• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obamacare enrollment hits 7 million

If it makes you feel better saying Romney balanced the MA budget by raising taxes, and you are using his words about what the SCOTUS said the penalty for not buying ACA insurance was (a tax) to somehow try to make a point, that's okay. Not relevant, but okay.

How is that not relevant? You are saying romney never raised taxes when he himself admitted to doing it.
 
How is that not relevant? You are saying romney never raised taxes when he himself admitted to doing it.

He was talking about the SCOTUS decision on the ACA. You didn't understand that from the clip?

But if you want to talk about MA, you do know that Romney proposed a tax break for people who had insurance as opposed to a tax penalty for people who didn't have insurance, yes? That was shot down by the MA legislature.
 
He was talking about the SCOTUS decision on the ACA. You didn't understand that from the clip?

But if you want to talk about MA, you do know that Romney proposed a tax break for people who had insurance as opposed to a tax penalty for people who didn't have insurance, yes? That was shot down by the MA legislature.

What you propose doesn't matter. It's what you do that matters. Romney raised taxes. There is no grey area. Just ask grover norqiust.
 
What you propose doesn't matter. It's what you do that matters. Romney raised taxes. There is no grey area. Just ask grover norqiust.

Okay, please post some links that show exactly how much Romney raised in taxes. I'm not talking about Norquist.

And be careful with that "what you propose doesn't matter" thing. It wrecks the narrative that your fellow Libs love to push about the mandate is the Republicans' idea because they proposed a failed law in 1993.
 
What you propose doesn't matter. It's what you do that matters. Romney raised taxes. There is no grey area. Just ask grover norqiust.

Tell us exactly what taxes did Romney raise, personal state income taxes? NO. Use taxes, yes, so if you didn't use the service you didn't pay the fee. Seems like a rather simple concept to me, pay for what you use not penalize people for making money. Doubt the 4.6% unemployment rate impresses you either.
 
Aw, yes, liberal compassion, 800 a month for SS when that money could have gone into a special savings account drawing simple interest and remained the property of the family. Another brilliant liberal social program that only benefits the govt. SS was never intended by FDR to even be collected, Life expectancy at the time was 63 and retirement was 65. Where does the money go when someone dies before collecting SS?

That's not what I asked for. Prove they are not better today than they were. If you can't, admit I'm correct.
 
Tell us exactly what taxes did Romney raise, personal state income taxes? NO. Use taxes, yes, so if you didn't use the service you didn't pay the fee. Seems like a rather simple concept to me, pay for what you use not penalize people for making money. Doubt the 4.6% unemployment rate impresses you either.

Actually the romney care mandate tax is not a use tax. According to conservatives the romneycare tax is a requirement for living. Mitt romney forces you to buy a product or pay a penalty. So if you purchase insurance it is a tax or you choose to pay the penalty it is tax. That is what conservatives are telling me.
 
Okay, please post some links that show exactly how much Romney raised in taxes. I'm not talking about Norquist.

And be careful with that "what you propose doesn't matter" thing. It wrecks the narrative that your fellow Libs love to push about the mandate is the Republicans' idea because they proposed a failed law in 1993.

The didn't just propose it. They did it in MA.
 
No, you have proven no such thing because you have totally ignored the compassion of having a 250 billion dollar debt service with much of that money going overseas. You buy the liberal rhetoric because that is what you want to believe, that is called thinking only with your heart. There never are better alternatives in the liberal world to SS, Medicare, ACA or any other liberal social program but the only compassion goes to the bureaucrats that run those programs. Are you one?

The debt is a separate issue. And all sides have contributed to the debt.
 
Those people lost their insurance AS A DIRECT RESULT of ACA.

C'mon man, you're allowed your own opinion - just not your own version of facts.

Not really likely. I liked a PBS piece a little while back showing there was really no difference in the loses now than in the recent past. Not only that, there has been no logical rationale for any greater lost.

So, it's not just opinion.
 
Let me guess ... they don't have REALITY where you live, huh?

Government oversight, on average, add 38% to the cost of programs. Thus, when the state sends them a dollar, and the Feds send it back, only $0.62 makes the trip.

I love your 'challenge', though ... you ask a nonsensical question, and then trumpet to the stars about how somebody else has lowered themselves to the level necessary to respond, and how that somehow invalidates everything else they have said from birth until some mystical point in the future.

Again, that wasn't the challenge. But thanks for playing.
 
