SAD DAY FOR THE TAXPAYER

[azsnowman]

Well......I beg to differ, I dang sure don't see many of the elderly driving SUV'S, drinking Starbucks, going out to dinner every night, living day to day on credit cards, paying off one credit card with another, flying off the Aspen, Vail, Telluride to stay in their *3,000 sq ft summer cabins* for a weekend.

Yes...there ARE quite a few older folks that are living *high on the hog* BUT....they EARNED every PENNY of it and are entitled to it! I see more 20-30-40 year olds in the Food Stamp line who are healthier than I am, standing there with their HANDS OUT because they *think* the world owes them a living!

Anyways, just my opinion and no.....I don't want to make this a senior BASHING thread, I for one am THANKFUL during this upcoming holiday season for the elderly that have fought for this country and have me given me our freedoms!

And "NO" Ed.....I DON'T want my parents living with me "LOL!" JUST KIDDING.......if I had too, NO problem (he says under his breath)

Dennis

[coriolis]

Helen, I think that we agree more than you realize.
However I stand by by the suggestion to raise the retirement age. Less years on social security=less money spent. Pretty simple. How can you escape that?

[Danaus]

The retirement age has already been raised!!! I would have to work until the age of 70 to get full SS benefits. The problem with Medicare and other health insurance began years ago when seniors were FORCED to make Medicare their primary insurance. Before that my grandparents used the employers insurance as their primary insurance. Prescription drugs were covered under the insurance and the deductibles were lower. After Medicare was forced on seniors, they ended up paying a lot more for services and having to fight with Medicare to get coverage formerlly provided by the private insurance co.

Under the current Medicare requirements, you are forced to take Medicare at age 65, NO MATTER HOW LONG YOU CONTINUE TO WORK!!! Your employers insurance company is allowed to drop you and your family coverage. In my case, hubby is 7 years older. I will be without ANY kind of insurance from age 58 until age 65. With a bad hip and back problem, it is doubtful that I will be able to work a full time job when I reach 58. He will still have to work until age 67 to get full SS retirement benefits, with no employer insurance for himself or me.

My MIL lost her private insurance and would be unable to afford health care if she was not receiving a pension from the company where her husband (passed away in '76) had worked. Her employer did not have any kind of retirement plan and her earnings under SS were not as much after 30 years of working as what her husbands were after 20 years.

I personally know of an elderly couple, both with health problems, that would have to choose between meds and heat if the children were not buying the medicine. I also know of people who retire after years with big, profitable companies who's pensions are VERY generous. Should their employer end up shutting down or going bankrupt, these retirees would lose their pension and have almost NO income. Buckeye Steel employees and retirees now have NO income!! My neighbor retired from the local school district. Ohio recently reduced benefits and income for retired school employees. Is she going to be able to find a job with health benefits at the age of 63, with previous medical problems, and still care for her husband who is suffering from side effects from a stroke 2 years ago?

Has anyone else noticed that last years Social Security SURPLUS has suddenly become a severe DEFECIT???!!!! We pay Social Security to have something set aside for retirement. The government needs to keep their greedy mitts OFF Social Security. For all too many women, that is the ONLY retirement plan they have!!!! Women make less money than men for performing the same jobs, typically have more health care costs, and live longer. Women are also more likely to have had less paid into SS and/or an employer sponsored retirement plan. Many women who stayed home to raise their children have no retirement plans or options. Should we turn our babies over to the govt to have from birth, refrain from having ANY children (read future taxpayers and caretakers), work 2 or 3 jobs until we drop dead?

The elderly built up our country, served in the wars, kept things going at home, in general, worked hard ALL their lives. Should they be penalized just for growing old? Hitler repeatedly stated that the elderly were a drain on the economy and a burden to the younger generation. Should the United States adopt his policy? Or should we properly provide sustenance for those who cared for us when we were unable to care for ourselves? Yes, the new policy has some things that should have been worked out before it was signed into law. But remember that there were problems created by Bush Sr. and his administration that MUST be corrected before we find elderly people dying from lack of proper care. Our government needs to care for OUR CITIZENS before it sends money, food, and supplies to nations who want to hasten our downfall. If our tax dollars weren't supporting all the other blood-sucking 'welfare countries' we would have more than enough to care for our own!

[azsnowman]

I think this pretty much says it ALL for those elderly folks here in Az.

Provides equity, HHS chief says

Jon Kamman
The Arizona Republic
Nov. 25, 2003 12:00 AM


In a telephone call Monday to The Arizona Republic, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson said the Medicaid bill would be of major benefit to Arizona seniors and particularly to rural areas.

"You have a lot of rural areas in Arizona, and this is the best bill ever to bring equity into reimbursement formulas for rural hospitals and rural docs," Thompson said.

The legislation would provide about $25 billion for increased payments to rural hospitals and physicians.

The Census Bureau estimates that about 700,000 Arizonans, or one in eight residents, is older than 65. About one in five of those seniors has income low enough to qualify for Medicare coverage of 90 percent of prescription drug costs.

Thompson said enrollees above that line, 150 percent of the poverty level, would save about 60 percent on drug purchases now costing $800 a month, and about 50 percent if current purchases total $400 a month.

Medicare will continue to be a major issue in the 2004 presidential campaign, he said.

"Opponents have been out demagoguing and criticizing this bill . . . no end," he said.

"If you have two polarized sides, it's easy to pick up and get your story told if you come out as outspoken as some of the Democrats are, and all the Democratic candidates have come out against the proposal."

An Annenberg Public Policy Center election poll released Monday showed Americans about evenly divided, 40 percent for and 42 percent against, passage of the Medicare bill, but seniors opposed it 49-33.

The poll of 860 adults was conducted Wednesday through Sunday and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

However, Thompson said he had met with AARP officials who reported that 75 percent of the group's 35 million members support the bill.



Dennis

[j]

Wow Ed...can I relate to that!

[Stephanie]

Thanks Lindaloo!

Jara - did you get enough statistics???

[Guest]

Sorry, I should not reply to this because I'm not sure to have well understand the thread, anyway we heard rumors here that current US gov has cutted down social helps for about 74billions, requesting 80billions to support war in Iraq.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like the have-nots shall support the war...

What shall I do? I'm against this war, I can't hide it...

[opera ghost]

Okay I'm against the bill. (just getting that out on the table) But I've got my reasons. First- I don't think it's the best solution. There have been better plans proposed and a similar plan was proposed for the senate/house and voted down because it wasn't nice enough- but they're willing to give it to our elderly? Bah. This bill also has a LOT of riders on it for special interests (which is why it's going through so easily on all fronts- it sounds like everyone is getting something special unrelated to medicare on this bill!) and it just feels like a poor plan.

It's also not going to go into effect until 2006. That's 4 years. In 4 years we could come up with a better working plan that benifits our needy elderly population and isn't a trojan horse filled with special interest riders. But it wouldn't be finished in time for reelection. *snaps fingers* Darn. It woudln't be finished in time for the president or many members of the house/seate to say "Look I attempted to fix Medicare! Reelect me!"

I oppose the bill- not because I don't want to see our elderly without perscription benifits- but because this isn't the RIGHT solution. We can do better- and we SHOULD do better. Especially if it's not going into effect until 2006.

[Stephanie]

Unfortunately OG, that's how most of the bills go through nowadays. I guess the question is it at least better to get some type of help out there now than nothing at all? But 2006 is a long time before anyone would see any benefit. Hopefully, they'll keep working at it.

Paolo - we must finish what we started over in Iraq but yes, there are alot of programs for education, etc. that could use the money also.

[coriolis]

Paolo, I think that the information you received is incorrect. They're not cutting anybody's benefits. this particular law will spend more on benefits. Nothing ever gets cut. The cost only goes up and up. The programs may get re-arranged, but not cut.

