This 53 year old has it right....

[Playinghardball]

[seabeyond]

1. yup. nt

[coldbeer]

14. SWEET!!!

And I agree!

Inevitably Social Security is going broke because our government
used the proceeds. The final solution? Raise taxes on everybody
including myself ... and taxes kill me.


None of this raising the age bs. Social Security is a good
investment, period!!! I'm finally on medicare ... and its
not free .... but a lot cheaper than health insurance!!!

[Duer 157099]

2. Yep. The "over my dead body" part is quite accurate.

That is precisely what they intend to do.

[Kalidurga]

3. I am 47 I totally agree...

I haven't worked quite as long. But, when do you start breaking your promise to people who paid in. Maybe we could cut of kindergartners they haven't paid in yet. But, I think that would still be wrong. We need to remember ok not we most here know why the system was started. Real people died because they didn't have enough money to take care of themselves. The system has added years to our collective life expectancy and has made life better for millions of families.

[MotorCityMan]

55. Just turned 48 and totally agree

I've been working since I was 16, so that makes 32 years of paying into social security.

[HelenWheels]

84. I'm 75 and I agree

I am not as selfish as the Republicants make me out to be. I get very angry when I hear this about you're Okay if you're 55 and over. I have kids and grandkids I believe should have the same Medicare I have. We seniors want the same for the younger Americans that we have and I shout that to the roof tops.

[OLDMDDEM]

89. You are absolutely right

I want all of the earned benefits I am now using to be available to my kids and grandkids.

[dkf]

4. Out of money is out of money.

Look at Greece and tell me they aren't outraged that the promises their government made are being reneged on.

I keep saying people need to be prepared for all scenarios. The numbers tell me we have promised more than we are capable of paying.

[ToxMarz]

19. RE: out of money is out of money

We are not out of money and will not be any time soon. It is a matter of priorities. If you feel there is not enough money for Social Security and Medicare (and universal health care for that matter), it is because you have prioritized our resources for other uses. Military spending, endless wars, tax cuts for the wealthiest, corporate give aways. Make your own list. Well we don't agree with those priorities. We won't accept "Gee we're sorry. We're out of money" We aren't, those people are just trying to steal it all. And playing the Greece analogy is so frigging lame. There is almost no similarity in the two economies. And these are not "promises our government made to us", these are promises we have made to each other as a society. They are being attacked by the selfish greedy I got mine sociopaths.

[Jazzgirl]

25. +1

Thank you for noticing that the analogy doesn't even fit.

[tokenlib]

51. Thanks for answering that so capably..

[dkf]

77. How can you pay out $70 trillion when total US wealth is less than $70 trillion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Graphic.png

[Loudestlib]

85. ummm

A balance sheet is a snap shot. We are not going to sell our current assets to pay for our future expenses. We will create new assets from our resources as time goes on. You are comparing future costs to current assets.

[Ikonoklast]

20. There is plenty of money. It just needs to be paid.

And raising taxes and closing the 'hiding my money' loopholes will help solve that little problem.

Too bad for your pals, they are going to feel the same pain that the rest of us have for the last thirty years.

Oh, and one of Greece's largest rpoblems is the same as ours; the wealthy hiding their wealth and avoiding paying taxes.

Don't you get tired of this? You change nothing.

[dkf]

31. The present value of our federal obligations is $70 trillion if you add social security and Medicare

That exceeds the entire value of US household assets which includes all the assets of the rich and the poor...real estate, stocks, bonds, cash etc. We have obligated every thing individuals own and have promised even more.

The entire value of the world's assets is $70 trillion.

Oh and that doesn't include state and municipal obligations, ie debt and pensions.

Crazy huh?

Yeah I don't like what the numbers say either. It's unbelievable what we've gotten ourselves on the hook for.

[Ikonoklast]

33. You assume that there will be nothing done to change that.

Or that nothing is being done, even now.

The National Debt is used as a talking point by the Right, except that they have no moral authority to do so, as the responsibility for most of it belongs to them.

Nice try at deflection, it failed, as usual.

