quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

"Examples Willbeur? "

Easy one. Words from a commercial on TV "and our plan usually lets you keep your own doctor". Why would they feel the need to mention that ?

T

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Illegal workers are by their nature more profitable to employ; unless the penalties exceed the benefit by some margin, it will be difficult at best to overcome this situation. And policing it would require stronger governmental regulation and cost a great deal of money - two things which detract from economic growth, possibly as much as the illegal workers, and would not be popular with a significant proportion of the population.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

In my perfect world we would change our immigration laws to match those of Australia, and immigrants need to have employer sponsors to immigrate. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Isn't the main reason that Australia gets to be so picky about immigrants that nobody wants to go there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: EbonyWood

I think your argument is becoming derailed. But forget that.
 
Why ARE you arguing? Do you dislike the country for some reason?
 
Have you been there?
 
I'm not getting your motivation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

When Social Security and Medicare were first introduced, the expected longevity of the recipients was expected to be a 5-15 year range.  No one could have predicted the advances in medicine and healthier lifestyles.  The largest growth in the senior demographics are those over the age of 80.  It was expected back in the 40s and 50s that most folks would only be recieving benefits for 5 years and very few might recieve benefits for 30 years.  Now we have senarios where two generations in the same family are recieving benefits at the same time.  My brother and my father are one example.  Who could have predicted that?

The IRS has been looking closely at these figures.  The best solution is to change the age at which we recieve benefits to more closely align with the longevity expectations of the original bill.  Even if we increase the age at which folks become eligible for SS and Medicare to age 75 instead of age 65, the cost saving would be huge without having to decrease benefits or service. People working for an additional 10+ years supplies more tax base.  It really is the best answer.  Change the eligibility age to age 80 and it would be more in line with the original intent.  I don't know anyone who believes they are aged at age 65.

quote:

ORIGINAL: switch2please

false: Social Security was not intended to be permanent, and yet it's still in effect.

false: Raising the minimum age for benefits would be ideal...and can you imagine the outrage?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

When Social Security and Medicare were first introduced, the expected longevity of the recipients was expected to be a 5-15 year range.  No one could have predicted the advances in medicine and healthier lifestyles.  The largest growth in the senior demographics are those over the age of 80.  It was expected back in the 40s and 50s that most folks would only be recieving benefits for 5 years and very few might recieve benefits for 30 years.  Now we have senarios where two generations in the same family are recieving benefits at the same time.  My brother and my father are one example.  Who could have predicted that?

The IRS has been looking closely at these figures.  The best solution is to change the age at which we recieve benefits to more closely align with the longevity expectations of the original bill.  Even if we increase the age at which folks become eligible for SS and Medicare to age 75 instead of age 65, the cost saving would be huge without having to decrease benefits or service. People working for an additional 10+ years supplies more tax base.  It really is the best answer.  Change the eligibility age to age 80 and it would be more in line with the original intent.  I don't know anyone who believes they are aged at age 65.