Social Security and health care

[Campbell]

Here is how the health insurance companies fix rates, in my opinion.

If a person takes medicare at 65, medicare covers 80 percent of let's say an xray. Private insurance creates a network where as you either go to the network or pay out the ass. So they buy up all the hospitals and doctors in an area and fix the prices. So let's say I could walk in and pay cash for an xray. The xray cost me 800 dollars.

The insurance company fixes the rate for the xray at 1000 dollars. Thus they get 800 from the government and any co-pays or deductible from the person or nothing from the customer making their plan look free. Of course the 800 dollars was jacked up in the first place. So the HC company makes out like a bandit. Meanwhile we all get used to an xray costing 800 dollars and think we get a deal if we pay cash.

There are two major facts about health care in the U S:

1) We're the only industrialized country in the world where the government doesn't provide health care for everyone

2) We're the only industrialized country in the world that has hundreds of health care and health insurance companies.

1) didn't Obamacare take care of that? And i think you are talking about health care insurance not health care. Health care was always and is still available to everyone, insurance not so much.

2) SO?

That's funny!

My wife and I are both retired and I'm 81 years old and you're explaining health care to me. We're both on Medicare and we spend about $5,000-$5,500 dollars each year for supplemental coverage, about $1,300 a year for medical prescription insurance and we have no dental or vision insurance. Just wait "old man." If you're lucky and last long enough you'll get to see what it's like.

Oh!.......I forgot. Each year Medicare will pay for a new pair of glasses if we need them. I had cataract surgery on both my eyes in 2014 and I can see as good as I could in my 30's. My wife's not so lucky. She's always had vision problems. She had cataract surgery when she was about 50 years old and struggles with her vision. She has essentially quit driving our cars. I'm her chauffeur. That's pretty bad when someone has a chauffeur who is 81 years old.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

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!!!!!

You mean old folks whose family didn't give a shit about them?

What's wrong with someone leaving their money to the person of their own choosing? What seems to bother you isn't that they leave it but that they leave it to someone other that who you think they should. If it's not your money, it's not your business. Don't worry about my parents, children, or other family members. If they need help someday, I will be more than happy to help them. That's what families do and that's how it should be done. If other people would take that same outlook instead of expecting someone they're jealous of to do it for them, the problem would solve itself. You don't want to solve problems. You want the government to force someone else to do it so you can take credit for it.

If you bleeding hearts would do with your own money what you claim you have compassion for doing, the government isn't involved and you get done what you say should be done. That you involve the government tells me you don't care as much as your words say and you do it so you can be seen doing it by others.

You're a Liberal. You're entire viewpoint is a fairy tale.

The problem is that Social Security and poverty are not really connected. Today a typical worker will lose money on the system. That means that on average SS cannot lift someone out of poverty that it did not put there with its high cost. This is a longer story because the statistics are not good, the measure of poverty is not correct. If you are interested here is a longer piece that I put into TheHill :

Social Security is not an anti-poverty program

"Common sense should tell us that something is amiss with this endearing myth. Social Security does not pay a penny of benefit based on need. The system does not even have visibility into need. So at best any benefit that goes to a poor person is more a matter of luck than systemic policy.

The benefit formula of the program is designed to make that outcome less than likely though. The system allocates benefits based on among other things wages and the number of years worked. So until working a long and productive career causes poverty, Social Security will never be an anti-poverty program."

Social Security wasn't designed to provide security. Even the Liberals that support it say it's not enough to live one. It was designed as a form of redistribution of wealth. Liberals regularly propose increasing the income cap on which SS is taken out. I decided to run a few numbers and ask some questions along those lines. I don't exact figures but proportions were my primary concern.

Let's say someone works 40 years and their average wage is $30,000/year. Another person works 40 years and their average wage is 5x that much or $150,000/year. They both work where the employee/employer withholding is the same percentage so it's an apples to apples comparison.

