Preliminary Read on Medical Plans

[bacha29]

Why don’t you shock us into silence by proposing a single, significant cut?

You're the one not me who is hollering for cuts. I simply support continued funding in accordance with the requirements current law requires. If you want cuts identify them, how they will achieved, where they will be targeted and what impact they will have.

 

[vantexan]

Your popular US senator Rick Scott in his 12 multi point plan to "save" America demanded that we so called " sunset" too chicken to come out and tell what he really meant and that was the elimination of all federal programs then only bring back what he considered to be "worthwhile".

Not a single one of you voiced your support for his plan. Why not?....Simple. You are all currently drawing benefits from them or you are counting off the days until you can begin drawing.....You plainly admitted that much yourself

Same as before with you people. Eliminate someone else's benefits but not yours. Because that's what you are or soon will be living on.

The topic of this thread was the ongoing decision by FDX to jettison it's retired for workforce. Why?
1. You not making money for them anymore.
2. Because they are legally entitled to do so.

And what are you people discussing here regarding your opinions?
1. Getting on your wife's employer's plan.
2. But what if you don't have a wife or one that works or she does work but her employer's plan only covers the employed person?
3. Going into the Obamacare health insurance exchanges and look for subsidized health insurance.
4. Do nothing then throw yourself onto the hospital's welfare charity cases with your care paid for with tax deductible charity donations and surcharges tacked onto service fees paid for by insurers then passed to subscribers
5.Do nothing hoping that nothing happens health wise counting off the days until you can do what?.....Qualify for Medicare..

You can't have it both ways. Either you support continued funding in accordance with funding requirements set forth by law or you're willing to accept significant program funding cuts that will indeed impact you personally and in a way you're not going to like.

The choice is yours.

Rick Scott made it clear the Republicans aren't touching Social Security. As usual you're fear mongering. What we're looking at in 9 or 10 years is automatic cuts in SS payments. Why? Way too much government spending everywhere else. Excessive, wasteful, fraudulent spending. And people like you insist it continues.

 

[MassWineGuy]

Let’s curve back around to the company health plans. What are folks choosing?

I just want 20 percent of our defense budget moved to healthcare. That would make a huge difference.

 

[bacha29]

Rick Scott made it clear the Republicans aren't touching Social Security. As usual you're fear mongering. What we're looking at in 9 or 10 years is automatic cuts in SS payments. Why? Way too much government spending everywhere else. Excessive, wasteful, fraudulent spending. And people like you insist it continues.

Like so many other GOP cost cutting proposals Scott backed down when the details of his plan were disclosed and they would hurt him politically. And so what do you find wrong with cutting SS 24% that would naturally occur in 2034 and raising the Medicare premium from the $174 a month next year to well let's say $474 a month with the maximum out of pocket to let's say $10,000? This way we're cutting out some of that wasteful spending you keep hollering about.

You see anything wrong with that?

 

[vantexan]

Like so many other GOP cost cutting proposals Scott backed down when the details of his plan were disclosed and they would hurt him politically. And so what do you find wrong with cutting SS 24% that would naturally occur in 2034 and raising the Medicare premium from the $174 a month next year to well let's say $474 a month with the maximum out of pocket to let's say $10,000? This way we're cutting out some of that wasteful spending you keep hollering about.

You see anything wrong with that?

Everything can be means tested. But let's look at all of the government spending, not just your favorite whipping boys.

 

[bacha29]

Everything can be means tested. But let's look at all of the government spending, not just your favorite whipping boys.

Wrong. I'm asking you if the cuts to SS and Medicare despite the near certainty the result would be addition to taking SS at 62 with the permanent 25% cut in monthly benefit another permanent 25% cut 10 years from now along with a 250% increase in Medicare premiums and a 125% increase in annual out of pocket expense is agreeable to you or not?

What's wrong with that? You're cutting government spending.

And forget means testing. That's taking benefits from the rich and giving them to the poor. What's conservative about that?

 

[vantexan]

Wrong. I'm asking you if the cuts to SS and Medicare despite the near certainty the result would be addition to taking SS at 62 with the permanent 25% cut in monthly benefit another permanent 25% cut 10 years from now along with a 250% increase in Medicare premiums and a 125% increase in annual out of pocket expense is agreeable to you or not?

What's wrong with that? You're cutting government spending.

And forget means testing. That's taking benefits from the rich and giving them to the poor. What's conservative about that?

I have stated numerous times over the years that those who benefit most from the system should pay more. Not be gouged, but pay more. And if that means that there should be less given to them if they have other sources of income or assets then in my view that's fine. Social Security was created to alleviate senior poverty. And many of the wealthy if not most of them got wealthy from restricting worker pay to do better themselves. So at the very least they should help insure that lower paid workers get their Social Security even if the wealthy get less. I've been consistent with this for decades. It's not a conservative/liberal viewpoint, it's a do the right thing viewpoint. No matter the party anyone who would make poor SS recipients struggle to eat and keep the lights on while they're playing golf and partying is a scumbag in my opinion.

As for other government spending we have $33 trillion in debt that's not tied to what SS recipients get. Profligate spending got us here. At what point are you willing to keep the government from collapsing? You do know that interest payments on the debt with the onset of inflation has risen to a trillion? Almost tripled. Is this sustainable? Think of how that money could have been used. If we are to sustain programs that most will need at some point we have to start making hard choices. Are you willing to make those choices?

 

[Fred's Myth]

Wrong. I'm asking you if the cuts to SS and Medicare despite the near certainty the result would be addition to taking SS at 62 with the permanent 25% cut in monthly benefit another permanent 25% cut 10 years from now along with a 250% increase in Medicare premiums and a 125% increase in annual out of pocket expense is agreeable to you or not?

What's wrong with that? You're cutting government spending.

And forget means testing. That's taking benefits from the rich and giving them to the poor. What's conservative about that?

Yeah, let’s take Social Security/Medicare benefits from seniors (conservatives) and use that money to save those (liberal) arts students from their loan obligations.

 

[bacha29]

I have stated numerous times over the years that those who benefit most from the system should pay more. Not be gouged, but pay more. And if that means that there should be less given to them if they have other sources of income or assets then in my view that's fine. Social Security was created to alleviate senior poverty. And many of the wealthy if not most of them got wealthy from restricting worker pay to do better themselves. So at the very least they should help insure that lower paid workers get their Social Security even if the wealthy get less. I've been consistent with this for decades. It's not a conservative/liberal viewpoint, it's a do the right thing viewpoint. No matter the party anyone who would make poor SS recipients struggle to eat and keep the lights on while they're playing golf and partying is a scumbag in my opinion.

As for other government spending we have $33 trillion in debt that's not tied to what SS recipients get. Profligate spending got us here. At what point are you willing to keep the government from collapsing? You do know that interest payments on the debt with the onset of inflation has risen to a trillion? Almost tripled. Is this sustainable? Think of how that money could have been used. If we are to sustain programs that most will need at some point we have to start making hard choices. Are you willing to make those choices?

You're promoting the most radical solution to future SS funding making the rich pay more while receiving nothing in return. Yet you call yourself a "conservative".
Their response is quite obvious. They'll move their earnings through an S-Corp taking as much as they can get away with as distributions which are not subject to FICA leaving only the minimum subject of FICA or if they are hedge fund managers they'll take their earnings carried interest and again not subject to FICA.

 

[bacha29]

Yeah, let’s take Social Security/Medicare benefits from seniors (conservatives) and use that money to save those (liberal) arts students from their loan obligations.

Ahh, now we're getting someplace. Typical MAGA. "I demand major cuts in federal spending....But don't cut spending on the programs I depend on for benefits"....(lol).

 

[59 Dano]

Ahh, now we're getting someplace. Typical MAGA. "I demand major cuts in federal spending....But don't cut spending on the programs I depend on for benefits"....(lol).

I don't know about you, but if you force me to pay for my own retirement benefits while I'm working and then don't give them to me when I retire, I'd have a problem with that.

