Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Keeping people dependent is not looking out for them"There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism."
so Norway and Denmark are just as evil as Venezuela?
The US (because of roads and fire dept and police and military and social security) is JUST AS EVIL as china?
at this point
YOU have proven you are deranged.
and if we catch you driving on our socialist roads you will be deported (using our socialist tax dollars) to a NON socialist country of your choice.
which, by the way, because of roads and police and fire departments in those countries, do NOT exist.
Social Security and Medicare are not socialism
The former is a riced retirement savings plan the latter is a forced insurance plan
And both are far inferior to what a person could have if they actually had control over what amounts to 15% of their lifetime salary
...and we all know that everybody would wisely invest that 15% in guaranteed no loss portfolios, and that no one would squander it, and end up as charity cases, or worse, in his old age.
So what if they don't?
It's their money.
The government is not there to make sure you save your money.
If you want a guaranteed return then put your money in CDs and get 2%
Personally I would put that money in a very conservative portfolio and I would still end up with a couple million dollar nest egg in addition to what I would be saving anayway
Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you.
Fortunately, every industrialized nation on earth provides a way for it's citizens to be protected from starving in their old age. It is part of the price for living in a civilized society.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That is true, but it's worth looking at. Our corrupt capitalism sure isn't working so well anymore.That is impossible to knowTrue. There is a lot to be learned from the Nordic model. They seem to have far less corruption.We don't now nor have we ever had unfettered capitalism
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Too many things look good from the outside looking in and are very different when seen from the inside
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Keeping people dependent is not looking out for themSocial Security and Medicare are not socialism
The former is a riced retirement savings plan the latter is a forced insurance plan
And both are far inferior to what a person could have if they actually had control over what amounts to 15% of their lifetime salary
...and we all know that everybody would wisely invest that 15% in guaranteed no loss portfolios, and that no one would squander it, and end up as charity cases, or worse, in his old age.
So what if they don't?
It's their money.
The government is not there to make sure you save your money.
If you want a guaranteed return then put your money in CDs and get 2%
Personally I would put that money in a very conservative portfolio and I would still end up with a couple million dollar nest egg in addition to what I would be saving anayway
Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you.
Fortunately, every industrialized nation on earth provides a way for it's citizens to be protected from starving in their old age. It is part of the price for living in a civilized society.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Ok, so my cousin, who spent most of his savings on a catastrophic medical event when he was 63, is being "kept dependent" by Social Security and Medicare in a nursing home, where he is bedridden at age 81...
That is true, but it's worth looking at. Our corrupt capitalism sure isn't working so well anymore.That is impossible to knowTrue. There is a lot to be learned from the Nordic model. They seem to have far less corruption.We don't now nor have we ever had unfettered capitalism
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Too many things look good from the outside looking in and are very different when seen from the inside
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Keeping people dependent is not looking out for them...and we all know that everybody would wisely invest that 15% in guaranteed no loss portfolios, and that no one would squander it, and end up as charity cases, or worse, in his old age.
So what if they don't?
It's their money.
The government is not there to make sure you save your money.
If you want a guaranteed return then put your money in CDs and get 2%
Personally I would put that money in a very conservative portfolio and I would still end up with a couple million dollar nest egg in addition to what I would be saving anayway
Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you.
Fortunately, every industrialized nation on earth provides a way for it's citizens to be protected from starving in their old age. It is part of the price for living in a civilized society.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Ok, so my cousin, who spent most of his savings on a catastrophic medical event when he was 63, is being "kept dependent" by Social Security and Medicare in a nursing home, where he is bedridden at age 81...
Apples and Oranges.
We're not talking about people who can't work. My parents church, has a ministry that helps the people that are incapable of helping themselves. My grandmother served meals-on-wheels, to people who were dependent.
None of us is talking about people who are unable to work. Everyone supports helping those who simply can't be independent.
The only difference between the left-wing and the right-wing on the issue of helping those who are incapable of working........
Is that left-wingers never lift a finger to help anyone. All they do is point their fingers at others, and say "you should help them!".
Right-wingers and specifically Christian people, like my parents, and grand parents, and myself, we help people ourselves.
I don't go see people who need help, and then go home and start posting or screaming, that others should help that person, or that society should help that person.... no. Instead *I* help that person. My parents help that person. My grand parents help that person. We don't sit around demanding others give of their money to help, we give OUR money to help.
