What if the Republicans get everything they want? (global warming, politician, compared)
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.
You make too many careless generalizations..........I don't see a "guy" who wants to control the debt and "fix medicare, SS, and the like" generally as "Far Right"........however, I do specifically see Paul Ryan's proposal for so-called "fixing" those things as extreme and ultimately a way to increase the wealth of the super rich while requiring the less fortunate to pay the bill so to speak. I think that is definitely "Far right"...also Paul Ryan is a Tea Party darling....and I do consider the Tea Party "far right."
Get spending under control??? Cut defense spending rather than seeking to just cut all social programs to the bone, which harms many, many of our most vunerable citizens.
Fixing SS and medicare so it is there twenty years from now benifits the super rich and doesn't help the poor? How so?
Fixing SS and medicare so it is there twenty years from now benifits the super rich and doesn't help the poor? How so?
Depends on how you "fix" it, actually. Privatizing generally benefits the rich. I see privatization as an extreme "fix" since it doesn't really fix the underlying problems and exposes the vulnerable to higher risks.
Health care costs need to be addressed. Medicare approaches this by limiting payments to doctors, but they already underpay doctors to the extent that many doctors aren't accepting Medicare patients. End of life care is the most expensive of all medical costs, and some of these costs don't have any meaningful impact. A lot of people end up dying hooked up to life support when they didn't even want it, and may have had a DNR. Terminal patients can be subjected to a lot of unnecessary tests and treatments. This country really needs to look at how it handles these things. I'm not talking about "death panels" but quality of life issues--helping people think through and express their desires and helping them die in comfort and dignity when their time comes.
I think this is Medicare's problem more than waste.
There's also the secondary aspect that putting health care on the open market opens up seniors to losing health insurance or paying way too much for it. I didn't even think that private insurers wanted to have seniors on the rolls for any affordable price as they tend to be money-losers, which is why Medicare was created by government in the first place..
Privatizing medicare, according to Ryan, means if your fifty five or over nothing changes. For those under you get a voucher where you can purchase your own private insurance or stick with the government model. What is so wrong with that? HOw is that so horrible and letting old people die and hurting the poor?
"The government payment to individuals would be set at the same level as the full cost for the private plan charging the second lowest premium or the premium set by the government for traditional Medicare, whichever is lower. Beneficiaries would have to pay the difference in premium costs if they chose a plan that set rates higher. Beneficiaries who chose the lower cost option would get a rebate for the difference."
Privatizing medicare, according to Ryan, means if your fifty five or over nothing changes. For those under you get a voucher where you can purchase your own private insurance or stick with the government model. What is so wrong with that? HOw is that so horrible and letting old people die and hurting the poor?
"The government payment to individuals would be set at the same level as the full cost for the private plan charging the second lowest premium or the premium set by the government for traditional Medicare, whichever is lower. Beneficiaries would have to pay the difference in premium costs if they chose a plan that set rates higher. Beneficiaries who chose the lower cost option would get a rebate for the difference."
Hm, after reading that article I think the "critics" cited there address the weaknesses of the plan pretty well--it seems engineered to benefit the private sector and weaken the government plan, then not match expenses either, which means the private sector is going to remain unenthusiastic about participation. Neither of which address the underlying issue of growing large end of life health care costs, which will continue to rise unless we address them.
I am also unenthusiastic about waiting until I am 67 for Medicare.
Of course there will be critics. That is why it should be debated not just criticized and tossed on the shelf like the senate has done. Where is the bipartisanship the democrats are always complaining about? Take the bill and "fix it" and send it back or send em one of their own to be debated in the house. No they do nothing instead.
Nothing is addressing health care costs. I guess sitting around doing nothing is the way to go. That appears the way most approach the issue. At least Ryan puts his idea's to paper and gets it out there. Everybody else is too scared because they know the usual you hate old people type of rhetoric will come their way. Meanwhile the debt piles up.
Also the only way to keep the current system going is to push back the age you are eligible and to raise taxes. Heftly raise will be needed. They haven't adjusted the SS taken out of your check since 1983 I believe. That makes no sense either and now we are currently in a payroll tax holiday paying even less to boot. I don't know what goes through the minds of some of these people who are representing us.
Of course there will be critics. That is why it should be debated not just criticized and tossed on the shelf like the senate has done. Where is the bipartisanship the democrats are always complaining about? Take the bill and "fix it" and send it back or send em one of their own to be debated in the house. No they do nothing instead.
Nothing is addressing health care costs. I guess sitting around doing nothing is the way to go. That appears the way most approach the issue. At least Ryan puts his idea's to paper and gets it out there. Everybody else is too scared because they know the usual you hate old people type of rhetoric will come their way. Meanwhile the debt piles up.
Also the only way to keep the current system going is to push back the age you are eligible and to raise taxes. Heftly raise will be needed. They haven't adjusted the SS taken out of your check since 1983 I believe. That makes no sense either and now we are currently in a payroll tax holiday paying even less to boot. I don't know what goes through the minds of some of these people who are representing us.
I had an idea to help SS. Not save it , not the cure all, just a little help. When one reaches retirement age if they decide to keep working let them do so with having to pay fed income tax on said monies. Kinda saw it as a win win . Fed loses nothing as if they retired there would be no income to tax. SS wins as 1 less person drawing. Employee wins by stacking up some extra cash for a few more yrs.
Wrote my senator about it, got a generic letter back stating " if it ever comes up for discussion blah , blah , blah" Screw if it ever comes up, bring it up.
Then wrote same letter to a congressman from Mass who is on the ways and means committe ( ways and means runs SS )
Absolutlyt no response from him.
To make a long story short, your absolutly right, none of them realy want to fix a damn thing for fear of pissing of someone. So instead they do nothing.
It is my opinion the only way to fix it will be to just turn int into a means testing welfare program. YOu reach the age cutoff and if you have X amount of money saved you don't get your SS check and if you come in under X amount you do. When you burn through your savings and get down to X then you start getting your check. Nobody will ever go on record as saying that and will instead watch it all crash and burn and blame everybody else to save their seat in congress or the white house.
AS for continuing to work and not pay the payroll tax that would be a good idea as they have already put in their share to begin with so I don't see any reason to not do that. Makes sense but anything that makes sense put out by one side or the other will be vilified.
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.
