Congress Agrees on a Tax Bill. What Does Proposed Tax Bill Mean for Older Americans? Learn More.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: GOP CUTS TO MEDICARE & SOCIAL SECURITY

60 Views
Message 1 of 85

ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Bottom line .................... we need a universal health care plan for all Americans. It is the moral thing to do and the economical thing to do. But morality seems to be very selective among Republicans and they have no problem creating debt. They seem to think that the richer you are the better your health should be and the longer life expectancy you should have.


Botttom line - you are calling for something along the lines of VA healthcare for all. Do you really see that as a "good thing"?

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: GOP CUTS TO MEDICARE & SOCIAL SECURITY

62 Views
Message 2 of 85

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

mandm84 wrote:

Some would be singing a different song If the Grand Old Plutocrats were talking about cuts to Federal Pensions instead of cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Of course one was " earned " while the other two are " socialist entitlements " , even though Tax Payers paid for most of them all !!!


Yes, there are two different concepts here.

 

In one, a person works many, many years and puts part of his salary into a retirement fund - government, union, or private. That person has earned a pension.

 

Then we have entitlements which are earned by needing it.

 

As to SS - no one has proposed any cuts to people who have worked many years and contributed and are now able to collect. Any proposals are in regard to well into the future with plenty of long term advanced understanding.

 

If circumstances were such that you are not entitled to something except for "needing it", I'm sorry, but please do not disparage those who have earned what they are getting.


The Right erroneously uses the term "entitlement" and has tried to turn it into a dirty word that is nothing like the dictionary true meaning of the word. A person is entitled to their retirement when they have paid into it for decades. People are entitled to their SS for the same reason and entitled to Medicare for he same reason. The same is true for most entitlement programs. As to Social Security. Just because I may not receive a cut doesn't mean that I should accept that others behind me will. I don't like the "I got mine, the heck with those that follow" line of thinking. Besides, I do receive cuts today, every time the cost of living increases.

 

As far as government worker pensions. Is you entire pension check actually coming from a fund that is in place or is some or all of it being paid to you out of taxes being collected today? This is a legitimate question because many government retirement funds were not fully funded and retired check recipients are being paid out of taxes that are being collected today.

 

As far as your remark "please don't disparage those who have earned what they are getting" ................. People drawing SS have earned it and should suffer no cuts. Those paying into it today should not suffer the retirement age being raised or benefits being shrunk, because they also are "earning it".


Try logic rather than emotion - no "dirty word", just honesty.

 

There are two types of payouts the government makes. One is those that based on the recipient earning it due to paying in over the years and the other is based on "need". Can you understand and accept that?

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: GOP CUTS TO MEDICARE & SOCIAL SECURITY

63 Views
Message 3 of 85

ChasKy53 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

williamb39198 wrote:

I concur with these comments. I have no desire to live under a dictatorship. He is really messing with the citizens of the US. If he wants to be king, dictator or Scrooge McDuck, let’s find an isolated little island for him, send him there and he can be whoever he wants to be! Or move to Russia 


A strange comment. How does reducing federal control on our lives and reducing taxes make a leader a king or dictator?

 

Common sense would say the opposite.


Includied in the tax proposal is language to recognize 'life at conception', so that "reduces federal control on our lives"? Trump's EO letting the coal industry dump their solvent and carcinogen laden sludge into our waterways is "reducing federal control on our lives"? Language in the tax proposal allowing oil drilling on Alaska's protected wildlife land is "reducing federal control on our lives"?

 

87 million people will see a tax increase in this new tax proposal, so he is not lowering taxes for most people.  Seems your "common sense" is not common sense at all, could it be a lack of it?


If you look at it honestly, it all reduces the government control of our lives. And, again, how does that make a leader a king or a dictator?

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: GOP CUTS TO MEDICARE & SOCIAL SECURITY

64 Views
Message 4 of 85

rker321 wrote:

rk9152 wrote:


 


Is it your point that SS is fine and needs no changes or that you do not like the proposed changes?


AH!!!!! the common approach of twisting the words and truths of a post. the questions that never end.  and how much the manipulation  is felt in the post above.