My church just finished a winter coat-for-christmas drive, where we supplied coats to schools for needy kids, across the entire state. We had so many coats, that the church lobby couldn't contain them all.
We didn't go to church, and have the pastor talk about how we needed to lobby congress to provide coats for needy families.... WE did it.
That's the only difference between left-wing and right-wing people on how we deal with people who are incapable of working.
What right-wingers like myself are talking about when we say "Keeping people dependent is not looking out for them", is the people who are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, but instead have been effectively trained to be dependent.
People who could be working a job, and instead are living on welfare.
Many people are spending their lives, trying to figure out how to get as much out of government as they can.
Or, they are simply not putting in the effort to be independent of government.
One of the worst things that Bush did, and Obama continued, was increase unemployment compensation to 99 weeks. The result of that was.... more people on unemployment. Research shows that during the 99 weeks, people found it remarkably difficult to find a job, and then after the 99 weeks, found it remarkably easy to find a job.
And this is terrible for people. This is significantly harmful for the public, because not only do people miss out on two years they could be gaining skills or even just valuable work experience, but also being unemployed for two years is a massive negative to prospective employers, making them more likely to pay out less in wages for an employee.
So not only are people living on government, not moving forward, but this actually caused them to take steps backward.
Being dependent on government, instead of your own labor, is horrifically bad for people. this is why it is rare, and there are very few stories at all, where people come off living on the government, and end up in a middle class income.
They tend to live off government, and stay in poverty their entire lives. I can think of people right now, living this way.
And even people who do have physical limitations, the ones that learn to live off their own labor, are the ones that succeed in life. The ones that sit around on government, tend to never move beyond that, and end up wards of the state forever.
This guy was born without limbs. He has a degree, and has a small business selling realestate.
Now he could have been a normal disabled person, living out his life sucking down a government check until he died, but instead, he worked hard to overcome his limitations, and still be a somewhat productive citizen.
Self-sufficient should be the goal of every person, and we as a society should be encouraging that in every way possible, instead of teaching people to be helpless and pathetic, and waiting on some politicians to fix their lives.
Not talking about people who are incapable. If you literally can't be productive, then you can't be productive. But for every person who can... they should be weened off the government, and made to be productive.
I would say that every single capable adult, should be required to work for a minimum of 12 full months of employment, 40 hour weeks, or they do not qualify for any government support whatsoever. They can use unemployment for 6 months, and then the clock starts over. They are required to work full time, 12 months again, before they can collect another penny from the government.
Keeping people dependent is not looking out for themSo what if they don't?
It's their money.
The government is not there to make sure you save your money.
If you want a guaranteed return then put your money in CDs and get 2%
Personally I would put that money in a very conservative portfolio and I would still end up with a couple million dollar nest egg in addition to what I would be saving anayway
Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you.
Fortunately, every industrialized nation on earth provides a way for it's citizens to be protected from starving in their old age. It is part of the price for living in a civilized society.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Ok, so my cousin, who spent most of his savings on a catastrophic medical event when he was 63, is being "kept dependent" by Social Security and Medicare in a nursing home, where he is bedridden at age 81...
Apples and Oranges.
We're not talking about people who can't work. My parents church, has a ministry that helps the people that are incapable of helping themselves. My grandmother served meals-on-wheels, to people who were dependent.
None of us is talking about people who are unable to work. Everyone supports helping those who simply can't be independent.
The only difference between the left-wing and the right-wing on the issue of helping those who are incapable of working........
Is that left-wingers never lift a finger to help anyone. All they do is point their fingers at others, and say "you should help them!".
Right-wingers and specifically Christian people, like my parents, and grand parents, and myself, we help people ourselves.
I don't go see people who need help, and then go home and start posting or screaming, that others should help that person, or that society should help that person.... no. Instead *I* help that person. My parents help that person. My grand parents help that person. We don't sit around demanding others give of their money to help, we give OUR money to help.
My church just finished a winter coat-for-christmas drive, where we supplied coats to schools for needy kids, across the entire state. We had so many coats, that the church lobby couldn't contain them all.
We didn't go to church, and have the pastor talk about how we needed to lobby congress to provide coats for needy families.... WE did it.