 

[59 Dano]

I have stated numerous times over the years that those who benefit most from the system should pay more. Not be gouged, but pay more. And if that means that there should be less given to them if they have other sources of income or assets then in my view that's fine. Social Security was created to alleviate senior poverty. And many of the wealthy if not most of them got wealthy from restricting worker pay to do better themselves. So at the very least they should help insure that lower paid workers get their Social Security even if the wealthy get less. I've been consistent with this for decades. It's not a conservative/liberal viewpoint, it's a do the right thing viewpoint. No matter the party anyone who would make poor SS recipients struggle to eat and keep the lights on while they're playing golf and partying is a scumbag in my opinion.

I like how you justify this horrible idea with a hokey class warfare trope.

 

[vantexan]

I like how you justify this horrible idea with a hokey class warfare trope.

I like how you always describe it as class warfare instead of just doing the right thing.

 

[vantexan]

I don't know about you, but if you force me to pay for my own retirement benefits while I'm working and then don't give them to me when I retire, I'd have a problem with that.

In order for SS to remain viable you may have to settle for a reduced amount. We're all looking at getting scalped at least 20% in 8-10 years.

 

[59 Dano]

I like how you always describe it as class warfare instead of just doing the right thing.

It's not doing the right thing, it's punishing someone who doesn't deserve it to provide a benefit to someone who didn't earn it. Saving money for old age is not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

 

[vantexan]

It's not doing the right thing, it's punishing someone who doesn't deserve it to provide a benefit to someone who didn't earn it. Saving money for old age is not that difficult of a concept to grasp.

That someone got wealthy doing everything possible to hold down employee pay and reduce or eliminate benefits to bump up the price of his shares of stock with higher profits. That someone lied to and manipulated his employees in to sticking with him because better pay was always coming. That someone would eliminate Social Security in a heartbeat to stop paying his payroll match. So excuse me if taking Social Security away from someone who has millions in assets doesn't bother me at all. And pretty damn hard to save adequately for old age when a company is eliminating raises, benefits, and even your job in favor of poorly paid workers with no benefits. Half the country are wage slaves now and people like you would increase that percentage.

 

[59 Dano]

That someone got wealthy doing everything possible to hold down employee pay and reduce or eliminate benefits to bump up the price of his shares of stock with higher profits. That someone lied to and manipulated his employees in to sticking with him because better pay was always coming. That someone would eliminate Social Security in a heartbeat to stop paying his payroll match. So excuse me if taking Social Security away from someone who has millions in assets doesn't bother me at all. And pretty damn hard to save adequately for old age when a company is eliminating raises, benefits, and even your job in favor of poorly paid workers with no benefits. Half the country are wage slaves now and people like you would increase that percentage.

If you want to tell yourself all that to justify it, then okay. There will never be a shortage of excuses.

This country is loaded with people who never made much money but still managed to get their ducks in a row for old age and it's just as loaded with people who earned really good money who'll never have as good of a retirement as the latter. There are exceptions, but by and large your retirement is a reflection of how you handled your business during your working years.

 

[vantexan]

If you want to tell yourself all that to justify it, then okay. There will never be a shortage of excuses.

This country is loaded with people who never made much money but still managed to get their ducks in a row for old age and it's just as loaded with people who earned really good money who'll never have as good of a retirement as the latter. There are exceptions, but by and large your retirement is a reflection of how you handled your business during your working years.

Yeah, put it on the poorly paid workers rather than the ones who paid them poorly.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Yeah, put it on the poorly paid workers rather than the ones who paid them poorly.

Van, it's amazing that legal immigrants can come here to the U.S., sacrifice their creature comforts for the reward of succeeding, and not blame those who made it before them.

Poorly paid workers have a choice here. It will just cost them their current comforts. And America would be the better for it.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Ahh, now we're getting someplace. Typical MAGA. "I demand major cuts in federal spending....But don't cut spending on the programs I depend on for benefits"....(lol).

And your typical * response. What I suggested doesn't require cuts in federal spending, it just requires the good sense to not blow the money in the first place.

But that's never your problem, because it isn't your money you're willing to spend.