US is not ready for Medicare for all

[Ray From Cleveland]

What happens when, say, 10 years from now, government has enacted Medicare for all, many private insurance companies have had to close their doors and access to private insurance is no longer an option, or at least an affordable option.

Now, the government has you in its clutches and you have nowhere to go. Government realizes that the current income will not support the system, so now they have to start raising taxes every year to pay for it.

Oh, and that promise that, once you're on MFA that there will be no more copays, no more prescription costs and medical treatment will be free, that will go away once they realize the cost is going to be MUCH higher than they anticipated, and people are going to the doctor for every little ache and pain.

It wont be long before they start saying "well, looks like we will need to start charging a copay after all, aaaaaaand.....were going to need you to chip in about 30% of the cost of your prescriptions.....aaaaaaaand.....were going to have to raise your taxes by another $500 next year to help cover costs..."

And now....you have nowhere to go, because all your old insurance companies are gone.

I've heard people say "it will be cheaper because we won't have to pay some ceo 15 million a year".....really?? You think government run health care wont have its share of people siphoning from the system? Instead of a ceo being paid 15 million a year, you'll have politicians raiding the fund for 15 million per year.

Government has never been the bastion of efficiency. Government is wasteful and spendy, and there is never a pool of money yet that the government cant leave alone. They see money setting somewhere, they have to spend it. The same will happen with this Medicare for all taxation money.

Please see the map of the world below. The vast majority of the world has universal healthcare or free healthcare. If they can do it, we can do it.

As a patient at the world famous Cleveland Clinic, I can testify that when you go to their downtown campus, you are the one that feels like the foreigner.

Not only do people come here from all around the world for treatment, but the medical personnel is pretty much the same. Doctors who came here from other countries got educated here for the most part, and stayed because of the money. That's why we have the best from all around the world.

If you want to be like those other countries, then look for a doctor shortage not long after that. Nobody wants to spend 8 years in college to make a mediocre income. Many less will want to practice in the US if they can make the same amount as they can back home.

Not true. Check out universal health care in other countries. Currently there are many more individuals who want to go to medical school tan there is room for.

And your proof is????

https://mededits.com › medical-school-admissions › statistics

What does this have to do with me asking you for proof that other countries have many people wanting to get into the medical profession?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"Medicare for all" CAN work if the taxes to pay for it are collected by club-wielding thugs backed up by machete armed enforcers who murder those who can't pay. If only to keep them from using the government medical system.

Think of it as an employment plan to get some use out of liberal college indoctronees who can't find any other work.

I say if we are forced to have it by some Democrat, we all pay, and then let people decide how great it is. I suggest a consumption tax. Everything you buy has an added tax to support Medicare for All. If you buy little, you pay little. If you buy a lot, you pay a lot.

The problem is the left believes their goodies always come for free at the expense of others. They would be singing a different tune if they actually had to pay for it.

 

[HenryBHough]

The consumption tax would fall most heavily on those who are able and willing to grow their own food, build their own houses, etc. Levied, of course by those who can't or won't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. There's plenty of choice in Medicare Advantage plans, plenty of choice in Medicare Supplement plans. That's in terms of various plans offered by insurers, in terms of providers, in terms of network, in terms of levels of coverage, in terms of available formularies, and in terms of specific services.

I know that no amount of proof or information outside your closed universe is allowed, but just so I know I tried, here's a chance to educate yourself:

No Mac, there are NOT plenty of choice in Medicare/Medicare Advantage plans.

It all depends on what state one lives in, even boils down to what county a person lives in.

Medicare, as it stands now, does not treat the consumer, you and I, equally.

Don't let the curent rash of commercials confuse you.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?

What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

What will happen when the Government decides it needs to triple a person's premiums?

What are you talking about? Medicare treats all the same. I am on Medicare. It works well. It is not perfect but no private plan is, either. In a private market place, Insurance companies would have to charge those 65 and over, staggering high rates, because of the increased risk level.
It is like car insurance company figuring a rate for someone who had 10 accidents and 10 tickets.

Which is exactly our point.

You say it works well... but it doesn't work well.
Unfunded Govt. Liabilities -- Our Ticking Time Bomb | RealClearPolitics!

If medicare charged more money for older people... which you are saying it does not... then it would work well, because we would recoup the cost of Medicare, and have a sustainable system.

As things are, Medicare is going to bankrupt the country. That is not how I define "working well".

That's the point the prior poster is making.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?
What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

The reason he asked this, is because at some point in the future, that is the problem we are going to have. Government is going to have make cuts somewhere, because it is absolutely impossible for us to keep paying for this.

I do not think the US is ready for single payer plan but if the current Medicare plan is expanded to include younger people, lower risk individuals, the financials will work out better.
The larger and more diverse a risk pool for any insurance, the better the financials. Medicare for people over 65 is all higher risk individuals. The lower the premiums are because of risk diversity along with a greater possibility of profit or break even.

And that's why the only compromise would be a public/ private system.

On the public system, allow people with preexisting conditions buy into Medicare. That would take out all the high-risk patients off of private plans, and they could be much more reasonable with low-risk patients only.

 

[ElmerMudd]

No Mac, there are NOT plenty of choice in Medicare/Medicare Advantage plans.

It all depends on what state one lives in, even boils down to what county a person lives in.

Medicare, as it stands now, does not treat the consumer, you and I, equally.

Don't let the curent rash of commercials confuse you.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?

What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

What will happen when the Government decides it needs to triple a person's premiums?

What are you talking about? Welfare treats all the same. I am on Medicare. It works well. It is not perfect but no private plan is, either. In a private market place, Insurance companies would have to charge those 65 and over, staggering high rates, because of the increased risk level.
It is like car insurance company figuring a rate for someone who had 10 accidents and 10 tickets.

The Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system has worked very well and is very popular. It includes a strong free market competition/innovation component and provides choice. The system could easily be scaled up for all.

Most Americans don't really know how the system works, although they think they do.
.

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.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. There's plenty of choice in Medicare Advantage plans, plenty of choice in Medicare Supplement plans. That's in terms of various plans offered by insurers, in terms of providers, in terms of network, in terms of levels of coverage, in terms of available formularies, and in terms of specific services.

I know that no amount of proof or information outside your closed universe is allowed, but just so I know I tried, here's a chance to educate yourself:

No Mac, there are NOT plenty of choice in Medicare/Medicare Advantage plans.

It all depends on what state one lives in, even boils down to what county a person lives in.

Medicare, as it stands now, does not treat the consumer, you and I, equally.

