Paul Ryan on staying fit.

Hey Grandma! Paul Ryan has a block grant for you!

The Simpson Bowles approach to Social Security and Medicare

The lies surrounding our benefits programs

From the Political Carnival

The five biggest lies about "entitlement" (ahem, earned benefits) programs
from The Political Carnival by GottaLaff

My Twitter pal Michael Hiltzik does it again. In his newest L.A. Times column, he dissects the five biggest lies about Social Security and Medicare, pointing out that the truth seems to elude far too many people who have big microphones.

Hiltzik first states a fact that everyone should know, but right wing talking points have obliterated: that the very word "entitlement" is a lie, saying "Social Security and Medicare got that name because workers became 'entitled' to those benefits by paying into the system. In recent years, however, the term has become distorted to signify benefits people are entitled to without earning them."

Glad we got that out of the way, because it drives me nuts.

Now on to the lies. He begins with the January 1 change in the Social Security payroll tax, which lowered the average household income by about $80 a month. Lie No. 1: The payroll tax hike is killing the retail economy:

    Blaming the payroll tax, however, ignores the whole story. First, on Jan. 1 the tax wasn't hiked; it was restored to its 2010 level, after a two-year "holiday"… But the holiday was always a wretched idea, in part because of what everyone knew would happen when the old rate reappeared -people treated it as a pay cut…. The payroll tax break, by contrast, went only to those who pay into Social Security. So it left out 5.7 million state and local workers (mostly teachers).

Then on to the second whopper, Lie No. 2: "Entitlement" benefits for millionaires and billionaires are a costly problem:

    The lie here is the assertion that a significant portion of benefits goes to multimillionaires. In fact, their share of benefits is minuscule. That's because there aren't very many of them, and they don't get more than the maximum old-age benefit… They account for about 14 hundredths of one percent of all Social Security outlays.

Lie No. 3: Social Security and Medicare are $60 trillion in the hole:

    It's a calculation of funding gaps projected out to the limitless future and then converted to present value - meaning what the cost would be if we had to pay it all today.

Lie No. 4: You're paying too much (or too little) for your benefits:

    This is a double-barreled lie, based on the misconception that Social Security and Medicare are retirement funds. They're not; they're insurance programs. What you recover depends on your personal circumstances, but the point is they're there when you need them.

Lie No. 5: Medicare, Social Security - it's all the same:

    It's misleading to lump these two programs together as if they have the same issues amenable to the same solutions.

As Obamacare kicks in...

Reason

To people of reason, Republican political platforms make absolutely no sense.

When the Republicans win...

When the Republicans win as they have in Michigan, and wipe out most middle-class and workers rights, perhaps, just perhaps, someday, there will be a backlash and we will win back some of America. Then again, maybe not.

Republicans Voted to End Medicare: How Will You Pay?

Keeping on

Modifying Medicare the Republican way

Republicans on Medicarte - throwing the elderly off a cliff.

About the Republican plan to eliminate Medicare...

Bill Maher just asked Michael Steele: When an elderly ill person in a nursing home runs out of their 15k voucher by this time of year under Ryan's plan, what do they do? Steele's answer shocked me even for the GOP...

Click on the link to see his response.

Rachel Maddow: McCain Wants to Cut Medicare by 1.3 Trillion

Did You Know - The Pill Debate

Just another example of Republicans placing big business and corporate profit over the sanctity of human life. Amazing that the "sanctity of life" issue is important to the Republicans when it comes to a fetus, but not with a poor senior citizen who must choose between drugs and food. Must be there's not enough profit in abortions for them to want to legalize the process.

From the Chicago Tribune...

WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Monday effectively killed a measure that would have let Americans buy prescription medicines from foreign suppliers, which sponsors said could have saved consumers billions of dollars.

By a 49-40 vote, senators approved a provision requiring the government to certify that imports are safe -- a step the Bush administration is unlikely to take. The amendment, offered by Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), was seen as a major victory for the pharmaceutical industry.

Did You Know - No Drug Negotiations

I guess it's all in the perspective - do we allow big business to set the rules of governance because we can't survive without them? Or do we do everything we can to protect the average folks who are powerless against the wealth and control of big business? The major confrontation between Democrats and Republicans comes down to this argument. Forget "big government" and "higher taxes" - the real difference is over who are the primary recipients of the governments largesse.

The following is from Free Internet Press - click here to view the source...

A pillar of the Democratic political program tumbled today when Republicans in the Senate blocked a proposal to allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices for millions of older Americans, a practice now forbidden by law.

Democrats could not muster the 60 votes needed to take up the legislation in the face of staunch opposition from Republicans, who said that private insurers and their agents, known as pharmacy benefit managers, were already negotiating large discounts for Medicare beneficiaries.

Not So Liberal

I'm a liberal - or so I always thought. Seems like the more I age, the more I start to have (gasp) conservative thoughts.

The other day I got some information in the mail - from one of the liberal organizations I am a member of - and they presented some interesting facts on Medicare. Seems that, as a result of some legislation passed back in 2003, the amount that people will have to pay to be in Medicaid will become income based this year.

The standard monthly premium for Medicare Part B, which covers doctors visits and outpatient hospital care, will rise to $93.50 next year from $88.50 this year. Individuals with an annual income of more than $80,000 (more than $160,000 for married couples) will pay monthly premiums of $106 to $160, depending on income.

Now, the organization that sent me this info argues that wealthier people may drop out of Medicare because of this premium thus abandoning the poor folks to what might become a disgraced health care plan.

Here's where I leave the liberal fold. This sounds about right to me. Private health insurance will cost about $300 per month - if they (wealthy) want to leave Medicare, that's great. That will also be fewer sick people making claims against Medicare.

As an old timer becoming a member of the fiscal conservatives (control deficit spending, reduce the national debt), I think folks who can afford to pay more of the costs of Medicare should help foot the bill.

What do YOU think?