General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHelp Me Debunk This Argument : Medicare Is Not An Earned Entitlement, It Is Welfare Program
My friend and i just had an argument about medicare. Please help me understand his argument and reply him :
Medicare is welfare scheme as medicare taxes increases for people earning more (overall rich people paying more tax in numbers) but benefits remain the same. So he says that as rich people paid more medicare tax in their lifetime, they should get a higher health benefits. (Just like social security). He also says that rich people has to pay more monthly premium for Part B medicare even though they paid more in the system during their lifetime.
So what is your take on this?
DontTreadOnMe
(2,442 posts)If you pay more in taxes, do you get a front row seat? All others get back to the end of the line...
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)do you and your friend as part of your FICA deduction. Part B and D are deducted from my social security payment every month. Also there is a 20% copayment out of pocket or you can get private insurance for it. It's not free and it's not welfare. Tell your friend to stop drinking the Kool Aid that says otherwise. He can also go to the Medicare website which explains a the facts about how it works and how it's paid for. I hope he's just misinformed and not a Tea Party asshole who won't listen anyway.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)how much you won in the sperm lotto. Born rich? Great health care. Born poor? Fuck you.
Your friend and all those like him will never see the truth. And that truth is that a healthy populace is an investment in the future As are all other government aid programs.
And like any investment, you will make money on some and lose money on others.
Carl Reiner was on Bill Mahr last week. He mentioned that he was able to have a career in acting/directing/comedy because of government handouts. The government helped him go to acting school. I'd say they got a major return on their investment. And not just in him personally, but all the techs, crews, writers, and others who helped make his dreams come true.
IllinoisBirdWatcher
(2,315 posts)Every paycheck.
Same for Social Security.
Same for most private pensions.
They are all something every wage earner has paid and continues to pay for.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You see the part noted as FICA? You are paying for your future benefits. The fact that some people pay more than others is known as a "progressive tax system". Everyone (well almost everyone) pays into medicare, as they do for SS, and because you pay in during your working life, you are ENTITLED to benefits when you qualify. The fact that benefits are the same does not mean it is not an entitlement.
Igel
(35,359 posts)They collect the tax as income tax. That's their authority.
You pay what the law says. For years nobody paid "ahead." It was still an entitlement--both for those that paid in nearly nothing and those that have paid for 40 years and retired yesterday.
You get what the law says. They halve benefits next week, that's what you're entitled to because that's what the "title"--the law--says. It's a political, not a legal or moral decision, to have future benefits tied to current and on-going earnings. That it's confused so many and led them to think it's somehow an earned, irrevocable right is testament to the political decision. That politicians have confused so many of their own constituents is an embarrassment.
Medicare and Medicaid are also entitlements. The SpEd program at the local elementary school is an entitlement--even for the kid whose parents are in the country illegally and just arrived last July. SNAP is an entitlement. In all cases, if the law says you're entitled to it, you're entitled to it. What you're entitled to is, by definition, it's an entitlement.
People want to avoid being "on welfare" and "receiving a handout" so they have all kinds of extra-legal arguments rooted in their own private moralities and ideologies to show that they aren't like the low-lifes collecting welfare. "Why, the nerve of people--thinking I need handout!" ("Not that there's anything wrong with collecting public assistance--that's a good thing!" they may say. But they're just trying to dispel the impression of disdain and contempt they already have expressed for their lessers, whatever their voting habits. They consider themselves to have earned something so (a) it's something they earned and (b) not "charity" or a "handout". It's still an entitlement.)
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)If they aren't happy with the way things are we can just negate the entire contract. We will not allow them to earn more and then they can just shut the heck up.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)seattle15
(45 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)seattle15
(45 posts)I don't understand why so many people are against it.
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)Please, tell us why you see Medicare as bad.
gopiscrap
(23,765 posts)TygrBright
(20,767 posts)Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)Everything in life should be according to your ability to pay.
So if you have to pay more for Medicare Part B, you should be more benefits.
They don't ever step back and ask themselves
(a) Are they getting adequate coverage under Medicare? Most people think so
(b) If so then why shouldn't those that earn more pay a little more for the same, satisfactory coverage
I suspect your friend claims to be a good Christian and I would challenge him or her on that point.
Bobcat
(246 posts)What is being discussed in the original post is actually the benefits received principle. The benefits received principle states that the benefits one receives from government should be based on how much people pay in taxes. Those who pay more in taxes should get more in benefits from the government. Those who pay less to the government should get less back in benefits. The problem lies with the fact that it is impossible to measure the value of a government benefit. Who benefits more from the highway nearby - me or you? It is impossible to accurately measure the benefit each receives and thus levy the tax accordingly. That's why we administer the income tax according to the ability to pay principle. Income lends itself quite readily to accurate measurement. The more income one earns the higher tax bracket one finds oneself in. This is the essence of progressive taxation.