[ToxMarz]

37. RE: Crazy huh?

Which means going forward we will have to prioritize our obligations. You seem to think cutting social security and Medicare is where we start. I disagree. That is just the easy target. It is like the argument that if government does anything wrong it must be eliminated. I believe it is better to fix what is wrong. It may take time, hard work and sacrifice. And a Yes We Can attitude. It's easy to point and say what's wrong, much harder to be part of the solution.

[Egalitarian Thug]

39. "We" didn't get "ourselves" on any hook, we were robbed and the money is still there. n/t

[JHB]

64. You throw that $70 trillion number around pretty liberally (so to speak)...

Where does it come from? Over how much time and given what assumptions? Those details do matter.

For instance, does that number assume that medical costs (for Medicare and Medicaid) will continue to rise over the next 75 years as fast as they have over recent decades and that nothing will be done to reduce that?

Does it assume current levels of taxation? Considering that high-end tax rates (both in absolute terms and in terms of what is paid after figuring for income type and deductions) are at historic lows, there is considerable room to change that. Over how much time is this again?

Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't this figures over 75 years? What was the value of the world's assets in 1937?

I'll also note the effect of higher top-end taxation on financial decision making, such as "If I'm going to have to shell out this money anyway, better to spend it on my employees who are working to grow my assets than to hand it to Uncle Sam." And those employees will pay higher taxes on the additional income. More in income taxes, FICA taxes, all a little at a time, which would bring that number down quickly.

So please provide links and a breakdown, so we can determine just how reliable or unreliable that number is.

[sabrina 1]

30. The SS fund is not in any danger of not being able to meet its obligations for at least another

25 years and those numbers are from a period when unemployment is high and assuming things do not change for the next 25 years. And that is if we do NOTHING until then.

Even after that, under the same conditions, it will still be able to pay out approx 80% of its obligations.

But this downturn in employment is not likely to last forever, so that will extend those numbers.

In order to make it secure for the next 75 years, just a few things can be done:

1) Raise the Cap
2) Make sure people have jobs here in the US.

Anyone saying or implying in a sneaky way such as mentioning the Deficit and SS in the same sentence even if not directly telling the Big Lie, that SS had anything to do with the Deficit, is lying, period.

To deal with the Deficit these are a few things that must be done:

1) Eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
2) End the wars and don't start any more of them.
3) Create jobs. End unemployment.

These few things are what caused the deficit more than anything else and once again because it can't be said often enough:

SS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEFICIT!

[dkf]

34. The net present value of federal obligations is $70 trillion. That equals all the world's assets.

You tell me how you think that is about to work out.

[HangOnKids]

38. Oh FFS dkf

That. Is. All. I. Have. To. Say.

[sabrina 1]

40. You tell me when the US Government has ever defaulted on its

Treasury Bonds which are backed by the 'full faith and credit' of the US government.

And since you neglected to address the main point regarding SS, how did SS contribute to the Deficit?

[dkf]

42. They aren't going to default on the Treasury Bonds. It's the rest of the obligations at risk.

That would be Medicare and social security which is my point.

[sabrina 1]

46. What obligations are at risk?

How is it risky for the SS fund to have invested in Treasury Bonds if it isn't just as risky for China or anyone else who did so?

Are you saying the Government intends to default on the American people who are just another one of their creditors?

[dkf]

54. No...I'm talking about after the trust fund is used up.

I bet that will be sooner than projected for Social Security as the disability payments and earlier retirements deplete it early.

The medicare fund only covers part A and is worse off than Social Security.

The $70 trillion represents the present value if social security and Medicare is covered as promised out of income tax receipts after the trust funds run out. That is what is not specifically obligated by the law. The rest are real debts of the US and cannot be negotiated down without a default.

[sabrina 1]

56. The trust fund will not be used up. It has three sources of revenue and

has a huge surplus which continues to grow even in these bad economic times. By 2024 the surplus is projected to be over 4 trillion dollars, double what it is now, and if the economy improves and they do a few things like raising the cap, it is likely to be even more than that.

I think they do not need to keep such a huge surplus lying around for war mongers and Wall street gamblers to try to get their hands on.

They should increase benefits to those who are on it. That would ensure it goes to the people who are entitled to it, and keep it away from greedy hands, AND stimulate the economy as those people are the most likely to spend the money.

