On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:32:03 -0700, Lawyerkill wrote:

> On Sep 15, 3:04�pm, Michael Coburn > wrote:
>
>
>> I meant "D" obviously. �Pretty hard to confuse the proposition even
>> with the typo. �But you _WILL_ run with this nit as much as you can.
>>
>> <<<<<<<<< pig prancing nit picking deleted >>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
> No, you blame everything on the Republicans and Bush and the article was
> clearly talking about Medicare HI and you either confused Medicare HI
> with part 'B' and 'D' or you did it just to try and confuse the issue.

Let me address each part of your charge he

1. I have a deep seated hatred for latter day Republicans. But that does
not CREATE their constant failed policies and initiatives. They do.

2. The part of the article to which I responded was not "clearly" talking
about Medicare "A" because it simply used the unadorned word "Medicare"
an added Social Security to it. The clarification (Which may or may not
have been a clarification) came in the paragraph that followed and which
was not in the post to which I responded). If Republican apologists want
to talk specifically about Medicare HI then they can damned well make it
clear and not mix it with Social Security. And then you and they can use
the word "clearly".

>> > PS I was againt the bill for 'D'. �Oh and the Democratic plan for
>> > part D was unfunded also.
>>
>> A tacit admission that you _KNEW_ it was a typo and could not resist
>> the posturing opportunity.
>
>
> No, I just waned to clear up your confusion in trying to lump everything
> together.

Twas not I who lumped. The article "clearly" lumps Medicare and Social
Security.

"That the programs will ultimately go bankrupt is clear from the
trustees' reports. On pages 201 and 202 of the Medicare report, you will
find the conclusive arithmetic: over the next 75 years, Social Security
and Medicare will cost an estimated $103.2 trillion, while dedicated
taxes and premiums will total only $57.4 trillion. The gap is $45.8
trillion. (All figures are expressed in "present value," a fancy term for
"today's dollars.")


>> > Again, regardless, the article was about Medicare HI going belly up,
>> > it was going belly up with the help of part 'D'.
>>
>> The Article said _MEDICARE_ and Social Security and gave no link to the
>> "supposed" Reports that on page ^$%^ said the Martians are coming to
>> eat the kids.
>
>
>
> I guess you are talking about the first article, it clearly says
> Medicare HI.
>
>
> "The Medicare actuaries then dryly note what would happen once the trust
> funds for Social Security and Medicare's hospital insurance program are
> depleted: "

And even here (after the verbiage to which I responded), the article is
combining both Medicare and Social Security.

> "Medicare's hospital insurance program"
>
>
> You claimed it was because of part B and D and tried to blame the
> problem on Bush and the Republicans. Clearly part 'B' and 'D' are
> another problem.

Yes.

>>
>> HOWEVER!
>>
>> If there is an _HONEST_ desire to address Medicare "A" (called HI) the
>> cure is simple:
>>
>> Whereas the benefits inure equally to all regardless of the AMOUNT of
>> paid in taxes, regardless of income, and regardless of assets, then the
>> Medicare tax should be assessed on _ALL_ income and not just wage
>> income. At the current 2.9% rate that will probably put the "A" fund in
>> a position of large excess in that 75 year time frame. �And the funds
>> should be OFF BUDGET.
>>
>> PS. We would probably need a REDUCTION in the tax rate if we were
>> fixated on Medicare "A" applying the tax in a JUST manner.
>
>
> And how much do we have to increase taxes?

Looks like to me that taxing aggregate AGI as opposed to taxing wages
would result in a 40% increase in Medicare receipts while giving the
lower income people a small tax break. That should keep the Medicare HI
program solvent for a while without a rate increase, i.e. The rate of
2.9% is applied to AGI instead of to wages.

And the actual fear mongering concerning medicare seems to be based on
demographics. The demographics part may require an increase in the tax
rate. So be it. Taking the system OUT of government will not solve any
of the problems. And it will make the control of costs all the more
difficult. It will make matters worse.

> We have too many things off budget already, putting something, "OFF
> BUDGET" doesn't pay for it.

The purpose of "Off Budget" for social insurance systems is to "clearly"
delineate these programs as to source of revenue and actual outlays. It
keeps people from claiming that social insurance programs have ANYTHING
to do with the regular government budget or with INCOME taxes _UNLESS_
those claims are actually true (as Medicare "B" and "D"). The FICA tax
is actually a whole life insurance premium more than it is a tax. All
the pig manure about government growth while pointing to "entitlements"
is dishonest. Claims about "entitlements" being a HUGE part of the
federal budget and in the same breath yakking about taxes is misleading.
It is misleading because the word "taxes" is assumed to be INCOME taxes
by all that use the term at the Federal level. Tax cuts and tax
increases are assumed to be INCOME tax cuts and increases. Too many
people talk about the "unified" budget and such talk is too imprecise.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson