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.
Good luck to us all. Thanks a whole bunch Trump voters. Trump's picks are scary, downright scary. I used to think that Social Security and perhaps Medicare were the third rail, but no longer. Four years of this administration is going to rip up what little safety nets there are, especially for older people. Privatizing these 2 programs will be a disaster. I cannot even begin to express how disappointed I am and how incredulous I am that the wheels are in motion for huge changes in these programs.
That is very scary. I am in a similar panic about the environment. Will there be any bees left after what they do to the EPA? "He's our president elect now so we should give him a chance." Ignores the fact that Congress, with their separate healthcare and immunity from prosecution for insider trading, is no longer deadlocked. And I mean that in a bad way. The only thing worse than a deadlocked Congress is one that eliminates consumer protections, doesn't defend social programs, let's their business cronies rape the land with impunity, increase the size of the defense industry and take us into another ground war to boost their profits.
You only have to look at his appointments to see where he's (we) are headed. Before the election, I always thought the mind set of the typical Trump supporter was, "What the hęll, let's just burn the füker down". We (America) have put the fox in charge of the chicken house. I guess if the Electoral College doesn't love their country, we will see how many chickens are left in four years. His appointments show us how he is "draining the swamp" to make way for his lake of corruption and religious hysteria over abortion. More like make rich people richer again ("trickle down" is a joke). I predict that, in four years, America will be much less "great" than it is now.
Last edited by Djkingman; 11-30-2016 at 07:11 AM..
The deal is also going to change for older people. Ryan's plan calls for an equal amount of funds to be made available for both the premium support plan and Traditional Medicare. (I actually read the plan. LOL) IOW, older retirees can indeed choose Traditional Medicare but it will immediately cost them a lot more. But, in all fairness to Ryan and Trump, the additional cost does not actually change the plan itself.
I think the immediate concern for many retirees should be the reopening of the prescription drug donut hole. I doubt that most retirees know that it was the ACA that partially closed that gap.
I don't like the plan proposed by Ryan but I agree the current program is simply not sustainable.
Why is it the current plan not sustainable? And if the intent is to provide an equivalent amount of money to both medicare and Ryan's premium support plan...how does that save 'medicare'? I think we have every reason to not only be 'worried' but to assume they will try to do this.
This bright shiny thing they are trying to sell us is nothing more than a big wet kiss to pharma, insurers, and this time to doctors because under Ryan's plan they would no longer have to 'suffer through' a fee schedule as they do with medicare, they will be able to charge whatever they want.
I hope that everyone will stay on top of the details as they are released and contact your congressional reps. If we call them & write letters in large enough numbers they will think twice before they vote for this Machiavellian scheme.
Rich people pay most of the taxes. With Medicare and Social Security, they own the stock in the corporations that pay the employer half of all taxes. Rich people don't need Medicare or Social Security and would be delighted to kill it off. You have people like Rupert Murdoch creating Fox News to get half the country to vote against their economic interests. They focus on "they're gonna take your guns", abortion rights, flag burning, and all the other fringe issues that don't matter. It's a brilliant strategy that only benefits the richest 0.1% of the country.
The economic reality is that 75% of the country is going to hit 60-something with no pension and low net worth. When they have their health event where they can't work, all they have is Social Security and Medicare. The best we can hope for is that everybody screams when Paul Ryan and the Republican right working on the behalf of rich people try to kill those programs. The next 12 months are going to be interesting politics.
Since when do rich people pay most of the taxes? (Case in point:Trump)
The middle class pays the vast majority of the taxes.
Since when do rich people pay most of the taxes? (Case in point:Trump)
The middle class pays the vast majority of the taxes.
'In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $465 billion, or 37.80 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $372 billion, or 30.20 percent of all income taxes.'
Who was your employer?
Do you have a pension?
Did you completely self-fund your retirement b/c of investmentst and earnings?
Early retirees are typically business owners or govt employees. Which were you?
Early retirees are typically people that worked for major corporations. 30 and out, supplement to 62 when SS starts. I never knew anyone that worked to 65 until I moved out West.
