105 Comments (view in Forum)

  • !
    I say LAWMAKERS should not have access to free medical service (in office or out of office). I wonder how long it will be before WE, THE PEOPLE storm D.C. and rid the world of that disease called "politician"?(and a few lawyers thrown in the "fire" too wouldn't raise our "carbon footprint" too bad, would it?)
  • !
    @Thegrif Have always wondered just what does make our politicians and federal employees so much better than the folks they are suppose to serve? Lets noy limit it to feds only, need to look at major cities counties.
  • !
    @marine1 marine 1, I have wondered the same thing myself. Like they go through airports no problem, but we get hassled, which for the most part is a pain but ok as long as it keeps us safe. Politicians are excluded and not hassled, like they couldn't be a wak job.
  • !
    @Bobolinsky I don't see stereotyping the GOP as the party of angry old white guys as unreasonable. It was angry old white guy Lindsay Graham that pretty much started the stereotype. And it certainly isn't far off base. Sorry if it, dare I say it, makes you angry.
  • !
    @PNWest-- I understand. People who see everything in terms of skin color and genitalia think that your last statement was entirely reasonable... smh.
  • Load more replies >

  • !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix Since I'm sure you followed the Congressional testimony on private health care insurance, you know, of course, that definitely such panels exist within the private health care system. I don't know why people act like the for-profit health payers haven't deliberately let people die in order to give a better ROI to their investors when there was reams of testimony to show they do.
  • !
    @Zazziness-- And as imperfect as the current system is... there are courts of law to hold insurance companies accountable...

    IPAB?

    "Democrats gave IPAB blanket authority to operate in secret. There is no requirement in the Democrats’ 2,200+ page health care law that requires IPAB to hold public meetings or hearings, consider public input on its proposals, or make its deliberations open to the public."
    http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsi...
  • Load more replies >

  • !
    Most lawmakers have a high salary, excellent health coverage, expense account. Most seniors by the age of 62, especially hard working men have bad health problems by them. r aise the age to 67, you will force seniors to go on ss disability, medicare, welfare , all because of health. lawmakers have no sense of what it is work at hard labor or anything else with health problems. to make them understand, all government workers should be put on the same health plan as an oridinary worker. also have of congressmen/women are millionaires. Let them get in the regualar work force for a while, let them do some hard labor to make a living. You people are not working , using our taxpayer money for the ordinary citzens. wake up to the fact that a lot of people including me was not able to work to the age of 67.
  • !
    What happened to "we're going to respect the commitment we made to people over 56 years old by not changing their Medicare..."

    Oh yeah, those guys lost the election. The winner is sure proving to be a great choice.... anyone want their vote back?
  • !
    The article said that Republicans favor the plan to raise the eligibility age. I'm just curious, how did this become the fault of Obama?
    It hasn't snowed in Chicago for 280 days. Obamas fault? There was 10 inches of snow in northern Wisconsin. Obama's fault? I stubbed my toe. That's Obama's fault also.
  • !
    @mtkopf He is the president right? I mean, when Bush was President, he was held accountable for EVERYTHING, in fact, as President he was so powerful that he is still to blame for stuff that happens. Three years into the next administration and the current president is still blaming him.

    That aside, who created this "Fiscal Cliff?" The Administration who has not passed a budget since inauguration day 2009? The Administration who had control of BOTH houses and the White House for two years?

    I'm don't sitting silent as we cut Axelshaft's boy slack on every failing.

    As for no snow in Chicago and 10 inches in Wisconsin.... We already know it's Global Warming and Al Gore....

    As for you stubbing your toe, you need to sue whoever made what you stubbed you toe on.... Personal Responsibility is gone.... it left a while back, starting when "W" moved out of the White House, maybe it took it with him because I've not seen any sign of it with the current custodian and his family.
  • !
    @Sharpshooter "I mean, when Bush was President, he was held accountable for EVERYTHING..." No. Just the things for which he and the Republicans were responsible. And that was plenty.
  • !
    @Sharpshooter BTW, you cracked me up by complaining no one takes responsibility and then you sought to dodge any Republican responsibility for anything -- something we see a lot of from conservatives, I'm afraid.
  • !
    @Sharpshooter compromise "an agreement or settlement of a dispute reached by both sides making concessions"
    Republicans are willing to raise taxes on the upper class, which they all promised NOT to do. Raising the Medicare eligibility age is a Republican idea. I do not see any logical connection in blaming Obama.
    Further, I actually give credit to whatever Republican that came up with this idea. Everyone knows medicare needs help but nobody is willing to make the tough decisions to fix it. Right or wrong, this is one idea, but at least someone is trying to compromise.
    As for the fiscal cliff, it was NOT created by Obama. It was created by not coming to terms the last debt ceiling crisis in 2011. There wsd a bipartisan deal on the table from the "gangof six" July 21st but it was not considered by House Republicans bc Obama supported it(CNN article 7/21/11).
    As for personal responsibility, did W. ever acknowledge that he was responsible for a terrorist attack, lying about starting 2 wars, and the 2nd worst economic crisis in the history of this country? How about Republican leadership (I use that term loosely) taking responsibility for obstructing ANY type Democratic legislation(use of filibuster 300+ times).
  • Load more replies >

  • !
    No, the age of eligibility for Medicare should not be raised. The recipients are not at fault for the increasing cost of healthcare. The healthcare industry is the source of increasing costs. If an attempt is made by government to save money by denying Medicare to people for an additional 2 years, the healthcare industry will simply raise the costs of Medicare charges in response, to make up for the decrease in their profits.
  • !
    It would be a huge mistake to raise the Medicare age. Essentially, it would shift costs away from the government and onto families already struggling to keep up with health care costs -- for themselves as well as their aging parents. If they do this, it will cause spectacular unanticipated side-effects. SOMEONE has to pay for the care of these folks.
  • !
    Silly idea. Raising the age only excludes younger, healthier beneficiaries, who will then have pressure to postpone retirement in order to keep employer-provided coverage. Younger workers may not find that too appealing.
  • !
    You are short a few zeros. Of course once you get past the thousands, people start losing track. I always try to personalize these numbers - assuming we're talking about $100 billion over 10 years (and we are), it works out to $34 for every man, woman and child per year ($50 per original article). Don't spend it all in one place. Cue laughter - "its a good thing these people aren't in charge of getting our budget in order" - cricket, cricket...

    The actual math -$100 billion divided by 300 million divided by 10 years =$33.33 vs annual deficit of $1 trillion =$3,333 per year (good thing I have schadenfreude)
  • !
    So old folks suffering from chronic diseases will just have to work a little bit longer. There's that conservative compassions for ya. It's a good thing they haven't figured out how to get kids back into the coal mines. I'm sure the little slackers not bringing in any income just drives them nuts.
  • !
    I saw this movie a few months ago called North (I know it was a terrible movie but 150+ channels and nothing good on). Anyway in the movie, when Abe Vigoda (I think) turned a certain age he was put on an iceberg with a TV and recliner then set adrift so as not to be a burden to rest of society.
    Maybe Republicans can use that as a modelfor mMedicare reform, welfare reform, food stamp reform etc.
  • !
    "So old folks suffering from chronic diseases will just have to work a little bit longer." You've just described my life. 60-something, a chronic and incurable disease that is only sometimes debilitating so I don't qualify for disability, but I do pay very high health care premiums (more than $500 per month just for myself, no family included) and I'm looking at having to work at least another five years. If they move that medicare bar out further, I'll have to keep working. Since I've been laid off, I also get to deal with age discrimination in the job market, making it much more difficult to stay employed.
  • !
    @Denizen_Kate I feel ya', Kate. I have RA in my mid-fifties and while I'm self-employed, statistics say most folks with RA won't be working within ten years of the diagnosis. It's something I feel "law of the jungle" conservatives don't account for. They're usually young or at the least spry and they are utterly convinced nothing will ever happen to them that is beyond their control so they're all for erasing a safety nets.
  • !
    @mtkopf I have asked, in past, what conservatives think is going to happen if we cut off aid to old people, or cut off food stamps, or refuse to let medical plans offer birth control and they always come up with really unrealistic replies. "Well, then those folks will stand on their own two feet." No, they won't. A good number of them will fall down and/or starve in the gutter. And they won't do it quietly without inconveniencing anyone while they go.
  • !
    I'm an "old angry white man" who did not vote for Romney, did not vote for either Bush. This old angry white man is sick and tired of both sides blaming the other when both parties are corrupt to the core. Why don't they just do what they want to do. Make Social Security kick in three days after people die? That would just solve everything wouldn't it? Of course not. They'd just deficit spend on something else.
  • !
    Read my reply to Zazziness above, then advise me, please, in your infinite wisdom. What should I do between now and the time I turn 67? And by that time, who is to say they won't have raised the medicare age to 70? I've been working and paying taxes for 45 years. I'm tired. Also, consider the lack of jobs and the number of recent college grads looking for work. If people in my demographic never retire, there are even fewer jobs for the next generation.
  • !
    @Denizen_Kate Your point is well taken. However, I would rather have the age limit raised
    rather than benefits reduced and out-of-pocket expenses increased. Something has to give,
    especially since nobody wants to see a healthy tax increase.
  • !
    @bobrob - I prefer the means testing option to raising the eligibility age. While it seems unfair for someone to have paid into medicare for decades and not be eligible because they now have too much money, it would keep the system in place in much better shape for the rest of us. Then again, I'm not sure I'd like that very much if I fell into the "too well-off to qualify" category. What I would like is for lawmakers to have to live with whatever they decide on for the rest of us.
  • !
    @Denizen_Kate The problem is that the rich have contributed during their working years,
    and should not be penalized because their hard work and smart investments made them wealthy.
    When you take from the rich and give to the poor, the result is a nation of poor. I would
    rather see a tax increase for the rich,while not dismissing the fact that the rich spend, employ, etc. When Carter (I think it was him) placed a 10% boat on all boats over $100,000 the shipping
    industry went bankrupt (the wealthy stopped buying boats), and guess who also took
    the brunt of it and lost their jobs---the workers. When the steel workers went on strike
    and put the steel industry out of business, guess who became unemployed (the fools
    insisted that they had a contract until the very end).
    My point is that we have to be very careful about socking it to the wealthy.
  • !
    Selfish jerks. Heaven forbid we cut programs they profit from, like the farm subsidy bill which favors large farms, the type many of these guys own.(We are lead to believe this type of legislation helps small farmers, wrong)

    How about we
    1. Take away corporate tax loopholes and subsidies,
    2. Increase taxes for the wealthiest people to previous levels,
    3. Reduce military spending (we could stop attacking other countries and work on defending this one),
    4. Demand companies pay the fines when the they hire undocumented workers (illegals are treated inhumanly to maximize profit, plus the laws are already in place, just not used much)
    5. Legalize pot and collect taxes
    6. Tax goods that are manufactured in other countries, especially products of American owned companies, and make it more profitable to produce things here
    7. Stop giving aid to countries that hate us or are politcally irresponsible
    8. Seriously look at the loopholes that allow big companies to not pay their fair share

    OR
    we could just pick on people who are already struggling.
  • !
    I'm good with (1 and 8), 3, 4, 5, and 7. I'd add an item getting rid of tax loopholes across the board in an effort to encourage transparency and remove political meddling. Once we've gotten away from the "everyone needs an accountant and lawyer" tax policy we can talk about item 2. Item 6a. winds up being a tax on the poor and has historically caused economic devestation. Item 6b. "make it more profitable to produce things here" would require a reduction in environmental and business regulations which won't happen here for another 4 years.
  • !
    90% of farming in the USA today is corporate farming. But they don't care about that. I have never even in my lifetime seen poor people blindly support their own demise at the hands of the ultra wealthy like we see today.
  • !
    @jessejaymes Totally true. People with no money and zero knowledge of the stock marget support the privatization of Social Security. States that already receive federal tax money from Mass, Calif and other states fight against things they will never pay for but will benefit from.

    These same states want to withdraw from the union -- our taxes would drop, theirs would increase. In some states it would double! But they would not have to pay for those entitlement programs anymore! Yippe!

    The problem, Republicans use sound bites, Democrats explain everything. There ideas that sound awesome but are horrible. The explanation is boring. Just those damn dems whining again.

    And both groups are....ah...not totally honest.

    (I heard that after a Tea Party meeting, someone was explaining how to get free motorized wheelchair from Medicare)
  • !
    @UnCommonBoston I'll tell you one thing. No one who lost their 401K during the latest round of Stock market thefts supports privatization of social security. But then there is almost zero chance those who so supportive had a 401K to lose.
  • Load more replies >

  • !
    No. The clowns either take away from the young, they can't vote, the disabled because they think they will not notice anything, and finally the seniors the clowns think they either they will not remember or they will pass on before the next election. But you never see them take a pay cut or cut back on experiences in their offices. They need to travel on their own dime not yours or mine. They need the same health care that they stuck us with. Quit sending money over seas. Stop the expences on the banners vacations.
  • !
    @Denizen_Kate

    I work with geriatrics, all of whom prepared for retirement and that is paying off now that they are in need of long term care. Sometimes the rules to the game get changed. I will also toss this out there, I am aware of the fact that I need to make sure I have my ducks in a row for later in life, because starting in my high school years, teachers were telling us that by the time we get to retirement age, that money probably won't be there.
  • !
    No. yrs ago i was told that ss was a program in its own & only for the people that pays into it. REGAN was responsable for congress robbing the ss act & using it for general funds. Lets put it back in a seperate fund & only for the use by the people that pays for it. If congress would have kept thier grubby filthy greedy hands out of it, it would work
  • R Load more comments...