Ben Carson says get rid of Medicare

[Guest]

GOP Presidential candidate and ACA foe, and of course an MD has finally told us what his suggested replacement plan for the ACA as well as his solution to the health insurance maze for all of us. Get rid of everything and let each of us pay for our own health care from our savings!! Maybe Dr. Carson had a high enough income that he could self budget for both the likely and the unexpected. Next we can all save for ourselves to replace our home when it burns, and get rid of auto coverage and self cover for both repairs and any liability expenses. Yes Ben, nice to see how you understand those not in the 0.1%

Harwood: It sounds as if your preferred alternative both to Obamacare and to Medicare is a system of self-reliance in which you'd be responsible for your own care and that of members of your family.

Carson: That's how you pay for it.

Harwood: And you could replace both the Medicare system and Obamacare with that system of HSAs (health savings accounts)?

Carson: Absolutely. I think when people are able to see how much more freedom they will have, and how much more flexibility they will have, I think it's going to be a no-brainer."


It will be so nice to have the freedom to go bankrupt, and the flexibility that being catapulted into poverty will provide.

[Guest]

Beliefs like that are why Carson is unelectable.

[Guest]

Just one question--- Do you save for your retirement or do you rely 100% on the "free", "entitlement" of Social Security? If so, better learn to live on about $1400/mo on average. But if you contribute to a 401K or similar plan, YOU have taken the RESPONSIBILITY of funding your own retirement, perhaps with some employer matching contribution. If everyone took that responsibility seriously starting as soon as they started working, there would be no need for SS, which is going broke anyway.
Similarly, if everyone started contributing to a HSA at an early age, perhaps also run as employer match, there would be no need for medicare, which is also going broke. In that case, the individual would be more concerned over the cost and scope of their own medical care---no one pays attention when someone else is paying the bill
And don't worry about the top 0.1%--they will always be able to afford medical care.

[Guest]

Just one question--- Do you save for your retirement or do you rely 100% on the "free", "entitlement" of Social Security? If so, better learn to live on about $1400/mo on average. But if you contribute to a 401K or similar plan, YOU have taken the RESPONSIBILITY of funding your own retirement, perhaps with some employer matching contribution. If everyone took that responsibility seriously starting as soon as they started working, there would be no need for SS, which is going broke anyway.
Similarly, if everyone started contributing to a HSA at an early age, perhaps also run as employer match, there would be no need for medicare, which is also going broke. In that case, the individual would be more concerned over the cost and scope of their own medical care---no one pays attention when someone else is paying the bill
And don't worry about the top 0.1%--they will always be able to afford medical care.

Very good post. IF everyone did the 401k, it would be wonderful, but that does not happen. The SS is a safety net to supplement your other retirement plan. That is why Means Testing is a good idea. If, according to a sliding table, your retirement income is high enough to get along just fine with less than, or none, of the SS money, you are able to draw a reduced amount or no SS at all.
The SS safety net is there for those in need, not for those who do not need it.

[Guest]

Very good post. IF everyone did the 401k, it would be wonderful, but that does not happen. The SS is a safety net to supplement your other retirement plan. That is why Means Testing is a good idea. If, according to a sliding table, your retirement income is high enough to get along just fine with less than, or none, of the SS money, you are able to draw a reduced amount or no SS at all.
The SS safety net is there for those in need, not for those who do not need it.

Yeah, I want some bureaucrate that makes 100K or more a year to determine home much income "is high enough to get along just fine with less than, or none, of the SS money...". That sounds like great plan.

[Guest]

Naturally we still need a safety net, not only for seniors but those of marginal income as well. Means testing makes financial sense, but presents a huge political problem. Most retirees believe they are simply getting back what they paid in, even though they may have paid $10-20/ month in the 40's and 50's and now get $1-2000/month in SS checks. The reality is that their children are funding that check, and their grandchildren will pay for their children, so the whole system fails on demographics by 2036. SS is not an individual savings plan, it is a TAX, with no guarantee of getting anything back, even though that is the intention of the program
If we start changing the system we can avoid this. Let's say we start now with those 35 and under and gradually phase out FICA in favor of 401K plans. We have to pay SS tax, by law, and so does the employer. We could change the law so that the SS tax is now directed into retirement savings plans, with limits on investment risk. The current SS trust fund of 2.7 trillion is, by law, 100% invested in US treasuries with a historical return of about 4.5% and much lower in recent years (part of the problem). The historic return on the stock market is just over 8%, which makes a HUGE difference over time. We could also do the same with the Medicare tax and direct it into HSAs
The progressive left loves the European system in which "the government" pays for everything. But they need to realize the government does not produce anything, it only taxes, and the tax rates in Europe are quite high---there is no free lunch. The real reason they love it is because it is a massive redistribution of wealth. I favor the system that, at least in part, demands individual accountability

