Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (240864)	12/31/2013 5:02:43 AM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541624

I understand the point you are trying to make. The only problem with it was your original claim that there is no support for programs in which some pay for others. Clearly an over generalization on your part. I didn't say that---you must have inferred it. I did say some people will choose to opt out of the AFCA requirement to buy insurance and pay the fine instead because their rates and deductibles, due to subsidization requirements, will be too high for them to feel it is worth the price. I also said we have never put to the test how broad the support is for the Medicare/Medicaid programs by giving people the choice to opt out of them via cancelling their withholding. As for the second portion, what can be agreed on in 2014 and the reference to Bowles, I would prefer the Dems work from Elizabeth Warren's position that we need to strengthen SS payments for the obvious reasons, not weaken SS support. And move to increase the SS cap, even eliminate it. As for Medicare, I think we need to wait and see just what affect the ACA has no health care costs before we cut benefits. Thus, given the intransigency of the Reps on raising taxes, I see no hope of a reasonable agreement in 2014. Moreover, the deficit is declining which lessens the need for these measures. Moreover, the Bowles' type solutions slow down economic recovery. Well, it is an answer and an honest one, but it doesn't give me much hope that we as a nation will find a way forward to our entitlement problem. As Bowles makes clear in the cited interview we're doomed because of demographics unless we adopt some measures to hold down spending on entitlements. The economic rate of growth won't offset the current spending trend on the elderly and poor. Of course maybe his math or methodology is wrong and his case is not the actual fact, but he, or the Simpson/Bowles commission, is/are looked at as the expert(s) on this.