They really are that stupid

[Carl]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022405613

BigD_95 (847 posts)

Why are there no Dems talking about lower medicare to 55 to save money & gain jobs?
Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2013, 11:22 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

Seriously no one says it on tv or radio. If you lower the age to 55 it saves money because more healthy people are paying in that wont use the services.

Plus one of the main reasons people work until 65 is health Ins. I know so many people have worked until 65 because of this. They saved for retirement but have to work for Ins. Its so dumb. They could survive if they had heathcare. So there would be lots of people that would retire early maybe get a part time job which would open up jobs for younger people. Its a win/win.

So why is this not being talked about? Why would we want people to work longer. It makes no sense. Make room for jobs for younger people and let people enjoy their retirement.  

All kinds of applause but only one seems to know how medicare is funded.
It of course just wants things to be free.

Yo_Mama (2,904 posts)
18. Because it's elitist, undemocratic, a subsidy to the winners from the losers

and would make a fiscal crisis even worse!

The per-person SUBSIDIZED (by the taxpayers) monthly premium cost would be over $570 a month for parts A, B & D (prescription coverage). So for a couple that would be $1,140 a month.

Most people would also want a Medigap, because there is a lot Medicare doesn't cover plus all the copays. That would be around $125-135 monthly additionally, or about $250 a month for a couple. Only the well off can afford to retire and pay $1,400 a month for medical coverage.

Don't we cater enough to the upper middle class in this country? The whole system is really set up for them already. They get massive tax subsidies, especially for saving.

If we wanted to do this why don't we just go single-payer so poor people can also get benefits? They are more likely to NEED to retire early, and they are the ones who are completely out of luck when they're too sick to get hired and too healthy to get disability.

For ONCE - just ONCE - why don't we try returning the Democratic party to its roots, which were concern for the lower-income, not the whining well-off?

Right now Medicare is hugely subsidized by the General Fund. Even if 55-65 year olds joining the program were generally healthier (which might not be the case), it's hard to see how a program funded 45% from the general fund could possibly be made more fiscally sound by more participants:
http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2012.pdf

The difference between Medicare’s total outlays and its “dedicated financing sources” reaches an estimated 45
percent of outlays in fiscal year 2012, the first year of the projection. Based on this result, Federal law requires the Trustees to issue a determination of projected “excess general revenue Medicare funding” in this report. This is the seventh consecutive such finding , and it again triggers a statutory “Medicare funding warning” that Federal general revenues are becoming a substantial share of total financing for Medicare.

Note that that 45% subsidy calculation was predicated on the SGR cut for Medicare providers, which of course did not happen because it never happens. It was about 27%. There will be only about a 2% cut in sequestration, so the 45% subsidy turns into a much higher subsidy.

The Trustees' estimate in 2012 was that the actual actuarial HI (hospital, Part A) insurance deficit was 2.43% of payroll, meaning we would have to increase the Medicare payroll tax from 2.9% to 5.33% to cover expected costs with the recommended level of general fund subsidy.  

Which brings one nonsensical response.

BigD_95 (847 posts)
24. A couple of things your not thinking about

Some of those people would get part time jobs to offset some of that cost.

 

God,these people are idiots.

[Karin]

Make room for jobs for younger people and let people enjoy their retirement. 

I would just like to point out, BigD:  There is no retirement any more, DUmmie.  Your preezy has made it impossible to make ends meet far enough to be able to save.  He has printed so much money, that the little money we make is worthless, and taxed away anyway.  We will all be working to the grave. 

[USA4ME]

The peak earning potential for most Americans is between 55 and 65, right before they retire.  So this primitive wants to take the ones paying in the most to Medicare and place them on Medicare minus them paying in ("& gain jobs;" "Why would we want people to work longer.")  Less coming in and more taking out.  Yeah, you're a real genius.

Yo_Mama

For ONCE - just ONCE - why don't we try returning the Democratic party to its roots, which were concern for the lower-income,...

You can't return to a place you never were.  Dems and liberals don't care about the down-trodden.  We've documented you primitives for too long, and your solutions are always "me, me, me" and never what's best for others.  This "lower Medicare to age 55" is the perfect example.  You just want to sit around, not work, and have your medical needs paid for by others, and the sooner the better.  Moochers every last one of you.

"Concern for the lower income."  You idiots and your lies make me laugh.

.

[BlueStateSaint]

The peak earning potential for most Americans is between 55 and 65, right before they retire.  So this primitive wants to take the ones paying in the most to Medicare and place them on Medicare minus them paying in ("& gain jobs;" "Why would we want people to work longer.")  Less coming in and more taking out.  Yeah, you're a real genius.

You can't return to a place you never were.  Dems and liberals don't care about the down-trodden.  We've documented you primitives for too long, and your solutions are always "me, me, me" and never what's best for others.  This "lower Medicare to age 55" is the perfect example.  You just want to sit around, not work, and have your medical needs paid for by others, and the sooner the better.  Moochers every last one of you.

"Concern for the lower income."  You idiots and your lies make me laugh.

.

Target!  H5.

[FlaGator]

Yo_Mama

For ONCE - just ONCE - why don't we try returning the Democratic party to its roots, which were concern for the lower-income,...

From Ann Coulter

It was the Democratic Party that ginned up the racist mob against blacks and it is the Democratic Party ginning every new mob today— ironically, all portraying themselves as the equivalent of the Freedom Riders. With real civil rights secure—try to find a restaurant that won’t serve a black person—modern civil rights laws benefit only the mob, not the victims of the mob, as American blacks had been. Just as fire seeks oxygen, Democrats seek power, which is why they will always be found championing the mob whether the mob consists of Democrats lynching blacks or Democrats slandering the critics of ObamaCare as racists.

Democrats have gone from demagoguing white (trash) voters with claims that Republicans are the party of blacks, to demagoguing black voters telling them Republicans are the party of racists. Any mob in a storm.

The liberal fairy tale that Southern bigots simply switched parties, from Democrat to Republican, is exactly wrong. What happened is: The Democrats switched mobs. Democrats will champion any group of hooligans in order to attain power. As Michael Barone said of the vicious segregationist (and Democrat) George Wallace, he was “a man who really didn’t believe in anything—a political opportunist who used opposition to integration to try and get himself ahead.”

This is why the Democrats are able to transition so seamlessly from defending Bull Connor racists to defending Black Panthers, hippies, yippies, Weathermen, feminists, Bush derangement syndrome liberals, Moveon.org, and every other indignant, angry mob.

Every segregationist who ever served in the Senate was a Democrat and remained a Democrat except one. Even Strom Thurmond—the only one who later became a Republican—remained a Democrat for eighteen years after running for president as a Dixiecrat. There’s a reason they were not called the “Dixiecans.”

The whole excerpt is here

[NHSparky]

Seriously no one says it on tv or radio.

Because even your fellow teleprompter reading mouth-breather libtards in the MSM know what an incredibly ****ing stupid idea it is, dipshit.