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.
We (the public) don't necessarily own them through fed gov, but the fed gov certainly does pick winners and losers. Wall Street bailout, anyone?
Of course the Federal Gov't is our own largest consumer. And via Congress, the Executive, the Treasury and the Fed all in there promoting our business and economy and of course our General Welfare. But next to none of this is actual stock ownership. If our monetarily sovereign Federal Gov't 'profits' from private sector stock gains, that money has to come from the private sector.
The world is full of precedents for reducing the cost of healthcare without people " dying in the streets". The biggest payer of medications and hospitals is Medicare. Huge muscle if a Congress wanted to use it. It would mean biting the hands that feed them, lobbies and donors.
I don't disagree at all and I would rep you more all the time if I could. But the "seniors dying in the streets" (TM) is way overused. They love Medicare Part D and we know how that affects the cost of medications. They don't care. Just as long as it benefits them.
The beauty of it is, these seniors are typically Republican and the Republicans just released their budget proposal that will reduce Medicare to vouchers and has "unspecified Medicare cuts" in it. It's a beautiful thing.
And did so while grandfathering in the current and short term future crop of Medicare recipients to maintain their base. Sure beats doing anything to reduce the cost of Medicare.
A bigot? Please. The last poster suggested I was a minority. Another suggested I was a "taker on Obamacare". Another suggested I was living in my parents house and another suggested welfare. I'm not any of those.
I'm a parent with a family that has our own health care coverage watching the hypocrisy of seniors supporting Medicare because it benefits then while they rail against the ACA. And the very thought of their losing their Medicare terrifies them. Terrifies them. Even though they didn't pay enough in and they cost the country - me, the taxpayer - much more than they contributed.
Why aren't you against everyone who takes more than they contribute? That would be the bottom 60%.
If you're not in favor of cutting all the takers off, you're a bigot, plain and simple.
Why aren't you against everyone who takes more than they contribute? That would be the bottom 60%.
If you're not in favor of cutting all the takers off, you're a bigot, plain and simple.
I think you think putting bigot in bold is somehow persuasive. But since you like the 60% number, do it. As long as it includes seniors too. Too. Get that? As in "also".
Which you conveniently (so very much so) refuse to admit.
Because you think my employer paid insurance is a subsidy and that your software will somehow be less expensive if they don't. But as I've also said, I will give that up as soon as all politicians lose their coverage. All of them in federal and state government. No more of this:
Given the max that Medicare recipients pay (for a couple) could exceed (for those in poor health) $10,000-$12,000 a year, just how much do you want them to pay?
Enough to pay the country back. How much is that?
They need to live their values. If the ACA/Obamacare is wealth redistribution, then we need to look at all the wealth redistribution taking place with Medicare.
They need to cover their costs and if that is double or triple what they are paying, then that is the price.
I think you think putting bigot in bold is somehow persuasive. But since you like the 60% number, do it. As long as it includes seniors too.
I'm not opposed to cutting off benefits for everyone in the bottom 60%, as long as their accrued prior contributions plus 11% compounded annual growth has been considered (seniors) and compared to their actual costs.
I'm not opposed to cutting off benefits for everyone in the bottom 60%, as long as their accrued prior contributions plus 11% compounded annual growth has been considered (seniors) and compared to their actual costs.
That sounds like a contradiction, since they would likely not be in the bottom 60%. But so what, sure, let's do that. Some might do well. Most won't because, you know, they are on the bottom 60%.
I find it funny that seniors love the TEA Party which stands for "Taxed Enough Already" when they themselves don't want to pay more for the coverage they suck up from government. They literally are saying they refuse to pay more even though they didn't pay nearly enough.
And I saw no TEA Party protests with Medicare Part D passed. Oh, they loved that, because it was for them.
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.
