In response to:

Saving Seniors from ObamaCare

Doug3370 Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 1:26 PM
Senior entitlements are no less subject to review than any other. We have an entitlement problem: too many soup bowls out, too little soup. Raising taxes won't solve the problem, that just kicks out the fire that heats the soup kettle. So seniors are going to have to bear their share of the cuts. No way around it.
Cindy35 Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 6:35 PM
I paid into medicare and I do not consider it an entitlement. Bearing our fair share for illegals is not at all fair. Seniors will bear the brunt, in the form of death panels. That way they can save Soc.Sec. and massive end of life costs. The problem with that is Gov. becomes god and they decide(young or old) who lives.
Hunrodr Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 6:22 PM
wrong. and right. but mostly wrong on your first sentence.
cwright Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 4:37 PM
Speaking as a Senior, I have been paying into Medicare since 1965, and I continue to pay now at $100 per month. (That's not tax deductible, either.) As I am blessed with good health and my GP does not accept Medicare, the amount I have taken out is ZERO. So, I have contributed approximately $4,800 since becoming eligible, and perhaps another $10,000 in payroll deductions over the prior 45 years. Having said that, even had I put that amount into savings it wouldn't come close to what would be needed for, say, a joint replacement. So I'm with you, Doug... why should others have to bear my costs for any reason?
Joseph64 Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 5:47 PM
OK, so you shouldn't mind if Medicare is abolished altogether and you can pay your own medical bills in their entirety, right?
oldguy52 Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 5:53 PM
Whoa there CW. You're either a poor calculator or were very poorly paid all those years.

According to the social security admin., I paid in $26,080 to medicare since 1966. My employer, who for most of that time was me paid another $26080. where I went to school that adds up to $52,160.00. In a simple savings account for all these years you can at least double that.

So, if you want to insist you have no skin in this game, perhaps you should speak for yourself. Hey, if the gov't doesn't want to pay the benefits they promised and I paid for, in advance, then let them send back my money and we'll call it square.
Joseph64 Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 6:10 PM
They don't like it when you point out little facts like that. They also don't like to be told all the money the employer paid for their share of the entitlement contributions is money that they could have been taking home in their paychecks every week because if the employer hadn't been forced to pay it out to the government, they could have given them more pay raises over the years.
cwright Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 11:06 PM
Actually, yes... but only if we can have some real reform with the attorneys and insurance companies. A lot of the cost of health care is due to the high cost of malpractice insurance... which is due to lawyers like John Edwards.

I certainly would have preferred not to have paid into Social Security or Medicare all those years, but I also recognize that until some changes are made in the way insurance is done I can't afford regular insurance.
cwright Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 11:07 PM
Yes, I probably was poorly paid, but I haven't looked to see how much was paid into my account, either. I didn't work outside the home for about 10 of those years, so I was just going by 1.45% of income and averaged it. My husband also paid in, and he is deceased, so those monies are gone into the ether. I recognize that we have paid into it and continue to pay into it, but my point was that even if I and my employer had paid as much as you into a savings account and with compounded interest it came to, say $200,000, how much do you think that will pay toward a big surgery? I would rather see reform on the other end... lawyers and insurance companies... as it just can't continue.
genya2 Wrote: Sep 16, 2012 11:20 PM
Eric50,I agree with you between two of us,my husband and me, together we paid over $100000 doll.witch we never see.
Joseph64 Wrote: Sep 15, 2012 2:18 PM
Except they won't be bearing their share. They'll be bearing the entire burden. When you are young, you don't get sick much so you don't need healthcare so younger people won't lose much, if anything. It's when you get old that you need healthcare the most so by making cuts to seniors so you can give to young people, you are taking away from people who need and giving to people who don't. Also consider that we all get old eventually so the little bit of healthcare that you will get when you are young and don't need it isn't worth giving up the healthcare you will need when you get old.

Two things about the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) are increasingly clear: (1) seniors have been singled out and forced to bear a disproportionate share of the cost of a new entitlement for young people and (2) the states are administratively just not ready to implement the new program in time for its January 1, 2014, start date.

So here's a simple proposal that will not affect the federal deficit: Delay the scheduled cuts in Medicare spending by five years and pay for that expense by delaying the 2014 start date of ObamaCare by two years.

That would give everyone time...