It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Social Security,Medicare,Medicaid WHO is telling the truth? and who is lying? and Budget cuts!!

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:32 AM
reply to post by dawnstar

the money that goes to paying the seniors DOES NOT come from the same fund that is paying to take care of all those kids that many of you guys are always complaining about having to support!! the money that goes through social security was paid in by the workforce, invested into treasury bonds, and well, it's time to cash some of those bonds in, just like you may have some of those treasury bonds in your IRA, and well, when you want to retire, I am sure, you plan on cashing some of them in!!! Just like china, india, japan, plan on cashing them in....

In theory, you're correct. In practice, Social Security has been butchered.

Why the Social Security Trust Fund Differs from Real Trust Funds. Private-sector trust funds invest in real assets ranging from stocks and bonds to mortgages and other financial instruments. However, the Social Security trust funds are only "invested" in a special type of Treasury bond that can only be issued to and redeemed by the Social Security Administration. As the Congressional Research Service noted in a report on May 5, 1998:

"When the government issues a bond to one of its own accounts, it hasn't purchased anything or established a claim against another entity or person. It is simply creating a form of IOU from one of its accounts to another."

According to the Office of Management and Budget under the Clinton Administration in 1999:

"These [trust fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. [Emphasis added.]"

In short, the Social Security trust fund is really only an accounting mechanism. The trust fund shows how much the government has borrowed from Social Security, but it does not provide any way to finance future benefits. The money to repay the IOUs will have to come from taxes that are being used today to pay for other government programs. For that reason, the most important date for Social Security is 2018, when taxpayers must begin to repay the IOUs, not 2042, when the trust fund is exhausted.

Regardless, it doesn't change a few simple facts:

Although Social Security is often characterized as a retirement program, it also provides other benefits. Indeed, only about 63 percent of its beneficiaries receive their payments as retired workers (see Figure 3-2). As of September 2007, 14 percent of beneficiaries were disabled workers, 13 percent were survivors of deceased workers, and the remaining 10 percent were spouses or children of retired or disabled workers.

The cost of the Social Security program will rise noticeably in coming decades—a change that has long been foreseen.2 Average benefits typically grow when the economy does (because the earnings on which those benefits are based increase). However, in the future, the total amount of scheduled benefits will grow faster than the economy because of changes in the nation’s demographic structure.3 As the baby-boom generation reaches retirement age, and as decreasing mortality leads to longer lives and longer retirements, a larger share of the population will draw Social Security benefits.

4 Moreover, whereas the number of people ages 20 to 64 is projected to grow by 11 percent in the next 30 years, the number of people age 65 or older is projected to double. As a result, in three decades, the older population is likely to be more than one-third the size of the younger group, compared with one-fifth today (see Figure 3-3). By 2030, the Congressional Budget Office anticipates, about 86 million people will be collecting Social Security benefits, compared with about 50 million today. The average benefit will have grown by about 29 percent in real terms. Consequently, CBO estimates that unless changes are made to Social Security, spending for the program will rise from 4.3 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2007 to 6.1 percent of GDP by 2030. With further increases in life spans, spending for Social Security will gradually rise thereafter, reaching 6.4 percent of GDP in 2082.

Holy forceful intercourse, batman.

We have some difficult decisions ahead of us.

The fact of the mater is that we do NOT have the resources to afford the same lavish spending we have 'enjoyed' up to this point. Changes will have to be made, and someone is going to get their toes stepped on. That doesn't mean we need to have a toe-stomping competition, but it's unavoidable. We are spending over 1 Trillion into the deficit this year, with the deficit to exceed annual GDP within two years, at the projected spending levels.

it doesn't take a genius to know where all the dollars have been flowing to the past few decades or so, there is only one group that has benefitted by the way things have been running, wasn't the seniors, wasn't the poor, wasn't the small business owner, wasn't middle class....
and that other group, well, they are quick to send their cash overseas, to nice safe havens and protect it from uncle sam's tax collectors and hire top notch accountants to find every danged tax break and loophole to get their tax bill to as close to 0 as possible...

I've already explained the source of the problem concerning the concentration of wealth.

