Fixing(?) Entitlements

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Maybe you should educate yourself on th system itself.





https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html







Not accusing Bush of anything this artical does a good job of explaining alot...........



https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ity-fund-war-/

So if we can set aside partisanship, and trump/hc hatred, can this country fix entitlements in a way that protects the sick, and elderly while preserving the US economy for future generations. I would love to here Schneed way in on the healthcare costs.

Seems to me that something does need to be done, but what?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Chico23231]

G1 gave me some crazy answer before...I don’t think he understood what I was getting at. It’s an issue and we need to come together with a legitimate solution. Extending age to claim, portioning out a percentage to invest, etc

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

G1 gave me some crazy answer before...I don’t think he understood what I was getting at. It’s an issue and we need to come together with a legitimate solution. Extending age to claim, portioning out a percentage to invest, etc

Thats why i moved it to its own thread

There are so many parts to entitlement reform, I think its important to start with some basic agreements:

Can we on here all agree that:
There should be a sovial welfare net for the elderly, sick and children?

That our healthcare system AS IT IS now is in need of reform.

We need to find a balance of future spending obligations with the size and scope of the social welfare net's reach.

I hope this discussion can avoid political amd racial divisiveness that permeates rhe current atmosphere and focus on what we really can do as a nation.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Thats why i moved it to its own thread

There are so many parts to entitlement reform, I think its important to start with some basic agreements:

Can we on here all agree that:
There should be a sovial welfare net for the elderly, sick and children?

That our healthcare system AS IT IS now is in need of reform.

We need to find a balance of future spending obligations with the size and scope of the social welfare net's reach.

I hope this discussion can avoid political amd racial divisiveness that permeates rhe current atmosphere and focus on what we really can do as a nation.



Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Healthcare needs a review, Obamacare was a great idea that has some flaws but the bones of it are good,yes, some adjustments should/ must be made .

[Buffalo Bob]

As much as I hate to say it all entitlement programs need more government oversight. Through the years I have come across way too many people abusing welfare and social security disability. The people I know that were gaming the system could have been easily exposed with a little surveillance and a few surprise visits.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Buffalo Bob

As much as I hate to say it all entitlement programs need more government oversight. Through the years I have come across way too many people abusing welfare and social security disability. The people I know that were gaming the system could have been easily exposed with a little surveillance and a few surprise visits.

Usually the juice isn't worth the squeeze. OIG has bigger fish to fry than Joe Schmoe who may be working a little on the side. (People are actually allowed to work while on disability and/or SSI to certain limits, just to note.)

[Back2RFK]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Healthcare needs a review, Obamacare was a great idea that has some flaws but the bones of it are good,yes, some adjustments should/ must be made .

Tell that to the millions of the self employed who lost their insurance. If I had a qualified policy under Obama Care my premium would be $1980 per month for a family of 3, and our deductible would be $6000 per Person. Yes, that is a $6000 ded. per person. So if you do the math, $1980 x 12=$23,760 add on an $18,000 ded. and we would be paying $41,760 before receiving any real befits from Obama Care. This is what hit all small business owners.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Back2RFK

Tell that to the millions of the self employed who lost their insurance. If I had a qualified policy under Obama Care my premium would be $1980 per month for a family of 3, and our deductible would be $6000 per Person. Yes, that is a $6000 ded. per person. So if you do the math, $1980 x 12=$23,760 add on an $18,000 ded. and we would be paying $41,760 before receiving any real befits from Obama Care. This is what hit all small business owners.

..................simply not true I had. have a policy and pay 490 a month for the family.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

G1 gave me some crazy answer before...I don’t think he understood what I was getting at. It’s an issue and we need to come together with a legitimate solution. Extending age to claim, portioning out a percentage to invest, etc

Of course it was crazy to you it was fact. Seriously you need to educate yourself about what it is you're trying to speak of .

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...cade/38532839/

https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html


...............SS is a paid program ...NOT...an entitlement.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Giantone

Of course it was crazy to you it was fact. Seriously you need to educate yourself about what it is you're trying to speak of .

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...cade/38532839/

https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html

https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html


...............SS is a paid program ...NOT...an entitlement.

https://www.senate.gov/reference/glo...ntitlement.htm

entitlement - A Federal program or provision of law that requires payments to any person or unit of government that meets the eligibility criteria established by law. Entitlements constitute a binding obligation on the part of the Federal Government, and eligible recipients have legal recourse if the obligation is not fulfilled. Social Security and veterans' compensation and pensions are examples of entitlement programs.

Here you go G1, hope this helps.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

https://www.senate.gov/reference/glo...ntitlement.htm

entitlement - A Federal program or provision of law that requires payments to any person or unit of government that meets the eligibility criteria established by law. Entitlements constitute a binding obligation on the part of the Federal Government, and eligible recipients have legal recourse if the obligation is not fulfilled. Social Security and veterans' compensation and pensions are examples of entitlement programs.

Here you go G1, hope this helps.

It does but it doesn't help you.

[Schneed10]

Fairly juvenile debate you're having here, isn't it? SS is an entitlement. NO ITS NOT. YES IT IS. NO ITS NOT.

LOL

Who cares, semantics. Just discuss whether it needs to be changed, and how.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

So if we can set aside partisanship, and trump/hc hatred, can this country fix entitlements in a way that protects the sick, and elderly while preserving the US economy for future generations. I would love to here Schneed way in on the healthcare costs.

Seems to me that something does need to be done, but what?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

CMS estimates Medicare will run out of money in 2026 so something definitely has to change with the healthcare side. When Medicare was first conceived 65 was set as the age at which it began, now life expectancy is much longer. I don't see how you can fix Medicare without adjusting the age of eligibility. It's hard to see it working without that. Math should be fairly easy - if life expectancy has increased by 5 years since Medicare was conceived, then raise the age of eligibility by five years.

Really, the same should be done with social security because it's the same concept there. People will have to stay in the workforce longer - I don't see any way around that because we need more money coming into the Medicare and SS funds to support those drawing down on them.

This part isn't complicated, it's just politically inconvenient. Nobody wants to be the bad guy to delay benefits to seniors. That's why it won't be voted into place until the public recognizes that the programs themselves are genuinely at risk. Right now it's a figment in the minds of some, but once it becomes a reality for people that they stand to lose their Medicare safety net entirely, only then does it become politically expedient to support it.

In other words, once it's too late. Hope you're all saving your money as effectively as possible. Those capable of supporting themselves on their own two feet stand to come out the other side in decent position. Others will experience difficulties.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

CMS estimates Medicare will run out of money in 2026 so something definitely has to change with the healthcare side. When Medicare was first conceived 65 was set as the age at which it began, now life expectancy is much longer. I don't see how you can fix Medicare without adjusting the age of eligibility. It's hard to see it working without that. Math should be fairly easy - if life expectancy has increased by 5 years since Medicare was conceived, then raise the age of eligibility by five years.

Really, the same should be done with social security because it's the same concept there. People will have to stay in the workforce longer - I don't see any way around that because we need more money coming into the Medicare and SS funds to support those drawing down on them.

This part isn't complicated, it's just politically inconvenient. Nobody wants to be the bad guy to delay benefits to seniors. That's why it won't be voted into place until the public recognizes that the programs themselves are genuinely at risk. Right now it's a figment in the minds of some, but once it becomes a reality for people that they stand to lose their Medicare safety net entirely, only then does it become politically expedient to support it.

In other words, once it's too late. Hope you're all saving your money as effectively as possible. Those capable of supporting themselves on their own two feet stand to come out the other side in decent position. Others will experience difficulties.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social...ity_Trust_Fund

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

CMS estimates Medicare will run out of money in 2026 so something definitely has to change with the healthcare side. When Medicare was first conceived 65 was set as the age at which it began, now life expectancy is much longer. I don't see how you can fix Medicare without adjusting the age of eligibility. It's hard to see it working without that. Math should be fairly easy - if life expectancy has increased by 5 years since Medicare was conceived, then raise the age of eligibility by five years.



Really, the same should be done with social security because it's the same concept there. People will have to stay in the workforce longer - I don't see any way around that because we need more money coming into the Medicare and SS funds to support those drawing down on them.



This part isn't complicated, it's just politically inconvenient. Nobody wants to be the bad guy to delay benefits to seniors. That's why it won't be voted into place until the public recognizes that the programs themselves are genuinely at risk. Right now it's a figment in the minds of some, but once it becomes a reality for people that they stand to lose their Medicare safety net entirely, only then does it become politically expedient to support it.



In other words, once it's too late. Hope you're all saving your money as effectively as possible. Those capable of supporting themselves on their own two feet stand to come out the other side in decent position. Others will experience difficulties.

Thanks for actually discussing the actual issues. I believe the systemic issues should outweigh politics but I agree with you. Politicians can/will not make tough choices if Joe Public is not pushing it, and as you said right now its a monster under the bed issue, both sides can use it to scare there base by saying the right call words.

I believe social programs should be keyed to (at least) 3 main measurables:
Average life expectancy
Localized cost of living
average cost of preventative care medical figured independently from general cost of living.

If you can find baselines around those statistics and total percentage of federal budget allocated to these programs then you should be able find the intersecting values that keep the system working right.


Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk