HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » It is an entitlement. You...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:10 AM

 

It is an entitlement. You paid for it. OWN IT !

Last edited Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Repukes have re-branded the word, entitlement to indicate its a handout to freeloaders. Social Security and Medicare have been so treated. Its like how they re-branded the estate tax by calling it a death tax. Or how "Right to life" went from being anti-death penalty to anti-abortion.


But you and I paid into SS and Medicare. We bought it. We own it. We're entitled to it.

Just like the car you bought. You got a title to it. Just like the house you buy and get a title to. We are entitled to these programs because we paid for them. Our names are on the titles. WE ARE ENTITLED.


The next time you read an article about the cost of SS entitlements, challenged it. It is an entitlement. AND WE ARE ENTITLED TO IT!


17 replies, 1256 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 17 replies Author Time Post
Reply It is an entitlement. You paid for it. OWN IT ! (Original post)
jerseyjack Dec 2012 OP
dkf Dec 2012 #1
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #2
dkf Dec 2012 #3
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #4
dkf Dec 2012 #5
Bluenorthwest Dec 2012 #6
stevenleser Dec 2012 #8
dkf Dec 2012 #11
stevenleser Dec 2012 #7
dkf Dec 2012 #9
stevenleser Dec 2012 #10
dkf Dec 2012 #12
stevenleser Dec 2012 #14
dkf Dec 2012 #15
democrattotheend Dec 2012 #13
dkf Dec 2012 #16
stevenleser Dec 2012 #17

Response to jerseyjack (Original post)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 08:50 AM

1. You only paid for Medicare part A-hospitals. I guess that means you have no right to doctors, tests

 

Or drugs?

Look at your payroll stubs. You paid for Medicare -HI aka Part A.

That covers these services:

Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance) benefits, like inpatient hospital care, skilled nursing facility care, home health care, and hospice care


What it didn't cover is this:

Part B benefits include doctor services, outpatient hospital care, home health care not covered under Part A, durable medical equipment, certain preventive services, and lab tests.

Part D

http://www.medicare.gov/about-us/how-medicare-is-funded/medicare-funding.html#3056







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:33 AM

2. You claim people get Part B gratis? Everyone who has Part B PAYS for it.

And yet you say they don't pay for it. Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:35 AM

3. They pay a premium that covers 25% of the cost. The rest is from the federal government.

 

Most people don't realize this is how Medicare works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:45 AM

4. And the federal government gets that money from...tax payers. Us. We pay for it.

You said Part B is not paid for by the people who use it, but it is. Both with taxes and with direct premiums to the program.
25% is a long shot from 'not paying' all by itself. When you add the fact that the other 75% comes from the taxpayers, who are the beneficiaries as well, what you have is this- Part B is paid for by premiums from participants as well as tax money from the general fund, also paid by participants.
I understand your confusion. Most people don't understand that the federal government does not have a dime it does not get from we the people. Their money is our money. The fed contribution to Part B is made with money from the people, not some magic money that is 'federal'. It is just tax money taken from the same checks that pay for Part A.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 11:53 AM

5. No we borrow from China. And only 53% pay federal income tax.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:16 PM

6. Ah, so this is about that 47% of Mittsters.

See, while you and others might like to say 'most people don't understand how Medicare works' the problems you face is that people very much do understand how it works because of all the taxes and withholding most people pay.
Look, I first saw the far side of the SS cap when I was 23. And yet I know that everybody pays taxes. That whole 47% balloon did not fly in the hands of masters because we as Americans generally reject that sort of division in part because many of us who are among that 53% have not always been. And many who have always been came from parents who most certainly were too poor to tax for much of their lives.
So, among other things, I'd not assume the poster you said did not pay for it did not pay Federal income taxes.
And about borrowing money. The first point involves throwing two worthless and bloody wars off the books and on the Master Card. Any nation that can do that without so much as flinching should be ashamed to so much as glance at health and retirement benefits when speaking of blanancing books. The depth of moral vapidity in such rhetoric is immeasurable and perilous to our culture. First, stop having wars you can't afford. Then use that money to have an actual nation, a society in which people can function and trust the future.
But yeah, that danged 47%. Buying all that Shock and Awe they can't afford.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:27 PM

8. Yep, that poster loves to post right wing talking points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:45 PM

11. The taxes and withholding don't cover the cost. That's why this country is running at a perpetual

 

Deficit.

I know you think numbers and statistics are right wing but really they are just measurements put out by our federal government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:18 PM

7. That is not only a right wing talking point, it's misleading. From Factcheck.org :

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/09/dependency-and-romneys-47-percenters/

Let’s take a closer look at the 46.4 percenters.

According to the Tax Policy Center, about half of those who owe no federal income tax are people whose incomes are so low that when standard income tax provisions — personal exemptions for taxpayers and dependents and the standard deduction — are factored in, that simply leaves no income to be taxed. Those are people who earned less than about $27,000.

But that doesn’t mean those folks paid no taxes at all. Many of them paid payroll taxes, those taxes taken out of a paycheck by an employer to fund programs such as Social Security and Medicare. They also pay federal excise taxes, such as those on gasoline, and they may also pay state and local income taxes or property taxes.

So that’s half of Romney’s 46.4 percenters. The rest pay no federal income tax due to tax benefits and credits. Here’s the rest of the breakdown:
■22 percent receive senior tax benefits — the extra standard deduction for seniors, the exclusion of a portion of Social Security benefits, and the credit for seniors. Most of them are older people on Social Security whose adjusted gross income is less than $25,000.
■15.2 percent receive tax credits for children and the working poor. That includes the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit. The child tax credit was enacted under Democratic President Bill Clinton, but it doubled under Republican President George W. Bush. The earned income tax credit was enacted under Republican President Gerald Ford, and was expanded under presidents of both parties. Republican President Ronald Reagan once praised it as “one of the best antipoverty programs this country’s ever seen.” As a result of various tax expenditures, about two thirds of households with children making between $40,000 and $50,000 owed no federal income taxes.
The rest ended up owing no federal income tax due to various tax expenditures such as education credits, itemized deductions or reduced rates on capital gains and dividends. Most of this group are in the middle to upper income brackets. In fact, the TPC estimates there are about 7,000 families and individuals who earn $1 million a year or more and still pay no federal income tax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:41 PM

9. You've made my point...local and state income taxes aren't funding Medicare part B or D

 

The federal fuel tax funds the highways, not Medicare part b or d

If you go through life not having paid the federal income tax or paying a minimal amount you are no where near contributing the cost of your benefits.

The statistics are that the average person gets about 3 times more in Medicare benefits than they contributed. How anyone sustains that in such a high cost area like health care is beyond me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:44 PM

10. No, I havent made your point, but you have proven you mislead just like any other Republican.

And that is your intent, to mislead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:49 PM

12. Well if you don't believe in data or numbers then you can decide everything is misleading.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:04 PM

14. Except that the factcheck organization agrees that your interpretation is misleading. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:07 PM

15. I am specifically talking about the funding for Medicare b and d which comes from the general fund

 

Mostly. This isn't the argument that people pay no taxes.

Geez.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:57 PM

13. Where do you get that statistic?

You are obviously knowledgeable about this, but I am wondering where you get that statistic about the average Medicare beneficiary getting 3 times as much in benefits as what they paid in. I am working on a paper on Medicare and would love some links for sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:11 PM

16. Here is one study. I've seen other numbers.

 

Estimated net Medicare benefits for different worker categories
See also: Social Security: Estimated net Social Security benefits under differing circumstances


In 2004, Urban Institute economists C. Eugene Steuerle and Adam Carasso created a Web-based Medicare benefits calculator. Using this calculator it is possible to estimate net Medicare benefits (i.e., estimated lifetime Medicare benefits received minus estimated lifetime Medicare taxes paid, expressed in today's dollars) for different types of recipients. In the book, Democrats and Republicans - Rhetoric and Reality, Joseph Fried used the calculator to create graphical depictions of the estimated net benefits of men and women who were at different wage levels, single and married (with stay-at-home spouses), and retiring in different years. Three of these graphs are shown below, and they clearly show why Medicare (as currently formulated) is on the path to fiscal insolvency: No matter what the wage level, marital status, or retirement date, a man or woman can expect to receive benefits that will cost the system far more than the taxes he or she paid into the system.
In the first graph (Figure 169) we see that estimated net benefits range from $108,000 to $240,000 for single men and from $142,000 to $277,000 for single women. Generally, the benefits are progressive. Note that women usually get higher benefits due to their greater longevity.


In the next graph (Figure 170) we see a comparison of net Medicare benefits for a single woman versus a married woman (or man) with a stay-at-home spouse. The single woman can expect substantial net benefits, ranging from $142,000 to $277,000, However, these benefits are dwarfed by the estimated net benefits of her married counterpart. Due to a "spousal benefit" built into the Medicare formula, the married person will get net benefits ranging from $393,000 to $525,000. The impact of the spousal benefit can disrupt the intended progressiveness of Medicare benefits. For example, we see in Figure 170 that the married worker earning $95,000 is estimated to get net benefits of $393,000, while the single worker earning $5,000 is estimated to get $277,000. In either case, the benefits paid to the worker greatly exceed the taxes paid by the worker (and pose a financial burden on the system); however, the high-earning married worker gets a better "return," so to speak, on each tax dollar paid into the system.


The last graph shown (Figure 171) compares the net benefits of a single man retiring in 2005 with the net benefits of a man retiring in 2045. It is clear that the future retiree is likely to get a far greater net benefit than the current retiree (and is likely to be a greater burden to the system). Interestingly, in the Social Security system we see the opposite pattern. In that case, the future retiree can expect a much smaller net retirement benefit than the current retiree can expect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)#Estimated_net_Medicare_benefits_for_different_worker_categories


I know many don't regard Wikipedia well but the underlying study is sound. I've seen more updated numbers but haven't kept the links readily available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrattotheend (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:23 PM

17. Here is the link. There are a few interesting things about the Urban Institute's numbers

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/social-security-medicare-benefits-over-lifetime.pdf

1. Take a look at the combined social security and medicare taxes versus the combined social security and medicare benefits for both 2011 and 2030. You will notice that the combined payments of people in taxes are very close to the combined income from benefits.

2. Then realize that if we simply remove the cap on Social Security, there is no more issue.

3. The third issue is that the urban institutes investment calculations are very conservative. They use 2% over inflation per year as the estimate for how the money you pay in taxes for Social security and medicare would grow while being invested by the federal government. I doubt very much that any institutional investor investing the kind of money we are talking about, even in very safe investments, earns so little, particularly considering that the federal government isnt paying taxes on those investments. If institutional investors did earn that little, they wouldnt invest because the taxes on that would make it pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread