I’m Wondering

How many elderly right-wingers have canceled their medicare, since they can not, in good conscience, accept socialized medicine or a government hand-out.

My guess is none.






46 replies
  1. 1
    sunsin says:

    Since when has consistency been their strong suit?

    The frustrating thing is that if you put it that way, they’ll just start to scream, “See! You want to take away my Medicare and kill me!”

    No cure for fools, as Toshiro Mifune says in Yojimbo.

  2. 2

    […] I’m Wondering 30 Aug Keep your hands off my welfare state […]

  3. 3
    wasabi gasp says:

    A bunch of Wilford Brimleys in a teeny weenie moostaches, they are.

  4. 4
    eric says:

    The same ones that are gonna give up social security now that their 401(k)s have cratered.

  5. 5
    Leelee for Obama says:

    I think you may forget that Dick Armey is suing for the right to reject Medicare. I wish some Conservative/Libertarian judge would let him. Then we could see how long it would take a 69 yo man with some weight issues ( to say nothing of brain damage ) to get health insurance privately at a rate anyone could afford besides him!

    What a great reality show for mid-season.

  6. 6
    cleek says:

    the right to reject Medicare.

    can’t seniors just buy their own private insurance and use that when they go to the doctor ?

  7. 7
    Leelee for Obama says:

    @cleek: Not according to Armey-they can only buy supplemental policies or Medicare Advantage. I guess they could buy their own anyway, but I think they still have to pay premiums to Medicare.

  8. 8
    NR says:

    @cleek:

    can’t seniors just buy their own private insurance and use that when they go to the doctor ?

    In fact, more and more seniors are having to do just that, because more and more doctors are refusing to even see Medicare patients.

  9. 9
    malraux says:

    @cleek: I think he wants to be off the books of medicare, but to do that, he is required to give up his social security benefits.

    http://www.politifact.com/trut.....al-securi/

  10. 10
    cleek says:

    I think he wants to be off the books of medicare, but to do that, he is required to give up his social security benefits.

    can’t see why that would be an issue. they’re both soshulism, no?

  11. 11
    asiangrrlMN says:

    Rep. Weinstein from New York (D) introduced an amendment to nix Medicare to force the GOP to vote against the amendment. I think Obama and his crew need to start playing hardball. At every opportunity, they need to say, “Ok. It seems like a majority of seniors are against healthcare reform because they see it as s o c i a l i s m. Fine. We get rid of Medicare, which is the uber-s o c i a l i s t program of all time.” They stick to this talking point until all the stupid old people realize that they are being fucking idiots. It may take some time.

  12. 12
    The Main Gauche of Mild Reason says:

    @asiangrrlMN:
    That definitely will not work. He’ll introduce it, republicans will vote against it, and then they’ll demagogue the bill “SEE! DEMOCRATS REALLY DO WANT TO KILL YOUR MEDICARE!”

  13. 13
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @The Main Gauche of Mild Reason: Oh, it already happened. Didn’t go anywhere, but he was just making a point.

  14. 14
    malraux says:

    @cleek: If he cared about intellectual consistency, yes.

  15. 15
    Mudge says:

    John Holbo at Crooked Timber says:

    “Philosophically, there just isn’t a case to be made against reform unless it’s this simple one: if you don’t have any money, you shouldn’t be entitled to any medicine. ”

    Unless you are old. The old have earned it (or feel they have). By having Medicare there as a carrot all those years, instead of saving for retirement health costs, they bought that second home and invested in mortgage securities.

  16. 16
    kay says:

    @NR:

    That is a little deceptive.
    There are three categories: 1. opt out, 2. enrolled, and non-participating and 3. enrolled and participating.
    Opt out is clear-cut. Senior pays for service.
    Enrolled but non-participating gets two bites out of the apple, he or she can bill Medicare, receive a (lower) Medicare reimbursement, but bill the senior on top of that.
    You see the attraction of enrolled but non-participating, I’m sure. If the practice is 1. in a wealthy area where the senior is likely to cover the difference, or 2. in a rural area where the senior has no choice, because there are so few physicians, I’d go with “enrolled but non-participating” because a portion of the bill is guaranteed, and I can bill on top of that.
    Enrolled but participating gets Medicare rates, but can’t bill on top.