That's the only difference between left-wing and right-wing people on how we deal with people who are incapable of working.
What right-wingers like myself are talking about when we say "Keeping people dependent is not looking out for them", is the people who are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, but instead have been effectively trained to be dependent.
People who could be working a job, and instead are living on welfare.
Many people are spending their lives, trying to figure out how to get as much out of government as they can.
Or, they are simply not putting in the effort to be independent of government.
One of the worst things that Bush did, and Obama continued, was increase unemployment compensation to 99 weeks. The result of that was.... more people on unemployment. Research shows that during the 99 weeks, people found it remarkably difficult to find a job, and then after the 99 weeks, found it remarkably easy to find a job.
And this is terrible for people. This is significantly harmful for the public, because not only do people miss out on two years they could be gaining skills or even just valuable work experience, but also being unemployed for two years is a massive negative to prospective employers, making them more likely to pay out less in wages for an employee.
So not only are people living on government, not moving forward, but this actually caused them to take steps backward.
Being dependent on government, instead of your own labor, is horrifically bad for people. this is why it is rare, and there are very few stories at all, where people come off living on the government, and end up in a middle class income.
They tend to live off government, and stay in poverty their entire lives. I can think of people right now, living this way.
And even people who do have physical limitations, the ones that learn to live off their own labor, are the ones that succeed in life. The ones that sit around on government, tend to never move beyond that, and end up wards of the state forever.
This guy was born without limbs. He has a degree, and has a small business selling realestate.
Now he could have been a normal disabled person, living out his life sucking down a government check until he died, but instead, he worked hard to overcome his limitations, and still be a somewhat productive citizen.
Self-sufficient should be the goal of every person, and we as a society should be encouraging that in every way possible, instead of teaching people to be helpless and pathetic, and waiting on some politicians to fix their lives.
Not talking about people who are incapable. If you literally can't be productive, then you can't be productive. But for every person who can... they should be weened off the government, and made to be productive.
I would say that every single capable adult, should be required to work for a minimum of 12 full months of employment, 40 hour weeks, or they do not qualify for any government support whatsoever. They can use unemployment for 6 months, and then the clock starts over. They are required to work full time, 12 months again, before they can collect another penny from the government.
So, you have decided that "left-wingers" do not help people? Care to guess how many hours I volunteer per week dispatching volunteer drivers to take elderly and disabled people in my community to their doctors appointments? Care to guess how many hours per week I volunteer with the Sheriff Auxiliary Volunteers on the front desk, and patrol scheduling? Care to guess how many hours per week my wife volunteers at the Nature Conservancy? Care to guess how many hours per week she volunteers at the Animal League taking care of stray cats?
You don't know shit, Andy, and I am not impressed with your church doing bake sales for the elderly. My cousin is a church member, and they send him Christmas cards every year, and a member takes care of his dog. Medicare, on the other hand, pays for his nursing home care.
If he had control over the money taken for social security and Medicare he would have been able to afford better health insuranceKeeping people dependent is not looking out for themSocial Security and Medicare are not socialism
The former is a riced retirement savings plan the latter is a forced insurance plan
And both are far inferior to what a person could have if they actually had control over what amounts to 15% of their lifetime salary
...and we all know that everybody would wisely invest that 15% in guaranteed no loss portfolios, and that no one would squander it, and end up as charity cases, or worse, in his old age.
So what if they don't?
It's their money.
The government is not there to make sure you save your money.
If you want a guaranteed return then put your money in CDs and get 2%
Personally I would put that money in a very conservative portfolio and I would still end up with a couple million dollar nest egg in addition to what I would be saving anayway
Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you.
Fortunately, every industrialized nation on earth provides a way for it's citizens to be protected from starving in their old age. It is part of the price for living in a civilized society.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Ok, so my cousin, who spent most of his savings on a catastrophic medical event when he was 63, is being "kept dependent" by Social Security and Medicare in a nursing home, where he is bedridden at age 81...
