Is anyone concerned that the Republicans want to cut SS and Medicare. In fact Perry stated that SS is unconstitutional in his book "FED UP".

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...088599,00.html

http://chestertontribune.com/Busines...ges_to_cut.htm

Promises will be broken....

http://youtu.be/qqScuGug_6U


I'm trying to figure out why people aren't outraged about this?

If they take it away from the 55 and under group... Where is the funding going to come from for the 55+ group?

What am I missing?

Your thoughts?

I think "what you're missing" is that the funding structure of the programs needs to be scrapped and redesigned, not that anyone wants to eliminate the programs.

"Given that spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid comprises around 40 percent of annual outlays, Ryan's emphasis on reforming two of the nation's major entitlement programs is among the most attractive part of his plan. He is largely responsible for starting a much-needed discussion of changing "entitlements" from open-ended obligations on the government that get paid out regardless of their effectiveness or need. The three major entitlements - Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid - are not just fiscally unsound, they have proven time and again to yield poor results (Social Security yields anemic 2 percent annual returns on investment for current beneficiaries) and increase health care inflation.

Ryan's budget proposes block granting Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, so that states have more flexibility in how they deliver care and control expenses. Essentially, the states would get a fixed pile of money each year that they would be free to spend as they see fit. When the money's gone, that's it. According to Cato's Chris Edwards, full block-granting of Medicaid could save around $95 billion a year while delivering more effective care. Critics worry that states would simply cut care to save money, but that assumes that voters in states simply don't care about the poor or the quality of services. And it assumes the current system is actually performing well, which it is not. Most spectacularly, several studies confirm that current Medicaid recipients often have worse health-care outcomes than similar people not in the system. Changing the funding and control structure of Medicaid is the best hope lower-income people have at this point when it comes to health care.

For Medicare, which provides health care for senior citizens, Ryan wisely suggests getting rid of the current system, in which payments are made for every procedure performed with no cap or restraint on overall spending. Instead, Ryan proposes shifting to subsidizing premiums for seniors, who would then choose from a range of plans that best suit their needs. The phase-in of this shift would take place over the next 10 years (those 55 years and older will stay in the current system), allowing for transition. By subsidizing premiums rather than covering payments for services rendered, Ryan's plan will ostensibly make seniors and their doctors think twice before ordering up whatever test or procedure they might want at a given moment. Injecting pricing into the health care system is the only way to bring prices down and his plan should help that along.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/0...lican-budget-t

for the excellent link. Food for thought: I know people who are always bad-mouthing the so-called "rich" who are well to do themselves and actually send their social security monies to their children or grand children because they don't need it and it was "fun-money" for them.
A few years ago I was out-raged when my wife came home one day and said that some politicians wanted a "means-testing" for social security. I was mad because I thought that everybody who put money into it should get some returns. But the more I learn about this Ponzi scheme, the more I agree on "means-testing" because it is no longer a "fund" it is money that goes to the general fund and distributed weekly. (Think of the Great Society of Johnson administration.)

Thank you for your post ilovetv.

I totally get some of that!!! I believe that "some" of the doctors are scamming the system when they know you have insurance. My concern is for the older people who are ill and may run out of vouchers. At this point in my life, I am very healthy and plan to stay that way... However, my husband has a genetic heart condition. That type of condition would most possibly go over the vouchers.

That being said... I don't have the answers to the scams in the system. I took an insurance this year that I pay half the money into my deductible and the insurance pays half. The deductible is $3000... I pay a total of $3000 for premium and the savings program I pay into. (not writing this right) Anyway... it's meant to make people consider the cost of health care... Now... I will look for the less expensive blood work, etc. I wonder if that may be a better plan.

Just thinking.

Originally Posted by villagegolfer

for the excellent link. Food for thought: I know people who are always bad-mouthing the so-called "rich" who are well to do themselves and actually send their social security monies to their children or grand children because they don't need it and it was "fun-money" for them.
A few years ago I was out-raged when my wife came home one day and said that some politicians wanted a "means-testing" for social security. I was mad because I thought that everybody who put money into it should get some returns. But the more I learn about this Ponzi scheme, the more I agree on "means-testing" because it is no longer a "fund" it is money that goes to the general fund and distributed weekly. (Think of the Great Society of Johnson administration.)

I wonder if they would take the cap off, it that would help.... Just thinking...

Thanks for your thoughts....

i was not overly concerned until i saw a news snippet of pres obama speaking to the folks in alpha and he stated that some 'modest modifications' had to be made to social security and medicare. now i'm nervous!

Originally Posted by njbchbum

i was not overly concerned until i saw a news snippet of pres obama speaking to the folks in alpha and he stated that some 'modest modifications' had to be made to social security and medicare. now i'm nervous!

I heard that the modifications were in the admin side.. But then I see another side... If the admin side is cut... Doesn't that leave it open for fraud?

Just thinking...

Originally Posted by angiefox10

I heard that the modifications were in the admin side.. But then I see another side... If the admin side is cut... Doesn't that leave it open for fraud?

Just thinking...

there isn't a legislator who will tell you that there is not fraud, waste and abuse in ss, medicare and almost any other govt entitlement program...yet, they cannot tell you what the fed govt is doing to eliminate same other than to say, 'we're working on it.'

the fraud is already there and hardly enough is being done to go after the perpetrators! where is the voter outrage over that? i keep asking my congressman about what he is doing and he only gets red in the face and stammers! many of his constituents are senior citizens, his town meetings for them always offer coffee, cookies, donuts, and/or boiled hot dogs depending on the time of day he schedules. i have seen in person that they do not want anything 'looked into' for fear that one of their doctors might be doing something wrong and they would lose that doctor's care if found out...so no one in that age group cares. and from observation, not too many people younger than 55 attend the town meetings because they are usually working when the mtgs are held - or the seniors fill the place early to get to the free cookies, donuts or hotdogs!...so there is no outrage from them. i am the lone outraged voice at those mtgs!

