“Let’s dump Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.”

[Cyrano]

Over the past month or more, I’ve read pieces that reported that a few Republicans and their enablers have actually said these things in public.

We always knew that this was part of their “master plan,” but we’ve never, until now, heard them say so out loud.

Perhaps they’ve reached some crossover point of insanity where they believe that they can say anything and have a majority of people agree with them.

Well, “welfare queens driving Cadillacs” worked out pretty well for them, so I guess they believe they can sell any and all crap to the masses.

But here’s what amazes me about this. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefit the vast majority of the American people. (And, yes, I know that millions of people are really dumb.) But there has to be some point where even Forrest Gump would understand that he was being screwed.

The other thing that amazes me is why the Republican Party hasn’t been tarred, feathered and run out of the country. Perhaps someone can explain to me why this hasn’t happened.

[NV Whino]

1. With regard to your last statement...

No one else wants them.

[HopeHoops]

4. "He's wanted in five of the seven seas, and he's NOT wanted in the other two!"

- Sabastian the crab from an old Little Mermaid cartoon speaking about the gangster Crab Louie.

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. Maybe because the DLC agrees with them?

Rahm Emanuel and his brother are trying to privatize Medicare. Hillary Clinton built her original campaign platform around the Orwellianly named "American Dream Initiative" which was a Social Security privatization scam. She had to move away from that after the Chimpministration crashed the stock market, but as far as I know, its still posted somewhere on the DLC website.

They want to privatize everything, just like the Republicans. Because the DLC are, and have always been, exactly that.

[laughingliberal]

9. Yeah, the crash made the idea a little inconvenient but I know they haven't given up on it

They'll just sell us some crap about how the markets and safe and stable now (despite nothing that led to the crash having changed) and try to sell it again.

I can't wait to see the deficit commission recs. If we thing the health care debate was brutal...we ain't seen nuttin, yet.

[Individualist]

36. Hear, hear!

[dflprincess]

68. Exactly (nt)

[ixion]

3. If I could opt out, I would.

I'm paying in money I'll never see. I would just as soon put that towards actually retiring than have to fight some stupid bureaucrat for it in 20 years.

[laughingliberal]

11. Let's talk about where people would be now if they had opted out 5 years ago. nt

[kctim]

15. Same here

in a heartbeat man.

[Cleita]

18. Read my post #16 after yours.

True experience is the best teacher. Don't be a fool.

[ixion]

23. It's not foolish to not want to have to fight for something you've already earned

All I'm saying is that people should have the right to choose. If you choose to opt out and come on to hard times, that was the chance you took.

I'd take that chance to not have to spend time arguing with a bureaucrat about what I can do with my own money.

[Cleita]

30. You have a right to choose, but young people don't understand that they

still have to be part of the pool for those programs to work for everybody. You can choose not to receive benefits. I know many very rich people who don't apply for Social Security because they don't need it but they still pay into it up to the $106,000 of their income. I still pay into it even though I also receive it. You probably aren't even paying the full 15% because your employer probably pays half of it. Look at it this way, you can still save money and those programs will be there for you when you retire if you need them. Also, I'm sure you have a grandparent who is getting Social Security or who will in the near future. Would you rather just pay to support them? Believe me it will cost you a lot more than your 15%. btw one of the reasons I'm a proponent of Medicare for All is because if you are getting deductions from your paycheck for a health program, you should be able to participate in it. There are those of us who will still fight for that right in the future regardless of how this health care bill comes down.

[ixion]

38. well, I don't have a right to choose, really

There is 'clean' way to opt-out. And choosing to forgo the money that was taken from me is not a choice at all, I'm sorry.

The reason people, young and old, are not interested in paying into this pool is because they see the result. It may have been a useful safety net at one point, but it no longer serves that purpose.

And my grandparents have all passed-on, however to answer your question: If it would have come to that (it didn't) I would have rather the family covered the pittance that SS would have otherwise provided.

If our society was really based on the concept of a "common good" I may not be so opposed to it. That is not the case, however, and the money that is paid into that pool serves only to enrich the well-connected at our expense.

[Cleita]

48. Oh I see you got yours, so the rest of society is of no concern to you?

Is my assumption correct? Your suppositions are wrong anyway. You could go to work in another country and that way you won't have to pay into this country's SS but you will probably have to pay far more taxes than here. It has been a useful safety net far more today than it ever has been, with all those retirees who have no jobs right now and less chance of getting one. How are they supposed to save? Our society can be based on the common good down the line when you stop fighting the programs that will lead to them instead of saying I don't want to pay into it because I'll save my own money. Do you have any facts to back up your assertion that the pool only enriches the well connected? I think if you get your face out of the Heritage Foundation website and go to Google you will find out that this is just BS.

[ixion]

55. No, you assumption is not correct...and our society is in no way, shape or form

based on the 'common good'. I look around me, and that's not what I see at all. I see a cruel and unenlightened culture that is seeking only to exploit misfortune, not to buffer or curtail it.

I think it would be great to live in a society where the culture was such that we took care of one another. That is simply not the case, however. For all the warm fuzzy BS, this is a cut-throat culture. I'm simply trying to look out for myself (I don't 'have' mine by any stretch), because I know that society doesn't give a rat's ass if I live or die. This society's concern for me goes only so far as I can provide a revenue stream.

Don't kid yourself. There is no one in the government who has your best interest in mind.

[Enrique]

78. it doesn't work without everyone in the system

both politcally and actuarily.

The people who are trying to make it into an investment plan rather than an insurance plan are the ones who never liked it in the first place. An opt out would kill Social Security, which is what they want.

[ixion]

80. It doesn't work

so maybe it should be scrapped.

[Cleita]

16. Just for an example.

I'll tell you my personal story. When my husband and I retired, we had SS of course and also savings to get income from. At that time we could get 6% on our savings and that with our Social Security gave us a nice livable income. Over the years, the interest paid became less and less and I believe all you can get on CDs these days is 1%. It wasn't enough to live on anymore so we were going into our principle. Then my husband decided to put the money into mutual funds for a better income and growth. Well, for awhile it was fine until the market started crashing. Then my husband fell ill and his medical treatment for the rest of his life was $3,000 a month more than our entire income. Thank God for Medicare, they paid 80% of it. Of course by then we had to get a supplemental insurance that was more expense. Oh he did have a Medicare Advantage plan at first that turns out not to pay for his disease, and we got stuck with $10,000 in medical expenses for an emergency that they found a loophole not to pay. Since then we have both had traditional Medicare until he died. I still have it. I have never been fearful of not having my medical paid for because of exclusions or loopholes.

Okay let's go through the years, inflation, gas prices rising to $4 and still is around $3 a gallon. Each rise in prices makes me go into the principle of my savings. As I watched our nest egg rapidly disappearing, I started living off of my credit cards for major expense and then the credit cards started changing the interest to usury rates so I'm having a hard time paying them off. Finally, I got a part time job and I'm getting on top of things again. I don't know how much longer I can work though as I'm getting medical issues of my own, yet if it weren't for Medicare and Social Security I would have run out of my savings long ago and would probably be working full time if I could possibly even get a job and keep it.

When you say stuff like that you want to save your money instead of paying into social security, it chills my blood, because you are going to need it. Savings are not secure. You can save through IRAs, which is how my husband and I did it. But today with the huge debt this country has, they will have to start printing money, which will cause inflation and make your savings pretty worthless. Fight for your Social Security and Medicare, which is what we did so it would be there when we needed it.

[ixion]

24. See my post #23

I understand your circumstances, I'm just arguing for choice.

[Caliman73]

40. Choice

Seems great until something happens that is beyond your control. You may be a savvy investor, but there are always people out there who are out to take your money.

The flaw in your argument is, as we have seen in many other areas where people want to do what they want to do with their resources, when bad choices, or bad luck, or whatever happens they do not just sit there and magnanimously say, "Oh well, life happens". They run to the government and ask for help.

You are arguing for choice and that seems logical, but are you honestly saying that if you had invested your retirement with Bernie Madoff or with Enron/Anderson Accounting, Lehman, or other entities who were getting enormous returns for some time but that ultimately ripped people off, that you would just walk off into the sunset and go live on the streets? People thought that those investments were golden. It wasn't just "stupid people" either, cities, countries, pension plans, millionaire investors, and the like were all taken in and duped. Real estate was a "rock solid investment" for many years, but there are people who were doing extremely well, who lost everything when the bubble burst.

You are really willing to assume all the risk of getting scammed by professionals, by the system, or just getting beat out by bad timing? I don't know you personally, but I have been working in the field of human behavior for a number of years now and Somehow I don't think so. If so, then you would be pretty unique.

Social Security is far from perfect, but it affords a minimum standard of living for people who can no longer work competitively to support themselves. You can choose to supplement your retirement privately so that you can have a higher standard than the minimum. Social Security has withstood non-stop attack by Republicans and Libertarians who think they can do better since it was signed into law. They would see us return to the time when you truly were on your own. You may already know about it, but if not, read up on the Gilded Age from the late 1800's and the conditions in America prior to the passage of Social Security.

[ixion]

44. There is no flaw

People who opt out and then try and run to the Feds when they got a problem need to understand the consequence of their choices.

This is the problem. I really don't have any pity for the people you mention. They need to learn to accept responsibility for their life and their actions.

A free society is all about the right to choose how you want to live your life.

[Caliman73]

54. Your pity is irrelevant. This it is about what our society stands for.

It is about what type of society we are or want to become. I believe in choice and consequences too, but this is about more than the fantasy that we can have all the freedom to live our lives just how we want to. We have to ask ourselves: Are we a society that believes in individualism above all? Or.. Are we a society that tries to balance individual rights with a minimum standard of living for all of our citizens?

I am not sure how old you are or whether that really even matters, but you need to understand that there is no such thing as a "free society". Once you get more than one or two people living in a group, you have to balance your choices and freedoms with the sustainability of the system. You have more or less freedom depending on the system, but there is no truly "free society" where people choose to do what they want and then live with their decision and the decisions of others. That is called chaos.

In a "free society" where everyone has the right to choose...you better be prepared to kill or be killed to ensure that you get to do whatever you want. The best example of a society guided by those principles is currently Somalia. There is no government there to prevent people from living how they want to live. There is also no government to protect anyone from anyone else. For another example, look at the United States prior the "Progressive Era", Social Security, and government regulation to understand what free choice without a social safety net resulted in.

[ixion]

56. My pity may be, but my CASH is not...

and THAT is the ONLY thing this f'd up society cares about, I'm sorry. The rest is window dressing.

When I was a young man, I believed as you did: that it could change. But collectively we have to want to change, and that hasn't happened for thousands of years, so I've stopped thinking that it will.

[Enrique]

81. you're also saying 'maybe it should be scrapped'

your words: "it doesn't work (sic), so maybe it should be scrapped".

[kctim]

29. Yep, experience is the best teacher

and thanks to my own experience, I know I would be no fool for opting out as soon as possible.

These much needed programs were created as a safety net for those who need them the most, they have since become a way of life and are not as effective as they could be.

