The Huge Boehner-Pelosi Deal That Could Change Medicare Forever


Big changes to Medicare could be coming as soon as next week, if this bi-partisan bill is approved. Both sides agree that the doc fix needs to be done. Also, more affluent seniors will pay more in co-pays.

The House GOP budget completely changes Medicare to a voucher system. Eligible persons will no longer get a government run efficient and very popular insurance plan. Instead they will be given a credit which they can then use to attempt to buy coverage from a private insurance company. The GOP budget project this will save billions in the Federal budget (translation, the amount being sent to seniors is billions less than the amount being now spent on Medicare). So if the credit does not cover the insurance plan's bill, too bad for you. And of course we all know that a significant cut of your premium is spent on CEO, advertising, investor profit ... in the private market.

I intend to take a wait and see on these changes but quite honestly I have lost faith that the government can get anything right. Further look for the higher incomes to all of a sudden match all incomes because they will take away your protection a slice at a time. Why not it doesn't affect their compensation and benefits.

So as Americans we all have to suffer a little, except for government. If you believe that line let me tell you about bridge in Brooklyn

I'm sick of the lot of them

I believe, as a significant number of Congress, that Social Security retirement benefits should be based on need. A means test should be applied each year and the Social Security retirement amount adjusted upward or downward. It should be phased out completely as income/savings/investments increase.

Social Security retirement benefits should be only for those who really need the supplement in order to survive.

Some may argue they paid into the system all their career. Just consider it a tax and move on(.com).

Originally Posted by Guest

I believe, as a significant number of Congress, that Social Security retirement benefits should be based on need. A means test should be applied each year and the Social Security retirement amount adjusted upward or downward. It should be phased out completely as income/savings/investments increase.

Social Security retirement benefits should be only for those who really need the supplement in order to survive.

Some may argue they paid into the system all their career. Just consider it a tax and move on(.com).

I could certainly survive without SS benefits, but it would be hard to do so in The Villages.

Originally Posted by Guest

I believe, as a significant number of Congress, that Social Security retirement benefits should be based on need. A means test should be applied each year and the Social Security retirement amount adjusted upward or downward. It should be phased out completely as income/savings/investments increase.

Social Security retirement benefits should be only for those who really need the supplement in order to survive.

Some may argue they paid into the system all their career. Just consider it a tax and move on(.com).

And who would be the management of such a system?
The same who do food stamps?
Amtrack?
ACA?
USPS?

Originally Posted by Guest

The House GOP budget completely changes Medicare to a voucher system. Eligible persons will no longer get a government run efficient and very popular insurance plan. Instead they will be given a credit which they can then use to attempt to buy coverage from a private insurance company. The GOP budget project this will save billions in the Federal budget (translation, the amount being sent to seniors is billions less than the amount being now spent on Medicare). So if the credit does not cover the insurance plan's bill, too bad for you. And of course we all know that a significant cut of your premium is spent on CEO, advertising, investor profit ... in the private market.

No one will be making significant cuts until the next financial crises ( who knows when that occurs?) Then once we all see how broke we are there will finally be needed cuts. If we all simply took a 10% cut things would likely work out fine for all 😊

Originally Posted by Guest

The House GOP budget completely changes Medicare to a voucher system. Eligible persons will no longer get a government run efficient and very popular insurance plan. Instead they will be given a credit which they can then use to attempt to buy coverage from a private insurance company. The GOP budget project this will save billions in the Federal budget (translation, the amount being sent to seniors is billions less than the amount being now spent on Medicare). So if the credit does not cover the insurance plan's bill, too bad for you. And of course we all know that a significant cut of your premium is spent on CEO, advertising, investor profit ... in the private market.

As long as someone else is paiding for our healthcare coverage the system is great. Weather it is Medicare, VA, or Obamacare these cost are being passed onto our children and grandchidren. You know, the "Whimpy Syndrome" paying Thursday for a hamburger today. The problem with healthcare is it is a for profit jugernaut. It is easier and less painful to spend our kids futures.

Originally Posted by Guest

As long as someone else is paiding for our healthcare coverage the system is great. Weather it is Medicare, VA, or Obamacare these cost are being passed onto our children and grandchidren. You know, the "Whimpy Syndrome" paying Thursday for a hamburger today. The problem with healthcare is it is a for profit jugernaut. It is easier and less painful to spend our kids futures.

The above posting was in jest, obviously. Not even a Florida or New Jersey educated person could make that many obvious errors in spelling.

Get real, people, and write something with some reasoning to it.

Originally Posted by Guest

I believe, as a significant number of Congress, that Social Security retirement benefits should be based on need. A means test should be applied each year and the Social Security retirement amount adjusted upward or downward. It should be phased out completely as income/savings/investments increase.

Social Security retirement benefits should be only for those who really need the supplement in order to survive.

Some may argue they paid into the system all their career. Just consider it a tax and move on(.com).

Please define "need"; and then discuss how you would suggest evaluating the cost of "need" among the regional costs of survival in the different economic areas of the country.

Originally Posted by Guest

I believe, as a significant number of Congress, that Social Security retirement benefits should be based on need.

Someone has been reading his "Socialism for Dummies" book!

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Originally Posted by Guest

Someone has been reading his "Socialism for Dummies" book!

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Some Dummy doesn't know the difference between socialism and communism.

Originally Posted by Guest

Some Dummy doesn't know the difference between socialism and communism.

"Although Marx is popularly thought of as the originator of the phrase, the slogan was common to the socialist movement and was first used by Louis Blanc in 1851."

What was that you were saying?

Let me get this straight. Some would suggest that social security should now be based on need. First define "need"? Second explain why anyone who has been forced since 1934 to pay into a fund that they could only activate at retirement now be told that can't withdraw their share? And contrast that with someone who has never had a productive day in their lives live high off the dole? Third, explain why contributors to this fund should be penalized because Congress has for so many years mismanaged this fund while said contributors watched helplessly? Fourth explain why an individual who has pay careful attention to his/her financial planning and to accumulate a worthy estate be mis-characterized as greedy. Fifth why is it that this government gets to pick winners and losers? Sixth what happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave and a citizen rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Originally Posted by Guest

Let me get this straight. Some would suggest that social security should now be based on need. First define "need"? Second explain why anyone who has been forced since 1934 to pay into a fund that they could only activate at retirement now be told that can't withdraw their share? And contrast that with someone who has never had a productive day in their lives live high off the dole? Third, explain why contributors to this fund should be penalized because Congress has for so many years mismanaged this fund while said contributors watched helplessly? Fourth explain why an individual who has pay careful attention to his/her financial planning and to accumulate a worthy estate be mis-characterized as greedy. Fifth why is it that this government gets to pick winners and losers? Sixth what happened to the land of the free and the home of the brave and a citizen rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

The answers to some of your questions are contained in the children's classic "The Little Red Hen"