Because the people with the means to do so would then invest on their own and the >50% of people who have very little or no equities at all would be utterly ■■■■■■■ That’s why. It’s not an investment scheme. It’s a safety net that has lifted tens of millions out of poverty.
Well this “Boomer” was fortunate to have parents who saw LBJ raid the “safety net” SS money box to fund the welfare “Great Society” and those parents gave us some simple advice.
Basically our parents told us if we lived long enough to collect SS ( my father died at 51 he never saw a dime), anybody thinking SS would cover retirement is crazy!
Fortunately in addition to SS we wisely invested and thanks to the recent Market activity? Well let’s say that retirement investment check each month ain’t too shabby. Feel bad for anybody my age that didn’t save, invest or went and locked themselves up on 30 year mortgages plus refinancing so they can have that big square footage McMansion to heat and cool after the kids leave!
Which means we still end up paying for it through taxes. I don’t have a problem with that, we just need to make sure we don’t end up paying more for less than what we get now. Government isn’t well known for managing taxpayer money wisely.
Seems to me Americans are smart enough that we could figure out a way to make the government manage money better. Is the drive for profit really the only way to make smart spending decisions?
Likely a bit less.
It’s the simplest and most common sense question to congress you will ever hear.
If congress wants us to have a single payer, government run insurance plan, why not give us the exact same plan that they have? They seem to be perfectly happy with it. I’m sure we would be happy with it too. For some odd reason, congress never has answer this question. Until they do, the endless tinkering will continue. Will somebody in the media please have the guts to ask?
2 Likes
People in the media have been asking that question for a long time. I don’t expect an answer from Congress about it since it is pretty self evident it would cost too much for our nation to have the same standard of healthcare as them.
I don’t believe you. Do you have any links to this question being asked?
Costing too much is a horrible answer. How the hell can they possibly say that their care needs to be more affordable than ours? I will never accept that. They need to explain why it is our best interest to provide for them better insurance than they allow us to have. Costing too much is a cop out.
1 Like
That is because you were either non specific in your assertion, or you dont refer to right wing sources of media when you say “media” even though they are one in the same. I hear new sources on the right ponder that question but I have never heard that question asked to a member of Congress, by a right or left wing reporter.
It is most certainly a cop out. I wouldn’t limit that question to just healthcare. Why should congress be allowed to vote benefits only they can reap in any capacity?
Cop out answer, but truth: cause they can 
Despicable.
Which is why I am frustrated. Congress is NEVER forced to discuss why they deserve a special plan that’s much better than ours. They are never put in the hot seat over this. Well why the hell not? Congress is generously offering us Medicare for all. My reply to them would be “you first.”
1 Like
But starting Jan. 1, 2014, House and Senate members, and their staffs, can only obtain employer-subsidized, private coverage through the exchanges established under the ACA. The exchanges, or marketplaces, were designed for those who purchase their own insurance and small employers. For a full discussion of current health insurance options for members of Congress, see the 2015 Congressional Research Service paper “Health Benefits for Members of Congress and Designated Congressional Staff.” Over the years, we’ve seen false claims that Congress was somehow “exempt” from the health care law. But, in fact, the law places this additional requirement on Congress that doesn’t pertain to other Americans with employer-provided health care.)
1 Like
Because that is part of payment for being elected and serving in Congress?
You might as well ask if Congresspersons get paid $174,000 a year, why don’t they let us have that too?
Is congress commited to accepting the exact same medicare for all they are trying to stick us with? If our plan is equal to theirs, then why not?
With all due respect. I really want congress to answer this question. So far, it has not been asked. And it’s be wildering.
Congress gets the same plans as us. That was covered in the two links I provided.
Edit, Oh - I see what you’re saying. Yes, Congress does get a “sweetener” that’s not available to us.
The Affordable Care Act stipulates that ordinary people aren’t eligible for coverage through the exchanges if they’re also covered by Medicare. That rule doesn’t apply to Congress members.
Yeah, now I wonder why.
And I see a Congressperson’s pension is 80% of their salary. And they get it if they’ve been in office for only 5 years. That’s pretty sweet, too.
I’m just saying. That if congress is forcing an insurance plan on us, it must be identical to the one they have. Why do they deserve better than the people they “serve.”
1 Like
Because we allow it.
Has Trump ever said anything about correcting this injustice?
I’d like to see all Congresspeople getting the same pensions we get, too. Meaning if you haven’t put in your 10 years, you get nothing. And after you’re vested at 10 years, it sure doesn’t start at 80% of our salary!
They have a private insurance plan. This doesn’t make sense.
This is just a reboot of your previous thread on this topic. Congress would be included in Medicare for All. There would not be some separate plan.
If government is going to force a plan on us it would be immoral to offer a tiered plan. Right?
Unions, government workers, congressmen and private workers should all be offered the exact same choices at the exact same prices. Government cannot be deciding the health care winners and losers. It must be totally equal across the board. No discrepancies. One plan.
Does that make sense?
1 Like
