Entitlement Reform

[concernedpuma]

Sorry for the late reply.

I mostly just expect by the time I will be the age to collect SS or use Medicare, it would have to drastically change by that point. I'm already preparing for a future where those programs won't be effective retirement strategies, so I can't necessarily relate to those paying into it. I have no problem paying those taxes, but I just assume I will never be able to collect on that, especially with the size of the millennial generation and the lack of kids we are having to cover our own pool.

It think it's time for people 35 or under to really start focusing on a future without those programs, I can't see how they are sustainable by the time we get to that age.

I agree that SS should not be the sole source of income. It is my opinion that SS was initially intended to provide minimum funds for food and lodging. I think you may be onto something when you write of your concern SS will either be gone or barely hanging on, in the future. It seems likely, any idea of dismantling it will have a distant, incremental effective date, supplemented by 401K remodeling..
Regards,
CP

 

[jonny5]

will you vote for the republican entitlement reform in the midterm election

they want to get rid of social security and medicare so badly. They want to tell Americans that there is no more money so it has to go.

raise the retirement age to 70 and cut benefits

instead of making it solvent.

Entitlement reform is not on my ballot. If it was, I would vote for it early and often. I wish the GOP wanted to get rid of entitlements, but I see only see evidence of them making it worse.

 

[jonny5]

Well then, if true, there should be plenty of money with the Repubs and Trump killing off obsmacare, problem solved.

If only. Sadly, ACA spending keeps going up.

CBO and JCT project that the federal subsidies, taxes, and penalties associated with health insurance coverage for people under age 65 will result in a net subsidy from the federal government of $685 billion in 2018.

 

[concernedpuma]

Entitlement reform is not on my ballot. If it was, I would vote for it early and often. I wish the GOP wanted to get rid of entitlements, but I see only see evidence of them making it worse.

If only SS and Medicare were the entire question, would you reform them as well, or eliminate them?
Regards,
CP

 

[Moderate Right]

will you vote for the republican entitlement reform in the midterm election

they want to get rid of social security and medicare so badly. They want to tell Americans that there is no more money so it has to go.

raise the retirement age to 70 and cut benefits

instead of making it solvent.

Doesn't your side ever get tired of all the lies? Republicans do not want to get rid of social security and medicare, only cut the fat off an out of control spending program that even Democrats admit is on a path to going broke. It needs to be fixed.

 

[Bodi]

will you vote for the republican entitlement reform in the midterm election

they want to get rid of social security and medicare so badly. They want to tell Americans that there is no more money so it has to go.

raise the retirement age to 70 and cut benefits

instead of making it solvent.

Certainly entitled people like the leftist anti-fa are creating a drastic challenge... reform might help.

 

[jonny5]

If only SS and Medicare were the entire question, would you reform them as well, or eliminate them?
Regards,
CP

I would eliminate them, by phasing them out.

 

[Myview]

Just depends on what congress wants to do with entitlements. It takes lower, middle, and higher income people to keep our country operating at high efficiency. Will congress want to jerk the social safety net out from under the segment of our workers that need it the most? To remain solvent social security has to be addressed at some point. If it is a bipartisan effort that fairly addresses entitlements I would probably support it. If it is just a republican controlled thing that makes our divide even harsher. I would fight it tooth and nail.


I vote no on the poll.

 

[concernedpuma]

I would eliminate them, by phasing them out.

I don't believe folks are much wiser than they were pre-SS, as in never seeing the bigger picture. Would you replace SS and Medicare with some Federally mandated savings?
Regards,
CP

 

[rickc]

I don't believe folks are much wiser than they were pre-SS, as in never seeing the bigger picture. Would you replace SS and Medicare with some Federally mandated savings?
Regards,
CP

great idea

give your money to Goldman Sachs

they have been stealing the SS money for decades. they raided all the corporate pension funds and are doing the best they can to eliminate state and federal pensons. What would they do to get their hands on America's working/middle class's retirement savings. Seems to me my 401k never does as well as the stock market. been wiped out twice. dot com and the great recession.

 

[concernedpuma]

great idea

give your money to Goldman Sachs

they have been stealing the SS money for decades. they raided all the corporate pension funds and are doing the best they can to eliminate state and federal pensons. What would they do to get their hands on America's working/middle class's retirement savings. Seems to me my 401k never does as well as the stock market. been wiped out twice. dot com and the great recession.

You jumped line. That is kinda where I was going with the query. Other than the Federal government savings(as in SS) - who could/would/should be trusted. Though, I can imagine a FDIC type guarantee. I am hoping that J5 will have a good answer. I too, fear trusting my retirement income to a potential Ponzi or otherwise crooked scheme. I enjoy eating regularly too much to take a chance!
Regards,
CP

 

[jonny5]

I don't believe folks are much wiser than they were pre-SS, as in never seeing the bigger picture. Would you replace SS and Medicare with some Federally mandated savings?
Regards,
CP

No, I would replace them with whatever individuals, communities or states want to come up with. The federal govt should stay out of it.

 

[cpwill]

Other developed countries pay 2 1/2 less than we do on healthcare, and spend as much public spending as we do for the entire population. So if we just reform our healthcare we can cover 100% of the population at the same cost, and remove the cost of those private premiums and out of pocket.

We've actually gone through and run the numbers on how much this would cost. Even giving credit to the claims of cost efficiency (and, they are more than a bit aspirational. Deliberately blind, in some areas.), it costs $32.6 Trillion in ADDITION to what we are already spending, and that's just in the first decade.

So, pretty much as I said - if you want European entitlements, you have to pay for them the way Europeans do - make our tax code Less Progressive by Taxing the Bejezus out of the Middle Class.

