Do you think conservatives will ever stop trying to dismantle Social Security and Medicare? (wages, racism)

[steven_h]

Originally Posted by Wayland Woman

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 know who the Congressional Budget Office is, right? This is THEIR LIST:


According to the CBO, the payment cuts in Medicare include:
* A $260 billion payment cut for hospital services.
* A $39 billion payment cut for skilled nursing services.
* A $17 billion payment cut for hospice services.
* A $66 billion payment cut for home health services.
* A $33 billion payment cut for all other services.
* A $156 billion cut in payment rates in Medicare Advantage (MA); $156 billion is before considering interactions with other provisions. The House Ways and Means Committee was able to include interactions with other provisions, estimating the cuts to MA to be even higher, coming in at $308 billion.
* $56 billion in cuts for disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments.* DSH payments go to hospitals that serve a large number of low-income patients.
* $114 billion in other provisions pertaining to Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP* (does not include coverage-related provisions).
* Subtract $25 billion total between DSH payments and other provisions for spending that was cut from Medicaid and CHIP.
In total, Obamacare raids Medicare by $716 billion from 2013 to 2022. Despite Medicare facing a 75-year unfunded obligation of $37 trillion, Obamacare uses the savings from the cuts to pay for other provisions in Obamacare, not to help shore up Medicare’s finances.
The impact of these cuts will be detrimental to seniors’ access to care. The Medicare trustees 2012 report concludes that these lower Medicare payment rates will cause an estimated 15 percent of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies to operate at a loss by 2019, 25 percent to operate at a loss in 2030, and 40 percent by 2050.
Operating at a loss means these facilities are likely to cut back their services to Medicare patients or close their doors, making it more difficult for seniors to access these services.
In addition, as MA deteriorates under Obamacare’s cuts, many of those who are enrolled in MA (27 percent of total Medicare beneficiaries) will lose their current health coverage and be forced back into traditional Medicare, where Medicare providers will be subject to further cuts.

First Obama promised we could keep our doctors and insurance. Lie
He said it wasn't a tax. Lie
He said it would strengthen Medicare. Lie
He said it would cost $800B, then $1.2T, then $1.65T, and now it's already over $2T

You can close your eyes and parrot the talking points (lie) or open them and realize that nobody ever gets anything for nothing. There's always collateral damage, and the money has to come from somewhere. Medicare is just the first on the chopping block.

[whogo]

Originally Posted by jmking

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."

It has killed more people than it has helped. From people unnneccesarily dying of heart attacks in the 60's to preventing AIDS sufferers from getting medications in the 80's while causing the cost of prescription drugs to rise exponentially. A horrible amendment. More dead people at higher costs, not good.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by steven_h

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.

my point exactly.

[plates]

Originally Posted by steven_h

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.

That poster is outspoken when it comes to removing government help. The same poster has said that they live off of government assistance. there is nothing else to it.

The poster attacks people for accepting government assistance yet is alive because of government assistance. Again, hypocrisy at its finest.

You are barking up the wrong tree.

[whogo]

Originally Posted by plates

That poster is outspoken when it comes to removing government help. The same poster has said that they live off of government assistance. there is nothing else to it.

I know that it might be surprising, but I do believe in government assistance. So I don't have a problem with that poster receiving assistance. I do have a problem with the poster living off of the government and then yelling about others doing the same. If you accept government help you cannot call out someone else for doing the same like that poster always does. The poster is one of the biggest hypocrites on this site.

I do not equate senior citizens collecting their SS benefits with young and healthy welfare bums. Do you?

[plates]

Originally Posted by whogo

I do not equate senior citizens collecting their SS benefits with young and healthy welfare bums. Do you?

To quote myself:

Originally Posted by plates

You are barking up the wrong tree.

There are very few people receiving assistance that are perfectly fine to work. It is not an issue like people make it out to be.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by GoatTheKing

I have to say, the fact that they've been making the exact same arguments about these programs for almost 80 years made my ears perks up, almost like they mainly want to get rid of these programs, instead of patching them and making them work, because they oppose them purely on ideological grounds.

Ah, yes, of course, but the funny thing is who saved Social Security?

Republicans.