Don't let the curent rash of commercials confuse you.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?

What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

What will happen when the Government decides it needs to triple a person's premiums?

What are you talking about? Medicare treats all the same. I am on Medicare. It works well. It is not perfect but no private plan is, either. In a private market place, Insurance companies would have to charge those 65 and over, staggering high rates, because of the increased risk level.
It is like car insurance company figuring a rate for someone who had 10 accidents and 10 tickets.

Which is exactly our point.

You say it works well... but it doesn't work well.
Unfunded Govt. Liabilities -- Our Ticking Time Bomb | RealClearPolitics!

If medicare charged more money for older people... which you are saying it does not... then it would work well, because we would recoup the cost of Medicare, and have a sustainable system.

As things are, Medicare is going to bankrupt the country. That is not how I define "working well".

That's the point the prior poster is making.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?
What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

The reason he asked this, is because at some point in the future, that is the problem we are going to have. Government is going to have make cuts somewhere, because it is absolutely impossible for us to keep paying for this.

I do not think the US is ready for single payer plan but if the current Medicare plan is expanded to include younger people, lower risk individuals, the financials will work out better.
The larger and more diverse a risk pool for any insurance, the better the financials. Medicare for people over 65 is all higher risk individuals. The lower the premiums are because of risk diversity along with a greater possibility of profit or break even.

And that's why the only compromise would be a public/ private system.

On the public system, allow people with preexisting conditions buy into Medicare. That would take out all the high-risk patients off of private plans, and they could be much more reasonable with low-risk patients only.

That means the government (us) would pay for the high risk individuals which would mean loss of money, big losses. The low risk clients who you make money of of goes to the private company.
When I say a hybrid program, I say you offer everyone the option to buy into the Medicare program or the private programs.

 

[Andylusion]

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. There's plenty of choice in Medicare Advantage plans, plenty of choice in Medicare Supplement plans. That's in terms of various plans offered by insurers, in terms of providers, in terms of network, in terms of levels of coverage, in terms of available formularies, and in terms of specific services.

I know that no amount of proof or information outside your closed universe is allowed, but just so I know I tried, here's a chance to educate yourself:

No Mac, there are NOT plenty of choice in Medicare/Medicare Advantage plans.

It all depends on what state one lives in, even boils down to what county a person lives in.

Medicare, as it stands now, does not treat the consumer, you and I, equally.

Don't let the curent rash of commercials confuse you.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?

What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

What will happen when the Government decides it needs to triple a person's premiums?

What are you talking about? Medicare treats all the same. I am on Medicare. It works well. It is not perfect but no private plan is, either. In a private market place, Insurance companies would have to charge those 65 and over, staggering high rates, because of the increased risk level.
It is like car insurance company figuring a rate for someone who had 10 accidents and 10 tickets.

Which is exactly our point.

You say it works well... but it doesn't work well.
Unfunded Govt. Liabilities -- Our Ticking Time Bomb | RealClearPolitics!

If medicare charged more money for older people... which you are saying it does not... then it would work well, because we would recoup the cost of Medicare, and have a sustainable system.

As things are, Medicare is going to bankrupt the country. That is not how I define "working well".

That's the point the prior poster is making.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?
What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

The reason he asked this, is because at some point in the future, that is the problem we are going to have. Government is going to have make cuts somewhere, because it is absolutely impossible for us to keep paying for this.

I do not think the US is ready for single payer plan but if the current Medicare plan is expanded to include younger people, lower risk individuals, the financials will work out better.
The larger and more diverse a risk pool for any insurance, the better the financials. Medicare for people over 65 is all higher risk individuals. The lower the premiums are because of risk diversity along with a greater possibility of profit or break even.

There are a number problems you are not including.

First, Medicare and Private insurance, operate in a completely different fashion.

Private insurance companies will take the profits the gain from younger premium payers, and invest those profits into long term investments. The dividends and long term gains from those investments, are used to offset future costs.

A young person paying in premiums during their life, will allow the insurance company to invest, so that when that young person becomes old, their cost to the insurance company is offset by the investments the company gained during that person's life.

Medicare on the other hand, has no investments. All money that comes in, goes out, and is spent. The result is when the person is old the entire cost of their medical care, is levied against the government, which in turn is levied against the tax payers.

Second, by giving everyone universal insurance at a low cost, you will drastically increase the usage of health care.

As much as people complain and bitch and moan that health care should cost nothing, having zero cost is devastating to a system. When Massachusetts enacted universal health care, people started showing up hospitals with everything from, a sprained ankle, to a headache. And why not? If there is no cost, then there is no reason to not go to the hospital every time your butt burns a little when you fart.

In fact, things were so bad, that people were driving to MA, to get care, when they lived in other states, and were not paying the taxes to fund Mass-Health.

When you have free health care, or low cost Medicaid and Medicare, what do you think will happen with immigration?

The cost to those programs will drastically increase, the more people you allow access to them.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the politicians are lying to you about how the math would work out, because Medicare under pays.

Government care, drastically under pays. There are reason why dozens of health providers routinely refuse to accept Medicare Patients, but gladly take any patient willing to pay with cash.

More Physicians No Longer Seeing Medicare Patients – Healthcare Leadership Council

Doctors, and hospitals lose money on Medicare and Medicaid patients.

So if you think logically, if a doctor or hospital is losing money on Medicare patients, then how do they stay in business? How do they avoid bankruptcy?

The answer is, they charge private patients more money.

As reimbursement rates for medicare and medicaid fall below the cost of providing care, they charge private patients more and more money.
The more medicare and medicaid patients they serve, the more cost has to be shifted to private payers.

Now ask yourself, what is going to happen if you have Medicare for all? Well obviously one of three things will happen. One, more and more hospitals will start refusing medicare and medicaid patients. Two, congress will be forced to drastically increase the pay out of Medicare and Medicaid, driving ever growing debt. Three, congress will be forced to take over hospitals, socializing the entire system, in order to prevent health providers from declining Medicare and Medicaid.

Regardless, the math simply doesn't work. Something will have to give.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. There's plenty of choice in Medicare Advantage plans, plenty of choice in Medicare Supplement plans. That's in terms of various plans offered by insurers, in terms of providers, in terms of network, in terms of levels of coverage, in terms of available formularies, and in terms of specific services.

I know that no amount of proof or information outside your closed universe is allowed, but just so I know I tried, here's a chance to educate yourself:

No Mac, there are NOT plenty of choice in Medicare/Medicare Advantage plans.