We can reform social security to be tax-payer funded 401Ks which along with make it affordable again

While I'm in favor of a program like this, the costs of making the switch are quite large, and you need a major funding mechanism on the back end in order to recover from the addition of that much debt. When I ran the numbers, it included an addition of about $3.7 Trillion in the short term - but paid it off over a couple of decades by taxing those accounts at 50% upon death of the owner/spouse.

Also, eliminate all welfare spending expect the small amount of food stamps. There you go. Your welcome.

No more Temporary Assistance for Needy Families? No more Earned Income Tax Credit? No more aid to poor students? No more WIC?

 

[Greenbeard]

We've actually gone through and run the numbers on how much this would cost. Even giving credit to the claims of cost efficiency (and, they are more than a bit aspirational. Deliberately blind, in some areas.), it costs $32.6 Trillion in ADDITION to what we are already spending, and that's just in the first decade.

That’s additional public spending, not additional health spending.

 

[cpwill]

That’s additional public spending, not additional health spending.

Yeah. Since we are talking about government expenditures, then additional government spending is sort of the key metric.

 

[Greenbeard]

Yeah. Since we are talking about government expenditures, then additional government spending is sort of the key metric.

Is it news that single-payer shifts private spending to public? That's the entire point. There's one payer and it's a public entity.

 

[cpwill]

Is it news that single-payer shifts private spending to public? That's the entire point. There's one payer and it's a public entity.

It was to him, apparently, since the point I had to make was that making that shift would require tax mechanisms similar to those required elsewhere.

 

[distraff]

We've actually gone through and run the numbers on how much this would cost. Even giving credit to the claims of cost efficiency (and, they are more than a bit aspirational. Deliberately blind, in some areas.), it costs $32.6 Trillion in ADDITION to what we are already spending, and that's just in the first decade.

That 32 trillion dollar price tag is about the same cost as our existing healthcare system is only an estimate of what it would take for Medicare for all. Medicare for all is nothing like the cost efficient systems other countries have and your numbers are only estimates. We have seen solid real-life examples in every other developed country of far more cost-effective healthcare.

So, pretty much as I said - if you want European entitlements, you have to pay for them the way Europeans do - make our tax code Less Progressive by Taxing the Bejezus out of the Middle Class.

The working class already shoulders the vast majority of the healthcare cost through premiums and out of pocket expenses. The difference is that we will pay through taxes and even a flat rate tax will result in the rich paying a higher dollar value. It is estimated that 98% will pay less for healthcare because of this.

While I'm in favor of a program like this, the costs of making the switch are quite large, and you need a major funding mechanism on the back end in order to recover from the addition of that much debt. When I ran the numbers, it included an addition of about $3.7 Trillion in the short term - but paid it off over a couple of decades by taxing those accounts at 50% upon death of the owner/spouse.

We already have the Medicare and Medicaid programs in place and we already saw them expanded under Obamacare with no major problem. All we have to do is expand them to the entire population and then work on making healthcare more cost efficient afterwards like other countries have. That 3.7 trillion is nothing compared to the 59 trillion in healthcare costs over the next 10 years and certainly is worth the cost if the long-term result is more cost effective.

Its like pulling out a tooth. The longer you wait, the harder its going to be.

No more Temporary Assistance for Needy Families? No more Earned Income Tax Credit? No more aid to poor students? No more WIC?

I believe that devoting this much of the economy to the government is hurting the economy and hurting needy families.

 

[danarhea]

programs that i have paid into for my entire career are not "entitlements." however, to answer the question, i will be voting against Trumpists.

Programs that you paid into all your life are earned benefits, not entitlements. People getting those earned benefits are elderly people. A high portion of them are strong believers in the Second Amendment. Want to see a real second Civil War? Take away THEIR MONEY.

 

[danarhea]

Don't lie.

Nobody has said anything about getting rid of social security or medicare.

Your response is caca del toro. Mitch McConnell just called for cutting them.

https://www.newsweek.com/deficit-bu...ecurity-medicaid-medicare-entitlement-1172941

 

[Oborosen]

will you vote for the republican entitlement reform in the midterm election

they want to get rid of social security and medicare so badly. They want to tell Americans that there is no more money so it has to go.

raise the retirement age to 70 and cut benefits

instead of making it solvent.

Citations please.

 

[Oborosen]

• House GOP plan would cut Medicare, Medicaid to balance budget
• Proposals Affecting Trust Fund Solvency
• How Are Republican Policies Affecting Social Security's Long-Term Cash Shortfall?
• Office of Management and Budget -- President’s Budget

Wait, is that all?

 

[Common Sense 1]

will you vote for the republican entitlement reform in the midterm election

they want to get rid of social security and medicare so badly. They want to tell Americans that there is no more money so it has to go.

raise the retirement age to 70 and cut benefits

instead of making it solvent.

Please tell us the legislation that the republicans are pushing to get rid of social security and medicare.
Or is this just a bit of ranting about the mean republicans. Reminds me of the political commercial the democrats
run years ago of Paul Ryan pushing Grandma in a wheel chair over a very high cliff.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Programs that you paid into all your life are earned benefits, not entitlements. People getting those earned benefits are elderly people. A high portion of them are strong believers in the Second Amendment. Want to see a real second Civil War? Take away THEIR MONEY.

Take a look at what you actually pay into the program. It does not come any where near to what the actual cost will be.
But with that said Social Security will never be changed for anyone who is currently receiving it.

 

[jonny5]

Programs that you paid into all your life are earned benefits, not entitlements. People getting those earned benefits are elderly people. A high portion of them are strong believers in the Second Amendment. Want to see a real second Civil War? Take away THEIR MONEY.

Entitlement - a government program that provides benefits to any individual meeting certain eligibility requirements