HULK SMASH!!!
I thought we already means test: people without a lot of money don't get dick!
I don't understand all this oposition to means testing within entitlement programs. Us neo-libs know whats up.
Hey, how about we means test all government services, including national defense, by enacting a shockingly progressive tax system?
When it comes to national defense the tax system is already "shockingly progressive" because national defense is a public good and is impossible to exclude people from. Bill Gates enjoys no more personal-safety benefit from national defense then does a bum who pays no federal taxes.
Means-testing medicare would largely mean an end to medicare. It would become nothing more than the half-baked medicaid program that the US has now. Medicare advocates and medicare opponents know that.
The King said: Hey, how about we means test all government services, including national defense, by enacting a shockingly progressive tax system?
You know what really pisses me off about the flat taxers like "Dick" Armey? Aside from the fact that they're all lying starve-the-beasters, they act like a straight up multi-level progressive tax system is just sooooo complicated to understand. What a crock.
It's not the progressive tax brackets that make the tax code impossible to understand, easy to manipulate, and unfair: it's the fricking loopholes put in to satisfy the fat cats.
Bill Gates' wealth is protected by the existence of national defense, international treaties, courts, police, patent laws, etc. In that sense he benefits much more from the government than the average taxpayer, and should pay proportionately higher taxes. I don't think he would dispute this point.
Could someone please briefly define means testing for me?
Bill Gates' wealth is protected by the existence of national defense, international treaties, courts, police, patent laws, etc. In that sense he benefits much more from the government than the average taxpayer, and should pay proportionately higher taxes. I don't think he would dispute this point.
He gets the personal safety benefit as the average person. These patent laws, police, and courts protect all of us. I think he should pay more taxes because local and state taxes are usally regressive.
He (Gates) gets the personal safety benefit as the average person. These patent laws..."
Little of the significant features of MS windows is patented. Any enterprising soul could do better with a Unix-based OS. Much better. The problem is that there aren't any enterprising souls among the Unix crowd.
Just figured it out, never mind.
"These patent laws, police, and courts protect all of us."
Most people haven't patented anything. The courts and police often serve no other pupose than to intimidate the average person for the benefit of the wealthy.
More expensive and better nursing homes. Free or subsidized taxi programs. A proliferation of golf cart paths.
Atrios, you didn't know? That was Eisenhower's original idea. The Interstate Golf Carts for Glory System. Damn military-industrial complex made him build highways instead. What a commie symp.
You ungrateful scum. Don't you realize that these people give you everything you have. If it were not for the super wealthy and the corporate aristocracy, you would not have shit, Jack.
If the left welfare-state mentality had not killed personal responsibility in this country (sue sue sue!), people like you would not expect someone else to pay your way in life.
Great parody, dogbreath! You sound just like one of those Norquemada fanatics!
Fer crying out loud.
All the programs for the disadvantaged and handicapped are means tested. Welfare. Food stamps. Pell grants. Subsidized housing. Vocational training. Medicaid. SSI and SSI-D. Social security is even means tested -- make too much through work and the benefit drops.
So why the eff can't Medicare be means tested?
People with the ability to purchase their own insurance should do so. Put a generous cap at perhaps $500,000 in assets and $100,000 in income. Anyone in that position can afford to carry health insurance.
Seniors are the wealthiest people in the land. Why deny medical care to children of the working poor while 75-year-olds who own houses and investments and have retirement income get their medical care for free?
They're on the dole. ON THE DOLE.
Means testing Medicare would remove it as part of a general social contract, one that essentially pays senior back for the lifetime of contribution to society.
Yes, but it's a no-bid, non-negotiable contract now, RonH. Seems to be all the rage-lately.
For heaven's sake - means testing doesn't mean that Medicare will be denied to anyone. It means that the greater your wealth, the more you will have to pay for the benefits. All seniors currently have to pay a small amount each month. The current proposal says that those seniors with INCOME over $80,000 per year (think about that) will have to pay maybe $20 dollars more a month. It is directly analogous to progressive taxation - the more you earn the more you pay. In an environment where resources are guaranteed to become more and more scarce this kind of retooling only makes sense. Why should all seniors get equal benefits regardless of their wealth?
mrp, you've got it backwards: seniors aren't getting too much; the disadvantaged are getting too little.
