• Tyler Durdan

    Talkin politics is like beating a dead horse and the only real joy I get out of it is the thought that your spawn will have to suffer the consequences of your ignorance. I wish there really was an afterlife so you could have a front row seat. Too bad..

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      I’m just inspired by your cheerful outlook on life. Thanks for sharing.

  • Tyler Durdan

    I know you will never change your mind but maybe just a hint of reality might sink in. I know you think your shit doesnt stink but you are not wealthy and you are not a republican,,you are a fool. Last analogy: You rent an apartment with friends and you make the most money out of the group. One friend pays X the other pays Y you pay the majority of the bills. You think its not fair that the others pay so much less and you start to pay less. Your friends simply don’t earn enough to make up the difference. Although you can pay more you choose not to do so. You and your friends get evicted. You expect the 99% in this country to pay the bills with money they don’t have. The 1% have enough to pay the bills and still be super wealthy and choose not to do so. Guess what,,an eviction notice is eminent and the landlord is China. In recent history the world leader in steel production held the throne as the super power..Who is it today? You guessed it,,CHINA. Not only are they the worlds #1 producer but ships leave our ports daily headed to China filled with all of our scrap steel. You think all that steel is for bulidings, roads, bridges ect.? You bet your sweet ass a bunch is destined to be used for military armor . Better brush up on your Chinese JS. The Gov you love has not lasted the test of time (by comparison) and better change or crusty old guys like you that think they are republican are going to hear a big flush that used to be our great country just before they take that long dirt nap.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      My roommates should have moved.

  • Tyler Durdan

    What you refuse to aknowledge is the top 1% are drawing the invisable line and we all have to live with it. The Gov you think you love doesnt really exist. The richest 1% pull the strings while you hold a lantern on their lawn and don’t even realize it. WAKE UP…

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      OK. Thanks.

  • Tyler Durdan

    By the way JS you asked me where I draw the line and who decides how much is enough. Let me ask you… Its 80% now what if it gets to 99%? When and where will you draw the line?

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      The difference between you and me is that I don’t think I or anybody else has the right to draw a line.

  • Tyler Durdan

    That is a cute email and a nice joke for your dinner guests Mason,,I respectfully disagree. Where are the super rich going to go? They will not show up for dinner? BS? You people who THINK you are republicans should realize you could not be further removed from the elite 1%. You are much closer to the homeless man in the street eating garbage. A depression hits and you will starve and die. The 1% lifsyle will not change, history tells us so. There are always a parachute for the 1%. Unless civalization breaks down, then the prisons will spill out and men who commit violence with their hands will take over and the men who commit violence with pen and paper will be,,lets say gone. As much as you wish you were Bill Gates,,you are not. Why do you care if the elite 1% hold all the wealth or the Gov takes a % to steal and gives the rest to the poor? Either way you don’t see a dime or lose a dime. You can see the differance between a Gov that allows 1% to hold 80% of the wealth and a communist country where the gov holds 80% of the wealth,,its just semantics. HMMM maybe socailism isnt so bad after all.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      Have you thought about Venezuela or Cuba?

  • Tyler Durdan

    Sorry for the typo’s above but the moral of the story is nobody wants your slice of pizza they want a slice from 80% guy. He doesn’t care about you why do you fight for his right to be super wealthy? At the very least 80% guy should pay HIGHER taxes simply for owning most of the assests and interests. Do you really think there will ever be a fair election as long as 80% guy can lobby for his interests? If you believe that your blind stupid or both.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      Check with somebody in Greece about what happens when you run out of 80% guys to steal from.

    • Mason

      Tyler, this is one of my favorite emails that runs the internet. I think you could learn a lesson or two from it.

      This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on — it does make you think!!

      Let’s put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

      The first four men — the poorest — would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — would pay $59.

      That’s what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

      “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20.” So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

      The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”

      The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

      And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

      But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. “But he got $7!”

