As you gripe about what Dean said in 95, Congress dismantles Medicare.

[madfloridian]

And no one gives a you know what. I have posted articles here that directly affect almost everyone here, if not personally then through parents or grandparents.

Want to guess how many replies they got? Ha, yeh, right.

They are slipping in things right now that are laying the path to destroying the underpinnings. Yet this board, a forum you think would care, ignores every post on the subject.

Graham's office called me on the subject yesterday. I think he is waking up to just what they mean by "modernizing" Medicare and Social Security. It is just another word for turning the thing over to private companies, who can drop people at will.

It is almost too late for it to matter. It may be put off a while, but not long. This place is being overrun by people trying to destroy each other's candidates, it sounds like teen-agers or younger. People are starting new threads to continue the bashing threads, and alerting does not matter. It has become quite painful to come here anymore and see the hurt people are trying to cause each other.

To those of you here who think who are so smart in attacking candidates, you are just giving ammunition to those who lurk and salivate for stuff like this.

Now supporters of all candidates need to look it up....look up your candidates' views on these topics. You just might be surprised.

Have a happy bashing week-end or whatever. It is not worth it to me. Read up on what YOUR candidates are allowing to happen to the senior citizens while you are bashing Dean for a stance from 8 years ago. Really sneaky, heh, what they are sneaking through.

[JohnKleeb]

1. Ummm my candiate supports lowering it to 65

"I see a new horizon for Social Security in America, through restoring the age of retirement to 65 years, instead of the current 67 years. The normal age for retirement was raised in phases beginning in 1983 from 65 to 67 years. The reason? People live longer. The economy was transitioning to white collar jobs. But, while people were living longer, they were not working longer, because their bodies wore out. Medical technology has enhanced longevity. Still, increased longevity sometimes means people are sicker, longer.

"We need to reclaim the benefits of quality life extension for our seniors by reclaiming Social Security benefits at age 65. America can afford it. Social Security's finances are more secure than ever. The fund is solid through the year 2042, without any changes whatsoever. And America is wealthier than at any previous point in Social Security's history.

"Yet, Wall Street advocates of privatization look at Social Security's accumulated surplus as a source of revenue to fuel an erratic market.
The present Administration has created a commission which stands for privatization, even in the face of collapsing markets. The proposed privatization of Social Security challenges us once again to consciously choose between the claims of the community and the claims of commerce, between the requirement for economic justice and the imperative for profit, between the public interest and private interest.

"The American dream is to work hard, get ahead, give your life to a company, save with a secure, decent retirement pension. That dream is being destroyed by corporate executives who are cheating people out of their hard-earned retirement benefits.

"As the nation watched enormous corporate bankruptcies unfold at Enron and Global Crossing, and the people of my district watched chapter 11 proceedings at LTV Steel, we saw the plot thicken around one major theme - there are two sets of rules; executives get one set of rules and their employees have to play under a different set of rules.

"Corporate executives get special treatment including more investment choices, no lock down restrictions, generous deferred compensation plans that aren't required to be disclosed, guaranteed rates of return on pension investments and a golden parachute of retention bonuses and other benefits when a company goes under.

"Employees on the other hand have barriers to information, fewer options, more restrictions on investment, and no guaranteed returns. The most egregious disparity is that during a bankruptcy, executive pension plans are totally protected from creditors. Executives can count on cashing in their entire package. On the other hand, employee protections are not protected from creditors. Employees stand at the end of the line and must wait behind other creditors to claim what rightfully belongs to them for compensation that is already earned."



Quoted from Kucinich's website. BTW during that AFL-CIO which I dont wanna discuss at the moment, Kucinich said Dean once favored a return to raise it to 70, just saying he didnt say he currently supported the raise.

[uhhuh]

2. I'll admit

I'll admit I'm not up on what's been happening lately regarding medicare. I didn't know there was a bunch of stuff pending right now. Do you have any links about what's going on. I really want to know. If not, I guess I'll just google or something.

[F.Gordon]

5. One Link..........

From a pissed off Senior......

As the Senate’s bill stands now, we’ll pay 35 bucks a month, and the first $275 of our yearly drug costs, then trusty Medicare will step up to the plate and pay half of all our expensive pharmaceuticals from there on out.

Well, not exactly. At $4,500, just when you desperately need help, coverage stops, not to start again until you’ve reached $5,800 in drug expenses. Wily politicians call that the “hole in the donut.”

I call that the gap that ate my budget. But the greedheads in Washington, not having a hole in their far sweeter donut, think that’s a cute way to describe disaster. In fact, they voted down an amendment to provide us with a drug benefit equal to what federal employees get.

http://www.suddenlysenior.com/drugbenefitstinks.html

[ElsewheresDaughter]

3. that's the Rove "strategery"...omg look look over there!

[papau]

4. Medicaid to be turned into Block grants - killed the Reagan Mental Health

way - in Aug 1981 in his Budget he killed the one year old Carter Mental Heath bill and its funding and moved all funding for mental health hospitals, homes, treatment into block grants.

Now under the Prescription drug GOP bill the drug benefit would not be an entitlement for all Americans - as is Social Security and Medicare - but would be split between "richer" and poor, with the poor getting a welfare benefit prescription drug benefit under Medicaid - but only if the States want to take part of their block grant and use it for that purpose (they never do - the states just reduce taxes on the rich with the block grant money).

Double happy result - no funding for poor folks drugs so most states just will not provide - and Medicaid, if it was not cut back as to benefits - as to what it would pay for - by the states, would be an "unfunded mandate" that states could not afford - as Bush decreased the funds from the Federal Government for this "welfare benefit" (see history for how Reagan put the mentally ill on the street). The when it is all block granted, Medicaid laws in the states would pay for nothing as the states reduce the cost to near zero, and we could finally get a good rising death rate for the children of the poor - the Bush plan to fight growth in competition for legacy school, job, gov positions, and - as it would hit minorities disproportionately compared to whites - a way to keep the population more GOP with fewer Dem voting minorities.

[Mairead]

6. How many of you don't support Dennis?

[madfloridian]

7. I would vote for him if nominated.

Those in our area who are supporting Kucinich would NOT support other Democrats. They use the facilities and meetings of the party, yet they are outspoken about the fact they only support Kucinich.

I like the views and ideas of Kucinich, I really do. If he gets nominated I will vote for him.

I do NOT think he will be able to get the 67 age rolled back, I really truly do not.

[madfloridian]

8. And I don't think you should ask who people support ........

to answer another question. You could have just said nicely said that he has good views on Medicare.....like John Kleeb said.
I don't HAVE to support him to expect good results from others.

[JohnKleeb]

9. np MF

I do however think if this is a key issue to you, Kucinich is the best on it. I can support any of the others if they get the nod but however my support for Kucinich is unique and first hand. He himself will support the nominee as will I.

[Mairead]

10. "I don't HAVE to support him to expect good results from others."

No, that's true, you can expect excellent results from others. For my part, I expected all of them to have policies as good as or better than Dennis's, since his reflect trad Dem values. Whether your expectations will be met is a different issue--I was badly disappointed in mine: Dennis remained the one supporting the most trad Dem values.

My point in asking the question, of course, was to suggest that unless you support him for the nomination, you might not need to support him afterwards. So the real question is: what results do you want? Truly want?

(edit) And while it might be true--I don't think it will be, but who knows--that he won't be able to get it rewound, what we know for sure is that he's the only one who even wants to do it.