US is not ready for Medicare for all

[dblack]

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?

I think some kind of controlled retraction would be more sane. At least attempt some kind of transition. I get the impression he just absorbs these issues at a very superficial level. Even when he does something I agree with (I think we need to stay out of the Middle East altogether) he does it such an obtuse, blundering way I can't support it.

 

[ElmerMudd]

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.

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

 

[dblack]

What do you propose as an alternative to Social Security and Medicare.

Nothing.

The point of government isn't to be our caretaker. It's to protect our freedom to take care of ourselves, as we see fit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

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

The first is to give people an option. Secondly, is to take these programs back to the states for them to run (and fund) if they still want these programs.

Social Security sends out pamphlets from time to time. It gives you an itemized list of you (and your employers) contribution to the program each and every year. Now take those lists, give them to a reputable investment company, and ask them what you would have been worth at retirement had your money been vested with them instead of the government all of those years. I'm sure it will shock you.

 

[dudmuck]

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

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

Well yes. I mean this should be obvious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I'm very familiar with Medicare. I worked in the industry for about ten years long ago. Medicare used to be goldmine. They would waste money left and right. That didn't stop until Ronald Reagan became President and seen a problem down the road. He was right. Government not only allowed the program to be ripped off repeatedly, but making it insolvent for future generations. And here we are.

One thing I learned with government, and that is you can't charge one entity more for services than the other, so I don't know where you get this idea that the uninsured pay more than others. It's actually against the law.

 

[ElmerMudd]

What do you propose as an alternative to Social Security and Medicare.

Nothing.

The point of government isn't to be our caretaker. It's to protect our freedom to take care of ourselves, as we see fit.

That is good in theory. But to make the theory work you need to let people die who did not save for old age or do not have health insurance.
If you do not let them die who takes care of them?

 

[dblack]

What do you propose as an alternative to Social Security and Medicare.

Nothing.

The point of government isn't to be our caretaker. It's to protect our freedom to take care of ourselves, as we see fit.

That is good in theory. But to make the theory work you need to let people die who did not save for old age or do not have health insurance.
If you do not let them die who takes care of them?

Sorry, I don't buy the "letting people die" horseshit.

Tell me, how many people did you let die today? Seriously. I'd have to assume there were many people who died, today, that you could have saved. Why didn't you? Why do you hate America?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

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

Well yes. I mean this should be obvious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ElmerMudd]

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.

I'm very familiar with Medicare. I worked in the industry for about ten years long ago. Medicare used to be goldmine. They would waste money left and right. That didn't stop until Ronald Reagan became President and seen a problem down the road. He was right. Government not only allowed the program to be ripped off repeatedly, but making it insolvent for future generations. And here we are.

One thing I learned with government, and that is you can't charge one entity more for services than the other, so I don't know where you get this idea that the uninsured pay more than others. It's actually against the law.

If you have been in the health industry you know there is listed price for every procedure or product provided. Then each insurance company has a negotiated rate that is below the list price. Those negotiated prices can be different for different insurance companies. The lowest negotiated price is Medicare. If you do not have insurance or Medicare you pay the list price, which is higher than any negotiated price.

 

[ElmerMudd]

What do you propose as an alternative to Social Security and Medicare.

Nothing.

The point of government isn't to be our caretaker. It's to protect our freedom to take care of ourselves, as we see fit.

That is good in theory. But to make the theory work you need to let people die who did not save for old age or do not have health insurance.
If you do not let them die who takes care of them?

Sorry, I don't buy the "letting people die" horseshit.

Tell me, how many people did you let die today? Seriously. I'd have to assume there were many people who died, today, that you could have saved. Why didn't you? Why do you hate America?

