Republican plan to eliminate Medicare

[Riot]

The Republicans are going ahead with their plan to eliminate Medicare, having seniors pay for most of their own care, and in favor of giving that insurance business to private corporations.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Ryan's proposal would apply to those currently under the age of 55, and for those Americans would convert Medicare into a "premium support" system. Participants from that group would choose from an array of private insurance plans when they reach 65 and become eligible, and the government would pay about the first $15,000 in premiums.

An interesting aside: why are the GOP so angry and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act subsidizing health insurance costs for some to purchase private policies, when it's exactly what they want to do with Medicare for everyone in the country?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Riot

The Republicans are going ahead with their plan to eliminate Medicare, having seniors pay for most of their own care, and in favor of giving that insurance business to private corporations.

From the Wall Street Journal:



An interesting aside: why are the GOP so angry and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act subsidizing health insurance costs for some to purchase private policies, when it's exactly what they want to do with Medicare for everyone in the country?

So what this is saying is that those of us still working will continue to pay for the Medicare for the older folks, but when we turn 65, won't get anything ourselves?

Wow. I wasn't aware I was so selfless.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So what this is saying is that those of us still working will continue to pay for the Medicare for the older folks, but when we turn 65, won't get anything ourselves?

Wow. I wasn't aware I was so selfless.

Thank you Genuine Risk, I appreciate it!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Thank you Genuine Risk, I appreciate it!

And your appreciation will keep me warm when I and the rest of what once was the middle class are eating cat food 20 years from now.

Oh wait, no it won't. We're f*cked. Thanks, GOP voters!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And your appreciation will keep me warm when I and the rest of what once was the middle class are eating cat food 20 years from now.

Oh wait, no it won't. We're f*cked. Thanks, GOP voters!

Dog food is cheaper....if somehow I'm still around, I'll clip coupons for ya!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Dog food is cheaper....if somehow I'm still around, I'll clip coupons for ya!

Thanks, Somer; you're a real pal, but without dental care, I don't see how I'll be able to chew it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

And your appreciation will keep me warm when I and the rest of what once was the middle class are eating cat food ** 10 ** years from now.

Oh wait, no it won't. We're f*cked. Thanks, GOP voters!

FTFY

[Riot]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So what this is saying is that those of us still working will continue to pay for the Medicare for the older folks, but when we turn 65, won't get anything ourselves?

Wow. I wasn't aware I was so selfless.

Don't worry - the Republicans are making sure that the insurance companies will get new business from this!

April 4, 2011, 8:21 am
Paul Krugman- NYT
Privatizing Medicare

So they’re really going to propose it.

More when we have some details. But two key points:

1. Privatizing and voucherizing Medicare does nothing whatsoever to control costs. We’ve seen that from the sorry history of Medicare Advantage. I’m sure that the Republicans will claim savings — but those savings will come entirely from limiting the vouchers to below the rate of rise in health care costs; in effect, they will come from denying medical care to those who can’t afford to top up their premiums.

Oh, and for all those older Americans who voted GOP last year because those nasty Democrats were going to cut Medicare, I have just one word: suckers!

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

So what this is saying is that those of us still working will continue to pay for the Medicare for the older folks, but when we turn 65, won't get anything ourselves?

Wow. I wasn't aware I was so selfless.

You realize that's how the end stages of every Ponzi scheme goes, right?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You realize that's how the end stages of every Ponzi scheme goes, right?

Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme. That's a right-wing propaganda point. Kind of like their one from this past election season about how the Democrats all voted to cut $500 billion from Medicare.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme.

Sure it is.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is, for all intents and purposes, a duck.

It was mathematically doomed to fail from the moment it was started. That's what makes it a Ponzi scheme. I'd say that if it was a Republican idea too. It's just a BAD idea. I'm not calling it a Ponzi scheme for any political motives.

I'm angry that I'm being forced to support a program that is doomed to fail, most likely before I get a penny. Even if it continues, I lose money that I worked for. It's a federally mandated absurity. I'd rather put that same amount of money toward another retirement fund that will actually yield a gain.

The program is a loser. Note the NEGATIVE lifetime "benefits" shown in the graph below. Wake up. It's time to kill this monstrous leech.


If they said tomorrow that I could opt out so long as I didn't just keep that money as net pay to spend, but that I had to select an investment program, I'd be all for it.

[geeker2]

The Government can't trust you with your own money - you'll shoot your eye out

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Sure it is.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is, for all intents and purposes, a duck..

Baloney. No Ponzi scheme here. The reality is that Social Security is one of the most successful programs in the world. It has never failed to pay it's benefits. Never. Doomed to fail? LOL - It's solvent easily until 2037, and then can still pay out 78% of current benefits if nothing at all is done.

Raise the cap from $108,000 to $250,000, and it's financed easily, for the next century, and benefits can even be increased. That's what we should be doing, as a first-world country that cares about it's citizens. That's why we started social security as a fail-safe fallback, and why we need to continue it. In America, we don't want our elderly to live in poverty. I'd hope we still had too much pride for that, as a country. We stopped that the last century. One of the few things we've done right for ourselves.

I don't understand people that want that social situation to return. The "every man for himself, no I won't help you and you can't help me" crowd of societal living in this great country. We have enough homeless among those without medical (psychiatric) care and among our military veterans. We need MORE help for our citizens - not throwing millions of elderly out on the streets to die of starvation.

That's crazy!

BTW, if you had your money in "an investment program", you'd have lost 1/3 of your retirement funds during the past 8 years. Social Security funds are invested in a far more safe manner. You are supposed to be doing that (investing on your own) anyway - not depending upon Social Security for your sole retirement income.

PS - can you give the webpage where you copied your chart from? I'd like to read the accompanying text. It doesn't seem to match other analysis I've seen of SS benefits paid out (that most people get out far more than they put in) If that chart was true, I think we'd be swimming in extra money and Social Security would be flush beyond belief - if it were true that most people take or will take out far less than they put in (which is what you say that chart is saying)