Why Are Conservatives Such Cowards When It Comes To Social Security & Medicare?

[WorldWatcher]

How is it immoral to raise the retirement age?. Back when Social Security was created people didn’t live as long as we do today.

I would think you’d say it was inhumane to do nothing and watch the program cease to exist.

Social Security History

This appears to be the increased life expectancy based on average life expectancy comparisons. But in actuality this isn't the best comparison to make. Why? Because "Average Life Expectancy" (ALE) includes infant & children mortality rates, and infants & children never paid into social security. So it is true that ALE now is a couple of decades higher than it was in the 1930's. However the greatest impact on that higher average is improvements in ensuring the young even reach adulthood.

A better comparison is to look at the number of months the average individual receives benefits once reaching Full Retirement Age (FRA). When looking at those numbers, the increase isn't 20 years (ALE increase), it's actually about 4-years in terms of benefit month payouts.
.
.
.
.
Current FRA is 67 years old (for those born after 1960) and seniors (as a voting demographic) have the highest rates of voting. So...

#1 Immediately raising the retirement age (to say 70), isn't going to pass because Seniors will not vote for the benefit cut. (And yes, if you reduce the number of years people can draw benefits, that is a cut.)

#2 To have a likelihood of passing the age bump will have to be grandfathered, with the most likely cutoff being age 50 and above being protected from an age increase. Raising the retirement to 70 for those 50 and below, means the system WON'T SEE ANY IMPACT for about 20 years when those people start retiring at a later time. [ (70-50) + 2024 = the year 2044 ] However the SS Trust fund is projected to be exhausted in 2034 which is only 10 years away. Raising the retirement age (with a grandfather clause) won't help the current funding projections.

#3 Savings by increasing the retirement age will be offset, in part, by increases - especially amongst the blue collar/manual labor population as their bodies wear out and they can't work in those fields. So while there will be savings, the increase in older workers getting Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) will reduce the overall budget impact of regular SS.

WW

 

[Dragonlady]

I think you might underestimate the number of people that are actually filing fraudulent disability claims in this country. There are a great many dishonest people.

That's always the excuse for American cruelty: Fraud claims. Republicans are batshit crazy about the notion that someone who isn't entitled to the money, will get it. So much so, that in Florida, they spent over $1 million drug testing welfare recipients, and saved the state $100,000 with their efforts.

Americans spend MORE money making sure that no undeserving poor person gets one nickel more than they're entitled to, while the wealthy skated away with billions in PPP money under Donald Trump. It's insanity. More money is spent on fraud prevention than any other first world nation.

Why are Americans with health insurance subject to huge co=pays???? Insurance companies say it's so they don't "abuse" their insurance, and it gives them "skin in the game". Average health insurance premiums are $12,000 per individual. How much more "skin" do people need to have in the game????

Are the American people really THAT dishonest???? Or maybe it's just the Republicans that are that dishonest and they're projecting their own dishonesty onto the American people?

 

[justoffal]

Why do liberals constantly post incorrect, editorial thread titles that fakely pose a fake “question” as fact and have such fake thread title remain?

It is a foundation of left wing propaganda technique.... they use it so often they don't even recognize it for what it is.
JO

 

[Dagosa]

Biden, and his Inflation Reduction Act he signed into law, will begin gutting some provisions of Medicare Part D in 2025, which will inevitably lead to benefit cuts and higher premiums. Why complain about Republicans when Democrats voted and signed this legislation into law?

Really ? You mean it will cost more money by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices ? Hilarious.

 

[jotathought]

Really ? You mean it will cost more money by allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices ? Hilarious.

That's a different provision of the Inflation Reduction Act. Government is stripping revenue sources from Part D plan providers and payors, which will inevitably increase premium costs and cut benefit offerings .. yes .. so hilarious that it will be passed to the consumer...

 

[Dagosa]

That's a different provision of the Inflation Reduction Act. Government is stripping revenue sources from Part D plan providers and payors, which will inevitably increase premium costs and cut benefit offerings .. yes .. so hilarious that it will be passed to the consumer...

How do you know ? More made up shit ?
Even now, while whining that you don’t want to cut Medicare and SS which has a 2.9 trillion dollar surplus that sits in the general fund, you describe ways to Cut both
. How stupid are you ?

 

[jotathought]

How do you know ? More made up shit ?
Even now, while whining that you don’t want to cut Medicare and SS which has a 2.9 trillion dollar surplus that sits in the general fund, you describe ways to Cut both
. How stupid are you ?

Cutting government subsidies for the private companies that provide Part D will only be passed to the consumer and / or through benefit cuts. Part D providers aren't going to lose money, and with the 6% cap on premium increases .. it leaves limited options. Since you're so smart on the topic, I'm sure you already knew this .. just like your math skills.

