Do you feel we should end Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid?

[Greenbeard]

And more and more doctors are getting out of the medicare business.

Access for Medicare beneficiaries remains comparable to that experienced by the privately insured pre-Medicare population of 55-64-year olds (and satisfaction remains higher for Medicare enrollees).

 

[WillowTree]

HealtCare for EVERYONE won't work unless EVERYONE pays FEDERAL INCOME TAXEs.

Wow. I mean ... wow.

Damn, you are uninformed.

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fifty percent of Americans pay zero FEDERAL INCOME tax. so medicare for all won't work until EVERYONE pays federal income tax. WOW.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"Saving" it by no longer allowing seniors to enroll in Medicare is ending it. Telling them that instead of enrolling in Medicare they need to look for an insurance plan from Aetna or Blue Cross is ending Medicare.

Medicare is a federal health insurance plan for seniors. If you shut it down and tell seniors we'll give you a coupon for an Anthem plan instead, you've indeed ended Medicare.

it does not "end" Medicare.....nobody goes without coverage......but the plan does cap it at GDP +.5%......so if costs rise then seniors would have to chip in more on their premiums....

the revised Path To Prosperity (ptp2) even allows seniors to remain on traditional Medicare...

makes a whole lot more sense than Obamacare which will BANKRUPT the country.....and totally screw the seniors.....

"If" ? Don't you mean "when" ?

The GOP has no plan for controlling costs. They will go up. In fact, projections for the Ryan Plan are that within 15 years or so, retirees will be using their voucher plus their entire SS check just to afford insurance.

Yeah. Feel the compassion.

so you think bankrupting the country and medicare is the "compassionate" approach......?

wakeup stupid....the GOP plan aka the Path To Prosperity Ryan plan....IS a GOP plan for controlling costs.....

here's another picture to make it simple for you....

 

[Steelplate]

Total lie.

They have all the access they want...Nobody is physically preventing anyone from getting anything....They merely have to pay for services rendered.

A lot of this would go away if the pimps for socialized medical services would just admit that they're total cheapskates.

"They just have to pay for services rendered." Oh, that's all.

Okay, so we're going to pretend that millions of Americans don't avoid getting preventive and diagnostic services done because they can't afford it. We're going to ignorethat many people can't get health insurance because they can't afford it, can't pass underwriting or both. We're going to pretend that these people can just write a check for services rendered.

We're also going to ignore the fact that the diseases and conditions that many people have could have been treated much more cost-effectively if they had been caught earlier if those people could have had access to preventive and diagnostic services.

You're goddamn right I'm a cheapskate. I'm sick and tired of paying vastly inflated health care premiums and costs, inflated due to the fact that I'm paying for other people's treatment. Inflated due to the fact that so many people can't afford preventive and diagnostic services and end up costing system and me far more than they should.

If you want to keep chanting "socialism", quoting Rush and paying a shitload more than you should be for health care, that's your call. I'm a cheapskate, and I think this simple-minded lunacy.

.

The people cant afford it.......................So we as a collective must steal from others to pay for it.

Well isnt that damn impressive. We need an affordable care act.............


Oh wait!!!! One that actually makes it affordable............

yeah, **** it....let 'em die...guess Grayson was right(this goes out to Mr."take a fuckin' pill" too).

go **** yourselves you selfish dickheads.

 

[Steelplate]

it does not "end" Medicare.....nobody goes without coverage......but the plan does cap it at GDP +.5%......so if costs rise then seniors would have to chip in more on their premiums....

the revised Path To Prosperity (ptp2) even allows seniors to remain on traditional Medicare...

makes a whole lot more sense than Obamacare which will BANKRUPT the country.....and totally screw the seniors.....

"If" ? Don't you mean "when" ?

The GOP has no plan for controlling costs. They will go up. In fact, projections for the Ryan Plan are that within 15 years or so, retirees will be using their voucher plus their entire SS check just to afford insurance.

Yeah. Feel the compassion.

so you think bankrupting the country and medicare is the "compassionate" approach......?

wakeup stupid....the GOP plan aka the Path To Prosperity Ryan plan....IS a GOP plan for controlling costs.....

here's another picture to make it simple for you....

where do you get your hack graphs? Freedomworks? Heritage Foundation? The Blaze?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

"If" ? Don't you mean "when" ?

The GOP has no plan for controlling costs. They will go up. In fact, projections for the Ryan Plan are that within 15 years or so, retirees will be using their voucher plus their entire SS check just to afford insurance.

Yeah. Feel the compassion.

so you think bankrupting the country and medicare is the "compassionate" approach......?

wakeup stupid....the GOP plan aka the Path To Prosperity Ryan plan....IS a GOP plan for controlling costs.....

here's another picture to make it simple for you....

where do you get your hack graphs? Freedomworks? Heritage Foundation? The Blaze?

read the bottom of the graph....where it says Source: OMB/CBO....

