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.
Those on Medicare showed zero concern for younger families without health coverage. Those Tea Party protests against Obamacare were surprisingly skewed toward the elderly with the whole "keep your government hands off my Medicare" business. On top of that, Medicare contributions only amount to 13%-41% of the benefits claimed by Medicare recipients. Contrast that to when the completely unfunded Medicare Part D was passed. No protests whatsoever. Seniors on Medicare seem inclined to want all the health care they can get while expecting those that work to pay the difference and literally protesting against them receiving any assistance for health coverage themselves. Just look at the school bonds in Sequim that cannot pass. This group has become a bit (very sometimes) selfish.
I have absolutely nothing against seniors and retirees whatsoever, but my opinion would have been higher if they had seen the need for those younger than they to receive health coverage. Note, my family has coverage, I just think everyone should have it. Seeing the Sequim school bond issue is really telling and the results are not undeserved.
All important issues, but everyone should have good medical care. Generations shouldn't be competing with each other for health care dollars or doctors or attention. This, too, is a uniquely American problem. And Med Part D shouldn't even have been necessary. Pharma companies, it has now been proven, have jacked up prices on certain meds simply because they could, not because it was warranted, even if calculating in R & D costs.
But in order to get better Medicare, better health insurance coverage, and prescrips included in all the plans, we'd have to pay more taxes. We need to back up our demands with tax-paying.
Either that, or we need to back out of these wars.................. *
All important issues, but everyone should have good medical care. Generations shouldn't be competing with each other for health care dollars or doctors or attention. This, too, is a uniquely American problem. And Med Part D shouldn't even have been necessary. Pharma companies, it has now been proven, have jacked up prices on certain meds simply because they could, not because it was warranted, even if calculating in R & D costs.
But in order to get better Medicare, better health insurance coverage, and prescrips included in all the plans, we'd have to pay more taxes. We need to back up our demands with tax-paying.
Either that, or we need to back out of these wars.................. *
Seniors don't want to pay more taxes, look at the school bonds in Sequim. And they want unlimited Medicare, consider it their right, but they are living longer than ever with more treatments available to extend their lives, all of which are costing more and more. They want all of that and who wouldn't? But they have shown absolutely zero interest in health coverage for those younger than they are. Ask them, they've made it clear. And IMO, the only way the conversation will change is when Medicare is impacted and they see they aren't the only generation deserving of health coverage. So maybe the OP doesn't get much in the way of expanded medical facilities, maybe Paul Ryan's "entitlement reform/voucher plan" happens to reset Medicare recipient's expectations. And maybe in a decade or two, everything will work itself out and health coverage is available not just to seniors but to all who need it. In the meantime, taxpayers are paying for most of the coverage Medicare recipients are receiving while also passing our school bonds and paying for our own health coverage.
Those on Medicare showed zero concern for younger families without health coverage. Those Tea Party protests against Obamacare were surprisingly skewed toward the elderly with the whole "keep your government hands off my Medicare" business. On top of that, Medicare contributions only amount to 13%-41% of the benefits claimed by Medicare recipients. Contrast that to when the completely unfunded Medicare Part D was passed. No protests whatsoever. Seniors on Medicare seem inclined to want all the health care they can get while expecting those that work to pay the difference and literally protesting against them receiving any assistance for health coverage themselves. Just look at the school bonds in Sequim that cannot pass. This group has become a bit (very sometimes) selfish.
I have absolutely nothing against seniors and retirees whatsoever, but my opinion would have been higher if they had seen the need for those younger than they to receive health coverage. Note, my family has coverage, I just think everyone should have it. Seeing the Sequim school bond issue is really telling and the results are not undeserved.
You paint with a very broad brush.
Those voting against the Sequim school bonds encompassed a fairly wide age demographic. The factors responsible for the failures were income level, dissatisfaction with the spending details of each bond and/or the desire to hold a lid on taxes. Pairing the school bond vote with the SARC vote etched a "just too much!" feeling into the minds of many that has unfortunately lingered. At least that's what my Sequim friends (both young and old) tell me.
Those voting against the Sequim school bonds encompassed a fairly wide age demographic. The factors responsible for the failures were income level, dissatisfaction with the spending details of each bond and/or the desire to hold a lid on taxes. Pairing the school bond vote with the SARC vote etched a "just too much!" feeling into the minds of many that has unfortunately lingered. At least that's what my Sequim friends (both young and old) tell me.
Which bond would that be? The first, the second, the third or the fourth? You said yourself that it appears they won't pass regardless of the tweaking. And I use the bonds as just an example. Sure, a lot of retirees on the OP want more medical facilities and most are on Medicare. But younger tax payers are seeing how skewed their vision is and I wouldn't expect much in the way of increases or expanded generosity anytime soon. In fact, as liberal as I am, I'm not sure I wouldn't vote to reduce benefits in order to reshape their expectations, which now are 100% one-sided. It's like retirees think they won the health coverage lottery. And yes, I know some pay in but others also receive Medicaid and Medicare. And there are numerous published studies showing the amount of Medicare contributions paid in vs. Medicare benefits paid out and how much tax payers are funding the huge discrepancy.
