It’s got nothing go do with being too stupid to understand that the government runs Medicare .
It’s the same thought process that allowed my mother to think my father’s nursing home roommate was a cheat because he gave his two houses to his children to ensure his Medicaid eligibility even though she did the same thing. In her mind it was different because it was only one house. And the same process that allowed someone else I know to complain that Congress shouldnt have better health coverage than most Americans-until I reminded her that many NYC residents have the same opinion about her husband and son, both city employees.
Well, this is certainly not true. Two things:
-
As a candidate, I attended Tea Party meetings where state-level leaders made just this point.
-
On a radio show in 2010 I heard the leader of ‘Tea Party Patriots’ (described as one of the largest in the country for whatever that means) say that the budget needed to be cut. When it was suggested that cuts would need to be made to Social Security and Medicare to get there she stated that those programs couldn’t be cut because she counted on them.
To say it’s never happened nor common is to be willfully blind to the failings of most Tea Party groups. That said, it’s not something I’d worry about. The Tea Party is failing as a movement, pretty much right on schedule.
OP, can you explain why you’re for it and think it should be pushed through? Because, so far all the responses in this thread are either neutral, or think it’s a bad idea (except as a way to eventually kill SS).
It’s one thing to say everyone should save enough to retire without counting on SSI. It’s quite another to do the same for health costs. Given that health insurance is probably something we all want in order to spread the risk as insurance always does and that the vast majority of Americans get health insurance through work, how are we to get health insurance after we retire? You can either require insurance companies to allow retired workers to continue in their plans or set up some other type of plan and make sure that pre-existing conditions cannot disqualify you.
I realize that, however, having read some of these responses - and having read both of the Krugman links, above - I think they’re wrong.
Krugman’s arguments strike me as either a counsel of despair (it won’t raise any money anyway) or a redirection (we should raise taxes instead). Neither are actually valid arguments against the concept.
Note Krugman’s first point, that means testing won’t save much money. Does that, then, imply that it is worthless? That whatever 2% (his number) of possible savings shouldn’t be chased? If I’ve learned anything in finance it’s that this sort of game is won on the margins. You save pennies and nickels in a lot of places until it adds up to a real figure. Given the absence of any other real reform a marginal win is a win.
The second argument Krugman advances - that we shouldn’t do it because we should just raise taxes instead - is so clearly a non-starter as to be considered hand-waving rather than responsive to the question. If we assume - which I think is true - that efforts at some means of entitlement reform is in the offing AND that wholesale tax hikes are off the table - which I also think is true - then there will be a push for something that can be seen as palatable to both parties.
To quote Rage Against the Machine:
Or, to go more erudite, Confucius:
Remember, though, that my question is “Can this get through” rather than “Is this a good idea?” Those are two very different questions.
On the upside, Paul Krugman, means testing, Confucius and Rage Against the Machine in one post. I win the Internet for today.
If you can’t raise taxes, raising taxes by deception is not an acceptable alternative. Social security should not be treated as just another way to soak the rich.
Anyway, back to the OP, I don’t think it can be pushed through. The GOP won’t be fooled by back-door tax increases and Democrats won’t want to take the first step towards unwinding SS and Medicare.
Didn’t the GOP expand Medicare the last time they were in control of the Executive and the Legislature? If that’s the case, why do you think they would want to cut it now?
What political world do you think we live in? Back door tax increases - sometimes called fees or whatnot - are all the rage everywhere. Fees, service charges, user costs, whatever, it’s what’s for dinner.
Social Security benefits most certainly are means-tested under current law, by being subject to income tax.
I.e., if you have means. 
…and another percentage goes to your mortgage, and another to your bills, etc.
That’s all just excuses. Put in the 15% and you’ll be comfortable in retirement. Don’t and you’ll be living off of SS.
Again, it’s not at all complicated.
Yes, everyone can.
At lower income levels it will be a lower amount in the nestegg, true. But if someone is already used to living on a low wage they won’t need as much in retirement either.