Actually the FICA tax is a proportional (flat) tax. We all pay the same rates - 6.2% for social security - up to the first $113,700 earned annually and 1.45% for Medicare with no annual income limit. The effective SS tax rate for high income earners is actually lower than for low and middle income earners since every dollar earned above the annual limit of $113,700 is not taxed (for SS). So an earner making $227,400 annually is taxed (for SS) at a rate of 3.1% - half the rate of low and middle income earners. The tax system that funds Social Security is a regressive one. The one thing the "cat food commission" will not discuss is eliminating the cap on income applicable to the SS tax. Any reasonable person knows the system is inequitable. If average income earners can afford to pay the full 6.2% SS tax on every dollar they earn so can high income earners.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)it.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Higher wage earners pay more during their working years, although there is a maximum beyond which you don't pay more. Really wealthy people do not pay more, and the amount they pay as a percent of income actually goes down.
Higher wage earners don't get more benefits when they go on Medicare. The amount you pay for Medicare Part B depends on your income in retirement years, not on your income during working years.
So Medicare is a combination of something that you deserve because you have contributed to it, but it also transfers wealth from the middle class to the lower class. The wealthy get a free ride as usual (well actually they can make philanthropic contributions to build a wing of a hospital and are well taken care of).
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)Tell your friend he simply does not know how money works.
Squinch
(51,014 posts)Kingofalldems
(38,485 posts)Squinch
(51,014 posts)You know, I don't think they do!
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)"Medicare is our countrys health insurance program for people age 65 or older"
It is an "earned entitlement" exactly the same way the benefit of your life insurance is an earned entitlement. You are entitled to it if you experience the loss for which you are indemnified.
The fact that not everyone pays the same total of premiums (unequal inputs) is immaterial as is the fact that not everyone gets the same total of benefits (unequal outputs); it's still insurance.
In fact unequal inputs and unequal outputs are intrinsically what insurance is about. You don't know how much benefit you'll need. If you did, there would be no need for insurance.
pnwmom
(108,995 posts)That is why the Rethugs want to change Medicare and Social Security into programs that ARE means tested -- to turn them into welfare programs so they will have less public support.
Turbineguy
(37,369 posts)Just like Social Security. And what's more, the country gets more for it's medical dollar than any other healthcare program.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)"Medicare"- health care for the aged; a federally administered system of health insurance available to persons aged 65 and over.
Definition of 'Medicare'
A U.S. federal health program that subsidizes people who meet one of the following criteria:
1. An individual over the age of 65 who has been a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident for five years.
2. An individual who is disabled and has collected Social Security for a minimum of two years.
3. An individual who is undergoing dialysis for kidney failure or who is in need of a kidney transplant.
4. An individual who has Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (Lou Gehrig's disease).
Medicare helps out people at a time in their lives when they may have serious health problems but lack the funding for treatment.
Investopedia explains 'Medicare'
Medicare is divided into two parts. The first part of the coverage encompasses in-patient hospital, skilled nursing facility, home health and hospice care. The second part of coverage encompasses almost all the necessary medical services (doctors' services, laboratory and x-ray services, wheelchairs, etc).
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)Lets say someone (Person A) earns $10,000 a year and pays 10% in Taxes. Now lets say someone (Person B) earns $1,000,000,000 a year and pays 90% in taxes.
That 10% leaves person A with only $9000 to live on for the whole year. His taxes are no big burden on him at all right? He still can have an enjoyable lifestyle right having steak and cavier every night right?
But poor poor person B will only have $100,000,000 to live on for the whole year? HOW EVER SHALL HE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO EAT? His taxes are such a HUGE BURDEN ON HIM!!!
The burden on person B is practically non existent. If anything the poor person A should be getting the better plan as a) Person B can afford his own medical care or to buy even more insurance from third parties and b) the burden caused by taxation is far harsher on person A.
Maybe your friend needs to see something like this to understand:
Recursion
(56,582 posts)An entitlement is a benefit to which you are legally entitled.
A welfare program is one enacted for the general welfare.
Entitlements can be welfare programs, or not, and can be earned, or not. Medicare is all three: a welfare entitlement system that participants have earned.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)bluestate10
(10,942 posts)a taxpayer earns. Your "friend" is wrong and has bought shit without checking for unbiased information.
MiniMe
(21,718 posts)I think the % is about 1.65% for you, and the same for your employer.