It all depends on what state one lives in, even boils down to what county a person lives in.

Medicare, as it stands now, does not treat the consumer, you and I, equally.

Don't let the curent rash of commercials confuse you.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?

What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

What will happen when the Government decides it needs to triple a person's premiums?

What are you talking about? Medicare treats all the same. I am on Medicare. It works well. It is not perfect but no private plan is, either. In a private market place, Insurance companies would have to charge those 65 and over, staggering high rates, because of the increased risk level.
It is like car insurance company figuring a rate for someone who had 10 accidents and 10 tickets.

Which is exactly our point.

You say it works well... but it doesn't work well.
Unfunded Govt. Liabilities -- Our Ticking Time Bomb | RealClearPolitics!

If medicare charged more money for older people... which you are saying it does not... then it would work well, because we would recoup the cost of Medicare, and have a sustainable system.

As things are, Medicare is going to bankrupt the country. That is not how I define "working well".

That's the point the prior poster is making.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?
What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

The reason he asked this, is because at some point in the future, that is the problem we are going to have. Government is going to have make cuts somewhere, because it is absolutely impossible for us to keep paying for this.

I do not think the US is ready for single payer plan but if the current Medicare plan is expanded to include younger people, lower risk individuals, the financials will work out better.
The larger and more diverse a risk pool for any insurance, the better the financials. Medicare for people over 65 is all higher risk individuals. The lower the premiums are because of risk diversity along with a greater possibility of profit or break even.

There are a number problems you are not including.

First, Medicare and Private insurance, operate in a completely different fashion.

Private insurance companies will take the profits the gain from younger premium payers, and invest those profits into long term investments. The dividends and long term gains from those investments, are used to offset future costs.

A young person paying in premiums during their life, will allow the insurance company to invest, so that when that young person becomes old, their cost to the insurance company is offset by the investments the company gained during that person's life.

Medicare on the other hand, has no investments. All money that comes in, goes out, and is spent. The result is when the person is old the entire cost of their medical care, is levied against the government, which in turn is levied against the tax payers.

Second, by giving everyone universal insurance at a low cost, you will drastically increase the usage of health care.

As much as people complain and bitch and moan that health care should cost nothing, having zero cost is devastating to a system. When Massachusetts enacted universal health care, people started showing up hospitals with everything from, a sprained ankle, to a headache. And why not? If there is no cost, then there is no reason to not go to the hospital every time your butt burns a little when you fart.

In fact, things were so bad, that people were driving to MA, to get care, when they lived in other states, and were not paying the taxes to fund Mass-Health.

When you have free health care, or low cost Medicaid and Medicare, what do you think will happen with immigration?

The cost to those programs will drastically increase, the more people you allow access to them.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the politicians are lying to you about how the math would work out, because Medicare under pays.

Government care, drastically under pays. There are reason why dozens of health providers routinely refuse to accept Medicare Patients, but gladly take any patient willing to pay with cash.

More Physicians No Longer Seeing Medicare Patients – Healthcare Leadership Council

Doctors, and hospitals lose money on Medicare and Medicaid patients.

So if you think logically, if a doctor or hospital is losing money on Medicare patients, then how do they stay in business? How do they avoid bankruptcy?

The answer is, they charge private patients more money.

As reimbursement rates for medicare and medicaid fall below the cost of providing care, they charge private patients more and more money.
The more medicare and medicaid patients they serve, the more cost has to be shifted to private payers.

Now ask yourself, what is going to happen if you have Medicare for all? Well obviously one of three things will happen. One, more and more hospitals will start refusing medicare and medicaid patients. Two, congress will be forced to drastically increase the pay out of Medicare and Medicaid, driving ever growing debt. Three, congress will be forced to take over hospitals, socializing the entire system, in order to prevent health providers from declining Medicare and Medicaid.

Regardless, the math simply doesn't work. Something will have to give.

Medicare for all would give the majority of hospitals, no choice but to accept Medicare.
One of private hospitals biggest cost is uncompensated care. You eliminate that wit Medicare for all.
I do not feel the US is ready for Medicare for all, yet. I suggest offering Medicare to everyone and also offer private insurance to everyone. There would be problems but as the problems are understood you transition.

What do you think is the best insurance plan for the US?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No Mac, there are NOT plenty of choice in Medicare/Medicare Advantage plans.

It all depends on what state one lives in, even boils down to what county a person lives in.

Medicare, as it stands now, does not treat the consumer, you and I, equally.

Don't let the curent rash of commercials confuse you.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?

What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

What will happen when the Government decides it needs to triple a person's premiums?

What are you talking about? Medicare treats all the same. I am on Medicare. It works well. It is not perfect but no private plan is, either. In a private market place, Insurance companies would have to charge those 65 and over, staggering high rates, because of the increased risk level.
It is like car insurance company figuring a rate for someone who had 10 accidents and 10 tickets.

Which is exactly our point.

You say it works well... but it doesn't work well.
Unfunded Govt. Liabilities -- Our Ticking Time Bomb | RealClearPolitics!

If medicare charged more money for older people... which you are saying it does not... then it would work well, because we would recoup the cost of Medicare, and have a sustainable system.

As things are, Medicare is going to bankrupt the country. That is not how I define "working well".

That's the point the prior poster is making.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?
What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

The reason he asked this, is because at some point in the future, that is the problem we are going to have. Government is going to have make cuts somewhere, because it is absolutely impossible for us to keep paying for this.

I do not think the US is ready for single payer plan but if the current Medicare plan is expanded to include younger people, lower risk individuals, the financials will work out better.
The larger and more diverse a risk pool for any insurance, the better the financials. Medicare for people over 65 is all higher risk individuals. The lower the premiums are because of risk diversity along with a greater possibility of profit or break even.

And that's why the only compromise would be a public/ private system.

On the public system, allow people with preexisting conditions buy into Medicare. That would take out all the high-risk patients off of private plans, and they could be much more reasonable with low-risk patients only.

That means the government (us) would pay for the high risk individuals which would mean loss of money, big losses. The low risk clients who you make money of of goes to the private company.
When I say a hybrid program, I say you offer everyone the option to buy into the Medicare program or the private programs.

That's exactly what it would do, but it would give us a solution to our problem. After all, if you are on disability, you obviously have serious preexisting conditions, and they allow you to buy into Medicare after the first year on disability.

The left wants government healthcare, and the right wants private healthcare. My solution would be center line of both. Neither would be happy, but they each got something. It would solve most of the uninsured problem, it would lower premiums and keep them down for private insurance which would greatly help our businesses that provide that benefit, and it would make it more affordable for people to buy into private insurance.