[Guest]

Just one question--- Do you save for your retirement or do you rely 100% on the "free", "entitlement" of Social Security? If so, better learn to live on about $1400/mo on average. But if you contribute to a 401K or similar plan, YOU have taken the RESPONSIBILITY of funding your own retirement, perhaps with some employer matching contribution. If everyone took that responsibility seriously starting as soon as they started working, there would be no need for SS, which is going broke anyway.
Similarly, if everyone started contributing to a HSA at an early age, perhaps also run as employer match, there would be no need for medicare, which is also going broke. In that case, the individual would be more concerned over the cost and scope of their own medical care---no one pays attention when someone else is paying the bill
And don't worry about the top 0.1%--they will always be able to afford medical care.

The reality is most people are not responsible, and want someone else to take care of them. They are the majority and they vote Democrat.

[Guest]

Dr Ben Carson also said that the ACA is the same as slavery and the same as Nazi's. Does anybody think Carson is auditioning for an upcoming gig at Fox, perhaps replacing Mike Huckabee?

[Guest]

The reality is most people are not responsible, and want someone else to take care of them. They are the majority and they vote Democrat.

This is really hysterical seeing that the southern red states are the states that get the most federal dollars while paying the least amount of tax dollars. South Carolina, for example, gets back almost $8.00 for every dollar it sends to Washington. On the other hand, Delaware gets back .50 cents for every dollar it sends to DC.

[Guest]

This is really hysterical seeing that the southern red states are the states that get the most federal dollars while paying the least amount of tax dollars. South Carolina, for example, gets back almost $8.00 for every dollar it sends to Washington. On the other hand, Delaware gets back .50 cents for every dollar it sends to DC.

If you feel guilty living in a Red 'Taker' state, then maybe you should move to a Blue 'Giver' state.

[Guest]

If you feel guilty living in a Red 'Taker' state, then maybe you should move to a Blue 'Giver' state.

I'm not the poster constantly complaining that democrats are the takers. I know better.

[Guest]

Any substantial changes to SS for anyone under the age of about 40 is going to be nearly impossible. You want to redefine what SS is there for - good luck with that.

Very good post. IF everyone did the 401k, it would be wonderful, but that does not happen. The SS is a safety net to supplement your other retirement plan. That is why Means Testing is a good idea. If, according to a sliding table, your retirement income is high enough to get along just fine with less than, or none, of the SS money, you are able to draw a reduced amount or no SS at all.
The SS safety net is there for those in need, not for those who do not need it.

[Guest]

Naturally we still need a safety net, not only for seniors but those of marginal income as well. Means testing makes financial sense, but presents a huge political problem. Most retirees believe they are simply getting back what they paid in, even though they may have paid $10-20/ month in the 40's and 50's and now get $1-2000/month in SS checks. The reality is that their children are funding that check, and their grandchildren will pay for their children, so the whole system fails on demographics by 2036. SS is not an individual savings plan, it is a TAX, with no guarantee of getting anything back, even though that is the intention of the program
If we start changing the system we can avoid this. Let's say we start now with those 35 and under and gradually phase out FICA in favor of 401K plans. We have to pay SS tax, by law, and so does the employer. We could change the law so that the SS tax is now directed into retirement savings plans, with limits on investment risk. The current SS trust fund of 2.7 trillion is, by law, 100% invested in US treasuries with a historical return of about 4.5% and much lower in recent years (part of the problem). The historic return on the stock market is just over 8%, which makes a HUGE difference over time. We could also do the same with the Medicare tax and direct it into HSAs
The progressive left loves the European system in which "the government" pays for everything. But they need to realize the government does not produce anything, it only taxes, and the tax rates in Europe are quite high---there is no free lunch. The real reason they love it is because it is a massive redistribution of wealth. I favor the system that, at least in part, demands individual accountability
I agree with much of what you wrote until you spoke to Trust Fund. There is no trust fund. Drawing from "trust fund" means borrowing from someplace else and adding to deficiet or raising taxes. We started doing that last year.

