Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on June 24, 2012, 09:41:46 AM
-
...reinstate three popular elements of the law if it’s struck down
------
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/senate-republicans-mirror-house-gop-shift-on-obamacare.php
Senate Republicans Signal Big Shift On ‘Obamacare’
Senate Republicans are echoing the House GOP’s shift in favor of some of the more popular “Obamacare” provisions, a sign that the party is uniting behind the strategy ahead of the election.
With a Supreme Court decision looming next month, House Republicans are privately weighing a plan to reinstate three popular elements of the law if it’s struck down — guaranteeing coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions, allowing young adults up to 26 years old to remain on a parent’s insurance policy, and closing the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap known as the “doughnut hole.”
Whether coverage of pre-existing conditions is economically viable for insurers without an individual mandate is a dubious proposition, but practical realities are taking a back seat to election year imperatives. It’s not a hard sell to voters: you can have all the popular provisions of health care reform without the unpopular ones.
Despite the blowback from conservatives, who want nothing less than to wipe out the law in its entirety, top Senate Republicans are signaling that they’re behind the strategy of resurrecting some aspects of the Affordable Care Act.
Sen. Roy Blunt (MO), vice chair of the Senate GOP Conference, offered a ringing defense of the “Obamacare” under-26 provision, and said he wouldn’t oppose ideas he previously supported simply because President Obama adopted them.
“I believe that’s one of the things that the Congress would surely reinstate,” Blunt told the St. Louis radio station KTRS in an interview last Thursday, pointing out that he has offered similar legislation in the past. “It’s a way to get a significant number of the uninsured into an insurance group without much cost. … It’s one of the things I think should continue.”
“I’ve been in a couple meetings lately and there’s some general understanding that that’s one of the things … and there are other things like that as well,” the senator added.
A GOP health aide explained the strategy on the shift: “Come up with a plan and come up with a plan quick to deal with popular … provisions. An interesting twist will be money spent and continued implementation. There could be a deal struck on those two issues as well.” The aide said Democrats would have a hard time turning down a Republican proposal to reinstate some of the law’s most popular pieces.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (TN), asked by TPM if he believes his party should back the pre-existing conditions and under-26 laws, didn’t endorse specifics but affirmed that his party ought to have a plan ready. “Well, I think we need to be prepared,” he said. “And we will be prepared.”
The shift is notable because Republicans have spent more than two years pledging nothing less than total repeal of the law. That has conscripted them into disavowing all of its elements, implicitly or explicitly, even though core pillars of the law had significant support within the GOP before Obama embraced them.
Now, however, the party would be caught in an election-year predicament if the Supreme Court grants them their wish and overturns the law. Warming to these provisions is an important signal that Republicans believe the extent of their anti-“Obamacare” stance over the last few years is politically unsustainable. That’s not sitting well with conservative advocates.
The deeper problem with the GOP’s fall-back plan is that guaranteeing coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions is economically infeasible without a requirement, like the “Obamacare” individual mandate, to bring young and healthy people into the insurance system. It addresses the need to spread risk and prevent costs from spiraling upward.
On KTRS, Blunt floated the idea of high-risk pools to cover pre-existing conditions — an idea that presents its own adverse-selection quandary — and discussed the broader systemic problem in remarkably similar terms as Obama and his allies have done in their defense of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.
“You know, you do run a risk when you decide you’re not going to have insurance,” Blunt said. “And a lot of those — that odd, that occasional young person who believes they’re not going to need health care, doesn’t get it, and then they have a terrible accident or they have a unique illness that most young people don’t have. These high risk pools give them somewhere to go that is somewhere close to normal insurance.”
Some Democrats think the Republican shift is merely a bluff.
“They’re joking, right? This is serious?” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) told TPM. “The Republicans — the tea party has never been for consumer laws, never been for protecting families, never been for making Medicare work better. So it’s a continued sham.”
-
From Day 1, the GOP said there were certain things they could agree on, but the bad shit was so bad that it killed any chance of bi-partisanship.
Watch and learn Straw - Obama got raped in this clip and left speechless.
-
From Day 1, the GOP said there were certain things they could agree on, but the bad shit was so bad that it killed any chance of bi-partisanship.
Watch and learn Straw - Obama got raped in this clip and left speechless.
I don't watch your clips any more
I've told you this many many times
This is your own fault
there is no point in watching clips you post
If you read the article I posted you'd understand that although Repubs are in favor of keeping the requirement of insurers including people with pre-existing conditions that would be financially impossible without a mandate
If you recall, the mandate, which was a Republican idea and even championed by the Heritage Foundation as a call to personal responsibility is a fundamental requirement in order for this type of health care to work. That is why Romney's plan inclucdd a mandate.
I've honestly never understood why Repubs were truly against the mandate. It's there own idea and they understand the math and they know that without it, in the long run they themselves will be paying more for uninsured people
-
I don't watch your clips any more
I've told you this many many times
This is your own fault
there is no point in watching clips you post
If you read the article I posted you'd understand that although Repubs are in favor of keeping the requirement of insurers including people with pre-existing conditions that would be financially impossible without a mandate
If you recall, the mandate, which was a Republican idea and even championed by the Heritage Foundation as a call to personal responsibility is a fundamental requirement in order for this type of health care to work. That is why Romney's plan inclucdd a mandate.
I've honestly never understood why Repubs were truly against the mandate. It's there own idea and they understand the math and they know that without it, in the long run they themselves will be paying more for uninsured people
The Heritage Foundation floated this idea when HillaryCare was under discussion. It was never a party platform and it was far more limited.
If the mandate were solely for catastrophic care for the ER or something funded by some type of tax, I could be open to it. But the obama mandate is open ended and forces people to buy all sorts of shit they will NEVER use.
-
The Heritage Foundation floated this idea when HillaryCare was under discussion. It was never a party platform and it was far more limited.
If the mandate were solely for catastrophic care for the ER or something funded by some type of tax, I could be open to it. But the obama mandate is open ended and forces people to buy all sorts of shit they will NEVER use.
there never was ANY party platform from Repubs in regards to healthcare
it's a non-issue to them
that doesn't change the fact that the mandate was a republican creation and many repubs at the time were all for it
it also doesn't change the fact that it's the only way to make a large insurance system like this workable
Honestly, I would be in favor of a one time opt in or opt out
Let's call it a national intelligence test
Most people would be smart enough to do the math and opt in
If you opt out then you're still free to purchase private insurance or be part of an employers group plan but if you choose not to have insurance then you are agreeing that you can never claim access to the government sponsored plans and you are agreeing to pay out of pocket for all health care services and this means you will get the full bill for all emergency room service as well. I would be totally fine with that.
-
I have no problem as long as there is no individual mandate. I do NOT like the idea that the government can tell me I have to purchase health insurance from a private company.
Something very basically wrong with that.
-
I have no problem as long as there is no individual mandate. I do NOT like the idea that the government can tell me I have to purchase health insurance from a private company.
Something very basically wrong with that.
and I'm fine with allowing you a one time opt out with no chance of getting back in
that's the only way the system could work
If you think about it, even people are opposed to a mandate should be smart enough to realize that if they choose not to pay for insurance when they are healtly that paying a penalty is like paying a very small insurance premium to ensure access to the system at a later date when they will inevitably need healthcare that they cannot personally afford
Since most low income people would be exempt from the penalty it would really only hit people who can afford insurance but choose not to pay it. These are people who can afford to pay their own way but would prefer to pay nothing now and then use emergency services as a substitute which in essence means we all (you and me and everyone else) have to pay for their care
-
and I'm fine with allowing you a one time opt out with no chance of getting back in
that's the only way the system could work
If you think about it, even people are opposed to a mandate should be smart enough to realize that if they choose not to pay for insurance when they are healtly that paying a penalty is like paying a very small insurance premium to ensure access to the system at a later date when they will inevitably need healthcare that they cannot personally afford
Since most low income people would be exempt from the penalty it would really only hit people who can afford insurance but choose not to pay it. These are people who can afford to pay their own way but would prefer to pay nothing now and then use emergency services as a substitute which in essence means we all (you and me and everyone else) have to pay for their care
The issue is cost.
Why should a broke 22 y/o or tjheir employer pay ridiculous premiums to subsidize a wealthier sicker older person? Its absurd beyond belief.
We need isurance across state lines , tort reform, means testing of medicare, medicade reform, allowance of catastrophic and hospitalization insurance, etc.
Obamacare is the exact opposite of what is needed.
-
From Day 1, the GOP said there were certain things they could agree on, but the bad shit was so bad that it killed any chance of bi-partisanship.
Watch and learn Straw - Obama got raped in this clip and left speechless.
Is this part of the "The election is over!" line that Obama used in McCain?
There was NO COMPROMISE with the Dems, when they ran the whole show. Now, that they don't have the House, they're blubbering about compromise.
-
Is this part of the "The election is over!" line that Obama used in McCain?
There was NO COMPROMISE with the Dems, when they ran the whole show. Now, that they don't have the House, they're blubbering about compromise.
Yup
-
The issue is cost.
Why should a broke 22 y/o or tjheir employer pay ridiculous premiums to subsidize a wealthier sicker older person? Its absurd beyond belief.
We need isurance across state lines , tort reform, means testing of medicare, medicade reform, allowance of catastrophic and hospitalization insurance, etc.
Obamacare is the exact opposite of what is needed.
A broke 22 year old would most likely be exempt from the mandate and penalty
A 22 year old who has just graduated from college and has a job would most likely be part of an employers group plan
-
A broke 22 year old would most likely be exempt from the mandate and penalty
A 22 year old who has just graduated from college and has a job would most likely be part of an employers group plan
I dont think he would be exempt from the mandate, if anything he would be given a tax credit to buy insurance.
The individual mandate is the most unpopular part of this both with politicians and civilians alike.
If you feel that it is needed for the bill to work, well then the bill just simply doesnt work...
-
I dont think he would be exempt from the mandate, if anything he would be given a tax credit to buy insurance.
The individual mandate is the most unpopular part of this both with politicians and civilians alike.
If you feel that it is needed for the bill to work, well then the bill just simply doesnt work...
I think you are correct
I should have typed exempt from the penalty for not purchasing insurance (which is the "teeth" in the mandate)
the concept works just fine in Mitt Romney's home state
-
I think you are correct
I should have typed exempt from the penalty for not purchasing insurance (which is the "teeth" in the mandate)
the concept works just fine in Mitt Romney's home state
Not that is matters at all since the basis for the argument against obamacares mandate has no relation to romneycare.
BUT actually it didnt, if you look at the research at least from the speech I attended on it a year ago.
Romney care had a negative effect and I believe less ppl were insured than before.
-
Not that is matters at all since the basis for the argument against obamacares mandate has no relation to romneycare.
are you making an advance prediction of the SC decision here or are you referring to something else
BUT actually it didnt, if you look at the research at least from the speech I attended on it a year ago.
Romney care had a negative effect and I believe less ppl were insured than before.
who was giving the speech and what research were they citing
everything I've read says 98% of people in MASS have health insurance so if it's down I guess that's down from 99% or 100%
-
are you making an advance prediction of the SC decision here or are you referring to something else
who was giving the speech and what research were they citing
everything I've read says 98% of people in MASS have health insurance so if it's down I guess that's down from 99% or 100%
just stating facts, a federal mandate is not the same as a state mandate.
What research were they citing?
If I am going to produce my resources, you should as well...
It was a speech given from some insurance company if I am not mistaken at a meeting for a finance organization I was a part of through my work.
I still have the handouts they gave and can scan them and send them to you if youd like. I believe it has their names and contact info on there if you would like to speak with them.
-
just stating facts, a federal mandate is not the same as a state mandate.
What research were they citing?
If I am going to produce my resources, you should as well...
It was a speech given from some insurance company if I am not mistaken at a meeting for a finance organization I was a part of through my work.
I still have the handouts they gave and can scan them and send them to you if youd like. I believe it has their names and contact info on there if you would like to speak with them.
what the difference btw the mandates other than one is imposed by a state and the other by the federal government?
regarding the 98% coverage I've seen it cited many times
here is one example:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-26/romneycare-s-98-success-rate-defies-gripes-on-obama-law.html
About 98 percent of state residents are insured under the legislation Romney signed in 2006, a 10 percent rise from the previous three-year average. Government costs haven’t ballooned, officials say, and 63 percent of residents support the law. Yet Romney is promising to repeal the 2010 U.S. law Obama and his fellow Democrats fashioned on the Massachusetts program.
-
what the difference btw the mandates other than one is imposed by a state and the other by the federal government?
regarding the 98% coverage I've seen it cited many times
here is one example:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-26/romneycare-s-98-success-rate-defies-gripes-on-obama-law.html
10th amendment anyone?
-
10th amendment anyone?
the federal government forces you to buy into social security
what's the difference?
-
From Day 1, the GOP said there were certain things they could agree on, but the bad shit was so bad that it killed any chance of bi-partisanship.
Watch and learn Straw - Obama got raped in this clip and left speechless.
Great clip. Ryan was right.
-
the federal government forces you to buy into social security
what's the difference?
Ss is a tax. Obama mandate forces commerce w a private Corp Big difference.
-
Great clip. Ryan was right.
Now you know why straw won't watch it.
BTW - Ryan was dead right about the class act and the demos were forced to abandon it because it was a ponzi scheme.
-
Ss is a tax. Obama mandate forces commerce w a private Corp Big difference.
I've read a few articles the delineate the equivalency of being forced by the governement to pay for something and receiving something in return and being taxed by the government and receiving something in return
I think that will obviously be one of the arguments being looked at in this case
-
I've read a few articles the delineate the equivalency of being forced by the governement to pay for something and receiving something in return and being taxed by the government and receiving something in return
I think that will obviously be one of the arguments being looked at in this case
Had Obama instituted a tax vs a mandate, it would have been legit, but the tax would have had to fund a public option ofsome type.
The easiest thing he could have done is create a national catastrophic care program that dealt w ER issue and paid for it by a tax of some type. Would have been totally legal.
-
Now you know why straw won't watch it.
BTW - Ryan was dead right about the class act and the demos were forced to abandon it because it was a ponzi scheme.
I won't watch it for no other reason that you posted it
I've watched more than enough videos you've posted where you think something is said that was NEVER said
I don't know if it's true in this case or not but your credibility is shot
your fault not mine
-
Straw Man, 99% of politicians are political opportunists. The only reason why most Republican politicians are now against the individual mandate is because:
1. The Democrats are for it.
and
2. They need to satisfy the grassroots and let them know that they really are the lesser of two evils.
Just flip a few things around in the above and the same applies for most Democrat politicians.
-
What do any of you naysayers about "Obamacare" think would be the best health-care solution for this country? Of the developed countries we have perhaps the worst health-care system. More U.S. citizens go without health-care than in any other developed country in the world. I suspect if one is among the lucky few who have employer provided medical benefits, health-care reform seems unnecessary. For the masses who have no health-care coverage, health-care reform is pretty important. Keep in mind that for all those folks who utilize health-care via an emergency room and who have no means to pay for their services, those of us who are able to purchase health-care insurance, are in fact paying for those who cannot.
