Republican plan to eliminate Medicare

This is a no-win situation. Cuts need to be made but how severe? You can't get rid of medicare completely. It would be akin to the government putting crack cocaine in the ghetto and then removing it in 10 years.


The young working class of this country are basically paying for their parents and grandparents to live longer. Well with longer life comes expense. Most of us love our elders. We love them too much. They're killing us.

[Indian Charlie]

One could always take responsibility for their health, stop eating ****, stop taking meds and break away from our health care system entirely (except for traumas).

You know, kinda like how the human race used to exist until the last 75 years.

And don't give me that crap about how life expectancy has gone up due to drugs, vaccines, etc.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

One could always take responsibility for their health, stop eating ****, stop taking meds and break away from our health care system entirely (except for traumas).

Nobody can "break away from the healthcare system entirely", because wellness care and disease prevention are huge and important components which increase with age in the population.

That is, they are in other first-world countries where complete, real healthcare is affordable by the majority of the population. Not the US, of course, where we only put out healthcare fires, and rather inefficiently and expensively, for only some and not all.

Guesstimates...

Part A&B once you're paid in and not making over like 100k (I believe) the part B premium is $115/month 80% coverage...Medicare Supplement to cover the other 20% say worst cast $250/month.

If you told me, outside of prescription coverage, that I could get 100% paid-for health coverage for $365 a month I would do f.ucking cartwheels naked in the town square and jizz all over the war memorial each month.

No wonder why Medicare is broke.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Guesstimates...

Part A&B once you're paid in and not making over like 100k (I believe) the part B premium is $115/month 80% coverage...Medicare Supplement to cover the other 20% say worst cast $250/month.

If you told me, outside of prescription coverage, that I could get 100% paid-for health coverage for $365 a month I would do f.ucking cartwheels naked in the town square and jizz all over the war memorial each month.

No wonder why Medicare is broke.

But Coach, you aren't retired with a fixed income of $1061 a month either.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

But Coach, you aren't retired with a fixed income of $1061 a month either.

nobody should retire if all they have to fall back on is Social Security. Their own fault.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

nobody should retire if all they have to fall back on is Social Security. Their own fault.

It's my fault because I got sick and was forced into early retirement? Believe me, I'd work if I could. and since I'm only 64, I get no insurance, meds and dr visits come out of my pocket. I'm not complaining, got it better than lots of folks but fact is not everything in life goes as one expects!

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

It's my fault because I got sick and was forced into early retirement? Believe me, I'd work if I could. and since I'm only 64, I get no insurance, meds and dr visits come out of my pocket. I'm not complaining, got it better than lots of folks but fact is not everything in life goes as one expects!

being handicapped is different than choosing to retire. I'm all for supporting handicapped people who cant work.

But people who choose to retire with no money saved to plan for it, I dont have too much sympathy for.

[jms62]

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=U...urce=undefined

Hmmm. How much money did it take from Insurance lobbyists to buy the criminals (er politicos) that thought of this idea.

Originally Posted by jms62

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=UNH+Interactive#chart6:symbol=unh;range= 2y;indicator=sma(20,50,200)+volume+macd;charttype= candlestick;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=1;logscale=on; source=undefined

Hmmm. How much money did it take from Insurance lobbyists to buy the criminals (er politicos) that thought of this idea.

If you really want to be angry look at how the pharmaceutical companies made out on Dubya's MMA.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by jms62

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=U...urce=undefined

Hmmm. How much money did it take from Insurance lobbyists to buy the criminals (er politicos) that thought of this idea.

I f-ing hate United Health Care.

Hmm I wonder why their stock is so high? Maybe because they significantly raised all their deductables so they have to pay out much less money?

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

It's my fault because I got sick and was forced into early retirement? Believe me, I'd work if I could. and since I'm only 64, I get no insurance, meds and dr visits come out of my pocket. I'm not complaining, got it better than lots of folks but fact is not everything in life goes as one expects!

Somer: you should look into SSDI! I did and am drawing enough to help out alot.......before that I was at the poverty level. I used Binder and Binder.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Somer: you should look into SSDI! I did and am drawing enough to help out alot.......before that I was at the poverty level. I used Binder and Binder.

Timm, I looked pretty much at everything. If I get sick and the doctor puts me in the hospital (which happened dec 09), Medical Asst kicks in and pays most of the hospital bills, but otherwise, they say I make too much ($1061 a month is too much). I got IHEAP to help with heating bills and $16 a month in food stamps but otherwise nada. Like I said, I'm not complaining, other folks are far worse off, but I'm not driving around in a new caddy like some seem to think.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

Somer: you should look into SSDI! I did and am drawing enough to help out alot.......before that I was at the poverty level. I used Binder and Binder.

my head just exploded.

i feel the way you would if you found out my dad was a pastor and paid all my bills. and i let him. while maintaing my staunch non-theist beliefs.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

nobody should retire if all they have to fall back on is Social Security. Their own fault.

That is of course a realistic assessment, but shame on the government too with all their marketing of a near worthless retirement program. Well, they would say it is not a retirement program -- so then it's a supplement with decreasing value year after year. I'm only in my early 40's so I am peeved at being forced to pay into something that either won't be there at all in 30 years or will be about enough to buy one cup of coffee a week.

Everybody should save for their own retirement and keep their hands on their own money -- not the neighbor's next door.

Originally Posted by somerfrost

But Coach, you aren't retired with a fixed income of $1061 a month either.

Well if you're only drawing that much then you should have some sort of subsidy for prescriptions and, in certain cases, your part b premium subsidized as well.

I have an uncle who draws Low-income subsidy and all he pays are $2 for generics and $6 for name-brand drugs. Plus his part b premium is paid for and all hospital bills written off.

It's crazy.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

This is a no-win situation. Cuts need to be made but how severe? You can't get rid of medicare completely. It would be akin to the government putting crack cocaine in the ghetto and then removing it in 10 years.

Or, we could open up Medicare to everyone in the country. Let everyone buy in. The addition of 100 million healthy young people into the program would lower the costs for everyone, and increase the benefits.

Originally Posted by Riot

Or, we could open up Medicare to everyone in the country. Let everyone buy in. The addition of 100 million healthy young people into the program would lower the costs for everyone, and increase the benefits.

I'd like to see some statistics on that pipe dream. The way Medicare is now it will only increase the abuse and cost.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

I'd like to see some statistics on that pipe dream. The way Medicare is now it will only increase the abuse and cost.

Stats were discussed prior at the start of the healthcare debate in 2009. I agree, in this country owned by corporations, likely a pipe dream.

There is no way our current government would put the ability of all citizens to purchase affordable health insurance above the profits of private insurance companies. That was clearly the vote our reps made in 2010, can't see it happening now.

[Riot]

Dean Baker
Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

It's Time for Representative Ryan to Man Up
Posted: 04/ 4/11 11:04 AM ET

Congressman Paul Ryan is the new darling of both the Republican Party and the major media outlets. He has put forward bold plans for dismantling Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Congressman Ryan is prepared to tell tens of millions of workers that they can no longer count on a secure retirement and decent health care in their old age. In Washington policy circles, this passes for courage.

Outside of Washington, people have a different conception of bravery. After all, over the last three decades the policies crafted in Washington have led to the most massive upward redistribution in the history of the world. The richest 1 percent of the population has seen is share of national income increase by close to 10 percentage points. This comes to $1.5 trillion a year, or as Representative Ryan might say, $90 trillion over the next 75 years. That's almost $300,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.

This upward redistribution creates the real possibility that many of our children will be poorer than we are. If Representative Ryan and his followers really cared about future generations, then we might expect him to push for policies that reverse some of this upward redistribution.

For example, we could break up the large banks (e.g. Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan) that operate with implicit government protection. This allows them to borrow money at below market interest rates and undercut their smaller competitors. By my calculations, the size of this subsidy to the largest banks is close to $35 billion a year, almost half the size of the long-term Social Security shortfall that concerns Mr. Ryan so much. If Mr. Ryan could man up a little, maybe he would have the courage to tell the big Wall Street banks that they will have to compete in a free market without this subsidy from the government.

It's not only the big banks that make Representative Ryan cower. He's also scared of the pharmaceutical industry. As a result of government-enforced patent monopolies, we spend close to $300 billion a year on drugs that would cost us around $30 billion a year. The potential savings of $270 billion a year is about three times the size of the projected Social Security shortfall.

Representative Ryan is a big fan of Medicare vouchers, however his voucher system does nothing to address our broken health care system while virtually guaranteeing that most seniors will not be able to afford decent health care. How about a voucher system that gives Medicare beneficiaries the option to buy into the more efficient health care systems in Europe and Canada, with the taxpayer and beneficiary splitting the savings? Well, that one could hurt profits of the insurance industry and major health care providers, so Mr. Ryan is against it.

We also could have freer trade in physicians' services. If we paid the same wages to our doctors as countries in Europe and Canada, it would save us close to $90 billion a year. While our trade pacts ensure that our manufacturing workers have to compete with the lowest paid workers anywhere in the world, our doctors are still largely protected. If autoworkers enjoyed the same protection as doctors, they would all make $150,000 a year and we would still be buying all our cars from GM, Ford and Chrysler. But the doctors' lobbies are powerful, so Mr. Ryan is not interested in this one.

How about reining in the excess pay of top executives at U.S. corporations? Our top executives not only get paid far more than ordinary workers, they also get paid far more than top executives at large successful corporations in Europe and Japan. The government sets the rules for corporate governance just like it sets the rules for union governance. While Mr. Ryan's friends have been anxious to use the heavy hand of government to weaken the power of unions to push on behalf of workers, they become timid when it comes to preventing corporate abuses. Suppose that the compensation of top executives had to be approved at regular intervals by shareholders, where only shares directly voted counted. (This means that mutual fund managers could not support big pay packages for their CEO friends in the name of the people for whom they are investing.)

How about reducing military spending to the same share of GDP as it was in 2000? The savings of 1.6 percent of GDP (at $240 billion a year) is more than two and a half the size of the projected long-term Social Security shortfall. But this would hurt the defense industry, so again Mr. Ryan is not interested.

The basic economic reality is very simple and everyone in Washington knows it. There is no way that future generations of workers will be poorer than the current one due to benefits like Social Security and Medicare. They could end up poorer if we continue to see the benefits of growth shifted to the top. The latter is the result of the corruption of politics in Washington. And at the moment, Mr. Ryan is the poster boy for that corruption. If he gets his way, your children and grandchildren can count on a very bleak future.