It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Paul Ryan / Trump want to privatize medicare

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: MOMof3
And then they can own it's failure. Like the Dem's own ACA.


Imagine if everyone worked together to make the ACA work.

Imagine if everyone worked together to fix the problems.

The "broken" ACA belongs to the "Do Nothing Objectionis Congress" in my opinion.


If it worked the Dems would not be delaying it as long as possible. They are working together from keeping it from being fully activated, because it's a terrible piece of legislation that will drain wealth from Main St right into insurance company pockets.



National Health Care is not a Dem/Rep issue - - IMO.

ALL of Congress should have worked together to make something that worked. Instead of acting like petulant children.






You need to understand, NEITHER PARTY wants to help you. They want the illusion to force an us vs. them situation so they can line their pockets. Both parties care about themselves, not you, not me.

Beat them at their game by refusing to play by their rules. I am not an us or a them.




posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

No not just working together. Working together for the common good. NEITHER party has any interest in that.


I knew we'd agree eventually.

People did used to work together. Politicians did used to work together.

I'm old enough to have experienced it.

Ever since the Neo-Cons its been a nightmare. That's when I left the Republican party.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

The medical industry is the swamp?

Zzz...



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

You need to understand, NEITHER PARTY wants to help you.


I do realize it.

And I'm raising my grandson to be a hard-nosed, every man for himself, Right Winger (minus the religion part).

Because its only gonna get worse.

I hope he maintains some humanity.




edit on 20-11-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

ya, I wish them luck with that...

a puppet that is just there to sign laws without thought might be a step up from the barrel of unrestrained nitro we might have coming into the white house. they just might find that they really don't have any control over him.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Well although that is sad that is practical, the Trump camp says that if they are successful, the Republicans will be in charge for 50 years. He will appoint justices to the supreme court and renegotiate treaties as well as do a lot of damage to our altruistic laws.

Evolution proves that by working together, a species is stronger than when they try to tear each other down. This is called altruism, and it is proven to be an important part of nature, especially with social animals.

Who knows what will happen in the end.
edit on 20pmSun, 20 Nov 2016 18:31:59 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: MOMof3

Unfortunately, I am now coming to believe that Ryan etal now see the exact person they saw and wanted in Romney...


We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate. [...]

Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared."

source
If people think ACA is bad, try privatized SS or privatized Medicare.



The multi-beaked bird that now dips into social security is why it should be called a mark for fraudsters and it. Its a sloppy mess that has gotten off the track, off the farm, slush fund for you name it and even as honey from witch to dip your illegal azz! Privatizers wouldn't put up with the crap. I see this action as a defunding of madness and part of Trumps overall plan.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Annee

Well although that is sad that is practical, . .


YES, it is.

Survival first. Actually, more then just survival. Being a "counted" person.

If you don't get your foot in the door, you're toast. You can't make changes from the outside.

Practical Logic comes before all else.


Evolution proves that by working together, a species is stronger than when they try to tear each other down. This is called altruism, and it is proven to be an important part of nature, especially with social animals.


First you have to be in the ruling group that decides what is important enough to work together on. Lackeys need not apply.

I am a realist above all else.


edit on 20-11-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   

[T]he problem isn’t the design of Medicare itself, but rather health cost inflation. Shrinking or dismantling the program would only exacerbate Americans’ health insecurity, because Medicare does a better job of restraining costs than private insurers.


A deficit of trust

From the same source, in re to SS


Social Security, meanwhile, is still running a surplus, though this will change in a few years as the bulk of the Baby Boomers enter retirement. However, despite annual cash flow deficits that have appeared recently and will persist for some time, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits for much longer as it taps trust fund savings. Tapping the trust fund is not the sign of a crisis, instead it’s what’s supposed to happen. Policymakers in the early 1980s decided to build up a trust fund precisely to help smooth financing of Social Security in the face of the Baby Boomer bulge in the beneficiary population. This is analogous to the federal government running a deficit during a recession—it is not only appropriate but absolutely necessary. There is a crucial difference, however: unlike the rest of the federal government, Social Security is prohibited by law from borrowing—it can only “dissave” what it saved up in the first place. Unfortunately, many people associate running a deficit with borrowing, not spending down savings, and don’t understand that while Social Security can run annual surpluses or deficits the program cannot add to the federal debt over time.


From another source


The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.


