@ryangrim Why's it either/or? You could means test Medicare, close high-end loopholes and be doubly better off
-
-
Replying to @JoshuaGreen
@JoshuaGreen You could, but you wouldn't be doubly better off, unless they figure out a way to means-test in a more cost effective way.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JoshuaGreen
@JoshuaGreen@ryangrim That change would be of negligible help to the budget while putting foot in the door toward harmful changes.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GregAnrig
@GregAnrig@JoshuaGreen any means testing that's easy to administer will probably net you chump change, like that one would1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @JoshuaGreen
@JoshuaGreen@ryangrim Since well under 1% of elderly pop. makes > $250,000, my calculations show$diddly over 10 year period.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @JoshuaGreen
@JoshuaGreen@GregAnrig people do impoverish themselves to get medicaid. why wouldn't the dynamic apply to medicare?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ryangrim
@ryangrim@GregAnrig Because rich people wouldn't impoverish themselves for 2 extra years of Medicare1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@JoshuaGreen @GregAnrig oh, yeah, of course not. I mean embracing means testing in a way that saved real $ would encourage impoverishment
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.