It works just fine for people who take part in itThat is true, but it's worth looking at. Our corrupt capitalism sure isn't working so well anymore.That is impossible to knowTrue. There is a lot to be learned from the Nordic model. They seem to have far less corruption.We don't now nor have we ever had unfettered capitalism
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Too many things look good from the outside looking in and are very different when seen from the inside
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Keeping people dependent is not looking out for themFortunately, every industrialized nation on earth provides a way for it's citizens to be protected from starving in their old age. It is part of the price for living in a civilized society.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Ok, so my cousin, who spent most of his savings on a catastrophic medical event when he was 63, is being "kept dependent" by Social Security and Medicare in a nursing home, where he is bedridden at age 81...
Apples and Oranges.
We're not talking about people who can't work. My parents church, has a ministry that helps the people that are incapable of helping themselves. My grandmother served meals-on-wheels, to people who were dependent.
None of us is talking about people who are unable to work. Everyone supports helping those who simply can't be independent.
The only difference between the left-wing and the right-wing on the issue of helping those who are incapable of working........
Is that left-wingers never lift a finger to help anyone. All they do is point their fingers at others, and say "you should help them!".
Right-wingers and specifically Christian people, like my parents, and grand parents, and myself, we help people ourselves.
I don't go see people who need help, and then go home and start posting or screaming, that others should help that person, or that society should help that person.... no. Instead *I* help that person. My parents help that person. My grand parents help that person. We don't sit around demanding others give of their money to help, we give OUR money to help.
My church just finished a winter coat-for-christmas drive, where we supplied coats to schools for needy kids, across the entire state. We had so many coats, that the church lobby couldn't contain them all.
We didn't go to church, and have the pastor talk about how we needed to lobby congress to provide coats for needy families.... WE did it.
That's the only difference between left-wing and right-wing people on how we deal with people who are incapable of working.
What right-wingers like myself are talking about when we say "Keeping people dependent is not looking out for them", is the people who are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves, but instead have been effectively trained to be dependent.
People who could be working a job, and instead are living on welfare.
Many people are spending their lives, trying to figure out how to get as much out of government as they can.
Or, they are simply not putting in the effort to be independent of government.
One of the worst things that Bush did, and Obama continued, was increase unemployment compensation to 99 weeks. The result of that was.... more people on unemployment. Research shows that during the 99 weeks, people found it remarkably difficult to find a job, and then after the 99 weeks, found it remarkably easy to find a job.
And this is terrible for people. This is significantly harmful for the public, because not only do people miss out on two years they could be gaining skills or even just valuable work experience, but also being unemployed for two years is a massive negative to prospective employers, making them more likely to pay out less in wages for an employee.
So not only are people living on government, not moving forward, but this actually caused them to take steps backward.
Being dependent on government, instead of your own labor, is horrifically bad for people. this is why it is rare, and there are very few stories at all, where people come off living on the government, and end up in a middle class income.
They tend to live off government, and stay in poverty their entire lives. I can think of people right now, living this way.
And even people who do have physical limitations, the ones that learn to live off their own labor, are the ones that succeed in life. The ones that sit around on government, tend to never move beyond that, and end up wards of the state forever.
This guy was born without limbs. He has a degree, and has a small business selling realestate.
Now he could have been a normal disabled person, living out his life sucking down a government check until he died, but instead, he worked hard to overcome his limitations, and still be a somewhat productive citizen.
Self-sufficient should be the goal of every person, and we as a society should be encouraging that in every way possible, instead of teaching people to be helpless and pathetic, and waiting on some politicians to fix their lives.
Not talking about people who are incapable. If you literally can't be productive, then you can't be productive. But for every person who can... they should be weened off the government, and made to be productive.
I would say that every single capable adult, should be required to work for a minimum of 12 full months of employment, 40 hour weeks, or they do not qualify for any government support whatsoever. They can use unemployment for 6 months, and then the clock starts over. They are required to work full time, 12 months again, before they can collect another penny from the government.
So, you have decided that "left-wingers" do not help people? Care to guess how many hours I volunteer per week dispatching volunteer drivers to take elderly and disabled people in my community to their doctors appointments? Care to guess how many hours per week I volunteer with the Sheriff Auxiliary Volunteers on the front desk, and patrol scheduling? Care to guess how many hours per week my wife volunteers at the Nature Conservancy? Care to guess how many hours per week she volunteers at the Animal League taking care of stray cats?
You don't know shit, Andy, and I am not impressed with your church doing bake sales for the elderly. My cousin is a church member, and they send him Christmas cards every year, and a member takes care of his dog. Medicare, on the other hand, pays for his nursing home care.