Given that the average Getbigger is almost a juvenile heath-care insurance probably seems like an expensive luxury. And like most healthy young persons, one never imagines they could get seriously ill, but they can. Trust me on this, one medical episode can wipe a person out.
-
What do any of you naysayers about "Obamacare" think would be the best health-care solution for this country?
A free market as opposed to the maze of bullshit restrictions and mandates that currently drive up health care costs.
Of the developed countries we have perhaps the worst health-care system.
That is actually a statistically false claim. If you look at the WHO's own data (which is cited as proof for America's poor health-care system), then you'll notice that there are numerous subrankings included for the countries. As it turns out, the USA comes out #1 when it comes to the actual quality of the the health care provided. The overall rating is much lower because the WHO includes subrankings on price to the consumer qua consumer as well as multiple subrankings on issues of "fairness" and "equality." But it really should come as no surprise that higher quality health care costs more.
More U.S. citizens go without health-care than in any other developed country in the world.
Not necessarily... perhaps more US citizens lack health INSURANCE than in any other developed country in the world, but health care itself? That's a different ball game. Citizens in countries with single-payer systems more often than not have long waits on waiting lists in order to see specialists. Also, the US is the most advanced when it comes to number and quality of medical equipment, such as CAT scans.
I suspect if one is among the lucky few who have employer provided medical benefits, health-care reform seems unnecessary. For the masses who have no health-care coverage, health-care reform is pretty important. Keep in mind that for all those folks who utilize health-care via an emergency room and who have no means to pay for their services, those of us who are able to purchase health-care insurance, are in fact paying for those who cannot.
Which is a good argument for getting rid of that rule. If someone falls behind on their medical bills and the hospital decides to waive it in the name of charity, fine. But the hospital, as well as other medical organizations, should have the right to go after someone's assets if they fail to pay for the services they received.
Given that the average Getbigger is almost a juvenile heath-care insurance probably seems like an expensive luxury. And like most healthy young persons, one never imagines they could get seriously ill, but they can. Trust me on this, one medical episode can wipe a person out.
Health insurance wouldn't be an expensive luxury if it weren't for government interference. Examples:
1. Mandates - This is a matter of consumer choice: why do I have to pay for services that I don't want? As a young guy, I'll pass on the coverage of boner pills like viagra. As a male, I'll pass on the coverage of pregnancy-related stuff. As a non-addict, I'll pass on the coverage of drug and alcohol addiction treatment. If we got rid of all of these mandates and allowed consumers to choose the kind of coverage they want, then people would be able to get affordable health insurance plans. For example, someone who is young and healthy (such as myself) should be able to get a plan with a high deductible that covers only catastrophic events and illnesses (you know: the ORIGINAL point of INSURANCE). This is a low risk, so it wouldn't cost much to get such insurance. At the same time, if something catastrophic happened (e.g. it turns out I have cancer), then the hit to my pocketbook is limited thanks to the insurance.
2. Competition - States set their own rules regarding health insurance companies, and many times oligopolies rule the day in individual states. If these rules were wiped out, then there could be national competition among dozens of insurance companies, all seeking to provide the best coverage for the lowest possible price.
3. Licensing - Another issue of consumer choice: It should be up to me who does my medical shit, not some government-created cartel. A lot of routine medical issues can be handled by nurses or others who don't have an MD. So getting rid of licensing and the whole BS behind that would allow for more opportunities and thus lower prices. Also, it wouldn't unfairly discriminate against alternative approaches to health, wellness, and medicine.
4. Medical Schools - This is related to point #3. There are numerous states that have only one medical school. Why? In order to limit the number of MDs in that state. It's protectionism and government-sponsored cartelization in its most blatant form. Obviously putting a
5. Ending Third-Party Payment - Or at least stop subsidizing it. Right now, employers get a tax break for providing their workers with health insurance, while individual citizens do not get a comparable tax break for getting their own health insurance. Obviously, such a policy discriminates against the unemployed and the self-employed. Also, it forces individuals to change health insurers or health plans every time they get a different job. But worse of all, it delinks the need of the consumer to price-shop. If the employer pays for the insurance coverage in part or in fool, then the employee/consumer has less of a reason to shop around and look for more affordable coverage. Also, I'll add in a point here that is an intersection between this area and the area of insurance mandates (point #1): a lot of times, mandates require coverage of just ridiculous things (e.g. why the fuck do I have to pay for women's contraceptives and old farts' boner pills?). And when something is covered in full or in part, then that encourages people to consume more of that good or service. That, in turn, drives up health insurance costs. This is again an example of when someone pays for something that you buy, the price-tag isn't as important to you. However, when everyone does this, it ends up having a negative impact on everyone by driving up costs. That's the situation we're in right now with the health care and health insurance in the United States. Returning to a simple free market in this area would undo most of the damage and drastically reduce costs.
6. Changing Medical Tort Law - I think everyone agrees that our whole legal system is simply fucked. So, obviously, this carries over to medical tort law as well. Outrageous law suits often ruin doctors financially, which leads them to conduct all sorts of unnecessary testing and procedures on patients just stay on the safe-side and avoid getting sued. This adds substantially to health care costs. Simple reforms, such as requiring people that lose civil suits compensate the defendant for the legal services they purchased, could go a long way toward eliminating baseless law suits or at least leaving doctors more confident to not spend money on tests and procedures that don't need coverage.
7. Eliminating the Paperwork - Walk into your doctor's office. Count the number of doctors and nurses working there. Then count all of the receptionists and other pencil-pushers. Frequently, the pencil-pushers outnumber the actual medical staff. Why? Mostly because of the numerous government restrictions, regulations, etc. regarding health insurance. Because doctors don't have the time to deal with health insurance companies, they have to hire additional staff. Of course, these costs get passed via higher prices.
8. Hospitals - Another point similar to points #2, #3, and #4. Try opening a hospital. You'll discover that you can only do so if you're permitted by a board of representatives from local hospitals. It's another example of government cartelization that greatly limits competition and thus increases costs.
P.S. My girlfriend stepped on my kindle thereby breaking it, so as of right now I am working out of memory and without citations. Sorry.
-
the federal government forces you to buy into social security
what's the difference?
Good point. Let's get rid of Social Security too.
-
P.S. My girlfriend stepped on my kindle thereby breaking it, so as of right now I am working out of memory and without citations. Sorry.
Sorry for not reiterating your excellent responses to my comments, but I didn't think it wise to bore the crew here.
One thing that stuck me was your suggestion that each of us should be able to opt out of various benefits when purchasing medical insurance. While I think that would be an excellent idea, but I doubt the medical insurance providers would go for it. It is my understanding that those of us who have low usage actually subsidize the heavy users. I suspect this change would make medical insurance not afordable for people with a lot of health issues, if they could even get coverage at all. Of course one could argue that would be an incentive for folks to take better care of their health....which would actually be oversimplifying the situation since there are many who have poor health though no fault of their own.
Incidentally, most providers do not cover erectile dysfunction medications and when they do, it is at a very low level. I purchase a "Cadillac" medical insurance plan with fairly expensive premiums. I have purchased Viagra in the past. Six pills (which is the max my insurance will allow for a month) were something like a $70 co-pay. Interestingly enough, one can purchase these medon-linene from India for a fraction of that price.
-
Good point. Let's get rid of Social Security too.
Let me guess....you are so young that you don't believe you will either need nor will have Social Security available. If our legislators stopped tapping Social Security to help cover the national debt, it would be still be healthy.
Tell me again to get rid of Social Security after you've paid into it, like I have, for over 50 years. Oh, OK get rid of Social Security but give me and everyone else back all the money we've paid into it all these years first.
-
Let me guess....you are so young that you don't believe you will either need nor will have Social Security available. If our legislators stopped tapping Social Security to help cover the national debt, it would be still be healthy.
Tell me again to get rid of Social Security after you've paid into it, like I have, for over 50 years. Oh, OK get rid of Social Security but give me and everyone else back all the money we've paid into it all these years first.
We've all paid into it. The problem is coming, its not a sustainable system. People draw a lot more than they put it - eventually, people that paid in their whole life will have nothing to draw anyway. If its not your generation, its going to be down the road.
-
We've all paid into it. The problem is coming, its not a sustainable system. People draw a lot more than they put it - eventually, people that paid in their whole life will have nothing to draw anyway. If its not your generation, its going to be down the road.
Keep in mind, the legislature is robbing from Social Security to pay the national debt. This is a good part of why it is currently not a sustainable system. Also, there are hoards of folks drawing money out of Social Security that have paid little or nothing into the system. Social Security is like welfare for the disabled regardless that many are disabled as a result of their own making, such as drug abuse. My nephew who is in his 20's draws Social Security Disability because he is ADHD. He has barely worked at all. Whatever he has paid into SS is negligible.
-
Keep in mind, the legislature is robbing from Social Security to pay the national debt. This is a good part of why it is currently not a sustainable system. Also, there are hoards of folks drawing money out of Social Security that have paid little or nothing into the system. Social Security is like welfare for the disabled regardless that many are disabled as a result of their own making, such as drug abuse. My nephew who is in his 20's draws Social Security Disability because he is ADHD. He has barely worked at all. Whatever he has paid into SS is negligible.
That is also a good point considering 5 million people recently went on SSDI.
-
That is also a good point considering 5 million people recently went on SSDI.
Interesting information; can you explain why the recent upsurge?
-
Interesting information; can you explain why the recent upsurge?
I'll dig it out later but there has been huge increase in SSDI
-
Straw Man, 99% of politicians are political opportunists. The only reason why most Republican politicians are now against the individual mandate is because:
1. The Democrats are for it.
and
2. They need to satisfy the grassroots and let them know that they really are the lesser of two evils.
Just flip a few things around in the above and the same applies for most Democrat politicians.
I agree with you on everything stated above but I have not seen the Dems do a 180 on their own proposed legislation as soon as the Repub POTUS got on board. It may have happened but, to the best of my recollection I just don't recall it happening. If it has happened (again, I just can't recall so not saying it hasn't) it was not at the level we've seen with the Repubs under Obama
-
Good point. Let's get rid of Social Security too.
good luck selling that idea to anyone
-
I'll dig it out later but there has been huge increase in SSDI
Perhaps joblessness is the new disability.
-
Let me guess....you are so young that you don't believe you will either need nor will have Social Security available. If our legislators stopped tapping Social Security to help cover the national debt, it would be still be healthy.
Tell me again to get rid of Social Security after you've paid into it, like I have, for over 50 years. Oh, OK get rid of Social Security but give me and everyone else back all the money we've paid into it all these years first.
No, I don't think it will be around. People like you would have to be grandfathered in, of course.
good luck selling that idea to anyone
333386 is already sold on the idea.
-
No, I don't think it will be around. People like you would have to be grandfathered in, of course.
Thats a nice thought. However, the only way Social Security goes away is that it goes under in my opinion. If that happens, how can anyone be grandfathered in? Furthermore, lets say the legislature decided to end Social Security. How would they decide where to cut people off from being grandfathered into the system? ....at 10, 20 or 30 years in the system? Would folks be refunded what they'd paid into Social Security?
-
Thats a nice thought. However, the only way Social Security goes away is that it goes under in my opinion. If that happens, how can anyone be grandfathered in? Furthermore, lets say the legislature decided to end Social Security. How would they decide where to cut people off from being grandfathered into the system? ....at 10, 20 or 30 years in the system? Would folks be refunded what they'd paid into Social Security?
It doesn't matter how...NOBODY will be happy. Just man up (or woman up)...do the right thing...and cut your losses (the Congresspeople who make the vote).