Do U think enemies of health care R trying to divide & conquer retirees & kids?

[swampwiz]

I was reading this, and it got me thinking:

https://slate.com/business/2018/10/trump-usa-today-op-ed-republicans-fight-single-payer-medicare-for-all.html

Democrats have turned health care into their single strongest policy issue, and Trump was evidently trying to turn it against them heading into the November midterms. But rather than make a case that all Americans would suffer under single payer, the president’s op-ed mostly attempts to scare the bejesus out of old folks. “Democrats would gut Medicare with their planned government takeover of American health care,” Trump (or more likely, his ghostwriter) explains.

This seems to me that they are trying to divide & conquer retirees away from their kids, as in "if your kids get health care, it will be taken out of what we are giving you".  (Of course, for retirees without kids, there is no familial detriment.)  I find this extraordinarily cynical & disgusting - but then again, what a great message for the most entitled cohort in American history: the Baby Boomers!

[MOD NOTE: I'm going to let you guys argue this out, but without attacking each other.  Thanks.]

[coppertop]

Since I am a "baby boomer," you lost me the second I read your comment about BB's being "the most entitled."  Those of you who spout that garbage are the ones creating a divide between parents and adult kids. 

I was born in 1955 and when I graduated from college, jobs were in extremely short supply.  When we bought a home in 1983, we had to contend with 16-18% mortgage interest rates in addition to zero growth in salaries.  We have not had it as easy as some people seem to think. 

Accept that every generation is going to have its difficulties and that doesn't make other generations entitled or spoiled.  My own parents were able to buy a four-bedroom house on three acres at 25 years of age, despite the fact that my dad dropped out of high school, got a GED and joined the service and my mom was a SAHM.  My dad was able to get a great job after he returned stateside and was out of the service.  But they lived through the difficulties of the Great Depression and World War II, so my youth was a cake walk compared to theirs.  I can't resent them for having had a young adulthood at a time when the economy was favorable to them.  And so on it goes.

[Not There Yet]

I've always wondered why bashing people based on their age is acceptable to the moderators.  If the same statement were made about a racial or ethnic group or a gender, I'm certain they would warn the poster.

[MOD NOTE:  So the way this works is: you flag the post, we check it out.  We don't, generally speaking, have time to read every post.]

[TheContinentalOp]

"enemies of health care"

LOL

[DS]

I've always wondered why bashing people based on their age is acceptable to the moderators.  If the same statement were made about a racial or ethnic group or a gender, I'm certain they would warn the poster.

Dang kids today!!

[FrugalToque]

You know what I blame this on:  the breakdown of society.

[Cassie]

Coppertop, I am your age and totally agree. Each generation has their advantages and disadvantages. My grandparents born in 1890 pretty much had tough lives forever due to the times.  Each generation later has been luckier.

[achvfi]

  I find this extraordinarily cynical & disgusting - but then again, what a great message for the most entitled cohort in American history: the Baby Boomers!

[MOD NOTE: I'm going to let you guys argue this out, but without attacking each other.  Thanks.]

It seems like you are trying to divide people yourself with your controversial comments. While complaining that it is cynical what that party is doing.

[RetiredAt63]

Coppertop, I am your age and totally agree. Each generation has their advantages and disadvantages. My grandparents born in 1890 pretty much had tough lives forever due to the times.  Each generation later has been luckier.

I'm a bit older and this was so true.  My Dad (born in 1915) figured he made out well when the Canada Pension Plan was introduced. His benefits far outweighed his contributions, whereas he knew I would be paying for every cent of my CPP payout.  No job after university graduation - yes.  There is a reason so many of us went on to grad school.  High interest rates?  Yes.

Every time health care comes up in the US, I shake my head - there is no other G8 country treating health care like this.

[RetiredAt63]

@swampwiz   Totally OT, but could you please spell things out?  You are not on Twitter.  Plus all your abbreviations are super short words.

To make it easy for this thread, here is your title, just cut and paste.  I added the U.S. because this is only relevant for that country.

(U.S.)Do you think enemies of health care are trying to divide and conquer retirees and kids?

[wageslave23]

@swampwiz   Totally OT, but could you please spell things out?  You are not on Twitter.  Plus all your abbreviations are super short words.

To make it easy for this thread, here is your title, just cut and paste.  I added the U.S. because this is only relevant for that country.

(U.S.)Do you think enemies of health care are trying to divide and conquer retirees and kids?

LOL! this really is becoming a generational battle!

[DS]

@swampwiz   Totally OT, but could you please spell things out?  You are not on Twitter.  Plus all your abbreviations are super short words.

To make it easy for this thread, here is your title, just cut and paste.  I added the U.S. because this is only relevant for that country.

(U.S.)Do you think enemies of health care are trying to divide and conquer retirees and kids?