Government can't do anything about it, spare use us boys in uniform to go seize assets. Which I'm sure a number of these crazy people who like to blame "banksters" would love to see happen. That's how Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and other socialist leaders came into power. And, I've probably hereby doomed the thread simply for bringing up those names, but - honestly, the 'logic' used by a number of the 'progressive' types is eerily similar to the logic used to bring people like Hitler to power (it was all the fault of the Jews - who were often known to run successful businesses while everyone else didn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of). And it concerns me because it's a very volatile state.

We need to simplify the tax code, get rid of tax credits (these are so blatantly and overtly abused it's not even funny), and re-evaluate how we tax capital assets/gains. I can pay fewer taxes by having a billion dollars sitting in a bank or as a form of stocks than investing that money into an operating billion-dollar (or more) business as an owner/proprietor.

On the other hand, taxing the piss out of held assets like that will simply lead to fewer investors and a stagnant, or worse - controlled investment system. For example - due to high taxes mutual funds and venture capitalists (those who help start-ups) become smaller and virtually non-existent, with more power over what businesses receive investments sitting in fewer hands. Meaning "banksters" end up with control over whether or not your restaurant will become a franchise chain (regional or national) - even though you're gunning for expansion and have a good model.

well, this is what happens when a high percentage of the wealth sits outside of the tax pool!!!

This would really be pretty simply resolved with a national sales tax and dropping income based taxes (perhaps still taxing capital gains - but I don't think that's really necessary).

The reasoning is pretty simple. Was it made in China? Was it made in the U.S.? With low/no corporate taxes and a sales tax on the consumer end - it doesn't matter. It becomes easier for U.S. businesses to compete in the U.S. by having encountering the same taxes on the shelf, rather than getting hit with taxes in the bank, factory, transport, and also at the shelf (and the pocket-book of the person buying). It also makes it more competitive abroad - with fewer taxes being paid by corporations producing things here, products sold in Germany don't have U.S. taxes pre-applied to the price Germans pay.

While I'm sure some would like to think it a good idea to try and tax international sales in that manner, it really doesn't help us when the reason businesses leave the U.S. is due to corporate tax systems and high employee wages (for jobs other countries will perform for far less). We'd rather have the jobs and tax the spending of the consumer than try and tax Germany for buying something made here in the U.S.

Further - am I a billionaire? While I likely have quite a bit of money in the bank - I am also likely to spend quite a bit of that money, too. Rather than try and take someone's money away simply because they have it - just let them pay a tax on what they buy. At that point - you're buying for effect, not really for cost-effect. With lower corporate taxes and overhead, it's likely that the costs for many items would be less, post-tax, than they are currently (with a system designed to be revenue-neutral, in other words - the government receives just as much from this tax system as it would from corporate and income taxes).

Sure - they could probably choose to buy things from abroad to try and avoid paying sales tax on it - but that's likely to be far less detrimental than the loop-holes available to them at present. Are they going to buy their paper towels and have food shipped from overseas, too?

so let's focus our attention on the seniors and their social security!!!

It's a very serious concern when there will only be about three workers to support each retired senior.

I can flip the perspective around - the senior is in his/her twilight years. When faced with the prospect of: "spend into a deficit that destroys the middle class and impoverishes the lower class to afford seniors a quality retirement in the years leading up to their death" or "reduce funding and restructure the retirement programs for seniors to prevent adverse consequences for the young and middle aged families." Which is more functionally logical?

I'll be downright honest - if my kids try and destroy themselves out of some kind of sense of debt to me, I swear to all things holy that I will beat the living hell out of them. The debt children owe to their parents is to live life and to pass as good of a life on to their kids as they possibly can. When I'm a crinkly, cantankerous old fart, I won't look around at my house or place of residence and see accomplishment. I'll look at my family and see that - hopefully (that, or extreme disappointment and a sense of being a failure). I'd be pissed if my kids put themselves in hardship or jeopardy to try and afford me some kind of retirement. The fact is I'd probably have to wear diapers to keep from soiling the furniture and my clothing and moving in general will hurt - what am I going to do in retirement other than tell stories of the days when we actually had to type stuff into computers or talk on a phone that was connected to a wall?

I'm not saying my parents don't deserve a retirement. They did so much for myself and my brothers. Of course, they are both dead, too - so, yeah.

