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.
Seniors are already getting all the money we have. And now you're mad because we don't thank you for robbing us. We are paying everything for your entitled selves. Then you protest any sort of approach to health care coverage for those that are working, all the while sucking up massively expensive health care coverage for yourselves.
Tell me something. Are all you seniors or soon to be seniors happy that the Republican budget proposal will now switch to vouchers so you can buy your own private policy and pay the difference yourselves? I haven't heart any response to that.
Oh no worries, the vouchers are only for the non seniors, current seniors wouldn't be switched, just those born after 1959.
Good analogy and there is no reason to guess that they will be good paying taxpayers when they become adults either. Poverty begets poverty. Have you ever seen such non-sensical hatred for seniors than what you have from this poster? There is more than meets the eye here, IMO. I am guessing his hatred comes from most boomers being white. Many senior are on a fixed income. They raised their families and fought in our wars and wages were much lower back then. They should be entitled to Medicare and they still make co-pays and pay a monthly premium. Many of those on Medicaid are just lazy leeches that pay nothing and yet it comes out of our taxes also.
Spoken like a true senior. I'm white - Swedish white. Not that it should matter. Just listen to what you said there. Are boomers more entitled because they are white? What does that even mean? And since I'm white, does that support or negate your argument?
Seniors are opposed to Obamacare. But they love their Medicare and they suck up a bunch of Medicaid too. They want all the entitlements in the world which they didn't pay enough in to cover, but they think this has something to do with skin color? At least you live up to your stereotype.
Because we now have nearly 50% Medicaid births, we'll do a 1 to 1 comparison: 1 million receiving public assistance, 1 million not receiving such, the latest published birth rate numbers for each group (halved because the rates were reported for women only), and the formula for predicting future population: future value = present value x (e)^kt, where e equals the constant 2.71828, k equals the rate of increase (expressed as a decimal, rate taken from the U.S. Census data), and t is the number of years.
After 20 years, the population of those not receiving public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 1.75 million.
After 20 years, the population of those very likely needing public assistance will have grown from 1 million to 4.953 million, 3.467 million of which will never rise above poverty.
1.75 million paying taxes to support social programs for 3.467million after just 20 years. The poverty class is growing at twice the rate of everyone else. Now extrapolate that to the entire U.S. population.
Providing for an exponentially growing welfare-dependent class is unsustainable. That's a mathematical certainty.
Spend more? Fine. Millennials and Gen Xers will just have to pay more in taxes. Enjoy the bigger tax bill, especially while trying to repay your student loan debt.
I cannot believe you edited my post. I said Medicare recipients need to pay MORE, as in higher premiums and copays.
Medicaid recipients, too, no? Charge them for decades worth of contributions like seniors have already paid, and then charge them premiums and co-pays.
Oh no worries, the vouchers are only for the non seniors, current seniors wouldn't be switched, just those born after 1959.
True but the Republican budget also references billions more unidentified Medicare cuts. I'm thinking current Medicare recipients will need to pay more than they do in premiums and copays.
You need to eliminate Medicaid, first. Medicare recipients have paid and continue to pay for their benefits via premiums and co-pays. Medicaid recipients haven't paid anything and don't pay premiums or co-pays. It's the Medicaid recipients who are sucking up resources without contributing.
DO IT. End Medicaid. Seniors are taking both Medicare and Medicaid. And increase copays and premiums for current seniors.
"While Medicaid was created mostly to provide medical care to low-income moms and their kids, two out of every three Medicaid dollars is spent on the elderly and disabled. Last year, the program spent one-third of its budget — more than $100 billion federal dollars — on long-term care, either in nursing facilities or in the community. States, which share the program’s cost, spent tens of billions more."
I would be fine with keeping Medicare (recipients have contributed for decades) and ending Medicaid for all.
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.
