jump to last post 1-14 of 14 discussions (15 posts)

Do you vote for or against Medicare and all other benefits in an election?

  1. whonunuwho profile image78
    whonunuwhoposted 5 years ago

    Do you vote for or against Medicare and all other benefits in an election?

    How important is Social Security to you, disability, medicare and appropriate medical care in hospitals, and by doctors, and who to vote for?


  2. tinamariemiller profile image60
    tinamariemillerposted 5 years ago

    Working in the healthcare industry insurance of any kind is extremely important for our patients.  Medicare is the backbone insurance for our elderly.  Sadly, over the last few years I have noticed that many elderly patients were, for lack of another word, conned into switching to medicare supplements such as Pacificare.  When asked why they did it, most of them will answer that they were told they would receive the same coverages and be able to see their same physicians.  Not, so for specialists. 

    I vote always for the Medicare, in it's true form, not the offsprings that have recently sprung up.

  3. JayeWisdom profile image93
    JayeWisdomposted 5 years ago

    I'm answering this question from the perspective of my own experience. I worked in the Human Resources Management field for much of my career, 22 years of that spent with the same big international corporation. Health reasons caused me to retire at age 61 rather than 66, and it was necessary for me to apply for both my disability insurance benefits and Social Security benefits. (The company's disability plan was offset by SS, meaning I got the same amount--no double-dipping--but the amount SS paid me was subtracted from my insurance benefit.

    Fast-forward to my "regular" retirement age, 66, when my disability benefits ended and I had to apply for my company pension--only to discover that the company I'd told applicants for decades was a "wonderful" employer, executive management "cared" about all its employees...had pulled a fast one with my pension.  I won't go into details, but the short version is that I'm receiving about HALF the pension benefit I should be getting. It's all legal--they have a huge cadre of attorneys to ensure that--but ethical?  I'd say no.

    Because of this, my income took a huge hit that year, and I have not recovered. Of course, my company insurance ended when my disability benefit did, so if it weren't for Medicare, I would not have been able to afford insurance. Keep in mind that I have several health issues that require, not only a primary care doctor, but monitoring by several specialists. I pay more with Medicare than I did with private insurance, but it saves my life (literally).  Social Security benefits keep a roof over my head, and other basic needs. (That's "needs", not "wants", which I stopped thinking about the day I learned about my halved pension benefit.)

    So, in answer to your question, YES, I vote with all the benefit programs you listed in mind, as well as with knowledge (from past administrations' performance) of which party really cares about me and others like me--senior citizens who are trying hard to get by with less, the disabled--including veterans who deserve good benefits, people out of a job because back in the Reagan era, that president thought it was a good idea to move vehicle manufacturing from Michigan to Mexico, the U.S. began losing most of its manufacturing, and "off-shoring" all types of work became a major tactic of big corporations--resulting in fewer jobs for Americans. Yes, I think about all these things and, in case you haven't figured it out, I'll be voting Democrat in this election.

  4. pstraubie48 profile image85
    pstraubie48posted 5 years ago

    They are all important to millions of us. it is an issue I consider very seriously when I am voting. Even if we are independently wealthy and will never need those services we should consider those who do.

  5. BobMonger profile image61
    BobMongerposted 5 years ago

    I cannot, for the life of me, understand why anyone could be against Medicare. This program guarantees at least some measure of health care for the average citizen. For most of us the term "health insurance" is just some dreamed up fantasy from " those folks on TV." Assuring basic health care for those unable to provide for themselves just makes good sense; the alternatives are just too gruesome to imagine. Unfortunately, in the USA the gruesome has been the norm for far too long; it's time for a change. I'm all about Medicare/Medicade and think it should be available to any citizen who needs it.

  6. SportsBetter profile image77
    SportsBetterposted 5 years ago

    I liked Ron Paul's view on these subjects.

    Keep Medicare and Social Security for the people who are dependent, but don't force younger generations to pay in.  We can't afford to keep these programs running, plus we would be more prosperous without them.

    You can fund the people who are dependent on these programs by cutting spending overseas and taking care of people here at home. 

    Besides, voting doesn't matter, you have to reeducate people on freedom, liberty, bill of rights, and constitution.  The people can't change anything by voting for candidate A or B to fix things.  The people have to understand why the economy is bad, then they will realize it isn't something a politician can fix. 

    The reason the economy is bad is because of the expansion of the money supply.  Expansion of the money supply is debt.  You can't live off of debt or credit forever, you can only live off of savings.  The reason we need debt to survive is because when money is printed prices go up and competition is eliminated. 

    Competition becomes eliminated because the money is distributed to specific businesses and programs that receive unfair advantages.  If these businesses weren't given these benefits they would be forced to compete in a free market.  When there is competition, prices come down, and quality goes up.  Businesses are forced to make the best product at the lowest price to stay alive.

  7. lrc7815 profile image88
    lrc7815posted 5 years ago

    Personally, I have worked for 4o years, paying into these systems with the expectation that they would help when I retired or could no longer work.  I have been laid off twice in the past 5 years and had to use my savings to exist for 18 months the first time and now 4 months.  All of these systems are important to me.

  8. Davorunner profile image82
    Davorunnerposted 5 years ago

    Yes, I think everyone in the (or a) community exists because other people do. The butchers can't exist without the electric people, who can't exist without the mechanics etc. So if we have a system to support those who support us when they need it, then it will pay off in more than one way. Also it can help give others a boost to get into the work force (ie Centrelink for an example)

  9. chuckd7138 profile image80
    chuckd7138posted 5 years ago

    If one really digs deep and learns the true origin of these social programs, he/she will find that they were created during the Great Depression to fund the government to help pay for all of its other programs, which also failed as long-term solutions. The age of requirement back in the 30s was above life expectancy, the administration and Congress didn't expect many to draw from it because they would die beforehand. Why do you think they keep raising the age? Life expectancy is extended. Therefore, the requirement age is extended.
    I'm 41 years old, and due to genetics, lifestyle and career choices, I won't live to see 65, 67 or 70 years of age. My own doctor said 11 years ago that I wouldn't live to see 50, and I'd be lucky to see 40. I don't whine about that. I accept it. That is why I am more concerned about the overall economy and not specific programs.
    The current administration, which I did not vote for, promises "Forward", but it has only gone backward at a rate worse than this nation has ever seen before. Big government and social programs do not fix the problems. Piling more money onto failing systems is not the fix, only salt on the wound.
    Government has a budget and balance sheets and other financial statements just like private sector corporations. This president has never run a business. He's a community activist. He only knows to take money. He knows nothing of making (re "earning") money. Our nation's credit rating and "stock" has plummeted, and he's asking the "stockholders" (citizens) to accept more stock dips and keep his job, while borrowing more and more from our economical enemies, which could seriously affect our national security and leave us looking at the threat of communist citizenship. As a Navy vet, I cannot accept that without a fight.
    Furthermore, from what I've read of Ryan's debt-reducing plan, those that receive these social benefits now, or within the next ten years, will not be effected by it. Their benefits will not change.Those that might be effected by it will have the option to choose the current style or a more privatized or voucher program.
    In the end, when government gets its hand on something, it usually falters. Health care will get worse now, and it's already bad enough with lazy and stupid doctors. Keep government out of our lives, and we'll be better off and happier for it.

  10. WryLilt profile image91
    WryLiltposted 5 years ago

    I live in Australia and we have medicare (if you go to a public hospital you don't pay a cent) and welfare (there is no limit to how long you can be on welfare, although there are some prerequisites.)

  11. pagesvoice profile image86
    pagesvoiceposted 5 years ago

    Social Security is something I have paid into my entire life and it is important that I receive the mere pittance that is due. The company I was employed at for years was bought out by a French outfit and mysteriously...poof...my pension seems to have disappeared. Medicare is essential. Where are we going to stockpile the bodies if this benefit is cut and put on a voucher system? Just imagine what would have happened if  people were allowed to invest in the stock market regarding Social Security? How many cars, park benches and tents would have been available when the market crashed? Equal health care for all is not only a morally correct thing to do, but it should also be a basic human right. So yes, social issues like Social Security and Medicare are very important to me.

    1. profile image0
      Garifaliaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      So true. While I was growing up in Houston, we couldn't afford doctors or hospitals. My father had a petty private insurance that could hardly cover anything. I couldn't afford to go to a dentist for check ups so I lost some teeth. Others lost lives

  12. profile image0
    JThomp42posted 5 years ago

    I vote for all of the above, Because there are so many out there who are so deserving of each and every program. I don't consider this entitlement, For the the right people, They are deserved.

  13. whonunuwho profile image78
    whonunuwhoposted 5 years ago

    I am in full agreement with you pagesvoice and I don.t see how others can be so blinded by the fancy talk.

  14. craiglyn profile image79
    craiglynposted 5 years ago

    I'm answering as a Canadian and we have Universal Medical Care for everyone.   I would not want to do without it, that's for sure.  Nothing is perfect, but from where I sit, this is a very important aspect and fundamental right of our lives.  So I definitely would vote for it.