I don't know where you got the idea that the fund it is going to dry up. That is a Republican scare tactic. They've been saying that for fifty years.

[dkf]

69. Do you not understand they have obligated more money than exists?

It doesn't matter if they try to raise taxes. How can you tax more than what is owned?

If the whole population owns $50 trillion how can you raise $70 trillion in taxes? That is why I say the numbers don't work.

[ProfessorGAC]

78. You Understand That The Wealth Is Recycled Over Time?

So, there is a recycle rate of the square root of the longevity of the holder. This is a pretty simple and well-known mcaroeconomic concept.
GAC

[dkf]

80. So you think it is perfectly reasonable to think that obligations with a net present value of $70

Trillion can be made off a current total asset base of $50 + trillion?

I can see where the wealth would grow but I don't see how paying a non confiscatory percentage of ones income will cover more than 100% of current assets.

I would be very interested to see projections of how that could possibly work, especially in light of other studies that show debt at the types of levels we are seeing are a drag on growth.

[eridani]

58. The fucking trust fund is SUPPOSED to be used up, fercrhissakes!

It represents the PREPAYMENT of our own retirement by baby boomers. The idea was to then go back to pay as you go, which was how SocSec operated from its beginning to 1983. Of course then we will have to do the same prepayment buildup for the next demographic lump--the Gen Y baby boom echo. No problems there if we scrap the cap.

[dkf]

75. When you add all the promises it exceeds our assets.

Sure you can raise the payroll tax to pay social security but what if those taxes are needed to keep us from defaulting on our treasury bonds? Social security can be altered at any time. Same with Medicare. Not so with promised debt payments.

[eridani]

87. The we default to our other creditors and cut back our imperial war machine

And impose single payer health care, which will bring our health care costs in line with actual civilization.

[JHB]

65. How about you break that number down, and go into the assumptions behind it?

Over how much time?

Under what assumptions of taxation and tax receipts?

Under what assumptions of cost growth?

Does it assume that there are no substantial policy changes?

Small differences in assumptions vs reality over time make a tremendous difference in that number, in the same way that "compound interest is the greatest force in the universe" (usually attributed to Einstein).

I know the RWers love to bandy about that number, just like they bandy about figures from conservative "think" tanks that inflate the amount spent on "anti-poverty programs" by including programs and tax deductions that mostly affect the middle class and not the poor.

So where does that number come from and what goes into it? Please report so that we can decide.

[Doctor_J]

73. This is the same logic Bush & Issa used to kill the post office

you are a fountain of Hate Radio/Paul Ryan talking points. Go to foxnation and float them there. We're reality-based and your bullshit will get called out.

[cojoel]

83. there are numerous flaws in the model

First off, the $70T number is an the total expenditures estimated between now and at least 2050. In calculus, the integral of the spending growth functions of each area from now until that date. What end date did you used when you calculated $70T?

There is an old saying in modeling which says that for a an interval of sufficiently short duration a linear model is probably adequate. This model uses what is "essentially" a linear extrapolation of recent past trends out over a period of perhaps 40 years. If you look over the past four years as an example, things were quite a bit different in 1972 than now, we went through a period of high inflation (Nixon/Ford/Carter), a "borrow and spend" philosophy of Reagan, the S&L fraud crisis, several expansions and bubbles, the pointless degregulation of banking, and a worldwide economic depression. What did you assume would happen in the next 40 years?

The challenge to NPV modelling is also that you have to assume rates at which currency devalues over a long period, the cost of debt, the return on other investments, and other assorted items from the crystal ball. The further out you go, the less trustworthy the numbers are. When a proper analysis done, you usually get a range of worst-case, average-case, and best-case scenarios. Which type of scenario is yours?

The charts I have seen (you didn't give us any, but something like what is at http://www.fiscalsolvency.com/ is sufficient for this argument) show the growth in these obligations coming from two things:
1) Ever-rising medical costs (Medicare and Medicaid obligations)
2) Ever-increasing interest costs (servicing the debt).
We will cover both of these. Over that forty-year period, social security obligations are flat. Other obligations shrink. Strangely missing from the chart is defense expenditures. Hmmm, I wonder who made that chart? More importantly, what are the big drivers of increased obligations of the next 40 years in your model?

The linear model of ever-rising medical costs is modelled on trends that were true starting in the late 1980s, where costs were rising at 2-3 times the rate of core inflation. That lasted for a long time. Yet in the last two years medical costs rose at a much lower rate. The trend going forward is to provide additional downward pressure on the rate these costs rise. And before that period there was not so much increase. I believe the costs will continue to rise, but more in line with core inflation. If I'm wrong, it would not be the first time. Rising medical costs could continue to be a problem. This is an area of concern, obviously, but just as obvious one that administration has an ongoing focus. What rate of increase in medical costs did you use in your model?

The ever increasing costs of interest is also not really believable. From my perspective we could stop adding to the debt load tomorrow if the politicians would make revenues match outflows. Clinton got us there on budget #1 (balanced by the SS Trust fund of course), but pointless tax cuts, unfunded wars, and unfunded medicare benefits, and with out those things we would have been in complete fiscal solvency now with the government wondering how to invest the social security trust funds. I think a reasonable aim for the administration over the next four years would be to implement the tax increases suggested, as well as possibly an additional temporary millionaire surtax, so get the gap closed significantly to reduce the growth on that curve. It will have to be done gradually, but it isn't hopeless. What rate did you assume the government debt would grow?

I think it will work out in the end. The sooner the Tea Party has left the building the sooner we will get there.

[DeeDeeNY]

70. +1

Most important - raise or even remove the cap altogether.

[eridani]

57. We need more bullshit RW talking points the way we need holes in our heads n/t

[Scootaloo]

61. Did you get your numbers from Drudge Report? ...Again? n/t

[dotymed]

71. Really? Tell the 1%ers whose wealth is growing exponentially

1. They do not need SS money so leave it for those who do.

2. It's time to share the wealth.

[olegramps]

76. There is plenty of money. Its just spent on the wrong things.

How do we justify spending more on defense than the rest of the world combined? Why aren't those making out like bandits not contributing more into Social Security? Why do millionaires pay less of a percentage of their earning than the average Joe. They not only pay less but want even better breaks. Take Romney for example. Ryan proposed to rescind capital gain taxes that would result in Romney paying o.8 per cent income tax while the working class pays 20% or more. Its greed that is driving the country into the poor house. Unfortunately, the majority of those elected to protect the nation, Republicans and Democrats alike, are far more concerned with protecting their wealth than protecting the working class. I am strongly pro-labor and I was disheartened when I saw the working class buy the managements propaganda that they would be well taken care of and convinced them that unions were just taking their hard earned money. Well, we all know what happened. The workers jobs were outsourced, pensions cut and health benefits canceled. Workers just have to face the fact that they have little or no representation in congress. The Democrats elected to congress know that they aren't beholding to the unions to win and only pay them lib service when election time rolls around.

[southernyankeebelle]

5. Am 64 and will be taking Medicare in Jan. I don't want to see anyone lose these benefits.

I told my 32 yr old son and his wife fight fight fight to keep social security and medicare. Those are the only security working people have for their retirement. If they give you a choice to keep it in those programs do keep them there. I don't have that attitude because I have mine I don't want the younger generation not to have it. Majority of seniors want their families to have these programs.

[eridani]

59. +1000. Just found out that I will have to have a cataract operation

It will be covered by Medicare. NO ONE should have to choose between going blind or becoming bankrupt.

[southernyankeebelle]

66. I am grateful to get it. I will fight for the younger people to have it also. Not just for my

generation. It is a must. Good luck with your operation. My mother-in-law had it and we we in and out.

[MANative]

6. Oh, yes, and then some...

I'm 52, and hubby just turned 55 last month. He'd be okay-ish; I'd be screwed.

[liberal N proud]

7. I resemble that remark

Being 53, I have those same feelings.

It seems all my life, that I am just short of that mark. They are always moving the bar just ahead of me.

I have worked the same job for 28 years with what is now a frozen pension (promise broken) and now it looks like I probably will not make it to retirement age in this job anyway.

Then they are telling me I have to work longer for Social Security and Medicare?

[Sophiegirl]

8. I'm 51...

My husband is 56, so he would be ok. For me? Not so much.

[Blanks]

9. They need to raise the ceiling on FICA.

I was thinking about this earlier today. With the ceiling; there is an incentive to pay more to employees over the ceiling amount.

The employer doesn't have to pay 'their share' (correct me if I'm wrong) if it's over the ceiling amount. What they should do is make the employers part increase.

For example (all numbers are just made up): if the ceiling is $100,000 and the employers part is 7.5%; then at $200,000 the employers part becomes 8.5%; at $300,000 the employers part becomes 9.5% etc. Meanwhile, the employee part stays at 7.5% (or whatever it is) all the way to infinity.

This way we aren't punishing the 'poor hard working successful ones'. We are creating a system where employers have a disincentive to overpay the people at the top.

Of course all capital gains should be taxed on FICA at the self-employed rate.

[PatSeg]

22. Exactly

The best and easiest solution, but very few people want to talk about it.

[tokenlib]

53. President Obama supported it in 2008--it's better than cuts..

[Matariki]

10. I'm 53 as well and that's EXACTLY how I feel.

Pissed off every time I hear some politician or political commentator going on about 'entitlements' like it's a dirty word.

[Art_from_Ark]

48. Especially when they enjoy all sorts of "entitlements" themselves

For example, Congresspeople just have to be in the Congressional pension system for 5 years to become vested (that means that nearly all Senators, most of whom are already millionaires, automatically become vested before their first term is up). And a 62-year-old Congressperson with just 5 years of service can collect a full pension! Talk about entitlements!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_pension

[HockeyMom]

11. I will turn 64 in November

I don't TRUST them that I will get it in a year. I don't trust them that people already getting it NOW will continue to.

Keep it for EVERYONE no matter their age. If you say, well, I got MINE, they you are just playing into their hands. That is a me, me, me attitude like Repukes. If we are Dems, we care about everyone.

[CrispyQ]

12. I'm 55 & I don't believe the bullshit that I'm safe.

They want it all.

ALL. OF. IT.

[eridani]

62. Anyone over 55 (or even over 65) who thinks they are safe is delusional

You might as well believe that if you give the school bully your lunch money the first week of the school year, he'll surely lay off of you for the rest of the year.

[JHB]

13. I'm a little short of that mark, but not by much...

...and those over the mark shouldn't believe "you'll be OK" for a second. They will become the newest edition of Welfare Queens.

[onethatcares]

15. as they talk about stopping Social Security and Medicare

I have yet to hear a peep about stopping the congressional pensions or their healthcare program.

Or even a sound about them paying into said programs. Talk about "entitlement" programs.

I'm 61 and just blew my knee out, does anyone think I'll get to go back into the construction industry and work til 70? I was just hoping to hit 62 without a problem.

[KansDem]

35. Remember the "work until you're 70" suggestions of late?

Like this one--

Only about half of households are on track to maintain their current standard of living upon retirement at age 66. However, if workers are willing to delay retirement until age 70, 86 percent can expect to enjoy a comfortable retirement, according to recent Center for Retirement Research at Boston College calculations.

"I think everybody needs to aim to work longer," says Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. "If everybody works about five years longer than they had planned, most people would find themselves with adequate retirement income."

US News

I remember one astute DUer posting a rhetorical question asking that while a lawyer could work until 70, could a coal miner?

Asking us to give up our SS and Medicare to pay for bogus wars and tax-cuts for millionaires is pure insanity...

[onethatcares]

43. yes, I remember that

and I haven't forgotten why our safety net was developed. I'm just freaking amazed at the amount of greed

possessed by my fellow citizens. As I try to explain to others, I want you all to have a pension that will provide for

you in your old age and I definitely would not want you to go without healthcare.

Some get it, some don't.

Better grab your socks, if mitty gets in, we'll be borrowing more money for the Iran war. For gauds sake I'm

getting tired of constant war.

[pansypoo53219]

16. more divide + conquer.

[HenryWallace]

17. Do the right thing!

I am 56. If family history is any indication, I won’t be around to use social security.

However, I have children who I hope would care for others and, in turn, be cared for when their time comes; I have an Aunt, neighbors, and friends who have been allowed to age with dignity; I have colleagues and acquaintances who have been spared the financial strain associated with the support of an elderly relative.

I make no contribution and am entitled to no return. Government currently charges me 10.4%, of what otherwise would be paid be me, in order to take care of elderly Americans!

It is the best money I have every spent!

[pediatricmedic]

18. So how do we fix it?

And please don't give the the tired old line "Tax the Rich". Increased taxes on the rich are going to happen, it will just take a little more time. It only buys us a year or two at most by taxing them.

The problem is that the cost of SS and Medicare are increasing much faster then we could ever increase taxes. Even if we tax everyone at 100%(not realistic), we are going to still hit a point where there will not be enough money coming in to cover costs. Money and resources are not limitless as some may think.

The Republican solution is to cut everything, which is pretty much a death sentence to many who rely on this support. I am not comfortable with condemning that many people to death.

At some point the system will fail and we will be stuck with the Republican solution if we do nothing. So how do we avoid this death spiral?

[Ikonoklast]

24. Change the tax rate paid from 2.9% to 4.25%. Medicare Fixed.

Raise the cap on salaries for S.S. to one million.

Fixed.

[taught_me_patience]

28. There are a number of tweaks that could be tried

#1) would be to raise the tax by 1%
#2) raise the age by a year or two
#3) allow medicare to negotiate drug prices
#4) look into rationing end of life care a bit

Do some small things and see what the outcome is, then tweak some more.

[eridani]

63. Don't forget Medicare for All. If our per capita health care expenses were the same--

--as they are in civilized countries (about half of what we pay), all Medicare funding issues would immediately vanish.

[sabrina 1]

41. Fix what? You just made a false statement regarding SS.

SS is not in any danger of being able to meet its obligations 100% for the next 25 years without anything being done about it.

You need to start doing some research instead of listening to the big lie being told by Right Wing Think Tanks and their surrogates, such as Fox and Limbaugh et al.

And if the economy improves during the next 25 years, SS will be safe for even longer as these numbers are based on the current economy and unemployment rates.

The SS fund has over 2 trillion dollars in it, saved by the American people. And don't bother telling me there is nothing left in the fund. The fund is in Treasury Bonds which the US has never defaulted on. It also has two other sources of revenue.

To extend it's fiscal security at its current successful projections, for 75 years, all that needs to be done is:

1)Raise the Cap so that more people are paying into it and
2) Create jobs and keep unemployment low

Please stop buying into right wing propaganda about the SS fund. It is known now as the Big Lie designed to scare the public into agreeing to privatize those trillions of dollars and allow THEM to gamble with them on Wall Street. We all know what happened to people's Pension Funds when the allowed them to be placed in the Wall Street Casino.

[rurallib]

21. mark to come back to

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Bullshit. It's only a little adjustment around the margins.

IIRC, Simpson-Bowles only voted to recommend an eventual 22% cut, or about $50,000 per recipient in lifetime benefits.

Nobody will miss that kind of coin.

So stop getting all alarmist. And buy cat food stock ASAP.

[still_one]

27. You think cat food is cheap?

[Art_from_Ark]

52. Some of it is pretty cheap

The dry stuff in the 2 pound bags they sell at the local dollar store is pretty cheap. But the cat refuses to eat it, probably after seeing the "Made in China" mark on the bag

[mnhtnbb]

26. At 61 I'm eligible to file for SS in December--and I am.

[JohnnyRingo]

29. I hope he explained that to his parents.

That's who those ads are aimed at.

Republicans hope to allay the fears of seniors and get them to vote against Obama. They'll be throwing their kids and grandchildren under Romney's campaign bus in the process..

[brewens]

32. Retired people need to be made to understand that they are not grandfathered into anything!

The second they pass some idiotic voucher program, the shit hits the fan and stays hit! At that moment, I and a whole bunch of other people will understand the fact that we cannot afford to have one more dime taken out of our checks to pay for someone else's medical care.

If these people think they can vote teabagger and sit back and watch everyone else's benefits get cut, they are in for some attitude replacement therapy. We'll demand they scrap the whole thing and cash everyone out. If you've collected more than you paid in, you're done.