If you want to complain about the beneficiaries of government largesse, try looking at the wealthy and the corporate interests.
Why don't we means test police and fire protection?
If you don't properly follow fire codes you get fines. If you go 90 on the freeway you get a ticket.
BUT if you live a typical sedentary, overfed American lifestyle and end up with arterial sclerosis, WE pay.
You are dreaming if you think we are going to have bigger med benefits in 15 years. The demand is going to overwhelm the system. It's going to look like the worst of UK "socialized" medicine.
Means testing will be only one of the ways they will use to give us less than our parents get (got).
Quit bitching about the aristocracy and think hard about what it will take to move this fat, lardass babyboom cohort through the cycle.
Little of the significant features of MS windows is patented. Any enterprising soul could do better with a Unix-based OS. Much better. The problem is that there aren't any enterprising souls among the Unix crowd.
raj | Email | 10.25.03 - 2:41 pm | #
You mean like that Little Company That Could, called Apple Computer, Inc.? You're right, they're superior in every way to MS Windows, but they aren't doing much better in the way of market-share because of a goverment-protected illegal monopoly.
Ananna - I know I like my mac - it is sure fast.
If the general public really knew what was going on in the medical system today, and how today's trends were going to effect the care they get tomorrow, there would be rioting in the street. Seriously. People just don't get it. We're heading for a major disaster with our medical system, and Medicare/Medicaid is just the tip of the iceberg. You heard it here first.
Rumblelizard - I've long known that our health care system is broken and in desperate need of fixing, but I'd like to know what you are talking about exactly.
Don't be coy, spill it - what is the major disaster you are referring to?
Is this "Insurance Part II"?
And how is Windows government-protected, apart from all the government agencies that buy it?
There aren't any enterprising souls in the Unix camp? I would have to disagree here. The enterprising souls in the Linux world have concentrated on the server. If you're interested in the desktop, look at OS X on the MAC.
RonH wrote: "Means testing Medicare would remove it as part of a general social contract, one that essentially pays senior back for the lifetime of contribution to society."
I confess I have never heard this point of view before. It sounds even more utopian than most progressives are.
I'd guess that a senior citizen costs the taxpayers more overall than he or she has paid in taxes throughout his/her lifetime. And so how can you "pay back" someone who has used all the government services, enjoyed all the benefits of the society, and whose children are already burdened with the cost of the senior entitlements? And why should you?
Quit bitching about the aristocracy and think hard about what it will take to move this fat, lardass babyboom cohort through the cycle---Wren
Hey Wren, I'm 64 yrs old and I worked my 'lardass' off and planned my retirement based upon a contract with and premiums to the gov which promised a sane budget policy in exchange. As for 'fat' and 'lardass' I challenge you to a weighoff and ass-size inspection when you turn 64.
single payer system. you pay what you can afford.
this is bullshit.
I have alot of trouble with this subject. Like the pills, as the tax pays for much of what the pill company makes why should we repay in such higher cost? Do one or two things, Cut cost to a reasonable profit or take all tax money out of the production of new pills.Frankly I am a liberal and think every man women and child should pay a flat tax of the same amount of money, Say 100 for every one. Then every one would have a real thought in what the govt. is doing.In a reasonable society the people who can not take care of them selfs are looked after.If you have one educated man in town you are pretty poor if 75 % are educated it is a better town so 100 percent is even better. Something is wrong that we fall way down on the health in this country and no good to say ours is best in world. Liv births, down, how long we live, down fron many countries,Death by car, guns, drugs highto other countries, we need work. I am American and like it here and family has been here along time but we do not always do things in the best way.Lets look at some other countries and see how they are doing things.
"what is the major disaster you are referring to?" It wasn't my post, Tena, but I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the fact that medical inflation is running about three to four times the overall rate of inflation. And that medical insurance is going to soon be beyond the reach of most employers to afford. We could reach a point within a decade where only the affluent can afford health insurance.
Police protection?
I once had a SWAT team visit my house because a babysitter reported my autistic son's head scratching as a lice infestation.