That's not what I asked for. Prove they are not better today than they were. If you can't, admit I'm correct.

Than they were when and what is the alternative? You buy what you are told. You simply cannot admit you are wrong on any subject, there are much better options than SS but liberals like you need the nanny state to take care of you.
 
Actually the romney care mandate tax is not a use tax. According to conservatives the romneycare tax is a requirement for living. Mitt romney forces you to buy a product or pay a penalty. So if you purchase insurance it is a tax or you choose to pay the penalty it is tax. That is what conservatives are telling me.

Romneycare is a state program approved by the citizens of the state. I have no problem with a state program approved by the citizens of the state, that isn't what ACA is
 
That's not what I asked for. Prove they are not better today than they were. If you can't, admit I'm correct.

Let me help you with that ...

"For example, in 2012 half of all Medicare beneficiaries had annual incomes below $22,500, with median income considerably lower among black and Hispanic beneficiaries ($15,250 and $13,800, respectively) than among white beneficiaries ($24,800). By 2030, median incomes for black and Hispanic beneficiaries will increase to $19,000 and $18,100, respectively, in inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars, while for white Medicare recipients median income is expected to be $32,800. The median income for beneficiaries is projected to be $28,600 in 2030.

Other factors will diminish income for future retirees, the report notes. They include the increase in Social Security’s full retirement age from 65 to 67, the continued shift among employers from defined-benefit pensions to defined-contribution pensions, and a decline in the number of employers offering retiree health benefits.

“If this trend continues, fewer future Medicare beneficiaries will have retiree health benefits and more will be responsible for paying Medicare premiums and out-of-pocket costs,” the report notes. “Furthermore, rising budget deficits will increase pressure to reduce spending, increase taxes, or both.”" Report Looks At Income Disparities For Seniors On Medicare – Capsules - The KHN Blog

Medicare rate increases continue to outpace the cost-of-living raises for Social Security/SSI ...

New Medicare premium rates come out each fall and take effect in January. Medicare beneficiaries as a group are required to pay one-fourth the cost of running Medicare, and annual premiums are set at a figure calculated to achieve that level of revenue. Although the annual premium rates aren't officially set until they are announced each fall, Medicare administrators track trends and anticipated changes and use them to formulate projections of Medicare premiums for the next several years. According to the most recent report of the system's trustees, issued in April 2012, those projected premiums (as listed on page 229) are:

2013: $109.10
2014: $112.10
2015: $117.00
2016: $122.00
2017: $128.20
2018: $135.50
2019: $143.60
2020: $151.90
2021: $161.20
Read more at snopes.com: A Message from Blue Cross/Blue Shield

When you couple all this with the negative impact of the Obama-driven change in COLA computations by using the changed-CPI average, the seniors average home income continues to spiral downward, particularly when you consider that the new 'methodology' for determining the CPI does NOT include the cost of energy OR the cost of healthcare. As a result ....

"Cuts to the nation’s food stamp program hit 48 million Americans this week, including more than 9 million elderly and disabled people." despite recognition that only 30% of the seniors eligible for food stamps actually take advantage of the program. Food stamp cuts hit 9 million elderly and disabled people

So, in answer to your question ... no, seniors are NOT better off than they were years ago.

Consider your challenge met, and turned away. You were NOT correct.
 
Romneycare is a state program approved by the citizens of the state. I have no problem with a state program approved by the citizens of the state, that isn't what ACA is

ACA is a federal program approved by the citizens of the nation
 
ACA is a federal program approved by the citizens of the nation

No, it wasn't approved by the citizens of the nation, it was passed by a partisan vote in a Democrat controlled Congress, and the public voted in November 2010 with a massive rejection in the "Peoples House" You don't implement a totally controversial change in our healthcare system by a totally partisan vote without one opposition vote. I have no idea how old you are but you certainly have no idea what you are talking about. Amazing how Democrats are running from the bill and the majority in this country don't like it and why would they when premiums and deductibles are going up. The only ones liking it are the ones being subsidized by others. That is the new liberal normal, get something for free paid for by someone else.
 
Than they were when and what is the alternative? You buy what you are told. You simply cannot admit you are wrong on any subject, there are much better options than SS but liberals like you need the nanny state to take care of you.

I do when I am. But you were asked a specific question. I only want an honest answer. I'm waiting.
 
I do when I am. But you were asked a specific question. I only want an honest answer. I'm waiting.