It's not what I would like to see happen and is probably exactly what the Republicans want but that's what some of these idiots need to realize. They'd better turn off the FOX "News" and wise up.

[hamsterjill]

36. I happen to be 53, too.

Need I say more?

[madinmaryland]

44. I'm 51 and this really pisses me off.

[RepublicansRZombies]

45. Is it possible that hospitals are grossly overcharging and no one is stopping them?

There is plenty of money in Medicare and there will be plenty of money in Medicare to cover everyone if the hospitals weren't raking us over the coals.

Everyone talks about the gross overcharging and lack of humanity in the insurance companies, but what the fuck are the hospitals doing charging $35,000 for each dose of anti-venom and the like?

When are we going to regulate the costs at the hospitals?

In Japan and MRI is $97, in the US +- 5,000....WTF!

[Timbuk3]

47. I turned 55, this year

When I was 54 I thought EXACTLY what this 53 year old guy thinks.

BTW, I haven't changed my mind.

I have kids and grand kids.

The discussion isn't "how many years does someone have to pay in before it's not OK to screw them?"

It's "In the 80 years or so since SS first passed, RW extremists have wanted to do away with it. Why should we let them, now?"

Same goes for Medicare, passed when Johnson was POTUS, and Obamacare.

The uber-wealthy don't have slaves as long as us unwashed masses are pooling our resources.

[OnionPatch]

49. This 53 year old agrees.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

50. I'm 52 and can totally relate - part of why this is being done is demographics

Furious and feeling like I'm getting screwed are my emotions. Some of the largest numbers of baby boomers that will hit Medicare are between 50 and 55. This demographic has been selectively chosen to "save" money. This is not an accident or arbitrary # - it is Bain like thinking process. We are being outsourced from Medicare and SS - programs we have already payed for with hard work. Now we have to work longer and they are betting on a high attrition (death) rate before we start to collect.

For some reason the politicians are ignoring and insulting this age group - but the repercussions will be fierce. We should form a lobby group - call it "Menopausers Unite"

Romney is an ass. Just look at his logo.

[Scootaloo]

60. "Fuck the young"

Typical demagoguery by the Republicans. Cater to the self-interest of spiteful old people, let the kids and grandkids swing.

Of course when Republicans say "fuck the young," I'm sure about half of them are hoping it's meant literally.

[Sanddancer]

67. What comes after the The Greatest Generation.

Let's hope those 55 and older (i'm 54) don't see themselves gain the moniker The Selfish Generation by voting predominantly for the Reps.

[OLDMDDEM]

68. I just turned 65

and I'm really worried about what Rmoney would do to all of us. I'm now on Medicare and, if Rmoney wins, I am certain his lies will come about and Medicare will be changed for even those currently on Medicare. Next year, when I'm eligible for Social Security, I'm afraid it would already be changed. We the people did not cause the mess we're in. The Rethugs did with the two taxcuts and two wars. We would get more of the same with Rmoney. I have told my wife and family that the Rethugs really are trying to kill off the elderly (those 62 and over) so they can get rid of the earned benefits we've been paying for for over 40 years. They all need to be voted out of office.

[Doctor_J]

72. Which is why every single Dem in the WH and Congress should declare,

loudly, unequivocably, there will be no benefit reductions, no vouchers, and no privatization. Period.

[boston bean]

74. I've been paying into it for 30 years

I agree!

[Borchkins]

79. I'm 49.

B

[LittleGirl]

81. 53 next month

scarred shitless.

[joanbarnes]

82. Amen, I'm 58, sibs are 52, 50 and 46.

[citizen blues]

86. I'm 48 and feel the exact same way!!!

Being born after 1960 also means I don't get full social security until 67. And Republicans cut the social security survivor benefits I was counting on for college when I was a senior in high school in 1982.

Raise the cap for paying into social security to $250K and stop raiding the fund!!! Social security and medicare are not Republican slush funds! Stop treating them like they are and stop trying to fix what wasn't broke to begin with!

[OLDMDDEM]

88. Playinghardball

I think your post hits it on the head. If congress touches Medicare and Social Security, I believe there will be hell to pay at the following election.