Yes, Virginia, Social Security will need changes, but not the changes that we all know you would like to see,, You have already made them quite clear in all of your previous posts.

So. perhaps you now would like to discuss some real changes that this program  may be helped and saved for future generations.


O.K. you have dealt with your obsession (me) - do you have any ideas as to what changes are needed?

 

As to me - I have been a fan of partial privatization since it offers the potential increased income. I know the TSP has worked very well for feds, something similar should be offered the public as a whole as part of SS.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: GOP CUTS TO MEDICARE & SOCIAL SECURITY

81 Views
Message 5 of 85

GailL1 wrote:

ChasKy53 wrote:

GailL1 wrote:

williamb39198 wrote:

@mandm84

I have thought for many years about why shouldn’t elected officials receive the same healthcare and benefits that they are willing to vote on and require for the citizens of the US? How many organizations are there that the employees have better healthcare and benefits than the owners or employers? Bet that we would not be having some of the discussions

that we are having. And would probably have a healthier populace. 

Gosh, what a wonderful thought. 

 

We we went to the moon. We can solve healthcare. 


Actually, Senator Grassley did get an amendment passed stating that members of Congress and their direct staff would be required to buy their insurance via the ACA individual marketplace.  They do this if they choose Federal Employee Health Benefits.

 

However, here is the problem -'the Obama Admin. determined that they would still get the same government cost match for this coverage as other federal employees - about 72%.

 

This was not what Grassley was thinking with the amendment - he wanted the amount of their income to determine whether or not they got a premium subsidy just like the general public who have ACA exchange plans.

 

 


What is explained in your posting is simply a big scam. Our congress persons make enough money that even if they buy a policy through Obamacare, they make so much money that they could easily afford to buy premium insurance policies to supplement their insurance policies purchased through the exchanges. The vast majority of American's cannot do that. Grassley's thinking would have made no significant difference at all.

 

Bottom line .................... we need a universal health care plan for all Americans. It is the moral thing to do and the economical thing to do. But morality seems to be very selective among Republicans and they have no problem creating debt. They seem to think that the richer you are the better your health should be and the longer life expectancy you should have.


If members of Congress and their personal selected staff had to have experienced the REAL Obamcare, including NOT getting any subsidized premiums of any sort based on their income level at least they would have been experiencing the REAL Obamacare and whould have seen what was happening with people who don't get a subsidy in the exchange because of their income.

 

Why don't you explain what a "premium insurance policies to supplement their insurance policies purchased through the exchanges" is - I know several prosperous self employed folks who would be interested because within the individual marketplace right now there is slim pickin's for a traditional health insurance plan with adequate coverage and networks/

 

We have a universal health care system - everybody is suppose to pick one - the one that they qualify for.  Want another kind - figure it out especially how much it would cost and who would and could pay for it.  Personally, I would work on the cost of health care BEFORE jumping into a plan, cost and finance design. 

 

 


The Staff and members of Congress are employees of our government and get the same benefits as all other employees. Until the far right struck they selected their health coverage from the programs offered by the Fed. Government to all employees just like most employers do. The health plans offered to employees were good no question about that and in doing that our Fed. Government was setting an example for all employers to follow. What was wrong with that? You seem to imply because some of the govt. employees were well paid for what they do they should loose good health coverage. There are a lot of employees of private Corp. that can afford to purchase  health insurance without any money from their employer so what are you driving at. We have Fed. employees who have gone to the moon, serve in dangerous areas for all of us all over the world, fight fires as some are doing now in CA, are first responders and save lives everyday. The ACA so far has seen the uninsured rate decrease every year, and even this year with the far right in charge doing every thing they can to kill it more people sign up that ever before. It looks like you might need to do some research on the web about that.

Yes we do have a universal health plan with many parts, but for quite a few people they are not allowed to pick theirs. They go into ER care the default plan. Now I assume you are saying people are to pick a plan they can pay for no matter how little they make. That is not the way a good country acts toward its people, as with that approach you have people die for lack of treatment. What we need is a plan that gives good treatment to all, and all pay according to what they make, or use. The closest thing we have to that is Medi Care for all. As I have said before you seem to be sliding into supporting that approach, and that I think is progress.

