Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[Dinner]

People forget why we have medicare to begin with. Elderly people literally couldn't get private health insurance at a remotely reasonable price because old people get sick a lot and tend to require a lot more care. Insurance companies knew that so they simply refused to cover anyone over a certain age because they cost too much. Insurance companies LOVED medicare because it got rid of the PR problem of them refusing to cover older folks plus they got to provide medical services to people on medicare paid for by the government. It was win, win, win as far as everyone was concerned.

[Jon Miller]

Why should insurance companies pay for old people?

Old people should pay for their health care out of pocket.

Insurance is insurance, it shouldn't be the only way to get health care like it is often in the US now.

JM

[Felch]

Oh **** off. You were the one characterizing people who need Medicare as "baby boomers" who were too stupid to save money. If you're going to characterize those who need it in a negative way, whining when those of use with genuine moral compasses call you out on your compassionless stance is rank hypocrisy.

Prior to the advent of SS and Medicare, 80% of senior citizens lived in horrific poverty and unable to afford basic medical care. Civilized people realized this was an intolerable situation and created a system to address the problem. If you haven't caught up to such civilized folks, so be it, but don't cry when we point out just how uncivilized your view is.

Yes, I am compassionless because I don't want the working poor to pay for some old fat ****'s motor scooter. You caught me.

At any rate, that wasn't even my point. The point is, whether or not your argument was a good one, the vast majority of Americans except and approve of the existence of Medicare and would be appalled by the notion we should abandon seniors. Were Paul to manage to get the nomination, all it would take would be quotes similar to yours that he's uttered to ensure he went down to the largest electoral defeat since Mondale.

KENTONIO, PLEASE READ THIS. Boris doesn't agree with me on ****, but he and I both know that trashing Medicare is totally unrealistic.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wait, what?

What kind of cabinet position would Ron Paul even be interested in, and who the hell would want a loose cannon like Paul in their cabinet anyway?

I mean, I suppose it's possible that's Ron Paul's logic, but I doubt it.

Did you seriously just read the first part of my post and stop there?

or in the position of helping a Congressman out

If the President backs a bill of yours or a project, it's a pretty big boost.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think I'd rather pay for a fat old guy's motor scooter (along with his other medical needs being met) rather than having seniors live in abject poverty.

[Boris Godunov]

Yes, I am compassionless because I don't want the working poor to pay for some old fat ****'s motor scooter. You caught me.

No, you're compassionless because you make your case by falsely suggesting Medicare recipients are all undeserving motor scooter users, when that is not the case at all. HINT: if you have to lie to make your point (like Reagan and the implicitly racist "Welfare Queen" argument), it's not a good one.

As Imran notes, the priority should be making sure seniors who have no other means don't live in abject poverty, because civilized societies don't let that kind of thing happen. And, by the way, those seniors have already paid into the system, you know.

[Hauldren Collider]

Why should insurance companies pay for old people?

Old people should pay for their health care out of pocket.

Insurance is insurance, it shouldn't be the only way to get health care like it is often in the US now.

JM

QFT, at the moment insurance is simply a means of financing medical care.

[Felch]

I think I'd rather pay for a fat old guy's motor scooter (along with his other medical needs being met) rather than having seniors live in abject poverty.

Seniors are less likely to live in poverty than children.

No, you're compassionless because you make your case by falsely suggesting Medicare recipients are all undeserving motor scooter users, when that is not the case at all. HINT: if you have to lie to make your point (like Reagan and the implicitly racist "Welfare Queen" argument), it's not a good one.

I never said they were all undeserving motor scooter users. It's a fact, documented on that website, that Medicare pays for these scooters. HINT: if you have to act like a douche to make your point...

As Imran notes, the priority should be making sure seniors who have no other means don't live in abject poverty, because civilized societies don't let that kind of thing happen. And, by the way, those seniors have already paid into the system, you know.

Seniors are less likely to live in poverty than any other age group. I guess your idea of a civilized society has no problem with children living in poverty.

I loathe and despise Medicare, as it exists. It is a bottomless pit of unfunded liabilities and potential fraud. That doesn't mean that I'm against sensible policies that achieve compassionate aims. It means that I'm not an idiot. There's no cure for getting old. People just need more and more treatment as they get older. Children should get free medical care, since they're our future. Old people should get realistic medical care, that accepts their inevitable mortality.

[giblets]

Seniors are less likely to live in poverty than children.

So social security has succeeded in keeping seniors out of poverty...?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course, its the false dichotomy, isn't it? Social programs for the elderly have obviously succeeded in keeping the elderly out of poverty - they work. That's our point - why cut that which has been proven to work? That doesn't mean we aren't in favor of more programs for children.

[Felch]

So social security has succeeded in keeping seniors out of poverty...?

It's likely that's the case. I'd rather live in a world where children weren't twice as likely to live in poverty as the elderly, but I guess I'm an *******.

Of course, its the false dichotomy, isn't it? Social programs for the elderly have obviously succeeded in keeping the elderly out of poverty - they work. That's our point - why cut that which has been proven to work? That doesn't mean we aren't in favor of more programs for children.

It's not a false dichotomy at all. You can only spend a dollar once. I know that you think that rich people just need to pay more taxes, and maybe you're right to an extent, but that's not really a mature way of handling things. The first step should be reforming entitlement programs so that they are sensible and realistic, then raise the money needed to pay for them. Raise the taxes too much, and you'll distort the economy through rampant tax avoidance and political lobbying for exceptions. That would be another step in the wrong direction.

[Jaguar]

Since Social Security does such a good job of keeping old people out of poverty by taxing the working people, we should come up with a system that taxes old people and gives the money to working people. That will result in more money for everybody.

[Egbert]

Since Social Security does such a good job of keeping old people out of poverty by taxing the working people, we should come up with a system that taxes old people and gives the money to working people. That will result in more money for everybody.

We should come up with a system that taxes everybody and gives the money to me. That will result in more money for me.

[Jon Miller]

We shoudln't be 'eliminating entitlement programs' and pretending that everything has the same efficiency.

Europe is more efficient than the US because they don't spend huge amounts of money for very small improvement of life of their elderly. We could spend some (quite a bit, not eliminating anything), but instead of paying for the most expensive and best we could pay for the reasonable.

There is no reason that someone with a couple of years (at most) to live should get 50k prosthetics/etc from medicare (for example). Or other expensive medical treatments.

JM

[giblets]

It's likely that's the case. I'd rather live in a world where children weren't twice as likely to live in poverty as the elderly, but I guess I'm an *******.

What's your solution? Increase the number of elderly in poverty?