• #30
    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

    we could just pick on people who are already struggling.
  • #37
    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.
  • #53
    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.
  • #58
    @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)
  • #64
    @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.
  • R Load more replies

  • #4
    There's already something to "address one of the major sources of Medicare spending: end of life care."

    It's called IPAB (Independent Medicare Advisory Board)
  • #17
    I always preferred the British NICE. It's much more orwellian. "Remember, when it's time to let Grandma go, that's NICE."
  • #26
    @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.
  • #33
    @Zazziness-- And as imperfect as the current system is... there are courts of law to hold insurance companies accountable...


    "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."
  • #34
    @Bobolinsky That was interesting. It also obviously had a partisan slant. I'd love to hear a counterpoint from the opposition.
  • R Load more replies

  • #1
    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?)
  • #5
    Lol... I say the same about SSI. If SSI was the only retirement our politicians got, I bet SSI would be solid as a rock right now.
  • #73
    @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.
  • #81
    @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.
  • #55
    Just take away the Tea Party's Social Security checks & Medicare. Problem solved. They don't care for any of that GUV'MNT socialism anyway, so stop giving it to them. Make them fend for themselves.
  • #9
    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.
  • #56
    Absolutely not. Why is it always those with the least who end up sacrificing the most?

    These rich politicans don't need Medicare. They have Cadillac insurance policies that take care of every hangnail. They can also retire whenever they please and live comfortably without a care in the world.

    So now what do THEY want to do? Screw those of who have worked and paid into this system for years and are looking forward to winding down a little. I'm not rich. I will need my social security and Medicare to go along with my retirement. If these fools keep changing things, they're hoping we'll all die before we get to recoup that which we've paid into.

  • #52
    The other day I heard the flu was expected to be bad this year, although the warnings have certainly lacked the hysteria of previous years. But since we have five grandkids in public school and daycare, we decided flu shots would be a good idea.
    I called our doctor's office to make our apppointments, only to be told they didn't have the flu vacine for our "age group". This office is affiliated with the area's largest teaching hospital, and is a Medicare provider. How can they not have the flu vacine?We will have to go to Walgreen's for the shots and they will not be covered by our insurance. I think there is government rationing behind this move.
    It's a good thing my husband is still working.
  • #71
    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.
  • #101
    @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.
  • #104
    @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.
  • #105
    @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.
  • #7
    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?
  • #12
    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.
  • #18
    @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.
  • #31
    @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.
  • #32
    @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.
  • #40
    @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).
  • R Load more replies

  • #98
    This is the first time I have ever encountered good arguments against raising the age. I'm not sure I'm convinced, but it's making me rethink my position on this. Kudos to AP and to Lisa on this one. Something does have to be done to lower Medicare spending though.
  • #97
    Obama has the death panels to address the issue, something not too many people are talking about. Somewhere in Washington there is a bureaucrat who will be telling your family it is time to pull your plug for cost saving reasons. Hope you are ready...
  • #91
    What is the house hoping these people die before they hit 67 with todays health being what it is i say lower the darn age to 60 ok maybe not lower it but dont raise it what the hell
  • #90
    Why don't we just raise it to 100 years and stop the pretense that it isn't just another way to confiscate money for an entitlement program.
  • #102
    What gives you the idea that Medicare and Social Security are "entitlement" programs? I'm not sure who instigated that idea (other than Rush Limbaugh, perhaps) but from the day I began work I was forced by law to pay into these two programs. Money was taken from my paychecks and put into what is supposed to be a trust from which I would depend on later in life.

    THAT is NOT an entitlement. That is something I have earned. Now, if the government wishes to do away with these programs give me a lump sum of what's owed to me, with interest, and let me be on my way.
  • #103
    @PayThatCEO I agree - Both programs have become political footballs - Their original purpose has been lost among all the noise. If they are going to "take" money from me for a certain purpose they should be required to use it for that purpose. It should not be re-defined anytime the current pols need to make political capital.
  • #77
    Damn it, they need to stop trying to fixing their mistakes at our expense. Congress needs to live with the same laws and programs the rest of us do. And abolish pensions for Congressmen.
  • #75
    Wouldn't it save even more money if we just stopped subsidizing prescription drugs for seniors so they die a little sooner? How about we take all medical subsidies away so millions of people can just die from untreated illnesses...? If you can't afford a doctor or medication, well then you deserve to die because you were too lazy or stupid to plan for sickness and old age! Let 'em all die! Good riddance!
  • #69
    Lawmakers should have to live with the very programs on which they cast their votes. It's easy for politicians to say that raising the medicare age will save the country some money, it has no affect on THEIR health care coverage. Seems like every time I get close to the age where a program or discount become available, someone raises the age. At this rate, I'll be working for a living until the day I die. Oh, wait ... no I won't. Younger generations are already trying to put me out to pasture. So, if I have no income because I can't collect Social Security until I'm 66, what health care plan do I use until I'm old enough for medicare?
  • #63
    No I do not. All this would do is Guarantee seniors would get less of their money they paid the government. And cause them to pay more in.
  • R Load more comments...