On a debt level, were my parents still around, I could never pay them back in a monetary sense for all they have done. And they wouldn't have it, either. They would rather me put $1000 dollars in the bank to cover unforseen expenses than to get that much to help them pay for medication or something. Especially if I had a family of my own.

Although I presume it all boils down to moral relativism. But the point is - it's not a case of "we're rich and buying summer homes for ourselves while our parents shiver and hunger in a shanty" - we're at a point where spending -has been- at unsustainable levels, and it's now capitulating into an economic crisis.

Everyone is going to have to stand to see a restructuring to the way we spend, and spending reductions. Military, Social Security, Medicare, "Income Security," etc. We're spending too much and need to stop and figure out what we really need to be spending on and how we can make things more efficient. When medicare fraud, alone, is estimated at $60 BILLION annually - that's pretty damned ridiculous. That's about four times NASA's budget and about 1/12 the operating budget of the military while it's currently fighting three damned wars (that does not include payroll and procurement - but it does cover all operational expenses and maintenance costs). When medicare pays three separate companies for a total of four prosthetic arms for the same individual... something's not quite right. Last I checked, I only had three arms.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:40 AM
A savage/liberal has a one-tracked mind that says "Take money away from the rich to solve all problems". Hence any liberal who gets voted President will predictably put more tax on the rich and with that weakening the very structures that is keeping the country over water.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:46 AM
reply to post by neo96

The so call medical crisis is the propaganda that the ones behind the health care reform created to be able to handle by mandate that Americans be now under the servitude of private insurance businesses.

And what many have not gotten yet because the media is not been very open about it, is that many states including mine have bills on the table to also eliminate Medicare and make it private or giving vouchers to the Seniors to be use for medical care but the vouchers have expirations and is going to leave the seniors at the servitude of private insurance when their medical cost exceed the vouchers.

GA my state is one of many that are trying to get that done my by the majority Republicans.

What a joke, Democrats are mandating us into the hands of private corrupted insurance companies and Republicans wants to force the seniors to fall into private insurance hands also.

edit on 21-4-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 07:55 AM
The Democrats have made quite a good living scare mongering the seniors into thinking evil Republicans will somehow cause their death by fixing Medicare/Medicaid. The irony of the whole thing is Obamacare actually will ration their care and make determinations on whether they qualify for surgery or pain meds.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 08:16 AM

Originally posted by jjkenobi
The Democrats have made quite a good living scare mongering the seniors into thinking evil Republicans will somehow cause their death by fixing Medicare/Medicaid. The irony of the whole thing is Obamacare actually will ration their care and make determinations on whether they qualify for surgery or pain meds.

why shouldn't they be scared...the republicans cut 70% from renewable resourse funding, 30% from education funding, while voting unanousmously to fund tax subsidies for the oil companies, this includes oil companies that are foreign owned...and let's not forget the dec. 2011 vote for 40 BILLION DOLLARS EACH YEAR in tax cuts for the wealthiest.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 09:02 AM
The liberals absolutely love this dialog about cutting SS and Medicare. The normally conservative, patriotic seniors will bail on the TPM, GOP or anyone else that wants to slash the funds they paid into their whole working lives.

It's that simple.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by whaaa

Several years ago I posted that one of the loudest reactionaries in my town was the recipient of/dependent on Social Security/Disability, as this person was a clinical paranoid schizophrenic unable to function at a job. He loved to bash liberalism as the downfall of America (oh, btw, he was a proud member of the John Birch Society).

I knew this person personally, intelligent but a tad kooky, and I often wondered to myself if his loathing for everything liberal was a misplaced self-loathing for his dependency on govt support combined with a paranoia that the govt was out to get him. At first, the conservative/GOP locals applauded him as their standard bearer for conservative ideology. When his personal situation came to light, support dwindled.

I read today that a current standard bearer of his party's ideology. Congressman Ryan, was himself the recipient of Social Security. A news article.

Is it as my acquaintance above or is it a "This program is for people like me, but not for others like them. I'm different." Or could it be another anti-govt rant, where citizens' money is thrown at corporations/Wall Street under the ideology of corporations/Wall Street can do a better job. Or is it corporate influence of politics.

All I know is that this corporate love-fest had better end now, or we'll be broke. Those whose heart bleeds for the oligarchy, who control the wealth and have found ways to rob the wealth of everyone lower than them, will push us to a catastrophic brink....What's that? .....I'm a little late to the party? a few years?....

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:09 PM
reply to post by marg6043

well that private insurance is 1000 times better than the care you will ever receive on medicare and medicaid.

insurance makes the majority of its money on people who do not even need to use of it

there are people who can go 20 and 30 years without the need of ever using it the reverse is true with medicare and medicaid

the majority of those users use those benefits on a daily basis.

insurance companies those private ones make a profit and that profit drives the lower costs that are normally associated with it.

medicare and medicaid are frought with abuse and fraud and never once in its inception has ever made any profit.

which is why WHEN medicare and medicare go the way of the dodo which they will then where will you be?

more likely 6 feet under.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:41 PM

Originally posted by neo96

well that private insurance is 1000 times better than the care you will ever receive on medicare and medicaid.
insurance makes the majority of its money on people who do not even need to use of it
insurance companies those private ones make a profit and that profit drives the lower costs that are normally associated with it.
medicare and medicaid are frought with abuse and fraud and never once in its inception has ever made any profit.

1. not necessarily so, from experience
2. that I don't have any facts on, but premiums plus some investment income
3. how does that work? health ins co's don't provide health care; my non-profit ins co premiums have increased
4. then we need to go after those that commit abuse and fraud, criminals

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 02:44 PM
reply to post by desert

we also need to go after those regulations and tort reform

another thing that most people are forgetting is inflation and the devaluation of the dollar that drive up healthcare costs.
edit on 21-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 03:29 PM
reply to post by neo96

healthcare costs were skyrocketing before the dollar started getting it's latest plummeting.....
and, I'm sorry, but no, the healthcare that the seniors get isn't any worse than the healthcare that I get on my insurance, and well, how many seniors that you know have laid in bed with a broken ankle thinking that they'd never walk again because every specialist that they talk to wants an outrageous down payment???

God, just figure out the difference as to how much the gov't brings in, against how much it spends now, find the percentage of how much would have to be cut to make them equal, and make an equal cut across the board!!!
there, problem solved, no one will be happy, all with be as fair as it can be!!!
na...they ain't gonna do that, I betcha that when I reach retirement age, oh, ya, I will get a voucher, maybe, that's if my hubbys social security check isn't too much money, and well, I will still need an danged employer helping with the cost of the healthcare insurance with it's rediculous deductable...just in case I break another bone!!...and, I will still be pitching in to help all these single moms raise their kids while their daddies still whine about how they shouldn't have to pay their child support.....claim a back problem, go on disability, and well....
get out of paying for their kids, why should they have to?? they have idiots like me willing to work themselves to the grave to do it for them!!!

sales tax instead...oh ya, tell me, they gonna tax the service that the rich are getting from wall street with their portfolios?? just cut all the tax credits and all but the standard deduction out, hey, that gives the gov't over twice as much money.....then, well, they can decrease all the tax brackets by 60 percent and still come out ahead!!!

edit on 21-4-2011 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 04:16 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

one day you are indeed in for a rude awakening i know for a fact what medicare covers and does not cover

private insurance is better than medicare

private insurance covers alot of things that regulations forbid medicare to do those are the facts.

you want lower health care costs lobby for more competition within the medical field argue for a better regulations that do nothing but drive those costs up and kills off competition for service providers.

inflation is another key problem for the associated rise in health care costs.

end the stupidity that medicare doctors get paid on volume visits instead of the care rendered at any one visit.

schedule appointments when they are not needed, billing for prodceures when they aren't necessary etc

there are serious problems with medicare people are under the illusion that its the greatest thing since sliced bread.

and consider i do know a lot of people on medicare i have seen what goes on two eyes.
edit on 21-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 04:35 PM
reply to post by neo96

I had my rude awakening a few years ago...
hurt my foot, still say it was at work, but oh, no, not according to any doctor I saw....well, worked with that hurt foot, kept going to the doctor, and paying the danged bills (after the insurance paid what they paid), till the danged thing got so bad that I was falling at work, and well....was so broke, didn't have the money to get to and from work....gave it to the healthcare, well, thought maybe, just maybe if I could just get off the things for awhile, it would rectify, well, since the boss wasn't giving time off, I quit the job, lost the insurance, and well, it didn't get better, and one day I stood up, walked a few steps, heard a loud snap, and well, it was broken....
tell me, do the seniors end up laying in bed a week, while the doctor refuses to do set the bones because they don't have a few thousand dollars on hand to give as a down payment?? do they have to have chats with state senators to get the treatment they need to be able to walk again???

Like I said, I had my rude awakening.....
the lady laying in the bed with a splint on her leg and her family was paying for half the neighbor's kid's healthcare, as well as housing, heat, food, and on and on!!! one of my kids dropped out of school, elected to get a ged instead, because I couldn't come up with the little bit of money that was needed to get him clothes that he could fit in!! I went eating every other day, because there just wasn't enough food in the house, which, by the way, was rather cold!! but oh, ya, we were pitching in...on neighbors kids had shrimp to eat once a week, another neighbor's kids had mom bringing him to his baseball practice and was all nicely equipped with new gear for it! another neighbor had a habit of opening all her windows in the middle of the NY air the place out!!!
but the lady with the broken ankle, with no income, who couldn't walk, would have been up a creek without a paddle if it wasn't for one little ole state senator pressuring the doctor to do the operation!!

that was my rude awakening!!
now, well, it looks like it's time for the rest to have theirs!!!

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

been there and done that myself

broken hand
broken foot
12 stitches in my sclap
1 hernia
and 2 near fatal hospitalizations.

all paid for by the company insurance i had at the time

also cobra and workmans comp paid the rest.

all zero cost to myself and income provided while i was not able to work.

sorry i truly am
edit on 21-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 05:00 PM
reply to post by neo96

ya, well, I ain't so asleep that I don't know that they are gonna have to cut alot of crap, and social security more than likely ain't gonna be there for me.....
but, well, I still see alot of stupid girls having baby after baby, and each baby comes with a stupid father, and they all seem to think it's gonna be the taxpayer paying for the little bundle of joy!!
I still see our gov't giving away billions for aids victims in africa, a new refinery in columbia, aid to mexico, aid to saudi arabia, we are still the world's primary military serving at their beck and call!! I still see politicians lying through their teeth, and well, basically being hipocrits, since what was wrong while the other party was in office is suddenly all okay, or vice versa!! and well.....still see big wall street bankers getting obscene bonuses, even after the taxpayers had to bail out the companies because of their stupid mistakes!!!
the pain isn't gonna be felt just by a small group of people, we can all share in that pain, make the sacrifices, or well......the moment I become convinced that social security isn't gonna be there, I am not gonna be here, paying for all the crap!! that plain and simple...."I'll sell everything I own, ship my kids overseas, and well, head for the forest....where I can work less, and probably live better with what mother nature provides, thank you!!!

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 05:03 PM
reply to post by dawnstar

cant ague with any of that its the truth.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 05:10 PM
Eliminate all unconstitutional spending, from entitlement programs, foreign aid, wars not necessary for defense, etc etc.

Problem solved.

If we get back to only the things authorized by the Constitution, we would live in a much more prosperous country.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:15 PM
reply to post by neo96

The only problem is my friend that most seniors in this nation are in the poverty level, with prescription medications that they can not afford and more pills that they can take in one day, thanks to big pharma, they are their bread and blood.

Take Medicare away and most of them will not be able to afford private insurance any way.

And the thing is that while my state wants to give Medicare to the private sector they still will be taking the tax from the working class.

The reason for this is that Medicaid will be the new government choice plan with Obama care.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:21 PM
reply to post by marg6043

big government shares the biggest blame in that

because it brings up a point that i was making earlier

when you have just a few goods and servivces providers costs go up

the most people providing those goods and service mean the price decreases.

big government kills the competition to the point where we are at now.

posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by neo96

Like I will like to think that private insurance are the way to go, still you have to remember that nowhere in the Obama care mandate is regulations against the insurance businesses because after all they wrote the darn health care bill and regulations were taken out of the table at the last moment.

When the mandate hits the main street, insurances will become like they are in Massachusetts the deductives and out of pocket expenses made impossible for the regular joes on fix budgets to use their forced insurance.
edit on 21-4-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in