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: GOP CUTS TO MEDICARE & SOCIAL SECURITY

93 Views
Message 6 of 85

ChasKy53 wrote:

GailL1 wrote:

williamb39198 wrote:

@mandm84

I have thought for many years about why shouldn’t elected officials receive the same healthcare and benefits that they are willing to vote on and require for the citizens of the US? How many organizations are there that the employees have better healthcare and benefits than the owners or employers? Bet that we would not be having some of the discussions

that we are having. And would probably have a healthier populace. 

Gosh, what a wonderful thought. 

 

We we went to the moon. We can solve healthcare. 


Actually, Senator Grassley did get an amendment passed stating that members of Congress and their direct staff would be required to buy their insurance via the ACA individual marketplace.  They do this if they choose Federal Employee Health Benefits.

 

However, here is the problem -'the Obama Admin. determined that they would still get the same government cost match for this coverage as other federal employees - about 72%.

 

This was not what Grassley was thinking with the amendment - he wanted the amount of their income to determine whether or not they got a premium subsidy just like the general public who have ACA exchange plans.

 

 


What is explained in your posting is simply a big scam. Our congress persons make enough money that even if they buy a policy through Obamacare, they make so much money that they could easily afford to buy premium insurance policies to supplement their insurance policies purchased through the exchanges. The vast majority of American's cannot do that. Grassley's thinking would have made no significant difference at all.

 

Bottom line .................... we need a universal health care plan for all Americans. It is the moral thing to do and the economical thing to do. But morality seems to be very selective among Republicans and they have no problem creating debt. They seem to think that the richer you are the better your health should be and the longer life expectancy you should have.


If members of Congress and their personal selected staff had to have experienced the REAL Obamcare, including NOT getting any subsidized premiums of any sort based on their income level at least they would have been experiencing the REAL Obamacare and whould have seen what was happening with people who don't get a subsidy in the exchange because of their income.

 

Why don't you explain what a "premium insurance policies to supplement their insurance policies purchased through the exchanges" is - I know several prosperous self employed folks who would be interested because within the individual marketplace right now there is slim pickin's for a traditional health insurance plan with adequate coverage and networks/

 

We have a universal health care system - everybody is suppose to pick one - the one that they qualify for.  Want another kind - figure it out especially how much it would cost and who would and could pay for it.  Personally, I would work on the cost of health care BEFORE jumping into a plan, cost and finance design. 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: GOP CUTS TO MEDICARE & SOCIAL SECURITY

103 Views
Message 7 of 85

rk9152 wrote:

myexper wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

myexper wrote:

rk9152 wrote:

Tom5678 wrote:
GOP wants to do away with our safety net. Totally and completely. Is it Nov. 2018 yet???? Throw the bums out. Clueless party.

Any proposal I've ever seen has exempted anyone on or nearing retirement age. So, "our" safety net is safe.


You conveniently forget that the Republican demand to implement the Chained CPI to SS COLA will cut Social Security benefits for EVERYBODY!!!!!


Totally unrelated to the need for a long-term fix.

Yet your Republicans want to use it as a means "for a long- term fix"! 

So your comment is another NOT TRUE rk!!!

 

And your comment still does NOTHING to change the fact that Republican demand to implement the Chained CPI to SS COLA will cut Social Security benefits for EVERYBODY!!!


 


Is it your point that SS is fine and needs no changes or that you do not like the proposed changes?


I already stated my point rk. 

Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: GOP CUTS TO MEDICARE & SOCIAL SECURITY

116 Views
Message 8 of 85

GailL1 wrote:

williamb39198 wrote:

@mandm84

I have thought for many years about why shouldn’t elected officials receive the same healthcare and benefits that they are willing to vote on and require for the citizens of the US? How many organizations are there that the employees have better healthcare and benefits than the owners or employers? Bet that we would not be having some of the discussions

that we are having. And would probably have a healthier populace. 