It was Ford who created the Ford Commission specifically to study both Social Security and Medicare, and the commission recommended raising the FICA/SECA tax rates. Ford was unable to do so, but Carter fortunately followed through on Ford's commission. Then Reagan appointed a commission to continue studying the problem, especially due to the recession, and the committee recommended continuous tax increases to cover the costs.

The last FICA tax increase was in 1990. Clinton dropped the ball. So did Bush and so did Obama. And so did the American people who are always willing to take something without paying for it.

Originally Posted by GregW

Most politicians are blind to the simple way to fix Social Security Income Insurance so it will last indefinitely.

Originally Posted by GregW

I already proposed a solution to the Social Security Insurance system. Medicare and Medicaid would be replaced by a universal health care system funded with an all sources all income tax with a deductable equal to the 85th percentile. This system would not involve the private sector insurance business at all. Both private and government owned hospitals would be audited for waste, fraud and abuse. Medical personnel would be very well paid but administrators much less so. This would provide a long term solution to paying for health care in this country.

Great, so 150 Million adult Americans will go to bed every night dreaming that they are destitute, broke, poor, starving, unemployed and sharing an apartment with 14 other people, only to wake up and find out that they are destitute, broke, poor, starving, unemployed and sharing an apartment with 14 other people.

I'd be looking for a place to hide if I would be you.

Originally Posted by gomexico

A lot of the rhetoric spewing from both campaigns does a disservice to the discussion of SS and Medicare. Changes have to take place. Both sides need to bury their axes, sit down and work-out something to strengthen the programs. People are living longer, working longer. The age to collect benefits should be raised to 70, over, say a 10 year period.

There's another total fail. Your tax dollars pay for Social Security's web-site. You might want to avail yourself of it and get some education so you're no longer ignorant.

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

To paraphrase Andy Stone in the movie Casino: "Social Security and Medicare ain't goin' nowhere!"

Oh yeah? I'd be willing to bet money that 6 years from now, you'll be singing a different tune.

Originally Posted by hotair2

As the OP accurately stated, Republicans have been trying to get rid of SS from the very beginning and now you believe that a Republican wants to save it. There is a sucker born every minute.

And what is the Democrats' plan to save it?

[the sound of one hand clapping]

Yup, that's what I thought. Come back and visit us when the Demos have a plan.

Conservatively...

Mircea

Originally Posted by whogo

At some point liberals better explain how they are going to fund Medicare and Medicaid.

Originally Posted by whogo

Yep, Medicare and Medicaid unfunded liabilities make the national debt look like a drop in the bucket.

Originally Posted by Vejadu

A better question would be why do Democrats refuse to address the unrealistic financial burdens SS and Medicare have put on this country?

Originally Posted by Suncc49

We can say we support it all day long, but the question is, Can we afford it?

Originally Posted by jt800

Do you think Liberal will ever realize that Social Security and Medicare are headed for bankruptcy and will cease to exist if nothing is done?

Originally Posted by JakeDog

They don't have to "dismantle" it. It's unsustainable anyway. Anyone under the age of 45 that thinks those programs will be around for them is an idiot.

There's no way to fund Social Security to its logical conclusion without destroying the US economically.

In the best case scenario, you'd be relegated to a pre-1970s, standard of living. And yes, that would mean that only 4 in 10 US households have more than one car, and the other 6 in 10 households have one car or none at all. You can say good-bye to 4,400 square foot McMansion starter castles and hello to 900 square foot cottages.

The reason the Democrats don't have a plan, is because there is no realistic plan, but they don't you to know the truth, and are banking on gullible Americans believing that the Democrats will save them.

Unsustainably....

Mircea

Originally Posted by artisan4

Right-wingers' very nature as human beings (no compassion, no morals, no sense of shared responsibility/teamwork or nationhood) means they will never give up, IMO. But their desire to regress to the bad old days of exploitation of working people, no labor laws or unions, no social safety net, etc. makes them dinosaurs. We will NEVER go back.

Yes, of course, and Blow Job Bill having adulterous sex in the Oval Office was a very compassionate and moral thing to do. Perhaps Obama can charge money for the general public to have sex in the Oval Office and then everyone can be compassionately moral.

I suppose compassion is the reason Blow Job Bill and Obama hand-picked neo-conservatives to be on their White House Staffs.

And I must assume that it was compassion that caused Blow Job Bill to engage in illegal wars in Central Asia, and to illegally purchase weapons from Iran, and then to illegally give the weapons purchased from Iran with US tax payer money to al-Qaida operatives in Albania so that they could be illegally smuggled into Bosnia and Kosovo-Metohija.

Bombing every post office in Serbia was an highly compassionate moral thing to do, because we all know that Serbs, Voivodinans, Vlachs, Germans, Magyars and Aromanians are not worthy of postal services. Except for the cruise missile attack on the Chinese embassy, which ranks second only to Obama's Nobel Peace Prize for invading Libya.

Amused....

Mircea

Originally Posted by Bulldawg82

Social Security just gave politicians more money to spend. Instead of just putting that money away (as it was paid out by the people) they spent it and put an IOU in it's place.

And that is relevant how, exactly?

Whether the Trust Fund has $2.677 worth of cold hard cash, or gold, or special treasury securities, or diamonds and platinum bars encrusted with rubies, or German East Marks, or Zimbabwean Dollars or Reese's Pieces, or cat hair balls or soiled diapers or navel and pocket lint makes no freaking difference.

The end result is the same....you never collected enough tax money to pay out what you owe in benefits, and now you never will.

Beneficially....

Mircea

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

I would like to see Social Security phased out. Americans can do much better then what SS returns.

Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago

Look, its quite the ponzi scheme. Almost everyone takes more out of SSN and medicare than they put in.

Originally Posted by rbohm

something else needs to be corrected with social security, and that is giving death benefits to people who do not need them. why should we be giving benefits to people because a spouse/parent died, and the people who are receiving the benefits have jobs and dont need the money?

I'm gonna do you a big favor so you don't keep looking like the forum clowns...

42 USC § 402 - Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments

(a) Old-age insurance benefits Every individual who—
(1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 414 (a) of this title),
(2) has attained age 62, and
(3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 416 (l) of this title), shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—

(b) Wife’s insurance benefits
(c) Husband’s insurance benefits
(d) Child’s insurance benefits
(e) Widow’s insurance benefits
(f) Widower’s insurance benefits

...I highlighted the relevant parts, since you guys and so many other seem to have such a freaking difficult time grasping the concept of insurance.

I tell you what, why you guys calculate the ROI (Return On Investment) for your auto insurance and get back to us.

Who would not pay $6.20 out of every $100 earned for the peace of mind to know that you will have basic subsistence living at the end of your life; that your spouse will also have some assistance if you should die; that your minor children will have assistance if you should die prematurely; and that you will be living under a bridge drinking water out of a ditch, foraging for nuts and berries and pan-handling should you become disabled?

If not, why not?

The Orwellian hypocrites sitting around fawning and drooling over Herr Josef Göbbels will insure their home, their car, their boat, their business, their baseball card collection, their bobble-head collection, their Tickle-Me-Elmo collection, their jewelry....

....but they think end-of-life (or old-age) insurance is stupid.

These very same Orwellian hypocrites who sit around hoping to be elected into the NAZI Propaganda Hall of Fame never ever talk about the ROI on their home or auto insurance....

....but then froth at the mouth until they fall over backwards because they don't like the ROI on their old-age insurance.

Does anyone not see that?

Pointing out the obvious...

Mircea

Originally Posted by jmking

On the one hand you have incompetent government and on the other sleezy, scumbag for-profit health insurance racket that sits squarely between doctor and patient along with their scumbag shareholders. What to do? A one payer system in absolute direct competition with regulated for-profit health insurance companies who will play the role as supplemental insurance coverage.

What do to?

First, recuse yourself from voting on or discussing the issue, since you're quite biased and prejudiced.

Second, know and understand the definition of insurance....

Black's: Insurance is a contract whereby for a stipulated consideration, one party undertakes to compensate the other for loss on a specific subject by specified perils.

You have a $500,000 life insurance policy. How much money is the insurance company on the hook for? What is the maximum payout? That's simple....$500,000

You have a $250,000 home-owner policy with $1 Million in personal liability (in case Jehovah's Witnesses comes to your home, trip and fall on your driveway, and need a blood transfusion). What is the maximum payout? That's simple, too ....$1,250,000

You have a $25,000 auto policy, with $25,000 in medical, $25,000 in property damage, and $25,000 in liability. What is the maximum payout? That's also simple....$100,000

You have an "health insurance" plan (snicker). What is the maximum payout?

