Skip to main content

We've just come through "the Great Recession", the longest, deepest economic downturn since the Great Depression. Two groups hit especially hard; recent college grads and people in their 50s. Those lovely corporations, rumored by Reaganites and the mentally deficient folk who still believe him to have been a great friend to the middle class to be breathlessly awaiting more favorable regulations before they'll unleash the TRILLIONS of dollars they're currently sheltering overseas, brutally (and most likely illegally) purged workers in their 50s from the ranks of the employed to, among other things, keep the cost of their group health insurance plans lower. Many of these not-quite-senior citizens will never work again, or if they do the salaries they'll make will be a small fraction of what they made before. Oh, and just to add an additional measure of cruelty, after paying their health insurance bills every month while they were young and healthy, they no longer have access to that employer-based health insurance plane.

So now, whena "loophole" is found that gives these people, "millions of middle class people" access to medicaid, it's seen as a "problem" that needs to be "fixed" ASAP?

We've become a brutal country with a hateful bigotry towards average middle-class people in their 50s. "Changes to medicare won't affect anyone under 54" my ass. I'm 54. I've paid into medicare my entire life. Now you want to break the contract with me and you expect to pay nothing for doing it? AND, if a "loophole" is found that gives me access to medicaid if I need it, you "need" to close it, ASAP? Fuck that!

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (13+ / 0-)

    "Doing My Part to Piss Off the Religious Right" - A sign held by a 10-year old boy on 9-24-05

    by Timbuk3 on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 03:51:39 AM PDT

  •  it has been broken for some time (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timbuk3, worldlotus

    try applying for SS Disability sometime

  •  Okay. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, worldlotus

    So, I'm self-employed.  I earn far, far less than 60k, have seen the premiums on my (very high deductable) health insurance policy rise about 90 percent in two years.

     I'm supposed to support this?

    Why don't you try reading the rules, Shankopotamus?

    by bugscuffle on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 04:03:36 AM PDT

    •  Not sure what you're asking (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Did you support "single payer"? Because if your income is less than $64K it seems to me you could drop that expensive health insurance policy and qualify for medicaid.

      I don't know about anyone else, but I'd MUCH rather pay a little more in taxes than a LOT more to a for-profit insurance company.

      "Doing My Part to Piss Off the Religious Right" - A sign held by a 10-year old boy on 9-24-05

      by Timbuk3 on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 04:11:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is no "single payer" (0+ / 0-)

        In the mean time, I have to do what I have to do.  The fact that people who make far more than I do will get free health care is a little irksome.

        Why don't you try reading the rules, Shankopotamus?

        by bugscuffle on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 04:15:48 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is "single payer" (6+ / 0-)

          It's called "medicare and medicaid", and it's far more cost-effective than for-profit insurance based plans. But that's not really the question I was asking.

          I meant, did you support the idea that "single payer" should be included in health care insurance reform?

          I'm for anything that cuts insurance company profits in health care. I'd like them cut to zero. I have no problem saying that, or standing by it.

          I'd like you to have access to government paid healthcare. I'd like to have access to it. I'd like people who make far more than I do to have access to it.

          End the wars. Close most, if not all, overseas military bases. Raise taxes on incomes above $250K. Raise taxes on dividend income. Tax estates worth more than $5 million. Raise the cap on income eligible to pay into social security.

          And give people access to health care.

          "Doing My Part to Piss Off the Religious Right" - A sign held by a 10-year old boy on 9-24-05

          by Timbuk3 on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 04:22:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The $64k is for a couple who each receive the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tardis10, worldlotus

        maximum SS benefit of $23.5k. They would get to deduct the $47k from their income to qualify for Mediciad. So it would not apply to someone who makes $64k from working.

        The problem, of course, is that Medicaid is partially funded by the  states and is administered by the states. Unfortunately, many states are cutting Medicaid programs because of this funding arrangement.

        You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

        by sewaneepat on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 05:15:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Much ado about little. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      This will be fixed before 2014 rolls around.
      Just don't buy into the RW noise machine on this.

      "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

      by tardis10 on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 04:49:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Support what? (0+ / 0-)

      This diary?

  •  "Must be fixed" like the family pet (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, Timbuk3

    You see, as providing health care to all went from a promise to anathema in a single year, with no changes in the nation but the sooooper scary TEA Party and its 11%, and as "Deficits don't matter" turned back into the rats of "Bankrupting America" after the midnight of a Democrat coming to the ball, anything that leads to the federal government providing health care to more than one more person than the GAO had expected is a problem.

    It's a problem because of budgets.
    It's a problem because, given the complete impossibility of adding revenue or decreasing war costs, every expenditure must be paid for by slashing some service to the people.
    It's a problem because the people who use that language talk to numbers and forces and "markets" and the like and not people, humans, children, and needs.

    Everyone is innocent of something.

    by The Geogre on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 04:17:43 AM PDT

  •  It was a drafting mistake. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, Timbuk3

    And it's not fair: two people getting the same amount of income, but one of them gets it in the form of social security while the other gets it in the form of a paycheck.

    The former gets free healthcare and the latter doesn't.  That's just not fair.  

    Both should benefit from single payer, of course, but the status quo - where only one of the above gets a benefit - is patently unfair.  

    •  Random speculation thisa way (0+ / 0-)

      How do you think they will fix this?

      "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

      by tardis10 on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 04:51:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Huh? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      People, or their family members, who paid into Social Security also paid into Medicaid. Assuming they are qualified shouldn't they be eligible?

      Not everyone is qualified for Social Security. Why therefore should one expect everyone to be qualified for Medicaid?

      As for..

      The former gets free healthcare and the latter doesn't.

      Did someone tell you healthcare is free? I never heard that. I think you don't have the facts.

      •  Because we base it on income. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Assuming they are qualified shouldn't they be eligible?

        It's based on income.  Social security is income.


        Not so complicated.

        Did someone tell you healthcare is free? I

        That's what Medicaid is.  Free health care.  
        •  Sorry. I meant to write Medicare. (0+ / 0-)

          Not Medicaid.

          But in both cases I am not sure they are completely free...

          As for Social Security, yes, it is an insurance program benefits of which are based upont how much one paid into the account. But not based on all income, just salaries and wages up to a certain limit annuall.

  •  I love it (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    worldlotus, Timbuk3

    instead of people saying yippie! a little more folks are covered by medicare as a step towards all of us being covered by it people just look at their own self interest and say it ain't fair because I ain't covered. That attitude is mostly why we all aren't covered and most likely never will be.
    Newsflash- we all pay into some things that benefit others more than us at certain points in time.

    music- the universal language

    by daveygodigaditch on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 05:51:50 AM PDT

  •  Timbuk3 - you have no contract (0+ / 0-)

    None of us have any contractual right to Medicare. We might have some implied right, but the benefit we receive from Medicare is determined only by Congress.

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Wed Jun 22, 2011 at 07:34:41 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site