Gosh, what a wonderful thought. 

 

We we went to the moon. We can solve healthcare. 


Actually, Senator Grassley did get an amendment passed stating that members of Congress and their direct staff would be required to buy their insurance via the ACA individual marketplace.  They do this if they choose Federal Employee Health Benefits.

 

However, here is the problem -'the Obama Admin. determined that they would still get the same government cost match for this coverage as other federal employees - about 72%.

 

This was not what Grassley was thinking with the amendment - he wanted the amount of their income to determine whether or not they got a premium subsidy just like the general public who have ACA exchange plans.

 

 


What is explained in your posting is simply a big scam. Our congress persons make enough money that even if they buy a policy through Obamacare, they make so much money that they could easily afford to buy premium insurance policies to supplement their insurance policies purchased through the exchanges. The vast majority of American's cannot do that. Grassley's thinking would have made no significant difference at all.

 

Bottom line .................... we need a universal health care plan for all Americans. It is the moral thing to do and the economical thing to do. But morality seems to be very selective among Republicans and they have no problem creating debt. They seem to think that the richer you are the better your health should be and the longer life expectancy you should have.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: GOP CUTS TO MEDICARE & SOCIAL SECURITY

121 Views
Message 9 of 85

rk9152 wrote:

mandm84 wrote:

Some would be singing a different song If the Grand Old Plutocrats were talking about cuts to Federal Pensions instead of cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Of course one was " earned " while the other two are " socialist entitlements " , even though Tax Payers paid for most of them all !!!


Yes, there are two different concepts here.

 

In one, a person works many, many years and puts part of his salary into a retirement fund - government, union, or private. That person has earned a pension.

 

Then we have entitlements which are earned by needing it.

 

As to SS - no one has proposed any cuts to people who have worked many years and contributed and are now able to collect. Any proposals are in regard to well into the future with plenty of long term advanced understanding.

 

If circumstances were such that you are not entitled to something except for "needing it", I'm sorry, but please do not disparage those who have earned what they are getting.


The Right erroneously uses the term "entitlement" and has tried to turn it into a dirty word that is nothing like the dictionary true meaning of the word. A person is entitled to their retirement when they have paid into it for decades. People are entitled to their SS for the same reason and entitled to Medicare for he same reason. The same is true for most entitlement programs. As to Social Security. Just because I may not receive a cut doesn't mean that I should accept that others behind me will. I don't like the "I got mine, the heck with those that follow" line of thinking. Besides, I do receive cuts today, every time the cost of living increases.

 

As far as government worker pensions. Is you entire pension check actually coming from a fund that is in place or is some or all of it being paid to you out of taxes being collected today? This is a legitimate question because many government retirement funds were not fully funded and retired check recipients are being paid out of taxes that are being collected today.

 

As far as your remark "please don't disparage those who have earned what they are getting" ................. People drawing SS have earned it and should suffer no cuts. Those paying into it today should not suffer the retirement age being raised or benefits being shrunk, because they also are "earning it".


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
Valued Social Butterfly

Re: GOP CUTS TO MEDICARE & SOCIAL SECURITY

128 Views
Message 10 of 85

rk9152 wrote:

williamb39198 wrote:

I concur with these comments. I have no desire to live under a dictatorship. He is really messing with the citizens of the US. If he wants to be king, dictator or Scrooge McDuck, let’s find an isolated little island for him, send him there and he can be whoever he wants to be! Or move to Russia 


A strange comment. How does reducing federal control on our lives and reducing taxes make a leader a king or dictator?

 

Common sense would say the opposite.


Includied in the tax proposal is language to recognize 'life at conception', so that "reduces federal control on our lives"? Trump's EO letting the coal industry dump their solvent and carcinogen laden sludge into our waterways is "reducing federal control on our lives"? Language in the tax proposal allowing oil drilling on Alaska's protected wildlife land is "reducing federal control on our lives"?

 

87 million people will see a tax increase in this new tax proposal, so he is not lowering taxes for most people.  Seems your "common sense" is not common sense at all, could it be a lack of it?


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content