[Cleita]

32. That's because the right wing keeps shooting holes in them making them

less effective than they were intended to be. This is why we can't let these clueless billionaires do this to the common working class person, unless they are prepared to take us in, feed, clothe and house us in their mansions and pay for all our medical expenses. It would serve them right if we passed a law stating that anyone with an extra bedroom and bathroom and extra discretionary income be require to take in homeless, sick and elderly, and pay for all their medical expenses until there are no poor and needy out there. Of course the billionaire with the most bedrooms and most houses would have to take care of the majority of those people. Imagine how many people John McCain could look after with his seven homes. You would see these laws so change overnight that they would be signed into law quicker than a wizard could go *poof, poof, piffle*

[kctim]

47. No, it is because

too many people receive benefits when they do not need them or because they failed to prepare. We send 10 people a $100 check when 7 of them don't even need it. A thousand dollars helps 3 people alot more than 300 does. (Yes, I know the numbers aren't right, just easier to use)
Of course we can't just throw those who don't prepare to the wolves. But we should stop pushing consumerism and start promoting saving. The more people who prepare and don't need help, or as much help, the more money there is to provide better services to those who do need help.

[Cleita]

50. If they paid into it then they have a right to it.

When you retire everything you paid into SS will be returned to you and maybe then some if you live long enough.

[kctim]

52. You are correct

but if helping the needy is the goal, then maybe it is not the best way.

[Hannah Bell]

33. they weren't created as a "for those who need them most", they were created as

*universal* programs: social security & medicare are for *everyone* who paid into them.

& yes, they're a *way of life,* if by this you mean everyone who paid into them uses them when they become eligible. as they're designed to be used by everyone who paid in.

[kctim]

49. They were created as a safety net

for those who need them most. That is why you cannot draw unless you qualify as needing it, or until you need it most, which is usually at an older age. Yes, they are designed to be used by those who paid in, but that is rationed.

By way of life I mean that too many people now believe they do not have to save, or save as much, for such things because they are already there.

[Hannah Bell]

62. you're completely misinformed. *everyone* who worked & paid in qualifies for social security &

medicare. EVERYONE.

Prior to SS & medicare, old & indigent people went to POOR FARMS & WORK FARMS.

My stepfather's mother spent some time on one in her middle age. She was a teacher & couldn't find a job. She had two kids & her husband left her in the depression.

You're so full of shit i can't even begin.

[Lugnut]

37. Really?

What would you do if you became disabled and unable to work at the age of 48 like I did?

[ixion]

39. Deal with it

the same way I've dealt with everything else in my life.

I understand that my choice may not be the choice others would make. I'm simply asking for the right to be able to decide for myself if I want to spend my time wrestling with a bureaucracy when I become old and/or disabled.

I don't.

[Caliman73]

41. Where are you hearing about this "wrestling"?

My parents have been retired for about 7 years now and they have not had any problems with Social Security. Their benefits kicked in smoothly and they are receiving their monthly payments and Medicare. Now their pension and private investments on the other hand, have been more difficult to deal with...so again it is a matter of experiences and you can say now what you would do, but you really don't know until you are standing at the precipice how you will react.

[ixion]

45. "wrestling" describes my experience with every government functionary I've ever had to deal with

I really have no patience for it.

I know myself, and I know exactly how I react in dire situations. I appreciate your concern, however I stand by my premise on this.

[RoyGBiv]

53. Congratulations ...

You've made the mainstream argument beautifully against every government program, all the way from single-payer health care to programs that assist the homeless, that people who tend to vote Republican because of these issues make.

And, I'm not saying that to insult you.

The Republican argument against government based programs of any kind since Reagan has been centered on the idea that government in and of itself is the problem, and Reagan and his ideological cohorts have done everything they could possibly do to make certain that this is the way government is perceived. They don't really believe that government is the problem for *you*, but they know that's the way to sell it so they get public support for dismantling it.

You and people like you are helping them.

[ixion]

57. I'm simply stating my perception based on my experience... anything less

would be deceitful and intellectually dishonest.

And as far as rethugs go, well, they may talk a blue streak about less government, but they don't really mean it. People who follow them are just too dim-witted to understand that.

Incidentally, I'm an populist-leaning independent.

I make no attempt to hide my disdain for most government-run programs. I don't believe in them. Bureaucrats are a bane to human existence, in my opinion.

[Kalyke]

77. I like bureaucrats a hell of a lot more than greedy corportists

who only want to run off with my money without providing me a proper service so that they can make a hefty bonus.

*shakes head*

[ixion]

79. heh... you think bureaucrats are any better?

think again.

[Cleita]

58. +1000

[Lugnut]

63. I wrestled with nobody.

My SSDI was approved within two weeks of my application. I'm grateful that it was there for me when I needed it.

I know what you're saying about having a choice and I don't disagree with your having a choice. I'm just pointing out to you how quickly things can happen that are beyond your control. I always planned to work as long as I was able to. Sometimes it doesn't work out the way you plan and then what?

[ixion]

64. Thanks...and likewise

I can understand and respect your decision.

I guess I"m old fashioned... and kinda stubborn. :)

[kctim]

51. Live off the money

I have been saving for the past 30+ years.

[Hekate]

60. "Fight some stupid bureaucrat"? What have you been drinking? The SS just sends me a check...

There's no fight involved. Mr H is still working, and for years we have socked away half of what he brings home every month -- yet we know there are forces beyond what we can plan for that could leave us in want. We count on SS and Medicare to be there no matter what -- a true safety net.

Before the advent of SS the largest impoverished group of people in the country was composed of those too old to work.

Cleita is absolutely right.

Hekate

[ixion]

61. Again, I'm simply advocating the Right to Choose

You can think Cleita is right. That's great. I don't agree. This is precisely my point: That everyone is entitled to their opinion, and to take responsibility for the choices they make in their life.

[Festivito]

65. Maybe the real story is that you would lose your job if HCR-PO passes.

And, you'd say whatever it takes to save it. After all, we're all out for ourselves.

Maybe you'd lose a small fortune or a large one.

There are lots of people in that position. There are lots of people in a position to die because some will retain those fortunes.

Lots of people already lost their jobs near me, the motor city. It will be tough.

But, not as tough as dying.

Good luck. But, not with your point -- it's no good.

[ixion]

70. Wow... that's a whole heap of speculation and innuendo you just tossed out...

too bad it's all rubbish.

My point is that people should be able to choose. That you don't like that doesn't make my point any less good or bad.

[Cyrano]

71. Just out of curiosity, what would you do if you could collect all of your

Social Security and Medicare money and do whatever you want with it?

Given the unending scams run by banks and Wall Street, (scams that are still legal), where do you think your money would be safe, other than under your mattress?

The government is terrible at many things and good at other things. But two programs they excel at are Social Security and Medicare.

Living in Florida, I know many retirees. But I don't know even one who has any more than an occasional minor complaint about either of these programs.

FDR managed to pass Social Security to avoid us all having to step over dead bodies in the street.

And Lyndon Johnson pushed through Medicare for the exact same reason.

Assuming people could opt out, as you wish to do, and then lost everything they have through personal investment(s), do you really believe the "bureaucrats" would leave you lying in the street? The truth is that everyone else would end up chipping in to pay for the consequences of your personal choice.

[ixion]

73. not necessarily...

Opting out would be final, and there would be no do-overs. I'd be okay with that.

And the government is just as much of a scam as Wall St., in my opinion, if not worse because of their self-granted enforcement authority.

What would I do with my money? Put it towards my retirement, of course. That's more than I'll be able to do with it now.

And there is no reason to put bureaucrats in quotes. That is what they are, pure and simple.

[Cleita]

5. I think even the dumbest Freeper knows that without those programs for

their elderly relatives and poor relatives that they would have to assume the burden of caring for them or at least trying to help them out. The maximum any one would pay for these programs is 15% of $106,000 per year or $15,900. This is a lot cheaper than assuming the support and medical costs for an elderly relative. Of course those who earn less than that amount would proportionately pay less on their wages. It's really a good deal.

