Social Security and health care

[bripat9643]

Prove that wouldn't have happened without SS.

Social Security Administration: Social Security Basic Facts
Social Security is the major source of income for most of the elderly.

• Nine out of ten individuals age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits.
• Social Security benefits represent about 39% of the income of the elderly.
• Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 53% of married couples and 74% of unmarried persons receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security.
• Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 22% of married couples and about 47% of unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income.

You didn't prove it. You're ignoring all the money people would have had for their retirement if they had invested the 13% that SS loots from them every year of their working lives. Not only would they have had that additional money, but the economy would have grown much faster since the money would have been invested.

You can't claim a program is a net benefit to you by looking only at the payout and ignoring what you pay in. That's how con artists operate.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Prove that wouldn't have happened without SS.

Social Security Administration: Social Security Basic Facts
Social Security is the major source of income for most of the elderly.

• Nine out of ten individuals age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits.
• Social Security benefits represent about 39% of the income of the elderly.
• Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 53% of married couples and 74% of unmarried persons receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security.
• Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 22% of married couples and about 47% of unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income.

You didn't prove it. You're ignoring all the money people would have had for their retirement if they had invested the 13% that SS loots from them every year of their working lives. Not only would they have had that additional money, but the economy would have grown much faster since the money would have been invested.

You can't claim a program is a net benefit to you by looking only at the payout and ignoring what you pay in. That's how con artists operate.

The data has much larger problems. If you are interested here is a piece on that I published on TheHill about Social Security and poverty.

Social Security is not an anti-poverty program

For what it is worth, 12.4% is a modern invention that has been around for about 25 years. Of current retirees few paid that rate for more than half of their working life. I am not convinced about the growing economy. SS has been cashflow positive for a very small period of time. Yes, the money would have been invested, but for every dollar of excess cash that was diverted from SS the government would have had to borrow money in the public markets. So people would have had more money to invest, and it would have been invested in Treasuries - likely at a higher rate.

 

[regent]

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.

The poor houses disappeared in the early thirties when FDR took over general welfare from the states. The states could no longer handle the numbers and the federal government assumed responsibility for the hungry. As the poor houses had rented out its poor people to industry for labor, FDR's programs required work also, but under humane circumstances.

 

[regent]

Prove that wouldn't have happened without SS.

Social Security Administration: Social Security Basic Facts
Social Security is the major source of income for most of the elderly.

• Nine out of ten individuals age 65 and older receive Social Security benefits.
• Social Security benefits represent about 39% of the income of the elderly.
• Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 53% of married couples and 74% of unmarried persons receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security.
• Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 22% of married couples and about 47% of unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income.

You didn't prove it. You're ignoring all the money people would have had for their retirement if they had invested the 13% that SS loots from them every year of their working lives. Not only would they have had that additional money, but the economy would have grown much faster since the money would have been invested.

You can't claim a program is a net benefit to you by looking only at the payout and ignoring what you pay in. That's how con artists operate.

Many did invest and their investments, along with their savings was gone with the Great Depression.
One of the problems during the pre New Deal was that banks used the people's savings to invest in the stock market, When the crash came the banks had no money to return depositors money it was gone. Then the banks went under, and many banks just closed their doors, money gone, bank-books worthless. Yeah invest, great idea.

 

[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.

The poor houses disappeared in the early thirties when FDR took over general welfare from the states. The states could no longer handle the numbers and the federal government assumed responsibility for the hungry. As the poor houses had rented out its poor people to industry for labor, FDR's programs required work also, but under humane circumstances.

I don't know anything about the ending of the poor house. I can tell you that it didn't happen in the 1940s because of Social Security which was the general contention.

 

[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.

The poor houses disappeared in the early thirties when FDR took over general welfare from the states. The states could no longer handle the numbers and the federal government assumed responsibility for the hungry. As the poor houses had rented out its poor people to industry for labor, FDR's programs required work also, but under humane circumstances.

I don't know anything about the ending of the poor house. I can tell you that it didn't happen in the 1940s because of Social Security which was the general contention.

I think you came up with the contention then refuted it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

This is the question we really need to answer - and come to some consensus on - as a nation. Currently we're caught between two, perhaps more, mutually incompatible answers.

And the biggest problem is coming up with anything. Everyone's more interested in fighting each other, than solving the problems.

This is mean that the USA just continues to eat itself until it implodes.

 

[Freewill]

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?

Keep telling yourself that right up to single payeer.

So what is single payer going to solve? Price fixing? Which would result in a lower quality of care? Much like is alleged with the VA?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Keep telling yourself that right up to single payeer.

So what is single payer going to solve? Price fixing? Which would result in a lower quality of care? Much like is alleged with the VA?

VA's problem is not single payer. What a silly comment.

 

[Freewill]

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?

Keep telling yourself that right up to single payeer.

So what is single payer going to solve? Price fixing? Which would result in a lower quality of care? Much like is alleged with the VA?

VA's problem is not single payer. What a silly comment.

So why did YOU bring up single payer, silly boy?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

Keep telling yourself that right up to single payer.

So what is single payer going to solve? Price fixing? Which would result in a lower quality of care? Much like is alleged with the VA?

VA's problem is not single payer. What a silly comment.

So why did YOU bring up single payer, silly boy?

You have made a false premise that single payer would lead to lower care, then mentioned VA that does not have single payer as if that was a significant rebuttal. I know this hurts your head, but do try.

 

[dblack]

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.

This is the question we really need to answer - and come to some consensus on - as a nation. Currently we're caught between two, perhaps more, mutually incompatible answers.

And the biggest problem is coming up with anything. Everyone's more interested in fighting each other, than solving the problems.

Maybe. But there remains the very real question of which problems government should solve.