Explaining the Prescription Drug Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act​

The law also modifies liability for Medicare Part D plans and drug manufacturers, starting in 2025, and reduces Medicare’s liability for spending above the out-of-pocket cap. Medicare’s share of total costs above the spending cap (“reinsurance”) will decrease from 80% to 20% for brand-name drugs and to 40% for generic drugs. Medicare Part D plans’ share of costs will increase from 15% to 60% for both brands and generics above the cap, and drug manufacturers will be required to provide a 20% price discount on brand-name drugs. The legislation also requires manufacturers to provide a 10% discount on brand-name drugs between the deductible and the annual out-of-pocket spending cap, replacing the 70% price discount in the coverage gap phase under the current benefit design.

The law also provides for an adjustment to the calculation of the base beneficiary premium for 2024 through 2029, limiting premium increases to no more than 6% from the prior year. For 2030, the bill includes a provision to lower the beneficiary share of the cost of standard drug coverage (currently set at 25.5%) to ensure that the premium does not increase by more than 6% from 2029. The legislation also allows Part D enrollees the option of spreading out their out-of-pocket costs over the year rather than face high out-of-pocket costs in any given month.

 

[Dagosa]

Cutting government subsidies for the private companies that provide Part D will only be passed to the consumer and / or through benefit cuts. Part D providers aren't going to lose money, and with the 6% cap on premium increases .. it leaves limited options. Since you're so smart on the topic, I'm sure you already knew this .. just like your math skills.

Explaining the Prescription Drug Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act​

And your drug cost plan was what ? You had two years under Trump to improve things in Medicare and healthcare. You like diabetes victims paying hundreds out of pocket for insulin. Not only are you without policies, you’re without intellect. Got another recession you can depend upon ?

 

[jotathought]

And your drug cost plan was what ? You had two years under Trump to improve things in Medicare and healthcare. You like diabetes victims paying hundreds out of pocket for insulin. Not only are you without policies, you’re without intellect. Got another recession you can depend upon ?

You can take your red herring someplace else .. the point is .. Medicare Part D, offered by private organizations, isn't going to be as rosy as everyone thinks for Medicare PDP and MAPD plans. 6% premium increase caps won't even cover inflation for those private organizations, and they will bridge the gap through other measures -- passed on to Medicare Part D members. Cheers!

 

[Jessica-stormlover]

Because they worked their whole live and paid into it. Why not get what you paid for? Also anyone that is against it is for a life time of wage slavery to the elite. Why the fuck even them would be against such a way to retire and live out the rest of their life in general fiscal safety is a ministry.

 

[Dagosa]

You can take your red herring someplace else .. the point is .. Medicare Part D, offered by private organizations, isn't going to be as rosy as everyone thinks for Medicare PDP and MAPD plans. 6% premium increase caps won't even cover inflation for those private organizations, and they will bridge the gap through other measures -- passed on to Medicare Part D members. Cheers!

Bullshit.
you want to pay three times as much as Canada for the same drugs from American companies. An idiotic idea passed by repugnants to fk Americans

 

[Dagosa]

Cutting government subsidies for the private companies that provide Part D will only be passed to the consumer and / or through benefit cuts. Part D providers aren't going to lose money, and with the 6% cap on premium increases .. it leaves limited options. Since you're so smart on the topic, I'm sure you already knew this .. just like your math skills.

Derp, they are not subsidies. They are inflated retail prices.

 

[jotathought]

Bullshit.
you want to pay three times as much as Canada for the same drugs from American companies. An idiotic idea passed by repugnants to fk Americans

You keep attempting to channel what I'm thinking .. poorly. Think what you want, but the Inflation Reduction Act is removing subsidies that pay private organization to provide Part D benefits. How should private organization handle reduced revenue and caps on premium increases that may not cover inflation increases? Lose money?

 

[jotathought]

Derp, they are not subsidies. They are inflated retail prices.

Not correct ... In current state, private plans use three sources of revenue to finance prescriptions for Medicare Part D beneficiaries: patient out-of-pocket payments, premium payments from plan members and federal government subsidies. The Inflation Reduction Act is gutting the government subsidies and out-of-pocket payments.

 

[Dagosa]

Not correct ... In current state, private plans use three sources of revenue to finance prescriptions for Medicare Part D beneficiaries: patient out-of-pocket payments, premium payments from plan members and federal government subsidies. The Inflation Reduction Act is gutting the government subsidies and out-of-pocket payments.

The gov will continue to subsidize medical research. Don’t be foolish.

 

[jotathought]

The gov will continue to subsidize medical research. Don’t be foolish.

You obviously don't understand how Medicare Part D works or is funded.

 

[Dagosa]

You obviously don't understand how Medicare Part D works or is funded.

Really ? Tell us all you know. I’ve got a second.

 

[jotathought]

Really ? Tell us all you know. I’ve got a second.

I've already done that .. 3 times .. and I'm done explaining it and how the Biden Inflation Reduction Act will impact it. Cheers!

 

[Dagosa]

It is a foundation of left wing propaganda technique.... they use it so often they don't even recognize it for what it is.
JO

Go ahead, produce one lie. Climate change, election denial and economic ineptitude. There are three biggies right off the bat that repugnants are behind the 8 ball.

 

[Dagosa]

I've already done that .. 3 times .. and I'm done explaining it and how the Biden Inflation Reduction Act will impact it. Cheers!

No you haven’t; you produced an opinion piece from a conservative rag, not the CBO.