Top 5 Social Security Myths

Basically, the babyboomers (a bulge) go through SS and then die, but SS already accounted for that decades ago. Of course the SS trust fund set up for the babyboomers will go broke.... we'll all be dead and no longer need the SS ! That's what the babyboomer fix was set up to do, go broke. There will still be money left for the younger workers.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Logarock

One of the beaks of that bird started dipping decades ago, when then-Gov Ronald Reagan figured out a way to lower state costs for institutionalized care by putting state recipients onto federal Social Security funds in a privatized setting. If that bird's beak breaks off, what do people receiving those funds do? What do future citizens do, who would fall into that care category? Would, from the moment of conception, a person be required to buy various insurance policies to cover (un)foreseeable circumstances in life--health, disability, retirement?

If such federal funds were to be bounced back to the individual states, what would stop each state from privatizing?

What would happen to people who do not buy such insurances?

When I write "insurance" I mean private insurance, since Social Security and Medicare are govt insurance.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   


We just can't go back to the days of denying people to see a doctor based on income


Why not? Republicans were perfectly happy with that system and only started pretending to give a damn about healthcare costs when Obamacare was brought up.

The house GOP would be totally happy to see half of America bankrupted by the medical industry as long as they keep getting their contributions.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Read my lips, is not going to happen



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Marijuana issues do not belong in congress, states have the last say on what is best for the economy and medical health of the people that depend on it, that is why the states that have approved marijuana use be recreational or medical has been done by referendum most of the time.

25 states and Washington D.C have cannabis for medical use, and 4 where is recreational

This comes amid the fact that is still illegal under the federal government laws.

So is doesn't matter what the attorney general may like of not, the states are in charge thanks to the Republic and the will of the people.

Beside that congress already passed a law that avoid the Food and drug administration to go after the people in the states where marijuana is legal.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043


During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump was largely silent on Medicare, though he often suggested he’d leave the program untouched. Not any more. It now looks as if Trump may push for major changes in the principal health care program for older adults and some younger people with disabilities. But what will he do?

He has not said, but House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has been explicit about what he has in mind. And since the election Trump seems to have adopted much of Ryan’s language, suggesting he may also embrace his policy proposals. Those include redesigning the basic financial structure of the program and making Medicare Advantage managed care plans more attractive.

Trump’s official transition website now says, “With the assistance of Congress and working with the States, as appropriate, the Administration will act to: Modernize Medicare, so that it will be ready for the challenges with the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation – and beyond.”
......
These and other Medicare changes will be extremely controversial and are unlikely to be included in the first round of policy changes Trump sends to Congress. But look for lawmakers to consider them starting in 2018. And watch carefully: They could profoundly change the way seniors get, and pay for, health care.

Forbes

With the Koch "Destroy and Privatize the Federal Govt" Republican Party now in firm grasp of all branches of the government, it can happen. If not 2017, then every chance after. These are different times than Bush. No distracting Iraq/Afghan, "Osama alive" wars. People will not rise up. It will happen this time.



edit on 20-11-2016 by desert because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   
It's stands at it is, hear say, privatization of Medicare, SS or any other program that the people pay into while working will not come without a referendum.

Congress, Trump or whatever can work on it, but it will not happen any time soon.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

Those programs have been called "entitlements" for years. The pressure for the Republican Party to do away with "entitlements" has been building for years. They now have the power to do so, a mandate. No one is around this time to stop them.

They will get their way, which is what they've been plotting for decades. You and I and others just happen to be stuck in their way now, but they won't care. People will end up accepting a govt check to turn over to a private insurance company.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Social Security and Medicare are still the 3rd rail.If the GOP tries to change anything,guess what will happen in two years-Dem majority in Congress.
edit on 20-11-2016 by buckwhizzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

like I say we will talk again about it, when its about to happen, I am sure once again, is not going to happen.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: buckwhizzle

I used to say that, too. But how many people other than babyboomers and their parents even know what a "third rail" is in politics, let alone know, or even care, that SS and Medicare are "third rails"?

People younger than babyboomers have been conditioned to view these programs as "entitlements", to accept that they should not exist, to not have the "govt" waste tax payer money on "entitlements". There is no national narrative as to why these programs should be maintained as is. They are viewed as a huge, wasteful part of govt that should go away. Combine that with all the talk of privatization, there is no hope now. We lost, they won.



posted on Nov, 20 2016 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: marg6043

By the time we hear about it, it will be too late. Paul Ryan etal know what they're doing. They can taste privatization now. They will not allow it to get this far without finally being done. Game over.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join