Medicare and Social Security are NOT Entitlements. We have paid into them for years. The Republicans need to keep their greedy hands OFF our money!

How about the gov't go straight to hell!!

Speaking of fairness, is it fair for a President, any President, to decide which laws of the land his justice department will enforce and which it will not? If in that much disagreement with the law, should not he/she try hard to get the Congress to abolish the law as in the case of Prohibition? I thought it was the duty of Congress to make law, the duty of the Justice department to enforce law, the duty of the President to sign such items into law or veto them at the time of passage, and the duty of the Supreme Court to decide if the law is constitutional. Balance of Power... Checks and Balances ... Learned that years ago in my Civics class but maybe I missed something over the years where those responsibilities were changed by Congress or in the Constitution. Just curious.

I personally struggle with the idea of "fairness". Is it fair for some to pay more in taxes but get no more for benefits? Is it fair for a married couple to get a tax break over a single person? Is that because there is less government expenditures to provide basic services to a household with more than one occupant than to two individual households? If so, that would give reason to provide the same tax to gay couples. But, by the same token, it would be reason to provide similar tax breaks to 4 guys or 4 women living together as roommates. Is it fair to provide home interest deductions to those with a mortgage but not to those paying rent or to those who have paid off their mortgage? Exactly what is fair?? A flat tax and no deductions? Do not have the answers. Just feel the entire tax system needs a major overhaul. Just musing on this snowy morning while waiting for roads to be cleared.

I think eliminating the cap on Social Security Tax is a wonderful idea. Why can't the dumb Congress see that? As I said before, it is nothing more than grandstanding by the politicians. They want something to fight about.

If we were to raise the limit/cap to the first 110 million dollars earned each year and increase the retirement age to 100 years would John Boehner be satisfied? Would Obama? It seems that there must be some middle ground somewhere shouldn't there be? I hope that it is finally time to fish, I'm tired of cutting bait.

Not to worry garyprimer: The Law works for both liberals and conservatives. Does not matter if it is voodoo trickle down government or voodoo trickle down economics. We could use the Law of Common Sense. Unfortunately, common sense is not very common anymore.

"Law of Unintended Consequences"
Now I am getting some insight into neo-conservative economics.
You choose a plan that has been proven to be bad for the economy
and just sit back and wait for the good unintended consequences to kick in.
Genius!

Agree with mls: political. However, still worry about the law of unintended consequences. Article says it would be more expensive for companies to provide insurance for 2 more years. What will force them to do so? Already the ACHA has penalties that are not high enough to induce companies to keep employees insured if they have more than 50 employees. So more part time jobs, less actual pay if insurance kept, higher copays, higher costs for product are all potential unintended consequences of the ACHA and could also be consequences of raising the Medicare eligibility age. Also moving 700+ billion from Medicare providers to pay part of the AHCA cost can have the consequences of less doctors, clinics, hospitals accepting Medicare. Thereby increasing wait times and forcing more difficulty in finding providers. Do you think Congress has even heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences???

For SS, the quickest and most long lasting fix is to remove the cap. Currently, only the first $110K is taxed for SS; after that, you pay no more. Simply remove that limit/cap, and SS is 100% solvent through at least my kids' grandkids.

Raise the age limit and means test takers. That will be the only way this sinking ship and social security survive.

I would leave it alone but fine tune it like eagle said. I do not think physicians pay should be touched especially in places like wisconsin where taxes are high. If anything this area is below median avg nationwide. Nurses on the other hand are a little high. Also hospitals and clinics are way too bloated with too many facilities. I'll bet this is driving cost up and stretching services thin. Make the client come to you instead of needing mri machines and what not at every location. Requiring doctors to drive all over increases risk & removes time they have to spend with patients. I've witnessed first hand how tired doctors get & frankly I'm sick of being designated driver in an area which has so many drunk drivers.

MBH...spot on with the comment of money leaving our country. How can we afford to help other countries when we can't afford to help ourselves ? Also , what about reigning in the costs on medical services, they are outrageous !

There would be plenty money if we cut out foreign entitlements, like billions going to Egypt, billions going to Africa for some kind of Aids crap, to name a few, and recently Obama giving Myanmar 170 million dollars. I know not reducing senior's benefits while they are enjoying retirement mode would make them feel more comfortable.

Leave it to the R's to support something that makes no actual sense, but 'looks good' to their base. The best move would be to LOWER the age, not increase it. But that's not good politics for the R's, so they won't support it.

Stop all social securty payments
Then just have soap lines

They can raise it to any age they want as long as there is a National Health Care Program to insure and protect elderly working people who have medical needs. It happens.

Yes - up the rates on payroll deductions. Social Security is going broke - so what did we do? Require 2% less to fund it. Duh! It should have been increased, not decreased. The Medicare rate is very low - bump it up a little, and then actually manage the funds.

They should lower the age for Medicare to zero - another way of saying that we should nationalize our medical insurance and everybody is on it from birth. You could opt to buy your own if you want better coverage and to buy supplements, but the safety net would always be there for everyone.

I believe this is all for political show. I am 73 years old, and periodically, throughout my life, Social Security taxes were increased to bring the fund into balance. Once Medicare was begun, the payroll tax for that has also been increased periodically over time. Why is there such a turmoil over it in the last two years.

It seems to be that it is very simple. Increase payroll taxes slightly to cover most of the so-called shortfalls in these two systems.

I also do not think it is a bad idea for means testing. Obviously, someone making a million dollars per year doesn't need Medicare and/or Social Security payments as much as those making less than say, $100,000 per year.

Seems it would be a relatively easy thing to do to index these benefits and make the necessary payroll tax adjustments periodically, rather than making them a huge political hurrah every year. Who do these idiots in Washington think they are fooling? It's nothing but a big show.

I think that it would be a good idea
to raise the age
for all that think that it is a good idea
to raise the age.
Another approach might be for those so inclined
to delay applying until 67 or 80.

The medicare benefits should be opened up for the people below age 65(say 60-65) which have lost jobs and cannot afford private health care insurance. Premiums may need to be higher to cover medical costs for these people. Everyone else is paying higher medical costs for people who go to the hospital with no insurance or means to pay medical costs.

hooters, that is exactly how these systems came to be in the 1930's how many people were living past 65? Not nearly as many as there are today.

OK, the logic about both the Medicare and private insurance premiums SEEMS to make sense...BUT if the entire population is still exactly the same (exactly the same people at the same age still need coverage), then why would EVERYONE's insurance premium go up just from shifting the group? The claims would still be exactly the same, so the premiums needed to cover the claims should be exactly the same in total: e.g. if the current conditions held, and private coverage is $100 a month and Medicare is $125 (older adults), then why should moving some Medicare insureds down to private insurance result in private insurance premiums of $125 and Medicare premiums of $150? Why would the premiums needed to cover exactly the same people wiht the same medical conditions need to go up to a total of $275 from $225?

They keep pushing the retirement age farther and farther down the road...in hopes we'll die before we ever make it to retirement.

Raising the age is the least they should do the entire system as well as Healthcare itself and Social Security could use an overhaul.