You got an honest answer from GBFAN and it provides actual details for you. Not surprised that you didn't respond to it. People like you who ignore history and still believe in the nanny state are part of the problem we face today. You cannot admit you are wrong on any issue. Only in the liberal world is a govt. run program where the family doesn't get your SS contributions should you die a good program.
 
Let me help you with that ...

"For example, in 2012 half of all Medicare beneficiaries had annual incomes below $22,500, with median income considerably lower among black and Hispanic beneficiaries ($15,250 and $13,800, respectively) than among white beneficiaries ($24,800). By 2030, median incomes for black and Hispanic beneficiaries will increase to $19,000 and $18,100, respectively, in inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars, while for white Medicare recipients median income is expected to be $32,800. The median income for beneficiaries is projected to be $28,600 in 2030.

Other factors will diminish income for future retirees, the report notes. They include the increase in Social Security’s full retirement age from 65 to 67, the continued shift among employers from defined-benefit pensions to defined-contribution pensions, and a decline in the number of employers offering retiree health benefits.

“If this trend continues, fewer future Medicare beneficiaries will have retiree health benefits and more will be responsible for paying Medicare premiums and out-of-pocket costs,” the report notes. “Furthermore, rising budget deficits will increase pressure to reduce spending, increase taxes, or both.”" Report Looks At Income Disparities For Seniors On Medicare – Capsules - The KHN Blog

Medicare rate increases continue to outpace the cost-of-living raises for Social Security/SSI ...

New Medicare premium rates come out each fall and take effect in January. Medicare beneficiaries as a group are required to pay one-fourth the cost of running Medicare, and annual premiums are set at a figure calculated to achieve that level of revenue. Although the annual premium rates aren't officially set until they are announced each fall, Medicare administrators track trends and anticipated changes and use them to formulate projections of Medicare premiums for the next several years. According to the most recent report of the system's trustees, issued in April 2012, those projected premiums (as listed on page 229) are:

2013: $109.10
2014: $112.10
2015: $117.00
2016: $122.00
2017: $128.20
2018: $135.50
2019: $143.60
2020: $151.90
2021: $161.20
Read more at snopes.com: A Message from Blue Cross/Blue Shield

When you couple all this with the negative impact of the Obama-driven change in COLA computations by using the changed-CPI average, the seniors average home income continues to spiral downward, particularly when you consider that the new 'methodology' for determining the CPI does NOT include the cost of energy OR the cost of healthcare. As a result ....

"Cuts to the nation’s food stamp program hit 48 million Americans this week, including more than 9 million elderly and disabled people." despite recognition that only 30% of the seniors eligible for food stamps actually take advantage of the program. Food stamp cuts hit 9 million elderly and disabled people

So, in answer to your question ... no, seniors are NOT better off than they were years ago.

Consider your challenge met, and turned away. You were NOT correct.

Better effort than the person I asked, but a blog?

Any way:

Fact #6: Almost half of the elderly would be poor without Social Security. Social Security lifts 14 million elderly Americans out of poverty.
Without Social Security benefits, more than 40 percent of Americans aged 65 and older would have incomes below the federal poverty line, all else being equal. With Social Security benefits, less than one-tenth of the elderly do. (See figure below.) The program lifts 14 million elderly Americans out of poverty.[18]
Almost 90 percent of people aged 65 or older receive some income from Social Security.[19] Those not receiving Social Security mostly comprise recent immigrants, state and local government retirees (and federal retirees hired before 1984) who are covered by separate retirement systems, people under age 66 with significant earnings, and people who are so seriously disabled that they never worked and also have never married.[20]

image.jpg

Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts about Social Security — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
 
You got an honest answer from GBFAN and it provides actual details for you. Not surprised that you didn't respond to it. People like you who ignore history and still believe in the nanny state are part of the problem we face today. You cannot admit you are wrong on any issue. Only in the liberal world is a govt. run program where the family doesn't get your SS contributions should you die a good program.

He did better than you, true. However, not effective all the same:

Fifty years ago the median income for those 65 and over was $8,027 for singles; in 2010 it was $17,845. For couples, the ’62 median was $20,424; in 2010 it was up to $43,114.

One reason seniors were, on average, better off financially is monthly Social Security payments, which have risen faster than inflation and in 2010 averaged more than $1,200 per retiree. Another reason: more than three times as many seniors got private pension payments in 2009 compared to 1962. Those getting government pensions increased by nearly 50 percent.