[SharonAnn]

19. No, they have no intention of supporting their old and disabled parents and relatives.

Really, they don't. They think someone else should pay for them, maybe the churches.

[Cleita]

21. Then they are more than stupid. They are as dumb as the worms in

the ground that eat dirt.

[Oregone]

6. Why not? Through the HCR process, everyone agrees private industry creates the best solution

Well, pretty much everyone. There isn't a party left with an argument for why anything should be ran by the government anymore without profit.

[Better Believe It]

7. First things first. The Senate health insurance must be passed than "entitlements" can be cut.

That's the plan.

[laughingliberal]

13. And the Senate health insurance will streamline the privatization of Medicare

Now, we'll have all sorts of deniers show up to say this is not true. Those same people will be here in a couple of years when the privatization is being sold full bore telling us why we have to do this.

[Roon]

8. I wouldn't be able to survive

I would have to move in with my parents and spend hours and hours at the clinic getting my meds.

[Xithras]

10. Here's my comeback to any 'thug I hear supporting that idea

"So, will you be buying your grandmothers medications yourself? Or are you just going to let her die? The Bible says that it's a mortal sin to fail to care for your parents. And since we're on the subject, which room of your house will you be letting her move in to?"

Most back away from the idea when they realize that, without Social Security and Medicare, they'll be forced to care for their elderly relatives out of their own pocket. Because you can't cover your parents, aunts, and uncles on your own health insurance policy, those heart bypasses and $500 a bottle pills to keep them alive are going to hurt a bit.

[sakabatou]

12. They wanna kill the poor

Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home

The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight


Gonna
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor tonight

Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rate's gone
Feel free again
O' life's a dream with you, miss lily white
Jane fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it's okay
So let's get dressed and dance away the night

While they
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor tonight

[Spike from MN]

26. Back in the day, that was just a song.

Now they want to make it into a law.

Hey, why not? They pretty much already did that with "Stealing People's Mail." At the rate we're going, we'll see that whole album codified into law before too long.

[rfranklin]

14. they keep repeating that 58% of Americans don't want HCR bill...

because they were able to teabag people who don't really know what's in it into thinking that they should oppose it. Even though the public polss positive for most of the elements in the bill, they have not been made aware of what's really in it.

[Burma Jones]

17. If you don't have SS, Medicare and Medicaid

You'd better just repeal Due Process and go about Killing Off the surplus population.......

[Cleita]

20. Amen and you can start with me.

I struggle enough with SS and Medicare. Without it, I will starve to death in a ditch. So better that you shoot me first. I am seventy years old.

[Lars39]

22. Some #@%!@% idiot was just on CNN talking about a plan to end

unemployment benefits. :grr:

[Cyrano]

27. Not surprising. Republicans couldn't give a damn if we have

jobs or not, live in cardboard boxes, or die in the streets. As long as they've got theirs.

I've never understood how they got to be this way. But I do know that they are our deadly enemies and the enemy of all that is decent in this world.

[cutlassmama]

42. psychopaths have no empathy

[Urban Prairie]

25. But they don't mind recklessly spending billions upon billions

On our military and defense, with the end result of indirectly protecting communist China's supply of oil from Iran, and rebuilding Afghanistan & Iraq's infrastucture, so the poor citizens of those countries have a better chance to prosper. They also want to outlaw abortion, but could not care less about the fate of an impoverished infant after it pops out of the womb, other than at best, obtaining help from tax-deductable contributions to charities to survive.

Nothing more hypocritical than being a fucking conservative, IMO.

[DrDan]

28. and don't forget they also want to privatize schools and end the estate tax

they are so unbelievably naive when it comes to totin' the barge and liftin' the bale for the wealthy . . .

[Hannah Bell]

34. plus the military, the national parks, & the space program --

national highways, bridges --

& the thing is, no one would be paying any less in taxes. just the tax money would go to corporations, who'd do a worse job with fewer, worse-paid employees.

[DrDan]

35. the ports . . . aaaaargh - it makes my head hurt

[SoCalDem]

31. Why?

Because they use carefully crafted language + shitloads of money to create propaganda campaigns, targeted at the greedy part of the public-brain.

If their message brings home a few points, they CAN succeed:

1. Anything given to another person , in the form of help, comes directly from YOUR pocket...from YOUR family's dinner table..from YOUR family's bank account

2. YOU work HARD for YOUR money, and should not have to GIVE it to LAZY people who REFUSE to work hard, like YOU do.

3. YOUR taxes are high because GOOF-OFFS want a free ride

What they never bother to mention is this..

Corporations TAKE much more than they "give"..and because they have the money to lobby, they always get what they need..and YOU pay for it, via lowered wages, draconian workplaces, and always being on the verge of being laid off.

Conservatives are all about greed and little more..

[CTyankee]

46. You forgot about blaming Barney Frank! Didn't you know that it was he that

SINGLEHANDEDLY brought the economy to near disaster in September of '08! And it was YOU if you took a mortgage you couldn't afford!

Ijust heard a ranter on NPR say the Barney Frank thing. I was driving so I had to control myself and not smash my car radio...

[damntexdem]

43. There's still power in that third rail of politics.

Dubya discovered that in 2005, and decided not to touch it after all.

The only way SS, MC, and MD could be truly threatened would be if Congressional Dems really, really caved -- uh oh!

[Taverner]

59. End SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Assistance, get rid of all the pensions...

In short, let them eat cake

[troubledamerican]

66. But NO liberal pundit will EVER fight back by

challenging the blueblood premium health-care packages of CONGRESS, and demanding that any Republican who attacks "entitlements" give up their own ENTITLEMENTS.

Not Maddow, not Olbermann, not Hartmann, not Schultz. None of them EVER confront a Republican and demand ENTITLEMENT FORFEITURE BY THEM.

[Cleita]

67. Excuse me but, Keith Olbermann did a whole segment of one of his

shows where he stated that he was refusing his corporate health insurance and would from that time on be self-insured. I don't know about the rest but KO did and he hasn't come back and said he changed his mind. I trust his integrity enough to know that he would do that.

[troubledamerican]

69. No: You misread my comment.

I don't care about the health care of news pundits.

I care about the SOCIALIST health care gravy train that Republicans enjoy daily, while squealing about others.

No Republican has ever been systematically hounded with demands by KO, Maddow, Hartmann, Schultz, Rhodes, etc. to give up their Republican Congressional health insurance.

Republicans or anyone who complains about "socialism" and "entitlements" whilst privately enjoying their own socialist entitlements should be DAILY hounded and called on the carpet.

If "our" liberal media would DEMAND that EVERY Republican forfeit their "socialist" Congressional health plan, maybe there would be a few Republicans shutting their mouths.

[Vinca]

72. Apparently, Republicans want to bring back poor farms.

The whole lot of them should be forced to live on SS and Medicare for a month . . . the "privatized" version. Then, during the second month, we'll simulate a stock market crash. They wouldn't last a week.

[bvar22]

74. You know, I don't mind hearing "Republicans" say those things.

After all, they ARE "Republicans".

What scares me and makes me FURIOUS is hearing "Democrats" say those things.
Its coming.
The seeds for the destruction of Medicare are already planted in the HCR Bill.
"Entitlement Reform" is NEXT on the DLC Hit List.
.
.
and some at DU WILL be cheering them on.


"Thank GAWD it passed!!!!"

[bananas]

75. They've said that out loud for decades

They've also said out loud, "Let's nuke the russkies before they nuke us!"
and other dangerous things.

[butterfly77]

76. They only say it once in a while...

now there is a chorus of them they are desperate. I wonder what their teabagger base think about it. I guess it doesn't matter because skin color trumps everything with them.