Posted on 01/02/2011 10:24:47 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Seniors should be older before the receive Social Security and wealthy Americans should receive less benefits across the board, says Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
He made the argument in an interview on Sunday's Meet the Press, but it's a position Graham has advocated for on the stump in South Carolina, including a 2009 stop at The Citadel with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
"What I'm going to do is challenge this country to make some hard decisions," Graham said at the time, telling the crowd of cadets, Tea Partiers, and Graham supporters that they shouldn't give Congress a pass on the tough stuff.
(Excerpt) Read more at charlestoncitypaper.com ...
I don't recall that any Freepers have ever called that "free market euthanasia" nor referred to the private insurance companies as "profit making death panels".
However, under Obamacare and the like a person would not be allowed to pay for the care themselves and this WOULD be a death panel.
Regardless, I am also referring to those FReepers who have supported Nazi-style involuntary euthanasia.
” And what exactly constitutes “wealthy” you pompous RINO!! It’s simply unbelievable to me how a state can continuously vote idiots like this into office!
You could address that underlined part to everyone on this thread who thinks “means testing” is hunky dory.”
AMEN! What a bunch of quasi-RINO’s AT BEST skulking around this conservative website.
Start with every Senator and Congresshole.
Oh, wait a minute, Congressholes and Senators don't get Socialist Security. They get to opt out and invest "their" money however they choose.
Silly me, I keep forgetting there is a trust fund - lmao!
How about this site: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com
This has taxes(revenue) and spending. If you believe in the existence of a social security trust fund I will need to leave it at that.
Seen any black helicopters lately?
Look, I know that the "trust fund" is an accounting fiction.
But, at least I know that I can't pull numbers out of my behind and expect people to take me seriously.
If you want to act like a horse's behind, then I will need to leave it at that.
I agree that in all cases the patient should have the option of paying for what the government program does not cover.
And I believe that the Medicare and Medicaid programs should evolve this way in future, with the exotic procedures and multi-month ICU stays on the patient's nickel.
By the way, why are you pinging a whole list of Freepers to post after post here??
How about cutting all taxpayer-funded healthcare for WEALTHY SENATORS instead? Goober Grahamnesty is nothing more than a tick with a lisp.
See post 514, under “Bargaining”...
Nothing?
Any physician/surgeon who takes any medicare patients CANNOT treat a patient for cash! If he/she does that it's a crime and he/she risks being sent to federal prison.
and THEN we can talk about cutting SS benefits for people who’ve paid in for all their lives.
And when we get around to cutting those benefits we cut them for everyone in proportion equal to their contributions.
We need to get away from this class warfare BS thats killing enterprise in this country.
YES! Absolutely! But many here just want “the greedy rich” to pay. Liberal talking points extraordinaire.
Apologies, the last response was over the top.
So we agree on the folowing: 1) The soc security trust fund does not exist. 2) The retirement age should be raised 3) Additional cuts to Soc security are required I would like to get into my 40% number but would like to see if we have agreement on:
1) Social security is a big part of a much larger problem, deficit spending.
2) Social security goes hand in hand with Medicare spending - they are both tied to retiree benefits.
If any medical procedure has been determined to not be covered by Medicare (the kind of decision that a "death panel" would make) then it is absolutely billable to the patient/family, cash, check, or CC.
It is illegal to bill the patient for a procedure that is covered by Medicare, and in many cases the Medicare reimbursement is very low. But that's an entirely different issue.
If the government wants to have the effects of a "death panel" without the stigma, it could easily say "Yes, we will cover those liver transplants for 90 year olds. But we will only pay the physician $450 for doing the surgery." or "Yes, we will give FDA approval to that cancer drug. But we will only pay $75 per dosage." This may in fact be the way it will come to pass, because then the eeevil doctors and drug companies can be demonized for failure to provide the service.....
They paid into it, didn’t they?
>I think you are mistaking “I was forced into contributing, and I’m not giving that up” for “support”.
I think you are mistaking that overdrawn ‘trust fund’ for a pile of money.
>What political support? The people who got screwed?
Yes, the people currently being screwed by the Social Security Ponzi scheme are demanding money out of it rather than asking for it to go away. You might as well be demanding money out of Berie Madoff.
>I’m tired of bending over and taking it in the behind, because everyone else tells me that I have to do so for the “greater good”. If it’s the “greater good”, then everyone else is going to have to step up to the plate and contribute, or they can f*** off.
Trust me, I abhor the ‘screw the rich’ crap I hear constantly. It is utter and complete garbage. However there is a difference between demanding money that simply isn’t there, and asking not to be taxed more.
Ok, say we run with your 25% cut, which I think is appreciably less likely to pass. What if it can’t be passed? Will you be happy to have the economy collapse to not get screwed again? You’ll be screwed far more, but at least equally screwed as everyone else.
You’ve heard the term, ‘chop off your nose to spite your face’ right?
Of course not because you and Sniffy are stalkers.
I didn't know you (verity & al_again2010) were both the same person. So when I challenged al_again2010, I didn't realize verity was the only one I was challenging. I guess I'm not very good at this stalking hobby that verity keeps suggesting. Maybe you could teach me how you do it.
Nobody is under any illusions of these cuts occurring this year. We are on the same page, we need to start implementing incremental spending cuts now in order to maintain any future fiscal viability. We could raise retirement to 65 this year and that would be a huge step in the right direction!
But all entitlement and defense spending needs to be incrementally cut this year and in subsequent years as the longer it is put off the more painful it will be.
“Both SS and Medicare will have to be “means tested”
A more suitable tagline for you would be “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Karl Marx”
I was not aware that my post was too difficult for some freepers to comprehend. I don’t know how you got so confused about what I said. Thanks for trying to muddy it up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.