Social Security and health care

[JakeStarkey]

JoetheEconomist is using his own terms and definitions to fit his cognitive dissonance.

Social Security is easily fixed.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

JoetheEconomist is using his own terms and definitions to fit his cognitive dissonance.

Social Security is easily fixed.

Actually my data, terms and definitions come from the SSA. I am simply explaining what the facts mean. Which fact are you contesting?

 

[JakeStarkey]

JoetheEconomist is using his own terms and definitions to fit his cognitive dissonance.

Social Security is easily fixed.

Actually my data, terms and definitions come from the SSA. I am simply explaining what the facts mean. Which fact are you contesting?

You are explaining your opinion of the facts, and you are dodging that SS is easily fixable. How would you fix it?

 

[Conservative65]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

This is a major problem.

People paying in and then having no security based on what elected govts, which change every 2 years, decide to do with the money.

What is the point of a government? Many people don't seem to see it as the organization that should simply make life better for citizens.
Housing, for example, should be a home, not an investment. However govts all over seem to use the housing market as a tool for making money, especially for rich people with spare cash, who can buy and sell when it suits them.
A retirement fund should be just that. People putting in money and the money being assured to them when they come out of it. Private companies are too volatile for something so long term, you put money in, the company goes broke and takes your money with them. Only a govt can really have the security, but govts don't bother with that. Elections are short term-ism, every 2 or 4 or 6 years they're trying to wow you with something or other, and show you what they did in the last term in order to prove it.

It's not the government's place to make like simpler for citizens. It's an entity that should create an environment where people can do that for themselves.

My house is a home based on what goes on there. It's also an investment that I hope will be worth more than when I built it. In fact, I built my own house and went into it with about 40% equity. I invested my time and that will pay off in the end.

It's not he government's place to be your retirement planner. It's yours.

 

[Conservative65]

JoetheEconomist is using his own terms and definitions to fit his cognitive dissonance.

Social Security is easily fixed.

Actually my data, terms and definitions come from the SSA. I am simply explaining what the facts mean. Which fact are you contesting?

You are explaining your opinion of the facts, and you are dodging that SS is easily fixable. How would you fix it?

How would you fix it?

I'd give people the ability to opt out and invest their own money the way they see fit.

 

[Stephanie]

this article should give us the warm fuzzies. speaking of health care. I was just reading this. there is no ending in site because they keep Growing this Federal Government on us. it's now too big and they think it can't fail. I don't the solution. but the ending doesn't sound good for us

SNIP:
America's ability to provide for American's first is threatened by a shrinking tax base and a government that increasingly funds and prioritizes global need.
Epidemic of Dementia: Shadow Economic Crisis

snippet:
Anger builds at a government spending large in Washington using American’s tax dollars to become the world’s caretaker while abandoning its own people in need. Can America’s middle-class save itself, its families, and its elderly while being forced to financially support burgeoning groups of global dependents who seek America’s health care and welfare dollars? The answer is “no.” The American worker and their families should be the recipients of the dollars they earn in the time of their need. Only then can a strong America render aid to others on a large scale.

snippet
this is where we actually are today:
How goes the middle-class in today’s economy as it faces this mounting, financial headwind?
Economists warn that so goes the middle-class, so goes the country. The question is: How goes the middle-class in today’s economy as it faces this mounting, financial headwind?

• America’s shrinking middle-class is now “in the minority for the first time ever” according to Pew Research Center.
  
• The average worker’s wages have remained flat or down for ten years.
• Fewer Americans are working since 1977 while “the percentage of adult Americans actively looking for a job stands at 62.6 percent, the lowest level in nearly four decades.”
• The number of Americans in poverty continues to grow.
• Single female heads of households are significantly poorer and face greater challenges providing aid to an elderly parent or grandparent that is in need of care.

Americans remain on borrowed time with a shrinking workforce
Americans remain on borrowed time with a shrinking workforce that is kowtowed to ever-increasing government spending and decades of waste by this and former administrations
the whole article here:
Epidemic of Dementia: Shadow Economic Crisis

 

[Mr Natural]

You are explaining your opinion of the facts, and you are dodging that SS is easily fixable. How would you fix it?

Raise or better yet eliminate the earnings cap.

Problem solved.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JoetheEconomist is using his own terms and definitions to fit his cognitive dissonance.

Social Security is easily fixed.

Actually my data, terms and definitions come from the SSA. I am simply explaining what the facts mean. Which fact are you contesting?

You are explaining your opinion of the facts, and you are dodging that SS is easily fixable. How would you fix it?

How would you fix it?

I'd give people the ability to opt out and invest their own money the way they see fit.

That's one way, and one that allows you to privatize profit but if you fail the system takes care of you in your old age. No, you will be responsible and contribute to your old age security program.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

JoetheEconomist is using his own terms and definitions to fit his cognitive dissonance.

Social Security is easily fixed.

Actually my data, terms and definitions come from the SSA. I am simply explaining what the facts mean. Which fact are you contesting?

You are explaining your opinion of the facts, and you are dodging that SS is easily fixable. How would you fix it?

How would you fix it?

I'd give people the ability to opt out and invest their own money the way they see fit.

And what would you do if everyone left?

 

[BluesLegend]

Talk to a vet about the quality of VA healthcare and you will get a good understanding of just how bad single payer government healthcare would be. People these government tards can't even build a website that works after spending hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Talk to a vet about the quality of VA healthcare and you will get a good understanding of just how bad single payer government healthcare would be. People these government tards can't even build a website that works after spending hundreds of millions of dollars.

I am a vet and get 100% VA medical care, which has been outstanding. I have read about other institutions' problems and have watched TV reports, but that is not the case at SLC. I can't answer for all VA centers and neither can you, BL.

National health care? European systems of national health care produce better care for less money than the USA. Europeans live longer and are more healthy into later age.

 

[frigidweirdo]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

This is a major problem.

People paying in and then having no security based on what elected govts, which change every 2 years, decide to do with the money.

What is the point of a government? Many people don't seem to see it as the organization that should simply make life better for citizens.
Housing, for example, should be a home, not an investment. However govts all over seem to use the housing market as a tool for making money, especially for rich people with spare cash, who can buy and sell when it suits them.
A retirement fund should be just that. People putting in money and the money being assured to them when they come out of it. Private companies are too volatile for something so long term, you put money in, the company goes broke and takes your money with them. Only a govt can really have the security, but govts don't bother with that. Elections are short term-ism, every 2 or 4 or 6 years they're trying to wow you with something or other, and show you what they did in the last term in order to prove it.

It's not the government's place to make like simpler for citizens. It's an entity that should create an environment where people can do that for themselves.

My house is a home based on what goes on there. It's also an investment that I hope will be worth more than when I built it. In fact, I built my own house and went into it with about 40% equity. I invested my time and that will pay off in the end.

It's not he government's place to be your retirement planner. It's yours.

"make like simple for citizens"

BAAAHHHH you're so stupid you can't even spell life properly, bahhhh, you shouldn't be allowed to vote because you can't even spell a word properly, baaahhhhh you're so fecking stupid it hurt, baaaahhhhh.

You like them apples?

You spent how long attacking me for something that I did wrong. Maybe next time you'll learn that humans are fallible.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

JoetheEconomist is using his own terms and definitions to fit his cognitive dissonance.

Social Security is easily fixed.

Actually my data, terms and definitions come from the SSA. I am simply explaining what the facts mean. Which fact are you contesting?

You are explaining your opinion of the facts, and you are dodging that SS is easily fixable. How would you fix it?

How would you fix it?

I'd give people the ability to opt out and invest their own money the way they see fit.

I started Fix Social Security Now. The point is to widen the audience in the discussion by providing down-to-earth explanations of the technical jargon. You can't do that when you have something to sell. In general, I like the concept of old-age insurance. I do not like the typical ideas which simply shift the cost from voters to non-voters.