True, we lived in a small town without much action.... but a SWAT team?
Why are you so surprised that old people get way more in the way of goodies than the rest of us?
They show up to vote and vote their pocketbook. If you sit home or buy into Nader's BS that it doesn't matter which party you vote for you get hosed -- and deserve it.
Now if the geezers voted Lawrence Welk on MTV we'd have a revolution.
Since it's the Republican's idea this time (mean's testing) I think we should give them a taste of their own Wurlitzer medicine. To seniors: "For all of you who worked hard and saved and invested your money so that you could retire comfortably, the Republicans want to punish you by charging you more; while all those jet-setters who squandered their money while young and didn't plan ahead, they get rewarded."
Yeah, so it leaves out the poor who couldn't have saved it they wanted to, but it's not supposed to be completely rational, as, remember, it's playing the GOPer game.
Now if the geezers voted Lawrence Welk on MTV we'd have a revolution. -- radicalmoderate
no, we'd have a bunch of preteens dancing the polka, and "Spring Break: Krakow." I think you underestimate the ability of MTV to influence the cultural choices of kids.
MTV is not a mirror, it is a syringe.
>>Why are you so surprised that old people get way more in the way of goodies than the rest of us?
They show up to vote and vote their pocketbook.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship." - Alexander Fraser Tyler, "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"
We all know how much constituency there is for Welfare Programs.
That's exactly why repubs want to means test; to destroy these programs like Social Security and Medicare...
I'm 42, not yet a senior. I detect a real "anti-old-people" strain in this thread which I don't get. I mean, if you're lucky, YOU get to be an old person some day.
Spend a little time with the elderly and you'll get a snapshot of your own future. Young people arrogantly believe that "I won't get (fat, old, sick, sore, arthritis, osteoporosis, cancer, diabetes). That's not me. I'll take better care of myself." Well, I'm here to tell you that stuff breaks down, genetics kicks in, and fast living ultimately works to slow you down.
My parents are dead, but before they went, they spent almost $2000 a month of their insubstantial savings and Social Security benefits on prescription medications. These folks were middle- to lower-middle class. Medicare and their AARP insurance supplement for prescriptions lasted until late-winter/early-spring each calendar year and then they were on their own. They spent the last few years of their lives worrying about money, scrimping and penny-pinching in every other area in order to afford their pills and my father's insulin.
Old folks without any savings often go without.
The current "reverse means test" for seniors' prescription medication needs to be fixed. Of course, the whole health care system needs to be fixed, but seniors need help with their prescriptions now. The people who need the most medicine are getting no help in paying the exorbitant prices charged for it. They're breaking the law by buying it from Canada or they're having a lot of cheese sandwiches for dinner. Is that how you want to spend the end of your life?
Cute commentary about golf cart paths and the elderly receiving lots of "goodies" insults most of the elderly poor and middle class. Their politics may not always be yours or mine, but their strained pocketbooks will be if something isn't done to make medicines more affordable for the elderly.
As someone in favor of means-testing medicare, I'll jump in and say why.
I'm wealthy. I've got a great job, with great benefits. Assuming that I don't encounter a major disaster in the next 20 years, my wife and I will have enough put away by the time we retire to be able to live quite well. If medicare were means tested, so that people who could afford to had to pay insurance premiums to get medicare coverage, with the premium based on their wealth, we could easily afford to pay it.
To just blanket cover everyone, regardless of wealth, is to say that people like my wife and me should recieve the same medicare benefits as poor people, for the same premiums. Put that way, that sounds fair. But let's try to put it another way: people like my wife and me will recieve government benefits to *help us* afford better medical care than someone less wealthy.
That's just not fair.
Any when you look at what medicare actually pays doctors, and how many private hospitals have started to stop taking medicare patients, and how many public hospitals are in desparate financial straits because they're paying more to treat medicare patients than they're recieving, it seems obvious that medicare is being stretched too thin. For the amount of money that the government puts into it, there are too many people taking out. People like me don't need to add to that.
If you're rich, you can pay your a fair premium for medicare. If you're poor, you shouldn't have to. That's what it comes down to.
-MarkCC
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