Interesting that this seems to be such a big problem for both of his threads like this. Doesn't really change the interpretation and people can still read it.

That is the maximum character limit for titles.

Could just remove "& conquer" and it will fit better, though.

[I'm a red panda]

@swampwiz   Totally OT, but could you please spell things out?  You are not on Twitter.  Plus all your abbreviations are super short words.

To make it easy for this thread, here is your title, just cut and paste.  I added the U.S. because this is only relevant for that country.

(U.S.)Do you think enemies of health care are trying to divide and conquer retirees and kids?

LOL! this really is becoming a generational battle!

As a millennial, I would like to point out the word "you" and "are" are short and easy to type.  There is absolutely no reason for a post title like the one for those one.

[Cassie]

Medicare for all would solve the problem.  Yes I think the republicans want the two groups to argue over this. Everyone deserves healthcare.

[swampwiz]

I stand by my assessment of the Baby Boomer generation, taken as a whole.  There are a lot of articles about it:

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/20/16772670/baby-boomers-millennials-congress-debt

How the baby boomers — not millennials — screwed America
“The boomers inherited a rich, dynamic country and have gradually bankrupted it."

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/who-destroyed-the-economy-the-case-against-the-baby-boomers/263291/

Who Destroyed the Economy? The Case Against the Baby Boomers

Retirees and near-retirees are leaving behind a devastated economy for their children ... but are we doing anything to fix it? Here, two generations debate who's really to blame for the wreckage.

https://www.businessinsider.com/baby-boomers-ruining-the-world-2016-6

Our parents are ruining the entire world

An internet search will show many more such articles.

Now, this post is not an attack on Baby Boomers per se, just an attack on canonical retirees who are so bereft of humanity that they would throw their kids under the bus - but moreso really an attack on the political party that would try to foment this feeling amongst these folks.

[swampwiz]

Since I am a "baby boomer," you lost me the second I read your comment about BB's being "the most entitled."  Those of you who spout that garbage are the ones creating a divide between parents and adult kids. 

I was born in 1955 and when I graduated from college, jobs were in extremely short supply.  When we bought a home in 1983, we had to contend with 16-18% mortgage interest rates in addition to zero growth in salaries.  We have not had it as easy as some people seem to think. 

Accept that every generation is going to have its difficulties and that doesn't make other generations entitled or spoiled.  My own parents were able to buy a four-bedroom house on three acres at 25 years of age, despite the fact that my dad dropped out of high school, got a GED and joined the service and my mom was a SAHM.  My dad was able to get a great job after he returned stateside and was out of the service.  But they lived through the difficulties of the Great Depression and World War II, so my youth was a cake walk compared to theirs.  I can't resent them for having had a young adulthood at a time when the economy was favorable to them.  And so on it goes.

I think the difference is that a lot of Baby Boomers (who were able to take advantage of the '80s boom so well) became typical "I got mine, screw you" conservatives, whereas a lot of the preceding generation, the Silent Generation, still had a deep reverence for the FDR social compact (they had the absolutely easiest job market, in the '50s).

[Cassie]

A lot of baby boomers were supporting those spoiled adult  kids for decades.  You are a ass hat and have no interest in having a intelligent conversation.,

[swampwiz]

@swampwiz   Totally OT, but could you please spell things out?  You are not on Twitter.  Plus all your abbreviations are super short words.

To make it easy for this thread, here is your title, just cut and paste.  I added the U.S. because this is only relevant for that country.

(U.S.)Do you think enemies of health care are trying to divide and conquer retirees and kids?

I can't spell this out since there is such a short limit for the title.

[RetiredAt63]

@swampwiz   Totally OT, but could you please spell things out?  You are not on Twitter.  Plus all your abbreviations are super short words.

To make it easy for this thread, here is your title, just cut and paste.  I added the U.S. because this is only relevant for that country.

(U.S.)Do you think enemies of health care are trying to divide and conquer retirees and kids?

I can't spell this out since there is such a short limit for the title.

Edit! Edit! Reword! Edit! It is not an age issue, it is a writing issue.
I've never hit the word limit for a title so never even knew it existed. 

First draft example:
[US]Are health care opponents fomenting discord between retirees and youth?

versus

Do U think enemies of health care R trying to divide & conquer retirees & kids?

Same length, and I got the [US] in.

Why the [US]?  Because it is not an issue elsewhere, the rest of us can really ignore this thread.

[I'm a red panda]

Are people really that bothered by abbreviations like “U” and “B” in thread titles?

Yes. It isn't a norm on this forum. Many of us choose to engage her because crap like this isn't done.

[ixtap]

Are people really that bothered by abbreviations like “U” and “B” in thread titles?

Yes. It isn't a norm on this forum. Many of us choose to engage her because crap like this isn't done.

Well okay then.

I guess I didn’t know this was a rule here.
Noted.

This is an international forum. We don't insist on any specific dialect, but do try to write in a way that will be manageable for English learners.

[I'm a red panda]

Are people really that bothered by abbreviations like “U” and “B” in thread titles?

Yes. It isn't a norm on this forum. Many of us choose to engage her because crap like this isn't done.

Well okay then.

I guess I didn’t know this was a rule here.
Noted.

It's not a rule. It's a social norm.
Notice that no other title is styled like this, only the 2 from this poster.

[coppertop]

Since I am a "baby boomer," you lost me the second I read your comment about BB's being "the most entitled."  Those of you who spout that garbage are the ones creating a divide between parents and adult kids. 

I was born in 1955 and when I graduated from college, jobs were in extremely short supply.  When we bought a home in 1983, we had to contend with 16-18% mortgage interest rates in addition to zero growth in salaries.  We have not had it as easy as some people seem to think. 

Accept that every generation is going to have its difficulties and that doesn't make other generations entitled or spoiled.  My own parents were able to buy a four-bedroom house on three acres at 25 years of age, despite the fact that my dad dropped out of high school, got a GED and joined the service and my mom was a SAHM.  My dad was able to get a great job after he returned stateside and was out of the service.  But they lived through the difficulties of the Great Depression and World War II, so my youth was a cake walk compared to theirs.  I can't resent them for having had a young adulthood at a time when the economy was favorable to them.  And so on it goes.

I think the difference is that a lot of Baby Boomers (who were able to take advantage of the '80s boom so well) became typical "I got mine, screw you" conservatives, whereas a lot of the preceding generation, the Silent Generation, still had a deep reverence for the FDR social compact (they had the absolutely easiest job market, in the '50s).

Really?  Because nearly all of the BB's I know are progressives; or if they lean toward conservatism, they are not thinking "screw you."  That would be screwing their own kids and grandkids.  A lot of BB's I know negatively affected their own retirements in order to mortgage their houses to send their kids to college and throw expensive weddings.  Doesn't sound like "screw you" to me.  Sounds more like "I love you and want you to succeed and be happy." 

[india dark ale]

Medicare for all would solve the problem.  Yes I think the republicans want the two groups to argue over this. Everyone deserves healthcare.

Medicare for "some" is already going broke. Medicare for "all" would be a giant bill.

Physicians get paid very little for taking care of Medicare and Medicaid patients. Most see Medicaid as charity care, something that docs do as a service to humanity. It just wont be possible to pay off med school loans with "medicare for all". For example, an office visit pays $40 and from this, your doctor has to pay for his facility, his front office, his computer systems and the nurse and assistant. In a medicare for all system, i see many physicians opting out and going all cash.

[radram]

Medicare for all would solve the problem.  Yes I think the republicans want the two groups to argue over this. Everyone deserves healthcare.

Medicare for "some" is already going broke. Medicare for "all" would be a giant bill.

Physicians get paid very little for taking care of Medicare and Medicaid patients. Most see Medicaid as charity care, something that docs do as a service to humanity. It just wont be possible to pay off med school loans with "medicare for all". For example, an office visit pays $40 and from this, your doctor has to pay for his facility, his front office, his computer systems and the nurse and assistant. In a medicare for all system, i see many physicians opting out and going all cash.

Your example is showing Medicare costs would absolutely TANK, the exact opposite of your premise. It also implies there would be no doctors to treat patients. That would be a completely different problem and one worthy of discussion at a later date.

If everyone was on Medicare, and then doctors leave medicare to only accept cash instead of using medicare for all, costs (for Medicare) would plummet, not skyrocket. So now we have all these Doc's that do not accept medicare and only accept cash. Ok, I'll bite. How much will they charge for an office visit? What about lab work, cash for that too? Do they have admitting privileges in the nearby hospital, or has that also gone to cash only?

How, exactly, would medicare costs increase under this system?

Medicare costs(payments) would grow so large that Doctors would be forced to stop treating patients(???), slashing medicare payments. Do you see how this can not happen? I fully accept a whole long list of other problems may occur, but this one does not make mathematical sense to me.

[Rosy]

I stand by my assessment of the Baby Boomer generation, taken as a whole.  There are a lot of articles about it:

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/20/16772670/baby-boomers-millennials-congress-debt

How the baby boomers — not millennials — screwed America
“The boomers inherited a rich, dynamic country and have gradually bankrupted it."

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/10/who-destroyed-the-economy-the-case-against-the-baby-boomers/263291/

Who Destroyed the Economy? The Case Against the Baby Boomers

Retirees and near-retirees are leaving behind a devastated economy for their children ... but are we doing anything to fix it? Here, two generations debate who's really to blame for the wreckage.

https://www.businessinsider.com/baby-boomers-ruining-the-world-2016-6

Our parents are ruining the entire world

An internet search will show many more such articles.