 

[DontBeStupid]

I addressed your concern.

Right. With this little gem.

You are responsible for you, and you have no right to impose on others to take care of you.

But, you see, you didn't address my concern. Because if a generation of retirees get their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash, they will either retire with no money (not good for the economy) or they won't retire until later, which will keep younger workers from getting jobs (not good for the economy).

Again: You are responsible for you. Whatever choices you may have made, and whatever the results of those choices, they were -your- choices. If your choices led you to retiring later or with less money, the oly person responsible for that is you, and you have no right to expect others to make up for that.

And so, rather than force -other- people into a condition of involuntary servitude to make up for poor choices, we hold people responsible for those choices and force them to mke do with the results of those choices the best that they can.

Now, you -always- have the option to give to charity to help others - but that's YOUR choice.

Ok. You're clearly very, very confused. So let me break it down more.

Assume SS goes away. People have their 401ks, IRAs and Pensions, all of which invest in the stock market. The market crashes, like in 2008, and everyone loses 50% of their retirement account, like in 2008.

Are those people responsible for their retirement decisions? Yes. Absolutely. We all agree on this. No one but you seems to be arguing that.

Now that that is cleared up, what will these people do? They have two options. 1) Retire poor, or 2) Wait to retire. Again, whatever decision they make they are responsible for, no one is disagreeing on that.

Both options are terrible for our economy. Option 1 results in a generation of retirees with very weak purchasing power, which is not good. Option 2 results in workers not retiring and therefore not opening jobs up for younger workers.

Ok. Now that you know what we're talking about, here comes the question.

How should the Government and the Country handle this hit on our economy?

Wait .. wait ... remember, no one is arguing responsibility. Just a practical matter of how do we handle the hit to our economy.

Good luck.

 

[DontBeStupid]

HealtCare for EVERYONE won't work unless EVERYONE pays FEDERAL INCOME TAXEs.

Wow. I mean ... wow.

Damn, you are uninformed.

Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fifty percent of Americans pay zero FEDERAL INCOME tax. so medicare for all won't work until EVERYONE pays federal income tax. WOW.

(This should be good)

Please explain how everyone paying income taxes at the federal level affects Medicare.

 

[WillowTree]

Right. With this little gem.


But, you see, you didn't address my concern. Because if a generation of retirees get their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash, they will either retire with no money (not good for the economy) or they won't retire until later, which will keep younger workers from getting jobs (not good for the economy).

Again: You are responsible for you. Whatever choices you may have made, and whatever the results of those choices, they were -your- choices. If your choices led you to retiring later or with less money, the oly person responsible for that is you, and you have no right to expect others to make up for that.

And so, rather than force -other- people into a condition of involuntary servitude to make up for poor choices, we hold people responsible for those choices and force them to mke do with the results of those choices the best that they can.

Now, you -always- have the option to give to charity to help others - but that's YOUR choice.

Ok. You're clearly very, very confused. So let me break it down more.

Assume SS goes away. People have their 401ks, IRAs and Pensions, all of which invest in the stock market. The market crashes, like in 2008, and everyone loses 50% of their retirement account, like in 2008.

Are those people responsible for their retirement decisions? Yes. Absolutely. We all agree on this. No one but you seems to be arguing that.

Now that that is cleared up, what will these people do? They have two options. 1) Retire poor, or 2) Wait to retire. Again, whatever decision they make they are responsible for, no one is disagreeing on that.

Both options are terrible for our economy. Option 1 results in a generation of retirees with very weak purchasing power, which is not good. Option 2 results in workers not retiring and therefore not opening jobs up for younger workers.

Ok. Now that you know what we're talking about, here comes the question.

How should the Government and the Country handle this hit on our economy?

Wait .. wait ... remember, no one is arguing responsibility. Just a practical matter of how do we handle the hit to our economy.

Good luck.

obummer stole 500 billion dollars from medicare,, so cry us a ******* river whydonchya? what good does it do to put money into the system for 40 years if obummmer is going to steal it? how is that bit of compassion working for ya?

 

[Listening]

Right. With this little gem.


But, you see, you didn't address my concern. Because if a generation of retirees get their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash, they will either retire with no money (not good for the economy) or they won't retire until later, which will keep younger workers from getting jobs (not good for the economy).

Again: You are responsible for you. Whatever choices you may have made, and whatever the results of those choices, they were -your- choices. If your choices led you to retiring later or with less money, the oly person responsible for that is you, and you have no right to expect others to make up for that.

And so, rather than force -other- people into a condition of involuntary servitude to make up for poor choices, we hold people responsible for those choices and force them to mke do with the results of those choices the best that they can.

Now, you -always- have the option to give to charity to help others - but that's YOUR choice.