- See more at: Fact: Median senior income has more than doubled since 1962 - pensions and Soc Sec hikes beat inflation
 
He did better than you, true. However, not effective all the same:

Fifty years ago the median income for those 65 and over was $8,027 for singles; in 2010 it was $17,845. For couples, the ’62 median was $20,424; in 2010 it was up to $43,114.

One reason seniors were, on average, better off financially is monthly Social Security payments, which have risen faster than inflation and in 2010 averaged more than $1,200 per retiree. Another reason: more than three times as many seniors got private pension payments in 2009 compared to 1962. Those getting government pensions increased by nearly 50 percent.

- See more at: Fact: Median senior income has more than doubled since 1962 - pensions and Soc Sec hikes beat inflation

So you think a check for 9600 a year or 12000 a year brings a person out of poverty? You are absolutely unbelievable and a typical liberal. Then you totally ignore that the contribution you make to SS and your employer makes on your behalf isn't your money. That is why people like you need the nanny state
 
So you think a check for 9600 a year or 12000 a year brings a person out of poverty? You are absolutely unbelievable and a typical liberal. Then you totally ignore that the contribution you make to SS and your employer makes on your behalf isn't your money. That is why people like you need the nanny state

Of course not. But it helps. I said better off, and not anything else.

Kind claimed that basically half of seniors lacked health insurance before Medicare, and the program reduced the share of seniors in poverty by 75 percent. His statistics pan out, but he overplays his hand by making Medicare the hero for getting seniors above the poverty line when experts agree other things, chiefly Social Security, are the reason.

U.S. Rep. Ron Kind says that "thanks to Medicare," 75% fewer seniors are in poverty, and most have health coverage | PolitiFact Wisconsin
 
Of course not. But it helps. I said better off, and not anything else.

Kind claimed that basically half of seniors lacked health insurance before Medicare, and the program reduced the share of seniors in poverty by 75 percent. His statistics pan out, but he overplays his hand by making Medicare the hero for getting seniors above the poverty line when experts agree other things, chiefly Social Security, are the reason.

U.S. Rep. Ron Kind says that "thanks to Medicare," 75% fewer seniors are in poverty, and most have health coverage | PolitiFact Wisconsin

Thanks to Medicare which I was forced to take I lost my doctor of 22 years. Do you ever think with the brain you have or just with your heart? Medicare is trillions in debt, SS is trillions in debt but because you can find a politician that supports it that is good enough for you. One of these days you are going to realize how foolish you have been but then it will be too late, your dollar will be worthless.

What liberalism does is create dependence that you can never get out of. SS is and will always be a ponzi scheme but too many are dependent on it. It is a raw deal for families and it is broke because the money was stolen, I mean borrowed. Medicare is also broke but as long as the govt. prints money payments will be made. You liberals have quite a racket going
 
No, it wasn't approved by the citizens of the nation, it was passed by a partisan vote in a Democrat controlled Congress, and the public voted in November 2010 with a massive rejection in the "Peoples House" You don't implement a totally controversial change in our healthcare system by a totally partisan vote without one opposition vote. I have no idea how old you are but you certainly have no idea what you are talking about. Amazing how Democrats are running from the bill and the majority in this country don't like it and why would they when premiums and deductibles are going up. The only ones liking it are the ones being subsidized by others. That is the new liberal normal, get something for free paid for by someone else.

This is spot on, and apparently under a million of this 7 million figure did not have insurance before. Under a million, less than a third of one percent of the population of this nation.

The ACA democrats are going to take a hit in november.
 
Better effort than the person I asked, but a blog?

Any way:

Fact #6: Almost half of the elderly would be poor without Social Security. Social Security lifts 14 million elderly Americans out of poverty.
Without Social Security benefits, more than 40 percent of Americans aged 65 and older would have incomes below the federal poverty line, all else being equal. With Social Security benefits, less than one-tenth of the elderly do. (See figure below.) The program lifts 14 million elderly Americans out of poverty.[18]
Almost 90 percent of people aged 65 or older receive some income from Social Security.[19] Those not receiving Social Security mostly comprise recent immigrants, state and local government retirees (and federal retirees hired before 1984) who are covered by separate retirement systems, people under age 66 with significant earnings, and people who are so seriously disabled that they never worked and also have never married.[20]

View attachment 67164536

Policy Basics: Top Ten Facts about Social Security — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Its still a fundamentally flawed system and its immoral to continue it. At some point we need to stop digging.
 
Back
Top Bottom