Social Security and Medicare are . . . ENTITLEMENTS???

This is what Obama and Gruber meant when they said that lack of transparency was a huge political advantage that they were able to get away with because of the stupidity of the Democrat voter.

Citing an tax rate decrease designed to increase GDP and, therefore tax revenue, by drawing businesses back into the US, you include everything but the net effect of tax revenue growth on deficits. You're lying like a cheap toupee. McConnell said it would be impossible to reform Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid when a single party has majorities across the government, exactly the opposite of what you said.

I certainly hope someone in government some day has the guts to make Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid sustainable for future generations, which they currently are not.

 

That is the position you are finding yourself in. Success isn't only about luck although luck commonly plays a significant role in it. But personality and mental acuity also play a big role. Many people are just not cut out for managing other people, a business, confronting financial issues, or may have an aversion to anything mathematical (like my wife), or may have any other of a long list of issues that make business ownership and management very difficult or impossible. These are issues that successful people commonly ignore. They prefer to look down on those who cannot do what they have done while seeking recognition for what they did.

A sound, functioning, successful economy like what we had some decades ago is one that finds a place for those who cannot run a business to find financially rewarding participation. In fact such a capitalist economy depends on such people to serve as the workers for businessmen. But the current trend seems to be to disparage those people and blame them for their situation, almost as a justification for neglecting them and leaving them to fall into dire poverty while taking any and all supports from them. They blame the worker rather than blaming the economy that is responsible for the problem. Creating people to hate makes it much easier to leave them to rot in cardboard boxes.

 

The pity here is that so many special interests are in play, so much partisan influence over decisions, that our congress continues to fail to do something really right for the nation on health care.

Personally, I think it's obvious that the costs control the insurance, not the other way around- and the costs of healthcare are off the charts for a lot of reasons besides things necessary to it's quality. You can't control the costs of health care by controlling insurance, it has to be the other way around. Yet, the focus of legislation is always insurance.
The correct question is not how we are going to pay insurance premiums, but rather Why does a tylenol in the hospital cost $15?

There is a booming industry known as "Medical Tourism. Basically, it's people going to other countries for medical care, primarily due to outrageous cost.
If you need a hip or knee replacement, the American bill will run around $50K. If you have a 20% deductible, your share will run around $10K. But you can fly to Spain, have a hotel, meals, surgery and all the associated things- airfare included- for about $12K.

Of course, Spain's government is not subsidizing costs, that is actually what they need to cover costs and profit. The quality of care is considered comparable, in some cases better than ours. So... what the hell is wrong with our system?

 

What policy(s) exactly are D's putting in place exploiting the poor.
I am unaware of them.

This thread is SSA, medicare, and medicaid.
2 of the 3 are for seniors and those deemed disabled. How are retirees being exploited?
The 3rd is medical care for the extremely poor.

 

True. So think about this: to sustain these programs we need tax revenue. The right likes to object that the top 5% (or whatever) of income earners pay 90% of the taxes. And that is true. But why?

The right is trying to help shift as much wealth as possible from the people to the rich few. But that aside, if the median real wage had been kept rising as the incomes of the rich have, the rich wouldn't be paying 90% of the federal income taxes. The failing economic policies have resulted in roughly half the country (1) not qualifying for payment of income taxes, and (2) qualifying for public assistance. This is not the fault of that half the country. It is the fault of the failing economy caused by failing capitalism. And it leaves the country needing revenue to maintain S.S., Medicare, and Medicaid. So to further their nefarious goal, the right then declares the PROGRAMS to be the problem instead of the ECONOMY!! And their proposal is to harm those whose incomes have been lost to the rich, even more with cuts to programs. And they drive their effort with claims of half the country being "lazy" and "greedy" and "wanting free stuff".

It's all just an attack on the people for the benefit of the rich. And eventually they will be coming after you and me.

 

refusing to reform the programs that benefit them, raising taxes on people that produce jobs they might have, creating more dependence on govt and less on producing jobs

 

It's true that we all are different- and that is a strength as well as a weakness. If we were all alike, there would be a lot less opportunity and less creativity. I found that I wasn't a person cut out to manage large numbers of employees in my first business, so my subsequent businesses (now the last of 7) were designed to run with a bare minimum of people. And, you don't have to own a business to do well, but you do have to bring valuable things to the table. I have a son in law that started as a welder's helper at 18, worked hard, moved up, and in recent years became a regular target of head-hunters looking for executives. Just took a new position as a plant GM. Package gave him $25K for signing on, 190K salary, car expense, profit sharing, stock options. He's 50, has only a HS diploma. I couldn't do his job- he couldn't do mine. My brother runs a company I started, but one that didn't give me the emotional reward I want, and found myself resenting it so I gave it away to him, knowing he was better suited to run it. He's retired and wealthy now because he did a great job with it, and his son now runs it- with equal success.

Everybody has something- skills, talents, savvy. What you must do is find what you have and learn to make the most of it. Now if you are unwilling to do that, nobody can do it for you- and you can't blame anyone but yourself, legitimately, for not making it happen.

I like to see people succeed. That doesn't necessarily mean become wealthy, but it does mean finding that they are winners, capable and valuable. That feeling makes any of us a better person- but again, nobody can do it for you; you are the only one who can make it happen.

 

You overestimate the benefits of greed.

 

True!!

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-drug-prices/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-u-s-pays-3-times-more-for-drugs/

 

No, not everybody. I don't think you're recognizing the effects psychology can have. There is a range of people going from completely incapacitated by their psychological damage, to those who have aptitude for something but they haven't found it yet. And when you have half the country's workforce unable to earn enough to prosper, and when the jobs that pay enough to solve the problem aren't available, no amount of skills, talent, and savvy is going to help. The economy is the problem.

 

But here you are, whining like one of them and saying nothing about the topic.

 

Considering that socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried, and for the most part, free markets have succeeded, it's time to look at why people fail under our system. It comes back to social welfare programs that encourage families to fracture and children to fail without a working father in the home. The same factors that have rendered countries like Venezuela and Cuba failures have turned our inner cities into failures. In terms of Social Security ,,, if the 12.4% that is contributed for working people were dumped into an S&P index fund at the end of every year and the sum invested in an immediate life annuity after 35 years, the maximum benefit would be over $10,000 per month. Today it's $2700. Those numbers assume 35 years at the maximum contribution each year. The false assumption flowing from socialist mindsets that the Federal government can do it all better costs every SS beneficiary over $7300 per month in retirement income.

Our free market economy is not free of socialist meddling which is why our failure rate is higher than we'd like it to be.

 

I can't see any way that Republicans could launch a successful attack on the meaning of McConnell's EXACT quotes, accusing the "fake media" of distortion. The First Amendment is a thorn in Trump's foot that is even more debilitating than his "bone spurs".

 

Yes. The root of the problem isn't addressed. Big pharma, big insurance, and others have their wallets in the pockets of our politicians. They tell the politicians what they want in terms of healthcare laws and regulations.
The gov't is not setting up policy for the people who need and use it, but for the profits of those big corporations. IMO.

As for Spain,
I found this:
What Makes Spain's Health Care System The Best?
4:32

• DOWNLOAD
• " style="display: flex; align-items: center; min-height: 35px; width: 170px; margin-top: 14px; padding: 5px 10px; border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: rgb(68, 68, 6; background: rgb(34, 34, 34); color: rgb(153, 153, 153); font-size: 1.2rem; user-select: all;">
• TRANSCRIPT

August 19, 20096:00 AM ET
Heard on Morning Edition
JEROME SOCOLOVSKY

Spain's single-payer health care system is ranked seventh best in the world by the World Health Organization. The system offers universal coverage as a constitutionally-guaranteed right and no out-of-pocket expenses — aside from prescription drugs. Patients do complain, however, about the long wait to see specialists and undergo certain procedures.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112014770

So in laymans terms. They have single payer. Universal healthcare. But there is a private market for those rich enough to use it.

 

Good thing no one is advocating socialism.
Not even sure why you bring it up, where it's not relevant.
Some social policies, sure that's what's being bantered about.

 

What reforms?
Again, we are talking SSA, medicare, and medicaid.
The retirees collecting already paid into the system to get their SS checks. What reforms do you want to take from them?

I assume, in order to help out the SS system, you will forgo your SS checks and not take medicare?
You know at 65 or older, you likely will be priced out of buying your own health insurance.

 

The GOP in my area is telling it's voters that unless they vote GOP everything will be lost, like tax cuts, your doctor, a wall....

 

Unlike you, I don't need a ride from anyone including your crabby azz...

 

I am sure you have a hard heart because you think that money is the only measure of success..Plus there are losers and winners in the game of life but you are one of the sorest winners. I never did understand your type...I had an old man like that also, but only after he made over 200k a year...Now that this health is gone humility has returned and he's not such an asshat..

 

Congress needs to reform entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Despite an appetite for reforms and full control of the federal government, Republicans have made no headway on entitlement reform during Trump's presidency.
https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-medicare-social-security-medicaid-cuts-trump-2018-10
Mcconnell wants to reform. But for now almost 2 yrs, hasn't even tried. Neither he nor the prez.
So what exactly is their plan? Reduce revenue. Borrow more. So far that seem to be the plan.

 

Your projection of shyt is duly noted....I do enjoy being semi-retired on my farm so eat shyt and live.. I ride my own back. derpa...

 

It is the status quo..

 

*enters sentence into google translate*

 

Que?

 

No country has ever have an economy based on worker control and ownership of industry. So we can't say one has failed.

Wow. For a while there I didn't think you had bought into the Kool-Aide too.

You need to do more research into that claim.

https://jacobinmag.com/2016/08/venezuela-chavez-maduro-pink-tide-oil-bureaucracy

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...peo-helping-install-new-remarks-a7859771.html

That would be a very bad idea even though it looks so good on paper. First of all it would mean individual accounts. Secondly it would mean that if an account was worth, say, $2 million and the stock market dropped as it did in 2009 and that was when the individual retired and needed the money, that $2 million account would be worth about half that amount. And why wouldn't that individual be happy with it? Thirdly, it's a pipe dream since SS legislation doesn't allow it and the Republicans are trying to end SS as it is. Such a change would guarantee Republicans could do whatever they want with it. Third, such accounts would require professional management to succeed. Imagine the bureaucracy if 140 million accounts each had to be professionally managed.

The idea wasn't thought-out at all.

That's just a cheap extreme right wing line. There is no socialist force making policy in our government. There is only one self-proclaimed socialist that I know of and he is fully in favor of capitalism.