If someone does not have insurance and goes to a hospital they do not let them die. The uncompensated care is then covered by government subsidies or higher costs to those who can pay. In other words we all pay for it. The government subsidies and higher costs to paying customers is much more expensive than the cost of Medicare and Social Security to the tax payer.
That is why idiots like you who say everyone is responsible for themself and then that person does not take care of themself you either let them die or we all pay the tab. The cheapest way for us to cover those who cannot pay are programs like Medicare or Social Security..
You are too stupid to realize either you pay some way or you let them die.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I'm very familiar with Medicare. I worked in the industry for about ten years long ago. Medicare used to be goldmine. They would waste money left and right. That didn't stop until Ronald Reagan became President and seen a problem down the road. He was right. Government not only allowed the program to be ripped off repeatedly, but making it insolvent for future generations. And here we are.

One thing I learned with government, and that is you can't charge one entity more for services than the other, so I don't know where you get this idea that the uninsured pay more than others. It's actually against the law.

If you have been in the health industry you know there is listed price for every procedure or product provided. Then each insurance company has a negotiated rate that is below the list price. Those negotiated prices can be different for different insurance companies. The lowest negotiated price is Medicare. If you do not have insurance or Medicare you pay the list price, which is higher than any negotiated price.

Just the opposite actually.

Insurance and government are lined with red tape. It's a constant paperwork passing back and forth. In order to process all these bills, more personnel is needed by the provider.

A cash patient requires no paperwork; perhaps a receipt is all. There is no waiting for money, fighting to get the money, and no negotiations. That's why most cash customers actually pay a reduced bill compared to government or insurance.

We used to have meetings about changes in government requirements every other week which also affected private insurance as well. The office girls would go nuts claiming that government required them to do things they did a year ago, changed it, and then changed it back. On the other side, the red tape got so bad by the government that they hired Prudential Insurance to handle Medicare claims, because they couldn't process it all.

If you did any research on medical costs, the insurance industry sites making insurance claims on nickel and dime procedures like an office visit. Because of government regulations, it often costs the insurance company more money to process the claim than it does the bill itself. That's why one of the solutions to our medical cost problems are Medical Savings Accounts. It would eliminate the nickel dime claims that would be paid for by swiping your MSA card, and leave insurance companies and medical claims processing out of the picture.

 

[jasonnfree]

Here's some mortality rate figures. USA does pretty lousy considering we're supposedly the richest country. This shows that USA doesn't have health care as a priority for the most part. Can America be great again with these outcomes, or is MAGA's goal to have the wealthiest bunch of billionaires in the world?

List of countries by infant and under-five mortality rates - Wikipedia

 

[dblack]

The cheapest way for us to cover those who cannot pay are programs like Medicare or Social Security.

I don't really care about what's cheapest. Arguably, the cheapest way to run everything would be to enslave everyone.

Putting government in charge of health care will prove to be a mistake on par with putting it in charge of religion.

 

[ElmerMudd]

The cheapest way for us to cover those who cannot pay are programs like Medicare or Social Security.

I don't really care about what's cheapest. Arguably, the cheapest way to run everything would be to enslave everyone.

Putting government in charge of health care will prove to be a mistake on par with putting it in charge of religion.

How thick is your skull.
When it comes to healthcare, if someone does not take care of their own healthcare either they die or government (alll of us) must take care of the healthcare. You have to pick one.
You are such an idiot, you say if they do not take care of their own healthcare, I do not want them to die but I do not want government involved.
The world does not work that way. Pick your poison.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here's some mortality rate figures. USA does pretty lousy considering we're supposedly the richest country. This shows that USA doesn't have health care as a priority for the most part. Can America be great again with these outcomes, or is MAGA's goal to have the wealthiest bunch of billionaires in the world?

List of countries by infant and under-five mortality rates - Wikipedia

You do realize that each country has different criteria for mortality rate, don't you? For instance, in some countries, they don't consider a child a child until they recover from a potentially fatal condition, whereas in the USA, the moment a child takes a breath, it's considered a human being.

We also have a huge drug problem in this country; something that our medical care can't solve. We had nearly 70,000 OD deaths last year, and that number is growing all the time. Mind you, we are the fattest country in the world. Our overweight problem presents challenges to child birth.

