Obama's Upcoming Social Security Proposal

[Moemg]

I think the most immediate concern is medicare and creating disincentives for treatments that neither cure nor add to the quality of life. That will be difficult to structure but I think it must be done, maybe by incentives for hospice services or by look-backs at health care providers when a patient dies within 30 days of costly treatments - don't pay the bill and prohibit the provider from billing the patent's family unless there was a signed consent and a fixed fee for services. I recall a poster on this board a couple years ago who insisted that a dying parent be kept in ICU until another family member from out of town could be there when the parent died BECAUSE IT WAS COVERED BY INSURANCE (Medicare). Likewise providing mobility aids (Hoveraround and the like) should be, at a minimum, income/asset based in addition to necessary. Lots of this equipment goes to the dump after the purchaser dies because there is no incentive for a re-sale market. I shall now step off my soap box.

Social security can be dealt with by increasing the max income taxed and maybe adding a month or two to the minimum age for benefits.

I totally agree . I spent too many years watching patients on death's doorsteps having endless procedures that did not add to their life . In fact it probably maybe them even more miserable . I went through this first hand when my husband ended up in ICU after heart surgery . There is a time to say enough but if you do not have strong family advocates that time may not come as long as your insurance will pay .

 

[Independent]

Not raising taxes on the rich is a losing position for the GOP.
Not making serious cuts and claiming we have a revenue problem not a spending problem is a losing position for the Dems.
As a independent, I have no idea who'll I'll be voting for in 2012, but I'll be watching closely. Actions speak louder than words.
TJ

+1

 

[Brat]

On soapbox:

IMHO the folks who advocate those close to end of life procedures are the health care providers. Once they know they are at risk of non-payment they will be much more thoughtful about recommending them. If the family still still wants a procedure then let them demonstrate to the health care provider that they have the resources to pay for the care because the provider's $$$ is at risk if they don't.

Off soapbox.

 

[sheehs1]

I don't think he commented on cuts to SS... just reforming Medicaid and Medicare and other programs like defense/security.

Give him time.....he will. He just wasn't ready to alienate that voting segment at the moment.


I believe the GOP is in a bit of a pickle. They do not have a cohesive constituency. The tea party has fragmented their voting block. But there are a huge number of Republican Pre-Retirees (boomers) that will turn on them in a minute if they make draconian cuts to Medicare or SS. Even retirees will be suspicious that there will be something buried in the bill that will enable their benefits to be cut.

...like the Democrats are a cohesive unit right now

They will have to raise taxes! It will come down to who pays. In the end everyone will pay and it will be progressive.

They will have to stop spending too. To raise taxes without reductions in spending gets us no where.


It will be interesting (frustrating) to watch the posturing...like his statement "they want to give people like me a trillion dollar tax cut."...trying to make those listening think he is willing to take the 250K couple tax increase on the chin...when he and his wife...really make ...what... a couple million a year..(or was that just the year he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (cough,...cough)..... .
All sides will be doing this...not really trying to single him out

 

[Stevewc]

I really don't think changing the ages for SS retirement benefits is the fair way to go. They've already tried that in our lifetimes.
Told us it would take care of all the problems but here we are again.
I hate to see the younger generations face working until 70 or what ever.
I'm not sure I would have held together for many more years doing my old job.
I left at 55.9 years old & the last few years were pretty hard on me.
Desk jock's would probably do better than construction workers and so on.
This is the early out site you know, stand up for getting out as soon as possible.
Steve

 

[donheff]

I really don't think changing the ages for SS retirement benefits is the fair way to go. They've already tried that in our lifetimes.
Told us it would take care of all the problems but here we are again.
I hate to see the younger generations face working until 70 or what ever.
I'm not sure I would have held together for many more years doing my old job.
I left at 55.9 years old & the last few years were pretty hard on me.
Desk jock's would probably do better than construction workers and so on.
This is the early out site you know, stand up for getting out as soon as possible.
Steve

+1. As for the "told us it would take care of all the (SS) problems" part, the changes in the 80s and 90s largely did. The fact that we frittered the surplus away with tax cuts and a bogus war doesn't make SS the bogeyman. The bogeyman is/was tax cuts without commensurate savings and wars without planning for commensurate taxes to pay for them. The reality was the GOP continued with their "starve the beast" strategy from the 80s until they finally got us to such a perilous point that dismantling the social safety net actually seems necessary to a substantial portion of the population that depends on it.

 

[Alan]

... and another one bites the dust.

YouTube - Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!"