      “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar, too . . . It’s unfair that he got seven times more than me!”.

      “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, “why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

      “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

      The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn’t show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

      And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

      Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

      • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

        It’s amazing that it takes that long to explain something so simple.

        • Mason

          That was really long. It’s funny that the people that accuse us of being too stupid to figure things out on our own, can’t figure out such a simple concept.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            How about the concept of simply not thinking it’s a good idea to turn your ability to see a doctor over to the government?

          • Mason

            Envy and jealousy are two very destructive forces – I find that many democrat voters have a high degree of both.

  • Tyler Durdan

    No matter how the wealth is “earned” (its hard not to laugh) why do you care about the guy with 80 slices of pie? Nobody wants to take anything from you and give it to anyone so why fight for 80% guy to keep all the wealth? The top 1% own 80% of the wealth you think thats what the forfathers had in mind? You let your mind get poisoned by conservative hooks like Gun control, abortion, Religious Right BS, the tough on crime and war on drugs hype. Don’t be fooled by the hate speach and fear of communism and socialism. They will do anything to keep move’n the shells so you don’t remember that they have 80% of the wealth and they need your vote to keep it. You people are sheep plain and simple.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      The fact that you think it’s laughable that the wealthy “earned” their money means you have NO credibility on the subject. What gives you th right to expect someone to take something from someone else and give it to you. The amount or the percentage doesn’t matter. It’s the concept of a bureaucrat deciding how much is “enough.”

  • Tyler Durdan

    If I am the guy with 80 slices of pizza,,I agree with you. Guess what, you are not the guy with 80 slices.. You are one of the poor smucks fighting for the crumbs. Why does it bother you more that the gov take money from the 80 slice guy and give it to the dredges of society? I would think it should piss you off more that one guy has 80 slices. Again NEWSFLASH: The american dream that you can be the guy with 80 slices doesen’t exist. Those pieces of shit are born into that wealth.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      A microscopic minority of “rich” people are born into wealth. You should look into therapy to deal with your class envy. I’m willing to fight for the crumbs. I don’t need a nanny state govt. to steal money from someone else –no matter how they got it –and give it to me. You still haven’t told me how many slices would be OK or if all 100 people would get a slice whether they earned it or not. Who gets to decide what’as “fair.” Karl Marx?

  • Tyler Durdan

    So called conservative Republicans and LIB DEM’s fighting over issues that will never go away makes me laugh. You people will root for the country to fail if your team is not represented in the Whitehouse. NEWSFLASH if you don’t make 250k a year min and you vote Republican you are an idiot. There are not enough wealthy people to carry the party so the use hot button topics like abortion, gun control and back room racism to gain the redneck vote. The shell game term conservative not republican also fools them every time. Flipside,,idiot actors and atheletes that vote DEM are also fools. Once again swayed by a play on words. If I made 20mil a film you bet your sweet ass Id vote Republican. You say top 10% pay 80% of the taxes JS. Well if that is true they are getting a hellava a deal. The top 1% own 80% of our countrys wealth. So,, if the top 10% pay 80% of the taxes its quite a deal since they hold all of the wealth.Consider: If a fella shows up to a pizza party where each person gets 1 slice and 100 people are attending and the greedy bastard takes 80 slices of pizza you see nothing wrong? And if anyone dare say Hey asshole how bout only taking 79 slices you idiots cry SOCIALISM!!! What a joke.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      I think the guy should have the FREEDOM to be greedy and the government has no business being at the pizza party. You know what it is when the govt. shows up at the party and takes pizza from me and gives it to you? Socialism.

  • Ochotexto

    Point well taken DDirtbag but I just think that particular industry is slimier than others. They won’t authorize my MRI till I take another f’n Xray., 2 of. Which have already proved negative. Ive been paying their premiums on time for 35 yrs. All the while they’re CEOs make exorbitant salaries. People should be attacking their buildings with torches and pitchforks.

  • Donald

    Insurance companies are “all about money” is a bad thing? They ARE a business.

    That business model does not mean evil will abound.

    I mean, insurance companies insure autos, homes, and all sorts of other things. Why don’t those insurance companies loot, steal, and plunder their customers as S.O.P?

    Those insurance companies are allowed to sell their product anywhere in the country. As a result, competition is pretty fierce in those industries.

    How long do you think Geico would keep customers if they had S.O.P. of robbing their customers? They wouldn’t since they have to compete with Erie, Allstate, State Farm, and possibly dozens of “local” small guys for YOUR insurance dollar.

    Yes, most insurance companies don’t want to pay out more then they have to. But if they were facing fierce competition from DOZENS of competitors, they would have to curb their “evil business” appetites in order to keep any “customers” on the menu.

    At times, I’m not sure if lefties are plain stupid, or they genuinely fear the idea of liberty and freedom (the free market is the penultimate example of freedom).

    At least in the free market, you can flee bad/evil companies by taking your business elsewhere. It’s why McDonalds doesn’t feel the need to poison customers, since Wendy’s and BK are waiting to serve those customers without poisoning them.

    Meanwhile, when your government is bad/evil, you have NO recourse and NOWHERE to run.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      Yeah, but one size fits all is always so much better. And more fair, of course.

  • Ochotexto

    Big Insurance ., fraud, greed and bailouts. Happened long before Obama hit the scene. Yeah., if they don’t pay you can win in court. Try suing them and their team of attorneys. They are dastardly thieves.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      The government just says, “Sorry. You can’t sue us.”

    • DormontDirtBag

      Ocho,

      I don’t think anyone disputes that dastardly thieves exist in the business world. But you are kidding yourself if you think our government is not also crawling with dastardly thieves — thieves who disguise their greed in the rhetoric of “helping the poor, our senior citizens, and working families.” The only redeeming attribute of private sector thieves is that I don’t have to deal with them once I figure out who they are. Government thieves, on the other hand, are inescapable. Even though I know exactly who they are and what they are about, they essentially put a gun to my head and tell me to hand over my money — and I meekly comply.

  • Mike from Monroeville

    Why don’t we just go back to the Clinton tax rates?

    He left us a surplus.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      Contract with America 1994l. Newt Gingrich, John Kascich

      • Ken

        MIke has that selective “Clinton did it all” amnesia.

        In 1993, Clinton publicly questioned his own relevance after two years in office. His own budget office was projecting massive budget deficits for as long into the future as they project budgets.

        The budget didnt being to balance until after the republicans took over both houses of congress in 1995. Amazing how many democrats like to forget that part of Clinton’s “genius.”

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          I remember the phrase was “Budget deficits for as far as they eye can see.” John Kasich was the head of the budget committee. He balanced the budget. Kasich is from Mckees Rocks and is now trying to fix Ohio’s problems. He will run for president some day.

        • Mike from Monroeville

          Except that the Clinton budget got approved in 1995 because he stood up to Gingrich so it was Clinton policy that caused the surplus. Any cuts that happened were minor. It was the tax rates that brought in the revenue and the Clinton Boom.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            It was the internet boom that caused the Clinton boom and the internet bubble bursting that caused the recession inherited by Bush.

          • Mike from Monroeville

            But werent those tax increases going to kill the economy???

            They were all big and bad back then.

          • Mike from Monroeville

            And after 7 years the economy had a small blip in 2000 that lasted two quarters and you call it a recession. We still havent climbed out of the Bush recession.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            A recession is three quarters of negative growth. It began in March 2001, five weeks after Bush took office. After the tax cuts there were 52 consecutive month of growth. The economy went into the toilet when the real estate bubble….caused by the federal govt….burst. The dems took the overthe house in january 2007. How has the economy done since then?

          • Mike from Monroeville

            What economic policy changed in 2007? None. The recession was caused by deregulation of mortgage lending pushed by Bush.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            Bush tried to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and the dems—Toothless Barney Frank—-said everything was fine.

          • Ken

            Because he “stood up” to Gingrich? If he hadn’t stood up to Gingrich, the so-called “Clinton surplus” would have been much, much bigger.

            The democrats controlled both houses of Congress by decent majorities when Clinton took office in 1993 and did so for the next two years. No movement whatsoever was made toward a balanced budget, with record deficits projected by the CBO as well as Clinton’s own budget office (OMB). After 1995, the budget moved towards being balanced. What was the change? (Hint: 1994 elections.)

          • Mike from Monroeville

            Where were the cuts? There were none. Clinton kicked Gingrich’s ass. The tax increases caused the surplus and the great economy that Clinton caused,

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            Clinton apologized for raising taxes. Do you think we’re not taxed enough?

    • RKR

      Sure, if we can also go back to the Clinton SPENDING.

      Tax revenues are not the problem, it’s the spending!

    • Ken

      After Bush’s tax cuts, tax revenue coming into the federal government rose to an all-time record.

      So what was wrong with those tax rates?

      The government has plenty of money. It’s like one of these superstar athletes or entertainers who makes tens of millions of dollars a year and still end up in bankruptcy. It’s called irresponsible behavior.

    • Matt

      1)The Clinton surplus is a myth. It was about including SS revenue and not the LT liabilities. There are several articles from actual economist that you can easily find on it.

      2) It is not about revenue it is about spending! If you taxed everything over $100K at 100% we would still have a deficit. It’s similar to a kid that gets out of college making $40K rents a big apartment, leases a BMW, goes out every night and complains they don’t make enough money to pay their school loans.

      • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

        The top 10% pay 85% of the taxes. What would be more “fair?” 85%? 90%?. Call somebody in Greece and ask them what happens when you run out of “rich” people.

        • Matt

          I honestly believe 50% that pay nothing should be paying some percentage of their income, even if it is only 1% and they should do away with the earned income credit. The problem with the top 1% income wise is that most of them their income is investment income. It has already been earned and taxed.

          There was an AP story last week about the rate going down for the wealthiest American’s, and it just didn’t add up. At the income level they referenced the taxpayer would not get the benefit of any itemized deductions. I think they referenced income as opposed to taxable income in order to distort the facts. If your income is $50K, chances are it is all wages, but you could have an income of well over $100M in dividends and tax free muncipal bond interest and pay very little in taxes, because most of it is tax free and/or taxed at a lower rate. It is similar to when a news story says XYZ corp made a profit of $3B and paid nothing in taxes this year. They don’t tell you that over the last 3 years they have lost $8B.

        • Mike from Monroeville

          Sure, if you dont count Social Security tax, Meicare tax, state tax, sales tax, local tax, gas taxes, and real estate taxes.

          Can you come up with a more misleading argument??

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            Don’t count them for what?

          • Mike from Monroeville

            This 50% pay nothing bullshit you are always peddling. You count the only tax – income tax – that the poor dont pay and you eliminate all the ones they do pay and you get an exaggerated number.

            Why cant you make a statement that isn’t half baked?

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            The top 10% pay 80% of the income tax. The tax debate is about “(income)tax cuts for the wealthy”. Nobody is talking abut cutting social security tax. You need to to do a better job of keeping up.

          • Matt

            Some of the 50% that pays no income tax also gets a refund via the earned income credit which is touted as being a refund of the other taxes such as FICA.

  • Blasto

    “In Ryans vision, competition among insurers will force efficiencies and lower prices”. You lost me right there. Anyone with any experience with health insurers knows that they are the only true death panels. Profit is their only motive, not health.

    • Mason

      It is very difficult for me to fathom someone wanting this much power under the control of government beauracrats.