Our women in this country work. Many times, they forfeit prenatal care, and continue to work almost to the day of delivery. Because we have so many career women in the US, they stall childbirth until they are financially stable, and often times in their middle age. The later a woman decides to give birth, the more risk of death to the child.

Bottom line is you can't blame our medical care for child mortality rates. There are so many other contributing factors to that statistic than medical care.

 

[ElmerMudd]

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.

I'm very familiar with Medicare. I worked in the industry for about ten years long ago. Medicare used to be goldmine. They would waste money left and right. That didn't stop until Ronald Reagan became President and seen a problem down the road. He was right. Government not only allowed the program to be ripped off repeatedly, but making it insolvent for future generations. And here we are.

One thing I learned with government, and that is you can't charge one entity more for services than the other, so I don't know where you get this idea that the uninsured pay more than others. It's actually against the law.

If you have been in the health industry you know there is listed price for every procedure or product provided. Then each insurance company has a negotiated rate that is below the list price. Those negotiated prices can be different for different insurance companies. The lowest negotiated price is Medicare. If you do not have insurance or Medicare you pay the list price, which is higher than any negotiated price.

Just the opposite actually.

Insurance and government are lined with red tape. It's a constant paperwork passing back and forth. In order to process all these bills, more personnel is needed by the provider.

A cash patient requires no paperwork; perhaps a receipt is all. There is no waiting for money, fighting to get the money, and no negotiations. That's why most cash customers actually pay a reduced bill compared to government or insurance.

We used to have meetings about changes in government requirements every other week which also affected private insurance as well. The office girls would go nuts claiming that government required them to do things they did a year ago, changed it, and then changed it back. On the other side, the red tape got so bad by the government that they hired Prudential Insurance to handle Medicare claims, because they couldn't process it all.

If you did any research on medical costs, the insurance industry sites making insurance claims on nickel and dime procedures like an office visit. Because of government regulations, it often costs the insurance company more money to process the claim than it does the bill itself. That's why one of the solutions to our medical cost problems are Medical Savings Accounts. It would eliminate the nickel dime claims that would be paid for by swiping your MSA card, and leave insurance companies and medical claims processing out of the picture.

Cash practices are specialty practices and a whole new ball game. We are talking standard healthcare corporations. How were you involved in the healthcare industry. I cannot figure out where you are coming from.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

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

Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what do we do today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dblack]

The cheapest way for us to cover those who cannot pay are programs like Medicare or Social Security.

I don't really care about what's cheapest. Arguably, the cheapest way to run everything would be to enslave everyone.

Putting government in charge of health care will prove to be a mistake on par with putting it in charge of religion.

How thick is your skull.
When it comes to healthcare, if someone does not take care of their own healthcare either they die or government (alll of us) must take care of the healthcare. You have to pick one.
You are such an idiot, you say if they do not take care of their own healthcare, I do not want them to die but I do not want government involved.
The world does not work that way. Pick your poison.

Here's the thing - in broad strokes. Politics is one of the ugliest things that people engage in. So I want politics to impact as little of my life as possible. I don't want every single fucking election to be a referendum on whether grandma lives or dies.

And I don't want miscreants like Donald Trump making decisions about my health care.

 

[ElmerMudd]

The cheapest way for us to cover those who cannot pay are programs like Medicare or Social Security.

I don't really care about what's cheapest. Arguably, the cheapest way to run everything would be to enslave everyone.

Putting government in charge of health care will prove to be a mistake on par with putting it in charge of religion.

How thick is your skull.
When it comes to healthcare, if someone does not take care of their own healthcare either they die or government (alll of us) must take care of the healthcare. You have to pick one.
You are such an idiot, you say if they do not take care of their own healthcare, I do not want them to die but I do not want government involved.
The world does not work that way. Pick your poison.

Here's the thing - in broad strokes. Politics is one of the ugliest things that people engage in. So I want politics to impact as little of my life as possible. I don't want every single fucking election to be a referendum on whether grandma lives or dies.

And I don't want miscreants like Donald Trump making decisions about my health care.

I hear you on that but it is hard to do in a country of almost 350 million people.