Ok. You're clearly very, very confused. So let me break it down more.

Assume SS goes away. People have their 401ks, IRAs and Pensions, all of which invest in the stock market. The market crashes, like in 2008, and everyone loses 50% of their retirement account, like in 2008.

Are those people responsible for their retirement decisions? Yes. Absolutely. We all agree on this. No one but you seems to be arguing that.

Now that that is cleared up, what will these people do? They have two options. 1) Retire poor, or 2) Wait to retire. Again, whatever decision they make they are responsible for, no one is disagreeing on that.

Both options are terrible for our economy. Option 1 results in a generation of retirees with very weak purchasing power, which is not good. Option 2 results in workers not retiring and therefore not opening jobs up for younger workers.

Ok. Now that you know what we're talking about, here comes the question.

How should the Government and the Country handle this hit on our economy?

Wait .. wait ... remember, no one is arguing responsibility. Just a practical matter of how do we handle the hit to our economy.

Good luck.

Most reformists don't advocate putting S.S. in the market.

It should be handled like banking, but it can be assumed that housing (absent a huge mess like before...and even then it is recovering) and T-Bills would do O.K.

That would be for a tier one (base level). That means it's your money, but your options are very limited.

Tier two can be through the government or on your own. That would be your 401K etc.

While I am loathe to have the fed doing this, I would be willing to pass a constitutional amendment to allow them to run S.S. and I would suggest the two tier approach.

 

[Listening]

And more and more doctors are getting out of the medicare business.

Access for Medicare beneficiaries remains comparable to that experienced by the privately insured pre-Medicare population of 55-64-year olds (and satisfaction remains higher for Medicare enrollees).

Uh, you made the comment that costs were lower than ever. I explained why.

You can quote all you want about some survey, but that is all going to be in flux. That certainly isn't the case in Phoenix (or wasn't).

 

[Listening]

When people say S.S. has to be reformed, just what do they mean ?

And it seems everyone agrees that Medicare costs are going to go through the roof.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Right. With this little gem.


But, you see, you didn't address my concern. Because if a generation of retirees get their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash, they will either retire with no money (not good for the economy) or they won't retire until later, which will keep younger workers from getting jobs (not good for the economy).

Again: You are responsible for you. Whatever choices you may have made, and whatever the results of those choices, they were -your- choices. If your choices led you to retiring later or with less money, the oly person responsible for that is you, and you have no right to expect others to make up for that.

And so, rather than force -other- people into a condition of involuntary servitude to make up for poor choices, we hold people responsible for those choices and force them to mke do with the results of those choices the best that they can.

Now, you -always- have the option to give to charity to help others - but that's YOUR choice.

Ok. You're clearly very, very confused. So let me break it down more.

Assume SS goes away. People have their 401ks, IRAs and Pensions, all of which invest in the stock market. The market crashes, like in 2008, and everyone loses 50% of their retirement account, like in 2008.

Are those people responsible for their retirement decisions? Yes. Absolutely. We all agree on this. No one but you seems to be arguing that.

Now that that is cleared up, what will these people do? They have two options. 1) Retire poor, or 2) Wait to retire. Again, whatever decision they make they are responsible for, no one is disagreeing on that.

Both options are terrible for our economy. Option 1 results in a generation of retirees with very weak purchasing power, which is not good. Option 2 results in workers not retiring and therefore not opening jobs up for younger workers.

Ok. Now that you know what we're talking about, here comes the question.

How should the Government and the Country handle this hit on our economy?

Wait .. wait ... remember, no one is arguing responsibility. Just a practical matter of how do we handle the hit to our economy.

Good luck.

"stock market hit"....? you really mean Obama's disaster plan for our economy.....

...after looking at the above chart where Obama is taking us right over the economic cliff in the very near future a "responsible" person would get mostly out of stocks and into something more solid....

 

[Greenbeard]

And more and more doctors are getting out of the medicare business.

Access for Medicare beneficiaries remains comparable to that experienced by the privately insured pre-Medicare population of 55-64-year olds (and satisfaction remains higher for Medicare enrollees).

Uh, you made the comment that costs were lower than ever. I explained why.

Indeed, by suggesting that the floor has dropped out for beneficiary access. Amazingly that's false, as MedPAC tracks access for both Medicare and pre-Medicare populations every year. Access for Medicare beneficiaries remains comparable to what privately insured populations of older folks experience.

You don't need to end Medicare to save it.

 

[Listening]

Access for Medicare beneficiaries remains comparable to that experienced by the privately insured pre-Medicare population of 55-64-year olds (and satisfaction remains higher for Medicare enrollees).

Uh, you made the comment that costs were lower than ever. I explained why.

Indeed, by suggesting that the floor has dropped out for beneficiary access. Amazingly that's false, as MedPAC tracks access for both Medicare and pre-Medicare populations every year. Access for Medicare beneficiaries remains comparable to what privately insured populations of older folks experience.

