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.
How come Republicans have never proposed a bill to repeal medicare? Medicare is not in the Constitution. The Republicans held Congress for most of 6 years while Bush was in office, yet they didn't bother to do a single thing to rid America of this unconstitutional communist blight.
HYPOCRITES
It already is bankrupt.....the Congress borrows the left over money after paying benefits instead of locking the money up.
FYI -medicare does not run a surplus, it is running shortages due to the unforseen nearly double digit increases yearly in healthcare the past 10+ years, but especially since the Medicare pill bill passed under the Bush Administration congress....
social security is NOT bank rupt, it is running surpluses, but not for too much longer...we peaked those surpluses for SS under Bush....all were used to pay for what income taxes should have payed....but SS has an iou for such and our gvt WILL pay the money back....they have to....
we begin to need this extra SS surplus money to pay for the added boomers, within the next decade....there is something like 25-30 years worth of SS surplus that will be used to pay for the senior's SS retirement until around 2035-2040 the last time i looked....
THEN, at that time SS will begin running short....
But if no reforms or tweaking is made towards SS, come 2040, we will be collecting enough SS STILL, to pay every senior's retirement promised, only at 75% of what they were promised....
Social Security never goes completely broke....
FYI -medicare does not run a surplus, it is running shortages due to the unforseen nearly double digit increases yearly in healthcare the past 10+ years, but especially since the Medicare pill bill passed under the Bush Administration congress....
social security is NOT bank rupt, it is running surpluses, but not for too much longer...we peaked those surpluses for SS under Bush....all were used to pay for what income taxes should have payed....but SS has an iou for such and our gvt WILL pay the money back....they have to....
we begin to need this extra SS surplus money to pay for the added boomers, within the next decade....there is something like 25-30 years worth of SS surplus that will be used to pay for the senior's SS retirement until around 2035-2040 the last time i looked....
THEN, at that time SS will begin running short....
But if no reforms or tweaking is made towards SS, come 2040, we will be collecting enough SS STILL, to pay every senior's retirement promised, only at 75% of what they were promised....
Social Security never goes completely broke....
medicare would be fine if the politicians paid back all the $$$ they stole from it
FYI -medicare does not run a surplus, it is running shortages due to the unforseen nearly double digit increases yearly in healthcare the past 10+ years, but especially since the Medicare pill bill passed under the Bush Administration congress....
social security is NOT bank rupt, it is running surpluses, but not for too much longer...we peaked those surpluses for SS under Bush....all were used to pay for what income taxes should have payed....but SS has an iou for such and our gvt WILL pay the money back....they have to....
we begin to need this extra SS surplus money to pay for the added boomers, within the next decade....there is something like 25-30 years worth of SS surplus that will be used to pay for the senior's SS retirement until around 2035-2040 the last time i looked....
THEN, at that time SS will begin running short....
But if no reforms or tweaking is made towards SS, come 2040, we will be collecting enough SS STILL, to pay every senior's retirement promised, only at 75% of what they were promised....
Social Security never goes completely broke....
Actually, PP, Medicare has about 50-billion in fraud each year, so the 500-billion figure you mentioned has to be for a ten year period, as we now reckon the cost of programs. Still there is plenty of room there for improvement.
Care, the Pill-bill, is the first program to not only come in under estimated cost, but well under estimated cost and there is a reason; it's a good concept. It's a good thing. Medication can also keep seniors out of the hospital, if one needs more than human compassion to care for the chronic conditions and pain and suffering of the elderly and the poor.
Care is right, Social Security has always run a surplus, and that surplus money has been scraped off to finance general fund expenditures, and IOU's in the form of treasury bonds have been issued to back up that expenditure; the so called "lock-box."
Care is right, Social Security has always run a surplus, and that surplus money has been scraped off to finance general fund expenditures, and IOU's in the form of treasury bonds have been issued to back up that expenditure; the so called "lock-box."
Right...but what about the rest of the picture.....in 2017 the benefits paid out will exceed revenues collected. When this happens there will be no more IOU's. Then as bonds mature and are paid into SS the surplus begins to dwindle away and we have another HUGE entitlement program operating with a deficit problem. You can say what you want but when Congress empties your bank account and gives you a piece of paper thats, for the most part, worthless without a workforce I would say you aren't operating with a surplus.
Care is right, Social Security has always run a surplus, and that surplus money has been scraped off to finance general fund expenditures, and IOU's in the form of treasury bonds have been issued to back up that expenditure; the so called "lock-box."