It would come at a cost though. Besides people buying into Medicare, we double the payroll deduction for Medicare contributions.

 

[Andylusion]

What are you talking about? Welfare treats all the same. I am on Medicare. It works well. It is not perfect but no private plan is, either. In a private market place, Insurance companies would have to charge those 65 and over, staggering high rates, because of the increased risk level.
It is like car insurance company figuring a rate for someone who had 10 accidents and 10 tickets.

The Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system has worked very well and is very popular. It includes a strong free market competition/innovation component and provides choice. The system could easily be scaled up for all.

Most Americans don't really know how the system works, although they think they do.
.

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.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What are you talking about? Welfare treats all the same. I am on Medicare. It works well. It is not perfect but no private plan is, either. In a private market place, Insurance companies would have to charge those 65 and over, staggering high rates, because of the increased risk level.
It is like car insurance company figuring a rate for someone who had 10 accidents and 10 tickets.

The Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system has worked very well and is very popular. It includes a strong free market competition/innovation component and provides choice. The system could easily be scaled up for all.

Most Americans don't really know how the system works, although they think they do.
.

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.

Which is why you would have a government backup. Let them run the numbers to see if the company will remain solvent or not for the next 50 years or so. And if it does happen anyway, government could backup those people who paid into the program their entire lives.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No Mac, there are NOT plenty of choice in Medicare/Medicare Advantage plans.

It all depends on what state one lives in, even boils down to what county a person lives in.

Medicare, as it stands now, does not treat the consumer, you and I, equally.

Don't let the curent rash of commercials confuse you.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?

What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

What will happen when the Government decides it needs to triple a person's premiums?

What are you talking about? Medicare treats all the same. I am on Medicare. It works well. It is not perfect but no private plan is, either. In a private market place, Insurance companies would have to charge those 65 and over, staggering high rates, because of the increased risk level.
It is like car insurance company figuring a rate for someone who had 10 accidents and 10 tickets.

Which is exactly our point.

You say it works well... but it doesn't work well.
Unfunded Govt. Liabilities -- Our Ticking Time Bomb | RealClearPolitics!

If medicare charged more money for older people... which you are saying it does not... then it would work well, because we would recoup the cost of Medicare, and have a sustainable system.

As things are, Medicare is going to bankrupt the country. That is not how I define "working well".

That's the point the prior poster is making.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?
What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

The reason he asked this, is because at some point in the future, that is the problem we are going to have. Government is going to have make cuts somewhere, because it is absolutely impossible for us to keep paying for this.

I do not think the US is ready for single payer plan but if the current Medicare plan is expanded to include younger people, lower risk individuals, the financials will work out better.
The larger and more diverse a risk pool for any insurance, the better the financials. Medicare for people over 65 is all higher risk individuals. The lower the premiums are because of risk diversity along with a greater possibility of profit or break even.

There are a number problems you are not including.

First, Medicare and Private insurance, operate in a completely different fashion.

Private insurance companies will take the profits the gain from younger premium payers, and invest those profits into long term investments. The dividends and long term gains from those investments, are used to offset future costs.

A young person paying in premiums during their life, will allow the insurance company to invest, so that when that young person becomes old, their cost to the insurance company is offset by the investments the company gained during that person's life.

Medicare on the other hand, has no investments. All money that comes in, goes out, and is spent. The result is when the person is old the entire cost of their medical care, is levied against the government, which in turn is levied against the tax payers.

Second, by giving everyone universal insurance at a low cost, you will drastically increase the usage of health care.

As much as people complain and bitch and moan that health care should cost nothing, having zero cost is devastating to a system. When Massachusetts enacted universal health care, people started showing up hospitals with everything from, a sprained ankle, to a headache. And why not? If there is no cost, then there is no reason to not go to the hospital every time your butt burns a little when you fart.

In fact, things were so bad, that people were driving to MA, to get care, when they lived in other states, and were not paying the taxes to fund Mass-Health.

When you have free health care, or low cost Medicaid and Medicare, what do you think will happen with immigration?

The cost to those programs will drastically increase, the more people you allow access to them.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the politicians are lying to you about how the math would work out, because Medicare under pays.

Government care, drastically under pays. There are reason why dozens of health providers routinely refuse to accept Medicare Patients, but gladly take any patient willing to pay with cash.

More Physicians No Longer Seeing Medicare Patients – Healthcare Leadership Council

Doctors, and hospitals lose money on Medicare and Medicaid patients.

So if you think logically, if a doctor or hospital is losing money on Medicare patients, then how do they stay in business? How do they avoid bankruptcy?

The answer is, they charge private patients more money.

As reimbursement rates for medicare and medicaid fall below the cost of providing care, they charge private patients more and more money.
The more medicare and medicaid patients they serve, the more cost has to be shifted to private payers.

Now ask yourself, what is going to happen if you have Medicare for all? Well obviously one of three things will happen. One, more and more hospitals will start refusing medicare and medicaid patients. Two, congress will be forced to drastically increase the pay out of Medicare and Medicaid, driving ever growing debt. Three, congress will be forced to take over hospitals, socializing the entire system, in order to prevent health providers from declining Medicare and Medicaid.

Regardless, the math simply doesn't work. Something will have to give.

Medicare for all would give the majority of hospitals, no choice but to accept Medicare.
One of private hospitals biggest cost is uncompensated care. You eliminate that wit Medicare for all.
I do not feel the US is ready for Medicare for all, yet. I suggest offering Medicare to everyone and also offer private insurance to everyone. There would be problems but as the problems are understood you transition.

What do you think is the best insurance plan for the US?

The reason Medicare works is because of private insurance. Medicare typically pays about 2/3 of the cost for care of their patients. Doctors and facilities up the price and recoup those losses via private insurance. That's why when you see medical facilities close down, it's usually in lower income areas where most of the clientele are government patients.

So you take away the avenue where medical providers offset their government losses, and the only thing you accomplish is the closing down of more facilities, and doctors leaving practice and getting into another line of work.

 

[Andylusion]

No Mac, there are NOT plenty of choice in Medicare/Medicare Advantage plans.

It all depends on what state one lives in, even boils down to what county a person lives in.

Medicare, as it stands now, does not treat the consumer, you and I, equally.

Don't let the curent rash of commercials confuse you.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?

What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

What will happen when the Government decides it needs to triple a person's premiums?

What are you talking about? Medicare treats all the same. I am on Medicare. It works well. It is not perfect but no private plan is, either. In a private market place, Insurance companies would have to charge those 65 and over, staggering high rates, because of the increased risk level.
It is like car insurance company figuring a rate for someone who had 10 accidents and 10 tickets.

Which is exactly our point.

You say it works well... but it doesn't work well.
Unfunded Govt. Liabilities -- Our Ticking Time Bomb | RealClearPolitics!

If medicare charged more money for older people... which you are saying it does not... then it would work well, because we would recoup the cost of Medicare, and have a sustainable system.

As things are, Medicare is going to bankrupt the country. That is not how I define "working well".

That's the point the prior poster is making.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?
What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

The reason he asked this, is because at some point in the future, that is the problem we are going to have. Government is going to have make cuts somewhere, because it is absolutely impossible for us to keep paying for this.

I do not think the US is ready for single payer plan but if the current Medicare plan is expanded to include younger people, lower risk individuals, the financials will work out better.
The larger and more diverse a risk pool for any insurance, the better the financials. Medicare for people over 65 is all higher risk individuals. The lower the premiums are because of risk diversity along with a greater possibility of profit or break even.

There are a number problems you are not including.

First, Medicare and Private insurance, operate in a completely different fashion.

Private insurance companies will take the profits the gain from younger premium payers, and invest those profits into long term investments. The dividends and long term gains from those investments, are used to offset future costs.

A young person paying in premiums during their life, will allow the insurance company to invest, so that when that young person becomes old, their cost to the insurance company is offset by the investments the company gained during that person's life.

Medicare on the other hand, has no investments. All money that comes in, goes out, and is spent. The result is when the person is old the entire cost of their medical care, is levied against the government, which in turn is levied against the tax payers.

Second, by giving everyone universal insurance at a low cost, you will drastically increase the usage of health care.

As much as people complain and bitch and moan that health care should cost nothing, having zero cost is devastating to a system. When Massachusetts enacted universal health care, people started showing up hospitals with everything from, a sprained ankle, to a headache. And why not? If there is no cost, then there is no reason to not go to the hospital every time your butt burns a little when you fart.

In fact, things were so bad, that people were driving to MA, to get care, when they lived in other states, and were not paying the taxes to fund Mass-Health.

When you have free health care, or low cost Medicaid and Medicare, what do you think will happen with immigration?

The cost to those programs will drastically increase, the more people you allow access to them.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the politicians are lying to you about how the math would work out, because Medicare under pays.

Government care, drastically under pays. There are reason why dozens of health providers routinely refuse to accept Medicare Patients, but gladly take any patient willing to pay with cash.

More Physicians No Longer Seeing Medicare Patients – Healthcare Leadership Council

Doctors, and hospitals lose money on Medicare and Medicaid patients.

So if you think logically, if a doctor or hospital is losing money on Medicare patients, then how do they stay in business? How do they avoid bankruptcy?

The answer is, they charge private patients more money.

As reimbursement rates for medicare and medicaid fall below the cost of providing care, they charge private patients more and more money.
The more medicare and medicaid patients they serve, the more cost has to be shifted to private payers.

Now ask yourself, what is going to happen if you have Medicare for all? Well obviously one of three things will happen. One, more and more hospitals will start refusing medicare and medicaid patients. Two, congress will be forced to drastically increase the pay out of Medicare and Medicaid, driving ever growing debt. Three, congress will be forced to take over hospitals, socializing the entire system, in order to prevent health providers from declining Medicare and Medicaid.

Regardless, the math simply doesn't work. Something will have to give.

Medicare for all would give the majority of hospitals, no choice but to accept Medicare.
One of private hospitals biggest cost is uncompensated care. You eliminate that wit Medicare for all.
I do not feel the US is ready for Medicare for all, yet. I suggest offering Medicare to everyone and also offer private insurance to everyone. There would be problems but as the problems are understood you transition.

What do you think is the best insurance plan for the US?

Huh? Are you thinking straight? Are you suggesting we make hospitals into slaves? You can't 'force' people to work for you. If the pay out is too low, I am not going to work for you. I am not going to bankrupt my business, because you think I have no choice but to give care to Medicare patients, which causes me to lose money.

One of private hospitals biggest cost is uncompensated care. You eliminate that wit Medicare for all.

That is factually not true. There are two reasons why.

First, you can levy a debt against the patient. I myself went to the hospital when I didn't have insurance. They sent me a bill. I paid the bill.

Not having health insurance, does not mean you have uncompensated care.

In fact, I have read research that showed that people who were on Medicaid for example. were given LESS care, than those who had no insurance at all. The finding was baffling until they discovered the reason. A hospital will give more care to a person with no insurance, because they know they can send a bill, and get compensated, even if it takes years to collect.

But for a person on Medicaid, they know they will only get what Medicaid gives them, and it is impossible to collect more money on the cost of provided care.

Second, all you have to do is close the ER, and start refusing anything but cash.

Doctors Who Don't Take Insurance, Cash Only
What Happens When Doctors Only Take Cash
Self-Pay Healthcare Market

There is a rise of cash only hospitals.

Again, I think you need to reconsider your line of thinking, if you believe that forcing people into a money losing situation, will result in them merely accepting it.

That will never happen.

What do you think is the best insurance plan for the US?

When you look around the world, the cheapest care, is the free market care.

That's my answer. Government has zero track record of making anything anywhere, cheaper. Only the free-market does that.

There are a host of problems in the medical industry, that need to be dealt with. Some are. Some are not.

I don't think insurance is the primary problem. There is no insurance plan that will solve this problem, because the problem is with all the rest of the industry.

For example, the vast majority of states have limitations on opening a hospital. Most states still have a certificate of need system. Meaning that I personally, can't open my own hospital, unless all existing hospitals agree to it. Well of course, they are not going to agree.

In any other situation, no one would even consider this. Let's have Walmart decide if there is a 'need' for another store in the area. That's insane.

But if I come up with a low-cost hospital, that could under cut the costs of the mega-hospitals.... I have to ask for a certificate of need, and the other hospitals get to vote on if there is a need.

That said, we do have some problems in insurance. Namely all the regulations. For example, in some states, insurance is required by law, to cover alcoholism. I have never had a beer in my life... but my insurance covers Alcoholism. Some states cover acupuncture. There has not been a single credible study, suggesting even the smallest of benefits... but insurance is required to cover it in many states. Mental illness, even marriage counseling, and I'm not married, or a widow has to pay for it.

The list of things required to be covered by insurance is almost endless, and they all drive up costs.