      This is the type of people that will control government healthcare (I say ‘will’, but we all know it will get overturned by the supreme court) – fools like this guy, that cares more about a tree than jobs.

      http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/16/epa-official-says-jobs-don%E2%80%99t-matter/

      • Blasto

        Mason. To me it’s a choice between government beauracrats and health insurance jackals. Neither is an optimum choice.Talk to someone who has been denied coverage etc…and I think you will find they will choose the beauracrats.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          Spend some time in Canada as I do. It just doesn’t make sense in what is supposed to be a free country, for the citizens to turn that much power over to the govt.

    • Ken

      If there was no regulations preventing you from buying an insurance plan from any insurer in the nation (not just in your own state), you could shop around and find an insurer offering a good plan.

      You don’t think competition would drive customers to the insurers offering the best price/coverage combination? You don’t think that the profit motive would cause some insurers to offer better plans than others?

      Can you name any instance in recorded human history where true and open competition among businesses hasn’t led to greater efficiencies and lower prices?

      • Blasto

        Ken . I agree to a point. However, health insurance companies will always be profit driven. This will always result in the denying of coverage etc. In certain situations…or, for the Palinites out there DEATH PANELS.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          Not allowing the government to have the POWER that goes with controlling my health care is enough reason for me to oppose it. If someone is looking to become a dictator, it would seem to me that providing free health care would be one of the first orders of business. Being in control of all the food would be a good idea, too.

          • Blasto

            Yet you are OK with Insurance jackals having that exact POWER over your HEALTHcare. I wouldn’t consider it “free healthcare”. Health care is something I don’t mind my taxes being spent on. In the end, I will end up saving money if I am spared the insurance jackals….and I don’t have to worry about being denied coverage.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            Insurance companies don’t have the power to throw you in prison or kill you. The government does. I’m pretty sure Hitler, Stalin and Castro were/are big fans of government run health care.

          • Tim

            The Pope is also a big proponent of gov’t run health care. Does that make him evil?

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            I makes him a pope and not fit for governing.

    • GeeWhiz

      I have to agree with Blasto since I can’t get my own health coverage due to pre-existing conditions. The best health care in their eyes is to not get sick. I have to be a slave to someone else instead of trying to go out on my own.

    • DormontDirtBag

      If you paid for a certain amount and type of coverage, and the insurance company refuses to provide it, you’d win in court. If the same insurance company pulls that stunt enough times, word gets around, the costly losses in court add up, and the insurance company goes out of business.

      When the government denies you coverage you thought you enjoyed, it does so in the name of collective frugality and the denial is deemed an inherently governmental function from which no court could save you.

      I’ll take the former system.

      Kurtz is right, by the way. A great way to increase tax revenues and lessen our debt burden is to let inflation run rampant. These days, government sponsored inflation is called “quantitative easing.”

      • Blasto

        Who pays the court costs ? To say “just take them to court” is a ridiculous solution for people who don’t get what they paid for with health insurance. The insurance companies have deep pockets and many lawyers. Not so much for the common shmoe.

        • DormontDirtBag

          There’s a huge glut of lawyers in ths country who would gladly take a case like this on a contingency basis — that is, no fee unless there’s a recovery. And it’s well known that judges and juries despise insurance companies. Thus, if the policy says a condition/treatment is covered and the insurance company refuses, seems like an easy winner to me.

      • GeeWhiz

        Congrats to you if you can afford a lawyer decent enough to win a case like that for you. Personally I think the government would want you alive so you can pay more taxes. Can’t collect if your dead.

        • DormontDirtBag

          If you’re seriously ill, you are a) not working, b) not paying much in taxes and c) a big drain on the government’s finances. Seems to me Betty Bureaucrat on the IPAB could very well weigh how likely the latest miracle drug would actually help you versus how much the treatment would cost the government.. Given how corrupt our government is, who among us would doubt that Betty’s decision might be swayed if you happen to be a well-connected member of the Democratic Party — especially when one considers how Obama’s healthcare “waivers” were handed out in direct relation to the recipients’ political connnections.

  • Tim

    Call me when Ryan’s plan is vouchers for everyone. Until then it’s nothing more than a big wet kiss to those over 55 and the big middle finger to those under it. in short, it’s Generational Warfare.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

      It’s called trying to keep a promise that should never have been made.

      • Tim

        I thought you were a fan of vouchers? It seems like you want them for everyone but yourself. Hypocrisy.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          Who said I’m against vouchers?

          • Tim

            then you should have no problem with Paul Ryan’s plan extending to everyone. would help the deficit much sooner. We’re in the mess primarily because of people your age anyway.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            We’re in this mess because of FDR and LBJ.

          • Mason

            Tim, it is actually because of people like you that we cannot put a solution in place. You call older people hippocrats simply as a tool to make them feel selfish for wanting to implement a plan. People like you don’t want a fix – or I should say, you don’t want a change, other than to tax people that have more than you.

            Based on many of your posts here, I would guess that you are no older than late 20’s, probably make in the $30k/yr range and feel that you have been unfairly held back by people in positions above you and you think ‘why should they have all of that and I don’t’. You have probably paid a grand total of maybe a couple thousand dollars into SS/Medicare in your lifetime.

            For people over Ryan’s cutoff, they have been paying the equivalent of $5,000-$8,000 per year for more than 30 years. When having those wages confiscated from their paycheck – they were promised certain things when they hit a certain age. The beaurocrats that promised this, also screwed up the program and stole the money.

            To fix this mess, there has to be a cutoff of who is included and who is not included under the old plan – it is that simple. you have to calculate payouts vs recipients. If I was 58 and had $200,000 confiscated (plus interest), yes, it is only fair to give what was promised – but we still have to work on a fix.

            I am only a couple years below Ryans number and I have maxed out my confiscated number every year for almost 20 years. I stand to lose a LOT of money, but the reality is, it must be fixed – but let’s get the crooked politicians out of the mix and put the money back in our own hands.

            As for you – quit trying to demonize people for simply wanting what they paid for and were promised.

          • Ken

            Great post Mason.

          • Tim

            Medicare is not about payouts vs recipients.Benefits have never been determined by how much you’ve paid in, ala Social Security. Warren Buffet gets the same coverage as someone who dug ditches their entire life. There is no money left in the program. Everyone takes a haircut. That’s fair. Its not fair Mason, that you get lumped into a completely different program than someone just a couple years older than you.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            My grandfather died in 1965–the year Medicare was born. He was 75. Who paid his medical bills?

          • Tim

            If you’re implying Medicare is unnecessary, we could just cancel it.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

            Fine. I’ll take a refund.

          • Mason

            Tim, first I would like to say that when I took my guesses toward your age etc, that I in no way meant it as an insult – I was only trying to put a context to my post.

            My post said, nor did I mean, anything about payouts. I only related how much someone has paid in during their lives and used it as a relation to where you draw the line of who is included under the existing plan versus who would move to a new plan. Please remember – if this is ever changed, it is not being eliminated, it is simply being changed.

            The bottom line is that politicians that were supposed to have this money in a lock box, chose to spend it on other programs over the years – it has now caught up to them. This is why it is best to take it out of politicians hands. If private citizens that ran a retirement account did with the money what politicians did, they would be in jail.

            I do not believe in having people controlling money for things that are not called for in our Constitution, that cannot or will not be held accountable.

          • Tim

            No offense taken Mason.

            If your opinion is that individual people are better at controlling their own money than the gov’t running a program, then a voucher program for everyone would be preferable. If the current system is as inefficient and wasteful as everyone says, then I don’t see why it should be kept in place.

      • joeyoneputt

        Just curious John. Did you sign up for and enjoy the benefits of an employer sponsored health plan while you were with WTAE and KDKA?

        • http://justwatchthegame.com JohnSteigerwald

          Yep.