I've asked more than one Liberal supporter of SS should the worker making 5x as much and for whom 5x as much went in get 5x as much per month when each starts drawing. All of them said no and used the reason that if someone makes the higher wage they likely don't need it. While that may be true, what they're telling me is it's OK for the government to force you to be a part of something and not provide you with what they said would come in return when you started getting it back. In other words, redistribution of wealth. I know that the money someone put in the system when they worked wasn't put into an account with their name and that workers today fund it with their contributions. However, if what one is supposed to get out is calculated using what they put in, it doesn't matter whether it is funded by workers now or it was put into an account.'

The higher wage worker does not get remotely close to 5x the payout. He is lucky to get double. Wages (and taxes) rise in concert. Wages and benefits do not. The rate of growth of benefits slows dramatically as a worker earns more. In theory, your liberal friends like it. Social Security is very progressive.

That was the point of my post. Those who don't want someone getting out at a proportional rate to what they put in don't mine them contributing at a proportional rate.

SS isn't progressive other than being support by progressives. Based on the disproportional distributions, it's yet another social welfare program that benefits those on the lower end much greater than on the upper.

That doesn't mean I support doing away with it. I do support someone being able to opt out and letting those that think it's so great be a part of it. Liberals, the ones that say they believe in freedom and choice, do not support an opt out. They think, and have said so, that they are looking out for us.

You would have to walk me through how SS isn't a progressive system.

 

[Conservative65]

You mean old folks whose family didn't give a shit about them?

What's wrong with someone leaving their money to the person of their own choosing? What seems to bother you isn't that they leave it but that they leave it to someone other that who you think they should. If it's not your money, it's not your business. Don't worry about my parents, children, or other family members. If they need help someday, I will be more than happy to help them. That's what families do and that's how it should be done. If other people would take that same outlook instead of expecting someone they're jealous of to do it for them, the problem would solve itself. You don't want to solve problems. You want the government to force someone else to do it so you can take credit for it.

If you bleeding hearts would do with your own money what you claim you have compassion for doing, the government isn't involved and you get done what you say should be done. That you involve the government tells me you don't care as much as your words say and you do it so you can be seen doing it by others.

You're a Liberal. You're entire viewpoint is a fairy tale.

The problem is that Social Security and poverty are not really connected. Today a typical worker will lose money on the system. That means that on average SS cannot lift someone out of poverty that it did not put there with its high cost. This is a longer story because the statistics are not good, the measure of poverty is not correct. If you are interested here is a longer piece that I put into TheHill :

Social Security is not an anti-poverty program

"Common sense should tell us that something is amiss with this endearing myth. Social Security does not pay a penny of benefit based on need. The system does not even have visibility into need. So at best any benefit that goes to a poor person is more a matter of luck than systemic policy.

The benefit formula of the program is designed to make that outcome less than likely though. The system allocates benefits based on among other things wages and the number of years worked. So until working a long and productive career causes poverty, Social Security will never be an anti-poverty program."

Social Security wasn't designed to provide security. Even the Liberals that support it say it's not enough to live one. It was designed as a form of redistribution of wealth. Liberals regularly propose increasing the income cap on which SS is taken out. I decided to run a few numbers and ask some questions along those lines. I don't exact figures but proportions were my primary concern.

Let's say someone works 40 years and their average wage is $30,000/year. Another person works 40 years and their average wage is 5x that much or $150,000/year. They both work where the employee/employer withholding is the same percentage so it's an apples to apples comparison.

I've asked more than one Liberal supporter of SS should the worker making 5x as much and for whom 5x as much went in get 5x as much per month when each starts drawing. All of them said no and used the reason that if someone makes the higher wage they likely don't need it. While that may be true, what they're telling me is it's OK for the government to force you to be a part of something and not provide you with what they said would come in return when you started getting it back. In other words, redistribution of wealth. I know that the money someone put in the system when they worked wasn't put into an account with their name and that workers today fund it with their contributions. However, if what one is supposed to get out is calculated using what they put in, it doesn't matter whether it is funded by workers now or it was put into an account.'

The higher wage worker does not get remotely close to 5x the payout. He is lucky to get double. Wages (and taxes) rise in concert. Wages and benefits do not. The rate of growth of benefits slows dramatically as a worker earns more. In theory, your liberal friends like it. Social Security is very progressive.

That was the point of my post. Those who don't want someone getting out at a proportional rate to what they put in don't mine them contributing at a proportional rate.

