• 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!

Nancy Pelosi says Republicans will starve seniors

DiAnna said:
Wow. Just... wow. So you think the people who live on SS alone, $12,000 a year, are stupid fat asses whose medical problems are their own damned fault. You accuse me of drama while you CAPITALIZE every other WORD and villify EVERYONE over the age of 65 because they... what? Because they are receiving $12,000 a year in social security, a program that frankly would be in the black if government hadn't stolen from it over the years. Because they are entitled to medicare, which they have also paid for their entire working lives.

You think you could survive on $12,000 a year, bucko? Fat chance. Nearly all seniors have supplementary income from pensions (usually pretty small, unless one has a cushy public union pension at 80% of their salary) and drawdowns from their 401k's and IRA's. You think we're stupid? Of course those of us fortunate enough to have decent jobs have put away as much as possible to support ourselves during retirement. Prosperous retirement? Are you crazy? Most of us clip coupons and count pennies, because those 401k's and IRA's are only going to last so long, y'know?

There are a lot of old folks who didn't have a cushy life, who lived in poverty working minimum wage jobs, or who had their savings wiped out by catastrophic medical expenses in their families. The people who are getting these meals are frail, sick old people, people living alone without families to care for them and no source of income beyond their social security. THAT'S who we're talking about, MR. DRAMA QUEEN. And where in hell do you get this "live off medicare" crap? Are you under the illusion that medicare sends seniors monthly checks? Medicare is just medical insurance. It pays 80% (of what medicare wants to pay, not what is actually charged) of "allowable" services directly to doctors and/or hospitals. Maybe you misspoke, and meant that seniors are greedy enough to expect medicare to actually help provide medical services to keep them alive. Well, yes. Since private insurance companies automatically stop insuring people when they reach 65, we greedy seniors actually expect medicare to do what it promised to do, what we paid for it to do because otherwise, we'd be completely without medical benefits. Completely.

We're such drama queens.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if people got out of your mindset that all you have to do is survive til you are 65 and then the government will take over and take care of you for the rest of your lives...perhaps if people understood social security is not MEANT to be your sole source of retirement income...perhaps if they started working...started plannign families and futures instead of just letting it happen...perhaps if people took some responsibility for themselves the poor little bastages wouldnt be stuck living on 12,000 a year at age 65. And who the hell told you to stop living at age 65...hell Ive been in post grad programs with people well into their 70's and 80's looking to start new careers...and thats NOT an exaggeration. Yes...you CAN retire at 65 with no income, no means of support...and live off of your 122k a year. And if you did that...baby you did a piss poor job of planning for your future.

There ARE those that CANT provide for themselves. You want to be pissed off? Be pissed at the lazy slugs who DIDNT prepare for their future. And stop pretending the fedefral governemnt and every other citizen on the planet exists to provide for yourself because you didnt and dont blame me or be pissed at me because you have to live off 12k a year. Practice this one sentence and go fill out an application..."Hi welcome to WalMart"....
 
VanceMack said:
Perhaps if people got out of your mindset that all you have to do is survive til you are 65 and then the government will take over and take care of you for the rest of your lives...perhaps if people understood social security is not MEANT to be your sole source of retirement income...perhaps if they started working...started plannign families and futures instead of just letting it happen...perhaps if people took some responsibility for themselves the poor little bastages wouldnt be stuck living on 12,000 a year at age 65. And who the hell told you to stop living at age 65...hell Ive been in post grad programs with people well into their 70's and 80's looking to start new careers...and thats NOT an exaggeration. Yes...you CAN retire at 65 with no income, no means of support...and live off of your 122k a year. And if you did that...baby you did a piss poor job of planning for your future.

There ARE those that CANT provide for themselves. You want to be pissed off? Be pissed at the lazy slugs who DIDNT prepare for their future. And stop pretending the fedefral governemnt and every other citizen on the planet exists to provide for yourself because you didnt and dont blame me or be pissed at me because you have to live off 12k a year. Practice this one sentence and go fill out an application..."Hi welcome to WalMart"....
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you actually read the post you replied to you'd have said something relevant, since I explained that I am one of those who did plan for my own future and was fortunate enough not to be bankrupted by job loss or catastrophic medical costs. I am talking about those who aren't so fortunate. You are clearly generalizing, repeating yourself over and over.

Bah. I'll save further discussion for people who actually read what I have to say.
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
Perhaps if you actually read the post you replied to you'd have said something relevant, since I explained that I am one of those who did plan for my own future and was fortunate enough not to be bankrupted by job loss or catastrophic medical costs. I am talking about those who aren't so fortunate. You are clearly generalizing, repeating yourself over and over.

Bah. I'll save further discussion for people who actually read what I have to say.
Click to expand...

You CLEARLY ignored the fact that I ADDRESS those that CANNOT and instead save my derision for those that WILL NOT. So if there is a comprehension problem, its on you. And yeah...one of the little prongs on your crown is dented just a teensy bit.
 
Last edited:
DiAnna said:
Threads like this always make me feel really bad. It's terrible to know that people want you to die just because you've lived for 65 years. It hurts that people feel your life is not worth anything, that you are not worth anything just because of your age.
Click to expand...

other than one poster who made a joke, i would like to see any evidence whatsoever that you have that A) anyone on this thread or elsewhere wants seniors to die because they are old and B) reduction of a government subsidey would have that effect.

People who are on medicare and social security have paid for more than half a century into the system, and now are being told that they aren't entitled to the medical care they paid for
Click to expand...

no, they aren't. as far as the entitlement system is concerned, the 2012 budget effects no one over the age of 55. unless you are referencing a single individual who has been paying payroll taxes since the age of 4, this statement is either hyperbole, or someone has been feeding you false information.

Many people who hold the view that seniors aren't entitled to $12,000 a year in SS payments are the same people who defend public employee pensions of $70,000+ a year... also on the taxpayer dollar.
Click to expand...

that's interesting; who has said that we shouldn't pay social security, but should pay public employee pensions?

as a side note, given that we are discussing Social Security payouts; how did you vote on my Social Security Reform Idea that would have tripled the payout for low-income workers?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Perhaps not a "mass starvation." But there are indeed some people who're in very vulnerable situations. Some people may well starve without the assistance that comes from some of these sorts of programs.
Click to expand...

and if we do not reduce medicare spending, the program will have to be ended suddenly and more will suffer. this is the inevitable choice you face once you teach people to become dependent upon entitlement programs.
 
cpwill said:
and if we do not reduce medicare spending, the program will have to be ended suddenly and more will suffer. this is the inevitable choice you face once you teach people to become dependent upon entitlement programs.
Click to expand...
I am not advocating policy atm.
Just pointing out some facts that I have first hand awareness of.

Apparently, my part of the country, the South is more likely to have seniors who need this sort of help than other parts—perhaps because of the greater amount of rural areas.

Meals on Wheels were funded with $218mil and delivered 240mil meals last year—~$1.10/meal delivered.
How much lost work time and lost productivity, (and the associated loss of tax revenue), in the general population would one have to prevent to make up for that $1.10/meal?
If the answer to that is less than the amount of lost work time etc that would be spent on caring for these seniors some other way, including treating them for malnutrition and the accompanying issues, then the answer would seem to be that it's beneficial to cut the program. If the answer is that the prevented loss of productivity and tax revenue is greater than the current cost of caring for these people, then we are actually increasing tax revenue by expending it in this area and it would be penny-wise and pound-foolish to cut the program. Idk the numbers, so I can't say.

But this particular program is not a very good example of bloated govt waste—$1.10/meal sounds like a pretty reasonable price to me. I strongly suspect that there are better examples of bloat and waste in the Fed budget. I could be wrong though. Perhaps it is among the more wasteful. Idk.
 
roughdraft274 said:
He found another way to get what he wanted. That was in your own source. Saying that optional end of life counciling is a "death panel" is one of the most disingenuous arguments ever and you know that Rev. Hopefully you're just trying to push buttons and don't believe this crap.
Click to expand...



If there is lets say for arguments sake a single payer system, (obama supports such a system) and this system has a certain amount of money, how can they not have "death panels"....


The name is inflamatory, but come on, it wasn't "optional" at first was it?
 
MaggieD said:
We just can't automatically "buy" that 6 million people will lose their Meals on Wheels. We must be willing to look closer at all of the cost-saving measures that come before us. We can't just buy into the rhetoric. We can't afford to anymore.

Example: In my area, Meals on Wheels delivers lunchtime dinner-sized portions to seniors for $5.50 a day/5 or 6 days a week. That's awesome. They make deals with local restaurants and use volunteers to deliver the meals. A typical meal would be something like meatloaf with mashed potatoes and gravy, vegetable, a cup of soup, bread and butter, and milk or juice.

I'm passing that information along to say this: I investigated Meals on Wheels for a brother and sister in their early 80's. She has $1.2 million in the bank; he has probably about $300K in the bank. They are financially self-sufficient, obviously. Meals on Wheels never asked what assets or income they had, and set them up on the program.

