it's 3.8%.
So in fact, I underestimated the total contribution.
You don't understand simple savings calculators and you don't understand inflation-hedging.
That's in addition to your not understanding the Medicare tax, etc.
He also doesn't understand the time value of money, or compounded interest/return on investment.
That's why our abysmal public education system is doing such a disservice to our country. Most people are too mathematically and financially ignorant to realize they're being screwed by the federal government and creditors.
While Medicare recipients paid into the program, their contributions are no where near the level of benefits they are receiving. If you gave them the highest possible credit for the contributions they made, say $3000 per year for 50 years, that would equal $150,000 and they didn't come anywhere near contributing that much.
If you gave that back to them and said, "Here you go, go shop and pay for your own health care for the rest of your lives", they'd be lucky if that money lasted 10 years. A 65 year old with a bad hip, heart trouble and high blood pressure is going to be lucky to find a plan for $1000 a month. If they have a serious health event, it won't last five or ten years. Then what happens to the 70 year old with no health coverage?
Medicare recipients are expecting those younger than they are to pay for them and to pay for all their operations, Medicare Part D, all of it for 25 or 30 years. Yet they are calling those younger and still working, "takers and thieves" and Obamacare as socialism. This is convenient, considering these same working people are paying for this older generation.
I receive no Obamacare benefits due to my income. But I don't resent those who do because I want everyone to have health coverage. What I'm seeing though, is the huge hypocrisy by Medicare recipients who paid very little in comparison to the very expensive benefits they get. Remember, Medicare recipients paid nothing when it began. They qualified based on age alone.
It would be interesting to see a 75 year old shopping for health coverage on the open market. Remember with Republicans wanted to voucherize Medicare? I was against it because I worried for the elderly. But the elderly are worried about you, only themselves. So let's end it, voucherize it, do whatever it takes to put everyone on an even playing field. If socialism is bad, it's bad for everyone.
Then, I guess, we need to look at ending public education too because everyone pays for schools and not everyone has children.
Rabid tax complainers are always a real hoot.
You have options, by the way.
Instead of suffering under the burden of oppressive taxation, take action.
Move to an isolated rural location far from paved roads with no water, sewer, or sanitation services. Many miles from law enforcement or public schools. You'll be pleased as punch with your tax bill.
Or, you could continue living in a location that offers all the amenities, but continue to endlessly whine about taxes as you take advantage of all the services they provide.
You didn't pay that, your employer did. You think you should get credit for what your employer paid?
As someone who has hired others, the employer's liability for a portion of the payroll taxes and any benefits (or portion thereof) provided without cost to the employee are considered part of the total compensation package. They all total the actual money spent to employ that person.
Why just Medicare? Recipients pay specifically for that via the Medicare tax, ongoing premiums, and co-pays. Why not end the benefits for which recipients DON'T pay, which would be Medicaid? Why punish contributors but reward full-on takers? Are you trying to incentivize the latter? Sure seems so. :
Because Medicaid is always off the table, ultimately.
It's the same old baloney when politicos make noises about "reforming SS, Medicare, and Medicaid." Somewhere along the line, Medicaid is dropped. Instead, they focus on programs to which workers have contributed throughout their employment.
Blaming seniors (who were the producers) so that more money can be doled out to those takers on programs which don't require that they've paid into it, is alive and well in D.C., an on this board.
I didn't doubt someone posted it, but the validity of the claim itself. Sounds like they are dropping a load of crap, either to yank people's chain or to sound tough. My guess is the former. As a pair of "seniors" my first question for that bogus HOH claim is who are they supporting. They cannot both the same mythical dependent in the same year. Pretty much just internet tough talk.
Especially since anyone claiming head of household would then have to provide the SS number(s) of their qualifying dependent child(ren) on their tax return.
Only stupid people believe the claim in the post Seacove copied.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,142,915 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Only stupid people believe the claim in the post Seacove copied.
I thought only stupid people believed Seacove. Bet they also got college education credits and child care credits... LOLOLOL
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.
Let's Get Rid of Medicare Too
Bet they also got college education credits and child care credits... LOLOLOL