Obama hits Romney with new Medicare study

[pickel]

Obama hits Romney with new Medicare study | Fox News

Campaigning for a second day in Florida, where older voters and workers approaching retirement hold sway, Obama on Sunday was expected to highlight a study by a Democratic leaning group that concluded that on average a man or woman retiring at age 65 in 2023, would have to pay $59,500 more for health care over the length of their retirement under Romney's plan.

The numbers are even higher for younger Americans who retire later, the study found. A person who qualifies for Medicare n 2030 -- today's 48-year-old -- would see an increase of $124,600 in Medicare costs over their retirement period.

I know ,full well, the cost of Anti Rejection drugs (alone) and , without Medicare, along with my monthly labs, not counting any other healthcare costs, I'd be , virtually , SCREWED.

[Chuckiechan]

Pickel, are you aware Romney's plan exclude changes to seniors SS plans who are over 55, AND that includes the Advantage plans?

[pickel]

Pickel, are you aware Romney's plan exclude changes to seniors SS plans who are over 55, AND that includes the Advantage plans?

Is he going to stop the payments people under 55 are now paying and refund ALL that they have paid in ????

I hardly think so. RMoney and his STOOGE are so Full of Shit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mad1]

Just another attempt to deflect from poor job statistics.

[Chuckiechan]

I hardly think so. RMoney and his STOOGE are so Full of Shit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no point in trying to reason with a democrat, until the shit splatters on them. Being irrational and all excited will get you no where but in an early grave.

Those under 55 will be part of a revamped and re written Medicare based on the fact that when Medicare was written the average life span was ~ 65 years. Now it's upwards of 85. Those 55 and over will stay on the existing plan, including Medicare Advantage (part D) that is partly subsidized by the government.

That goes for Social Security, too. Most workers under 55 acknowledge that they don't expect it to be there for them, so why are you arguing that they are getting screwed? Given the way it is today, it will not be there for them unless changes are made. That's what Obamacare is all about - getting younger people to pay more taxes to support free health care for seniors run by the federal government and enforced through the IRS.

I don't know about you, but I plan to live forever - so far, so good.

[pickel]

If your Republican buddies hadn't pissed away BILLIONS on 2 useless wars and who knows what else, we've have plenty of money for Medicare & SS and many families with their loved ones still here enjoying their lives.
So quit whining about the Democrats.

[Chuckiechan]

Where's my "Hand job" smiley when I need it...

[tony_j15]

Just another attempt to deflect from poor job statistics.

And people would take you seriously on that charge if the Republicans hadn't blocked the President's job bill which would have created 1.3 million jobs.

[Epidemic]

If your Republican buddies hadn't pissed away BILLIONS on 2 useless wars and who knows what else, we've have plenty of money for Medicare & SS and many families with their loved ones still here enjoying their lives.
So quit whining about the Democrats.

hmmmmm,

Republican buddies? if I am not mistaken it was a virtually unanimous decision decision for one of those wars. Not to mention that the democrats are continuing one of those wars today.

Another thought democrats voted to allow George Bush to go to war in Iraq as well. Oh well looks like you have a problem with your statement when you say the republicans pissed away billions.

[Chuckiechan]

And people would take you seriously on that charge if the Republicans hadn't blocked the President's job bill which would have created 1.3 million jobs.

The bill died in the Senate.

[tony_j15]

The bill died in the Senate.

It required a 60 vote majority to pass.

[Epidemic]

It required a 60 vote majority to pass.

I am sorry, why did it require 60?

[tony_j15]

Cloture would be my first guess. Lemme look into it further.

Yup. Cloture.

Without the debate being limited by invoking cloture, Republicans were able to keep debate open on the bill indefinitely, effectively killing it.

[mad1]

The three Democrats that voted against the bill are,
Harry Reid D NV Senate Majority Leader
Ben Nelson D NE
Jon Tester D MT

[tony_j15]

48 Democrats and two Independents voted to end cloture. Every single Republican voted against it.
My statement stands. Republicans blocked the bill. 50 + 3 = 53 <60. Lrn 2 math.

[Epidemic]

48 Democrats and two Independents voted to end cloture. Every single Republican voted against it.
My statement stands. Republicans blocked the bill. 50 + 3 = 53 <60. Lrn 2 math.

48 + 2 = 50

100 - 50 = 50

where do we get 53 from?

[tony_j15]

Ho boy! Lemme 'splain.

The vote to end cloture was 48 D, 2 I for, giving us 50. The vote against was 3 D, 46 R, giving us 49. Coburn (R) didn't vote.
Cloture requires 60. 50 - 49 means fail.
mad1 brought up the fact that three D's voted no.
All I was showing was that even if the D's voted en bloc like the R's did, the vote would have been only 53 for. 53 is still less than 60. IOW, to pass, the vote would require a minimum of 7 Republican votes. But not a single Republican voted for it.

[Chuckiechan]

And the bill included a tax increase.

[tony_j15]

LOL! Oh, that's rich.

The bill contained tax measures because it was designed to be financially neutral. It's also known as , gee, I don't know, what's the term? Oh. Right.

RESPONSIBLE

Now if there hadn't been a tax in there to offset the spending, conservatives and their little propaganda puppets would be whining that the bill adds to the deficit.

Only the Republicans would take a bill that is a win-win for America (pays for itself, doesn't add to the deficit, employs 1.3 millions Americans) and vote no for it and complain about it being funded.