US is not ready for Medicare for all

[Ray From Cleveland]

Are you ready for a 20% tax increase to pay for Medicare for all?

Well yes. I mean this should be obvious.

Which is worse.... losing a massive part of your income, or paying a $300 a month premium?

Obviously paying the premiums is much much cheaper. By far more cheaper.

I have no problem paying a small premium, than losing a massive chunk of my income.

Let's even take Bernie Sanders lies... which is 6% increase in taxes. 6% of the median income of $50,000, is $3,000.

I have never paid $3,000 in health insurance premiums, in my entire life. In fact, barely half that.

Even for family coverage, that might sound like a good deal, until you realize that 6% in taxes would cover the wife's income too, even though in current system most families only have one person paying the premium, not both.

The absolute most expensive health insurance plan we have at my company, is not $300 a month.

But the real kicker, is that Bernie Sanders is lying. Even some of the pro-single-payer advocacy groups in the US, do not suggest we could pay for socialized health care with only 6%. The lowest costing plan I've seen, suggested a 12% income tax across the board.

And I even doubt that, because when you look at Europe, most of those countries with the most socialized system, often have tax rates of almost 50% of their income.

Do you really think that tax rates confiscating $20,000 of a middle class income, is going to be better than paying the premiums and co-pays?

Nothing in the world of math, supports that theory. Only living in a mythology that "the rich will pay for it", does that work. And again, if "the rich will pay for it" worked... then why are middle and lower class people in Europe losing half their income in taxes? Why are not the rich paying for it?

And let us even for the moment, live in the pretend world where the costs actually break even.... Gov care sucks dude. Have you never had to deal with gov-care? I have dealt with gov care numerous times. It's terrible. One government clinic I went to, the doctor was in a baseball cap, and a T-shirt. The staff was entirely rude. Not just unhelpful.... flat out rude to everyone. Because what can the patient do? Nothing. They were not a customer. it's not like the patient can say "I'll take my money elsewhere" because they were paid by the government. They don't give a crap what you do.

Torn up room. Broken chairs. Leaking ceiling with mold on it. An actual CRT TV in the back. A CRT tv these days is like finding a model T. Who still uses bulky old CRT TVs? Well apparently government run health care clinics do.

A Line of people filled the entire room, and through the entire 3 hours I had to be in this disgusting rude gov-car-ap clinic.... not a single patient was seen. Not even one. Two people left. Not a single person was called in to see a nurse or doctor.

Now think about that. In a capitalist pay-for-service health clinic, patients leaving is bad. You are losing money when patients walk out the door. But this was gov-care. They get paid whether you live or die, stay or leave.

My brother in law, came back from Iraq. He says he'll never wait for the VA to give him care ever again. Terrible care.

So yeah, I would much rather pay the premiums and the co-pays. When I go to my doctor, that I pay for.... I am treated like a customer. Given great service. Treated well, good care, and ultimately made better because of it.

right now, youre already paying a hidden health-care tax.

No Where in the world spends as much as we do, and many have better outcomes.

The ACA required 80% of your premiums goto health-care.
Its still 20 percent waste, and who knows if the republican government is enforcing even that.

Wait a minute. Other countries have better outcomes? Like who, and what category?

As Andy mentioned, unlike government, insurance companies invest premium money to offset their payouts. Government just lets your money sit under a mattress somewhere. What DumBama did was limit the insurance company's ability to invest that money, and of course, that meant trying to eliminate private insurance altogether.

How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries?

How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?

We are paying more for worse care.

ACA never tried to get rid of private insurance, its nothing but private insurance. It just made that insurance available to more, and got rid of crappy plans. But those bad plans are back.

Insurance companies only invest in bonds, but i'm not sure how the ACA affected that. 10 year treasuries yields have been dropping for decades.

I don't have an hour to spend reading your first link, as to the second, I'm well aware how much more we spend.

But I do know the WHO does rate us low only due to the fact not everybody gets quality care. If you have insurance, or can otherwise afford it, that's who gets it. If you are on a government program, sometimes you don't get it at all.

Doctors limit new Medicare patients - USATODAY.com

Now I've been covered with preexisting conditions all of my life through employer sponsored care. After Commie Care started, at the age of 55, I lost my coverage for the first time in my life. That's what Commie Care did.

I went to check out the plans on Commie Care. For the facility I use, they had one company that offered a plan. It would have cost me nearly two weeks of net pay to get it. It had a 7K out of pocket, and a 7K deductible. No prescriptions, no dental, and a $50.00 office copay.

You want to talk about worthless plans???? I never had such a bad plan in my life with employer sponsored coverage. WTF good would that plan have done for me unless I decided to have open heart surgery?

More than that, how would I afford the medications I take and pay for with cash if I accepted such an expensive and awful plan?

Now if I had two weeks of net pay as disposable income, I would have been using it to pay my bills, perhaps paying double on my mortgage, saving it or investing it. This is how F'd up government is. They ask your income, your age, if you smoke or not, but don't ask how much money you spend in gasoline to get to work and back, how much your rent or mortgage is, how much you spend paying cash for your prescriptions, how much you pay for college loans or medical care every year. They don't give a shit. Big Brother says you make X, so you must be able to afford X because they said so.

Face it, Commie Care was started for two reasons: one is to create more government dependents, and two is to give a gift to those floor sweepers, french fry makers, who typically vote Democrat. If you make a moderate income, you're screwed, because you are the one that's going to pay for all those Democrat voters being able to get coverage that you can't afford yourself.

The truth is, we have the best quality medical care in the world. Trust me, I'm a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, and there are nothing but foreigners in their downtown campus.

US cancer survival rates remain among highest in world

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Read the book sir, or at least read the court case from your own government that is running the system.

What do you propose as an alternative to Social Security and Medicare.
Both Social Security and Medicare are necessitated because people end up getting too old to work and have not saved enough money to live on or they are older and cannot or do not have insurance. What do you do with the older person who does not have enough retirement savings to live on or money to pay for medical needs.
Please give me your solution.

Sure.

So first, I would question the presupposition. You say that Social Security is a necessity. But is that true?

One of the things I learned in reading about the history of Social Security, is that prior to Social Security, there was no demand for it. Demand for social security had to be manufactured by slick marketing and political campaigning.

But how did old people survive prior to Social Security? Did all of them just roll over and die when they were too old to work?

No. And there were a number of reasons for this.

One: Family. In times past, there was a sense of family. Children were expected assist their parents, and families were closer together relationally because they really needed each other.

Two: Community. Churches and community routinely helped those who were older. It was normal, and health, that communities were closer, because they needed each other. Churches always helped the elderly when required, because it was normal, and part of basic church operation. An example of this is the trade associations. You often joined trade associations, because if one of the members was hurt, the association would help them out.

Third: Saving. In times past, saving for retirement was a given. A defacto standard. I even found a historical teachers manual. A manual given to new teachers at the public schools, in a particular state which I don't remember. But in the manual given to new teachers, they directly said that all teachers should save 15% of their salary as a teacher, specifically so they are not a burden on society when they become old.

Many of the people claim we need Social Security because people do not do any of the above.

But the reality is, it is specifically because we have Social Security that people do not do any of the above.

Churches overwhelming quit doing direct charity work, because why provide for people, if they have Social Security providing for them? Why provide meals to people, if government has food stamps for them? Why provide lodging for people, if government has section 8 housing for them?

Children have now grown accustom to the idea that they have no obligation to their parents, because that's government job. Why should I have to help my parents, when government will take care of their needs?

And people themselves make no attempt to save, because "I'll just get social security in a few years, so I don't need to". That is a verbatim quote, form a lady I was working with a few years back.

The reason people are dependent on government, is specifically because government has allowed itself to be there fore people to become dependent on.

Before government started taking care of people, people lived responsibly to take care of themselves.

So what do we do today?

Medicare is more difficult of a question, simply because there are so many bad policies in place, that all need reformed.

For Social Security, I would look to the Singapore model.

Now granted, I would prefer just a free-market system... but I know that is not going to happen, so....

The Singapore model, is brilliant compared to the US model.