I think that the main concerns here are that the cost just keeps going up and up and isn't spent wisely. Add to that, the debate over who is deserving. It's a lively debate, to be sure, but I'm wondering if your news sources are putting even another spin to it. Could the European news agencies have an anti-american bias? Nah! Never!

[mf_dolphin]

Helen, you call others examples "purely anecdotal" and yet you offer nothing to counter the very real examples. What you term "purley anecdotal" I call reality.

[rainstorm]

Helen, I think that we agree more than you realize.
However I stand by by the suggestion to raise the retirement age. Less years on social security=less money spent. Pretty simple. How can you escape that?

exactly, its govt theft. how many people collect all the money the govt stole from them in ss premiums? very few!! the govt depends on people dying to keep the system solvent. people should be allowed to take all their ss money in one lump sum, whenever they want.

[rainstorm]

another study. only 3.6% of seniors said they need help buying drugs, reported on fox

[rainstorm]

YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN GET THE SHAFT AT 9:15 THIS MORNING

Now here's an interesting little factoid I'll bet you didn't know. I learned this reading a Bruce Bartlett column this morning. All of our nation's major entitlement programs were enacted into law when one party controlled the Presidency, the House and the Senate. We got the hideous Social Security problem when FDR was in the White House and Democrats controlled the House and Senate. Medicare came to us when LBJ was in office with Democrats controlling congress. Now it's the prescription drug benefit. We have a Republican president and Republicans in control of the House and Senate .. and what do we get for Christmas? a boondoggle that will cost us over $2 trillion over the next 20 years.

Here's something else you don't know. Every single penny that is to be spent on the drug benefit package is going to have to be borrowed. There is no surplus in the federal treasury with which to pay the tab. The money has to be borrowed. And just who will pay the money back? I can tell you who won't pay the money back: Seniors who will benefit from this program over the next decade and the supporters and politicians who put it in place today: The seniors will get taxpayer funded subsidies to buy their drugs. This means that they will be able to spend their own money on something else. Remember ... the people who will benefit are the wealthiest segment of our society, and less than 5% of them have reported any serious difficulties in getting their prescription drugs.

The politicians, of course, will get the votes of the seniors in 2004. That's what drove this whole bill in the first place ... vote buying. That's the way it goes, though. Seniors vote. Young people don't. That's why young Americans and their children will be making the payments on this vote buying scheme for years to come.

Pundits are calling this a huge political win for the White House. Maybe so ... if reelection is all you're considering. George Bush says "we're keeping our promise to America's seniors." Yeah ... we're keeping our promise to loot future generations of Americans

[mf_dolphin]

another study. only 3.6% of seniors said they need help buying drugs, reported on fox

And would you care to put that 3.6% into real numbers? Or better yet, how many people qualify under the terms of the new law? Rarely is a law as bad or as good as the political parties make it out to be....

[rainstorm]

Bring back gridlock
Bruce Bartlett (archive)


November 25, 2003 | Print | Send


On Jan. 23, 1996, Bill Clinton told the nation, "The era of big government is over." If so, it sure didn't last very long. Today, the era of big government is back with a vengeance, ushered in by a massive new prescription drug entitlement, a pork-laden energy bill of grotesque proportions and a trade war with China.

What few people, including myself, ever thought would happen was that this new era of big government would be implemented by Republicans controlling both Congress and the White House. It makes me long for the good old days of gridlock.

In his new book, "In an Uncertain World," former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin extols the Clinton administration's fiscal record. He correctly notes that the federal budget deficit was close to $300 billion when Clinton took office and had a surplus of more that $200 billion when he left. Nowhere in the book, however, does he credit the Republican Congress, which was elected in 1994, for the turnaround.

On the contrary, Rubin's book is filled with disdain for Republicans, especially Newt Gingrich, who blocked Clinton administration initiatives at every turn. And of course, Clinton returned the favor by blocking Republican initiatives, with the notable exceptions of welfare reform in 1996 and a tax cut in 1997.

