Do you feel we should end Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid?

[Greenbeard]

Not what I meant - the state woud then (possibly) create/run/entirely fund some sort of medicaid system, absemt any participation by the Federal government. That's -not- what is is place now, and so the current medicaid system is in every way an invalid example for any purpose relevant to what I said.

True, I assumed you were making a practical point about the merits of a state "operating the functions" of a program (as they do with Medicaid) vs. the alleged difficulties of the federal government doing it. I should've just guessed you were just making an ideological statement with little interest in what actually works best.

So sure, slash every state's medical assistance budget by 50-70%+ just because. Then do the same with Medicare and let your state government start running it (in other words, convert Medicare into Medicaid, but take away its benefit guarantees and most of its funding). Sounds like a winner.

 

[squeeze berry]

Just give everyone a one time choice to opt in or out of these programs.

Ok, but again, how do you address a generation of retirees who have their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash?

DBS,,

another problem is that if some people are given the choice to opt out, they will spend all their windfall on booze and cigarettes and having nothing in their old age. We will wind up paying for them in the end anyway

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not what I meant - the state woud then (possibly) create/run/entirely fund some sort of medicaid system, absemt any participation by the Federal government. That's -not- what is is place now, and so the current medicaid system is in every way an invalid example for any purpose relevant to what I said.

True, I assumed you were making a practical point about the merits of a state "operating the functions" of a program (as they do with Medicaid) vs. the alleged difficulties of the federal government doing it. I should've just guessed you were just making an ideological statement with little interest in what actually works best.

You assume that forcng people to porive for others 'works best' and apparently believe the fact that doing so creates a condition of involuntary servitude is irrelevamt.

 

[Full-Auto]

Just give everyone a one time choice to opt in or out of these programs.

Ok, but again, how do you address a generation of retirees who have their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash?

DBS,,

another problem is that if some people are given the choice to opt out, they will spend all their windfall on booze and cigarettes and having nothing in their old age. We will wind up paying for them in the end anyway

Impose some type of 401k rules and the problem is solved.................

 

[Oddball]

Just give everyone a one time choice to opt in or out of these programs.

Ok, but again, how do you address a generation of retirees who have their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash?

How do you address a generation of retirees who have had their cynically dubbed "trust fund" bled dry to buy votes and fund the socialistic welfare state?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ok, but again, how do you address a generation of retirees who have their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash?

DBS,,

another problem is that if some people are given the choice to opt out, they will spend all their windfall on booze and cigarettes and having nothing in their old age. We will wind up paying for them in the end anyway

Impose some type of 401k rules and the problem is solved.................

Bah.
If you want, create an inceentive to save money, but -force- no one to do so in any way.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So now we have entire nation of retirees who can only receive their check if the government can borrow because they have no assets to sell anyone in the "Trust Fund"

That's better?

 

[Greenbeard]

You assume that forcng people to porive for others 'works best' and apparently believe the fact that doing so creates a condition of involuntary servitude is irrelevamt.

That's an assumption we seem to share: "the state woud then (possibly) create/run/entirely fund some sort of medicaid system." States will have some form of medical assistance program.

States had them before (voluntarily) joining Medicaid. Over a period of 15 years, they all opted for joint/federal state funding because Medicaid is more effective than its precursor state-only programs. You can envision a world that goes back to those state-only programs, but you're not somehow imaging a world that isn't "forcng people to porive for others." They're just doing it in a much less effective way in your vision.

 

[Full-Auto]

DBS,,

another problem is that if some people are given the choice to opt out, they will spend all their windfall on booze and cigarettes and having nothing in their old age. We will wind up paying for them in the end anyway

Impose some type of 401k rules and the problem is solved.................

Bah.
If you want, create an inceentive to save money, but -force- no one to do so in any way.

I am compelled to agree. However the days of individual liberty have ended.

It can not be restored until the next uprising or revolution that history insists will occur.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You assume that forcng people to porive for others 'works best' and apparently believe the fact that doing so creates a condition of involuntary servitude is irrelevamt.

That's an assumption we seem to share: "the state woud then (possibly) create/run/entirely fund some sort of medicaid system."

You forgot the part where I siai I would oppose such a system.
So, we're back to you being OK with forcing people into a condition of involuntary servitude.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Impose some type of 401k rules and the problem is solved.................

Bah.
If you want, create an inceentive to save money, but -force- no one to do so in any way.

I am compelled to agree. However the days of individual liberty have ended.

It can not be restored until the next uprising or revolution that history insists will occur.

The Federal govenemnt, collapsing under its own weight, will bring this.

 

[DontBeStupid]

how do you address a generation of retirees who have their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash?

here is a little fact you can NOT DISPUTE.

Had SS been reformed with that 10% investment...You would have money in a SS account.

Instead we have the government threatening the checks if they cant borrow more to cover them.......

You are responsible for you, and you have no right to impose on others to take care of you.

Moronic people like you should not be allowed to even discuss it, you embarrass yourself

How do you address a generation of retirees who have had their cynically dubbed "trust fund" bled dry to buy votes and fund the socialistic welfare state?

