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 are not off the hook on this one. Spell out exactly what benefit or procedure that obamacare cuts from medicare patients? I just told you a fact in exactly what Obamacare and that 700 billion will pay for, and that is Medicare-Part D the donut hole, and that is a fact. If you don't think that is important then that tells me you have absolutely no idea how damn expensive full retail priced drugs are or what the donut hole is.
Obamacare doesn't cut anything room Medicare patients just like you've been saying. But all those freebies doctors were getting from various vendors dried up because of the changes.
You are not off the hook on this one. Spell out exactly what benefit or procedure that obamacare cuts from medicare patients? I just told you a fact in exactly what Obamacare and that 700 billion will pay for, and that is Medicare-Part D the donut hole, and that is a fact. If you don't think that is important then that tells me you have absolutely no idea how damn expensive full retail priced drugs are or what the donut hole is.
Why are full retail priced drugs so expensive?
We need to actually look art health care costs, not how to divvy up the expense. We need to start with repealing the Kefauver Amendment.
We need to actually look art health care costs, not how to divvy up the expense. We need to start with repealing the Kefauver Amendment.
What part of the Kefauver Amendment do you think is a major impediment? Why was it passed in the first place?
"The U.S. Kefauver Harris Amendment or "Drug Efficacy Amendment" is a 1962 amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
It introduced a requirement for drug manufacturers to provide proof of the effectiveness and safety of their drugs before approval[1][2] , required drug advertising to disclose accurate information about side effects, and stopped cheap generic drugs being marketed as expensive drugs under new trade names as new "breakthrough" medications."
The democrats are willing to do NOTHING, and simply wait for both programs to implode. That is the truth, at least republicans like Ryan are trying to find a way to keep the promises made to them by government.
Democrats have turned their backs on us, and are looking at possibly taking control of our 401K's with lust and greed.
Agreed, even though both parties know that Medicare and SS will go bankrupt soon, the democcrats do absolutely nothing about it, and will just let them "wither on the vine" and yet these same dems turn around an accuse republicans of doing exactly what the dems are doing.
Social security is the great program of socialism. Its one in which people like, and it makes possible other socialist programs, like Medicare.
As such, republicans hate them, much like liberals hate the "Bush tax cuts".
So no, they will always try and get rid of it. Social security being made voluntary would end it, and they know it. But 70% of people support social security, which is why its somewhat protected.
But Medicare is another animal. It was put into place because elderly Americans couldn't afford insurance, or find it at all, because of their high risk. It will take up all of the federal budget if nothing changes. Just to much. It has to be restrained and it needs massive reform. Is a voucher the answer? Most think not. Raise the benefit age? What about 65 year olds?
Really since they can't be denied coverage, why do we need it anymore?
Republicans say that they hate it but then turn around and complain that they aren't getting enough. People like roysoldboy who trash it but then demand federal assistance. Hypocrisy at its finest.
an interesting idea, but remember we are talking about a government, which is already massively wasteful with taxpayer money, auditing hospitals and private insurance companies for waste and fraud? do you let the foxes guard your chickens?
I'd tend to view government is the fox, we are the chickens, and special interest are the hawks. No matter which direction we go, we'll still be eaten. It doesn't matter which party is in power. They ALL pretend to be doing the right thing, much the same as alcoholics are always on the wagon.
Republicans say that they hate it but then turn around and complain that they aren't getting enough. People like roysoldboy who trash it but then demand federal assistance. Hypocrisy at its finest.
I don't pretend to know roysoldboy's circumstances. I do know that anyone taking disability, unemployment, welfare, food stamps, cell phones, or anything else from the government without absolutely needing it... are no better than theives.
Just because someone tells you to take that cookie (nobody will know,) doesn't make it right.
Every month, I pay a cell phone bill that pays part of someone else's FREE welfare phone.
Every month, I pay an electric bill that pays part of someone else's electric bill.
Every month... nevermind, it's starting to pi$$ me off.
"You're still doing that and every ten years or so up to this point liberals have had to face the consequences of making those accusations and ultimately have to raise taxes or cut benefits to keep SS solvent. Eventually it will consume 100% of taxable income no matter how you look at it."
Everything in politics comes down to trust and organization.
1) If you're conservative, you could say that liberals unfairly claim that conservatives want to dismantle social security even though they don't want to.
2) If you're liberal, you could say that the only reason that conservatives haven't yet managed to dismantle social security and medicare is because every couple of years liberals raise their voices and shine their spotlights on conservatives and punish them for doing what they obviously want to be doing, which is going back to 1880's style capitalism.
There's really no way to tell which of these is correct, because it all is a matter of who you trust. Both of these are plausible reads of the facts on the ground, I think.
Well there are some indisputable facts that liberals always glance over.
In 1940 the ratio of SS covered workers to beneficiaries was 159.4:1
In 1950 the ratio was 16.5:1.
In 1960 the ratio was 5.1:1.
In 1970 it was 3.7:1.
In 1980 it was 3.2:1.
In 1990 it was 3.4:1.
In 2000 it was 3.4:1.
In 2010 it was 2.9:1.
Quote:
Trust fund exhausts in
Intermediate Assumption
2035
2016
2033
You can look very clearly at their numbers for "High Cost Assumption" and see right off the bat what's wrong with their assessments.
Quote:
2012
Covered Workers in Thousands
158,363
OASI Beneficiaries
45,548
DI Beneficiaries
10,868
OASDI Beneficiaries
56,417
Covered
workers per
OASDI
beneficiary
2.8
OASDI beneficiaries
per 100
covered
workers
36
So as long as there's 158,363,000 million workers their assumptions would be correct, right?
Quote:
Series Id: LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Employment Level Labor force status: Employed Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over
Series Id: LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level Labor force status: Civilian labor force Type of data: Number in thousands Age: 16 years and over
Series Id: LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate Type of data: Percent or rate Age: 16 years and over
To paraphrase Andy Stone in the movie Casino: "Social Security and Medicare ain't goin' nowhere!"
Conservatives can keep on with their pipe dream, but simply put, those programs are here to stay, so Conservatives might as well move on to something else.
As Reagan put it, the nearest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program. However SS is going to go bankrupt so it fall apart if nothing is done. Philosophically I oppose SS but I support reforms that allow people to have some control over their SS dollars. Perhaps they can opt to have some of it invested on the stock market, or in bonds, etc. I'd also remove the upper limit on the SS tax and have all money taxed for SS purposes. We also need to stop politicians from raiding the social security trust and using that money to finance their wars and other programs.
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.