Originally Posted by njbchbum

there isn't a legislator who will tell you that there is not fraud, waste and abuse in ss, medicare and almost any other govt entitlement program...yet, they cannot tell you what the fed govt is doing to eliminate same other than to say, 'we're working on it.'

the fraud is already there and hardly enough is being done to go after the perpetrators! where is the voter outrage over that? i keep asking my congressman about what he is doing and he only gets red in the face and stammers! many of his constituents are senior citizens, his town meetings for them always offer coffee, cookies, donuts, and/or boiled hot dogs depending on the time of day he schedules. i have seen in person that they do not want anything 'looked into' for fear that one of their doctors might be doing something wrong and they would lose that doctor's care if found out...so no one in that age group cares. and from observation, not too many people younger than 55 attend the town meetings because they are usually working when the mtgs are held - or the seniors fill the place early to get to the free cookies, donuts or hotdogs!...so there is no outrage from them. i am the lone outraged voice at those mtgs!

Interesting points!!! That sheds a different light on it!! Thanks!

My current job involves stopping fraud, waste and abuse in one of the programs that you mentioned.

No one really knows how much of fraud is going on - but, I can tell you that we use fairly sophisticated programs that catch folks scamming the system. Everyday, I get several e-mails identifying people who have made plea agreements or were convicted of fraud. These e-mails only reflect what is going on in my region of the country. The convictions rarely makes the news - but, it is happening - everyday.

I'm sure that some Federal agencies do a better job than others. I just know that my agency is very aggressive in rooting out scammers and folks are held to account for their bad decisions.

harbor - that's great to know. but it is a bloomin' shame that there is no publicity given to such effort[s] taking place. some publicity of the perpetrators and their convictions might go a long way to making some think before they start to scam or to even end their scamming. am sure the scammers know that efforts to stop the f/w/a/ take place - and i bet they figure that time is on their side!

First it is pie in the sky to believe that many of today's workers won't need social security and medicae or some form thereof.

It bothers me that politicians refer to these programs as "entitlements" unless they mean they are entitled to these funds for their personal use. These programs would be in excellent shape without increasing the retirement age or reducing benefits but for the fact that pols moved contributions to a general fund. I have experience with people defrauding insurance and can tell you experts only scratch the surface. The point I am attempting to mak is that politcians make a big issue of these programs not working but its a red herring. these progrmas would have been very secureand beneficial if pols kept their fingers off the contributions and administrators did a berter job of policing benefits. If both were done efficiently and efectively Paul ryan's plan would be unnecessary

Whether either Social Security or Medicare are good, needed, inefficient, poorly administered, improperly funded, or whatever, the issue is simple to understand....

SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE ARE ENTITLEMENTS THAT WERE DESIGNED FOR A DIFFERENT U.S. POPULATION THAT CAN NO LONGER BE AFFORDED....PERIOD!

Since they were designed and introduced Americans are older, live longer, have fewer middle class members and far more low income families, and are a population with a declining number of "earners" and an increasing number of those too old to work or who can't find a job. The average income of those working is declining relative to the costs of the entitlement programs.

THE COSTS OF THESE PROGRAMS MUST BE REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY. THERE IS NO ECONOMIC SCENARIO WHEREIN THEY CAN BE AFFORDED AS CURRENTLY DESIGNED

The ONLY question on the table is how the costs of these entitlement programs will be cut.

I've seen that many people have no clue about the following:

"Causes and Effects

* A primary cause of the projected Social Security deficits is that the number of workers paying taxes compared to the number of people receiving benefits has fallen and is projected to fall further:

* Factors contributing to the falling ratio of people paying taxes compared to people receiving benefits:

1) Increase in life expectancy without a comparable increase in the retirement age:

• From the inception of the Social Security program through 2002, the full retirement age of 65 was not changed. A law passed in 1983 requires that it be increased in two-month steps to the age of 67 by the year 2027.[142] [143]

• When Social Security began paying benefits in 1940, the average 65-year-old male had a period life expectancy of 11.9 years. In 2006, the average 65-year-old male had a period life expectancy of 17.0 years. This is an increase of 5.1 years or 43%.[144] [145]

• When Social Security began paying benefits in 1940, the average 65-year-old female had a period life expectancy of 13.4 years. In 2006, the average 65-year-old female had a period life expectancy of 19.7 years. This is an increase of 6.3 years or 47%.[146] [147]

• Benefits and taxes are automatically indexed on an annual basis to compensate for inflation and wage growth. The retirement age is not automatically indexed to compensate for increased life expectancy.[148]

2) The higher birth rate of the baby boom generation compared to other generations:

• The baby boom generation was born between 1946 and 1965.[149] In 1957, the average birth rate per woman reached a high of 3.68.[150]

• By 1976, the average birth rate fell to a low of 1.74. In 2006, it was 2.12.[151]

• In 2011, the first wave of baby boomers will turn 65 years of age.[152] Between 2011 and 2030, it is projected that the number of people eligible for old-age benefits will increase by 62%, while the number of people paying Social Security taxes will increase by 17%.[153]

3) The increasing number of people receiving disability benefits:

• Between 1965 and 2009, the U.S. population grew by 54%. During the same period, the number of people receiving disability benefits increased by 458%.[154]"

http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp

I knew much of this but not all of it! GREAT information!!! I LOVE it when someone shows me the FACTS!!!!!