  17. 17
    Laura W says:

    Someone is chock-full of wonder today.

    Go vote for Little Bitsy!

  18. 18
    J Bean says:

    My far-right, hyper Republican aunt neither uses her Medicare nor collects her Social Security. However, she was also married to a guy who was her mother’s age and who had inherited a bunch of money. If you live in a nifty house in Rancho Santa Fe and have a big pile of conservatively invested money, it’s a lot easier to stand on principle. She can’t really understand why everybody doesn’t think to marry a rich old man when they are young.

  19. 19

    Armey actually makes a very point in his lawsuit. Ironically he wants to keep his OTHER government sponsored program health insurance program. He’s not a honest broker and his point seems to be that he wants a public option — for himself.

  20. 20
    GregB says:

    I was thinking of making a sandwich board sign and heading off to the nearest tea-bag fest:

    Fight Socialism, Quit Medicare and Social Security!

    -G

  21. 21
    Paul L. says:

    How many elderly right-wingers have canceled their medicare, since they can not, in good conscience, accept socialized medicine or a government hand-out.

    Will the US Government refund the taxes they paid into medicare if they do?

  22. 22
    ironranger says:

    @J Bean:
    For one thing, there are only so many rich guys to go around for all the unwealthy females.

  23. 23
    Paul L. says:

    @J Bean:

    However, she was also married to a guy who was her mother’s age and who had inherited a bunch of money.

    Which is why progressives support confiscatory death taxes.
    (With loopholes for the Kerrys/Kennedys and other elites of their enlightened ilk.)
    So how much of Ted Kennedy’s fortune is going to the US government?

  24. 24
    bellatrys says:

    Ah, John, you crack me up. They’ll always have some excuse why the status quo is objectively good when it’s in their favor.

  25. 25
    NR says:

    @kay: Right, but what I’m saying is that more and more doctors will not see patients on Medicare alone (i.e., without private insurance to supplement it).

    Medicare has problems, and without substantial reform, they’re only going to get bigger. Right now, Medicare pays 94% of a given patient’s hospital costs. Medicaid pays 84%. Private insurance pays 135%. Does that look like a sustainable system to you?

  26. 26
    smiley says:

    OT but interesting picture:

    http://www.bagnewsnotes.com/20.....dents.html

    Bill is crying, Hillary and Barack are stoic, GW and Michelle look sad, and Laura is having a grand old time.

  27. 27
    vacuumslayer says:

    Pictures like that are one of the reasons I always had a soft spot for Bill Clinton. Flawed man, surely. But deep down I think he’s a decent guy who genuinely cares about people.

  28. 28
    gwangung says:

    @Paul L.: Oh, look, the Bigot is back.

  29. 29
    Brachiator says:

    @Mudge:

    Unless you are old. The old have earned it (or feel they have). By having Medicare there as a carrot all those years, instead of saving for retirement health costs, they bought that second home and invested in mortgage securities.

    Do you work? Do you look at a Form W-2? There are deductions for Social Security and for Medicare Taxes. You can certainly make a case that seniors who oppose health care reform are being inconsistent. But you cannot claim that the majority of them did not pay into the system.

    Paul L. — Which is why progressives support confiscatory death taxes.

    Since there is an unlimited marital deduction, a spouse who married well is not penalized by estate taxes.

    (With loopholes for the Kerrys/Kennedys and other elites of their enlightened ilk.)

    Which loopholes are those, exactly?

    So how much of Ted Kennedy’s fortune is going to the US government?

    I did a quick and dirty google search. First hit: Back in 1974, when there was the beginning of a clamor for financial disclosure, Kennedy released his federal tax return. On a total income of $461,444, the Senator paid almost half—$217,844—in federal taxes.

    More details here:

    http://www.time.com/time/magaz.....22,00.html

  30. 30

    I think you may forget that Dick Armey is suing for the right to reject Medicare. I wish some Conservative/Libertarian judge would let him.

    Armey of Dick needs a punch in the cock. No one has to accept Medicare. You become eligible for Medicare benefits when you hit 65.

  31. 31
    Leelee for Obama says:

    @kommrade reproductive vigor: Upthread there’s a post with links-seems you can decline Medicare, but then you lose your Social Security?