We also need to eliminate all the regulations that Obama Care put in place, that drastically drives up costs. Like banning pre-existing condition clauses. It really isn't even insurance without the clause. I don't have insurance right now, and why should I? The moment I get sick, I'll apply for insurance, and by law they can't refuse me. So you all can pay the premiums, and I'll just get care when I need it. Then after I am treated, I'll cancel my insurance again. Nothing you can do about it.

All of those things will drive down costs, as more competition puts competitive pressure on costs.

 

[ElmerMudd]

The Medicare / Medicare Supplement / Medicare Advantage system has worked very well and is very popular. It includes a strong free market competition/innovation component and provides choice. The system could easily be scaled up for all.

Most Americans don't really know how the system works, although they think they do.
.

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 DO YOU GET YOUR DISINFORMATION?
"Like Social Security, though, the Medicare taxes collected from current wage earners and their employers are used to pay for hospital and medical care costs incurred by current Medicare beneficiaries. Any excess tax revenue is accounted for in a designated Medicare trust fund." There is a fund for Social Security also.
ALL TAXES DO NOT GO TO THE SAME PLACE.
Where do you start with someone who is a dumb as you
Social Security works by pooling mandatory contributions from workers into a large pot and then paying out benefits to those who are eligible for them. When you work, you pay into the system by having a portion of your earnings taxed and earmarked for Social Security.
Established in 1965, Medicare is a federal health insurance program that provides benefits to seniors and those with disabilities and certain illnesses. Medicare has several parts. Part A covers hospitals, nursing facilities, and home health services.

 

[ElmerMudd]

What are you talking about? Medicare treats all the same. I am on Medicare. It works well. It is not perfect but no private plan is, either. In a private market place, Insurance companies would have to charge those 65 and over, staggering high rates, because of the increased risk level.
It is like car insurance company figuring a rate for someone who had 10 accidents and 10 tickets.

Which is exactly our point.

You say it works well... but it doesn't work well.
Unfunded Govt. Liabilities -- Our Ticking Time Bomb | RealClearPolitics!

If medicare charged more money for older people... which you are saying it does not... then it would work well, because we would recoup the cost of Medicare, and have a sustainable system.

As things are, Medicare is going to bankrupt the country. That is not how I define "working well".

That's the point the prior poster is making.

What if the Government decides to disregard 'Advantage Plans'?
What will you do if the Government decides it will no longer pay for your long term treatment of xyz?

The reason he asked this, is because at some point in the future, that is the problem we are going to have. Government is going to have make cuts somewhere, because it is absolutely impossible for us to keep paying for this.

I do not think the US is ready for single payer plan but if the current Medicare plan is expanded to include younger people, lower risk individuals, the financials will work out better.
The larger and more diverse a risk pool for any insurance, the better the financials. Medicare for people over 65 is all higher risk individuals. The lower the premiums are because of risk diversity along with a greater possibility of profit or break even.

There are a number problems you are not including.

First, Medicare and Private insurance, operate in a completely different fashion.

Private insurance companies will take the profits the gain from younger premium payers, and invest those profits into long term investments. The dividends and long term gains from those investments, are used to offset future costs.

A young person paying in premiums during their life, will allow the insurance company to invest, so that when that young person becomes old, their cost to the insurance company is offset by the investments the company gained during that person's life.

Medicare on the other hand, has no investments. All money that comes in, goes out, and is spent. The result is when the person is old the entire cost of their medical care, is levied against the government, which in turn is levied against the tax payers.

Second, by giving everyone universal insurance at a low cost, you will drastically increase the usage of health care.

As much as people complain and bitch and moan that health care should cost nothing, having zero cost is devastating to a system. When Massachusetts enacted universal health care, people started showing up hospitals with everything from, a sprained ankle, to a headache. And why not? If there is no cost, then there is no reason to not go to the hospital every time your butt burns a little when you fart.

In fact, things were so bad, that people were driving to MA, to get care, when they lived in other states, and were not paying the taxes to fund Mass-Health.

When you have free health care, or low cost Medicaid and Medicare, what do you think will happen with immigration?

The cost to those programs will drastically increase, the more people you allow access to them.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the politicians are lying to you about how the math would work out, because Medicare under pays.

Government care, drastically under pays. There are reason why dozens of health providers routinely refuse to accept Medicare Patients, but gladly take any patient willing to pay with cash.

More Physicians No Longer Seeing Medicare Patients – Healthcare Leadership Council

Doctors, and hospitals lose money on Medicare and Medicaid patients.

So if you think logically, if a doctor or hospital is losing money on Medicare patients, then how do they stay in business? How do they avoid bankruptcy?

The answer is, they charge private patients more money.

As reimbursement rates for medicare and medicaid fall below the cost of providing care, they charge private patients more and more money.
The more medicare and medicaid patients they serve, the more cost has to be shifted to private payers.

Now ask yourself, what is going to happen if you have Medicare for all? Well obviously one of three things will happen. One, more and more hospitals will start refusing medicare and medicaid patients. Two, congress will be forced to drastically increase the pay out of Medicare and Medicaid, driving ever growing debt. Three, congress will be forced to take over hospitals, socializing the entire system, in order to prevent health providers from declining Medicare and Medicaid.

Regardless, the math simply doesn't work. Something will have to give.

Medicare for all would give the majority of hospitals, no choice but to accept Medicare.
One of private hospitals biggest cost is uncompensated care. You eliminate that wit Medicare for all.
I do not feel the US is ready for Medicare for all, yet. I suggest offering Medicare to everyone and also offer private insurance to everyone. There would be problems but as the problems are understood you transition.

What do you think is the best insurance plan for the US?

The reason Medicare works is because of private insurance. Medicare typically pays about 2/3 of the cost for care of their patients. Doctors and facilities up the price and recoup those losses via private insurance. That's why when you see medical facilities close down, it's usually in lower income areas where most of the clientele are government patients.

So you take away the avenue where medical providers offset their government losses, and the only thing you accomplish is the closing down of more facilities, and doctors leaving practice and getting into another line of work.

The people who pay the most for services are those without insurance. Insurance companies put limits on what they will pay per procedure also. It is usually higher thamn Medicare. The unreimbursed care is the wild card. The government or us with higher procedure costs pay for it. Either way it is us.