Households in the top quintile (including the top percentile) paid 68.8 percent of all federal taxes, households in the middle quintile paid 9.1 percent, and those in the bottom quintile paid 0.4 percent.
'In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $465 billion, or 37.80 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $372 billion, or 30.20 percent of all income taxes.'
from tax foundation research
While those numbers, and %, may well be true, is there somewhere to find what "% of gross income" do those numbers represent for the 2 groups ? I suspect the 90% pays a higher % of income.
Medicare reform was going to happen eventually no matter who is elected. Today's program is not viable. For many years, I've had $10K per year penciled in as my best guess for what my individual retiree medical insurance would cost me to get the kind of coverage I'm used to. If you don't have the $1,000/month, you're going to get pretty lousy coverage. That's probably 75% of the late-Boomers. I'm now wondering if I've underestimated the cost? If it's $1,500/month, I'll pay it.
From what Ryan has previously discussed I have estimated the base government contribution to be $6-7500 per year. There would have to be a separate pool for seniors with an annual cost perhaps in the 13-14K range or hopefully less for premium coverage. That would suggest 5-7.5k per year per person or close to your estimate of $1,000 per month per person. Like you we have anticipated and built into our plans. Perhaps at age 68 we will not be impacted and Ryan will keep with his plan to exempt those already on Medicare but at any rate if able it is best to be prepared.
A lot is going to change and I am afraid that in future years those on just SS will find it a rough road to travel if at all. With Medicaid becoming a block grant it will be interesting to see if state differences play out and if we will really have death panels or just cut and dry policy dictating to lives and dies at the public expense. On your own will be another story.
While those numbers, and %, may well be true, is there somewhere to find what "% of gross income" do those numbers represent for the 2 groups ? I suspect the 90% pays a higher % of income.
It is not the percentage paid that drives the ability to provide programs but the actual dollar amounts contributed. Be careful about percentage of income for federal tax when about 47 percent pay none. Yes they pay state and local taxes etc but federal spending is mostly a product of federal income tax.
It will be a lot easier for the Republicans at the federal level to change SS, Medicare Medicaid and other social net programs than it will be for the Republicans at the state and local level to manage the impact of the changes. Most states are now red at the state level and the consequences for them will be real and immediate. It is a lot easier to have 20 million without health insurance than it is to take it away from 20 million who now have it. It is like anything else once you have it, letting it go really can tick you off.
Will be interesting to see how Republicans operate when they have no Bogeyman to rally against. It will all be them.
During the Obama years, congressional Republicans could rail away at the Affordable Care Act and vote endlessly to repeal it, secure in the knowledge that they would never have to deal with the consequences of repeal actually happening. At the same time, they could claim they wanted to keep the popular parts (protections for people with preexisting conditions) without explaining how that might be accomplished while jettisoning the unpopular parts (the individual mandate).
But now, repeal has suddenly become a reality. President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of GOP Rep. Tom Price as Secretary of Health and Human Services underscores that he is dead serious about going forward with repeal-and-maybe-replace. Which means congressional Republicans (who will have to vote on repeal and then later maybe on replace) now have to grapple with the consequences of repeal actually happening — and with the challenges of keeping the stuff people like while blithely tossing out the stuff they don’t.
Talking Points Memo has a good piece that captures the contortions this is forcing Republicans to put themselves through right now. There are a number of questions they are trying to resolve: How can we keep protections for people with preexisting conditions while scrapping the mandate that keeps the insurance pool from getting too old and sick? How much can be repealed through “reconciliation” and a simple-majority Senate vote? All of those are difficult problems.
The interesting thing is that by pulling Price out of congress and placing him in the cabinet, Trump has removed him from the legislative process. He may well now be in a weaker position to influence house action as he is no longer a player and doesn't need a platform to articulate his own plan. He might even now have a smaller platform. He can get press but in terms of lining up the difficult votes? hmmmmmm
Think about it! He now works for and reports to the man who said he didn't want to touch Medicare. By putting him in his cabinet has Trump weakened the hand of those in the House who want to dismantle Medicare, ACA and Medicaid?
Last edited by TuborgP; 11-30-2016 at 04:15 PM..
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.
