It has occurred to me that Lyndon Johnson first tried this with Vietnam and it makes absolute sense that if you kill off enough Baby Boomers by denying them health care you would then keep SS from going bankrupt!
Yes JS but the Baby Boomers are too old to be sent off to war are are about to begin collecting SS in mega amounts!
Best Answer: There is only one way to cut the cost of the upcoming 78 million boomers who will soon begin using Medicare. The fact that at this crucial time it is being cut $500 billion over the next 10 years makes it pretty obvious where the costs will be cut. Obama said so himself. Give granny a pill instead of a pacemaker.As one of the oldest of the boomer generation I can tell you that even as a child my generation has been a major topic of discussion concerning the future of this country. I'm sure this plan has been in the works for 50 years or more.I'm not saying I want to live forever, but I don't want to be sacrificed for the masses either.
Loading ...
5 Comments
I don’t believe so. It is much easier just to send people off to war.
There is only one way to cut the cost of the upcoming 78 million boomers who will soon begin using Medicare. The fact that at this crucial time it is being cut $500 billion over the next 10 years makes it pretty obvious where the costs will be cut. Obama said so himself. Give granny a pill instead of a pacemaker.
As one of the oldest of the boomer generation I can tell you that even as a child my generation has been a major topic of discussion concerning the future of this country. I’m sure this plan has been in the works for 50 years or more.
I’m not saying I want to live forever, but I don’t want to be sacrificed for the masses either.
It really is so much better if we expend our resources on a preterm baby that will have life time health issues and making sure a 90 year old can get viagra isn’t it?
Following your logic, George Bush was trying to kill off the NEXT generation with his false war of revenge.
A better solution would be to revamp Social Security, which has become the nation’s biggest ‘entitlement’.
The very same people who complain about ‘social welfare programs’ for single mothers, unemployeds, homeless and hungry citizens are the ones who collect Social Security, whether they need it or not.
Social Security was intended as an ‘insurance plan’ to protect those who reached their golden years without sufficient financial resources to survive.
Instead, it’s turned into an ‘entitlement’ that everyone believes they deserve just because they’ve “paid into it”.
I know people with net worths in excess of a million dollars, people who drive luxury cars, own multiple homes, go on extended lavish vacations, and have various income sources that still think they ought to get a Social Security check. Social Security is just like any other insurance: if you pay monthly premiums for house insurance, you won’t collect unless you lose your home in a fire or some other accident. If you pay monthly car insurance premiums, you hope you never have an accident and have to file a claim. Similarly, you should pay into Social Security while you’re working in hopes that you’ll have sufficient funds on which to live without claiming any Social Security benefits. IF you’re one of those who are unfortunate enough to not have any assets at age 65, then – and only then – should you be entitled to receive Social Security.
I live in a senior retirement community. My neighbor collects four different pensions, worth $5000 a month, and STILL plans to apply for Social Security when he turns 65. That’s nothing but sheer greed.
Those of us who are fortunate enough to have acquired sufficient assets on which to enjoy a comfortable retirement should be PROUD to help those who aren’t as fortunate. But, instead, we continue to plunder and pillage the Social Security program until it will, almost certainly, eventually be bankrupt. And then we’ll sit back and say, “Gee, I wonder why my kids and grandkids don’t get any Social Security?” The answer will be simple: because YOU stole it all from them (even though you had plenty of money to live on).
Killing off the baby boomers isn’t the answer; it’s not even cost-efficient, because it will result in massive litigious actions of unimaginable consequences. Reforming Social Security – and returning it to its original intent – is, by far, the best ‘final’ solution.
-RKO- 08/09/09