 

[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 DO YOU GET YOUR DISINFORMATION?
"Like Social Security, though, the Medicare taxes collected from current wage earners and their employers are used to pay for hospital and medical care costs incurred by current Medicare beneficiaries. Any excess tax revenue is accounted for in a designated Medicare trust fund." There is a fund for Social Security also.
ALL TAXES DO NOT GO TO THE SAME PLACE.
Where do you start with someone who is a dumb as you
Social Security works by pooling mandatory contributions from workers into a large pot and then paying out benefits to those who are eligible for them. When you work, you pay into the system by having a portion of your earnings taxed and earmarked for Social Security.
Established in 1965, Medicare is a federal health insurance program that provides benefits to seniors and those with disabilities and certain illnesses. Medicare has several parts. Part A covers hospitals, nursing facilities, and home health services.

Sigh............

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Good-Intentions-Entitlement/dp/1503603547&tag=ff0d01-20

Stop screaming, and stop insulting.

I got my information from many sources, including the US government itself. Did you not know that in the 1930s, the US government had a court case against Social Security, and in that court case they said it is not constitutional to have the government run a pension plan, or a insurance plan. That's true, there is no provision in the constitution that allows government to run insurance or a pension.

The way the government said it was constitutional, was they said very specifically that there was no insurance or pension. It was a tax... just a tax.... and a welfare benefit.... like any other welfare benefit.

That court ruled this was correct, because Medicare and Social Security taxes, are just taxes like any other tax. They are collected by the IRS, like any other tax. They are spent by the Federal government, like any other welfare benefit.


Is There a Right to Social Security?

The Court's decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."​

The highlighted text is directly from the court, in 1937. They state, directly.... that social security is collected like any other tax, and it is not separated from any other general revenue.

By the way, you have no legal right to Social Security, or Medicare either. When you buy a private insurance, or when you buy a private retirement fund, you are legally entitled to those benefits you paid for.

Not so with Social Security or Medicare.

Ephram Nestor in sued the government for loss of his Social Security benefits. The court ruled "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands."

Meaning, you have no property rights over social security. The government could, if they don't have the money, simply deny your social security on a whim, and you have no legal ground to claim it.

I am truly sorry that you have been lied to all these years sir.

There is no trust fund for either Medicare or Social Security.
Again, read the book.

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Good-Intentions-Entitlement/dp/1503603547&tag=ff0d01-20

Everything is well documented. You have been lied to. I really am sorry.

 

[dblack]

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 DO YOU GET YOUR DISINFORMATION?
"Like Social Security, though, the Medicare taxes collected from current wage earners and their employers are used to pay for hospital and medical care costs incurred by current Medicare beneficiaries. Any excess tax revenue is accounted for in a designated Medicare trust fund." There is a fund for Social Security also.
ALL TAXES DO NOT GO TO THE SAME PLACE.
Where do you start with someone who is a dumb as you
Social Security works by pooling mandatory contributions from workers into a large pot and then paying out benefits to those who are eligible for them. When you work, you pay into the system by having a portion of your earnings taxed and earmarked for Social Security.
Established in 1965, Medicare is a federal health insurance program that provides benefits to seniors and those with disabilities and certain illnesses. Medicare has several parts. Part A covers hospitals, nursing facilities, and home health services.

Sigh............

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Good-Intentions-Entitlement/dp/1503603547&tag=ff0d01-20

Stop screaming, and stop insulting.

I got my information from many sources, including the US government itself. Did you not know that in the 1930s, the US government had a court case against Social Security, and in that court case they said it is not constitutional to have the government run a pension plan, or a insurance plan. That's true, there is no provision in the constitution that allows government to run insurance or a pension.

The way the government said it was constitutional, was they said very specifically that there was no insurance or pension. It was a tax... just a tax.... and a welfare benefit.... like any other welfare benefit.

That court ruled this was correct, because Medicare and Social Security taxes, are just taxes like any other tax. They are collected by the IRS, like any other tax. They are spent by the Federal government, like any other welfare benefit.


Is There a Right to Social Security?

The Court's decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."​

The highlighted text is directly from the court, in 1937. They state, directly.... that social security is collected like any other tax, and it is not separated from any other general revenue.

By the way, you have no legal right to Social Security, or Medicare either. When you buy a private insurance, or when you buy a private retirement fund, you are legally entitled to those benefits you paid for.

Not so with Social Security or Medicare.

Ephram Nestor in sued the government for loss of his Social Security benefits. The court ruled "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands."

Meaning, you have no property rights over social security. The government could, if they don't have the money, simply deny your social security on a whim, and you have no legal ground to claim it.

I am truly sorry that you have been lied to all these years sir.

There is no trust fund for either Medicare or Social Security.
Again, read the book.

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Good-Intentions-Entitlement/dp/1503603547&tag=ff0d01-20

Everything is well documented. You have been lied to. I really am sorry.

Bummer. I guess we know how the Kurds feel.

 

[ElmerMudd]

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 DO YOU GET YOUR DISINFORMATION?
"Like Social Security, though, the Medicare taxes collected from current wage earners and their employers are used to pay for hospital and medical care costs incurred by current Medicare beneficiaries. Any excess tax revenue is accounted for in a designated Medicare trust fund." There is a fund for Social Security also.
ALL TAXES DO NOT GO TO THE SAME PLACE.
Where do you start with someone who is a dumb as you
Social Security works by pooling mandatory contributions from workers into a large pot and then paying out benefits to those who are eligible for them. When you work, you pay into the system by having a portion of your earnings taxed and earmarked for Social Security.
Established in 1965, Medicare is a federal health insurance program that provides benefits to seniors and those with disabilities and certain illnesses. Medicare has several parts. Part A covers hospitals, nursing facilities, and home health services.

Sigh............

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Good-Intentions-Entitlement/dp/1503603547&tag=ff0d01-20

Stop screaming, and stop insulting.

I got my information from many sources, including the US government itself. Did you not know that in the 1930s, the US government had a court case against Social Security, and in that court case they said it is not constitutional to have the government run a pension plan, or a insurance plan. That's true, there is no provision in the constitution that allows government to run insurance or a pension.

The way the government said it was constitutional, was they said very specifically that there was no insurance or pension. It was a tax... just a tax.... and a welfare benefit.... like any other welfare benefit.

That court ruled this was correct, because Medicare and Social Security taxes, are just taxes like any other tax. They are collected by the IRS, like any other tax. They are spent by the Federal government, like any other welfare benefit.


Is There a Right to Social Security?

The Court's decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."​

The highlighted text is directly from the court, in 1937. They state, directly.... that social security is collected like any other tax, and it is not separated from any other general revenue.