SS isn't progressive other than being support by progressives. Based on the disproportional distributions, it's yet another social welfare program that benefits those on the lower end much greater than on the upper.

That doesn't mean I support doing away with it. I do support someone being able to opt out and letting those that think it's so great be a part of it. Liberals, the ones that say they believe in freedom and choice, do not support an opt out. They think, and have said so, that they are looking out for us.

You would have to walk me through how SS isn't a progressive system.

I consider it regressive. To use your words, the rate of growth of benefits slows drastically as a worker earns more. Unless someone that pays 5x more over a working career than someone else get 5x as much per month, that's regressive.

Tell me what you mean by progressive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The poor houses have a terrible history.

But they no longer exist.

My point exactly. In the late 1940's when the first old folks first began to draw social security the poor houses began to disappear. The poor house here within five miles of me was shut down in the mid 1950's.

Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.

How can you say that? You are not self-evident truth when you pontificate. That 1 of 7 seniors had the SS money undoubtedly improved their elderly years. Do you have numbers and percentages for 1951 to 1960? That would be interesting to see.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The problem is that Social Security and poverty are not really connected. Today a typical worker will lose money on the system. That means that on average SS cannot lift someone out of poverty that it did not put there with its high cost. This is a longer story because the statistics are not good, the measure of poverty is not correct. If you are interested here is a longer piece that I put into TheHill :

Social Security is not an anti-poverty program

"Common sense should tell us that something is amiss with this endearing myth. Social Security does not pay a penny of benefit based on need. The system does not even have visibility into need. So at best any benefit that goes to a poor person is more a matter of luck than systemic policy.

The benefit formula of the program is designed to make that outcome less than likely though. The system allocates benefits based on among other things wages and the number of years worked. So until working a long and productive career causes poverty, Social Security will never be an anti-poverty program."

Social Security wasn't designed to provide security. Even the Liberals that support it say it's not enough to live one. It was designed as a form of redistribution of wealth. Liberals regularly propose increasing the income cap on which SS is taken out. I decided to run a few numbers and ask some questions along those lines. I don't exact figures but proportions were my primary concern.

Let's say someone works 40 years and their average wage is $30,000/year. Another person works 40 years and their average wage is 5x that much or $150,000/year. They both work where the employee/employer withholding is the same percentage so it's an apples to apples comparison.

I've asked more than one Liberal supporter of SS should the worker making 5x as much and for whom 5x as much went in get 5x as much per month when each starts drawing. All of them said no and used the reason that if someone makes the higher wage they likely don't need it. While that may be true, what they're telling me is it's OK for the government to force you to be a part of something and not provide you with what they said would come in return when you started getting it back. In other words, redistribution of wealth. I know that the money someone put in the system when they worked wasn't put into an account with their name and that workers today fund it with their contributions. However, if what one is supposed to get out is calculated using what they put in, it doesn't matter whether it is funded by workers now or it was put into an account.'

The higher wage worker does not get remotely close to 5x the payout. He is lucky to get double. Wages (and taxes) rise in concert. Wages and benefits do not. The rate of growth of benefits slows dramatically as a worker earns more. In theory, your liberal friends like it. Social Security is very progressive.

That was the point of my post. Those who don't want someone getting out at a proportional rate to what they put in don't mine them contributing at a proportional rate.

SS isn't progressive other than being support by progressives. Based on the disproportional distributions, it's yet another social welfare program that benefits those on the lower end much greater than on the upper.

That doesn't mean I support doing away with it. I do support someone being able to opt out and letting those that think it's so great be a part of it. Liberals, the ones that say they believe in freedom and choice, do not support an opt out. They think, and have said so, that they are looking out for us.

You would have to walk me through how SS isn't a progressive system.

I consider it regressive. To use your words, the rate of growth of benefits slows drastically as a worker earns more. Unless someone that pays 5x more over a working career than someone else get 5x as much per month, that's regressive.

Tell me what you mean by progressive.

If you are a low-wage earner, you in theory will get your money back. If you are a high-wage earner, you will get your money back on your lowest (ie first wages) but in the end you will get slammed. On you last 100 earned, you will pay $106 in tax. That contribution will increase your annual benefit level by about $4 a year.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The poor houses have a terrible history.