[Guest]

I think you will see a single payer system for medical care/medicare soon. Such a large percentage of people are covered by tax payers. Federal and state retirees, VA, military retirees, a host of public sector employees, seniors, poor people, even prisoners in jail, etc. The private sector cannot continue to support the system. Obama Care will not stay as is but our for profit medical industry is heading for a crash landing. Soon if we are lucky.

[Guest]

Very good post. IF everyone did the 401k, it would be wonderful, but that does not happen. The SS is a safety net to supplement your other retirement plan. That is why Means Testing is a good idea. If, according to a sliding table, your retirement income is high enough to get along just fine with less than, or none, of the SS money, you are able to draw a reduced amount or no SS at all.
The SS safety net is there for those in need, not for those who do not need it.

Dear Guest: I understand your intent on being reasonable and fair. However, we are dealing with the government and dealing with the government is like dealing with a drunk. If you believe a Means Test is fair then be ready for when the government decides that you are making too much money and pulls your SS. The government did not provide a Means Test when they were withdrawing from people and the more you made the longer they pulled from your check.

Secondly these same people mismanage fund and have the audacity to blame beneficiaries/recipients

Thirdly why is it that decisions such
as means Testing ACA, etc are good or necessary for us but not them?

Fourth why is it they can serve two years or so and qualify for lifetime benefits and pensions?

Ben Carson's suggestion is new, needs refinement but basically is directed at the government and insurance carriers who control the medical field with unwarranted regulations fee schedules that are reduced on a continuum and administrative duties that only support their need to control.

Take electronic medical reports the demands from government/insurers are so great that doctors time is being pulled away from patient care to fill in boxes for bureaucrats .

Before you dismiss Carson's suggestion learn more about. It may not be feasible, prudent ,etc but what is going on with our healthcare amounts to the government/insurers squeezing the system to meet their goals while the quality of care diminishes

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

i always agree when it says Personal Best Regards :)

[Guest]

Carson: (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ben-carson-tax-condescending-poor?utm_content=buffereab9d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)


Here's Dr Carson saying a flat tax would be condescending to the poor and Obamacare is worse than slavery and other gibberish.

[Guest]

Ben is interesting but is not electable. The Republican party will not be having him as their candidate for either Pres or VP.

Scratch Ben off, scratch Christy out, scratch Jindahl, and Paul out too.

Jeb and Walker are the main contenders right now. Jeb may be too liberal for most and Walker might be too conservative to be electable.

Mrs. Clinton is the one they will have to beat and the Democratic Party has all the demographics working in their favor.

[Guest]

Ben is interesting but is not electable. The Republican party will not be having him as their candidate for either Pres or VP.

Scratch Ben off, scratch Christy out, scratch Jindahl, and Paul out too.

Jeb and Walker are the main contenders right now. Jeb may be too liberal for most and Walker might be too conservative to be electable.

Mrs. Clinton is the one they will have to beat and the Democratic Party has all the demographics working in their favor.

Dear Guest:

What you write about is the du jour news of the day. However, I suspect that you know campaigns have very long tails, people have very short memories and pollsters are good at smoke and mirrors.

I like most on this forum took pride in knowing good horse flesh when I saw it but then the unexpected happened, not once but twice, the most unelectable and ill-prepared person ever to enter a race was chosen. Why? The answers are many but the one true answer which was "he was the most qualified" unfortunately was not....and so the connotation of "anyone can be elected president" took on a whole new meaning.

It has left me fearful and sad for our nation because the right to cast a vote is the single most important asset a citizen can own and we have far too many citizens throwing it away because of selfish ideology or because they simply do not understand the democracy in which they live. We all see and hear it on a daily basis. This is not about Republican or Democrat its about choosing a leader that will through moral and intelligent stewartship protects and preserves this Republic and its citizens.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Absolutely correct that Hillary Clinton has all the demographics on her side. She has the vote of staunch Democrats who would never vote Republican, of the educated women, most college educated men under age 55, Hispanic voters, ethnic other than Caucasian voters, and the LBGT vote.

The Republicans are left with blue collar (who do not vote as a bloc), men over 55, and under-educated women who tend to follow what their husband tells them (but may vote different in the secrecy of the booth).

[Guest]

Absolutely correct that Hillary Clinton has all the demographics on her side. She has the vote of staunch Democrats who would never vote Republican, of the educated women, most college educated men under age 55, Hispanic voters, ethnic other than Caucasian voters, and the LBGT vote.