Yet it was the combination of the two -- a Democratic White House and a Republican Congress -- that was really responsible for the budgetary turnaround. Each side was checked from enacting new spending programs. The result was that the budget was virtually on automatic pilot for most of the Clinton administration. In other words, we have gridlock to thank for the fiscal turnaround, not Clinton's leadership, which mostly involved sticking his finger in the wind to see which way the polls were blowing.

Rubin would also have us believe that the Clinton administration's fiscal policy is what led to the economic boom of the 1990s, primarily by bringing down interest rates. But the record tells us that rates didn't really fall until Republicans took control of Congress. In that month, long-term interest rates actually were higher than they had been when Bill Clinton took office. The Treasury's 30-year bond rate was 7.34 percent in Jan. 1993 and 8.08 percent in Nov. 1994. It was while Democrats and Republicans cohabitated in running the federal government that we really saw rates decline and the economy take off.

This is not surprising, given that Wall Street has long favored gridlock. Indeed, a number of economic conservatives suggested in 2000 that the best electoral outcome for growth and the stock market would be Al Gore as president with Republicans continuing to control Congress. As financial columnist Daniel Kadlec wrote: "The Dow has fared best when one party has controlled the White House and the other has controlled Congress, the optimum formula being a Democratic president and a Republican Congress. That combo has produced Dow gains, excluding dividends, of 10.7 percent a year."

Voters also have demonstrated a preference for gridlock time and again. Since World War II, we have had divided government almost two-thirds of the time. And according to what they tell pollsters, this has been a conscious, deliberate action. In the latest survey by Hart/Teeter for The Wall Street Journal and NBC News, 62 percent of Americans said they preferred Congress and the presidency to be controlled by different parties. Only 29 percent said that it would be better if one party controlled both.

The only people who really oppose gridlock are political scientists and party activists, who decry it as a barrier to "getting things done." A new book by Brookings Institution scholar Sarah Binder, "Stalemate," lays out the case against gridlock on these grounds.

The problem is that getting things done is usually a bad thing. All of our nation's entitlement programs, for example, were enacted when one party controlled all the elected bodies of the federal government. Social Security came under Franklin Roosevelt and a Democratic Congress in the 1930s, Medicare under Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress in the 1960s, and now a prescription drug entitlement under George Bush and a Republican Congress. Our grandchildren's grandchildren will be paying higher taxes for this latest elderly vote-buying scheme when everyone who supported it is long dead.

The simplest way of restoring gridlock would be to elect a Democrat as president next year. Unfortunately, the one most likely to get the nomination, Howard Dean, is doing everything he can to turn off conservative voters disgusted with Republican budgetary profligacy and trade protection. Last week, for example, he proposed re-regulating the American economy. Sadly, with most political analysts forecasting continued Republican control of the House and Senate, the prospects for a return to gridlock look dim.

[mf_dolphin]

Helen do you have any original thoughts? This isn't a flame but you seldom post much more than to paste an article written by someone else...

[rainstorm]

this monstrosity.(meaning spend even more money). watch the vote buying spree in the election year of 2004!! which party will promise to give away more of the money we earn? the dems or the repubs? as i said, this unnecessary program will expand exponentially, and by the end of next year who knows how huge this vote buying scheme will get?

[streetsoldier]

Helen, in political theory I can and do agree with you, but my needs (and many others shown here) are REAL, not contrived for the sake of argument. Sometimes principle has to take a back seat to reality.

Unlike welfare, I don't consider myself a "government ward"; I put in what I did when I was able to work...and wish I could still BE "productive".

I ask you, what are you telling me? Am I relegated to some "useless eater" status (and, for the "greater good of society", I'm a prime candidate for "benevolent euthanasia")? Perhaps my personal experiences, and others you've read, don't "click" with the stats you are showing, but we are REAL people in need of REAL solutions. Try putting yourself in my place, FI, and think hard about how you'd react.

VERY HARD.

[mf_dolphin]

AMEN Bill! Theory is wonderful until it runs into reality...