Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
For those of us who like to believe that human beings are rational, trying to explain what happens in politics can be a real challenge.
For example, that segment of the population that has the least to fear from a reform of Medicare or Social Security is the most fearful -- namely, those already receiving Medicare or Social Security benefits.
It is understandable that people heavily dependent on these programs would fear losing their benefits, especially after a lifetime of paying into these programs. But nobody in his right mind has even proposed taking away the benefits of those who are already receiving them.
Let's stop and think, if only for the novelty of it. If you make any change in anything, you are ending it "as we know it." Does that mean that everything in the status quo should be considered to be set in concrete forever?
If there were not a single Republican, or none who got elected to any office, arithmetic would still end "Medicare as we know it," for the simple reason that the money in the till is not enough to keep paying for it. The same is true of Social Security.
We are not yet Greece, but we are not exempt from the same rules of arithmetic that eventually caught up with Greece. We just have a little more time. The only question is whether we will use that time to make politically difficult changes or whether we will just kick the can down the road, and keep pretending that "Medicare as we know it" would continue on indefinitely, if it were not for people who just want to be mean to the elderly.
It is today's young people who are going to be left holding the bag when they reach retirement age and discover that all the money they paid in is long gone. It is today's young people who are going to be dumped over a cliff when they reach retirement age, if nothing is done to reform entitlements.
Let's stop and think, if only for the novelty of it. If you make any change in anything, you are ending it "as we know it."
Hmmm, look at that. A half page article with the lofty claim of being "A Rational Discussion of the Federal Budget" that does not utter a syllable about defense spending.
Let's stop and think, if only for the novelty of it. If you make any change in anything, you are ending it "as we know it."
That's the Democratic spin for Republican plans.
When a Democrat wants to change anything, then it becomes a "government takeover".
.
excellent look at one aspect of the budget... entitlements like Medicare.
No question that both Medicare and Social Security need to be fixed. The question is....Do we need a major revamp of both programs or merely a change in the contributions and benefits?
Republicans seem to be going for the nuclear option in using current insolvency as a justification to privatize both programs. Social Security needs a change in the retirement eligibility date (70 vs 67) to regain solvency.
Medicare is more difficult. Insurance companies do not want to insure old people. They never have and never will. Old people are the ones who use most of our medical dollar. They are also the ones most afraid of being bankrupted and pennyless after a major illness. Vouchers may work short term. The risk is in vouchers not keeping up with escallating medical costs and leaving the elderly at risk of financial ruin.
The answer seems to be more in attacking the medical cost aspects of the formula rather than the insurance part
Hmmm, look at that. A half page article with the lofty claim of being "A Rational Discussion of the Federal Budget" that does not utter a syllable about defense spending....
No question that both Medicare and Social Security need to be fixed. The question is....Do we need a major revamp of both programs or merely a change in the contributions and benefits?
Republicans seem to be going for the nuclear option in using current insolvency as a justification to privatize both programs. Social Security needs a change in the retirement eligibility date (70 vs 67) to regain solvency.
Medicare is more difficult. Insurance companies do not want to insure old people. They never have and never will. Old people are the ones who use most of our medical dollar. They are also the ones most afraid of being bankrupted and pennyless after a major illness. Vouchers may work short term. The risk is in vouchers not keeping up with escallating medical costs and leaving the elderly at risk of financial ruin.
The answer seems to be more in attacking the medical cost aspects of the formula rather than the insurance part
Hmmm, look at that. A half page article with the lofty claim of being "A Rational Discussion of the Federal Budget" that does not utter a syllable about defense spending....
BTW, for what it's worth, I am on record on this board as stating that were I elected President, one of my first objectives would be tpo get a comprehensive list of EVERY military facility, base, etc. we have around the world, and determine if we could reduce or eliminate presence in various areas without affecting the stability of the area or our ability to defend ourselves. I am relatively sure we could drop a minimum of 20% of our defense budget by looking into this.
excellent look at one aspect of the budget... entitlements like Medicare.
A Rational Discussion of the Federal Budget | RealClearPolitics
For those of us who like to believe that human beings are rational, trying to explain what happens in politics can be a real challenge.
For example, that segment of the population that has the least to fear from a reform of Medicare or Social Security is the most fearful -- namely, those already receiving Medicare or Social Security benefits.
It is understandable that people heavily dependent on these programs would fear losing their benefits, especially after a lifetime of paying into these programs. But nobody in his right mind has even proposed taking away the benefits of those who are already receiving them.
