GOP plans $1 trillion Medicaid cut

House Republicans are planning to cut roughly $1 trillion over 10 years from Medicaid, the government health insurance program for the poor and disabled, as part of their fiscal 2012 budget, which they will unveil early next month, according to several GOP sources.

Click to expand...

A trillion bucks over the next 10 years is quite a bit, but it won't work, and will actually end up being more expensive than what is now in place.

1) The poor will simply get treated at emergency rooms instead of seeing their doctor.

2) The poor will wait until their conditions deteriorate before seeking treatment, which will then become much more expensive than it otherwise would.

3) With no more preventive medicine for the poor, they will be going to emergency rooms in droves, when they develop serious conditions that could have been prevented by treatment in a clinic.

In my opinion, this is a dumb move. Even if you view poor people as leeches on society, gutting Medicaid is going to result in bigger expenditures in the long run. Now there is ONE way to reduce the expenses that poor people cost the rest of us. Just set an earnings limit of, say, 10,000 bucks a year, and everybody under that income gets taken to a field where they are all shot and then dumped into a mass grave. You know, that would work for the disabled too. I know, I know, this sounds cold as hell, but since we are talking about reducing the budget so that banksters can feel comfortable with all those bailout bonuses we are giving them, we are going to have to balance the budget someplace. Since we are choosing to balance it on the backs of the poor and disabled, let's just kill them all so they will no longer be a problem. We can then, in church, raise our hands to the Lord, in front of the entire world, and let Jesus know that we did care enough about the poor to do something about them. Hallelujah! :mrgreen:

Article is here.

danarhea said:

A trillion bucks over the next 10 years is quite a bit, but it won't work, and will actually end up being more expensive than what is now in place.

1) The poor will simply get treated at emergency rooms instead of seeing their doctor.

2) The poor will wait until their conditions deteriorate before seeking treatment, which will then become much more expensive than it otherwise would.

3) With no more preventive medicine for the poor, they will be going to emergency rooms in droves, when they develop serious conditions that could have been prevented by treatment in a clinic.

In my opinion, this is a dumb move. Even if you view poor people as leeches on society, gutting Medicaid is going to result in bigger expenditures in the long run. Now there is ONE way to reduce the expenses that poor people cost the rest of us. Just set an earnings limit of, say, 10,000 bucks a year, and everybody under that income gets taken to a field where they are all shot and then dumped into a mass grave. You know, that would work for the disabled too. I know, I know, this sounds cold as hell, but since we are talking about reducing the budget so that banksters can feel comfortable with all those bailout bonuses we are giving them, we are going to have to balance the budget someplace. Since we are choosing to balance it on the backs of the poor and disabled, let's just kill them all so they will no longer be a problem. We can then, in church, raise our hands to the Lord, in front of the entire world, and let Jesus know that we did care enough about the poor to do something about them. Hallelujah! :mrgreen:

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Well, I can applaud the idea that the GOP is getting serious about budget cutting, but I want to see the proposal. Blind cutting, as you say, could very well end up being more costly in the end. Can we trust the GOP to look beyond ideology and strike a workable compromise on budget issues? That's yet to be seen.

That said, cutting Medicaid is hardly akin to mass graves any more than ObamaCare calls for "death panels." The hyperbole just makes it that much harder to actually find a workable solution.

Arizona has a new idea: if you're poor and you don't conform to the government's lifestyle standards then no matter what your personal circumstances are you'll be punished.

Excerpted from “Arizona Governor Proposes Revamping Medicaid Program; Arizonans Be Fined for Leading Unhealthy Lives” BY BEN FORER, ABC News, April 1, 2011
[SIZE="+2"]A[/SIZE]s part of a plan to revamp the state's Medicaid program, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced on Thursday that she is proposing fees for adults who lead unhealthy lives.

Childless adults who are obese or suffer from a chronic condition and who fail to work with their doctor to meet specific goals would be charged $50 annually. The $50 annual fee also would apply to all childless adult smokers. …

Click to expand...

danarhea said:

A trillion bucks over the next 10 years is quite a bit, but it won't work, and will actually end up being more expensive than what is now in place.

1) The poor will simply get treated at emergency rooms instead of seeing their doctor.

2) The poor will wait until their conditions deteriorate before seeking treatment, which will then become much more expensive than it otherwise would.

3) With no more preventive medicine for the poor, they will be going to emergency rooms in droves, when they develop serious conditions that could have been prevented by treatment in a clinic.

In my opinion, this is a dumb move. Even if you view poor people as leeches on society, gutting Medicaid is going to result in bigger expenditures in the long run. Now there is ONE way to reduce the expenses that poor people cost the rest of us. Just set an earnings limit of, say, 10,000 bucks a year, and everybody under that income gets taken to a field where they are all shot and then dumped into a mass grave. You know, that would work for the disabled too. I know, I know, this sounds cold as hell, but since we are talking about reducing the budget so that banksters can feel comfortable with all those bailout bonuses we are giving them, we are going to have to balance the budget someplace. Since we are choosing to balance it on the backs of the poor and disabled, let's just kill them all so they will no longer be a problem. We can then, in church, raise our hands to the Lord, in front of the entire world, and let Jesus know that we did care enough about the poor to do something about them. Hallelujah! :mrgreen:

Article is here.

Click to expand...

What BS. Here's the plan.

The Roadmap secures Medicare for current beneficiaries, while making common-sense reforms to save this critical program

Click to expand...

.

It preserves the existing Medicare program for those currently enrolled or becoming eligible in the next 10 years (those 55 and older today) - So Americans can receive the benefits they planned for throughout their working lives. For those currently under 55 – as they become Medicare-eligible – it creates a Medicare payment, initially averaging $11,000, to be used to purchase a Medicare certified plan. The payment is adjusted to reflect medical inflation, and pegged to income, with low-income individuals receiving greater support. The plan also provides risk adjustment, so those with greater medical needs receive a higher payment.

Click to expand...

The proposal also fully funds Medical Savings Accounts [MSAs] for low-income beneficiaries, while continuing to allow all beneficiaries, regardless of income, to set up tax-free MSAs.
Based on consultation with the Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and using Congressional Budget Office [CBO] these reforms will make Medicare permanently solvent

Click to expand...

Modernizes Medicaid and strengthens the health care safety net by reforming high-risk pools, giving States maximum flexibility to tailor Medicaid programs to the specific needs of their populations. Allows Medicaid recipients to take part in the same variety of options and high-quality care available to everyone through the tax credit option.

Click to expand...

Medicare/Medicaid | A Roadmap for America's Future | The Budget Committee Republicans

They are serious about making promises. I have never seen them actually risk their jobs. BTW I support raising the retirement age to 72. That would save a huge amount of dough. Ofcourse I'm not a pol afraid of losing my cushie seat.

GhostlyJoe said:

Well, I can applaud the idea that the GOP is getting serious about budget cutting, but I want to see the proposal. Blind cutting, as you say, could very well end up being more costly in the end. Can we trust the GOP to look beyond ideology and strike a workable compromise on budget issues? That's yet to be seen.

That said, cutting Medicaid is hardly akin to mass graves any more than ObamaCare calls for "death panels." The hyperbole just makes it that much harder to actually find a workable solution.

Click to expand...

All I see in the plan, is more handouts to the private medical industry. It is the private medical industry that is the freaking problem in the first place, yet they get rewarded... now that is typical GOP.

danarhea said:

A trillion bucks over the next 10 years is quite a bit, but it won't work, and will actually end up being more expensive than what is now in place.

1) The poor will simply get treated at emergency rooms instead of seeing their doctor.

2) The poor will wait until their conditions deteriorate before seeking treatment, which will then become much more expensive than it otherwise would.

3) With no more preventive medicine for the poor, they will be going to emergency rooms in droves, when they develop serious conditions that could have been prevented by treatment in a clinic.

In my opinion, this is a dumb move. Even if you view poor people as leeches on society, gutting Medicaid is going to result in bigger expenditures in the long run. Now there is ONE way to reduce the expenses that poor people cost the rest of us. Just set an earnings limit of, say, 10,000 bucks a year, and everybody under that income gets taken to a field where they are all shot and then dumped into a mass grave. You know, that would work for the disabled too. I know, I know, this sounds cold as hell, but since we are talking about reducing the budget so that banksters can feel comfortable with all those bailout bonuses we are giving them, we are going to have to balance the budget someplace. Since we are choosing to balance it on the backs of the poor and disabled, let's just kill them all so they will no longer be a problem. We can then, in church, raise our hands to the Lord, in front of the entire world, and let Jesus know that we did care enough about the poor to do something about them. Hallelujah! :mrgreen:

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Actually Dan, a lot of the elderly on Medicaid were not poor, but their kids transferred their parent's assets out before they apply for the coverage.
Medicaid is means tested for institutional elder care, at least in my state but there are ways to swindle it by the common person.

Frankly, IF this does knock off a trillion and brings the budget in line, why are you complaining? and since you don't like it, what is your solution?

I wouldn't have such a problem with this if it weren't for the corporate bailouts.

The GOP cries about socialism a lot but they are okay with corporate socialism and using the money of tax payers to support the corrupt banking system.

Temporal said:

I wouldn't have such a problem with this if it weren't for the corporate bailouts.

The GOP cries about socialism a lot but they are okay with corporate socialism and using the money of tax payers to support the corrupt banking system.

Click to expand...

The Fed is the lender of last resort, created to bail out banks, nothing new.

Chappy said:

Arizona has a new idea: if you're poor and you don't conform to the government's lifestyle standards then no matter what your personal circumstances are you'll be punished.

Click to expand...

Nothing new in that idea, the left has been pushing it for decades. The only exception was when the Left decided the HIV virus needed civil rights, and gave them to it.

Short term-minded cuts on preventative care are just that, short term. The deficit is fixable with the removal of the Bush tax cuts along with the removal of corporate tax loopholes along with other reforms to the tax code (e.g. creating a higher tax bracket at $1 million) and raising the retirement age. All of these solutions are viable long-term.

TheBook said:

Short term-minded cuts on preventative care are just that, short term. The deficit is fixable with the removal of the Bush tax cuts along with the removal of corporate tax loopholes along with other reforms to the tax code (e.g. creating a higher tax bracket at $1 million) and raising the retirement age. All of these solutions are viable long-term.

Click to expand...

But in your ideal system of fairness, wouldn't it be prudent to also eliminate fraud and abuse in entitlement spending. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, UEI, food stamps, and welfare, subsidies etc..? I am one of those self made rich dudes, and I personally wouldn't mind paying a bit more, if everyone else sacrificed a bit as well. Unlike those rascally rich folks the lib's are always talking about, I sacraficed a great deal as I was making my way up the ladder. I missed a lot while my kids were growing up, I sacrificed my first marriage while I was working those 70 and 80 hour work weeks.. I don't feel guilty for being rich, I damn well earned it, and paid for it many times over.. My sacrifices are documented.. What about the sacrifices of the welfare peeps who have state of the art cell phones, the best sneakers, and the bling? What is their sacrifice?

There's lot's that can be done to reign in over zelaous politicians, but it works both ways.. or it should!

Besides, notwithstanding my little rant.. It doesn't matter. It can't be fixed with taxes and spending cuts.. We as a nation are beyond the tipping point. The only thing our current crop of politicians can do is continue to push it off on later generations, and continue to lie bald faced to the American public while continuing to do so..


Tim-

Harry Guerrilla said:

Actually Dan, a lot of the elderly on Medicaid were not poor, but their kids transferred their parent's assets out before they apply for the coverage.
Medicaid is means tested for institutional elder care, at least in my state but there are ways to swindle it by the common person.

Frankly, IF this does knock off a trillion and brings the budget in line, why are you complaining? and since you don't like it, what is your solution?

Click to expand...

Dana has no solutions, he has idiotic hyperbole, ridiculous exaggerations, hollow "EEVIL RICH PEOPLE!" rhetoric, and bitterness over the fact that his hatred for anyone successful conflicts with his generalized thoughts about the government. If he had an answer or other thought I'm sure he would've supplied it in the OP; instead we got comparisons to genocide.

I'd try to respond to the actual topic, but I can't get past his ridiculous "OMG lets just shoot poor people because that's no different than what Conservatives want to do!" rhetoric that sadly mimics his SOP for posting as of late.

How about we see what comes of the actual plan before we start tolling the doomsday bells of have the melodramatic "CONS ARE EBBBBBIL" folks jumping up with "kill the old people" comparisons, shall we? From what I've read the hope here is to put in some kind of measure protecting truly "low income" elderly. On top of that, the simple fact is there IS going to be some bad things that happen with regards to medicare/Medicaid/Social Security. This isn't a situation where there's a choice that has everything being positive. If we leave it as it is we're going to bankrupt our country. If we change it there's going to be some segment of the population gets screwed. Dana likes to whine and bitch constantly about how no one wants to tackle the hard issues, conservatives aren't sticking to their principles, etc...and when one actually attempts to deal with a hard issue by taking a conservative approach of attempting to reign in the spending and programs that have became out of control he launches into more hyperbole than a Glenn Beck episode comparing it to the mass murder of the poor.

Frankly I'm just happy to see a politician that's somewhat prominent within his party honestly and truly attempting to tackle the elephant in the room.

danarhea said:

A trillion bucks over the next 10 years is quite a bit, but it won't work, and will actually end up being more expensive than what is now in place.

1) The poor will simply get treated at emergency rooms instead of seeing their doctor.

2) The poor will wait until their conditions deteriorate before seeking treatment, which will then become much more expensive than it otherwise would.

3) With no more preventive medicine for the poor, they will be going to emergency rooms in droves, when they develop serious conditions that could have been prevented by treatment in a clinic.

In my opinion, this is a dumb move. Even if you view poor people as leeches on society, gutting Medicaid is going to result in bigger expenditures in the long run. Now there is ONE way to reduce the expenses that poor people cost the rest of us. Just set an earnings limit of, say, 10,000 bucks a year, and everybody under that income gets taken to a field where they are all shot and then dumped into a mass grave. You know, that would work for the disabled too. I know, I know, this sounds cold as hell, but since we are talking about reducing the budget so that banksters can feel comfortable with all those bailout bonuses we are giving them, we are going to have to balance the budget someplace. Since we are choosing to balance it on the backs of the poor and disabled, let's just kill them all so they will no longer be a problem. We can then, in church, raise our hands to the Lord, in front of the entire world, and let Jesus know that we did care enough about the poor to do something about them. Hallelujah!

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Barbbtx said:

What BS. Here's the plan.
.
Medicare/Medicaid | A Roadmap for America's Future | The Budget Committee Republicans

Click to expand...

How DARE you counter his supposition with actual facts! You know better.

What else can be done?

Bigfoot 88 said:

What else can be done?

Click to expand...

You have to start somewhere.

Military cuts... 1.4 million people under arms... only 200k being used actively in 2 wars. Waste in procurement and so on. Yes cut overseas bases if needed.

Tax increases.. like it or not, it can not be avoided. US taxes are already some of the lowest in the industrialized world, but spending is not... any economist can tell you that dont compute.

Stopping loopholes and insane tax breaks for billionaires.... like it or not, this is a huge problem. That GE, Newscorp, Koch Industries can get away with paying next to no taxes is a huge scandal that no one really wants to talk about. Can you as a private citizen avoid taxes? HELL NO.. but they can. Nothing pisses me off more than people not bearing the same burden as I do.... if Denmarks richest man avoided paying taxes on his billions, there would be a riot and I would be up in front. Thankfully he is a patriot and pays his taxes.

Tackling the geographic monopoly the medical industry has gotten over the last 30+ years thanks to congress. Like it or not, Obama is right.. the biggest threat to the US is the insane rise in medical costs brought on by a highly ineffective market. This bleeds into Medicare and Medicaid. They are not the problem, the whole private healthcare system is. Tackling the geographical monopolies in many industries would be good too /wave internet and cable providers.

And finally over all waste... bridge to no where, military projects the military dont want but some arrogant senator wants for his state and such things. Earmarks should be banned period. Nepotism and cronyism should be hit down on.. hard. Politicians are not there to serve themselves and those people that backed them.. they are there to serve the people and only the people.

All these would be a start.. then you could look at cutting Medicaid and Medicare and even Social Security... things that actually benefit the non rich majority.

First, your post shows your bias beyond a shadow of a doubt. "Rich People, Corporations, Military". Shocker, Pete's "solution" is nothing but a narrow viewed push of his far left views. Did you know that the only people who dodge taxes and push for wasteful projects are corporations and republicans? :roll:

Second, any attempt to deal with the budget without dealing with all three of the BIG factors is an attempt that has problems. Those three are Defense Spending, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid. Focusing on only one of those is ridiculous, and that includes just going "CUT THE MILITARY!!!!!" like a good little leftist.

Thirdly, while "GE" may find loopholes that get the mout of taxes, that doesn't mean the people at the top escape from all taxes personally. Comparing an individuals INCOME tax to a corporations tax is idiotic. It'd be like corporations complaining that the business doesn't getting any social security benefits once its existed for 55 years.

Fourthly, for ages both sides have suggested to "get rid of waste" while suggesting that its not a "significant impact" when their opposite side suggests it. Significantly making "waste" a part of a budget fix proposal BEFORE you look at ALL THREE of the big spending areas is simply a dishonest tactic at hoping to obfuscate your obvious political biases present in your argument by making it appear like you're actually saying something rather than simply dodging the big elephants in the room.

Fifth, tax increases ACROSS THE BOARD would be something to potentially legitimate discuss once the economy is back on track AND we see LEGITIMATE cutting of spending. As we have seen time and time again in this country, if you raise taxes while having no faith that spending is going to be cut the ONLY thing you get is...more spending. New taxation doesn't help to pay down the deficite but simply gives politicians the cover and excuses to spend even MORE money. Potentially increasing taxes a small bit once things get on track and we have actual factual evidence of the government reducing spending each year rather than increasing it would be reasonable to discuss as it'd be in better faith that that increase would actually help in paying down our debt and deficit. However until that point its ridiculously pointless class warfare that ignores reality in exchange for blatantly taking advantage of this situation to push a wholey different political agenda.

If you want to do something about taxes with regards to this the answer is clear, and no I'm not going to say lower taxes. Simplify the tax code, and move to something along the lines of a fair tax. You significantly cut the IRS and the money spent with regards to taxation, you make it far more difficult for people to "loophole" out of taxes, while at the same time not significantly raising taxes on people taking money out of the public sector which creates our GDP growth and lowering the incentive for success.

Any cost cutting budgetary measure needs to siginficantly look at Defense, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid. Any that doesn't do all three is a flawed plan. Any that doesn't at least deal with two of them is likely pissing in the wind. Anything that doesn't touch all three is crap. After you take a sincere look at those three then you can start playing small ball by looking at other entitlements, waste, earmarks, fraud, nepotism,grants, subsidies, programs, etc.

There are no "cuts" to Medicaid. No dollar that was spent last year will not be spent next year. what the Republican budget is proposing is that it be changed to a block grant to the states; allowing the states to disperse the money as they feel best. this removes the incentive for the states to get "free money" from the federal government by signing up as many people as they can cram into the system, and - thus - slows the growth of Medicaid spending.

you know the part where they talk about "waste and inefficiencies"? That's what this is, changing an inefficient system to a morer-smarterer one.

Chappy said:

“You need to be responsible for the fact that your smoking costs us more.” — Monica Coury, assistant director of the state's Medicaid program, the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System​

“It's very nanny state, which is very interesting because historically Arizona has been a very libertarian state.” — Democratic State Sen. Kyrsten Sinema​

Arizona has a new idea: if you're poor and you don't conform to the government's lifestyle standards then no matter what your personal circumstances are you'll be punished.

Click to expand...

You wouldn't be complaining if it was Michelle telling kids what to eat would you?

Zyphlin said:

First, your post shows your bias beyond a shadow of a doubt. "Rich People, Corporations, Military". Shocker, Pete's "solution" is nothing but a narrow viewed push of his far left views. Did you know that the only people who dodge taxes and push for wasteful projects are corporations and republicans? :roll:

Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with left or right, but common sense. A society that has a system where the rich and powerful are able to avoid taxes or other "burdens" that the rest are forced to do, is a society that has a serious problem. Like it or not, "rich" Americans do pay less than they should because off loopholes and tax avoidance methods. That the worlds 3rd richest man has a lower tax rate than his secretary shows a huge problem. And yes, GE (lefty according to people on the right), EXXON, Newscorp and many others, pay no where near the 32% tax rate is another symptom of a broken system.

Second, any attempt to deal with the budget without dealing with all three of the BIG factors is an attempt that has problems. Those three are Defense Spending, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid. Focusing on only one of those is ridiculous, and that includes just going "CUT THE MILITARY!!!!!" like a good little leftist.

Click to expand...

I did not say "not dealing" with the big 3.. I said deal with the real waste and corruption first then see what is needed to be cut in the big 3. That is a huge difference. Who knows, maybe you wont have to gut Medicare/Medicaid after you fixed the other issues.. who knows!

Thirdly, while "GE" may find loopholes that get the mout of taxes, that doesn't mean the people at the top escape from all taxes personally. Comparing an individuals INCOME tax to a corporations tax is idiotic. It'd be like corporations complaining that the business doesn't getting any social security benefits once its existed for 55 years.

Click to expand...

Again, more deflection and protection of companies like GE and Exxon. "People at the top" do pay taxes, but they also have the money to exploit the tax system so to not pay what they should pay. Like it or not a US company with 16 billion in profits paying 0 in taxes in the US .. IS a big problem. It is not like they are the only ones for god sake.

Fourthly, for ages both sides have suggested to "get rid of waste" while suggesting that its not a "significant impact" when their opposite side suggests it. Significantly making "waste" a part of a budget fix proposal BEFORE you look at ALL THREE of the big spending areas is simply a dishonest tactic at hoping to obfuscate your obvious political biases present in your argument by making it appear like you're actually saying something rather than simply dodging the big elephants in the room.

Click to expand...

Yes I agree, the present crop of politicians would never fix this problem, since they all are part of the broken system. And no the new crop that came in are no better as we have seen. Point is, to point out the issue and maybe just shame them into submission. Look at Wisconsin right now, that moron who runs the place has given a cushy state job paying a lot, to the drop out son of a big doner... I mean come on...Or the Democrat that got funding for a library which then hired his daughter?

Fifth, tax increases ACROSS THE BOARD would be something to potentially legitimate discuss once the economy is back on track AND we see LEGITIMATE cutting of spending. As we have seen time and time again in this country, if you raise taxes while having no faith that spending is going to be cut the ONLY thing you get is...more spending. New taxation doesn't help to pay down the deficite but simply gives politicians the cover and excuses to spend even MORE money. Potentially increasing taxes a small bit once things get on track and we have actual factual evidence of the government reducing spending each year rather than increasing it would be reasonable to discuss as it'd be in better faith that that increase would actually help in paying down our debt and deficit. However until that point its ridiculously pointless class warfare that ignores reality in exchange for blatantly taking advantage of this situation to push a wholey different political agenda.

Click to expand...

Tax increases do work, as long as there are cuts as well.. I agree that with the present crop of spendaholics in Congress, increasing taxes without cuts and improvements in the budget and system, would be stupid. But that does not change the fact that tax increases are needed regardless of the economic situation.

If you want to do something about taxes with regards to this the answer is clear, and no I'm not going to say lower taxes. Simplify the tax code, and move to something along the lines of a fair tax. You significantly cut the IRS and the money spent with regards to taxation, you make it far more difficult for people to "loophole" out of taxes, while at the same time not significantly raising taxes on people taking money out of the public sector which creates our GDP growth and lowering the incentive for success.

Click to expand...

Fair tax = more tax cuts to the rich. I agree on a simplified tax code... dump the loopholes, and speciality tax breaks and very few deductibles... that would make it much more simple.

Any cost cutting budgetary measure needs to siginficantly look at Defense, Social Security, and Medicare/Medicaid. Any that doesn't do all three is a flawed plan. Any that doesn't at least deal with two of them is likely pissing in the wind. Anything that doesn't touch all three is crap. After you take a sincere look at those three then you can start playing small ball by looking at other entitlements, waste, earmarks, fraud, nepotism,grants, subsidies, programs, etc.

Click to expand...

And you accuse me of being partisan. It is funny how NO one on the right ever mentions the decades of stealing from Social Security.. put that money back and Social Security would be just fine. As for Medicare/Aid... fix your healthcare industry and the costs go down for them too.. keep it as its, then any changes will make it even more expensive.

TheBook said:

Short term-minded cuts on preventative care are just that, short term. The deficit is fixable with the removal of the Bush tax cuts along with the removal of corporate tax loopholes along with other reforms to the tax code (e.g. creating a higher tax bracket at $1 million) and raising the retirement age. All of these solutions are viable long-term.

Click to expand...

Your posts reads like a demand from the man with the torn femoral artery demanding water. Just keep filling him up with water and he won't bleed to death is your theory.

Do discover the Beatles and listen to their song The Taxman.

PeteEU said:

Has nothing to do with left or right, but common sense. A society that has a system where the rich and powerful are able to avoid taxes or other "burdens" that the rest are forced to do, is a society that has a serious problem.

Click to expand...

Even worse is a society like America's where those making less than the median income (and that means 50%) of the people pay either no tax at all or so little that it makes no difference to the big picture, and it certainly provides no mechanism to decrease the demand for more hand outs.