Uh, yes, it does. That’s what the meme we’re discussing is. If you want to talk about another meme, by all means bring it up. But the whole “Keep the Guvmint out of my Medicare” meme is precisely that. The dumb tea party people hate government, yet are too ignorant to realize that beloved programs like Medicare actually are government.
Have you ever even looked outside your comfort zone? :smack: This is the kind of thing that makes people from around here look at American conservatives and think “what a bunch of heartless, cruel, perspectiveless people”. No, not everyone can put aside 15% of their income every month. If you already have to choose two of rent, food, and medication; if you’re struggling to make ends meet, if you’re lucky if nobody in the family is hungry at the end of the day, there is no 15% to spare.
My family when I was growing up did not have 15% to spare. It all went into the mortgage or food or car repair or gas or an immediate slush fund for the next big disaster, be it the roof that was falling apart or dad’s truck which he needed for his work but which was a 10-year-old piece of shit that was when he bought it 15 years ago needing another new clutch or mom getting a bizarre infectious disease and needing to pay for ridiculously overpriced hospital bills. That slush fund was almost never enough. You act like everyone can set aside something for retirement. No. That is fucking false, and it’s not just false, but insulting. It holds that typical republican idea that these people are being lazy. And that’s bullshit. There was no more money to set aside.
After the divorce, my dad managed to get his shit together, but now he’s even further in debt due to the trailer he used to have on his property becoming infested with mold to the point that he had to build a new house, or sell the property and rent somewhere else. He’s now got a new mortgage to pay and there’s no fucking money to set aside. My mother has it even worse, she’s just barely getting by on the absolute essentials. Go on, take a fucking look at our finances. You tell me - where’s that 15% gonna come from? The food budget, the rent budget, or the “this is the money we save for when something bad inevitably happens, because it always will and always has so far” budget? :mad:
I’m sorry if I seem heated, but this condescending bullshit is a slap in the face to people like my family, who just barely get by with no government assistance, barely make a living for themselves, and then get to be told by people like you that they’re “lazy” and that they should “set aside 15%, everyone can”. No. That kind of bullshit will not fly here. It really boggles the mind that you could be this disconnected from the everyday reality of so many people in this country, in so offensive a way. You should go into politics, Fleming.
Yet we take about 15% from those people with a regressive payroll tax to fund SS. Let them keep that 15% and use for their retirement.
You admit that your family had enough many to save. You saved for rainy days and you saved for medical expenses. I would argue that you can borrow or declare bankruptcy to deal with these things, which you can’t do for retirement, so retirement would be a better first choice. You’ve obviously got a lot of baggage around this issue, so I’ll leave it at that.
But I must point out that this is a strawman, of course. You’re putting the words in my mouth, but i didn’t say anything about anybody being lazy.
True enough, you were content to imply that they were stupid.
Raising the cap on SS tax is a good idea.
But means-testing the benefits is a very very bad idea, for reasons other have stated. Also note that many retirees with non-SS sources are living off of savings. Not the reportable taxable income from savings, but the (often unreported) savings themselves. If government spends effort uncovering such secret savings, it will get only low-hanging fruit; the rich, clever and criminal will still have their secret savings. We need less Big Brother intrusions, not more.
The idea is so bad, and so obviously anathema to the GOP base, that if Republicans are proposing it we should assume it’s a ploy like ACA was. Get Democrats excited by a possible “compromise”, cut support at the last moment, laugh at having tricked the hapless Democrats once again.
We had a mortgage and while dad’s credit rating was decent, that’s exactly the kind of shit you just can’t do when you’re poor. You don’t go into debt like that because it can destroy your credit rating, because it’s hard to get a short-term loan with an interest rate you can reasonably pay back. My dad is an independent contractor. You really think going into debt with the bank like that beyond what we already had was an option? Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I’m just pissed when people like you who have obviously never been poor feel like they can pontificate on how those who are could do it better. “Just save 15% of your income” “just borrow or declare bankruptcy”… Anything else I could say on the matter would be better off in the pit.