  32. 32
    pablo says:

    A Geriatric call to arms. Fight Socialism with your SSI dollars!

    Simply Irresistible

  33. 33
    gwangung says:

    Which loopholes are those, exactly?

    The Bigot doesn’t know. And also doesn’t know which of us around here know something about estate planning and how much can be passed on and how much can’t.

  34. 34
    r€nato says:

    My guess is none.

    So why the fuck isn’t anybody in the administration selling it as “Medicare for all” or some other such similar formulation???

    It just seems so obvious.

  35. 35
    srv says:

    I tried to find the form online for doing this, so I could send it to stopmedicare.org.

    Alas, you have to go into a SS or HHS office to do this, and the references I found do not even talk about a form.

  36. 36
    oh really says:

    How many elderly right-wingers have canceled their medicare [sic], since they can not, in good conscience, accept socialized medicine or a government hand-out.

    It’s a lot easier just to privatize it mentally.

  37. 37
    bloomingpol says:

    I wonder how many of these older people who don’t want anyone else to have healthcare have children and grandchildren who either aren’t insured or are in danger of losing their insurance?

    I feel like such an idiot sometimes because I really care if others get healthcare, what in hell is wrong with me? Why do I feel I have a responsibility to my fellow humans? Why can’t I just have those nice selfish, cruel, sadistic feelings about others?

    But seriously, do any of these people look like they have ever been happy? Maybe they are just misery looking for company?

  38. 38
    Brachiator says:

    @gwangung:

    The Bigot doesn’t know. And also doesn’t know which of us around here know something about estate planning and how much can be passed on and how much can’t.

    Hah! Very true. I have seen recently that Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest of the hard right crew have increased the number of outright lies they tell about healthcare, the tax system and other areas.

    The sad thing is that people like Paul L believe these lies as the gospel truth, reinforce themselves in the echo chamber of the wingnut blogosphere, and are shocked to find that they are easily shot down with simple facts when they venture outside Wingnuttistan.

    bloomingpol — I wonder how many of these older people who don’t want anyone else to have healthcare have children and grandchildren who either aren’t insured or are in danger of losing their insurance?

    Do you understand that there are many seniors who now have to support their own children and grandchildren who have lost jobs or otherwise fallen on hard times? And some seniors who are still working add their grandchildren to their own health insurance at additional cost. This kind of thing, by the way, should help the Democrats sell health care.

    But the larger point is that you are mistaken if you think you have a monopoly on compassion or care for your fellow man.

  39. 39
    Paul L. says:

    @Brachiator:

    Back in 1974, … Kennedy released his federal tax return. On a total income of $461,444, the Senator paid almost half—$217,844—in federal taxes.

    No wonder he fought to prevent the release.
    He was not paying his fair share.
    Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981

    The Act also reduced marginal income tax rates in the United States by 25% over three years (the top rate falling from 70% to 50%

    Which loopholes are those, exactly?

    Loopholes such Trusts, Foundations and Endowments.
    And gwangung Race baiters like you started calling me a bigot when I started to believing the Duke Lacrosse player’s story when the DNA tests came back negative.

  40. 40
    lightning says:

    “I have legitimate deductions. You have loopholes. He is a tax cheat.”

    And seriously, anybody who’s worried about estate taxes needs to talk to a lawyer, ASAP.

  41. 41
    Brian J says:

    I think you may forget that Dick Armey is suing for the right to reject Medicare. I wish some Conservative/Libertarian judge would let him. Then we could see how long it would take a 69 yo man with some weight issues ( to say nothing of brain damage ) to get health insurance privately at a rate anyone could afford besides him!

    What a great reality show for mid-season.

    I don’t get it. What’s to prevent him from simply writing a check to the doctor each time he needs something done? Is someone forcing him to pay through Medicare? There must be something to the story that isn’t obvious from what you’ve said.

    Anyway, I’d watch that show.

  42. 42
    Brachiator says:

    @Paul L.:

    Are you back again?

    No wonder he fought to prevent the release. He was not paying his fair share.

    Why would you cite the 1981 Tax Act to make a point about Kennedy’s 1974 tax return? Oh yes, because you are hopelessly out of your depth.

    And you sound like a moron when you talk about “fair share” as though anyone, you included, should not take deductions that you are entitled to. Pull up some Republican tax returns from the same period and let’s compare. But even with deductions, Kennedy ended up paying a larger share of his income in taxes than returns with similar AGIs for the same period.

    Loopholes such Trusts, Foundations and Endowments.

    Trusts have actually been around since the Crusades, the answer to the specific problem of allowing for the protection of assets when the owner was away for years and might end up dead. The last time I read the appropriate sections of the tax code, I couldn’t find any reference to Democrats only or Republicans only sections.

    Of course, the recent reductions in the estate tax rate was pushed by Republicans, who also spread the big lie about family farms being lost to estate taxes.

    And which kind of trusts do you mean when you speak of loopholes? Simple trusts, complex trusts, charitable remainder unitrusts? And which are the loophole components?

    And I note that you still show no understanding of the marital deduction.

    Unless you are a trust fund baby, the Republicans have generally pushed tax proposals that not only skew toward the wealthy, put establish barriers that make it harder for moderate income people rise. In return, the wealthy was supposed to create jobs and grow the economy. Instead, they have kept wages low, outsourced jobs and rigged financial markets so that almost everyone ended up taking a bath.

    I understand the simple appeal of people like Rush when they claim that bad old gummit wants to take away free market rewards for risk. But when the tax system is distorted so that a person can make a bigger profit from selling a business than in running it, you’ve got problems bigger than Limbaugh’s mouth.

  43. 43
    Paul L. says:

    @Brachiator:

    Why would you cite the 1981 Tax Act to make a point about Kennedy’s 1974 tax return?

    If shows that the Tax Rate was 70% . Kennedy paid 47.2%.

    And you sound like a moron when you talk about “fair share”

    I am using the rhetoric used by progressives about taxes.
    Progressive tax system (Higher incomes/Winners in life’s lottery pay a higher percent) and Economic Justice.

  44. 44
    Steeplejack says:

    @Paul L.:

    It shows that the tax rate was 70% . Kennedy paid 47.2%.

    Do you understand the difference between “tax rate” and “marginal tax rate”?

    The 70% was levied on that part of your income above a certain level (“margin”), not on all your income. So no one–including Kennedy–paid 70% of income in tax.

  45. 45
    Brachiator says:

    @Paul L.:

    RE: Why would you cite the 1981 Tax Act to make a point about Kennedy’s 1974 tax return?

    If shows that the Tax Rate was 70% . Kennedy paid 47.2%.

    Well, no. There was major tax reform in 1969. The top marginal rate for unearned income was 70% in 1974. the top marginal rate for earned income was 50%.

    Steeplejack is on point in noting that no one would pay 50% or 70% of their income in tax.

    I am using the rhetoric used by progressives about taxes.

    This is the great thing about the InterTubes. I know a great deal about the income tax system (it’s my job). You, on the other hand, know nothing. And so you are reduced to making irrelevant rhetorical points as you are shown to be wrong about every factual issue you attempt to raise.

    And even when you try to do a little Wiki research to support a factual point (about tax rates) your fundamental ignorance about taxes still leads you into huge blunders.

    So again, for the sake of others who may read this thread, I ask what is it that you think that Rush or Hannity or whatever conservative source you rely on is doing for you? You are obviously not a trust fund baby or a high income individual (either that or you rely on incompetent tax advice). But you have been worked into some frenzy about the tax system, even though you are clearly wrong about every particular.

    If you understood the system at all, you would see how the deck is often stacked against you by corporate interests who have an unnecessary amount of influence on tax policy, no matter who is president. And I will even give Reagan some credit here. He was less of a total lackey to special interests than Dubya, for example.

    So in the end, you get worked up and consistently defend people who think you are a dope, and who will screw you over in a heartbeat.

  46. 46
    Tom Herman says:

    Since Social Security is administered at a cost of about 1% and Medicare at a cost of about 3 % and the private health care and insurance industry at a cost of 30 %, I think a public option for health care is a no brainer. Then the folks who keep fighting against it really can’t do the math so it is a matter of no brains for them.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] I’m Wondering 30 Aug Keep your hands off my welfare state […]

Comments are closed.