I'm sorry, I haven't waded deeply enough into the white papers to figure this one out.
Romney says he has a plan to save Medicare, which does, in fact, need saving over the long haul. I have explained the arithmetic of this problem many times. He says, under his plan, for people over 55 nothing changes. For people under 55, they continue to pay full fare (in order to subsidize those who didn't contribute enough all their lives) for the next ten years as they struggle to save for retirement themselves, only to have the rug pulled out from under them when *they* turn 65. How is that fair?
Romney counters by saying everyone will have a CHOICE to accept a voucher or stay with traditional Medicare. Huh?
If that's the case, and this plan saves the system gobs money, why not implement it now for current or near retirees? Why wait ten years? Give people the choice now. Why wait ten years to start saving all this money?
Can anyone figure out why he's not in favor of giving people that choice starting right now?
> I'm sorry, I haven't waded deeply enough into the white papers to figure
> this one out.
> Romney says he has a plan to save Medicare, which does, in fact, need
> saving over the long haul. I have explained the arithmetic of this
> problem many times. He says, under his plan, for people over 55 nothing
> changes. For people under 55, they continue to pay full fare (in order
> to subsidize those who didn't contribute enough all their lives) for the
> next ten years as they struggle to save for retirement themselves, only
> to have the rug pulled out from under them when *they* turn 65. How is
> that fair?
> Romney counters by saying everyone will have a CHOICE to accept a
> voucher or stay with traditional Medicare. Huh?
> If that's the case, and this plan saves the system gobs money, why not
> implement it now for current or near retirees? Why wait ten years? Give
> people the choice now. Why wait ten years to start saving all this money?
> Can anyone figure out why he's not in favor of giving people that choice
> starting right now?
> I'm sorry, I haven't waded deeply enough into the white papers to figure > this one out.
> Romney says he has a plan to save Medicare, which does, in fact, need > saving over the long haul. I have explained the arithmetic of this > problem many times. He says, under his plan, for people over 55 nothing > changes. For people under 55, they continue to pay full fare (in order > to subsidize those who didn't contribute enough all their lives) for the > next ten years as they struggle to save for retirement themselves, only > to have the rug pulled out from under them when *they* turn 65. How is > that fair?
> Romney counters by saying everyone will have a CHOICE to accept a > voucher or stay with traditional Medicare. Huh?
> If that's the case, and this plan saves the system gobs money, why not > implement it now for current or near retirees? Why wait ten years? Give > people the choice now. Why wait ten years to start saving all this money?
> Can anyone figure out why he's not in favor of giving people that choice > starting right now?
Because he is a racist.
-------
"The people are sending a message, and elected officials would do well to
take heed: You aren't getting any more of our tax dollars until you can
show you're responsible and can be trusted with the money you have now."
- Debbie Dooley, state coordinator of the Georgia Tea Party Patriots