There is no pyramid scheme. Instead, it's more like a plain IRA savings account, except forced.

So 20% of your check goes into the CPF. However, unlike SS, the CPF allows you to control where your money goes, and unlike SS, you actually own the investment.

One of the options they allow, is that you can use your retirement fund, to buy your house. This is particularly brilliant, because you are basically buying a house, with your retirement benefits, which has nearly a guarantee return on investment, since homes generally go up in value. Equally, if manage to run out of money somehow, the government picks up the cost in exchange for the house. Meaning, if you somehow manage to blow all your money, you can live off the government, and when you die, they just take the house, and call it good.

However, if you have more money in retirement than value of your house, you can choose to invest into various approved investments. Some are bond investment, which are low risk, low yield. Others are higher risk, with higher yields. Regardless of your investment choice, from the two dozen approved investments, the government guarantees a minimum return on investment. That guarantee is like 4%, so it's not a massive amount, but if I remember right, at the time I read about it, the government had never needed to make good on that minimum ROI. All the investments you could pick, did better than the guarantee.

As a result, all pensions in Singapore are fully self-funded. Zero cost to the tax payers. No worker, is paying for the retirement of an elder in Singapore... at least not generally.

Now they do have a few people who end up on government welfare, but very few. Typically they have a problem with people who get undocumented jobs. Selling fruit from a stand for example. People operating off the books. Because they are operating off the books, or self-employed and unreported... their money isn't saved in their own retirement, and thus they usually don't end up with much money in retirement. Thus they end up wards of the state. But this is generally a tiny fraction of the population. Like people who wash your windows at the street light or something.

I would greatly prefer that system over ours. Singapore has no unfunded liabilities, or any need to borrow money to pay for pensions.

The medical care system in Singapore also operates in nearly an identical fashion, but that would be far more difficult to implement in the US.

For the Social Security, we've actually already done it here once. In the 1980s, people in Texas were allowed to put their Social Security into private funds, and those funds did far better than Social Security did. Unfortunately, the politicians didn't like that hte private plans did better than the government system, and the idea was quietly dropped.

But it would work, and it would be far better.

Let's start what they did 100 years ago before social security. One big difference is you could live off the land if you had to. That does not work today.

Second, the Singapore's retirement is a compulsory comprehensive savings plan fairly close to social security. Google it.

Try again.

A hundred years ago, most people didn't live to the age of 65 in the US.

Which is exactly why I have been saying for years that we need to raise the retirement age to 70 and index it to 9 percent of the population going forward.

We are living longer than our ancestors. We should be working longer.

Common sense.

You call that common sense? Yeah, I see people talking about raising the retirement age. They are holding a microphone in front of a television camera.

Are you going to tell that roofer laborer who carries 30 lbs bails of shingles up a two or three story ladder you want him to work until the age of 70? How about a bricklayer laborer? How about the guy who dumps your heavy garbage cans into the truck? How about that road construction worker sweating it up in 90 degree humid weather?

Hell, I'll even use my job as an instance. Do you want to be in the little smart car in front of me when traffic comes to a sudden stop, and my 67 year old ass has to bring that 75,000 lbs tractor-trailer to a complete halt?

If you sit behind a desk all day or don't work, it's easy to say everybody should work longer. Try finding a new job at the age of 62 with health benefits when your old one is gone. Good luck with that one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I feel attitudes like yours got us Trump to begin with. Even Bernie capitulated to fucking Hillary after she and the Dems fucked him over last time. If he'd simply run as an Independent from the start we'd be looking at an entirely different set of candidates today. The people know our healthcare system has been FUBAR for decades at least. They just need to get activated and out making noise before next year's election.

I feel you and I represent why Trump may get reelected. The anti-Trumpers are not as united as the pro-Trumpers.
If he gets reelected, we get what we deserve.

Let's hope so.

I'm surprised you are hoping for even higher medical costs. That's the Republican plan.

It is? Can you name me one Republican that said they want a plan with higher medical costs?

 

[dudmuck]

Well yes. I mean this should be obvious.

Which is worse.... losing a massive part of your income, or paying a $300 a month premium?

Obviously paying the premiums is much much cheaper. By far more cheaper.

I have no problem paying a small premium, than losing a massive chunk of my income.

Let's even take Bernie Sanders lies... which is 6% increase in taxes. 6% of the median income of $50,000, is $3,000.

I have never paid $3,000 in health insurance premiums, in my entire life. In fact, barely half that.

Even for family coverage, that might sound like a good deal, until you realize that 6% in taxes would cover the wife's income too, even though in current system most families only have one person paying the premium, not both.

The absolute most expensive health insurance plan we have at my company, is not $300 a month.

But the real kicker, is that Bernie Sanders is lying. Even some of the pro-single-payer advocacy groups in the US, do not suggest we could pay for socialized health care with only 6%. The lowest costing plan I've seen, suggested a 12% income tax across the board.

And I even doubt that, because when you look at Europe, most of those countries with the most socialized system, often have tax rates of almost 50% of their income.

Do you really think that tax rates confiscating $20,000 of a middle class income, is going to be better than paying the premiums and co-pays?

Nothing in the world of math, supports that theory. Only living in a mythology that "the rich will pay for it", does that work. And again, if "the rich will pay for it" worked... then why are middle and lower class people in Europe losing half their income in taxes? Why are not the rich paying for it?

And let us even for the moment, live in the pretend world where the costs actually break even.... Gov care sucks dude. Have you never had to deal with gov-care? I have dealt with gov care numerous times. It's terrible. One government clinic I went to, the doctor was in a baseball cap, and a T-shirt. The staff was entirely rude. Not just unhelpful.... flat out rude to everyone. Because what can the patient do? Nothing. They were not a customer. it's not like the patient can say "I'll take my money elsewhere" because they were paid by the government. They don't give a crap what you do.

Torn up room. Broken chairs. Leaking ceiling with mold on it. An actual CRT TV in the back. A CRT tv these days is like finding a model T. Who still uses bulky old CRT TVs? Well apparently government run health care clinics do.

A Line of people filled the entire room, and through the entire 3 hours I had to be in this disgusting rude gov-car-ap clinic.... not a single patient was seen. Not even one. Two people left. Not a single person was called in to see a nurse or doctor.

Now think about that. In a capitalist pay-for-service health clinic, patients leaving is bad. You are losing money when patients walk out the door. But this was gov-care. They get paid whether you live or die, stay or leave.

My brother in law, came back from Iraq. He says he'll never wait for the VA to give him care ever again. Terrible care.

So yeah, I would much rather pay the premiums and the co-pays. When I go to my doctor, that I pay for.... I am treated like a customer. Given great service. Treated well, good care, and ultimately made better because of it.

right now, youre already paying a hidden health-care tax.

No Where in the world spends as much as we do, and many have better outcomes.

The ACA required 80% of your premiums goto health-care.
Its still 20 percent waste, and who knows if the republican government is enforcing even that.

Wait a minute. Other countries have better outcomes? Like who, and what category?

As Andy mentioned, unlike government, insurance companies invest premium money to offset their payouts. Government just lets your money sit under a mattress somewhere. What DumBama did was limit the insurance company's ability to invest that money, and of course, that meant trying to eliminate private insurance altogether.

How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries?

How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?

We are paying more for worse care.

ACA never tried to get rid of private insurance, its nothing but private insurance. It just made that insurance available to more, and got rid of crappy plans. But those bad plans are back.

Insurance companies only invest in bonds, but i'm not sure how the ACA affected that. 10 year treasuries yields have been dropping for decades.

See, right in your first link, I knew that's what they were going to post. Mortality rates.

Mortality rates, and other non-health-care related metrics, are pointless and irrelevant.

The reason is because Mortality rates, are directly dependent on incident rates, not the quality of care.


Again, take two Island nations, both with 1,000 people.

Island A, has 2 incidence of cancer, and both die, because Island A has zero hospitals or health care at all. So two people get cancer, both die.

Island B, has 20 incidence of cancer, and FOUR of them die. 16 people are diagnosed with cancer, given treatment for cancer, and cured of their cancer.

Now based on Mortality rates.... which Island has great health care?

Island A would be the top quality health care system, because only 2 people died, compared to Island B where 4 people died.

But the reality is, Island A has garbage health care, and Island B has fantastic health care.

You need to look at survival rates. Survival rates, are the only metric that matters, because it is the only metric that looks specifically at the ability of the health care system to diagnose, treat, and cure an illness.

The survival rates in the US, are much higher than any other country in the world.

And by the way....... The US is a mixed system. We have government health care here in the US. There are tons of public hospitals, public clinics, and of course the VA system.... all of which SUCK, and more our over all health care statistic look worse, than if we only had a private system.

Since medicare administrative expenditures are around 2 percent, telling private insurance to limit to 20% overhead is no problem. private insurance typically has 17 percent admin costs. Its just waste.

The reason for lack of competition is explained here, its not because of regulations. Its because the medical pricing mechanism is broken.

healthcare outcomes: Did you miss the word Amenable?
Its Amenable Mortality.
Its not just Mortality,
Its potential years of life
Its disease burden
its hospital admissions for preventable diseases
Its metical errors, etc.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You call that common sense? Yeah, I see people talking about raising the retirement age. They are holding a microphone in front of a television camera.

Are you going to tell that roofer laborer who carries 30 lbs bails of shingles up a two or three story ladder you want him to work until the age of 70? How about a bricklayer laborer? How about the guy who dumps your heavy garbage cans into the truck? How about that road construction worker sweating it up in 90 degree humid weather?

Hell, I'll even use my job as an instance. Do you want to be in the little smart car in front of me when traffic comes to a sudden stop, and my 67 year old ass has to bring that 75,000 lbs tractor-trailer to a complete halt?

If you sit behind a desk all day or don't work, it's easy to say everybody should work longer. Try finding a new job at the age of 62 with health benefits when your old one is gone. Good luck with that one.

Surprisingly, we completely agree on that score. The age has already been raised on SS. Bad enough as it is. A typical anti-union tactic as well, convincing the veterans to screw over the newcomers in order to retain their benefits.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well yes. I mean this should be obvious.

Which is worse.... losing a massive part of your income, or paying a $300 a month premium?

Obviously paying the premiums is much much cheaper. By far more cheaper.

I have no problem paying a small premium, than losing a massive chunk of my income.

Let's even take Bernie Sanders lies... which is 6% increase in taxes. 6% of the median income of $50,000, is $3,000.

I have never paid $3,000 in health insurance premiums, in my entire life. In fact, barely half that.

Even for family coverage, that might sound like a good deal, until you realize that 6% in taxes would cover the wife's income too, even though in current system most families only have one person paying the premium, not both.

The absolute most expensive health insurance plan we have at my company, is not $300 a month.

But the real kicker, is that Bernie Sanders is lying. Even some of the pro-single-payer advocacy groups in the US, do not suggest we could pay for socialized health care with only 6%. The lowest costing plan I've seen, suggested a 12% income tax across the board.

And I even doubt that, because when you look at Europe, most of those countries with the most socialized system, often have tax rates of almost 50% of their income.

Do you really think that tax rates confiscating $20,000 of a middle class income, is going to be better than paying the premiums and co-pays?

Nothing in the world of math, supports that theory. Only living in a mythology that "the rich will pay for it", does that work. And again, if "the rich will pay for it" worked... then why are middle and lower class people in Europe losing half their income in taxes? Why are not the rich paying for it?

And let us even for the moment, live in the pretend world where the costs actually break even.... Gov care sucks dude. Have you never had to deal with gov-care? I have dealt with gov care numerous times. It's terrible. One government clinic I went to, the doctor was in a baseball cap, and a T-shirt. The staff was entirely rude. Not just unhelpful.... flat out rude to everyone. Because what can the patient do? Nothing. They were not a customer. it's not like the patient can say "I'll take my money elsewhere" because they were paid by the government. They don't give a crap what you do.

Torn up room. Broken chairs. Leaking ceiling with mold on it. An actual CRT TV in the back. A CRT tv these days is like finding a model T. Who still uses bulky old CRT TVs? Well apparently government run health care clinics do.

A Line of people filled the entire room, and through the entire 3 hours I had to be in this disgusting rude gov-car-ap clinic.... not a single patient was seen. Not even one. Two people left. Not a single person was called in to see a nurse or doctor.

Now think about that. In a capitalist pay-for-service health clinic, patients leaving is bad. You are losing money when patients walk out the door. But this was gov-care. They get paid whether you live or die, stay or leave.

My brother in law, came back from Iraq. He says he'll never wait for the VA to give him care ever again. Terrible care.

So yeah, I would much rather pay the premiums and the co-pays. When I go to my doctor, that I pay for.... I am treated like a customer. Given great service. Treated well, good care, and ultimately made better because of it.

right now, youre already paying a hidden health-care tax.

No Where in the world spends as much as we do, and many have better outcomes.

The ACA required 80% of your premiums goto health-care.
Its still 20 percent waste, and who knows if the republican government is enforcing even that.

Wait a minute. Other countries have better outcomes? Like who, and what category?

As Andy mentioned, unlike government, insurance companies invest premium money to offset their payouts. Government just lets your money sit under a mattress somewhere. What DumBama did was limit the insurance company's ability to invest that money, and of course, that meant trying to eliminate private insurance altogether.

How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries?

How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries?

We are paying more for worse care.

ACA never tried to get rid of private insurance, its nothing but private insurance. It just made that insurance available to more, and got rid of crappy plans. But those bad plans are back.

Insurance companies only invest in bonds, but i'm not sure how the ACA affected that. 10 year treasuries yields have been dropping for decades.

See, right in your first link, I knew that's what they were going to post. Mortality rates.

Mortality rates, and other non-health-care related metrics, are pointless and irrelevant.

The reason is because Mortality rates, are directly dependent on incident rates, not the quality of care.


Again, take two Island nations, both with 1,000 people.

Island A, has 2 incidence of cancer, and both die, because Island A has zero hospitals or health care at all. So two people get cancer, both die.

Island B, has 20 incidence of cancer, and FOUR of them die. 16 people are diagnosed with cancer, given treatment for cancer, and cured of their cancer.

Now based on Mortality rates.... which Island has great health care?

Island A would be the top quality health care system, because only 2 people died, compared to Island B where 4 people died.

But the reality is, Island A has garbage health care, and Island B has fantastic health care.

You need to look at survival rates. Survival rates, are the only metric that matters, because it is the only metric that looks specifically at the ability of the health care system to diagnose, treat, and cure an illness.

The survival rates in the US, are much higher than any other country in the world.

And by the way....... The US is a mixed system. We have government health care here in the US. There are tons of public hospitals, public clinics, and of course the VA system.... all of which SUCK, and more our over all health care statistic look worse, than if we only had a private system.

Since medicare administrative expenditures are around 2 percent, telling private insurance to limit to 20% overhead is no problem. private insurance typically has 17 percent admin costs. Its just waste.

The reason for lack of competition is explained here, its not because of regulations. Its because the medical pricing mechanism is broken.

healthcare outcomes: Did you miss the word Amenable?
Its Amenable Mortality.
Its not just Mortality,
Its potential years of life
Its disease burden
its hospital admissions for preventable diseases
Its metical errors, etc.

Besides investing our premium money, private insurance has a team of investigators to target fraud, something our government programs do not have. That saves them billions of dollars.

A personal story here: My father went to the hospital last year, and they were keeping him there to do tests. Mind you, these tests were nothing that needed hospitalization. All of the tests needed were precautionary, and could easily have been done as an outpatient.

When my father told them he was going to report to Medicare what they were up to, they released him that day. Furthermore, they didn't bill Medicare for that week he stayed in the hospital unnecessarily. He completed the rest of the testing as an outpatient.

While government agencies do try to keep an eye on these problems, they don't have nearly the staff that private insurers have. Of course their administration costs are lower, but are we paying more for those lower costs in the end?