Which bond would that be? The first, the second, the third or the fourth? You said yourself that it appears they won't pass regardless of the tweaking. And I use the bonds as just an example. Sure, a lot of retirees on the OP want more medical facilities and most are on Medicare. But younger tax payers are seeing how skewed their vision is and I wouldn't expect much in the way of increases or expanded generosity anytime soon. In fact, as liberal as I am, I'm not sure I wouldn't vote to reduce benefits in order to reshape their expectations, which now are 100% one-sided. It's like retirees think they won the health coverage lottery. And yes, I know some pay in but others also receive Medicaid and Medicare. And there are numerous published studies showing the amount of Medicare contributions paid in vs. Medicare benefits paid out and how much tax payers are funding the huge discrepancy.
Hahaha! How many more bonds can there be?!
I am a little confused here. Sorry. Do you think retirees voted against the school bonds because they are 100% one sided and don't want to support anyone's needs but their own? Or do you think retirees voted for the school bonds because they are 100% one sided and want more medical facilities and easier access to healthcare that better schools will bring?
If an older person qualifies to receive Medicaid then are they not as deserving as a younger person who qualifies to receive government assistance?
Retirees have paid taxes for many, many years which have funded many different programs to help others...people who find themselves in situations for which they lack the funds to cope. Sorta like old folks who find themselves in the situation of requiring more health care due to age-related issues and unable to afford it. I guess one needs to look at the entire picture to truly understand all sides.
Would you vote to reduce benefits in order to reshape the expectations of people who adopt an entitlement attitude? How do you weed those out from those truly in need?
BTW, I love Paul Ryan! We grow some good ones here in WI.
Seniors don't want to pay more taxes, look at the school bonds in Sequim. And they want unlimited Medicare, consider it their right, but they are living longer than ever with more treatments available to extend their lives, all of which are costing more and more. They want all of that and who wouldn't? But they have shown absolutely zero interest in health coverage for those younger than they are. Ask them, they've made it clear. And IMO, the only way the conversation will change is when Medicare is impacted and they see they aren't the only generation deserving of health coverage. So maybe the OP doesn't get much in the way of expanded medical facilities, maybe Paul Ryan's "entitlement reform/voucher plan" happens to reset Medicare recipient's expectations. And maybe in a decade or two, everything will work itself out and health coverage is available not just to seniors but to all who need it. In the meantime, taxpayers are paying for most of the coverage Medicare recipients are receiving while also passing our school bonds and paying for our own health coverage.
That's not what I said. Seniors wouldn't be paying more taxes, because they're not working. I said we all would have to pay more taxes to get health care for all of us, so that we're not competing for the health care dollars.
This is a huge digression, btw. Veering way off-topic into a health care rant.
Seniors don't want to pay more taxes, look at the school bonds in Sequim. And they want unlimited Medicare, consider it their right, but they are living longer than ever with more treatments available to extend their lives, all of which are costing more and more. They want all of that and who wouldn't? But they have shown absolutely zero interest in health coverage for those younger than they are. Ask them, they've made it clear. And IMO, the only way the conversation will change is when Medicare is impacted and they see they aren't the only generation deserving of health coverage. So maybe the OP doesn't get much in the way of expanded medical facilities, maybe Paul Ryan's "entitlement reform/voucher plan" happens to reset Medicare recipient's expectations. And maybe in a decade or two, everything will work itself out and health coverage is available not just to seniors but to all who need it. In the meantime, taxpayers are paying for most of the coverage Medicare recipients are receiving while also passing our school bonds and paying for our own health coverage.
That's not what I said. Seniors wouldn't be paying more taxes, because they're not working. I said we all would have to pay more taxes to get health care for all of us, so that we're not competing for the health care dollars.
This is a huge digression, btw. Veering way off-topic into a health care rant.
Oops! Thanks for pointing that out and apologies for my part in it.
In other news, there are a LOT of Bernie people on the peninsula!
Not necessarily true...There is a lot of Bernie Sanders socialist/democrats supporters as apparent by the recent democratic caucus..but the republican primary is coming up.....
That's not what I said. Seniors wouldn't be paying more taxes, because they're not working. I said we all would have to pay more taxes to get health care for all of us, so that we're not competing for the health care dollars.
This is a huge digression, btw. Veering way off-topic into a health care rant.
Totally understand and I was simply responding to your initial comment about needing facilities and what will happen to older people a few posts back. I don't think it's entirely off topic because it does directly relate to Sequim, the OP, what demographics are moving there and what their expectations are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jumpindogs
What seniors are you asking???
You don't even need to ask, they tell you. And as I said, look at the protesters. They've broadly made their feeling known. I just guessing that ultimately Medicare benefits may be scaled back or voucherized so there's pain on that side as well before something is made available to all. I have parents (although they are very much for health care for all), I care very much. But there is a generational divide when it comes to what's happening with health coverage and for an area like Sequim and the OP, they will need to decide who they hope to appeal to as a town and how to do it.
Last edited by Seacove; 04-08-2016 at 03:19 PM..
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.