But they no longer exist.

My point exactly. In the late 1940's when the first old folks first began to draw social security the poor houses began to disappear. The poor house here within five miles of me was shut down in the mid 1950's.

Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.

How can you say that? You are not self-evident truth when you pontificate. That 1 of 7 seniors had the SS money undoubtedly improved their elderly years. Do you have numbers and percentages for 1951 to 1960? That would be interesting to see.

SS was massively expended in 1950.

The average benefit level in 1950 was about $350, Average Monthly Social Security Benefits, 1940–2015. About $3,500 in todays cash. When Social Security was founded, it was a supplement to your other savings and pensions. It didn't pull penniless seniors out of the poor house.

 

[Conservative65]

Social Security wasn't designed to provide security. Even the Liberals that support it say it's not enough to live one. It was designed as a form of redistribution of wealth. Liberals regularly propose increasing the income cap on which SS is taken out. I decided to run a few numbers and ask some questions along those lines. I don't exact figures but proportions were my primary concern.

Let's say someone works 40 years and their average wage is $30,000/year. Another person works 40 years and their average wage is 5x that much or $150,000/year. They both work where the employee/employer withholding is the same percentage so it's an apples to apples comparison.

I've asked more than one Liberal supporter of SS should the worker making 5x as much and for whom 5x as much went in get 5x as much per month when each starts drawing. All of them said no and used the reason that if someone makes the higher wage they likely don't need it. While that may be true, what they're telling me is it's OK for the government to force you to be a part of something and not provide you with what they said would come in return when you started getting it back. In other words, redistribution of wealth. I know that the money someone put in the system when they worked wasn't put into an account with their name and that workers today fund it with their contributions. However, if what one is supposed to get out is calculated using what they put in, it doesn't matter whether it is funded by workers now or it was put into an account.'

The higher wage worker does not get remotely close to 5x the payout. He is lucky to get double. Wages (and taxes) rise in concert. Wages and benefits do not. The rate of growth of benefits slows dramatically as a worker earns more. In theory, your liberal friends like it. Social Security is very progressive.

That was the point of my post. Those who don't want someone getting out at a proportional rate to what they put in don't mine them contributing at a proportional rate.

SS isn't progressive other than being support by progressives. Based on the disproportional distributions, it's yet another social welfare program that benefits those on the lower end much greater than on the upper.

That doesn't mean I support doing away with it. I do support someone being able to opt out and letting those that think it's so great be a part of it. Liberals, the ones that say they believe in freedom and choice, do not support an opt out. They think, and have said so, that they are looking out for us.

You would have to walk me through how SS isn't a progressive system.

I consider it regressive. To use your words, the rate of growth of benefits slows drastically as a worker earns more. Unless someone that pays 5x more over a working career than someone else get 5x as much per month, that's regressive.

Tell me what you mean by progressive.

If you are a low-wage earner, you in theory will get your money back. If you are a high-wage earner, you will get your money back on your lowest (ie first wages) but in the end you will get slammed. On you last 100 earned, you will pay $106 in tax. That contribution will increase your annual benefit level by about $4 a year.

In a few short years to boot.

It's the overall that is the problem. The bottom line.

 

[Conservative65]

Here is how the health insurance companies fix rates, in my opinion.

If a person takes medicare at 65, medicare covers 80 percent of let's say an xray. Private insurance creates a network where as you either go to the network or pay out the ass. So they buy up all the hospitals and doctors in an area and fix the prices. So let's say I could walk in and pay cash for an xray. The xray cost me 800 dollars.

The insurance company fixes the rate for the xray at 1000 dollars. Thus they get 800 from the government and any co-pays or deductible from the person or nothing from the customer making their plan look free. Of course the 800 dollars was jacked up in the first place. So the HC company makes out like a bandit. Meanwhile we all get used to an xray costing 800 dollars and think we get a deal if we pay cash.

There are two major facts about health care in the U S:

1) We're the only industrialized country in the world where the government doesn't provide health care for everyone

2) We're the only industrialized country in the world that has hundreds of health care and health insurance companies.