The report says that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency that administers Medicare, estimates that last year some $60 billion of American taxpayer money, or more than 10 percent of Medicare’s total budget, was lost to fraud, waste, abuse and improper payments.

$60 Billion Medicare Funds Improperly Paid, Report Finds

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You call that common sense? Yeah, I see people talking about raising the retirement age. They are holding a microphone in front of a television camera.

Are you going to tell that roofer laborer who carries 30 lbs bails of shingles up a two or three story ladder you want him to work until the age of 70? How about a bricklayer laborer? How about the guy who dumps your heavy garbage cans into the truck? How about that road construction worker sweating it up in 90 degree humid weather?

Hell, I'll even use my job as an instance. Do you want to be in the little smart car in front of me when traffic comes to a sudden stop, and my 67 year old ass has to bring that 75,000 lbs tractor-trailer to a complete halt?

If you sit behind a desk all day or don't work, it's easy to say everybody should work longer. Try finding a new job at the age of 62 with health benefits when your old one is gone. Good luck with that one.

Surprisingly, we completely agree on that score. The age has already been raised on SS. Bad enough as it is. A typical anti-union tactic as well, convincing the veterans to screw over the newcomers in order to retain their benefits.

Of course raising the retirement age will create more problems. If retirement age is moved to 70 years old, yes, you will get those people to collect SS later, but you will also have a flood of people applying for disability benefits.

Why is that a problem? For several reasons: first off, it takes a year or two in order to collect disability, if they even allow you to collect it at all. Secondly, you cannot have an income during that period. You can't even collect Unemployment benefits, because applying for unemployment is (by government standards) evidence that you have the ability to work, and are just not working yet. Unemployment benefits are exhausted in only a few months in a good economy like we have today.

Bottom line: moving retirement up will put more people on disability, more people on Medicaid, and won't solve the problem. The solution to the problem is that if we want to keep these programs, we simply have to fund them. But the reason they don't increase contributions to those programs is because eventually, the voters would demand getting out of them. Then the Democrats would have a real problem on their hands.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Please provide the options.

No.

Of course there are endless alternatives for taking care of people in need - as many "options" as there are minds to think them up. But I won't play your game. If someone proposes something stupid and destructive, it's not necessary to offer them an alternative in order to reject their plans.

If my neighbors propose burning my house down to provide them with warmth, for example, it's not up to me to explain to them how to stay warm with setting my house on fire. It's enough to say "No, you can't burn my fucking house down."

So what happens is they end up as uncompensated care that we all pay for.

And that's fine. As long as it's voluntary, it's people making value decisions. It shouldn't be up to government to dictate how they go about it.

That is more expensive than Medicare and Medicaid or a formal government program.

Like I said earlier, I don't care about efficiency. Freedom is more important.

TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT YOUR PLAN IS FOR THESE PEOPLE.

NO. See above.

WEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah? Well, with that many exclamation points, it should be easy for you to say why. Why is it necessary for someone to offer an "alternative" to your bad plan?

I have been taught if you point out the problem, provide a solution.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Of course raising the retirement age will create more problems. If retirement age is moved to 70 years old, yes, you will get those people to collect SS later, but you will also have a flood of people applying for disability benefits.

Why is that a problem? For several reasons: first off, it takes a year or two in order to collect disability, if they even allow you to collect it at all. Secondly, you cannot have an income during that period. You can't even collect Unemployment benefits, because applying for unemployment is (by government standards) evidence that you have the ability to work, and are just not working yet. Unemployment benefits are exhausted in only a few months in a good economy like we have today.

Bottom line: moving retirement up will put more people on disability, more people on Medicaid, and won't solve the problem. The solution to the problem is that if we want to keep these programs, we simply have to fund them. But the reason they don't increase contributions to those programs is because eventually, the voters would demand getting out of them. Then the Democrats would have a real problem on their hands.

Disability pays much less per month than SS because most begin collecting it way earlier than retirement age. And you get one or the other. Not one then the other. Disability often results from work related injuries so the victims collect significant Workman's Comp benefits and/or private settlements that deliberately attempt to compensate somewhat for the obvious inadequacy of the remaining life long disability benefit. People generally don't choose to be disabled nor magically become undisabled. Even stuck in a wheelchair I'd venture most never even apply, finding ways to work or otherwise be of significant use rather than collect anything for as long as possible. Also, SS does in fact have survivor benefits. Republican mental illness manifests itself most in this conviction that people simply don't want to work. Some physically can't while others suffer debilitating depression most often related to abuse, neglect, and/or poverty. However, the vast, vast majority want to work and simply do given meaningful options and tolerable conditions . As best they can with what they've got. No conspiracy dreamt up by liberals or Democrats. Fact.

 

[fncceo]

US is not ready for Medicare for all.
Democrats, do not over play your hand when you are running against the worst President in our history.
US voters favor a hybrid system that includes a government that anyone can buy into along with a private option.
Do not let ideaology override practicality.

A majority of the ameican people support it, capital is not ready for all of us to have access to healthcare.

I already have access to good health care.

 

[Grumblenuts]

When my father told them he was going to report to Medicare what they were up to, they released him that day. Furthermore, they didn't bill Medicare for that week he stayed in the hospital unnecessarily. He completed the rest of the testing as an outpatient.

Excellent. I reported several private corporation billing shenanigans related to my mom's Medicare. CMS handled them all quickly, professionally, and thoroughly.

 

[dblack]

Please provide the options.

No.

Of course there are endless alternatives for taking care of people in need - as many "options" as there are minds to think them up. But I won't play your game. If someone proposes something stupid and destructive, it's not necessary to offer them an alternative in order to reject their plans.

If my neighbors propose burning my house down to provide them with warmth, for example, it's not up to me to explain to them how to stay warm with setting my house on fire. It's enough to say "No, you can't burn my fucking house down."

So what happens is they end up as uncompensated care that we all pay for.

And that's fine. As long as it's voluntary, it's people making value decisions. It shouldn't be up to government to dictate how they go about it.

That is more expensive than Medicare and Medicaid or a formal government program.

Like I said earlier, I don't care about efficiency. Freedom is more important.

TELL ME EXACTLY WHAT YOUR PLAN IS FOR THESE PEOPLE.

NO. See above.

WEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah? Well, with that many exclamation points, it should be easy for you to say why. Why is it necessary for someone to offer an "alternative" to your bad plan?

I have been taught if you point out the problem, provide a solution.

Right. And the problem I'm pointing out is that government already controls too much in society, and it's a mistake to pile on with more - especially when our political climate is so divisive and dysfunctional. My solution to the problem I'm pointing out is: Don't do that.

I know you want me to offer solutions for the problems that tempt you to turn to government in the first place. The thing is, I've been down that road too many times. There are countless threads on this board where I've laid out how we could improve the situation with health care. But they never satisfy liberals because a) they don't offer any guarantees and b) they require real work to accomplish.

Pursuing social change without resorting to government mandates requires actually persuading people to join your cause. But liberals are enamored with the idea of forcing people to play along with their plans, rather than convincing them to do so voluntarily. Granted, passing laws forcing people to comply would easier, and perhaps more efficient. But it's an abuse of government and it will come back to haunt us.

As government takes control of more and more of our necessities, it creates a honeypot for people who want power over society. Sooner or later, there will be a regime that uses this power in ways you don't like. And because it's all mandated by law, your only choice will be to suck it up and play along.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course raising the retirement age will create more problems. If retirement age is moved to 70 years old, yes, you will get those people to collect SS later, but you will also have a flood of people applying for disability benefits.

Why is that a problem? For several reasons: first off, it takes a year or two in order to collect disability, if they even allow you to collect it at all. Secondly, you cannot have an income during that period. You can't even collect Unemployment benefits, because applying for unemployment is (by government standards) evidence that you have the ability to work, and are just not working yet. Unemployment benefits are exhausted in only a few months in a good economy like we have today.

Bottom line: moving retirement up will put more people on disability, more people on Medicaid, and won't solve the problem. The solution to the problem is that if we want to keep these programs, we simply have to fund them. But the reason they don't increase contributions to those programs is because eventually, the voters would demand getting out of them. Then the Democrats would have a real problem on their hands.

Disability pays much less per month than SS because most begin collecting it way earlier than retirement age. And you get one or the other. Not one then the other. Disability often results from work related injuries so the victims collect significant Workman's Comp benefits and/or private settlements that deliberately attempt to compensate somewhat for the obvious inadequacy of the remaining life long disability benefit. People generally don't choose to be disabled nor magically become undisabled. Even stuck in a wheelchair I'd venture most never even apply, finding ways to work or otherwise be of significant use rather than collect anything for as long as possible. Also, SS does in fact have survivor benefits. Republican mental illness manifests itself most in this conviction that people simply don't want to work. Some physically can't while others suffer debilitating depression most often related to abuse, neglect, and/or poverty. However, the vast, vast majority want to work and simply do given meaningful options and tolerable conditions . As best they can with what they've got. No conspiracy dreamt up by liberals or Democrats. Fact.

Your facts are not supported by any reliable source I'm aware of. I talked with SS, and they told me a different story, and that is once you reach retirement age on disability, you can switch over to your retirement account if you can make out better on SS than disability.

Then there is partial disability. You can work and bring in a limited income on that. You can do that on full disability as well. One of my tenants is on full disability, and he works four days a week at a grocery store. However the only stipulation to that is your can't be working during the application process.

Everybody's situation is different. If you can easily get by on disability, I think most people would. If disability and maximum allowable income are not enough for you to live comfortably, then you work if possible.

The only reason to go to work for most people is income. If that income can be replaced, why work? I can't wait to retire I hate working so much. In fact I'm considering retirement at 62 for a lower payout.

 

[Uncensored2008]

US is not ready for Medicare for all.
Democrats, do not over play your hand when you are running against the worst President in our history.
US voters favor a hybrid system that includes a government that anyone can buy into along with a private option.
Do not let ideaology override practicality.

Put Congress and the Senate on VA for all, start with Bernie and Shitting Bull. Let them show us how great it is.

 

[Andylusion]

Nominal "choice" and "competition" among state chosen vendors is NOT a free market. It is the opposite. It's a captive market with consumers as livestock.

The free market does not work well for healthcare insurance. Companies in the free market have goals of maximizing profits and minimizing risk. In applying those principles to healthcare insurance, many people are left without coverage or no coverage at all.
Without a socialized insurance pool for those over 65, Medicare, private insurance would have to charge substantially higher rates or be out of business.
I believe in personal accountability. If you are a lousy driver and do not change your ways, you do not deserve insurance,. If you over use your home owners insurance, you deserve higher rates or to be cut off.
A majority of health issues is based on circumstances you cannot control. Getting older puts you in the highest risk category. You cannot apply free market standards and cut old people off or raise their rates to equal the increased risk.

Which is why Medicare should be replaced by a private insured lifelong policy. Like SS and Medicare, you pay into it your entire life, and are promised X amount of benefits. You can collect at age 62, 65, or 67, depending on how we decide to have it.

There is nothing private about Social security or Medicare. Both are government programs creating socialized monetary pools to cover retirement and medical benefits. If those pools cannot cover costs the government will back up the short fall.
If this was a private insurance policy, once the claiums surpassed the funds in the pool the company would go bankrupt leaving all those who had paid in with no insurance.

I'm not sure if you understand what you are claiming, because neither of those descriptions are accurate to reality.

Private insurance is very different, that's true. Private insurance uses the money you pay in during the years you do not collect benefits, to invest the money in to things that yield a return on investment. Those returns are then used to offset future costs, and have a profit to keep the company going.

However, Medicare and Social Security, are nothing like that. Where do you get the idea that they are pool? There is no pool of money anywhere, in either of them. There are no investments.

The amount of money in Social Security right now is..... Zero. The amount of money in Medicare is.... Zero. Government pays out all benefits for all programs, from taxes.

I'm not sure if you are operating on a false mythology.... but all tax money goes to the same place. The tax you pay on your gasoline, goes to the same place that your Medicare tax goes, which is the same place estate tax on that guy that died last week goes, which is the same place your Social Security tax goes, which is the same place your income tax goes, which the same place the Corporate tax goes.

All taxes go to the same place. There is no pool of money somewhere for Social Security or Medicare. There is no "medicare bank account", or "social security bank account".

This is why in 2011 I believe, Obama said that unless the debt ceiling was raised, that Social Security checks would be cut drastically.

This was not a lie, or a threat, this was a mathematical fact. Social Security has no money.

And also don't believe the mythical lie that "congress borrowed the Social Security Trust fund, and spent it". The "trust fund" has operated the exact same way, as it always has since Social Security was created.

Money is collected in taxes. Money is spent by government. There was never a fund, somewhere between taxes collected, and government spending the money. Never. It never existed, and does not exist to this day.

If there was some sort of economic crash, and a crisis in the bond market... or if China were to completely flood the market by selling off all US bonds in a mass auction......

If the US government were to be unable to borrow money, even for a month, Social Security across the entire country would be cut immediately.

There is no pool of money. There is no fund for Medicare or Social Security.

Where Social Security Taxes Go
The bulk of the FICA tax revenue goes towards funding the United States government's Social Security trusts. These trusts are legally "earmarked," or solely designated, to fund the programs administered by the Social Security Administration:

1. retirement benefits
2. survivor benefits
3. disability benefits

Do You Know Where Your Social Security and Medicare Taxes Go?

....sigh.....

Do you not understand that congress can pass legislation that says anything, and it may have nothing to do with reality? Politicians lie..... you all admit that, don't you? Yet when they write a bill that says "Thus and so", you accept that as divine truth? Why?

I understand that what you posted, and what Elmer posted... is what the politicians say. They LIE!.... Is that not true??

Let me explain this differently.... Do you know how taxes are collected?

Every bank has a tax account. The money collected from payroll taxes, is stored in the banks tax accounts, which are then given to the IRS.

NOW THINK.... why do you need to file your taxes every year? If the bank was keeping all that money separated out.... why do you need to file paperwork? Because it isn't separated out. The IRS just gets large chunks of money from the bank. You need to file your taxes, so they know what is what.

There is no separate account, for Medicare, or Social Security. The banks do not pass that money directly to Social Security or Medicare. All the money is in ONE account, that is ALL given to the IRS.

That dollar you paid to Medicare, could be used to pay for an immigrants food stamps, or a golf outing, or a military bomber. It is not separated, or earmarked, or anything.

That is REALITY. It doesn't matter what the "legislation says". This is like "The Affordable Care Act". Then you look at the numbers, and see that health care costs have gone up faster since the "Affordable Care Act" than they did before it.

This is like "We're going to tax the rich, because 70% tax rates worked in the past!" and you look at high tax rates in the past, and see the rich paid less of the tax burden under high tax rates.

You need to stop just believing whatever lies they tell you. Politicians are there to get elected, and they'll tell you whatever lie they think you'll believe to get a vote. It's true for Warrens "we'll tax wealth" and it was true for Trumps "Mexico will pay for the wall".

There is no Social Security Trust Fund. There is no Medicare Fund. When they said if we can't keep borrowing money, Social Security will be cut... that wasn't a joke. It was true. Because Social Security has no fund. There is no money.

Again read the book....

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Go...38734305:pla-679553685839&psc=1&tag=ff0d01-20

Read the book.... and after you have read it, you prove me wrong. You prove everything documented in that book as to how entitlement programs work, is all wrong.

I'm issuing you a challenge. You read that book, and then prove it wrong. You do that, and I'll never say what I'm saying here, ever again. It's a promise. You read that book cover to cover, and debunk the whole thing, and I'll shut up.

 

[Andylusion]

US is not ready for Medicare for all.
Democrats, do not over play your hand when you are running against the worst President in our history.
US voters favor a hybrid system that includes a government that anyone can buy into along with a private option.
Do not let ideaology override practicality.

Put Congress and the Senate on VA for all, start with Bernie and Shitting Bull. Let them show us how great it is.

Oh man.... that would be BEAUTIFUL.......... AOC on VA health care. I would be praising G-d in Heaven for Divine Ironic Justice.

My brother-in-law that returned from Iraq, went through hell trying to get a simple surgery on his hand. Month on months of waiting. Finally said screw it, and paid for a private doctor, had it done and done well in under a week.

The only people I've met who have anything good to say about the VA, are those who simply don't want to pay for care, and are willing to spend a year waiting for care.... or people who have never actually used the system.

Every single person I have met personally, face-to-face in real life.... that has had to deal with the VA, HATES the VA. Still to this day. Not one person I've met in person, who has used the system, has had a good thing to say about it.

 

[Andylusion]

Sure.

So first, I would question the presupposition. You say that Social Security is a necessity. But is that true?

One of the things I learned in reading about the history of Social Security, is that prior to Social Security, there was no demand for it. Demand for social security had to be manufactured by slick marketing and political campaigning.

But how did old people survive prior to Social Security? Did all of them just roll over and die when they were too old to work?

No. And there were a number of reasons for this.

One: Family. In times past, there was a sense of family. Children were expected assist their parents, and families were closer together relationally because they really needed each other.

Two: Community. Churches and community routinely helped those who were older. It was normal, and health, that communities were closer, because they needed each other. Churches always helped the elderly when required, because it was normal, and part of basic church operation. An example of this is the trade associations. You often joined trade associations, because if one of the members was hurt, the association would help them out.

Third: Saving. In times past, saving for retirement was a given. A defacto standard. I even found a historical teachers manual. A manual given to new teachers at the public schools, in a particular state which I don't remember. But in the manual given to new teachers, they directly said that all teachers should save 15% of their salary as a teacher, specifically so they are not a burden on society when they become old.

Many of the people claim we need Social Security because people do not do any of the above.

But the reality is, it is specifically because we have Social Security that people do not do any of the above.

Churches overwhelming quit doing direct charity work, because why provide for people, if they have Social Security providing for them? Why provide meals to people, if government has food stamps for them? Why provide lodging for people, if government has section 8 housing for them?

Children have now grown accustom to the idea that they have no obligation to their parents, because that's government job. Why should I have to help my parents, when government will take care of their needs?

And people themselves make no attempt to save, because "I'll just get social security in a few years, so I don't need to". That is a verbatim quote, form a lady I was working with a few years back.

The reason people are dependent on government, is specifically because government has allowed itself to be there fore people to become dependent on.

Before government started taking care of people, people lived responsibly to take care of themselves.

So what do we do today?

Medicare is more difficult of a question, simply because there are so many bad policies in place, that all need reformed.

For Social Security, I would look to the Singapore model.

Now granted, I would prefer just a free-market system... but I know that is not going to happen, so....

The Singapore model, is brilliant compared to the US model.

There is no pyramid scheme. Instead, it's more like a plain IRA savings account, except forced.

So 20% of your check goes into the CPF. However, unlike SS, the CPF allows you to control where your money goes, and unlike SS, you actually own the investment.

One of the options they allow, is that you can use your retirement fund, to buy your house. This is particularly brilliant, because you are basically buying a house, with your retirement benefits, which has nearly a guarantee return on investment, since homes generally go up in value. Equally, if manage to run out of money somehow, the government picks up the cost in exchange for the house. Meaning, if you somehow manage to blow all your money, you can live off the government, and when you die, they just take the house, and call it good.

However, if you have more money in retirement than value of your house, you can choose to invest into various approved investments. Some are bond investment, which are low risk, low yield. Others are higher risk, with higher yields. Regardless of your investment choice, from the two dozen approved investments, the government guarantees a minimum return on investment. That guarantee is like 4%, so it's not a massive amount, but if I remember right, at the time I read about it, the government had never needed to make good on that minimum ROI. All the investments you could pick, did better than the guarantee.

As a result, all pensions in Singapore are fully self-funded. Zero cost to the tax payers. No worker, is paying for the retirement of an elder in Singapore... at least not generally.

Now they do have a few people who end up on government welfare, but very few. Typically they have a problem with people who get undocumented jobs. Selling fruit from a stand for example. People operating off the books. Because they are operating off the books, or self-employed and unreported... their money isn't saved in their own retirement, and thus they usually don't end up with much money in retirement. Thus they end up wards of the state. But this is generally a tiny fraction of the population. Like people who wash your windows at the street light or something.

I would greatly prefer that system over ours. Singapore has no unfunded liabilities, or any need to borrow money to pay for pensions.

The medical care system in Singapore also operates in nearly an identical fashion, but that would be far more difficult to implement in the US.

For the Social Security, we've actually already done it here once. In the 1980s, people in Texas were allowed to put their Social Security into private funds, and those funds did far better than Social Security did. Unfortunately, the politicians didn't like that hte private plans did better than the government system, and the idea was quietly dropped.

But it would work, and it would be far better.

Let's start what they did 100 years ago before social security. One big difference is you could live off the land if you had to. That does not work today.

Second, the Singapore's retirement is a compulsory comprehensive savings plan fairly close to social security. Google it.

Try again.

I've read up on Singapore's retirement system for decades, literally for over 20 years now. It nothing..... listen to me sir.... NOTHING... like Social Security. Google it.

Singapore CPF - your money is saved in a private account with your name on it, that you have legal right to.
Social Security - Your money is spent by the Federal Government, and gone.

Singapore CPF - Your money is invested in a method that you control, such as a stock fund, a bond fund, or used in purchasing your home.
Social Security - Your money is spent by the Federal Government, and gone.

Singapore CPF - Your benefits are paid out, from the investments that you made using your money.
Social Security - Your benefits are paid out, from the government borrowing money, leading to impoverishment of future generations.

Singapore CPF - No matter what the government does, you are legal owner of your retirement, and can never lose it.
Social Security - You have no legal right to Social Security, because it is a welfare program.

If you think that an 80 year old in the 1800s was living off the land, you are a little nuts. I'm sure elderly old people, were out tilling the ground.

I do not disagree with most of what you said.
But the similarities with Social Security is it is mandated by the government that all participate and workers must put around 20% of earnings in the "savings program". Just like Social security where workers and employers are mandated by government to participate. It is not optional.
In singapore you can direct investments or let the government do it for you. You are limited on what investments you can invest in. You can borrow on the money for education or buying a house but nothing else.
I have no problem with a program like that.
But the good and bad of social security is government guarantees a certain payout based on what you pay in no matter how long you live.
The Singapore program is based on the success of the investments and I do not think the government guarantees anything if the money runs out. That makes it more fiscally responsible than SS but what do you do with old people and the mandated savings runs out?

Right, and I prefer a more freedom based system.

However, I grasp that Americans are now too pathetic and childish, to man up and take ownership of the responsibility for providing for their own retirement. I get it. We have become so emasculated and spoiled as a nation, that now we simply unwilling to let people own their own choices.

So I understand that we will never simply give the money back to the people, and let them choose what to do with it. That's really sad, and the founding fathers of this country would roll over in their graves to see how immature we have become as a nation.

But I get it.

I've posted numerous times about this guy who showed up at a charity ball, and you could tell he was out of place. All these snobs with their white Manhattan dresses, and tuxedos, and here's Bob in his overalls. So a reporter sat down with him, and started asking him where why he was there. Turns out that Bob was a Janitor, and Janitor Bob donated a million dollars to the charity. They started researching this guy, the dude saved up $8 Million dollars over his lifetime as Janitor Bob. (I made up the name. It's not Bob).

But here's the fact.... Janitor Bob that is a real man, who owns the responsibility for his own retirement, is now a minority of real men, surrounded by the mass of spoiled brat boys, who want government to take care of them, so they don't have to own the responsibility.

So, I understand we'll never have true freedom to keep our own money, and use it as we need.

Therefore..... Given all that, I at least want to have legal ownership of that money. Given I have no choice but to lose 15% of my income, I at least want to put that money into a real investment that will give good returns, and keep that money in something I own, rather than giving it to government.

Do you realize how bad the math is on Social Security?

I am now 42 years old. I started working at age 16, and have worked a job every year of my life since then.

I calculated it out. Right now... NOW... if all the money I have poured into Social Security over the past 26 years, if all that money had been put into the mutual funds I invest into today.... I would have more than $2 Million dollars in investment.

That isn't an estimate. That is mathematical fact. My mutual funds tell me exactly how well they from the inception date. I can tell exactly how big the return was year over year, and calculate how much money was flushed down Social Security over that time period based on my tax returns.

In short.... right now, I'd be a multimillionaire if I was in control of my own money.

Instead, if we assumed that I had no IRA or 401K, and I had to retire on Social Security.... I would end up living in object poverty until I die.

Social Security is horrific. Absolutely horrific. It keeps people in poverty while they work, by taking 15% of people's income, and leaves them in poverty till they die when they retire. Right now the AVERAGE Social Security check, is $1,400 a month. The average...... is $17,000 a year. That's the average. Meaning, 50% of all people living on Social Security are collecting LESS that $17,000 a year. That practically poverty. I have not earned less than $17,000 in a year, since high school, and that's the AVERAGE for Social Security.

If we privatized it, like Singapore, I would do infinity better.

In fact, let me control my money completely, and I'd retire a millionaire.

And this is what they found in Texas, when they allowed people to put their money in private investments. All of them did better. ALL OF THEM. Not one private retirement account did worse, or even equal, to Social Security.

In fact... want to hear something even more ridiculous? If you put all of your retirement money into US Savings Bonds..... You will do better than Social Security. Think about the irony there? You will end up better off, putting your money into Government Bonds, than in the Government program.

That's how bad Social Security is on the math. It is literally you putting your money into a system to guarantee your own poverty.

The problem we face is what to do with the people who do not save for retirement when the get old and cannot support themself.
What to do with those who do not buy health insurance and get sick.
Most could have saved for retirement but chose to spend it. Most could buy health insurance but chose to spend money on something else.
Do you let them be accountable for their actions and let them die?

This is where you and I, are going to disagree.

I've already said what plan I support, and that's the Singapore system.

However, as I also said before, I would prefer a freedom based system, and a freedom based system, means owning your own choices. Like an adult. Like a real man. Like the people who built this country, before it became a bunch of spoiled brats, living off the hard work of others.... which is what Social Security is.

Some decades ago, I made some really terrible fiscal choices, and I ended up being $12,000 dollars in debt, with a $19,000 income.

I didn't ask society to fix my problems. I didn't demand others pay for my mistake. Instead.... I worked like a slave dog for the banks, and paid off my debts. And yes, it was 5-8 years of miserable labor. And yes, it sucked really bad.

However.... I was taught by my father, that a man owns his mistakes. It's not the job of society, to fix my bad choices in life.

Do you know what enabling is?

If your alcoholic brother-in-law decides to go out Friday night, and drink away the mortgage payment, and he asks you to cover it...... do you pay his mortgage payment? After all, your sister is going to end up homeless! Right?

The answer is no. "You are cruel and heartless and evil and uncaring!"

No, refusing to pay his mortgage is actually the most caring thing you can do, because it forces him to confront his problems.

If you pay that dudes mortgage, then he's going to be even more irresponsible next time he goes out drinking, because "Well my bro paid the mortgage last time, so I can buy a few more beers....".

Then he'll blow so much money, he won't have the mortgage or the car payment.

No, the best thing for you to do is to not pay for him at all, and that will teach him to be more responsible.

This is the most loving and caring thing we can do in this society, is force people to confront their choices in life, and face the consequences of them.

I read just a few weeks back, about a lady who had a son on Heroin. She keep paying for him, and he kept shooting up. Week after week, refusing to get a job, refusing to stop playing video games, just doing drugs and eating her food. After a full year of this, she realized she was enabling. Kicked him out. No car, no money, no nothing. Get out of the house, tossed all his stuff in the trash, and sent him out.

Then the most amazing thing happened. He went to rehab, got a job, rented a small apartment.

So back to your question.......

Do you let them be accountable for their actions and let them die?​

First, let's clarify who we are talking about: Are we talking about clinically disabled people incapable of working?

Because people were saying the same thing you are here, that if we cut people off, they'll all just die, when we reformed welfare in the 90s. Millions of people were cut off from welfare, and they didn't just die. They got jobs, and fed themselves. That's why the economy in the 90s was good, because we kicked people off being blood sucking leaches on society, and turned them into productive workers.

The solution for people are actually medically physically incapable of providing for themselves, is 3 fold..... Family.... Church.... Charity. My church, serves food for elderly that are incapable of providing for themselves. Family should understand that they do in fact, have a responsibility to care for those in the family. Charity, there are a large number of charitable organizations the help impoverished seniors.

However.... if you are physically able to work..... then you should work. I know guys in their 60s and 70s, that worked. If you can work, then you should work. If you wanted to retire, then you should have made wiser choices in your life. That's on you.

We should not enable bad behavior, ever. You don't choose to save for retirement? Then you get to live impoverished, and keep working into your 70s and 80s.

That will serve as a learning experience for those around you, to be wiser and save for retirement, instead of being a burden on society.

Enabling people to live badly, just results in more people living irresponsibly. That's not caring.... that is cruel.

 

[debbiedowner]

The free market does not work well for healthcare insurance. Companies in the free market have goals of maximizing profits and minimizing risk. In applying those principles to healthcare insurance, many people are left without coverage or no coverage at all.
Without a socialized insurance pool for those over 65, Medicare, private insurance would have to charge substantially higher rates or be out of business.
I believe in personal accountability. If you are a lousy driver and do not change your ways, you do not deserve insurance,. If you over use your home owners insurance, you deserve higher rates or to be cut off.
A majority of health issues is based on circumstances you cannot control. Getting older puts you in the highest risk category. You cannot apply free market standards and cut old people off or raise their rates to equal the increased risk.

Which is why Medicare should be replaced by a private insured lifelong policy. Like SS and Medicare, you pay into it your entire life, and are promised X amount of benefits. You can collect at age 62, 65, or 67, depending on how we decide to have it.

There is nothing private about Social security or Medicare. Both are government programs creating socialized monetary pools to cover retirement and medical benefits. If those pools cannot cover costs the government will back up the short fall.
If this was a private insurance policy, once the claiums surpassed the funds in the pool the company would go bankrupt leaving all those who had paid in with no insurance.

I'm not sure if you understand what you are claiming, because neither of those descriptions are accurate to reality.

Private insurance is very different, that's true. Private insurance uses the money you pay in during the years you do not collect benefits, to invest the money in to things that yield a return on investment. Those returns are then used to offset future costs, and have a profit to keep the company going.

However, Medicare and Social Security, are nothing like that. Where do you get the idea that they are pool? There is no pool of money anywhere, in either of them. There are no investments.

The amount of money in Social Security right now is..... Zero. The amount of money in Medicare is.... Zero. Government pays out all benefits for all programs, from taxes.

I'm not sure if you are operating on a false mythology.... but all tax money goes to the same place. The tax you pay on your gasoline, goes to the same place that your Medicare tax goes, which is the same place estate tax on that guy that died last week goes, which is the same place your Social Security tax goes, which is the same place your income tax goes, which the same place the Corporate tax goes.

All taxes go to the same place. There is no pool of money somewhere for Social Security or Medicare. There is no "medicare bank account", or "social security bank account".

This is why in 2011 I believe, Obama said that unless the debt ceiling was raised, that Social Security checks would be cut drastically.

This was not a lie, or a threat, this was a mathematical fact. Social Security has no money.

And also don't believe the mythical lie that "congress borrowed the Social Security Trust fund, and spent it". The "trust fund" has operated the exact same way, as it always has since Social Security was created.

Money is collected in taxes. Money is spent by government. There was never a fund, somewhere between taxes collected, and government spending the money. Never. It never existed, and does not exist to this day.

If there was some sort of economic crash, and a crisis in the bond market... or if China were to completely flood the market by selling off all US bonds in a mass auction......

If the US government were to be unable to borrow money, even for a month, Social Security across the entire country would be cut immediately.

There is no pool of money. There is no fund for Medicare or Social Security.

Where Social Security Taxes Go
The bulk of the FICA tax revenue goes towards funding the United States government's Social Security trusts. These trusts are legally "earmarked," or solely designated, to fund the programs administered by the Social Security Administration:

1. retirement benefits
2. survivor benefits
3. disability benefits

Do You Know Where Your Social Security and Medicare Taxes Go?

....sigh.....

Do you not understand that congress can pass legislation that says anything, and it may have nothing to do with reality? Politicians lie..... you all admit that, don't you? Yet when they write a bill that says "Thus and so", you accept that as divine truth? Why?

I understand that what you posted, and what Elmer posted... is what the politicians say. They LIE!.... Is that not true??

Let me explain this differently.... Do you know how taxes are collected?

Every bank has a tax account. The money collected from payroll taxes, is stored in the banks tax accounts, which are then given to the IRS.

NOW THINK.... why do you need to file your taxes every year? If the bank was keeping all that money separated out.... why do you need to file paperwork? Because it isn't separated out. The IRS just gets large chunks of money from the bank. You need to file your taxes, so they know what is what.

There is no separate account, for Medicare, or Social Security. The banks do not pass that money directly to Social Security or Medicare. All the money is in ONE account, that is ALL given to the IRS.

That dollar you paid to Medicare, could be used to pay for an immigrants food stamps, or a golf outing, or a military bomber. It is not separated, or earmarked, or anything.

That is REALITY. It doesn't matter what the "legislation says". This is like "The Affordable Care Act". Then you look at the numbers, and see that health care costs have gone up faster since the "Affordable Care Act" than they did before it.

This is like "We're going to tax the rich, because 70% tax rates worked in the past!" and you look at high tax rates in the past, and see the rich paid less of the tax burden under high tax rates.

You need to stop just believing whatever lies they tell you. Politicians are there to get elected, and they'll tell you whatever lie they think you'll believe to get a vote. It's true for Warrens "we'll tax wealth" and it was true for Trumps "Mexico will pay for the wall".

There is no Social Security Trust Fund. There is no Medicare Fund. When they said if we can't keep borrowing money, Social Security will be cut... that wasn't a joke. It was true. Because Social Security has no fund. There is no money.

Again read the book....

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Go...38734305:pla-679553685839&psc=1&tag=ff0d01-20

Read the book.... and after you have read it, you prove me wrong. You prove everything documented in that book as to how entitlement programs work, is all wrong.

I'm issuing you a challenge. You read that book, and then prove it wrong. You do that, and I'll never say what I'm saying here, ever again. It's a promise. You read that book cover to cover, and debunk the whole thing, and I'll shut up.

Now let me explain in a sentence. The ss and medicare taxes are suppose to go into a general fund separate from other taxes collected.

 

[sparky]

You need to stop just believing whatever lies they tell you

Grand

then what's your metric Andy?

how's this>



~S~

 

[Andylusion]

Which is why Medicare should be replaced by a private insured lifelong policy. Like SS and Medicare, you pay into it your entire life, and are promised X amount of benefits. You can collect at age 62, 65, or 67, depending on how we decide to have it.

There is nothing private about Social security or Medicare. Both are government programs creating socialized monetary pools to cover retirement and medical benefits. If those pools cannot cover costs the government will back up the short fall.
If this was a private insurance policy, once the claiums surpassed the funds in the pool the company would go bankrupt leaving all those who had paid in with no insurance.

I'm not sure if you understand what you are claiming, because neither of those descriptions are accurate to reality.

Private insurance is very different, that's true. Private insurance uses the money you pay in during the years you do not collect benefits, to invest the money in to things that yield a return on investment. Those returns are then used to offset future costs, and have a profit to keep the company going.

However, Medicare and Social Security, are nothing like that. Where do you get the idea that they are pool? There is no pool of money anywhere, in either of them. There are no investments.

The amount of money in Social Security right now is..... Zero. The amount of money in Medicare is.... Zero. Government pays out all benefits for all programs, from taxes.

I'm not sure if you are operating on a false mythology.... but all tax money goes to the same place. The tax you pay on your gasoline, goes to the same place that your Medicare tax goes, which is the same place estate tax on that guy that died last week goes, which is the same place your Social Security tax goes, which is the same place your income tax goes, which the same place the Corporate tax goes.

All taxes go to the same place. There is no pool of money somewhere for Social Security or Medicare. There is no "medicare bank account", or "social security bank account".

This is why in 2011 I believe, Obama said that unless the debt ceiling was raised, that Social Security checks would be cut drastically.

This was not a lie, or a threat, this was a mathematical fact. Social Security has no money.

And also don't believe the mythical lie that "congress borrowed the Social Security Trust fund, and spent it". The "trust fund" has operated the exact same way, as it always has since Social Security was created.

Money is collected in taxes. Money is spent by government. There was never a fund, somewhere between taxes collected, and government spending the money. Never. It never existed, and does not exist to this day.

If there was some sort of economic crash, and a crisis in the bond market... or if China were to completely flood the market by selling off all US bonds in a mass auction......

If the US government were to be unable to borrow money, even for a month, Social Security across the entire country would be cut immediately.

There is no pool of money. There is no fund for Medicare or Social Security.

Where Social Security Taxes Go
The bulk of the FICA tax revenue goes towards funding the United States government's Social Security trusts. These trusts are legally "earmarked," or solely designated, to fund the programs administered by the Social Security Administration:

1. retirement benefits
2. survivor benefits
3. disability benefits

Do You Know Where Your Social Security and Medicare Taxes Go?

....sigh.....

Do you not understand that congress can pass legislation that says anything, and it may have nothing to do with reality? Politicians lie..... you all admit that, don't you? Yet when they write a bill that says "Thus and so", you accept that as divine truth? Why?

I understand that what you posted, and what Elmer posted... is what the politicians say. They LIE!.... Is that not true??

Let me explain this differently.... Do you know how taxes are collected?

Every bank has a tax account. The money collected from payroll taxes, is stored in the banks tax accounts, which are then given to the IRS.

NOW THINK.... why do you need to file your taxes every year? If the bank was keeping all that money separated out.... why do you need to file paperwork? Because it isn't separated out. The IRS just gets large chunks of money from the bank. You need to file your taxes, so they know what is what.

There is no separate account, for Medicare, or Social Security. The banks do not pass that money directly to Social Security or Medicare. All the money is in ONE account, that is ALL given to the IRS.

That dollar you paid to Medicare, could be used to pay for an immigrants food stamps, or a golf outing, or a military bomber. It is not separated, or earmarked, or anything.

That is REALITY. It doesn't matter what the "legislation says". This is like "The Affordable Care Act". Then you look at the numbers, and see that health care costs have gone up faster since the "Affordable Care Act" than they did before it.

This is like "We're going to tax the rich, because 70% tax rates worked in the past!" and you look at high tax rates in the past, and see the rich paid less of the tax burden under high tax rates.

You need to stop just believing whatever lies they tell you. Politicians are there to get elected, and they'll tell you whatever lie they think you'll believe to get a vote. It's true for Warrens "we'll tax wealth" and it was true for Trumps "Mexico will pay for the wall".

There is no Social Security Trust Fund. There is no Medicare Fund. When they said if we can't keep borrowing money, Social Security will be cut... that wasn't a joke. It was true. Because Social Security has no fund. There is no money.

Again read the book....

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Go...38734305:pla-679553685839&psc=1&tag=ff0d01-20

Read the book.... and after you have read it, you prove me wrong. You prove everything documented in that book as to how entitlement programs work, is all wrong.

I'm issuing you a challenge. You read that book, and then prove it wrong. You do that, and I'll never say what I'm saying here, ever again. It's a promise. You read that book cover to cover, and debunk the whole thing, and I'll shut up.

Now let me explain in a sentence. The ss and medicare taxes are suppose to go into a general fund separate from other taxes collected.

"Suppose"

I understand that. I'm telling you that I have read documented, clear cut, verified evidence..... that they don't. Period. If you can read that book, and disprove all of the documented facts in that book...... then do so. Then I will agree with you.

I am telling you, you have been lied to.