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.
The problem is how extreme the parties have become. Our government wasn’t really designed to be run that way. A parliamentary system can be run that way. Our system was really built to encourage compromise and consensus. Lacking that, you get standstill.
The problem is we are trying to apply a system designed in the 18th century to 21st century attention spans. Although I think standstill is preferable to the extremist agendas either of these parties would enact if they could.
Re: underlined: our current systems are not at 'standstill' for 1% of the people, our systems are working just fine for those.
(Although agree with some of other points made here.)
I probably know a heck of a lot more than you do and I can pretty much assure you any cuts to medicare would not take effect in 2018. This is not saying saying currant recipients will not be affected in 2019 with either a cut in benefits or a raise in premiums or both. I am simply saying it will not affect them in 2018. Can you argue about that? If you know how the system works you would understand what I am saying.
I seriously doubt there would be much in the way of change for current recipients or those close to being recipients (say age 55 and over). Slight increases out of their SS checks sure, but no major change. Any politician that would support such a thing would be voted out of office. Medicare is a very popular program, and no one likes to have things taken away.
Now for how the handle it for those facing retirement down the road is a different ballgame.
I seriously doubt there would be much in the way of change for current recipients or those close to being recipients (say age 55 and over). Slight increases out of their SS checks sure, but no major change. Any politician that would support such a thing would be voted out of office. Medicare is a very popular program, and no one likes to have things taken away.
Now for how the handle it for those facing retirement down the road is a different ballgame.
My guess is: they; will do as they did when they changed the age for max benefits from 65 to 67. As for medicare I can see the premium increased slightly and the costs of services increased. I do think you are right there will never be any huge changes, not all at once anyway. I still believe the changes will come about.
As for those who are trying to say Ryan said there would have to be changes in 2018; well I ask those people: how come we already have our statements informing us what we will receive next year and how much our primiums are going to be. Too many people read too much into what is said.
I strongly dislike Paul Ryan and his awful ideas for America. How is it that other developed countries provide healthcare for their citizens but Republicans here in the U.S. continue to be against it?
because what makes average americans so unique amongst nations is they always appear willing to take it up the ass so the trumps and bezos of this world dont have to
the level of conditioning required over generations to make this possible is incredible
I seriously doubt there would be much in the way of change for current recipients or those close to being recipients (say age 55 and over). Slight increases out of their SS checks sure, but no major change. Any politician that would support such a thing would be voted out of office. Medicare is a very popular program, and no one likes to have things taken away.
Now for how the handle it for those facing retirement down the road is a different ballgame.
The 'different ball game' is likely similar to the parable of the 'boiling frog':
Quote:
The boiling frog is a parable describing a frog being slowly boiled alive. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability or unwillingness of people to react to or be aware of threats that arise gradually. ...
My guess is: they; will do as they did when they changed the age for max benefits from 65 to 67. As for medicare I can see the premium increased slightly and the costs of services increased. I do think you are right there will never be any huge changes, not all at once anyway. I still believe the changes will come about.
As for those who are trying to say Ryan said there would have to be changes in 2018; well I ask those people: how come we already have our statements informing us what we will receive next year and how much our primiums are going to be. Too many people read too much into what is said.
Raising the age of retirement most likely would not effect those 55 or older. Reason being it is pretty standard in Corporate America that medical benefits are covered for early retirees at age 55 and up until they reach age 65. If say for example a retiree at age 57 is getting pre 65 medical benefits, and all of a sudden that person becomes not eligible for Medicare until age 67, could you imagine what their insurance premium would be at age 65 after losing employer retiree benefits?