No one has a clue.

Do you not see a problem there?

Suppose you start your own "health insurance" (snicker) company. You landed a group policy contract with your first client, a small business with 100 employees.

All you have to do is start collecting premiums every month, right?

Wrong. Insurance regulations require you to have the maximum payout up front. How do you get that? Um, investors. Investors will let you use their money in exchange for which you will pay a fee for using their money in the form of quarterly dividends (or some other arrangement).

Where do the quarterly dividends come from?

Your very wise, sagacious, judicious, frugal expenditures on health care.

And what is the maximum payout? Before Obamacare, you determined two things --- the maximum amount that you would pay out to any one health plan participant during a calendar year, and the maximum amount you would pay out in a life-time for one health plan participant.

In other words, X and Y are both known in advance. Let's say you cap payments at $100,000 per year and $1 Million per life-time.

Not any more.

Obamacare bans all limitations. There no longer is an annual limit, and there is no longer a lifetime limit.

So what are X and Y? You have no idea. How much money will you need to stockpile to ensure that you can make all payouts?

Gotcha.

What will be the damage to your economy and your society? You must now hold money to make payments, and you have no idea how much those payments are going to be, and now you must inefficiently waste cash Capital by removing it from your economy and your checking account and have it sit collecting dust "just in case."

How much money show we spend on one person in a life-time? $1 Million? Doesn't that sound reasonable? $1 Million works out to $13,000 per person per year, which just happens to be what Medicare is paying now annually for each Medicare beneficiary.

$1 Million * 314,000,000 Americans = $314 TRILLION

Anyone seen $16 TRILLION in cash just sitting around lately? Obviously not, your National Debt would be paid off.

The problem is you and people like you are under the misguided impression that his is going to be a big free-for-all health care spend-fest. I assure you it will not, and you will all be severely disappointed so much that you'll be begging for private for-profit "health insurance" (snicker) to take over.

And you all think that a single payer plan will make your health care system like Europe. Wrong. It will be nothing like Europe. None of you understand the European health care system. The proof of that is in the comments and you make and elsewhere, like this stupid idiotic belief that Europeans get "free" college.

Well, if Europeans get "free" college then how come not more than 3%-5% of Europeans has a college degree? I mean, hell, it's freaking free, right?

Monetarily...

Mircea

Originally Posted by whogo

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.

Originally Posted by jmking

What part of the Kefauver Amendment do you think is a major impediment? Why was it passed in the first place?

I'm all for getting rid of the Kefauver Amendment, and I'll be the first to kick Kefauver in the teeth and stomp him to the ground, just as soon as the following legislation is enacted....

In the event of a class-action lawsuit against a pharmaceutical researcher, developer, manufacturer or distributor:

1) Each member of the class must, with respect to

a) compensatory damages, receive not less than $500,000 and not more than $1 Million, to be adjusted each ten (10) years according to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.

b) punitive damages, receive not less than $1 Million nor more than $50 Million, to be adjusted each ten (10) years according to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.

3) special circumstances where Defendant(s) engage in document destruction or obstruction of evidence, not less than $10 Million and not more than $100 Million, to be adjusted each ten (10) years according to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers.

4) Plaintiff's counsel are limited to ten percent of the total amount of damages awarded, to be paid by Defendant(s).

5) This law may be rescinded or amended by popular vote to take place during a federal election year by seventy-five percent of registered votes granting approval.

In plain English, in a class-action lawsuit, the class-member gets $500,000 to $1 Million in compensatory damages as awarded by a judge, panel of judges or a jury, plus (if awarded) punitive damages in the amount of $1 Million to $50 Million as awarded by a judge, panel of judges or a jury, and the attorneys get not more than 10% of that, paid by the defendants and not by the plaintiffs.

Legislatively...

Mircea

Originally Posted by BigJon3475

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.
IV_B_LRest.html

You can look very clearly at their numbers for "High Cost Assumption" and see right off the bat what's wrong with their assessments.
So as long as there's 158,363,000 million workers their assumptions would be correct, right?

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Does anything stand out to you?

You people need to print that, and frame it or hang it on your refrigerator and read it every day.

Subliminally...

Mircea

Originally Posted by NorthGAbound12

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.

Philosophically?

On what grounds?

There's no one to the right of me and I support it.

Should the federal government be involved? No, absolutely not. That's offensive to one's dignity not to mention, irrational, illogical and completely contradictory to the principles of federalism. It creates sitations where two people with similar earning powers end up collecting $1,175/per month, but for one, $1,175/month is equal to $2,300/month, while the other suffers because where s/he lives $1,175 is only equal to $650/month.

How do you resolve that?

Uh, federalism. Let the States set up and administer their own programs. The States can then set the premium rates based on the cost-of-living, the employment and unemployment situation, the economics (the States "GDP") and such that are unique to each State --- something Liberals can never understand.

Better yet, privatize it.

Why not?

Why is it that whenever privatization is mentioned, people automatically assume 401(k)?

Are people really just that stupid?

What does the law say...

42 USC § 402 - Old-age and survivors insurance benefit payments

(a) Old-age insurance benefits Every individual who—
(1) is a fully insured individual (as defined in section 414 (a) of this title),
(2) has attained age 62, and
(3) has filed application for old-age insurance benefits or was entitled to disability insurance benefits for the month preceding the month in which he attained retirement age (as defined in section 416 (l) of this title), shall be entitled to an old-age insurance benefit for each month, beginning with—

Now....one of you wizards show me where the law mentions anything about private pension plans or private savings accounts or private retirement accounts or 401(k) plans or any other stupidity.

It's insurance.

You don't get an ROI on insurance.

So why can't you have a private insurance plan like a life insurance plan, except it pays out when you retire?

Remember, this is insurance, not a 401(k) and not you're personal retirement savings. This is in case your 401(k) plan goes belly up and your spouse seizes your retirement savings in the divorce, and your creditors seize the rest (just before your bank collapses).

And why can't you choose?

I want $300,000 in insurance that will give me $10,000 per year for 30 years. How much does that cost?

I want $500,000 in insurance that will pay out $16,000 per year for 30 years. Do I really need to mention that will cost a little more?

And this is insurance, not 401(k). The payout is guaranteed --- uh, that's what "insurance" is. It ain't maybe when I retire I'll have $1.3 Million, then again maybe I'll only have $30,000 depending on the dice roll.

You people make things much harder than they have to be.

Insuring...

Mircea

[plates]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Ah, yes, of course, but the funny thing is who saved Social Security?

The funny thing is that you get proven wrong in almost every post yet you still act like you are right.

I'm sure you remember this:

Originally Posted by plates

Report: 15% of Americans on food stamps - Bottom Line

How are you allowed to vote?

Maybe you should do a little research before you ignorantly post. And you were talking about statistics.

Especially after you made a big deal about it being 47% when it was 47 million people (and that's rounding up) and I abridged your flame post.

[eRayP]

Originally Posted by whogo

I do not equate senior citizens collecting their SS benefits with young and healthy welfare bums. Do you?

Nope, but the young healthy welfare bums hurt the elderly because we gotta split the pie up between the welfare mother and her 6 kids and the elderly who paid into it. The government can tax people and borrow only so much before it all comes crashing down.

[hotair2]

Originally Posted by Mircea

Ah, yes, of course, but the funny thing is who saved Social Security?

Republicans.

It was Ford who created the Ford Commission specifically to study both Social Security and Medicare, and the commission recommended raising the FICA/SECA tax rates. Ford was unable to do so, but Carter fortunately followed through on Ford's commission. Then Reagan appointed a commission to continue studying the problem, especially due to the recession, and the committee recommended continuous tax increases to cover the costs.

The last FICA tax increase was in 1990. Clinton dropped the ball. So did Bush and so did Obama. And so did the American people who are always willing to take something without paying for it.







Mircea

Lets see I read the first part of your book where you state that the Republicans saved SS by appointing a commission, but did not act on it. After you made an assertion and were unable to back it up with facts. Appointing commissions and then not acting on their recommendations is not saving SS. Your argument lost credibility from the beginning so I decided not to read the remaining part of your novel.

disapproving

Hotair2