By the way, you have no legal right to Social Security, or Medicare either. When you buy a private insurance, or when you buy a private retirement fund, you are legally entitled to those benefits you paid for.

Not so with Social Security or Medicare.

Ephram Nestor in sued the government for loss of his Social Security benefits. The court ruled "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands."

Meaning, you have no property rights over social security. The government could, if they don't have the money, simply deny your social security on a whim, and you have no legal ground to claim it.

I am truly sorry that you have been lied to all these years sir.

There is no trust fund for either Medicare or Social Security.
Again, read the book.

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Good-Intentions-Entitlement/dp/1503603547&tag=ff0d01-20

Everything is well documented. You have been lied to. I really am sorry.

Oh my, what can I say? You go ahead and live in your alternative universe based on alternative truth. May God help you.

 

[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 DO YOU GET YOUR DISINFORMATION?
"Like Social Security, though, the Medicare taxes collected from current wage earners and their employers are used to pay for hospital and medical care costs incurred by current Medicare beneficiaries. Any excess tax revenue is accounted for in a designated Medicare trust fund." There is a fund for Social Security also.
ALL TAXES DO NOT GO TO THE SAME PLACE.
Where do you start with someone who is a dumb as you
Social Security works by pooling mandatory contributions from workers into a large pot and then paying out benefits to those who are eligible for them. When you work, you pay into the system by having a portion of your earnings taxed and earmarked for Social Security.
Established in 1965, Medicare is a federal health insurance program that provides benefits to seniors and those with disabilities and certain illnesses. Medicare has several parts. Part A covers hospitals, nursing facilities, and home health services.

Sigh............

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Good-Intentions-Entitlement/dp/1503603547&tag=ff0d01-20

Stop screaming, and stop insulting.

I got my information from many sources, including the US government itself. Did you not know that in the 1930s, the US government had a court case against Social Security, and in that court case they said it is not constitutional to have the government run a pension plan, or a insurance plan. That's true, there is no provision in the constitution that allows government to run insurance or a pension.

The way the government said it was constitutional, was they said very specifically that there was no insurance or pension. It was a tax... just a tax.... and a welfare benefit.... like any other welfare benefit.

That court ruled this was correct, because Medicare and Social Security taxes, are just taxes like any other tax. They are collected by the IRS, like any other tax. They are spent by the Federal government, like any other welfare benefit.


Is There a Right to Social Security?

The Court's decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."​

The highlighted text is directly from the court, in 1937. They state, directly.... that social security is collected like any other tax, and it is not separated from any other general revenue.

By the way, you have no legal right to Social Security, or Medicare either. When you buy a private insurance, or when you buy a private retirement fund, you are legally entitled to those benefits you paid for.

Not so with Social Security or Medicare.

Ephram Nestor in sued the government for loss of his Social Security benefits. The court ruled "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands."

Meaning, you have no property rights over social security. The government could, if they don't have the money, simply deny your social security on a whim, and you have no legal ground to claim it.

I am truly sorry that you have been lied to all these years sir.

There is no trust fund for either Medicare or Social Security.
Again, read the book.

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Good-Intentions-Entitlement/dp/1503603547&tag=ff0d01-20

Everything is well documented. You have been lied to. I really am sorry.

Oh my, what can I say? You go ahead and live in your alternative universe based on alternative truth. May God help you.

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

 

[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 DO YOU GET YOUR DISINFORMATION?
"Like Social Security, though, the Medicare taxes collected from current wage earners and their employers are used to pay for hospital and medical care costs incurred by current Medicare beneficiaries. Any excess tax revenue is accounted for in a designated Medicare trust fund." There is a fund for Social Security also.
ALL TAXES DO NOT GO TO THE SAME PLACE.
Where do you start with someone who is a dumb as you
Social Security works by pooling mandatory contributions from workers into a large pot and then paying out benefits to those who are eligible for them. When you work, you pay into the system by having a portion of your earnings taxed and earmarked for Social Security.
Established in 1965, Medicare is a federal health insurance program that provides benefits to seniors and those with disabilities and certain illnesses. Medicare has several parts. Part A covers hospitals, nursing facilities, and home health services.

Sigh............

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Good-Intentions-Entitlement/dp/1503603547&tag=ff0d01-20

Stop screaming, and stop insulting.

I got my information from many sources, including the US government itself. Did you not know that in the 1930s, the US government had a court case against Social Security, and in that court case they said it is not constitutional to have the government run a pension plan, or a insurance plan. That's true, there is no provision in the constitution that allows government to run insurance or a pension.

The way the government said it was constitutional, was they said very specifically that there was no insurance or pension. It was a tax... just a tax.... and a welfare benefit.... like any other welfare benefit.

That court ruled this was correct, because Medicare and Social Security taxes, are just taxes like any other tax. They are collected by the IRS, like any other tax. They are spent by the Federal government, like any other welfare benefit.


Is There a Right to Social Security?

The Court's decision was not surprising. In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, "The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way."​

The highlighted text is directly from the court, in 1937. They state, directly.... that social security is collected like any other tax, and it is not separated from any other general revenue.

By the way, you have no legal right to Social Security, or Medicare either. When you buy a private insurance, or when you buy a private retirement fund, you are legally entitled to those benefits you paid for.

Not so with Social Security or Medicare.

Ephram Nestor in sued the government for loss of his Social Security benefits. The court ruled "To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of 'accrued property rights' would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands."

Meaning, you have no property rights over social security. The government could, if they don't have the money, simply deny your social security on a whim, and you have no legal ground to claim it.

I am truly sorry that you have been lied to all these years sir.

There is no trust fund for either Medicare or Social Security.
Again, read the book.

https://www.amazon.com/High-Cost-Good-Intentions-Entitlement/dp/1503603547&tag=ff0d01-20

Everything is well documented. You have been lied to. I really am sorry.

Bummer. I guess we know how the Kurds feel.

Yeah, I don't know what the solution is there. At first I thought it was a bad move, but... what's the alternative? Are we going to sit in Kurd territory forever? Because it would be like South Korea. We'd end up staying in Syria until the end of time. We are obviously not going to attack and remove Assad, now that Russia is directly backing the Assad regime with troops. And we obviously are not going to attack Turkey. So basically we'll never remove the enemies of the Kurds. So what is our plan? Stay in Syria until the end of time? And unlike South Korea, I think our troops will be ambushed by hostile forces in Syria, if we stay. It'll end up like Vietnam, with us just marching around in circles, never fighting the enemy, but constantly getting attacked.

The whole thing sucks, but I don't see a solution.