Raising the age of retirement most likely would not effect those 55 or older. Reason being it is pretty standard in Corporate America that medical benefits are covered for early retirees at age 55 and up until they reach age 65. If say for example a retiree at age 57 is getting pre 65 medical benefits, and all of a sudden that person becomes not eligible for Medicare until age 67, could you imagine what their insurance premium would be at age 65 after losing employer retiree benefits?
oh, I agree and we are on the same path I think: no adjustments are going to affect anyone over 55. Actually when I retired in 99 my company did not offer any form of medical benefits to me and I have a lot of friends that were in the same boat. Luckily for us, hubby was still working and had decent coverage. We were only left with almost no insurance for a couple of months from the time he retired until we both turned 65 and we managed to stay healthy. On the other hand our son in law was forced into an early retirement in his very late 50s and had no coverage at all. He and daughter had to go with private or should we say, Obama care. They are now paying just about $1600 a month for insurance
Raising the age of retirement most likely would not effect those 55 or older. Reason being it is pretty standard in Corporate America that medical benefits are covered for early retirees at age 55 and up until they reach age 65. If say for example a retiree at age 57 is getting pre 65 medical benefits, and all of a sudden that person becomes not eligible for Medicare until age 67, could you imagine what their insurance premium would be at age 65 after losing employer retiree benefits?
Define corporation, please.
Walmart is a corporation and has been the largest US employer for more than 30 years. Most Walmart employees work in retail operations on a part time basis. Walmart does not provide Retirement Medical benefits, let alone early retirement benefits to the majority of their employees.
30 years ago, about 68% of " corporate" employees had some semblance of a Retirement Medical benefit according to the Kaiser Foundation who tracks this stuff. In most cases, Medicare was the first and primary payer with the employer's retirement medical plan serving as a supplimental plan to help cover some of what Medicare does not.
There has been a steady and unbroken chain of decline in employers offering a retirement medical benefit to employees over the past 30 years. In 2015, only 23% of employers offered this benefit. Most of the employers who do tend to be federal, state and local governments, where costs of benefits are paid by tax payers. Those who operatr under organized labor agreements also tend to continue to offer a retirement medical benefit.
The federal legislators who decide Medicare and Social Security outcomes for the masses, are all eligible for pensions and retirement healthcare benefits.
The greatest decline has occured within the private sector without labor agreements.
The legislation that raised the full retirement age for Social Security enacted in the early 80's gradually increased the full retirement age over a 20 year period.
I probably know a heck of a lot more than you do and I can pretty much assure you any cuts to medicare would not take effect in 2018. This is not saying saying currant recipients will not be affected in 2019 with either a cut in benefits or a raise in premiums or both. I am simply saying it will not affect them in 2018. Can you argue about that? If you know how the system works you would understand what I am saying.
According to the CBO you are wrong.
"Without enacting subsequent legislation to either offset that deficit increase, waive the recordation of the bill’s impact on the scorecard, or otherwise mitigate or eliminate the requirements of the PAYGO law, OMB would be required to issue a sequestration order within 15 days of the end of the session of Congress to reduce spending in fiscal year 2018 by the resultant total of $136 billion. However, the PAYGO law limits reductions to Medicare to four percentage points (or roughly $25 billion for that year), leaving about $111 billion to be sequestered from the remaining mandatory accounts. Because the law entirely exempts many large accounts including low-income programs and social security, the annual resources available from which OMB must draw is, in CBO’s estimation, only between $85 billion to $90 billion, significantly less than the amount that would be required to be sequestered. (For a full list of accounts subject to automatic reductions, see OMB Report to the Congress on the Joint Committee Reductions for Fiscal Year 2018" https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53319
As for those who are trying to say Ryan said there would have to be changes in 2018; well I ask those people: how come we already have our statements informing us what we will receive next year and how much our primiums are going to be. Too many people read too much into what is said.
Oh..I dunno maybe because the 25 billion in cuts would not be offset by increase in premiums. Remember in 2013, when the sequester cut the medicare budget? Thousands of cancer patients were turned away from clinics in anticipation of the cuts.
"If we treated the patients receiving the most expensive drugs, we’d be out of business in six months to a year,” said Jeff Vacirca, chief executive of North Shore Hematology Oncology Associates in New York. “The drugs we’re going to lose money on we’re not going to administer right now.” After an emergency meeting Tuesday, Vacirca’s clinics decided that they would no longer see one-third of their 16,000 Medicare patients" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f047264dede7
Congress acted to avoid the cuts but providers made it real clear that they weren't going to treat cancer patients without getting paid for it.
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.