1) didn't Obamacare take care of that? And i think you are talking about health care insurance not health care. Health care was always and is still available to everyone, insurance not so much.

2) SO?

That's funny!

My wife and I are both retired and I'm 81 years old and you're explaining health care to me. We're both on Medicare and we spend about $5,000-$5,500 dollars each year for supplemental coverage, about $1,300 a year for medical prescription insurance and we have no dental or vision insurance. Just wait "old man." If you're lucky and last long enough you'll get to see what it's like.

Oh!.......I forgot. Each year Medicare will pay for a new pair of glasses if we need them. I had cataract surgery on both my eyes in 2014 and I can see as good as I could in my 30's. My wife's not so lucky. She's always had vision problems. She had cataract surgery when she was about 50 years old and struggles with her vision. She has essentially quit driving our cars. I'm her chauffeur. That's pretty bad when someone has a chauffeur who is 81 years old.

Someone needs to explain to you that no one owes you anything. You whine as if they do.

 

[Conservative65]

Those who opt out are attempting to privatize their profit while socializing their risk.

Won't happen.

That's because you bleeding hearts know those who would opt out are the ones keeping the system going. The poor and lower income aren't doing it. The only way you can maintain the system is to FORCE the higher incomes to put into it. The sad part is you support disproportionately lower distributions related to contributions the higher the income and vice versa for lower incomes. In other words, someone putting in 5x the amount over a lifetime than another person doesn't get 5x as much per month as that lower income person when distributions come their way. If it was that way, at least the system would be fair. Now, it's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth program.

They aren't socializing a risk. If they opt out and don't invest themselves, tough shit. I don't have a problem holding them responsible for their choices.

 

[Campbell]

The poor houses have a terrible history.

But they no longer exist.

My point exactly. In the late 1940's when the first old folks first began to draw social security the poor houses began to disappear. The poor house here within five miles of me was shut down in the mid 1950's.

Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.

You don't know shit....you're talking out your ass. In 1950 I was 16 years old and I remember my parents discussing it. Nobody drew benefits until they had been paying into the program for a minimum number of years. That automatically set a base time. Jan. 31, 1940...Ida M. Fuller became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated Jan. 31, was for $22.54.

 

[Conservative65]

The poor houses have a terrible history.

But they no longer exist.

My point exactly. In the late 1940's when the first old folks first began to draw social security the poor houses began to disappear. The poor house here within five miles of me was shut down in the mid 1950's.

Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.

You don't know shit....you're talking out your ass. In 1950 I was 16 years old and I remember my parents discussing it. Nobody drew benefits until they had been paying into the program for a minimum number of years. That automatically set a base time. Jan. 31, 1940...Ida M. Fuller became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated Jan. 31, was for $22.54.

So she paid in a total of $24.75 and got a single check for damn near that much. Did her checks stop after that? They should have with the exception of the other $2.21. Anything beyond that was a handout.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The higher wage worker does not get remotely close to 5x the payout. He is lucky to get double. Wages (and taxes) rise in concert. Wages and benefits do not. The rate of growth of benefits slows dramatically as a worker earns more. In theory, your liberal friends like it. Social Security is very progressive.

That was the point of my post. Those who don't want someone getting out at a proportional rate to what they put in don't mine them contributing at a proportional rate.

SS isn't progressive other than being support by progressives. Based on the disproportional distributions, it's yet another social welfare program that benefits those on the lower end much greater than on the upper.

That doesn't mean I support doing away with it. I do support someone being able to opt out and letting those that think it's so great be a part of it. Liberals, the ones that say they believe in freedom and choice, do not support an opt out. They think, and have said so, that they are looking out for us.

You would have to walk me through how SS isn't a progressive system.

I consider it regressive. To use your words, the rate of growth of benefits slows drastically as a worker earns more. Unless someone that pays 5x more over a working career than someone else get 5x as much per month, that's regressive.

Tell me what you mean by progressive.

If you are a low-wage earner, you in theory will get your money back. If you are a high-wage earner, you will get your money back on your lowest (ie first wages) but in the end you will get slammed. On you last 100 earned, you will pay $106 in tax. That contribution will increase your annual benefit level by about $4 a year.

