Jeb Bush is against Medicare?…and Social Security?

Really?

This guy REALLY does NOT want to be President does he?

Cause htalk like this will just gave Democrats a good chucnk of the Senoir vote….

Boy, does Jeb! Bush want to win the Koch lottery or what? Because he just wrote off the votes of millions of senior citizens by telling them he really does mean it when he says he wants to end Medicare. And Social Security to boot.

At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, an elderly woman blasted Bush. “We’re not going to have adequate coverage for our children or our grandchildren without Medicare,” she told him. “I paid into that for years and years, just like all these other seniors here, and now you want to take it away?” Why, she asked, is he “always attacking the seniors.”

“Well, I’m not,” Bush responded. “Here’s what I said: I said, ‘We’re going to have to reform our entitlement system.’ We have to.”

“It’s not an entitlement,” the woman shot back. “I earned that.”

“It’s an actuarially unsound health care system,” said Bush, who said something must be done before the system burdens future generations with $50 billion of debt. “Social Security is an underfunded retirement system; people have put money into it, for sure.

“The people that are receiving these benefits, I don’t think that we should touch that; but your children and grandchildren are not going to get the benefit of this that they believe they’re going to get, or that you think they’re going to get, because the amount of money put in compared to the amount of money the system costs is wrong.”

Um, let’s just revisit what Jeb! actually said about Medicare that set this protest off. He said, “we need to figure out a way to phase out this program.” Now, “phasing out” could be construed as “reform,” if you’re a Republican. But for the rest of us, it pretty much means “ending……”

Share on Facebook

18 thoughts on “Jeb Bush is against Medicare?…and Social Security?”

  1. Actually, there does need to be a serious conversation about SS and Medicare.

    As for this “hurting” Bush,I doubt that it does.He may have been inarticulate(he’s a Bush after all) but his line will to some extent be picked up by ALL the serious GOP candidates.

  2. If I have this right …

    The basic S/S fund is solvent for about 22 years or so…

    The Disability part is always touch and go and Congress just props it up even year or so…

    I don’t know about Medicare….

    Maybe DSD can fill us in…

    Bush won’t run on this….

    It will only serve to infuriate those over 50 years of age….

    It gets mentioned but Congress isn’t gonna mess with it with a election coming next year….

    But something will probably have to be done in the future…

  3. I no longer would support a deal that would cut social scurity (SS). Yes, it needs to be adequately funded, but with stagnant wages and lots of people losing their pensions, SS will need to INCREASE benefits.

  4. Actually both programs can be ” fixed” fairly easily.

    It will require some trade offs.

    The Democrats are likely going to have to accept a higher retirement age and the Republicans are going to have to accept an increase in the amount of income subject to the SS tax.

    As to Medicare, there may need to be some restrictions on people running to the doctor for a minor ailments and the use of Physician assistants and Nurse practitioners in all but the most serious circumstances.

    The Disability program is riddled with major problems and needs radical reform,particularly as to who qualifies.

    Certainly nothing is going to happen before the election and the Republican “dream” of fazing the programs out is unrealistic ,but I would hope that both parties would be willing to bite the bullet and begin a discussion in the near future.

  5. Congress is NOT gonna want to lead on something that will be looked at keenly by those over 50-55 years of age….

  6. The simple fact is that the programs HAVE to be addressed.

    Such happened in the Eighties when MR Tax Reducer,Ronald Reagan ,Joined with Democrats in raising the SS tax and saving the system.

    Just repeating a mantra that everything is ok now and nobody us going to want to do anything isn’t a viable option.

    Yes something has to be done and ,your implication aside, Congress and Presidents have acted in th past when confronted with such things.

    Reform of these programs is a must going forward and just repeating ,

    NO NO NO?

    Isn’t an option.

  7. Oh, I merely pointed out that Congress won’t do anything UNTIL it HAS TO….

    And then they will by the deadlione or probabaly AFTERWARDS ...Cause NO ONE tell’s them what to do…Right?

  8. And I merely pointed out that they have acted in the past when confronted.

    No one said they necessarily “want” to.

    Frankly I don’t give a damn what they “want” to do.

    If you’re concerned about that?

    Good for you!

  9. The overall economy
    James

    No really?

    Yes, Dealing with SS should be a major priority.

    James for some weird reason seems to be OPPOSED to securing the future of Social Security.If you will notice, every time doing so is mentioned ,he seems to want to contradict it in some manner

    Odd,but then again, I find much of his “reasoning” to the extent that it can be called that ,

    Odd.

  10. The Major part of Social Security is on sound footing
    It is projected solvent for several decades
    If the economy keeps growing
    Even longer
    The reason the WH and Congress isn’t excited
    Is because they don’t have to be..
    Despite the minor noise about the disability
    Part?
    congress will transfer funds as it has done for years
    As I pointed out
    Congress very seldom does ANYTHING unless it’s two days PAST THE DEADLINE
    They ain’t gonna change on this either

  11. Back in the 80’s or 90’s, there was a bipartisan move to increase the amount of income subject to FICA (OASDI) taxes (or maybe it was to increase the medical contributions of more-prosperous Medicare beneficiaries, but the AARP led a successful campaign to kill it.

    The GOP has even since had a vendetta against the AARP (which is vulnerable because it started as an insurance scheme and still derives much of its support from a deal with United Health Care).

  12. Huh?
    Can you explain the AARP/Unitedhealthcare
    Connection?
    I would think Southern Dem’s could get by on economic policy but not on party social policy

  13. Heck, I’d have no problem on no limit on when they stop collecting S/S from your annual salary….
    No problem….
    Not gonna happen though
    GOPer’s label it another tax increase
    It would be DOA

Comments are closed.