One thing that p's me off about people who are covered by Medicare but are against a national health

plan is that, if they're over 65, when they were working there were lots more jobs that provided group health insurance to their employees. These employers are growing fewer, and have been for some time. I think some of these people think, if you don't have insurance with your job, why, you just need to get you another job. Wouldn't it be nice if it were that easy?

(Another thing that p's me off is the HYPOCRISY of these people. Medicare is a fricking national health plan for the disabled and over 65 crowd.)

There. Now I feel better.

(Edited to add last paragraph directly above.)

I am all for universal coverage. I might not be disabled to the point where I cannot work if I had been able to get medical care before I got too sick to work.

:hug:

THe ones I've run into are over-65 right wingers. Gag.

everyone else. It also pisses me off that those with high incomes and can easily afford medical care and pay for their own retirement collect SS payments.
I used to work for a highline design firm in SoFla and we did work for multimillionaires and they made dam sure they got that 1900$ ss check but they had incomes of 5million a year.
Then they made disparaging comments about those of us stuck making near minimum wage for busting our ass to get food on the table , gas in the car, rent for a roof that we did not deserve any retirement income and bulls about saving for retirement.
While we had barely enough income to pay for all the flat needs and nothing left over to save.

It's obvious to me that God doesn't love you, otherwise he would have made you wealthy, and given you a lifetime of good health.

Your moral failings make you one of the 'little people' the rich love to piss on and tell them it's raining.

:sarcasm:




God seems to only love the wealthy pricks of this country, if you asked them.

What they fail to understand is that we are all in this together, and without us little folk they will have NOTHING.

Peace.
:pals:

in. Unbridled selfishness! :sarcasm:

We have national healthcare for 65 plus, many disabled people. We have national healthcare for many children, pregnant women, through medicaid.

I think national health care through existing programs would provide immediate aid to the economy and help many businesses-small business and corporations.

I'd also mention that the government provides health care for Native Americans and prisoners and veterans. It may not always be the best health care but it sure as hell beats having no access to health care.

France has a beautiful system that is very much like Medicare for everyone. You get a basic plan and can buy optional coverage at your own expense. Employers have a ZERO budget for health care of their employees. As a function of GDP, the French pay far less for health care than the US and get far better coverage, and have a much better satisfaction level. Everyone wins, nobody loses, even insurance companies.

The sick ideology that has this country in a stranglehold.

who gripe incessantly about "income redistribution". Just where the hell do they think that money they get every month comes from?

I just had this conversation with my parents yesterday. I can't believe their hypocrisy and the mental gymnastics they perform to convince themselves that "it's not the same thing" when THEY'RE on the receiving end of these programs.

not wanting to admit they are beneficiaries of social programs).

The medicare program does take money from others to cover expenses which is one reason I think everyone should be covered, and getting its benefits. The drug program or Part D was a giveaway to drug companies because it does not allow govt to negotiate bulk discounts--which is crazy. Countries with national health insurance negotiate such discounts.

But social security is a program where surpluses have been used to help the general population by paying down federal debt. The trust is actually still growing and is projected to do so until 2028. Gore I believe wanted the government's use or misuse of use of surpluses to stop (the lock box plan).



<http://www.centuryinstitute.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=928>

........they are held exclusively in U.S. Treasury securities, backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government, future Congresses will be bound to pay the interest and principal on those securities before authorizing payments "on any other government expense." U.S. Treasury obligations are viewed worldwide to be the safest possib le investment - the federal government throughout its long history, including deep recessions and times of war, has always paid interest and principal on its debt.

It's true that the government borrows and uses the proceeds for other expenses. Under the Clinton administration, the Social Security surpluses put the government in the black and enabled it to pay down debt. Today, with the overall budget in much worse shape, Social Security's surplus reduces the size of the federal budget deficit, which in turn helps to keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise be. Even after 2018, when Social Security's trustees forecast that payroll taxes will no longer exceed payments owed to beneficiaries, the trust fund's interest will be more than enough to cover the gap. Under the trustees' conservative projections, the trust fund will continue growing for another 10 years, from $5.3 trillion in 2018 to $6.6 trillion by 2028.

from? Is it possible, that if they are over 65, that they contributed a wee bit of it themselves over the years? That's probably where they think it comes from.

For people over 65 with soc sec and medicare, soc sec is reduced about $90/month as medicare pmts.

Please remember your ire when you become 65, and maybe refuse the pittance offered you.

a whole lot more than he ever contributed, and he's only 70. He know this and even brags about it, going on about how he's making out like bandit with Social Security.

That's why their hypocrisy about taxpayer-funded social programs in general pisses me off. In their position, they've got a hell of a nerve bitching about things like food stamps and unemployment benefits.

they pay 80% of bills. You pay the rest. It's just like a regular insurance company.
Also, they do not pay for a lot of things. Don't worry though, they do pay for penis pumps.

He works for the county, but rails against the government and voted for mcsame.

He's been in the union for the past 20 years, but bitches about the big three auto makers and says that they "just need to suck it up and get rid of the union" even though because of the union he is in, he is getting ready to retire at 58 with a full pension and bennies package.

And yes...he thinks that nationalized health care is "creeping socialism".

Call him on any of those, and he stammers and say's "well....my situation is different" :eyes:

Oh...he's also a plumber and shaves his head :rofl:

I was a union member, but I hate the fact that health care is tied to having a job in this country (if you are lucky). I know many smart and innovative people who would do something else, but are stuck in a job for the health insurance alone. All of them have a family member who have some disease. I wonder how much talent is wasted because someone needs health insurance? How many more jobs aren't created because someone is too scared to start their own business because they can't afford health insurance without employer contributions?

My husband was offered a higher paying job, but he couldn't take it. He has 4 kids, no way can we chance it. The insurance sucked compared to what his Federal job gives us. Though right now I'm glad he didn't, chances are he would have lost that job.

These same people who piss you off had better paying jobs compared to their own children, yet they probably don't give a shit. It seems like they got to live their life, and to hell with the rest of us.

Is that what you are saying or am I not reading your post right?

Don

Locals and members are overwhelmingly in favor of single payer, regardless of some of the leadership.

This is why the older voters went for McCrook and believe Republican economic talking points. They got theirs, and can't imagine how much tougher it is now than it was in the 50s and 60s. They got a job and kept it for umpteen years and retired with a pension.

An aunt. She actually told me to my face a few years ago that if we wanted medical care so bad I should go to college to get a job good enough to give me decent medical coverage. Then her PhD endowed son lost his job, went self employed and found out he's almost uninsurable because of a pre-existing multiple expensive to treat conditions. Her own little perfect darling can't afford to see the doctor or buy all of the 17 prescriptions he takes. Now she's all stirred up about "why don't someone do something".