In a few short years to boot.

It's the overall that is the problem. The bottom line.

The problem is that people elected Congress who gave their constituents dollars for dimes. The discussion of Social Security reform is entirely about upon whom the $0.90 will fall. The guys like Chris Christie who say that we need to rise the retirement age are suggesting that the entire $0.90 should fall on future retirees in the form of lower benefits. Future retirees and I mean the ones who retire in 2035 and later had nothing to do with the dollars given and the dimes paid. Hell they weren't even born. We are living a fractional amount longer, and paying as much as 1500% more in taxes.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The poor houses have a terrible history.

But they no longer exist.

My point exactly. In the late 1940's when the first old folks first began to draw social security the poor houses began to disappear. The poor house here within five miles of me was shut down in the mid 1950's.

Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.

How can you say that? You are not self-evident truth when you pontificate. That 1 of 7 seniors had the SS money undoubtedly improved their elderly years. Do you have numbers and percentages for 1951 to 1960? That would be interesting to see.

SS was massively expended in 1950.

The average benefit level in 1950 was about $350, Average Monthly Social Security Benefits, 1940–2015. About $3,500 in todays cash. When Social Security was founded, it was a supplement to your other savings and pensions. It didn't pull penniless seniors out of the poor house.

You are not the sage. What were the number of seniors in poverty in 1950 and those in 1964?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those who opt out are attempting to privatize their profit while socializing their risk.

Won't happen.

That's because you bleeding hearts know those who would opt out are the ones keeping the system going. The poor and lower income aren't doing it. The only way you can maintain the system is to FORCE the higher incomes to put into it. The sad part is you support disproportionately lower distributions related to contributions the higher the income and vice versa for lower incomes. In other words, someone putting in 5x the amount over a lifetime than another person doesn't get 5x as much per month as that lower income person when distributions come their way. If it was that way, at least the system would be fair. Now, it's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth program.

They aren't socializing a risk. If they opt out and don't invest themselves, tough shit. I don't have a problem holding them responsible for their choices.

Yeah, they are, and, yeah, we would take care of them.

 

[Campbell]

Here is how the health insurance companies fix rates, in my opinion.

If a person takes medicare at 65, medicare covers 80 percent of let's say an xray. Private insurance creates a network where as you either go to the network or pay out the ass. So they buy up all the hospitals and doctors in an area and fix the prices. So let's say I could walk in and pay cash for an xray. The xray cost me 800 dollars.

The insurance company fixes the rate for the xray at 1000 dollars. Thus they get 800 from the government and any co-pays or deductible from the person or nothing from the customer making their plan look free. Of course the 800 dollars was jacked up in the first place. So the HC company makes out like a bandit. Meanwhile we all get used to an xray costing 800 dollars and think we get a deal if we pay cash.

There are two major facts about health care in the U S:

1) We're the only industrialized country in the world where the government doesn't provide health care for everyone

2) We're the only industrialized country in the world that has hundreds of health care and health insurance companies.

1) didn't Obamacare take care of that? And i think you are talking about health care insurance not health care. Health care was always and is still available to everyone, insurance not so much.

2) SO?

That's funny!

My wife and I are both retired and I'm 81 years old and you're explaining health care to me. We're both on Medicare and we spend about $5,000-$5,500 dollars each year for supplemental coverage, about $1,300 a year for medical prescription insurance and we have no dental or vision insurance. Just wait "old man." If you're lucky and last long enough you'll get to see what it's like.

Oh!.......I forgot. Each year Medicare will pay for a new pair of glasses if we need them. I had cataract surgery on both my eyes in 2014 and I can see as good as I could in my 30's. My wife's not so lucky. She's always had vision problems. She had cataract surgery when she was about 50 years old and struggles with her vision. She has essentially quit driving our cars. I'm her chauffeur. That's pretty bad when someone has a chauffeur who is 81 years old.

Someone needs to explain to you that no one owes you anything. You whine as if they do.

Well I'll try to clue you in on something. If I had put every penny into the stock market beginning in 1950 I'd be so goddam rich I'd stink. Social Security was never intended to make anyone rich....just buy their groceries and gas.

 

[Campbell]

The poor houses have a terrible history.

But they no longer exist.

My point exactly. In the late 1940's when the first old folks first began to draw social security the poor houses began to disappear. The poor house here within five miles of me was shut down in the mid 1950's.

Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.

You don't know shit....you're talking out your ass. In 1950 I was 16 years old and I remember my parents discussing it. Nobody drew benefits until they had been paying into the program for a minimum number of years. That automatically set a base time. Jan. 31, 1940...Ida M. Fuller became the first person to receive an old-age monthly benefit check under the new Social Security law. She paid in $24.75 between 1937 and 1939 on an income of $2,484. Her first check, dated Jan. 31, was for $22.54.

So she paid in a total of $24.75 and got a single check for damn near that much. Did her checks stop after that? They should have with the exception of the other $2.21. Anything beyond that was a handout.

No...it was coming from some rich asshole who was using the system but didn't want to do his part. At least back in those days everybody took up a rifle and fought in the wars. Today the rich assholes go to some ivy league school and the poor folks join the military to fight in unnecessary Republican wars 10,000 miles from their families.

 

[Conservative65]

The poor houses have a terrible history.

But they no longer exist.

My point exactly. In the late 1940's when the first old folks first began to draw social security the poor houses began to disappear. The poor house here within five miles of me was shut down in the mid 1950's.

Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.

How can you say that? You are not self-evident truth when you pontificate. That 1 of 7 seniors had the SS money undoubtedly improved their elderly years. Do you have numbers and percentages for 1951 to 1960? That would be interesting to see.

SS was massively expended in 1950.

The average benefit level in 1950 was about $350, Average Monthly Social Security Benefits, 1940–2015. About $3,500 in todays cash. When Social Security was founded, it was a supplement to your other savings and pensions. It didn't pull penniless seniors out of the poor house.

You are not the sage. What were the number of seniors in poverty in 1950 and those in 1964?

Will poverty level in 1968 for elderly do? It was 25%. In 2008, it was less than 10%

 

[JakeStarkey]

Great point about picking up a rifle.

The first draft send a Rockefeller, the American League two-time MVP, and the head of the SEC.

They all went, none applied for an exemption.

 

[JakeStarkey]

My point exactly. In the late 1940's when the first old folks first began to draw social security the poor houses began to disappear. The poor house here within five miles of me was shut down in the mid 1950's.

Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.

How can you say that? You are not self-evident truth when you pontificate. That 1 of 7 seniors had the SS money undoubtedly improved their elderly years. Do you have numbers and percentages for 1951 to 1960? That would be interesting to see.

SS was massively expended in 1950.

The average benefit level in 1950 was about $350, Average Monthly Social Security Benefits, 1940–2015. About $3,500 in todays cash. When Social Security was founded, it was a supplement to your other savings and pensions. It didn't pull penniless seniors out of the poor house.

You are not the sage. What were the number of seniors in poverty in 1950 and those in 1964?

Will poverty level in 1968 for elderly do? It was 25%. In 2008, it was less than 10%

What was it in 1950?

 

[Conservative65]

Those who opt out are attempting to privatize their profit while socializing their risk.

Won't happen.

That's because you bleeding hearts know those who would opt out are the ones keeping the system going. The poor and lower income aren't doing it. The only way you can maintain the system is to FORCE the higher incomes to put into it. The sad part is you support disproportionately lower distributions related to contributions the higher the income and vice versa for lower incomes. In other words, someone putting in 5x the amount over a lifetime than another person doesn't get 5x as much per month as that lower income person when distributions come their way. If it was that way, at least the system would be fair. Now, it's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth program.

They aren't socializing a risk. If they opt out and don't invest themselves, tough shit. I don't have a problem holding them responsible for their choices.

Yeah, they are, and, yeah, we would take care of them.

Then the risk you say is socializing occurs because you make it that way not because it is that way. If you choose to do something where the need for it was due to a person's own bad choices, can't blame that on anyone but yourself.

Who the hell is the we? You bleeding hearts won't do a damn thing. You force others to do it then claim credit as if you did it yourself. If you'd do it yourself because you truly cared like you say you do, problem solved. You won't. You think compassion comes from supporting a mandate.