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.
The best thing about the Ryan plan is that those of us under 55 get to pay into Medicare so that those over 55 get their full benefits, then when it is our turn, we get screwed. So not only do we have to continue paying into Medicare, but we also have to find a way to save an extra $150,000 or so just so that we will have coverage, and that doesn't even include deductibles, so we will probably need at least $200,000 per person. I imagine there are a great many people out there who will never save $200,000 before they retire. Proof of that is the simple fact that millions can't even save that for actual retirement yet alone healthcare.
You're blaming the wrong person. The greedy geezers who voted for the politicians who created this boondoggle are the ones responsible. Medicare is bound to collapse. It can possibly pay on all the promises that Democrats have made. That means younger people are going to get screwed, no matter what is done about it.
Instead of blaming the people who setup this Ponzi scheme and defended it, you're blaming they guy who's bringing the bad news.
Republicans really need to say what they mean when they say they support Ryan's plan. And that is that if you can't afford healthcare in your old age, too fucking bad, go without. At least then they would be honest about it instead of trying to sugar coat it and make people believe that they will be able to afford healthcare when they retire.
Democrats are saying they don't care if country goes bankrupt so long as they get the greedy geezer vote.
There is no reason that Medicare should ever collapse. The only reason it is headed in that direction is because people are living much longer than they used to. The answer is quite simple, raise the retirement age. Neither SS or Medicare were meant to pay out to retirees for 13 plus years. By raising the retirement age, it leaves people funding their own healthcare for a longer period of time, but at least it is at a time when most can afford to fund it on their own, either personally or as a benefit through their employer. This would leave people paying in for a few more years and collecting for a few less years.
Medicare was put in place because older people could not get insurance. We needed a fair way to make certain all of our aging citizens had access to reasonable healthcare. Doing away with Medicare as it now exists would only take us back 50 years. What we would find is that the government would still have to pick up the pieces in the end. One way or another, we will continue to have Medicare as a fully funded program, that or something very similar. The question is only how much are we willing to pay for it, and how do we curb some of the program's costs without changing the program completely.
There is nothing in the Social Security Act of 1965 that prevents any American from choosing to buy insurance from private for profit cartels. If that gives you a rod, then go for it slick.
Raising the eligibility age will have a negative effect on everyone younger in the workforce because those people will remain in their positions longer.
Here's an idea...RAISE TAXES on the wealthy. It is how we paid for the Depression and WWII...
Bwaaaa....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You just get done accusing of posting from a site with political bias, and then you turn around and post THAT???
The choice was made by the People when Medicare was established. As law.
There is no reason that Medicare should ever collapse. The only reason it is headed in that direction is because people are living much longer than they used to. The answer is quite simple, raise the retirement age. Neither SS or Medicare were meant to pay out to retirees for 13 plus years. By raising the retirement age, it leaves people funding their own healthcare for a longer period of time, but at least it is at a time when most can afford to fund it on their own, either personally or as a benefit through their employer. This would leave people paying in for a few more years and collecting for a few less years.
Medicare was put in place because older people could not get insurance. We needed a fair way to make certain all of our aging citizens had access to reasonable healthcare. Doing away with Medicare as it now exists would only take us back 50 years. What we would find is that the government would still have to pick up the pieces in the end. One way or another, we will continue to have Medicare as a fully funded program, that or something very similar. The question is only how much are we willing to pay for it, and how do we curb some of the program's costs without changing the program completely.
Do they still have to pay the 2.9% tax on their income that funds Medicare?They can buy from any company they choose.No it doesn't. It takes away the choice of single payer Medicare run by the government.
It forces seniors to buy insurance from a private company. I guess conservatives at least don't consider that unconstitutional anymore.
Only a liberal would say that having only one choice is freedom to choose.
There is nothing in the Social Security Act of 1965 that prevents any American from choosing to buy insurance from private for profit cartels. If that gives you a rod, then go for it slick.
They can buy from any company they choose.No it doesn't. It takes away the choice of single payer Medicare run by the government.
It forces seniors to buy insurance from a private company. I guess conservatives at least don't consider that unconstitutional anymore.
Only a liberal would say that having only one choice is freedom to choose.
The choice was made by the People when Medicare was established. As law.
I guess they are betting that people over 55 are to stupid to understand that they will not be effected at all by the Ryan plan because they are Already over 55?
This is false on its face. The Republican budget reopens the donut hole for Medicare drug coverage, it eliminates the free wellness visits and preventive care benefits that were recently added to Medicare, it slashes Medicaid which helps low-income seniors pay for their Medicare Part B premiums and cost-sharing, as well as long-term care and other health services used by low-income seniors.
That said, even if you weren't mistaken, so what? Medicare is a very popular program, particularly among that cohort. Do you think the average senior is content to see it destroyed, just so long as she gets hers? It turns out quite a few of those folks aren't happy to see Medicare dismantled for their children and grandchildren, even if they themselves benefit from Ryan's carve-out. So no, no one's betting on seniors being stupid; folks are betting that seniors are generally not as craven and self-centered as the arguments the Republicans are banking on assume they are. And that bet seems to be paying off.
Dems in 2008: "These two entitiesFannie Mae and Freddie Macare not facing any kind of financial crisis,"
Dems in 2012: "These two entitiesMedicare and Social Securityare not facing any kind of financial crisis,"
Don't get fooled again
Financial crisis? Oh, that's right. You mean the deregulated Wall Street. And who deregulated Wall Street? Oops.
Bill Clinton
I guess they are betting that people over 55 are to stupid to understand that they will not be effected at all by the Ryan plan because they are Already over 55?
This is false on its face. The Republican budget reopens the donut hole for Medicare drug coverage, it eliminates the free wellness visits and preventive care benefits that were recently added to Medicare, it slashes Medicaid which helps low-income seniors pay for their Medicare Part B premiums and cost-sharing, as well as long-term care and other health services used by low-income seniors.
That said, even if you weren't mistaken, so what? Medicare is a very popular program, particularly among that cohort. Do you think the average senior is content to see it destroyed, just so long as she gets hers? It turns out quite a few of those folks aren't happy to see Medicare dismantled for their children and grandchildren, even if they themselves benefit from Ryan's carve-out. So no, no one's betting on seniors being stupid; folks are betting that seniors are generally not as craven and self-centered as the arguments the Republicans are banking on assume they are. And that bet seems to be paying off.
Even more so, they're not short-sighted enough to believe any rollback that starts with those currently under 55 will end with them.
The Problem is Dems are just saying Ryan wants to End Medicare, not End it as we know it and replace it with something else. Which is of course the truth.
Replace it with something different is not "ending" it? Something ended. Otherwise, how could it be "replaced"?
Of course you are leaving out the fact that if we do nothing as the dems want then Medicare will end itself when we can no longer pay for it. Since you do not like the rand plan where is the democrat one? Or is that something that can only be asked when a republican is nay saying?
Its not the Dems you have to take issue with your own conservative newspaper, the WSJ, stated: The plan would essentially end Medicare
Obamacare already essentially ended Medicare. First, it removed $500 billion in funding from Medicare. Next, it will destroy all the insurance companies and force everyone into single payer.
1. Pretty hard to argue rolling back overpayments to Medicare Advantage providers is "essentially end[ing] Medicare", noting Medicare Advantage didn't even exist until 1997.
The Bush tax cuts have been in effect for a decade...a LOST decade.
If taxes were the only policy that changed during that period, then you might have a case. Unfortunately, forcing banks to give mortgages to people who can't pay them is not good for job growth when the whole house of cards implodes.
Notice that I also said "cut spending."
Pssst! YOU are not a 'thread'.
A lot of dumb people make that mistake.
WHY can't you answer the question? HOW is Ryan's plan better for senior citizens? Just give me ONE thing.
It offers them freedom to choose.
Why do you oppose that?
GREAT! Then Ryan has my full support.
I choose to keep the same Medicare my grandparents and parents generation had. And any retiree who chooses to buy private insurance has that freedom...
There is nothing in the Social Security Act of 1965 that prevents any American from choosing to buy insurance from private for profit cartels. If that gives you a rod, then go for it slick.
Liberals crack me up.
How do they use the money they have to contribute to Social Security? You idea of choice is having to pay twice for the same thing: once for what you don't want, and once for what you do want.
Face it: liberals are full of shit.
They can buy from any company they choose.
Only a liberal would say that having only one choice is freedom to choose.
The choice was made by the People when Medicare was established. As law.
Did you vote in 1965? I didn't.
.
Bwaaaa....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You just get done accusing of posting from a site with political bias, and then you turn around and post THAT???
Prove it's wrong.
The idea that we can't pay for our previous commitments is completely bogus. We have more than enough money to pay for Medicare and Social Security in their current forms out to eternity. The issue is if we feel those costs are justified.