Let's stop and think, if only for the novelty of it. If you make any change in anything, you are ending it "as we know it." Does that mean that everything in the status quo should be considered to be set in concrete forever?
If there were not a single Republican, or none who got elected to any office, arithmetic would still end "Medicare as we know it," for the simple reason that the money in the till is not enough to keep paying for it. The same is true of Social Security.
We are not yet Greece, but we are not exempt from the same rules of arithmetic that eventually caught up with Greece. We just have a little more time. The only question is whether we will use that time to make politically difficult changes or whether we will just kick the can down the road, and keep pretending that "Medicare as we know it" would continue on indefinitely, if it were not for people who just want to be mean to the elderly.
It is today's young people who are going to be left holding the bag when they reach retirement age and discover that all the money they paid in is long gone. It is today's young people who are going to be dumped over a cliff when they reach retirement age, if nothing is done to reform entitlements.
No question that both Medicare and Social Security need to be fixed. The question is....Do we need a major revamp of both programs or merely a change in the contributions and benefits?
Republicans seem to be going for the nuclear option in using current insolvency as a justification to privatize both programs. Social Security needs a change in the retirement eligibility date (70 vs 67) to regain solvency.
Medicare is more difficult. Insurance companies do not want to insure old people. They never have and never will. Old people are the ones who use most of our medical dollar. They are also the ones most afraid of being bankrupted and pennyless after a major illness. Vouchers may work short term. The risk is in vouchers not keeping up with escallating medical costs and leaving the elderly at risk of financial ruin.
The answer seems to be more in attacking the medical cost aspects of the formula rather than the insurance part
This is correct. We are living longer and should therefore be working longer. And any reform must have cost reduction as its PRIMARY goal.
ObamaCare was a classic bait-and-switch con game. Remember all that talk about the per capita spending on medical care in the US? Healthcare "reform" was supposed to be about bending the cost curve down.
That was the bait.
The switch was ObamaCare. It does nothing to bend the cost curve down at all. In fact, it entrenches systems which will continue to bend the curve up, and then some.
.
Hmmm, look at that. A half page article with the lofty claim of being "A Rational Discussion of the Federal Budget" that does not utter a syllable about defense spending....
BTW, for what it's worth, I am on record on this board as stating that were I elected President, one of my first objectives would be tpo get a comprehensive list of EVERY military facility, base, etc. we have around the world, and determine if we could reduce or eliminate presence in various areas without affecting the stability of the area or our ability to defend ourselves. I am relatively sure we could drop a minimum of 20% of our defense budget by looking into this.
ObamaCare was a classic bait-and-switch con game. Remember all that talk about the per capita spending on medical care in the US? Healthcare "reform" was supposed to be about bending the cost curve down.
That was the bait.
The switch was ObamaCare. It does nothing to bend the cost curve down at all. In fact, it entrenches systems which will continue to bend the curve up, and then some.
excellent look at one aspect of the budget... entitlements like Medicare.
A Rational Discussion of the Federal Budget | RealClearPolitics
For those of us who like to believe that human beings are rational, trying to explain what happens in politics can be a real challenge.
For example, that segment of the population that has the least to fear from a reform of Medicare or Social Security is the most fearful -- namely, those already receiving Medicare or Social Security benefits.
It is understandable that people heavily dependent on these programs would fear losing their benefits, especially after a lifetime of paying into these programs. But nobody in his right mind has even proposed taking away the benefits of those who are already receiving them.
It is today's young people who are going to be left holding the bag when they reach retirement age and discover that all the money they paid in is long gone. It is today's young people who are going to be dumped over a cliff when they reach retirement age, if nothing is done to reform entitlements.
In 1997, the Trustees of Medicare projected Medicare part A would be insolvent by 2001.
It wasn't, and as of 2012, it's not.
Why is that?????
reference:
Solvency Projections of the Medicare Part A Trust Fund, 1970-2011 - Kaiser Slides
Hmmm, look at that. A half page article with the lofty claim of being "A Rational Discussion of the Federal Budget" that does not utter a syllable about defense spending.
"During an appearance on CNNs Starting Point on Tuesday, Tea Party Express Chairwoman Amy Kremer refused to condemn the deficit increase that would result from Mitt Romneys proposed tax cuts, suggesting that the group is more concerned about acting as a surrogate for the Republican candidate than promoting fiscal responsibility. "
