The should have come up with a plan that phases in changes for everyone (age wise) getting medicare starting at passage. And it should have a voluntary aspect to it (as I suggested before) so average Americans who worked and paid many hundreds of thousands of dollars of federal taxes dont feel like they are thrown out of the passenger airplane, the one that they had to pay for that others are riding in, just because they were born too late. Let the retired consumer decide if he personally wants Obama death panels or not.
Or here ILLEGALLY!
It’s like walking on very thin ice in the middle of a large lake. With no one around to pull one out.
This mini-discussion we were having relates to the future retiree personal perspective on this bill, as well as designing a reform proposal that does do go up into flames. But there is the other side to it, the somewhat hidden side.
Those other two freepers, one on this thread and the one on the other thread, were making a moral argument for the Ryan plan that went: ‘Why should anyone have to pay taxes to pay for anyone else’s health care(unless they were born before 1956) , even for a retiree that was forced to pay taxes to pay for other’s health care?(apparently born after 1956)’ They made the argument that if someone (born after 1956 apparently) doesnt save enough for their health care when they get old, why is that anyone else’s responsibility to do it? (And BTW :There is such thing as long term health care insurance, I know all about seniors options.) Then I threw out some unpleasant graphics to illustrate exactly what that would mean.
The problem is that this is NOT their argument. They are making the argument that they are ‘saving medicare’. If the above is the real argument than they shouldnt say they are ‘saving’ it. That is the part that annoys me the most.
Plus the whole 10 year delay thing ruins that moral argument anyway.