Let's see....Obama's buddy, General Electric, earned 14 gigabucks last year, and paid zero taxes. Assuming they'd not been so well connected to the Democrats and had to pay taxes, they'd have paid somehing like 30%, or 5.2 gigabucks in taxes. How's that compare to a 4 trillion dollar budget? Also, consider that since GE isn't a private person, but a company charging it's customers to have them pay the taxes, and that by and large GE's customer is the United States goverment, who, really, would be paying the taxes GE paid? The man-in-the-street taxpayer would, as the government, would pay that extra cost without question.

The Mayor is not defending GE's creative tax solutions, merely pointing out that taxing business is nothing but a means of taxing the business's customers. If the goal is a growing economy with an expanding employment base, the correct thing to do is to end corporate subsidies and end corporate taxation, especially the capital gains tax scam.

The employees will earn more money, the government will tax that, there will be more employees, so the government could think about it's feelings about declining to spend less on social services. It won't spend less, it never does when the economy improves, it merely channels the money to new wasteful spending that becomes bedrock essential in less than a week...but the thought counts, doesn't it? The feelings of the bureaucrats as they fleetingly ponder the odd feeling of maybe almost considering not spending someone else's money...that's what really counts with the socialists and their myriad failed programs, isn't it?

I'm amazed so many of us are already speaking like we're experts in the field and already know for certain what the long term effects will be only hours, days?, after the plan from the GOP has come out.

PeteEU said:

And you accuse me of being partisan. It is funny how NO one on the right ever mentions the decades of stealing from Social Security.. put that money back and Social Security would be just fine. As for Medicare/Aid... fix your healthcare industry and the costs go down for them too.. keep it as its, then any changes will make it even more expensive.

Click to expand...

Yes, you're partisan. People on the right cite the theft and the raiding of the social security money all the time in their discussions of the perfidy of the socialist driven kleptocratic bloated government.

And just where on earth is the money going to come from to "just put it back"? Raid the Senator's bank accounts? What? Tax the people who have been robbed again, when the people who robbed them are still expanding their shopping spree?

Before we fix the health care industry we have to get rid of that stupid nationalized nonsense the left imposed on us. But don't worry, we're Americans and we'll fix our mistakes so you people in Europe and Canada will still have some place to go to get fixed up when your socialized medicine fails you again. This is what Americans do, when our government gets the hell out of the way.

Mayor Snorkum said:

Yes, you're partisan. People on the right cite the theft and the raiding of the social security money all the time in their discussions of the perfidy of the socialist driven kleptocratic bloated government.

Click to expand...

They do? Where? not on these boards, and certainly not the "experts" I see on TV. And those that supposedly cite the theft, do they demand that the Feds put the money back? Of course not, because that would make social security much more viable in the short, medium and long term!..

And just where on earth is the money going to come from to "just put it back"? Raid the Senator's bank accounts? What? Tax the people who have been robbed again, when the people who robbed them are still expanding their shopping spree?

Click to expand...

Not "our" problem. The money has been paid in by people. Gut the military, tax the companies that got big tax cuts because of the stealing.. I do not care.. point is, social security is with this money safe. The feds guaranteed that the money they "loaned" would be put back, so do that.. Do you really want millions of poor elderly people dieing on the streets.. you know, like 80+ years ago?

Before we fix the health care industry we have to get rid of that stupid nationalized nonsense the left imposed on us. But don't worry, we're Americans and we'll fix our mistakes so you people in Europe and Canada will still have some place to go to get fixed up when your socialized medicine fails you again. This is what Americans do, when our government gets the hell out of the way.

Click to expand...

Seriously... the problem is not the "nationalized" stuff.. UHC is cheaper world wide than a private run system. Even the Swiss are debating on dumping their private run system because of the much higher costs. The US uses over 16% of GDP on healthcare.. the average European country uses under 10%, many much under 10%, and all have just as good if not better care than that of the US.

And "socialized medicine" gives as good or better results in most areas of medicine as you get in the US, and it covers everyone.. something the US does not. And no, emergency room treatment of poor uncovered is not considered coverage.. but triage.

The problem in the US is very simple.. zero competition or regulation. When a state has 1 or 2 carriers, then you know you got a serious problem. You do understand the principle of a monopoly/duopoly right?