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.
We all know this is one of these 'gotcha' posts. But, I'll surprise. I'd gladly time the 150K, or whatever the figure happened to be. This old codger is in enviable health and can invest the money to my benefit. Same goes for a social security settlement. As is, SS is a very poorly constructed annuity.
It's not a gotcha post at all. How is being consistent a bad thing? There is no trick here.
I'm glad you agree. If you actually contributed $150,000 then you should get it back. But most Medicare recipients didn't come close to contributing that much even with interest. It wouldn't be this huge windfall they might thing it is and it would not last near as long as they might imagine it would.
It's great that you're in such good health and a lot of people feel the same as you. Maybe all the healthy people can vote out the Medicare coverage so those unhealthy Medicare "takers" can go take the money from someone else's wallet!
But many are and some even longer. I said 25 to 30 years. Many, many are living to their late 80s.
I'm not angry at all. I'm very objectively saying, be consistent.
If socialism is bad, if Republicans are against one taking the money of another, if they are going to call those receiving subsidies "takers and thieves" then they should end Medicare because that program very much depends on taking the money of those younger and still working. Medicare is not funded by those receiving the benefits, not even close.
Many are not, 25 to 30 years would make them 90 to 95, far past the average life expectancy. Based on the average life expectancy by the CDC they are seeing 13.8 years of these benefits that they have worked their whole lives towards. FastStats - Life Expectancy
I am a long way off from SS and Medicare and realize it might not be around for me despite my paying into it for decades. That doesn't make me angry or hateful towards those who have and will benefit from it.
Many are not, 25 to 30 years would make them 90 to 95, far past the average life expectancy. Based on the average life expectancy by the CDC they are seeing 13.8 years of these benefits that they have worked their whole lives towards. FastStats - Life Expectancy
I am a long way off from SS and Medicare and realize it might not be around for me despite my paying into it for decades. That doesn't make me angry or hateful towards those who have and will benefit from it.
Maybe people I know on the West Coast are healthier and living older. Not a lot of smoking, not a lot of obesity but a lot of other health related issues and those issues are expensive.
I'm not angry or hateful, simply saying, if nationalized health care is bad, it's bad. It should not be good for one group but not the other. And the group that is sucking up all the money should live by their own mantra. I'm not suggesting we take their money. I'd be fine with giving it back or giving them back their money in the form of a health care credit toward coverage. I just know that credit will not last very long at all.
Medicare recipients have no trouble taking the money from others for themselves while calling those working to pay for them names. It's a very selfish and self-serving generation brewing there.
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.
The fail is the comparison between a system like Medicare which is an underfunded insurance program paid via regressive taxes and the ACA which is just welfare.
They aren't related. Independent. The failure or success of Medicare plays no bearing on the merits of the ACA.
Now for the record, if they did end Medicare, Blue Cross and Aetna and United would have plans in place quicker than Hillary can delete an email server.
The fail is the comparison between a system like Medicare which is an underfunded insurence program paid via regressive taxes and the ACA which is just welfare.
They aren't related. Independent. The failure or success of Medicare plays no bearing on the merits of the ACA.
Now for the record, if they did end Medicare, Blue Cross and Aetna and United would have plans in place quicker than Hillary can delete an email server.
Actually, the ACA is no where near welfare. The ACA allows people to choose the level of their plan, pay for their plan and only gives subsidies to those who qualify. Medicaid coverage goes to the poorest segment.
Medicare allows the guy who paid relatively little, to receive a lifetime of medical coverage without being based on his lifestyle choices or anything else. He just gets to suck up the money.
i look forward to these awesome plans offered by Blue Cross and Aetna for 80 year olds. I'm sure they will be extremely affordable. And no mandate, so the 20 year olds will not subsidize those 80 year old takers.
Actually, the ACA is no where near welfare. The ACA allows people to choose the level of their plan, pay for their plan and only gives subsidies to those who qualify. Medicaid coverage goes to the poorest segment.
Medicare allows the guy who paid relatively little, to receive a lifetime of medical coverage without being based on his lifestyle choices or anything else. He just gets to suck up the money.
He does not receive it for free. They have to make a monthly contribution.
i look forward to these awesome plans offered by Blue Cross and Aetna for 80 year olds. I'm sure they will be extremely affordable. And no mandate, so the 20 year olds will not subsidize those 80 year old takers.
Actually, the ACA is no where near welfare. The ACA allows people to choose the level of their plan, pay for their plan and only gives subsidies to those who qualify. Medicaid coverage goes to the poorest segment.
Medicare allows the guy who paid relatively little, to receive a lifetime of medical coverage without being based on his lifestyle choices or anything else. He just gets to suck up the money.
i look forward to these awesome plans offered by Blue Cross and Aetna for 80 year olds. I'm sure they will be extremely affordable. And no mandate, so the 20 year olds will not subsidize those 80 year old takers.
86% percent of ACA recipients get the subsidy covering more than 75% of the premiums.
86% percent of ACA recipients get the subsidy covering more than 75% of the premiums.
So you agree, the ACA is not purely welfare. And Medicare recipients do not pay anywhere near the coverage they receive either. Plus, those that are working, are paying for the coverage of the Medicare recipients in addition to their own health care costs. Medicare recipients are not typically working and paying for those younger than they are. It's weighted very much to the benefit of the Medicare recipient.
So you agree, the ACA is not purely welfare. And Medicare recipients do not pay anywhere near the coverage they receive either. Plus, those that are working, are paying for the coverage of the Medicare recipients in addition to their own health care costs. Medicare recipients are not typically working and paying for those younger than they are. It's weighted very much to the benefit of the Medicare recipient.
So we agree we need to raise payroll taxes! Let's do it! According to the CBO, Medicare needs another 2% from both the employee and the employer. Call your local representatives and let's end the bleeding.
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.