Right...but what about the rest of the picture.....in 2017 the benefits paid out will exceed revenues collected. When this happens there will be no more IOU's. Then as bonds mature and are paid into SS the surplus begins to dwindle away and we have another HUGE entitlement program operating with a deficit problem. You can say what you want but when Congress empties your bank account and gives you a piece of paper thats, for the most part, worthless without a workforce I would say you aren't operating with a surplus.
[/QUOTE]That was the crux of the conversation President Bush attempted to start at the beginning of his first term; a partial privatization of SS. It was to be one sixth I believe, and over time people would've been weaned off the SS program. Forty years ago (when I was 28) I would've traded my SS for a private program, and the part of my money I put away back then has done quite well. By twenty years ago, I was much less willing to go private, with too few years left to grow private funds. But, now, like others, I have now paid in 50+ years, and I regard it as a low yield pension plan, with an expectation collecting until but of continuing working until I die.
Change has to begin with people with long working lives ahead of them, and Bush was bold for even bringing it up. It's a sad state of affairs that we can't have honest and forthright debates about such important issues. Another way of solving such problems is to create something much larger so that the current problems can be folded into the new "thing" with a new paradigm for a solution. For instance the new health-care plan, will no doubt take care of part of the problem by "offing" the old thereby reducing deficits in SS and Medicare, and that, indeed is a part, nay... the best part of the plan.
Care is right, Social Security has always run a surplus, and that surplus money has been scraped off to finance general fund expenditures, and IOU's in the form of treasury bonds have been issued to back up that expenditure; the so called "lock-box."
Right...but what about the rest of the picture.....in 2017 the benefits paid out will exceed revenues collected. When this happens there will be no more IOU's. Then as bonds mature and are paid into SS the surplus begins to dwindle away and we have another HUGE entitlement program operating with a deficit problem. You can say what you want but when Congress empties your bank account and gives you a piece of paper thats, for the most part, worthless without a workforce I would say you aren't operating with a surplus.
I beg to differ my good man......how are you reducing a deficit by starting another 1 trillion dollar plus entitlement program? Shouldn't we fix what we have now? Shouldn't Obama demonstrate to the American people that he can tackle the fraud and current deficits first? Demonstrate fiscal responsibility? I would be more apt to support him in his healthcare initiatives if he would just show us that he actually cares about this country and not just himself and how he looks to everyone else.That was the crux of the conversation President Bush attempted to start at the beginning of his first term; a partial privatization of SS. It was to be one sixth I believe, and over time people would've been weaned off the SS program. Forty years ago (when I was 28) I would've traded my SS for a private program, and the part of my money I put away back then has done quite well. By twenty years ago, I was much less willing to go private, with too few years left to grow private funds. But, now, like others, I have now paid in 50+ years, and I regard it as a low yield pension plan, with an expectation collecting until but of continuing working until I die.
Change has to begin with people with long working lives ahead of them, and Bush was bold for even bringing it up. It's a sad state of affairs that we can't have honest and forthright debates about such important issues. Another way of solving such problems is to create something much larger so that the current problems can be folded into the new "thing" with a new paradigm for a solution. For instance the new health-care plan, will no doubt take care of part of the problem by "offing" the old thereby reducing deficits in SS and Medicare, and that, indeed is a part, nay... the best part of the plan.
...and ultimately: FAILURE! The only solution that will work is a free market solution. The small part that the free market is involved in the Part-D prescription drug benefit - twenty five percent - has made that plan come in below CBO cost estimates. And our friends the liberals don't like it, indeed hate it, maily because the drug companies and the insurance companies are getting paid for and making a profit for producing products that in their world "should be free"True...but a if you have 2 programs running billions of dollars in the red and place them into one huge program you still have a net loss. What I'm driving at is we are going to see significant tax hikes across the income spectrum.
...and ultimately: FAILURE! The only solution that will work is a free market solution. The small part that the free market is involved in the Part-D prescription drug benefit - twenty five percent - has made that plan come in below CBO cost estimates. And our friends the liberals don't like it, indeed hate it, maily because the drug companies and the insurance companies are getting paid for and making a profit for producing products that in their world "should be free"True...but a if you have 2 programs running billions of dollars in the red and place them into one huge program you still have a net loss. What I'm driving at is we are going to see significant tax hikes across the income spectrum.
Medicare, although a government run healthcare scheme, is a necessary program. It was designed for the infirmed, extremely poor and senior citizens.