Now, this post is not an attack on Baby Boomers per se, just an attack on canonical retirees who are so bereft of humanity that they would throw their kids under the bus - but moreso really an attack on the political party that would try to foment this feeling amongst these folks.

Bereft!!! of humanity??? - lol, you make it sound like I, another baby boomer, is about to pig roast my kid. You'll have a brilliant career as a writer ahead of you. Russia needs you.

I am not interested in your inflammatory articles or engaging in a divisive discourse which solves absolutely nothing. Like Cassie said, you are not interested in intelligent conversation. Pushing people's buttons just riles them up, Russian Bot style, and has no place on this forum.

[india dark ale]

Medicare for all would solve the problem.  Yes I think the republicans want the two groups to argue over this. Everyone deserves healthcare.

Medicare for "some" is already going broke. Medicare for "all" would be a giant bill.

Physicians get paid very little for taking care of Medicare and Medicaid patients. Most see Medicaid as charity care, something that docs do as a service to humanity. It just wont be possible to pay off med school loans with "medicare for all". For example, an office visit pays $40 and from this, your doctor has to pay for his facility, his front office, his computer systems and the nurse and assistant. In a medicare for all system, i see many physicians opting out and going all cash.

Your example is showing Medicare costs would absolutely TANK, the exact opposite of your premise. It also implies there would be no doctors to treat patients. That would be a completely different problem and one worthy of discussion at a later date.

If everyone was on Medicare, and then doctors leave medicare to only accept cash instead of using medicare for all, costs (for Medicare) would plummet, not skyrocket. So now we have all these Doc's that do not accept medicare and only accept cash. Ok, I'll bite. How much will they charge for an office visit? What about lab work, cash for that too? Do they have admitting privileges in the nearby hospital, or has that also gone to cash only?

How, exactly, would medicare costs increase under this system?

Medicare costs(payments) would grow so large that Doctors would be forced to stop treating patients(???), slashing medicare payments. Do you see how this can not happen? I fully accept a whole long list of other problems may occur, but this one does not make mathematical sense to me.

Medicare is currently going broke, covering 65 Million people. Will the costs not go up when it covers 380 Million?

[goatmom]

Doctors who charge cash can still order labs and x-rays for their Medicare patients..  The labs then are able to bill Medicare. Same as ordering medication from the the pharmacy.  Medicare covers the prescriptions written by non-Medicare participating doctors.  Most doctors do not admit their own patients anymore - the hospitalists who are employed by the hospital handle the inpatients.  I think there is a range of what doctors charge.  I know one Family Practice guy in my area that charges $50 a visit.  Not sure how he makes any money.  Most psychiatrists charge between $150 and $250,

[radram]

Medicare for all would solve the problem.  Yes I think the republicans want the two groups to argue over this. Everyone deserves healthcare.

Medicare for "some" is already going broke. Medicare for "all" would be a giant bill.

Physicians get paid very little for taking care of Medicare and Medicaid patients. Most see Medicaid as charity care, something that docs do as a service to humanity. It just wont be possible to pay off med school loans with "medicare for all". For example, an office visit pays $40 and from this, your doctor has to pay for his facility, his front office, his computer systems and the nurse and assistant. In a medicare for all system, i see many physicians opting out and going all cash.

Your example is showing Medicare costs would absolutely TANK, the exact opposite of your premise. It also implies there would be no doctors to treat patients. That would be a completely different problem and one worthy of discussion at a later date.

If everyone was on Medicare, and then doctors leave medicare to only accept cash instead of using medicare for all, costs (for Medicare) would plummet, not skyrocket. So now we have all these Doc's that do not accept medicare and only accept cash. Ok, I'll bite. How much will they charge for an office visit? What about lab work, cash for that too? Do they have admitting privileges in the nearby hospital, or has that also gone to cash only?

How, exactly, would medicare costs increase under this system?

Medicare costs(payments) would grow so large that Doctors would be forced to stop treating patients(???), slashing medicare payments. Do you see how this can not happen? I fully accept a whole long list of other problems may occur, but this one does not make mathematical sense to me.

Medicare is currently going broke, covering 65 Million people. Will the costs not go up when it covers 380 Million?

I'm not even going to ask if you read what I wrote, because it is pretty obvious you didn't. Did you even read what YOU wrote?

[RetiredAt63]

There are ways to fund universal health care, after all the G7 (G8 without the US) are already doing it.  The awkwardness comes with mixing 2 different systems.

Re twitter type titles, glad to see others chime in.  We are an international community, even if you are English-speaking the slang differs between countries.  If English is your 2nd or 3rd language, posts and titles in standard English make things more comprehensible. 

[PiobStache]

Speaking of the G7...the majority of G7 countries do not have single payer.  Why is the conversation in the US always about single payer?  Bismark/Bismark hybrid seems like the way to go.  It is the predominant system in Europe including France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands...heck, even Japan uses the model.

[DreamFIRE]

I was reading this, and it got me thinking:

It's actually the republicans that want to slash Medicare along with Social Security, Medicaid, and repeal the ACA.  McConnell just stated this again a few days ago.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/17/mcconnell-says-senate-republicans-might-revisit-obamacare-repeal.html

I normally hear that younger generations feel "entitled" but I certainly find it extremely ironic that @swampwiz would call an old generation entitled, considering he does everything he can to get ACA(or Medicaid) paid for by taxpayers, get SNAP benefits whenever he can, and wants Universal Basic income paid for by taxpayers to help fund his retirement while sheltering everything so that he doesn't have to pay taxes (repeatedly referring to Roth).

Here are some swampwiz quotes from a previous thread:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2109902/#msg2109902

"YES!  I am a proud Welfare Rother, such that I derive all my spending cash from Roth conversion-basis distributions, which do not add to the income that is used for means-testing."

"Now, if someone were to offer me a job like that, allowing me to work at home, I would take the job, and lose whatever welfare bennies I am currently getting."

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2110421/#msg2110421

"In my state, there are no workfare requirements for AARP-aged folks.  When I was on SNAP, I got $200/mo, and even now - if I had no AGI - I would get like $180/mo."

"It's up for the economy to give me a job that motivates me enough to work."

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2111011/#msg2111011

"I have 6 figures in my IRA, including a lot in Roth, from which I would tax conversion-basis distributions.  I have been on SNAP a few times, although since I had some securities sitting outside the IRA"

"For a few years I was getting $200/mo, but then the rules changed and that Roth ladder conversions knocked it down to about $30/mo, and now taking advantage of the full 0% tax bracket puts me above the level to get anything.  However, once I exhaust that, I will go back to having $0 income, and will get back to getting the maximum SNAP benefit"

"When I was getting SNAP a few years ago (i.e., because I happened to not have any non-IRA liquid assets), I would buy USDA Choice New York Strip @ $11/#.  I also drank about $150/mo in beer (paid for by my own funds, obviously)."

Universal Basic Income:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2123416/#msg2123416

"This is yet another reason why Guaranteed Income is a great idea, as it is given to everyone - and paid by everyone via taxes - so there is no argument about 'morality'."

Sometimes a person needs to take a look at himself before being so critical of others.

[swampwiz]

I was reading this, and it got me thinking:

It's actually the republicans that want to slash Medicare along with Social Security, Medicaid, and repeal the ACA.  McConnell just stated this again a few days ago.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/17/mcconnell-says-senate-republicans-might-revisit-obamacare-repeal.html

I normally hear that younger generations feel "entitled" but I certainly find it extremely ironic that @swampwiz would call an old generation entitled, considering he does everything he can to get ACA(or Medicaid) paid for by taxpayers, get SNAP benefits whenever he can, and wants Universal Basic income paid for by taxpayers to help fund his retirement while sheltering everything so that he doesn't have to pay taxes (repeatedly referring to Roth).

Here are some swampwiz quotes from a previous thread:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2109902/#msg2109902

"YES!  I am a proud Welfare Rother, such that I derive all my spending cash from Roth conversion-basis distributions, which do not add to the income that is used for means-testing."

"Now, if someone were to offer me a job like that, allowing me to work at home, I would take the job, and lose whatever welfare bennies I am currently getting."

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2110421/#msg2110421

"In my state, there are no workfare requirements for AARP-aged folks.  When I was on SNAP, I got $200/mo, and even now - if I had no AGI - I would get like $180/mo."

"It's up for the economy to give me a job that motivates me enough to work."

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2111011/#msg2111011

"I have 6 figures in my IRA, including a lot in Roth, from which I would tax conversion-basis distributions.  I have been on SNAP a few times, although since I had some securities sitting outside the IRA"

"For a few years I was getting $200/mo, but then the rules changed and that Roth ladder conversions knocked it down to about $30/mo, and now taking advantage of the full 0% tax bracket puts me above the level to get anything.  However, once I exhaust that, I will go back to having $0 income, and will get back to getting the maximum SNAP benefit"

"When I was getting SNAP a few years ago (i.e., because I happened to not have any non-IRA liquid assets), I would buy USDA Choice New York Strip @ $11/#.  I also drank about $150/mo in beer (paid for by my own funds, obviously)."

Universal Basic Income:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2123416/#msg2123416

"This is yet another reason why Guaranteed Income is a great idea, as it is given to everyone - and paid by everyone via taxes - so there is no argument about 'morality'."

Sometimes a person needs to take a look at himself before being so critical of others.

But the key difference is that I support Medicare-For-All, and not just Medicare-For-Old, and also Guaranteed-Income-For-All, and not just Social-Security-For-Old.  I am being critical of the folks who are all for those benefits only for the Old, and who seek to politically divide & conquer the Old against the Young on the basis of, seemingly, "don't give them any benefits since it might impinge on my benefits".

[Cassie]

You have 6 figures saved and take Snap. You should be ashamed of yourself. The program is for poor people. Talk about a lack of integrity!

[Rosy]

I was reading this, and it got me thinking:

It's actually the republicans that want to slash Medicare along with Social Security, Medicaid, and repeal the ACA.  McConnell just stated this again a few days ago.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/17/mcconnell-says-senate-republicans-might-revisit-obamacare-repeal.html

I normally hear that younger generations feel "entitled" but I certainly find it extremely ironic that @swampwiz would call an old generation entitled, considering he does everything he can to get ACA(or Medicaid) paid for by taxpayers, get SNAP benefits whenever he can, and wants Universal Basic income paid for by taxpayers to help fund his retirement while sheltering everything so that he doesn't have to pay taxes (repeatedly referring to Roth).

Here are some swampwiz quotes from a previous thread:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2109902/#msg2109902

"YES!  I am a proud Welfare Rother, such that I derive all my spending cash from Roth conversion-basis distributions, which do not add to the income that is used for means-testing."

"Now, if someone were to offer me a job like that, allowing me to work at home, I would take the job, and lose whatever welfare bennies I am currently getting."

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2110421/#msg2110421

"In my state, there are no workfare requirements for AARP-aged folks.  When I was on SNAP, I got $200/mo, and even now - if I had no AGI - I would get like $180/mo."

"It's up for the economy to give me a job that motivates me enough to work."

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2111011/#msg2111011

"I have 6 figures in my IRA, including a lot in Roth, from which I would tax conversion-basis distributions.  I have been on SNAP a few times, although since I had some securities sitting outside the IRA"

"For a few years I was getting $200/mo, but then the rules changed and that Roth ladder conversions knocked it down to about $30/mo, and now taking advantage of the full 0% tax bracket puts me above the level to get anything.  However, once I exhaust that, I will go back to having $0 income, and will get back to getting the maximum SNAP benefit"

"When I was getting SNAP a few years ago (i.e., because I happened to not have any non-IRA liquid assets), I would buy USDA Choice New York Strip @ $11/#.  I also drank about $150/mo in beer (paid for by my own funds, obviously)."

Universal Basic Income:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2123416/#msg2123416

"This is yet another reason why Guaranteed Income is a great idea, as it is given to everyone - and paid by everyone via taxes - so there is no argument about 'morality'."

Sometimes a person needs to take a look at himself before being so critical of others.

But the key difference is that I support Medicare-For-All, and not just Medicare-For-Old, and also Guaranteed-Income-For-All, and not just Social-Security-For-Old.  I am being critical of the folks who are all for those benefits only for the Old, and who seek to politically divide & conquer the Old against the Young on the basis of, seemingly, "don't give them any benefits since it might impinge will increase on my benefits".

Fixed that for ya
But the key difference is that I support Medicare-For-All - since it might impinge will increase on my benefits.

[PiobStache]

I guess those old people should just get out and work as it's unfair they get to retire and leave the young people to work?  I mean, it's not like there was a logical reason back in 1965 when they instituted health coverage for retirees, right?

[partdopy]

Enemies of health care?  The whole premise of this thread is ridiculous.  Nobody is an 'enemy of health care', there are simply people who think health care should be a responsibility of the individual and those who don't.  I don't see the problem with making health care a personal responsibility.  The issue is our government isn't fighting for the ability of US citizens to have affordable health care, rather they are fighting to increase profits of their lobbyists in the business of health insurance, health care services, health law, etc...

The real problem with almost everything today is that government is no longer fighting for the people.  Government officials should be restored to unpaid (or paid whatever the median US wage is) positions and lobbying and the like need to be outlawed.  I bet as soon as congress had to budget for health care (or anything else) the same way us peasants do and can't pocket money from lobbyists the costs would start to come down very quickly.

[FIRE47]

I was reading this, and it got me thinking:

It's actually the republicans that want to slash Medicare along with Social Security, Medicaid, and repeal the ACA.  McConnell just stated this again a few days ago.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/17/mcconnell-says-senate-republicans-might-revisit-obamacare-repeal.html

I normally hear that younger generations feel "entitled" but I certainly find it extremely ironic that @swampwiz would call an old generation entitled, considering he does everything he can to get ACA(or Medicaid) paid for by taxpayers, get SNAP benefits whenever he can, and wants Universal Basic income paid for by taxpayers to help fund his retirement while sheltering everything so that he doesn't have to pay taxes (repeatedly referring to Roth).

Here are some swampwiz quotes from a previous thread:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2109902/#msg2109902

"YES!  I am a proud Welfare Rother, such that I derive all my spending cash from Roth conversion-basis distributions, which do not add to the income that is used for means-testing."

"Now, if someone were to offer me a job like that, allowing me to work at home, I would take the job, and lose whatever welfare bennies I am currently getting."

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2110421/#msg2110421

"In my state, there are no workfare requirements for AARP-aged folks.  When I was on SNAP, I got $200/mo, and even now - if I had no AGI - I would get like $180/mo."

"It's up for the economy to give me a job that motivates me enough to work."

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2111011/#msg2111011

"I have 6 figures in my IRA, including a lot in Roth, from which I would tax conversion-basis distributions.  I have been on SNAP a few times, although since I had some securities sitting outside the IRA"

"For a few years I was getting $200/mo, but then the rules changed and that Roth ladder conversions knocked it down to about $30/mo, and now taking advantage of the full 0% tax bracket puts me above the level to get anything.  However, once I exhaust that, I will go back to having $0 income, and will get back to getting the maximum SNAP benefit"

"When I was getting SNAP a few years ago (i.e., because I happened to not have any non-IRA liquid assets), I would buy USDA Choice New York Strip @ $11/#.  I also drank about $150/mo in beer (paid for by my own funds, obviously)."

Universal Basic Income:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2123416/#msg2123416

"This is yet another reason why Guaranteed Income is a great idea, as it is given to everyone - and paid by everyone via taxes - so there is no argument about 'morality'."

Sometimes a person needs to take a look at himself before being so critical of others.

Destroyed...

Sorry it's hard to take anything you say on the subject of entitlement seriously when you are one of the most egregious examples I have ever seen.

I mean bravo for using the system to your benefit but its glaringly obvious you are just lazy and want other people to pay even more for your needs when you are capable of taking care of yourself.

[Adam Zapple]

Neither party has the market cornered when it comes to divisive politics.  Neither party is proposing a workable healthcare solution.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most voters, regardless of political affiliation, would agree that a system that involves a for-profit middleman (insurance companies) cannot continue if the goal is affordable healthcare. 

[partdopy]

I was reading this, and it got me thinking:

It's actually the republicans that want to slash Medicare along with Social Security, Medicaid, and repeal the ACA.  McConnell just stated this again a few days ago.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/17/mcconnell-says-senate-republicans-might-revisit-obamacare-repeal.html

I normally hear that younger generations feel "entitled" but I certainly find it extremely ironic that @swampwiz would call an old generation entitled, considering he does everything he can to get ACA(or Medicaid) paid for by taxpayers, get SNAP benefits whenever he can, and wants Universal Basic income paid for by taxpayers to help fund his retirement while sheltering everything so that he doesn't have to pay taxes (repeatedly referring to Roth).

Here are some swampwiz quotes from a previous thread:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2109902/#msg2109902

"YES!  I am a proud Welfare Rother, such that I derive all my spending cash from Roth conversion-basis distributions, which do not add to the income that is used for means-testing."

"Now, if someone were to offer me a job like that, allowing me to work at home, I would take the job, and lose whatever welfare bennies I am currently getting."

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2110421/#msg2110421

"In my state, there are no workfare requirements for AARP-aged folks.  When I was on SNAP, I got $200/mo, and even now - if I had no AGI - I would get like $180/mo."

"It's up for the economy to give me a job that motivates me enough to work."

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2111011/#msg2111011

"I have 6 figures in my IRA, including a lot in Roth, from which I would tax conversion-basis distributions.  I have been on SNAP a few times, although since I had some securities sitting outside the IRA"

"For a few years I was getting $200/mo, but then the rules changed and that Roth ladder conversions knocked it down to about $30/mo, and now taking advantage of the full 0% tax bracket puts me above the level to get anything.  However, once I exhaust that, I will go back to having $0 income, and will get back to getting the maximum SNAP benefit"

"When I was getting SNAP a few years ago (i.e., because I happened to not have any non-IRA liquid assets), I would buy USDA Choice New York Strip @ $11/#.  I also drank about $150/mo in beer (paid for by my own funds, obviously)."

Universal Basic Income:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/decreasing-income-to-increase-benefits/msg2123416/#msg2123416

"This is yet another reason why Guaranteed Income is a great idea, as it is given to everyone - and paid by everyone via taxes - so there is no argument about 'morality'."

Sometimes a person needs to take a look at himself before being so critical of others.

Destroyed...

Sorry it's hard to take anything you say on the subject of entitlement seriously when you are one of the most egregious examples I have ever seen.

I mean bravo for using the system to your benefit but its glaringly obvious you are just lazy and want other people to pay even more for your needs when you are capable of taking care of yourself.

People like this are a very valid argument against the very systems they advocate.  I don't mind a portion of my taxes going to people who genuinely need help, but the fact that even one person like this exists encourages me to vote against any type of government programs.

[mathlete]

People like this are a very valid argument against the very systems they advocate.  I don't mind a portion of my taxes going to people who genuinely need help, but the fact that even one person like this exists encourages me to vote against any type of government programs.

Although I believe that a UBI will eventually be necessary, I don't cosign everything swampwiz says.

That said though, eliminating fraud and abuse completely will never be possible. If you let that that be your reason for opposing traditional welfare programs, that ensures that corporations and the rich will continue being the biggest recipients of real welfare indefinitely IMO.

[mm1970]

People like this are a very valid argument against the very systems they advocate.  I don't mind a portion of my taxes going to people who genuinely need help, but the fact that even one person like this exists encourages me to vote against any type of government programs.

Although I believe that a UBI will eventually be necessary, I don't cosign everything swampwiz says.

That said though, eliminating fraud and abuse completely will never be possible. If you let that that be your reason for opposing traditional welfare programs, that ensures that corporations and the rich will continue being the biggest recipients of real welfare indefinitely IMO.

Pretty much this.  People are irrational though.

[partdopy]

People like this are a very valid argument against the very systems they advocate.  I don't mind a portion of my taxes going to people who genuinely need help, but the fact that even one person like this exists encourages me to vote against any type of government programs.

Although I believe that a UBI will eventually be necessary, I don't cosign everything swampwiz says.

That said though, eliminating fraud and abuse completely will never be possible. If you let that that be your reason for opposing traditional welfare programs, that ensures that corporations and the rich will continue being the biggest recipients of real welfare indefinitely IMO.

Its the fact that we have a culture where someone like this can exist and not be shunned in every day life.  I have seen, anecdotal I know, probably 100-ish examples in my own life of people who openly abuse the welfare system, I've had multiple offer to sell me their food stamp card, and face no consequences from peers or family.  Personally, I'd be embarrassed to use a food stamp card, and you should be unless you actually have a disability or something preventing you from working. I'd definitely let my feelings be known if family member, close or extended, was receiving food stamps while having no physical/mental issues, and wouldn't associate with them until they proved they developed ethics.

[Adam Zapple]

I love the idea of universal healthcare but am terrified of the idea of government run healthcare.  They don't seem to be managing the programs they already have too well. 

I love how people bash the Republican party then advocate for more government intervention.  You do realize that Republicans are bound to be in control around 50% of the time right?  So basically you want the state to provide for more of your needs and have control over more of your choices, but only when the party you like is in power?  It doesn't work that way. 

As with any piece of legislation, the devil is in the details.  "Universal healthcare" is just a phrase with no meaning.  Most of the political arguments boil down to; how much should the harder working, more advantaged pay for the less hard working or less advantaged?  Can a large federal program manage a particular market better than a local market/free market?  The rhetoric people throw around accomplishes nothing.  Nobody is an "enemy of healthcare." Some may just believe a federal bureaucracy is not the best choice to manage their healthcare.  This doesn't make them evil.

[PiobStache]

I love the idea of universal healthcare but am terrified of the idea of government run healthcare.  They don't seem to be managing the programs they already have too well. 

I love how people bash the Republican party then advocate for more government intervention.  You do realize that Republicans are bound to be in control around 50% of the time right?  So basically you want the state to provide for more of your needs and have control over more of your choices, but only when the party you like is in power?  It doesn't work that way. 

As with any piece of legislation, the devil is in the details.  "Universal healthcare" is just a phrase with no meaning.  Most of the political arguments boil down to; how much should the harder working, more advantaged pay for the less hard working or less advantaged?  Can a large federal program manage a particular market better than a local market/free market?  The rhetoric people throw around accomplishes nothing.  Nobody is an "enemy of healthcare." Some may just believe a federal bureaucracy is not the best choice to manage their healthcare.  This doesn't make them evil.

Two things:

1)  As I keep posting some of the best healthcare systems in the world are universal yet not run by governments.

2)  The US healthcare system is the opposite of free market.

[EnjoyIt]

You have 6 figures saved and take Snap. You should be ashamed of yourself. The program is for poor people. Talk about a lack of integrity!

It’s people like him that make moderates want to reduce benefits. OP is a leach on society.  He is the classic example of “let’s help all those people.” When in reality they just want more for themselves.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

MOD EDIT: Read the mod note in the OP please.