No answers. No ideas.

Does that mean you guys don't know? Or don't care?

Again, honestly, I'm curious.

 

[Full-Auto]

how do you address a generation of retirees who have their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash?

here is a little fact you can NOT DISPUTE.

Had SS been reformed with that 10% investment...You would have money in a SS account.

Instead we have the government threatening the checks if they cant borrow more to cover them.......

Moronic people like you should not be allowed to even discuss it, you embarrass yourself

How do you address a generation of retirees who have had their cynically dubbed "trust fund" bled dry to buy votes and fund the socialistic welfare state?

No answers. No ideas.

Does that mean you guys don't know? Or don't care?

Again, honestly, I'm curious.

First you stop democrats from influencing or interfering in the markets...

We all know how the housing bubble started.................

 

[M14 Shooter]

how do you address a generation of retirees who have their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash?

here is a little fact you can NOT DISPUTE.

Had SS been reformed with that 10% investment...You would have money in a SS account.

Instead we have the government threatening the checks if they cant borrow more to cover them.......

Moronic people like you should not be allowed to even discuss it, you embarrass yourself

How do you address a generation of retirees who have had their cynically dubbed "trust fund" bled dry to buy votes and fund the socialistic welfare state?

No answers. No ideas.

Does that mean you guys don't know? Or don't care?

Again, honestly, I'm curious.

I addressed your concern.

 

[Oddball]

how do you address a generation of retirees who have their retirement accounts wiped out in a stock market crash?

here is a little fact you can NOT DISPUTE.

Had SS been reformed with that 10% investment...You would have money in a SS account.

Instead we have the government threatening the checks if they cant borrow more to cover them.......

Moronic people like you should not be allowed to even discuss it, you embarrass yourself

How do you address a generation of retirees who have had their cynically dubbed "trust fund" bled dry to buy votes and fund the socialistic welfare state?

No answers. No ideas.

Does that mean you guys don't know? Or don't care?

Again, honestly, I'm curious.

No, you're not curious...You're just a fucking hack.

You only care when the free market fails and don't give a flying fuck when gubmint fails.

You favor dependence on failed programs to allegedly "help" people, then cynically hide behind them when your do-goodery falls flat on its face.

Just more evidence that the emotions of shame and embarrassment are nowhere to be found in the makeup modern American progressive/socialist.

 

[Greenbeard]

You forgot the part where I siai I would oppose such a system.
So, we're back to you being OK with forcing people into a condition of involuntary servitude.

It doesn't really matter that you're one of the few people left that feel the state has no role to playing in helping the indigent to access health care. Unless you're deluded, I assume you recognize that no state with a republican form of government and regular elections is ever going to lack such a program. Your philosophy went out of vogue about a century ago.

Thus the question becomes: how do we structure, operate, and finance these programs to make sure they're best achieving the goals the public has identified as worthy of them meeting, and in a way that gives the most bang for the public buck?

Designing programs in the dumbest way possible is not a middle ground between designing/operating good programs and convincing people of your absurd "involuntary servitude" rhetoric around health insurance for the poor.

 

[freedombecki]

Do you feel we should end Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid?

Yes or no?

If you say yes, then what happens to the people who depend on it? If you say no, then do you disagree with your leaders and if you do, then why you support them?

How do you feel about giving up your Food Stamps?

Shhhh! Warrior! Some 1%-ers don't want anyone to know about that.

 

[Misty]

Do you feel we should end Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid?

Yes or no?

If you say yes, then what happens to the people who depend on it? If you say no, then do you disagree with your leaders and if you do, then why you support them?

Phase it all out, absolutely.

The people who depend on it can take a pill.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So now we have entire nation of retirees who can only receive their check if the government can borrow because they have no assets to sell anyone in the "Trust Fund"

That's better?

exactly.....Obamacare will drive us into the poorhouse.....[see chart]

...on the other hand....the GOP has a sensible proposal.....Paul Ryan's Path To Prosperity....

 

[Oddball]

You forgot the part where I siai I would oppose such a system.
So, we're back to you being OK with forcing people into a condition of involuntary servitude.

It doesn't really matter that you're one of the few people left that feel the state has no role to playing in helping the indigent to access health care. Unless you're deluded, I assume you recognize that no state with a republican form of government and regular elections is ever going to lack such a program. Your philosophy went out of vogue about a century ago.

Thus the question becomes: how do we structure, operate, and finance these programs to make sure they're best achieving the goals the public has identified as worthy of them meeting, and in a way that gives the most bang for the public buck?

Designing programs in the dumbest way possible is not a middle ground between designing/operating good programs and convincing people of your absurd "involuntary servitude" rhetoric around health insurance for the poor.

No, the question becomes: How does the staggering litany of evidence that your "in vogue" progressive/socialistic welfare dependence state is an absolute towering failure, exist as proof that even more of your know-it-all authoritarian central planner do-goodery is going to make the situation any better?