We need to consider rationing health care and social security.

[grasswire]

The story about the Dutch allowing citizens over 70 to have assisted suicide has made me face reality.

There isn't enough money to provide health care and old age pension for everyone as those programs exist now and in the face of aging boomers. We can't even borrow enough money for this.

It's over. We have no money for safety nets.

Currently, politicians are trying to patch problems. But we can't just perpetuate the current systems. All the political fighting over "entitlements" and "benefits" and "coverage" are simply theater-for-power, and doomed to fail.

So we're going to have to make difficult choices.

We could do as the Dutch. At age 70, Grandma could choose life-ending pills. She could even be encouraged to take them as a patriotic gesture. That same way out could be extended to the disabled, the handicapped, the ill. The jobless? The unhappy? Trillions of dollars freed up.

This sort of "culling" of the herd is already happening in this country. But those making the decisions each day are the insurers and the bureaucrats and the rationing is involuntary, imposed on the people and bringing chaos and anguish to lives.

So I say it's time to encourage voluntary rationing. Planned rationing. Man up, square those shoulders, and face the truth. Someone's got to go.

And someone with more mathmatical and statistical understanding than I have can figure out the formulas, the criteria, the methods of determination.

I do have one suggestion. The rationing should be in inverse proportion to the resources an individual already has on hand.

Yes, yes, this is contrary to the usual concept of the way most real money is distributed. Usually those who have the most GET the most. You can't get a loan unless you have money. You can't get a house unless you have a high credit score. You can't deduct interest payments or business losses unless you have a certain level of resouces. You can't get a bailout unless you're a bank.

That way of doing business is why we're in the ignoble spot we're in. Broke and broken.

So under my plan, those who are in the most precarious positions would be served first... and best. The wealthy would be urged to volunteer to leave us. Their fortunes do nothing now, tied up in trusts and assets. So many of the wealthy have built their fortunes on the backs of workers who are now without employment or medical care or pension benefits -- in danger of not even having Social Security after a lifetime of paying in. It's only patriotic for the wealthy and the powerful to go first. When they go, tax their estates heavily.

Or.......we could just stop paying for wars. We can't have both.

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. I wonder how many unrecs you're gonna get

from people who don't read the whole post. Well played! :)

[grasswire]

4. thanks. (eom)

[kestrel91316]

2. K&R

[tonysam]

3. Take your ageist bullshit elsewhere. It doesn't belong here.

Hitler would have loved the shit the Dutch are pulling.

[NoNothing]

14. What do you mean?

This is a very modest proposal.

[LakeSamish706]

18. I don't think he/she read the entire post!!!! Just my guess. n/t

[frebrd]

23. You didn't read the last line!! eom

[EFerrari]

5. No, we need to consider rationing bombs. Time for the Pentagon to have that bake sale.

[grasswire]

9. and we do that by pointing out the choice to the people

Bombs or health care for those who can't get it.

[EFerrari]

13. Did you see Dennis yesterday with those long lists of what our war spending

would pay for? Visual aids and all.

Someone needs to point out that with climate change, we're short of ice floes to put our parents on and meanwhile, the Pentagon can't balance their checkbook.

[Fumesucker]

6. Didn't they make a movie about this?

:)

[Echo In Light]

12. Run, Logan! Run!

lol

[leftstreet]

7. K&R

[laughingliberal]

10. I love that! nt

[LakeSamish706]

8. Great post and when do we start the rich on their way? I think they should be required to

give up all their assets to the State on their way out though.

[sailor65]

11. SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!

:rofl:

[jody]

15. Obama said on rationing health care "I think that there is going to have to be a conversation

that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists."

http://healthcareorganizationalethics.blogspot.com/2009/05/president-obamas-grandmother-and-ethics.html

[Xenotime]

16. I would be happy to submit my list of "useless eaters" for consideration.

[Oregone]

17. The Democratic bill already considers rationing

And no, its not hyperbole.

Any plans that allowed the private market low actuarial valued plans are essentially relying on rationed care to the lower classes to keep overall costs down.

This is just the way it is. If copays and deductibles were waived, then you would see a bill designed to prevent economic rationing. That isn't the case. Poorer people will self-ration under this plan to lower costs and help private profits. Its in the very structure of the approach

[old mark]

19. As someone who is living on social security and on a small pension, go fuck yourself. nt

[LakeSamish706]

20. I love this OP... It shows how many people never bothered to read the OP

from start to finish before commenting on it.. lol

[Autumn]

21. Give it all to the rich,

if you can't afford to pay for it you don't need it. If you are not a productive and viable member of society you should be gone, don't ask for fucking hand outs. Young and need a job? Join the military. They can always use the bodies, no jobs for you here anyway.












:sarcasm: If it's really needed.

[BadgerKid]

22. Reminds me of this.

[UndertheOcean]

24. Smart twist there at the end

[wryter2000]

25. One might even say it was a swift twist

:evilgrin:

[damntexdem]

26. B.S.! It's not a lack of resources.

Social Security could be fiscally sound for the foreseeable future were the income cap on FICA taxation eliminated -- or even substantially raised. That would also contribute to, but far from ensure, the fiscal soundness of Medicare. For that, we need true healthcare reform.

And as it is, the lower one's income, the greater the proportionate return in Social Security -- and taxing ALL of the income of the rich would make SS even-more progressive. Even as it is, Social Security is not going broke, and would still be able to pay most of benefits through the 2040s, even without a fix. So, if we go further and heavily tax estates, or simply restore former income tax rates, that could be for healthcare, including Medicare.

But to stop paying for discretionary wars would certainly help.

But we NEED NOT consider rationing Social Security and healthcare!

And I do give you a well-deserved unrec.

[grasswire]

30. I don't think you read the whole thing, friend. (eom)

[krabigirl]

27. Yikes..no thanks. I'd focus on pressuring govt to end the wars and close bases overseas.

[grasswire]

28. the point is that the wealthy and powerful have no "skin" in the game.

Rearrange the system so that THEY have to risk something.

And the risk would be this: life or divesting some of the fortune.

All this furor about health care and "entitlements" is aimed at keeping help from those who need it while protecting wealth of those who have it.

None of the argument brings personal risk for the wealthy and powerful. But for the middle class and the workers, increased death, poverty, disability and misery are probabilities.

The wealthy and powerful need skin in the game. They are the decision makers.

So make them risk something.

[Duer 157099]

29. Or... we could raise taxes on the uber wealthy. Period.

Just Do It

edit: Besides, I think when they are faced with the choice, they just might *choose* to pay the higher taxes...

[upi402]

31. rec, Hey! we could tax the rich who made this problem and...

confiscate the looted tax dollars

undo bogus trade laws

stop corporate socialism

restore the rule of law

end wall street ponzi schemes

eliminate the FICA cap which stops contributions for the rich at $10,6800

ad infinitum

[grasswire]

32. yes we could

And if the wealthy and powerful had some SKIN IN THE GAME we could force them to enact those laws and policies.

They routinely beat up the poor and the powerless by making the rationing all on the backs of the poor and the powerless.

Time for rationing the benefits the rich and powerful get! Ration those first.

We've all seen that TV commercial where the little girl is given a bike but can only ride it in a tiny square while the announcer says "even children know what's fair."

What's fair in America would be NOT paying for societal costs by continually screwing over the poor and the powerless.

Start squeezing somewhere else!

[upi402]

33. The vampires have bled us pale...

and are scraping at the marrow.

[grasswire]

34. so basically, this whole HRC charade is meaningless

It's simply a circus to distract the people and allow some to leverage power while the LOOTERS gnaw on the marrow.

I say we stop wasting energy on the debate. Just stop. It's a rigged game.

Something else needs to happen now. Something that stops the plundering by the wealthy and the powerful. I don't know what the something is, but I know the first rule of neutralizing bullies.

Just don't play their game.

[upi402]

36. Don't stop, fight it to the end

and then fight the charade after the vote too.

[mmonk]

35. I'm for rationing the military industrial complex.

[Festivito]

37. Maybe we can't have HC PATCHES, retirements, and wars. But, we have HC and the rest.

The lowest priced HC, single-payer, is cheaper by 1.5T$/yr. That's also 1.5T$ off our GDP, but, that's okay. SP covers everyone and everything HC needs.

So, we can still have wars, and fund retirements, and have HC that covers everyone.

But, those retirements will be better without the wars.

However, the real problem is that the banks have one more super-big surprise coming. One that will kill America unless we take drastic action.

Wish US the best, would ya!

[bvar22]

38. I'll take option #2

"Or.......we could just stop paying for wars. We can't have both."

Had me going.
:patriot: