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.
They are not dumb, they know exactly what they are doing and why. Political capital and preserving the profitability of providers of Ins and sick care. It's a very big business.
Wake up people, its another way that team Obama can control YOUR HEALTHCARE and you.
It's all in the socialist plan, it's called power and control.
Remember how Obama decided that he does not want to spend money on those old useless people, well this is just another sneaky way to trickle it down to people 55 so he can decide on who gets treated and who does not.
They are not dumb, they know exactly what they are doing and why. Political capital and preserving the profitability of providers of Ins and sick care. It's a very big business.
I still say dumb. Being stubbornly wrong on lots of issues in order to remain in the good graces of special interests is the opposite of smart.
Look the US Senate is trying to compromise on the health bill. But they are just idiots.
Not only are they going to bankrupt Medicare by expanding it to age 55 year old for those without insurance but as a consequence they will accelerate the bankruptcy of the SSN program.
Think about this:
The reason most Americans don't retire and take early SSN benefits at age 62 is that they don't qualify for medicare until age 65.
Now the proposal in the US Senate will allow people as young as 55 without insurance to be enrolled in the medicare program. This will add a tremendous amount of pressure on the funding of medicare. How exactly are they going to pay for that?
That's issue number 1.
But the consequence of issue 1 is that they will also create major issue number 2. That is more and more people will be enticed to take early retirement at age 62 to start collecting SSN. Sure the payments will be reduced but one of the main reasons for delaying SSN until 65 (67 for younger workers) is that they don't qualify for medicare.
So you bankrupt Medicare PLUS you bankrupt SSN.
Actually if more people retire early, it SAVES SSN money because their payments at aged 62 retirement are so much less than payments at age 65 (or later depending on your age group). Yes they collect longer, but the problem SSN is facing not the length of time the Babyboomers will likely collect, but the monthly outlays that SSN is going to have to pay out once they all retire. The more folks retire at age 62, the better it is for SSN's bottom line.
"New Health Care Benefits Come at a Price
offers people age 55 to 64 the option of buying into Medicare, appears to have given Democrats a way ... into Medicare won't be cheap, about $7,600 a year not counting out-of-pocket costs for deductibles"
This was on the ABC evening news yesterday... People under the age of 65 will be paying about the same for medicare as they would for a private company health care policy.. They will NOT be paying that same low price as those that are 65 or over.
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.