On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.

I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.

Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.
Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.



Easy enough to fix medicare. First, remove the cap on contributions.
Raise the rate on contributions if you are wealthy. Do more and more
stringent RAC audits. Set up better guidelines for treatment. Do more
criminal prosecutions for provider fraud. Require tough negotiations
with pharmaceutical companies.

wrote in message ...

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:27:33 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union
is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.
Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.



Easy enough to fix medicare. First, remove the cap on contributions.
Raise the rate on contributions if you are wealthy. Do more and more
stringent RAC audits. Set up better guidelines for treatment. Do more
criminal prosecutions for provider fraud. Require tough negotiations
with pharmaceutical companies.


It is not quite that simple. Medicare has grown twice as fast as the
GDP since FY2000.
I keep hearing that restoring the Clinton tax rates would bring us
back to the 2000 prosperity but that ignores the fact that GDP
increased 50% since then and spending more than doubled.
The entitlements are only getting worse.
Ryan may not be presenting a reasonable plan but, at least, he is
opening the debate.

Reply:
There is an upper limit on SS but not Medicare contributions.

wrote:
On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:57:36 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:27:33 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union
is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.
Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.
Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.


Easy enough to fix medicare. First, remove the cap on contributions.
Raise the rate on contributions if you are wealthy. Do more and more
stringent RAC audits. Set up better guidelines for treatment. Do more
criminal prosecutions for provider fraud. Require tough negotiations
with pharmaceutical companies.

It is not quite that simple. Medicare has grown twice as fast as the
GDP since FY2000.
I keep hearing that restoring the Clinton tax rates would bring us
back to the 2000 prosperity but that ignores the fact that GDP
increased 50% since then and spending more than doubled.
The entitlements are only getting worse.
Ryan may not be presenting a reasonable plan but, at least, he is
opening the debate.

Reply:
There is an upper limit on SS but not Medicare contributions.


True and it has still been upside down for several years.

This is a black hole that could consume all of all government revenue
in 2 decades. SS/Medicare is already well over a third.


Close loopholes for the wealth, raise their taxes, limit their ability
to send $$$ abroad, cut the military budget in half.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:12:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:57:36 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:27:33 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union
is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.
Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.



Easy enough to fix medicare. First, remove the cap on contributions.
Raise the rate on contributions if you are wealthy. Do more and more
stringent RAC audits. Set up better guidelines for treatment. Do more
criminal prosecutions for provider fraud. Require tough negotiations
with pharmaceutical companies.


It is not quite that simple. Medicare has grown twice as fast as the
GDP since FY2000.
I keep hearing that restoring the Clinton tax rates would bring us
back to the 2000 prosperity but that ignores the fact that GDP
increased 50% since then and spending more than doubled.
The entitlements are only getting worse.
Ryan may not be presenting a reasonable plan but, at least, he is
opening the debate.

Reply:
There is an upper limit on SS but not Medicare contributions.


True and it has still been upside down for several years.

This is a black hole that could consume all of all government revenue
in 2 decades. SS/Medicare is already well over a third.

Still the same nonsense... come on. It's pretty old and totally bs.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:15:12 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 18:14:28 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:12:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:57:36 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

wrote in message ...

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:27:33 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union
is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.
Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.



Easy enough to fix medicare. First, remove the cap on contributions.
Raise the rate on contributions if you are wealthy. Do more and more
stringent RAC audits. Set up better guidelines for treatment. Do more
criminal prosecutions for provider fraud. Require tough negotiations
with pharmaceutical companies.


It is not quite that simple. Medicare has grown twice as fast as the
GDP since FY2000.
I keep hearing that restoring the Clinton tax rates would bring us
back to the 2000 prosperity but that ignores the fact that GDP
increased 50% since then and spending more than doubled.
The entitlements are only getting worse.
Ryan may not be presenting a reasonable plan but, at least, he is
opening the debate.

Reply:
There is an upper limit on SS but not Medicare contributions.


True and it has still been upside down for several years.

This is a black hole that could consume all of all government revenue
in 2 decades. SS/Medicare is already well over a third.

Still the same nonsense... come on. It's pretty old and totally bs.

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

You and the boater guy still confuse debt with an asset.
There is no money in the SS trust fund, only IOUs from a guy that S&P
just downgraded to "negative". What is it going to take to convince
you folks we are in trouble?

We have a fiscal Pearl Harbor coming and there are still a lot of
people who are going to be shocked.

You still confuse fiction with fact.

You're trying to convince us of something we already believe in. We
don't believe in killing people to solve economic problems.

In article ,
says...


You and the boater guy still confuse debt with an asset.