Would it be wrong to cut funding so that somebody with $1.2 million in the bank in their early 80's had to pay $3/day for food delivered to their door? I mean, what does this bill actually do? And, further, how much does Meals on Wheels actually cost? What does the restaurant charge? The meals are delivered by loyal volunteers, after all. What is the actual subsidy? Or does the money go for top-heavy administration expenses?
Click to expand...

My experience with Meals on Wheels is more recent. When I retired from teaching, I volunteered to deliver a couple of days a week in my local community. You use your own car, pay for your own gas and even though you may submit a per mile voucher, I never knew any driver who did in the four years I was involved. Basically, a senior pays between $1.50 and $3.00 per day for a hot lunch and the type of meal is pretty much as you described. The portions of the entree are rather small and it certainly is not enough to stretch over two meals. The food was always fresh and made that morning cafeteria style or slightly better quality than the average school lunch.

The type of people I delivered to were almost all very elderly people over the age of 80 who were pretty much home bound and rarely got out. They lived in their own homes or apartments which were usually older and smaller than the rest of the community. For many of these folks, the delivery person is the only person they see on most days. You perform a variety of services for them - of which the meal delivery- is only one. You try to spend at least a few minutes with each person asking them how they are feeling, if there is anything they need from you that day, and other things. People ask you to do all sorts of things from simple tasks like tying their shoes, moving heavy objects, reading small print on bills, or other daily things that younger people can do in seconds without a moments delay but they sit there all day and wonder how they are going to accomplish it.

It is a terrific program which really helps people who are in need of more than just a meal. It should be a high priority in saving.

I had to leave after four years when I took my current job as chief of staff for a state legislator. But I greatly value the experience I had in the Meals program.
 
It's true! It's true! I'm already hungry! And I'm so thirsty I could drink a horse!
 
Jetboogieman said:
Can anyone say "death panels" :coffeepap

See how easy that was American?

It's not excusing this behaviour.

It's your selective outrage.

Unless we all demand an end to this behaviour from Both sides it will continue.
Click to expand...

This is the point. Both sides exaggerate and are hyperbolic, to the point of lying. The greater problem is that anyone gives either side any credibility when they do this. I would never defend democrats for the staving the elderly claim. But some have defended the death panel nonsense, the traitor comments, and so on and so forth. We need to pull it back and be honest. It is enough to say the republican bill will have consequnce, maybe make things ahrder, but no one seeking to starve the elderly.
 
cpwill said:
and if we do not reduce medicare spending, the program will have to be ended suddenly and more will suffer. this is the inevitable choice you face once you teach people to become dependent upon entitlement programs.
Click to expand...

But that's the problem --- the Democratic party for the most part, with voting help from Republicans who want to be "moderate" and "bipartisan" have created a dependency since the Great Society. That dependency has bloomed over the past 70 years and now there are those who cannot surive without being dependent. It's always easier to become hooked, than it is to get clean.
 
DiAnna said:
Threads like this always make me feel really bad. It's terrible to know that people want you to die just because you've lived for 65 years. It hurts that people feel your life is not worth anything, that you are not worth anything just because of your age.

People who are on medicare and social security have paid for more than half a century into the system, and now are being told that they aren't entitled to the medical care they paid for, not entitled to the monthly pittance they have paid for, and are basically being called stupid and greedy if they expect what they were promised. Many people who hold the view that seniors aren't entitled to $12,000 a year in SS payments are the same people who defend public employee pensions of $70,000+ a year... also on the taxpayer dollar.

I'm so sorry to have intruded on society by not dying on my 65th birthday. I'll try to remedy that so my worthless life doesn't use any more resources that rightfully belong to the younger generations.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but that isn't true.

The money they paid in was spent, they've have plenty of opportunity to change the way things are done and have chosen not to, even when the warning siren has been blaring.
They've had plenty of time to save for them self, haven't.

If you have a 3 bedroom home, where you can't afford to eat, can't afford to pay the water and electricity, its time to sell it and move in to a place you can afford.

Younger generations are already facing lower lifetime incomes because of the recession.
 
Weird, I didn't see the word "starve" anywhere in the OP's link.

Absolutism: Core tenet of the conservative mind. "Deprive of meals" translates somehow to STARVE TO DEATH.
 
cpgrad08 said:
Raise the Retirement age as Life Expectancy goes up.
Click to expand...

The only real reason that Republicans want to raise the retirement age is to keep a glut of workers in the system to drive down wages. Lower #'s of people in the workforce drive wages up....its basic supply/demand economics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom