Another Reason Why Raising the Medicare Eligibility Age Will Suck

Hundreds of thousands of seniors would lose their healthcare. Obviously.

Greg Sargent:

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that a rise in the eligibility age could mean as many as 270,000 seniors are left uninsured in 2021. But that’s assuming Obamacare is fully implemented in all states. The CAP report points out that 10 states have publicly declared they will opt out of the Medicaid expansion, and more are undecided.

The CAP study then totaled up how many seniors below the poverty line live in states that may opt out of the Medicaid expansion, using 2011 data. The total: Over 164,000.

Anyone who puts their name to such an idea will be widely and loudly pilloried.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

    “Anyone who puts their name to such an idea will be widely and loudly pilloried.”

    Absolutely. It is unconscionable as far as I’m concerned.

  • BD

    Forced to pay into a failed system. Sounds like the “land of the free” to me.
    The advocates of “pro-choice” will never allow individuals to choose not to contribute to Ponzi schemes such as this and SS. Thanks for the perpetual servitude.

    • gescove

      If by “failed system” you mean an effective, efficient, well-liked, and solvent (at least for a decade with no changes whatsoever) program. Yeah… who wants to be forced to pay into that? Since you have described Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, we can all quite safely assume you are sadly misinformed on Medicare as well. Happily for you, perpetual servitude beneath the boot of your freedom-loving corporate overlords awaits you in your libertarian Elysium. Best of luck with that.

      • bphoon

        BD’s trying out sections of his upcoming Manifesto on us…I’m just waiting for him to climb into his hole and take the next 15 years to write it.

      • BD

        Failed in the sense that if forced confiscation was NOT used to fund it with present “contributions” it would readily become insolvent. Yes, everyone can be given something if people are robbed by those with the monopoly of force.
        Please elaborate to which principles in libertarianism are compatible with “perpetual servitude beneath the boot of your freedom-loving corporate overlords”. Please read what libertarianism is, rather than the straw man arguments posed by those of your ilk, to determine its positions.
        SS is a (forced) contribution scheme where those involved are promised returns which are assumed to be present in a fund. But in reality there is no fund and current recipients are provided payment from current non-recipient contributors. THAT IS A PONZI SCHEME! Your agenda will not allow you to define it as such.

        • Victor_the_Crab

          Does your mommy pick out which brand of tinfoil for you to wear, Big Douche?

        • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

          ” Please read what libertarianism is”

          As someone else once said….

          Libertarianism: I got mine, fuck the rest of you!

        • D_C_Wilson

          I’ve read what libertarianism is. It’s nothing more than the flip side of communism: An idea that sounds good on paper, but is a disaster when you try to apply it in the real world. The only difference between the two is that communism assumes that everyone will suddenly develop the desire to work together for no other reason than the common good, while libertarianism assumes that you can enjoy all the benefits associated with a civilized society without having to pay for them.

          • BD

            No, libertarianism is a philosophy which has the axiom of non-aggression. If one does not aggress upon others then they are subject to personal responsibility and must use such means to acquire their ends. It also sets forth property rights in that one owns oneself (which you do not advocate) and one owns the property they acquire through legitimate means (homesteading, trade, gift or compensation) Libertarianism is not an economic philosophy, it just happens to coincide with free market capitalism as property is privately owned and exchange happens free of coercion. You present a false representation of what you obviously have not studied.

          • D_C_Wilson

            In other words, “An idea that sounds good on paper, but is a disaster when you try to apply it in the real world.”

            As I tried to explain to you before: Without government, your property rights and your right to own yourself would mean exactly squat to anyone with more guns than you. That’s exactly how things work in Somalia.

            BTW, here’s a debate tip: Telling people you don’t know what they think or what they’ve studied is a sure way to make yourself look like an idiot.

          • BD

            Your statements reveal either 1) you have not studied, 2) do not understand, or 3) wish to intentionally misrepresent libertarianism.
            I will gladly debate points of ethics, morality and this philosophy, but this is a name-calling blog and such debates are not welcome.

          • D_C_Wilson

            You don’t debate. You beat up a strawman, then declare victory.

            You’re getting exactly the level of respect you deserve.

          • BD

            Once again, support your claim. Cite strawman argument. I point out the violations which occur under the system you support.
            Make a point to debate…

          • D_C_Wilson

            I’ve already pointed out how you tell people what they think and what they know instead of actually reading what they say.

            It obviously didn’t take, so I’m done feeding the troll.

    • D_C_Wilson

      Go live on a dessert island if you don’t want to be part of a civilized society.

      • BD

        Might makes right is not civilized.
        51% voting to rule over the remainder is not civilized.
        Your society is based on coercion, theft and murder. Fear based tactics by an almighty state, confiscation of property by an armed government holding claim to everyone’s earnings and murdering innocent with your consent. Fuck your “civilized” society! This is my land, if you can’t play nice with others, YOU find a dessert to control and rob others in.

        • D_C_Wilson

          The rule of law combined with democratic principles is what makes us civilized.

          You’re the one who’s advocating “might makes right”, because in your imaginary utopia, you land would only belong to you until someone stronger than you kicked you off it.

          • BD

            Another misrepresentation of voluntarism.
            The rule of law is based on natural rights and any civilization using the principle of democracy (through force) is not civilized. There is nothing civilized about a majority voting to take the rights of the minority.
            A voluntarist society would not condone such behavior as kicking people off their land by force ( though the entity you praise and support does it regularly with acts such as eminent domain and others). There is private security, there have been private judiciaries and private insurers for protection against unforeseen risks.
            Please exemplify the notion that “might makes right” within the libertarian philosophy. Use your extensive studies in it and put forth such a claim. Support your shit!

          • bphoon

            Bull. Shit.

            You can dream all you want about “voluntarism” and non-aggressive behavior and all the rest. You can claim we only own ourselves and, oh yeah, property owned through legitimate means. Problem: out here in the real world, no matter how “volunteerist” or non-aggressive one may be, others do exist who are patently aggressive and, if allowed a free hand, will volunteer to relieve you of your legitimately acquired property. In your world, I suppose, you would have no recourse since using force to exert your will is a no-no.

            Most such folks (and I know a few) couldn’t give a shit less about “natural rights” or private security or judiciaries. In order to have recourse against such behavior, you may have to overcome it with more force than they can muster. Or, simply get used to having your shit taken from you whenever they feel like taking it.

            Without the community banding together (government) and devising a means of agreeing on socially acceptable–and unacceptable–behavior (laws) and empowering members of the community with responsibility for enforcing these standards of behavior (police) then it’s anarchy, nothing more. Call it libertarian if you want but the net result is anarchy.

            So, if I, as a free volunteerist, fail to recognize the means by which you acquired your property as legitimate, I might decide that I can legitimately take it from you since, after all, as far as I’m concerned, you don’t own it. When your private security force shows up to reclaim “your” property for you (a police action, by the way) I can simply tell them I don’t recognize their authority over me and they can fuck off. No problem for me since, in your fever dream, nobody uses force of guns as you like to call it. So, what are they going to do but go back to you and tell you that asshole down the road (which, I guess, we would build ourselves?) wouldn’t give your property to them? I guess then you could go to your private insurer (who is funded how?) and ask them to reimburse you for the property that asshole down the road took from you.

            Who knows, though–maybe, being volunteerist and all, your private insurer might just ask you what right do you have trying to exert power over them and fuck off?

            I don’t have to study political science to know all that–it’s just common fuckin’ sense, which it appears you have a very short supply of.

            But, by all means, keep wasting your time here–I find it all rather amusing.

          • BD

            “You can claim we only own ourselves and, oh yeah, property owned through legitimate means.” Please give me another system of ownership. You use the word “only” so are you implying that there is more to own?
            “Problem: out here in the real world, no matter how “volunteerist” or non-aggressive one may be, others do exist who are patently aggressive and, if allowed a free hand, will volunteer to relieve you of your legitimately acquired property. In your world, I suppose, you would have no recourse since using force to exert your will is a no-no.” How is this any different from the nature of today’s individuals which wish to do such things? People will react to their environment in an attempt to protect their person and property. A burglar enters your home you may defend yourself with means you wish and/or call your police, who are not beholden to your patronage as they take their funding without asking. You call 911 and “when seconds count” they are just “minutes away”. If I couldn’t protect myself, perhaps I would hire a protection agency whose reputation and therefore revenue depends on their effectiveness. As for exerting force, I have every right to defend myself and my property with force. I do not claim a pacifist society in which individuals are preyed upon without defense. It is non-aggression not pacifism.
            “So, if I, as a free volunteerist, fail to recognize the means by which you acquired your property as legitimate, I might decide that I can legitimately take it from you since, after all, as far as I’m concerned, you don’t own it. When your private security force shows up to reclaim “your” property for you (a police action, by the way) I can simply tell them I don’t recognize their authority over me and they can fuck off. No problem for me since, in your fever dream, nobody uses force of guns as you like to call it.” Are you advocating a society without respect for property rights? Or are you using sarcasm to make a point (that you just don’t care for respect of property rights). Taking something from me will either result in much pain, death or yes, having my insurance agency put a claim on property they are contractually obligated to replace. It is then up to the insurance agency to collect compensations from you. If you refuse to recognize this agency by telling them to “fuck off” you risk being ostracized by society through rumor/information transfer and possible insurance coverage as you are an individual of poor character. If my insurance agencies is sure of your violations, perhaps they will take action for recourse through other measures.
            “Who knows, though–maybe, being volunteerist and all, your private insurer might just ask you what right do you have trying to exert power over them and fuck off?” Sounds like a good business model. Think they would last long in a competitive market? How about a liquor store that punches you in the face every time you enter. Gonna patronize them for long?
            The difference between your system and the one I propose is that oppressive agencies do not fare well when they rely upon voluntary patronage but this is not a concern with the state. It takes its financing by force and no individuals have a true say in their tyrannical power over individuals.
            You seem to have the reasoning of a child. I am amused as well…

          • Victor_the_Crab

            And you have bullshit for brains Big Douche. Go die in a fire, retard.

        • D_C_Wilson

          Somalia.

          There, I supported it.

          Have a nice life.

  • Brutlyhonest

    There’s an easy fix for funding Medicare and Social Security: Increase the cap on taxed wages. Or lower the cap, then have it kick back in at a higher income level. But that’s apparently not a serious person’s solution.

    Also, too: I see the troll is back. Winter break must have started. Please try not to feed it.

    • gescove

      Oops ;-)

    • Victor_the_Crab

      Does Drano count as a food item?