Tax cuts for the rich, but no medicare for your grandparents. http://elections.americablog.com/20...campaign=Feed:+Americablog+(AMERICAblog+News) It's the Romney way.
The seniors take more out than they put in. It's socialized medicine gone wild. When spending is greater than taxes collected, it eventually ends up insolvent anyway.
As opposed to Wall Street Gone Wild or Middle East Land Wars Gone Wild, but the Banking industry and military industrial complex have more power and money than old poor people so the GOP will just let the elderly get sick and die. The American people need to wake up and realize that the Republican party is the real enemy of the state. Fortunately, most already have.
Because I always decry it when the GOP takes a quote out of context*, I'm going to decry it here. Walsh was responding to an accusation that the Ryan budget would end Medicare. Walsh said, basically (in paraphrase) "if we don't end Medicare in its present form, it will end itself." And really and truly, that is correct. He was saying what their position has always been, and what Obama's has been in the ACA: you have to change Medicare because it is eating a larger and larger part of the federal budget. Change = "end as we know it," in the context of the question. This is just like when John Stewart used the language "non-optimal" or whatever, and Obama gets burned for using the language of the question in his answer. Petty and stupid use of an exchange. Sorry, Raven. * = I don't always decry it, because that would be so exhausting to keep up with FAUX News and company.
You can say the exact same thing about every government program that exist. History shows us what Republicans mean when they want to "save" something.
No crap... it's called retirement after years of hard labor. They earned it. Without government funding, seniors would mow through their life savings incredibly fast for medical care. We need price controls on services that are greatly in demand. When spending is greater than taxes, you make ADJUSTMENTS. You reign down on service providers that are overbilling and you penalize them. You analyze data and price fix the most used procedures/drugs/services. You don't just have to sit around and wait for something to go insolvent. Is socialized medicine evil to you? Do you feel, as a society, that we are responsible for the well-being of our seniors?
Why do you patently mis-represent something like this? Do you think you are doing a favor to someone somewhere? His idea is to replace the medicare system with a system that, in his opinion, would work better. You do know that he has a mother who is on medicare right now? Is he pulling the rug out from underneath her, too?
There is going to be no system that works that is why medicare was created. Old people are most likely going to get sick and take out more than they put in. That is why insurance companies wouldn't touch them without charging crazy high premimums and why we have medicare
This right here. Most of the patients we see who in are in their 60's dread having anything happen to them before their medicare benefits kick in, because the insurances they have prior to it typically will not cover it. However, even Medicare is not all rose petals and sunshine as a number of people these days take out a secondary plan for all the extra costs that are still not covered by Medicare. Lastly, is just an FYI that the entire conversation should be be Medicare AND Medicaid. The reason for that is that a number of the services and costs incurred to treat the elderly are actually paid for by Medicaid. Often times this is costs for rehab facilities, skilled nursing facilities, and home care. However, if Medicaid did not pay for these, most seniors would have to pay for them on their own or have even longer stays in hospitalized settings further driving up the cost of Medicine and the cost of Medicare.
As someone who will probably outlive Social Security and Medicare, I have no problem cutting benefits and raising age ceilings. People today aren't saving enough for what they're 'accustomed to living' right now. I don't know why it's considered humanitarian to bail out deadbeats who knew they had to plan for the future but are counting on the government to 'give them what they're owed'. There are definitely people living in poverty all their life who need a helping hand. I have no problem with the government helping those who have fallen through the cracks. For those who willingly jump into the cracks because a 10-20% sacrifice on current living costs is inconvenient, let them freeze in the cold hard winter. Especially when they're already in the mindset to screw everyone else in order to get what they want.
Why bother saving? The rates banks give are pityingly low, and if you invest (ha!), good luck paying out management fees for deadbeats that return you negative. The entire government+banking system is set up to reward current consumption. If the government were sane, they'd focus on providing credible support for a solid middle class, but that would require tax+spend and some semblance of future planning. Instead, you get a credit-borne economy where the government wins (Current consumption powers the economy so you look good), the bankers win (volume of their s**tty products are way up), and the middle class pays the price and gets the blame.