Nope. I understand exactly how SS and debt work.
And I believe debt should be repaid.
You're a welsher, but just won't admit it.
Dance, dance, dance.
Won't turn a con job into a ballet.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:57:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:05:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


You and the boater guy still confuse debt with an asset.

Nope. I understand exactly how SS and debt work.
And I believe debt should be repaid.
You're a welsher, but just won't admit it.
Dance, dance, dance.
Won't turn a con job into a ballet.

It isn't just me. Anyone who understands basic arithmetic knows you
can't pay out more than you make for very long.

Except this isn't your credit card. It's a very complex equation with
complex equation with lots of accounting variables. While it's
certainly true that one can't pay out more than one makes for very
long, "long" is a relative term. We've had deficits for decades and
the national debt has been around since the revolution.. something on
that order. There is absolutely no reason to start foaming at the
mouth and claiming it's near term crisis. Perhaps it's a mid-term
crisis. We can start by increasing taxes on the richest Americans,
reigning in corporate tax avoidance, reducing military spending,
dealing with fraud/abuse. We should not be starting with putting this
on the backs of a struggling middle class.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:34:37 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:23:08 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:57:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 22:05:47 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


You and the boater guy still confuse debt with an asset.

Nope. I understand exactly how SS and debt work.
And I believe debt should be repaid.
You're a welsher, but just won't admit it.
Dance, dance, dance.
Won't turn a con job into a ballet.

It isn't just me. Anyone who understands basic arithmetic knows you
can't pay out more than you make for very long.

Except this isn't your credit card. It's a very complex equation with
complex equation with lots of accounting variables. While it's
certainly true that one can't pay out more than one makes for very
long, "long" is a relative term. We've had deficits for decades and
the national debt has been around since the revolution.. something on
that order. There is absolutely no reason to start foaming at the
mouth and claiming it's near term crisis. Perhaps it's a mid-term
crisis. We can start by increasing taxes on the richest Americans,
reigning in corporate tax avoidance, reducing military spending,
dealing with fraud/abuse. We should not be starting with putting this
on the backs of a struggling middle class.


The last time we had this much of a deficit we had just won WWII. The
rest of the world was a smoking hole in the ground and we owed most of
the money to ourselves. If people wanted to buy things, they had to
buy them from us.
That is not the case now. Other countries own a good chunk of our
debt, bought with dollars we paid for their goods. We are buying more
than we sell only making the problem worse.

Yes, and thanks GWB for getting us in this spot. Thank GOD Obama isn't
beholden to corps anywhere close to how he was..

Other countries have always owned a "good chunk" of our debt. They're
buying it because it's valuable. Don't you get that? They're not going
to cut off their nose to spite their face.

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 01:06:10 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:27:33 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:31:25 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 13:25:45 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:

The projections SSA gave were based on people waiting until full
retirement age (66 right now) and I do not know ONE person who waited.
I am the only person I know who didn't take SS on their 62d birthday.
I waited until I was 64.
I'm just past "full retirement age," and i haven't put in for Social
Security or Medicare. I'm still working pretty close to full-time, and
even though I am just one person, I feel like my not taking money out
contributes, even if just a little bit, to a Social Security/Medicare
solution. Besides, the health care coverage I buy from my local union is
better than Medicare. There's only a small annual deductible, no donut
hole for drugs, and a $10 copay and, best of all, no hassles from
providers.
Whatever works for you. Most people do not really have a choice on
Medicare. Their insurance will stop at age 65.

Therefore, according to the Right Wing NUTS, eliminate it! That makes
sense.



Easy enough to fix medicare. First, remove the cap on contributions.
Raise the rate on contributions if you are wealthy. Do more and more
stringent RAC audits. Set up better guidelines for treatment. Do more
criminal prosecutions for provider fraud. Require tough negotiations
with pharmaceutical companies.


It is not quite that simple. Medicare has grown twice as fast as the
GDP since FY2000.
I keep hearing that restoring the Clinton tax rates would bring us
back to the 2000 prosperity but that ignores the fact that GDP
increased 50% since then and spending more than doubled.
The entitlements are only getting worse.
Ryan may not be presenting a reasonable plan but, at least, he is
opening the debate.

It's not a question of him presenting a "reasonable" plan. If his aim
was to present something worthy of discussion, to "open" the debate,
perhaps he should have presented a reasonable plan.

Also, nobody is claiming that restoring the Clinton-era tax rates
would bring us back to 2000 prosperity. What is being claimed is that
tax breaks for the upper class did NOTHING to help the economy. Those
tax rates would certainly help. A good place to start is to reinstate
the 3 or 4% the upper category.