First, I'm talking about charity that helps peoples. I don't give crap about your wife's 'nature conservancy' and her animal league helping stray cats.
With all due respect, every 7 minutes..... every SEVEN minutes.... a woman is raped in this country, while your wife is hugging a tree and picking up a stray cat, instead of helping at the battered women's shelter.
Now I don't mind people picking up stray cats. My mother was a bonkers animal lover, and there was a time where she had picked up 5 stray cats, and two dogs.
But when I'm talking about charity, I mean real charity that actually helps people. I pick up trash, and clean public areas all the time. It would never occur to me to put cleaning up plastic bottles, and throwing away paper bags, on the same level as cooking some food for the homeless people at the shelter down town. They are not the same.
That said........
Generally speaking. Obviously I can't individually track down every single person, and compare notes.
However, generally speaking.... yes. The vast majority of left-wingers do little to nothing, but point fingers at others, and demand others help people.
There was a Barna poll, that showed that 84% of all Millennial, give less than $50 to charity in a year.
I have not given LESS than $50 in my life, since I started working. When I was 16, I started my first part time job at McDonald's, and gave more than $50 in a year to charity.
The generation that is the most left-wing, the most socialist generation in 60+ years... is also the least charitable generation in 60+ years.
And further, it is a statistical fact that right-wingers are more generous than left-wingers.
Taken together, the two studies mentioned exist as inconvenient truths for those who equate wealth with a lack of charity and/or overall stinginess. America’s rich are plainly quite generous, and then America’s Republican rich are statistically quite a bit more generous than are Democrats. The latter is particularly inconvenient for a left desperate to paint a picture of “rich” and “Republican” as something that’s indicative of haughty disdain for the poor and unwell.
https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/11/06/whatever_you_may_think_of_republicans_dont_call_them_stingy_103479.html
Do Conservatives Really Give More to Charity Than Liberals? A Powerful Anecdote Fuels Debate.
There are numerous examples, and data supporting this fact.
You don't know shit, Andy, and I am not impressed with your church doing bake sales for the elderly.
One single example, of millions across the world. In fact, that is only one example of dozens of charitable actions my church alone has taken.
Medicare, on the other hand, pays for his nursing home care.
That's kind of the point. I know you don't even realize it, but you actually explained your own point away.
Why would the church pay for all his bills, if the government will do it?
Well..... they wouldn't. The reason why the church isn't paying all those bills is not because they can't, or won't.... it's because they don't have to.
Before medicare and social security existed, church did all that. Routinely. Same is true in lots of areas. Disaster relief for example. Go read what happened during the great Dayton Ohio flood. Relief poured in from across the country. Train loads of food and aid, and medical help, poured into Dayton from churches and organizations around the nation.
Companies stopped their workers from making products, and started them making boats. Citizen groups voluntarily joined police to patrol for looters.
You are looking at the world today, that the left-wing has created. The left-wing moved in and effectively said, you guys don't have to do all that... the government will do all that. And as government moved in, the charities retreated.
And then you sit here and say "Medicare is paying his bills, not charity!".... without realize that this is only because it is the world you created. You caused this, and left-winger like you.
I still remember a evangelical group down near Katrina, that all owned boats, and tried to boat into New Orleans to get people out. The police stopped them, and told them to leave the area. And there were several such groups told to stay out of New Orleans after Katrina.
Then you complain that government didn't do a good job. Well... again... this is the world you created.
If he had control over the money taken for social security and Medicare he would have been able to afford better health insuranceKeeping people dependent is not looking out for them...and we all know that everybody would wisely invest that 15% in guaranteed no loss portfolios, and that no one would squander it, and end up as charity cases, or worse, in his old age.
So what if they don't?
It's their money.
The government is not there to make sure you save your money.
If you want a guaranteed return then put your money in CDs and get 2%
Personally I would put that money in a very conservative portfolio and I would still end up with a couple million dollar nest egg in addition to what I would be saving anayway
Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you.
Fortunately, every industrialized nation on earth provides a way for it's citizens to be protected from starving in their old age. It is part of the price for living in a civilized society.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Ok, so my cousin, who spent most of his savings on a catastrophic medical event when he was 63, is being "kept dependent" by Social Security and Medicare in a nursing home, where he is bedridden at age 81...
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
You do realize that if he had control over the 15% of his lifetime income he would have had a couple of million dollars saved and he would have been able to afford his medical bills but now he's stuck in some shitty nursing homeIf he had control over the money taken for social security and Medicare he would have been able to afford better health insuranceKeeping people dependent is not looking out for themSo what if they don't?
It's their money.
The government is not there to make sure you save your money.
If you want a guaranteed return then put your money in CDs and get 2%
Personally I would put that money in a very conservative portfolio and I would still end up with a couple million dollar nest egg in addition to what I would be saving anayway
Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you.
Fortunately, every industrialized nation on earth provides a way for it's citizens to be protected from starving in their old age. It is part of the price for living in a civilized society.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Ok, so my cousin, who spent most of his savings on a catastrophic medical event when he was 63, is being "kept dependent" by Social Security and Medicare in a nursing home, where he is bedridden at age 81...
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Hey, Blues, my lifetime career was in health insurance underwriting, and it was my job to see that sick people were not eligible to buy health insurance in our company, no matter how much money they had. In fact, it was my job to make damn sure in the private health insurance world that every dollar that we accepted in premium exceeded every claim that we paid out. The ignorance that I see reflected by people who have no idea how health insurance works in this country never ceases to amaze me.
You do realize that if he had control over the 15% of his lifetime income he would have had a couple of million dollars saved and he would have been able to afford his medical bills but now he's stuck in some shitty nursing homeIf he had control over the money taken for social security and Medicare he would have been able to afford better health insuranceKeeping people dependent is not looking out for themFortunately, every industrialized nation on earth provides a way for it's citizens to be protected from starving in their old age. It is part of the price for living in a civilized society.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Ok, so my cousin, who spent most of his savings on a catastrophic medical event when he was 63, is being "kept dependent" by Social Security and Medicare in a nursing home, where he is bedridden at age 81...
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Hey, Blues, my lifetime career was in health insurance underwriting, and it was my job to see that sick people were not eligible to buy health insurance in our company, no matter how much money they had. In fact, it was my job to make damn sure in the private health insurance world that every dollar that we accepted in premium exceeded every claim that we paid out. The ignorance that I see reflected by people who have no idea how health insurance works in this country never ceases to amaze me.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
…Which is why it is naïve to think that a system like socialism will ever work ever ever ever fucking ever!The root of socialism is greed and envy and that is why it always fails to some degree or another.
The root of humanity is greed and envy and that is why socialism always fails
You do realize that if he had control over the 15% of his lifetime income he would have had a couple of million dollars saved and he would have been able to afford his medical bills but now he's stuck in some shitty nursing homeIf he had control over the money taken for social security and Medicare he would have been able to afford better health insuranceKeeping people dependent is not looking out for them
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Ok, so my cousin, who spent most of his savings on a catastrophic medical event when he was 63, is being "kept dependent" by Social Security and Medicare in a nursing home, where he is bedridden at age 81...
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Hey, Blues, my lifetime career was in health insurance underwriting, and it was my job to see that sick people were not eligible to buy health insurance in our company, no matter how much money they had. In fact, it was my job to make damn sure in the private health insurance world that every dollar that we accepted in premium exceeded every claim that we paid out. The ignorance that I see reflected by people who have no idea how health insurance works in this country never ceases to amaze me.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Little math lesson, for everyone who supports Social Security and Medicare, and all FICA taxes.
Minimum wage is 7.25 /hour. That works out to be $1160 a month.
Social Security and Medicare, take 15% of your income in taxes. That works out to be $175 a month.
Say we were to wipe out Social Security and Medicare, and have people put 15% of their income into a private investment plan.
Now I have two mutual funds, that have a life track record of 13.8% annual return, and 12.1% annual return.
For the sake of simplicity, let's say 10% annual return.
View attachment 295236
If you work from age 20 to 60, you'll be a millionaire or close to it.
Keep in mind though, this assumes that the person never gets a raise in 40 years of working at minimum wage. They guy never is promoted from 'fry cook' to 'cashier' at McDonald.
Hey.... you think maybe he could afford some insurance with a million dollars? You think maybe he could pay for some of his health care himself, with a million dollars?
Just saying.