The Republicans are left with blue collar (who do not vote as a bloc), men over 55, and under-educated women who tend to follow what their husband tells them (but may vote different in the secrecy of the booth).

Stated like a true condescending Democrat. You may be well educated, but you are still ignorant.

[Guest]

Absolutely correct that Hillary Clinton has all the demographics on her side. She has the vote of staunch Democrats who would never vote Republican, of the educated women, most college educated men under age 55, Hispanic voters, ethnic other than Caucasian voters, and the LBGT vote.

The Republicans are left with blue collar (who do not vote as a bloc), men over 55, and under-educated women who tend to follow what their husband tells them (but may vote different in the secrecy of the booth).

Educated does not necessarily mean wise.

[Guest]

Dear Guest:

What you write about is the du jour news of the day. However, I suspect that you know campaigns have very long tails, people have very short memories and pollsters are good at smoke and mirrors.

I like most on this forum took pride in knowing good horse flesh when I saw it but then the unexpected happened, not once but twice, the most unelectable and ill-prepared person ever to enter a race was chosen. Why? The answers are many but the one true answer which was "he was the most qualified" unfortunately was not....and so the connotation of "anyone can be elected president" took on a whole new meaning.

It has left me fearful and sad for our nation because the right to cast a vote is the single most important asset a citizen can own and we have far too many citizens throwing it away because of selfish ideology or because they simply do not understand the democracy in which they live. We all see and hear it on a daily basis. This is not about Republican or Democrat its about choosing a leader that will through moral and intelligent stewartship protects and preserves this Republic and its citizens.

Personal Best Regards:

Well said - great post!

[Guest]

Stated like a true condescending Democrat. You may be well educated, but you are still ignorant.
Count me as ignorant also. All Hillary needs to do is bob and weave. Republicans are in a circular firing squad and can only repeat that tired old tax cuts for wealthy will get economy going and increase defense spending. Both are losers in Nov 16.

[Guest]

Absolutely correct that Hillary Clinton has all the demographics on her side. She has the vote of staunch Democrats who would never vote Republican, of the educated women, most college educated men under age 55, Hispanic voters, ethnic other than Caucasian voters, and the LBGT vote.

The Republicans are left with blue collar (who do not vote as a bloc), men over 55, and under-educated women who tend to follow what their husband tells them (but may vote different in the secrecy of the booth).

Sounds like a sexist, racist, predjudiced democrat with a reality distortion.

[Guest]

Count me as ignorant also. All Hillary needs to do is bob and weave. Republicans are in a circular firing squad and can only repeat that tired old tax cuts for wealthy will get economy going and increase defense spending. Both are losers in Nov 16.

Just what we need as a country, a President that bobs and weaves...nothing new for Hillary.

[Guest]

Sounds like a sexist, racist, predjudiced democrat with a reality distortion.

...and what demographics could you put forward for each Republican hopeful OR the Republican party in general?

Please try to do your best on this question. I'm really expecting the usual condescending reply from one of the Gang of Six but hope does spring eternal.

[Guest]

Absolutely correct that Hillary Clinton has all the demographics on her side. She has the vote of staunch Democrats who would never vote Republican, of the educated women, most college educated men under age 55, Hispanic voters, ethnic other than Caucasian voters, and the LBGT vote.

The Republicans are left with blue collar (who do not vote as a bloc), men over 55, and under-educated women who tend to follow what their husband tells them (but may vote different in the secrecy of the booth).

Dear Guest: I suspect that the demographic that you cite are no different than most Americans in that they can tolerate a lot but the one issue that never bodes well is someone who lies to them. Hillary can play artful dodger but sooner or later she will have to address real questions and then watch the meltdown. Liberal media are already beginning to get antsy.

I personally have now focused on a choice yet, but you have under estimated the Republican field.

Its earlier and so much can and will happen between now and election day.

You would be wise to withhold your vote until you enter the voting booth.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

Dear Guest:

What you write about is the du jour news of the day. However, I suspect that you know campaigns have very long tails, people have very short memories and pollsters are good at smoke and mirrors.

I like most on this forum took pride in knowing good horse flesh when I saw it but then the unexpected happened, not once but twice, the most unelectable and ill-prepared person ever to enter a race was chosen. Why? The answers are many but the one true answer which was "he was the most qualified" unfortunately was not....and so the connotation of "anyone can be elected president" took on a whole new meaning.

It has left me fearful and sad for our nation because the right to cast a vote is the single most important asset a citizen can own and we have far too many citizens throwing it away because of selfish ideology or because they simply do not understand the democracy in which they live. We all see and hear it on a daily basis. This is not about Republican or Democrat its about choosing a leader that will through moral and intelligent stewartship protects and preserves this Republic and its citizens.

Personal Best Regards:








You sound like a guy whose Party can't seem to win any national elections.

Gee ....... I wonder why? Maybe - just maybe - it is because of all those fine moral candidates you roll out before the country.

By the way, our current President has done an excellent job protecting and preserving this Republic and its citizens.


Oh, and by the way .......... Best Personal Regards

[Guest]

...and what demographics could you put forward for each Republican hopeful OR the Republican party in general?

Please try to do your best on this question. I'm really expecting the usual condescending reply from one of the Gang of Six but hope does spring eternal.

The Gang of Six comment you continue to make is ... well, you sound moronic when you say it, and you continue to say it.

[Guest]

The Gang of Six comment you continue to make is ... well, you sound moronic when you say it, and you continue to say it.

...and just as predicted, the one remaining Gang of Six member has only a condescending remark to make instead of actually answering the question.

Why not try to take some time and actually formulate an answer as to what demographics each of the Republican hopefuls play to - or even the GOP as a whole?

We already know the demographics that the Democratic Party has sewn up. Let's see if any Republicans can do that for their party.

[Guest]

The reality is most people are not responsible, and want someone else to take care of them. They are the majority and they vote Democrat.

I worked hard the last 24 years at a job which included a pension and retiree healthcare for life. We worked for less wages than other companies, which our company acknowledged, but always pointed to the pension and healthcare. 2 years before I retired my company was purchased and the first thing they did was freeze the pension and the second was to fire 8% of the workforce. On the 3 round of layoffs they offered me a package to leave. So I retired 6 months earlier than expected but saved a coworker's job.

Good thing I saved all my extra money in a 401K and a mutual fund so when I retired I had 7 figures in my bank account/401K and no debt. Now I "make" 80% of my former salary....

I am responsible and I am center Left so I most often vote Democrat!

[Guest]

I worked hard the last 24 years at a job which included a pension and retiree healthcare for life. We worked for less wages than other companies, which our company acknowledged, but always pointed to the pension and healthcare. 2 years before I retired my company was purchased and the first thing they did was freeze the pension and the second was to fire 8% of the workforce. On the 3 round of layoffs they offered me a package to leave. So I retired 6 months earlier than expected but saved a coworker's job.

Good thing I saved all my extra money in a 401K and a mutual fund so when I retired I had 7 figures in my bank account/401K and no debt. Now I "make" 80% of my former salary....

I am responsible and I am center Left so I most often vote Democrat!

You most certainly are not in the majority then. You are one of the responsible ones. The poster you referred to was making the point that the majority of Democrats want someone else to take care of them. I have to agree with said poster because the policies they push and the candidates they vote for seem to lean that way. It is the social policies of the Democratic party that is shrinking the middle class. Those who are contributing can only contribute so much before their lifestyle also goes down the tubes. All I have to do is look around my middle class neighborhood and I see it going on all around me. Either more money is being taken out of their paychecks or they have lost their jobs altogether due to cutbacks. If the people applying for unemployment is down, it's because many have run out their time to collect and have had to resort to other measures - early retirement, for example, where they are now collecting social security and/or drawing from their retirement funds much earlier than they expected. This is what happens when we spend so much time on social programs instead of supporting an environment for businesses to flourish so that all of us can stand on our own 2 feet. Except, of course, for the very small percentage that truly needs assistance - for those people, a helping hand is the right thing to do.

[Guest]

My dream election. Dr. Ben Carson vs. Senator Bernie Sanders. Then we would have a real choice and a real debate on what type of country we really want.

[Guest]

My dream election. Dr. Ben Carson vs. Senator Bernie Sanders. Then we would have a real choice and a real debate on what type of country we really want.

Keep on dreaming. Neither party would put those two on their presidential ticket.

[Guest]

I have friends of both political parties. None of them oppose taking money from SS or Medicare. And most take advantage of every nickle they can get from the system.
I'd like to see what life in the U.S.was like before Medicare and S.S. I guess you just got old and lived with relatives. If you got sick you bartered to pay the doctor bill. Had the wife make a nice casserole and paid him $5 when the $25 pension check arrived from Warner and Swazey.