I had an epiphany about Social Security

[moose65]

I'm always trying to figure out the Republicans' angle on things, and it usually can be traced back to one thing: they want to make rich people richer. In the case of Medicare, they'd love for senior citizens to have to pony up huge premium payments that would flow to the insurance companies. In the case of Social Security, I always assumed the same: they'd love for us all to have to invest our retirement money into hedge funds or something like that. The other day, though, I was reading an article and it hit me like a ton of bricks: employers have to contribute to Social Security as well, and that's what they REALLY hate! They want us all to be completely responsible for every bit of our retirement savings, just like with the "health savings accounts." This is one of the messages that Democrats need to always hammer home: the only thing Republicans care about is making rich people richer.

Now, what is their angle on Medicaid? I still can't figure that one out. Is it just general hatred for government programs and poor people? Or is it also related to making the wealthy even wealthier? I can't figure that one out. If we completely eliminated Medicaid, how would that benefit rich people?

[underpants]

1. Socialism- they want to act like we aren't a mixed economy.

Pres. Eisenhower's letter to his brother Ed Nov. 8th 1954


Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this–in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything–even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon “moderation” in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.4 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-edgar-newton-eisenhower/

[bigbrother05]

2. W/o Medicaid paying to heal the takers, the makers would pay lower taxes

That would lead to fewer takers and the ones left would be at the mercy of voluntary charity activities, just like their Bible tells them so.

[Phoenix61]

3. I'm not an accountant but...

when hospitals treat indigent care patients they write off that care. How do they determine how much it is worth? Is it what is on the EOB forms you get from your insurance company that shows what the hospital would have charged you if you hadn't had insurance. That amount is always greater than the negotiated rate. If so, it would mean huge write offs for hospitals as people are forced to use the ER for all medical care.

[moose65]

11. True, but

isn't that uncompensated care paid for by the federal government? It's called Disproportionate Share, I think. If they cut Medicaid and also cut the reimbursement rate for uncompensated care, then many hospitals (especially rural ones) would not be able to survive. I keep trying to convince myself that they really don't want people to die, but I'm starting to think that's one of their goals too. They don't care about the great unwashed masses. On the other hand, who would they get to mow their lawns and clean their toilets??

[Afromania]

4. I'm no economic pro

but my gut feeling is that the ultimate end game is a permanent and desperate underclass in this country. One that is so despondent and brainwashed they'll willingly become virtual slaves for whatever job they can get, at whatever pay their perspective employer is willing to provide; if any. It's their whole narrative to their voters about work. That any job is fine regardless of how terrible the conditions are, how abusive the workplace may be or how meager, and unfair, the compensation is. The way they've demonized Unions and backed the "right to work" crusade is a heavy handed nod to what I feel is their true intentions of creating an atmosphere of job/economic insecurity and fear.

[winetourdriver01]

8. Goals

I have come to the same conclusion Afromania- we will cycle back to the old days of aristocracy and serfdom. It's inevitable now.

[smirkymonkey]

10. +1000

This!

[independentpiney]

5. They want to eliminate medicaid because it interferes with their idea of the natural order

in which the poor and sick, who can't contribute to society as labor are meant to die off. Health care allows these social undesirables to live and procreate, passing their bad genes on until weaklings , and the mentally and morally unfit, along with non-european immigrants outnumber the good hardworking citizens, and civilization collapses.

[Nictuku]

6. This one is easy

They are going to cut 1 Trillion from Medicaid, which goes back to the Treasury, then they are going to give 800 Billion in Tax Cuts (most of it going to those who make 250 K +)

Why only 800 Billion? So they can say it 'saves' the deficit by 200 B, while still giving money that should help the poor to the rich.

This isn't a replacement for the ACA, it is a Tax Cut for the rich.

[sarcasmo]

7. Stealing from Medicaid to pay for the wall.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

9. Most every puke move leads back to tax cuts for the rich, book it!