Our effort centers on asking people who have solutions questions. If you give people the ability to opt-out, everyone would. You would be able to pay benefits for about 3 years. That means you have a choice (1) tell existing retirees to pound sand (2) tell the people that opted-out, that they only opted-out of benefits. They still have to pay the taxes. Typically I find that people who believe in the opt-out idea believe that the $2.8 trillion in the Trust Fund is some massive warchest of cash. It is about 3 years of benefits.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

I kind of think that social security isn't the death pot that it is because a lot of people choose to have a non-government solution to retirement such as stocks, home, etc, etc. If everyone was forced to be on it then it will become a nightmare. This is the only way government systems can survive because people are free to choose a non-government option and since so many people are choosing the non-government option the government option doesn't get any complaints.

Social Security is a mess because the first 50 years of retirees voted for Congresses that underpriced the cost of benefits. In the 1950s, SS was not far from selling dollars for dimes. No one today chooses Social Security. It is mandated upon them.

I've gone to your site and looked around.

You seem to be against any solution that causes pain.

It seems to me that won't work.

S.S. lived off of favorable circumstances.....and will now be forced to pay.

We can let the system float and it will eventually cut benefits.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

I kind of think that social security isn't the death pot that it is because a lot of people choose to have a non-government solution to retirement such as stocks, home, etc, etc. If everyone was forced to be on it then it will become a nightmare. This is the only way government systems can survive because people are free to choose a non-government option and since so many people are choosing the non-government option the government option doesn't get any complaints.

Social Security is a mess because the first 50 years of retirees voted for Congresses that underpriced the cost of benefits. In the 1950s, SS was not far from selling dollars for dimes. No one today chooses Social Security. It is mandated upon them.

I've gone to your site and looked around.

You seem to be against any solution that causes pain.

It seems to me that won't work.

S.S. lived off of favorable circumstances.....and will now be forced to pay.

We aren't for or against anything. There are ideas that we actually say address structural design problems in the system. That doesn't mean that we are for them. The point is to make people understand what we are doing.

We can let the system float and it will eventually cut benefits.

Yes. There is no difference between cutting the benefits of future retirees by law or by insolvency. Most of the solutions proposed do nothing more than explain to future retirees how little they will get.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

How does letting people fend for themselves and simply going without healthcare if it's unaffordable make things any better?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

How does letting people fend for themselves and simply going without healthcare if it's unaffordable make things any better?

Well, that's what we are doing now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

How does letting people fend for themselves and simply going without healthcare if it's unaffordable make things any better?

Well, that's what we are doing now.

Yes, we still have more than 30 million not covered.

 

[Campbell]

JoetheEconomist is using his own terms and definitions to fit his cognitive dissonance.

Social Security is easily fixed.

Actually my data, terms and definitions come from the SSA. I am simply explaining what the facts mean. Which fact are you contesting?

You are explaining your opinion of the facts, and you are dodging that SS is easily fixable. How would you fix it?

How would you fix it?

I'd give people the ability to opt out and invest their own money the way they see fit.

That's one way, and one that allows you to privatize profit but if you fail the system takes care of you in your old age. No, you will be responsible and contribute to your old age security program.

They don't remember what I saw and witnessed. Most of the young people have never even heard of "County Poor Houses."

A long time ago.....before any kind of government assistance, each county maintained a couple of acres of land with some kind of big house on it. When old folks became destitute that was where they ended up. The ones who were still able raised enough food for them to survive. While this atrocity was occurring those at the top were living in luxury and leaving millions to their heirs. At some point this goddam problem become academic. Do Americans want to take world cruises and count their millions while others barely keep from starving to death? If they do they should read the story of Lazrus and the rich man.......OH!!! I forgot, they don't believe in fairy tales. Well.....I don't believe in fairy tales either but I've watched it for about 70 of my 80 years on this planet and believe me.........it evens out in the long run. SHIT HAPPENS!!!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The poor houses have a terrible history.

But they no longer exist.