You don't need to end Medicare to save it.

No, what I said was that reimbursements are at an all time low which is why doctors (and the Mayo) are bailing.

That effect of that has not registered, but I hear people talk about it all the time.

What is most significant is the number of pre-meds I know who are now ex pre-meds based on recommendations from doctors.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Right. With this little gem.


But, you see, you didn't address my concern. Because if a generation of retirees get their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash, they will either retire with no money (not good for the economy) or they won't retire until later, which will keep younger workers from getting jobs (not good for the economy).

Again: You are responsible for you. Whatever choices you may have made, and whatever the results of those choices, they were -your- choices. If your choices led you to retiring later or with less money, the oly person responsible for that is you, and you have no right to expect others to make up for that.

And so, rather than force -other- people into a condition of involuntary servitude to make up for poor choices, we hold people responsible for those choices and force them to mke do with the results of those choices the best that they can.

Now, you -always- have the option to give to charity to help others - but that's YOUR choice.

Ok. You're clearly very, very confused. So let me break it down more.

Not in the slightest.

Assume SS goes away. People have their 401ks, IRAs and Pensions, all of which invest in the stock market. The market crashes, like in 2008, and everyone loses 50% of their retirement account, like in 2008.

Are those people responsible for their retirement decisions? Yes. Absolutely. We all agree on this. No one but you seems to be arguing that.

Well then, there you have it. They are responsible for their decisions.
It is then up to them to do the best thay they can for themselves, given the resources their choices have left them with.

How should the Government and the Country handle this hit on our economy?

Not sure why or how you don;t already know my answer, given how clear I have been on my position.
Nothing.

 

[Greenbeard]

That effect of that has not registered, but I hear people talk about it all the time.

The effect "has not registered" but this hypothetical future effect is your explanation for why Medicare spending growth has fallen substantially over the past 2+ years? Is there a time portal involved here?

 

[DontBeStupid]

How should the Government and the Country handle this hit on our economy?

Not sure why or how you don;t already know my answer, given how clear I have been on my position.
Nothing.

Since you didn't answer the question until now, there was no way of me knowing for certain that you don't give two shits about the economy, the country or anyone who might retire at any time in the future.

But now I know. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[MikeK]

Do you feel we should end Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid?

Yes or no?

If you say yes, then what happens to the people who depend on it? If you say no, then do you disagree with your leaders and if you do, then why you support them?

I say no...
I say we should find a way to pay for them.
The clock is ticking on these programs and as they are now we will have more people
withdrawing on these programs then paying in.

The left rather then try to fix these programs would rather bury their heads in the sand
and tell lies about the republicans who are trying to fix them.

Yours is a sensible observation and I fully agree.

Social Security is neither a giveaway nor an "entitlement" program. I am collecting Social Security but my employers and I paid into the program all my working life. If I live long enough I might receive more than was contributed but there are many who contribute for many years and die before age 62, therefore never collecting a penny from the fund.

One way to increase input to the Social Security fund is to eliminate the contribution cap. Another is to impose a means test based on one's net worth. In my case my monthly disbursement would be reduced by a hundred or two which wouldn't hurt me at all. And some retirees are so well off they wouldn't need any disbursement from the program at all.

The cost of Medicare for all could be greatly relieved by eliminating the medical bureaucracy and opening walk-in clinics staffed by former military medics, EMTs, and nurse practicioners who could effectively deal with the vast majority of Emergency Room cases and other minor medical complaints that presently impose on a physician's time. The main objective should be getting rid of the medical insurance corporations.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

That effect of that has not registered, but I hear people talk about it all the time.

The effect "has not registered" but this hypothetical future effect is your explanation for why Medicare spending growth has fallen substantially over the past 2+ years? Is there a time portal involved here?

aren't you talking about excess spending growth...? that has decreased over the years due to various payment reforms....


83% of doctors are considering hanging up their stethoscopes because there will be a shortage of doctors due to the expansion of medicaid and if most of the patients have government plans they will not get paid very much and will have to jump through tons of hoops because there will be so many bureaucrats and rules between the doctor and the patient....

The myth of Obamacare, The DPMA found that many doctors do not believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will lead to better access to medical care for the majority of Americans. How will doctors make a living if the majority percentage of their patients have low paying Medicare and especially Medicaid insurance?

“Doctors clearly understand what Washington does not — that a piece of paper that says you are ‘covered’ by insurance or ‘enrolled’ in Medicare or Medicaid does not translate to actual medical care when doctors can’t afford to see patients at the lowball payments, and patients have to jump through government and insurance company bureaucratic hoops,” she said.

The Consequences of Obamacare … 83% of Doctors Have Considered Quitting over Obamacare | Scared Monkeys