0
6

[–] setitimer 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Well, if you want to phase it out, then letting the elderly keep their benefits is the only fair way to do it. Like Social Security, they already paid into the system through their payroll taxes, and taking that away would basically be theft. Also note that the title is silly editorializing, because nowhere does Bush mention race or political affiliation.

3
1

[–] Lootaluck [S] 3 points 1 points (+4|-3) ago 

But it is the reality of who is going to be affected by this policy, Jeb makes it clear as do republicans that the elderly are entitled to protections, while those who don't vote for the GOP the young will bare the brunt of any sacrafice.

What of people like me, who have paid into these programs for 20 years, but are no where near the age when I'll need to utilize them?

1
5

[–] setitimer 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

A clickbait article like you posted isn't going to answer that question. You need to look at a more in-depth analysis of what Bush wants to do.

It is 100% clear that Medicare cannot continue on its current path; it spends more than it takes in, and that is only going to get worse.

0
6

[–] Grand_Panjandrum 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It makes sense to me not to pull the rug out from under the elderly, who don't have the flexibility to switch to a new system. The young(er) have time to adapt to a new system, whatever it may be.

How will Medicare be selectively phased out for young minorities and leftists and no one else?

0
5

[–] Nationalist 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I mean it is politico, not exactly the most unbiased source out there.

0
3

[–] Asinus 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I hate defending this putz, but the title is a little misleading. Jeb Bush did not say or even insinuate anything racist in the remarks. He talked specifically about phasing out Medicare since it was on an unsustainable path. At our current rate, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid will eventually take up 100% of our total budget within 30-40 years if I remember correctly.

4
-1

[–] Lootaluck [S] 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago 

The GOP doesn't need to insinuate anything racist, its called a dog whistle, and given America's changing demographics its obvious who these "reforms" are designed to punish

0
2

[–] TheDoog 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

While I do agree that it does need reform as the way its going it is unsustainable in its current form. I do not want a Bush to get anywhere near the reforms needed to correct the issues for the future nor a Clinton for that matter. I just hope by the time I'm that age there will still be some benefit/assistance available as we can only plan ahead so much for the future with savings, 401k's and IRA's.

1
1

[–] Lootaluck [S] 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Or if you're like my parents, you lose your jobs in your early 60's during a historic market crash, and are unable to find new jobs thanks to age discrimnation.

People presume you'll be able to work until you're 65 and save/invest for your retirement...its just too bad if you time the market incorrectly, or if you happen to be over 50 and basically unemployable should you lose your job.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/02/26/news/economy/over-50-unemployables/

[–] [deleted] 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] JoshuaZ 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I generally agree with most your assessment, but it is generally not a good idea to accuse people of being traitors. Disagreeing with people even disagreeing strongly does not make them traitors. Wanting policies that one disagrees with is not treasonous.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

2
1

[–] secretsquirrel2 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago 

Don't let his comments fool you. He's a Bush, lying is second nature.He will cut back Medicare on everyone.

0
1

[–] Calzone 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Kinda like the Clintons right?

0
1

[–] secretsquirrel2 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Hillary at least.

[–] [deleted] 5 points 0 points (+5|-5) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

5
1

[–] Lootaluck [S] 5 points 1 points (+6|-5) ago  (edited ago)

"Let them die", there's that "compassionate conservatism" of the bush family

but of course, the plan is to take away medicare from those people should they actually make it to being old, while preserving it for old whites that support the GOP today

[–] [deleted] 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

4
-1

[–] brother_tempus 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago 

Why should people be forced to pay into an unconstitutional program that is insolvent

The moral solution would be to sunset the program so that people who have paid into for decades get the benefits promised and individuals who are just starting out in the workforce GET TO KEEP THEIR MONEY and pursue the services that work for them

3
3

[–] Lootaluck [S] 3 points 3 points (+6|-3) ago 

Well both of those are lies, the program is neither insolvent nor unconstitutional

and when we go back to 50% of americans dieing in poverty without medical care, you're fine with that, because these programs have been wildly successful and remain very popular

3
0

[–] brother_tempus 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

Well both of those are lies, the program is neither insolvent nor unconstitutional

Source?

and when we go back to 50% of americans dieing in poverty

Source?

the poverty rate now is the same as it was before the unconstitutional "War on Poverty" was enacted ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/11/poverty-in-the-50-years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts/