US is not ready for Medicare for all

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

I delivered and repaired home medical equipment, also referred to as durable medical equipment, or DME.

In DME, nearly our entire collections were from government services like Medicare and Medicaid, and about 30% private. So we mostly dealt with government.

To give you an example of how things worked, let's say that you were on Medicare or Medicaid. You needed a quad cane, which is an aluminum cane with four legs. We purchased the cane for about 30 bucks, and rented it to government for 20 dollars a month. It doesn't sound like much, but when you have 500 customers renting that cane month after month, it was a goldmine.

But we just didn't rent canes, we rented wheelchairs, wheelchair cushions, hospital beds, portable commodes, trapeze's oxygen tanks and gauges, oxygen concentrators, walkers, folding walkers, alternating pressure pads for our hospital beds, just a whole list of homeware items.

It all worked the same way. We purchased medical equipment, and rented it out for about 80'% of what we paid for it month after month. Mind you, at the time, we couldn't just sell the equipment to the customer saving money, government regulations were that we had to rent that equipment for years on end instead of selling it.

Again, that was until Ronald Reagan became President. Then he issued a initiative that long term patient get that same equipment, only purchased instead of month after month, year after year rental.

 

[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.

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

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

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

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

We are paying more for worse care.

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

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

 

[ElmerMudd]

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.

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

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

Try again.

 

[Andylusion]

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

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.

See what you said right there, is part of the problem. You look at the ACA, and say that having a requirement that 80% of your premiums go to health care, and you think of that as a good thing.

That's actually a negative that drives up premiums.

Insurance companies use profits, such as those from low-risk younger policy holders who rarely use the insurance, to invest.
Those investments give a return on investment.
Those returns, in turn, reduce premiums.

The insurance companies use the investments they made with those profits, to create investment income that they use to offset premiums.

By telling insurance companies they are not allowed to do this, you reduce their ability to make investments, and thus investment income. By reducing investment income, the companies have no choice but to increase premiums.

But that is not even the largest problem. The largest problem is that these regulations lock out competition. Think about it... that requirement may hurt everyone... but who does it hurt the most? Does it mostly hurt the largest national companies, that already have billions of dollars in investments? Or does it mostly hurt the new startup insurance company that has no investments yet?

Obviously it destroys the small companies, relative to the large ones. The small ones, which have few members, likely have very low health care payouts. That law, would practically bankrupt them.

Which if you think about it, is one of the reasons the big insurance companies supported the ACA. Yeah, they didn't like that it would cost them money to meet those regulations, but they also knew it would shut out competitors, thus forcing more of the public to use them instead. Which is exactly what has happened.

And with all supply and demand free-market systems, as the supply is reduced, the prices goes up, because there is less competition. Which is exactly what has happened.

Your regulations that you claim are good, but don't go far enough.... only serve to make us poorer, and the insurance companies richer.

You want to lower premiums? Deregulated. Get rid of that 80% goes to health care requirement. Allow more competition in the market. Competitive pressure will lower premiums.

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

Only half true. We do spend the most, that's true. But no other country has better health care outcomes than we do. What you said was false. You have a better chance of surviving an illness in the US, than anywhere else in the world.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

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

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

Try again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Andylusion]

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

Well yes. I mean this should be obvious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are paying more for worse care.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Grumblenuts]

It would be helpful to the conversation if the Democrats hadn't dishonestly named Single Payer "Medicare for All".

The overall Medicare system includes choice, free market competition, and free market innovation via Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplements. The "Medicare for All" plan being pushed by most of the Democrats does not.

It's difficult to have an important conversation like this when we're starting off with intellectual dishonesty.
.

Some Dems are obviously looking forward to maintaining all the same drug, insurance, and hospital related corporate welfare their Repug opponents regularly enjoy minus the scrutiny. All corporate whores. Only Bernie has the balls to push the right plan and git 'er done.

"free market competition" has precious little business messing with basic healthcare.
"choice, free market competition, and free market innovation via Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplements."

Overpriced garbage. Every bit of it.They've had more than enough chance to prove themselves worthy of the people's trust. Fuck 'em all.

 

[ElmerMudd]

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.

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

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

Try again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

Fuck your ideological notions of practicality.

US voters favor a hybrid system that includes a government that anyone can buy into along with a private option.

That is Medicare for All.

 

[ElmerMudd]

It would be helpful to the conversation if the Democrats hadn't dishonestly named Single Payer "Medicare for All".

The overall Medicare system includes choice, free market competition, and free market innovation via Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplements. The "Medicare for All" plan being pushed by most of the Democrats does not.

It's difficult to have an important conversation like this when we're starting off with intellectual dishonesty.
.

Some Dems are obviously looking forward to maintaining all the same drug, insurance, and hospital related corporate welfare their Repug opponents regularly enjoy minus the scrutiny. All corporate whores. Only Bernie has the balls to push the right plan and git 'er done.

"free market competition" has precious little business messing with basic healthcare.
"choice, free market competition, and free market innovation via Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplements."

Overpriced garbage. Every bit of it.They've had more than enough chance to prove themselves worthy of the people's trust. Fuck 'em all.

I agree with you 100% but I do not feel the citizenery is ready to make a full change. They have been fed too much incorrect propaganda on a single payer system.
To be pragmatic and to follow what the current voters want, I feel a hybrid system is a good first step

 

[Grumblenuts]

I think we're more than ready.

 

[ElmerMudd]

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.

Fuck your ideological notions of practicality.

US voters favor a hybrid system that includes a government that anyone can buy into along with a private option.

That is Medicare for All.

I feel an attitude like yours will get Trump re-elected.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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

 

[basquebromance]

My solution is free health care for people with potential

 

[dblack]

I think we're more than ready.

I dunno. I think we need to beat people down a bit further. Passing some more stupid regulations that further inflate health care prices ought to do the trick. Then people will be begging for state health care!

 

[Mac1958]

It would be helpful to the conversation if the Democrats hadn't dishonestly named Single Payer "Medicare for All".

The overall Medicare system includes choice, free market competition, and free market innovation via Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplements. The "Medicare for All" plan being pushed by most of the Democrats does not.

It's difficult to have an important conversation like this when we're starting off with intellectual dishonesty.
.

Some Dems are obviously looking forward to maintaining all the same drug, insurance, and hospital related corporate welfare their Repug opponents regularly enjoy minus the scrutiny. All corporate whores. Only Bernie has the balls to push the right plan and git 'er done.

"free market competition" has precious little business messing with basic healthcare.
"choice, free market competition, and free market innovation via Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplements."

Overpriced garbage. Every bit of it.They've had more than enough chance to prove themselves worthy of the people's trust. Fuck 'em all.

It's a solid system, at least to those who understand how it works.
.

 

[Andylusion]

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

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

Sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what do we do today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Try again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right, and I prefer a more freedom based system.

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

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

But I get it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dblack]

It would be helpful to the conversation if the Democrats hadn't dishonestly named Single Payer "Medicare for All".

The overall Medicare system includes choice, free market competition, and free market innovation via Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplements. The "Medicare for All" plan being pushed by most of the Democrats does not.

It's difficult to have an important conversation like this when we're starting off with intellectual dishonesty.
.

Some Dems are obviously looking forward to maintaining all the same drug, insurance, and hospital related corporate welfare their Repug opponents regularly enjoy minus the scrutiny. All corporate whores. Only Bernie has the balls to push the right plan and git 'er done.

"free market competition" has precious little business messing with basic healthcare.
"choice, free market competition, and free market innovation via Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplements."

Overpriced garbage. Every bit of it.They've had more than enough chance to prove themselves worthy of the people's trust. Fuck 'em all.

It's a solid system, at least to those who understand how it works.

Sure. Got it. The only way anyone could think it's not a solid system is if they don't understand how it works. :eyeroll:

 

[Mac1958]

It would be helpful to the conversation if the Democrats hadn't dishonestly named Single Payer "Medicare for All".

The overall Medicare system includes choice, free market competition, and free market innovation via Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplements. The "Medicare for All" plan being pushed by most of the Democrats does not.

It's difficult to have an important conversation like this when we're starting off with intellectual dishonesty.
.

Some Dems are obviously looking forward to maintaining all the same drug, insurance, and hospital related corporate welfare their Repug opponents regularly enjoy minus the scrutiny. All corporate whores. Only Bernie has the balls to push the right plan and git 'er done.

"free market competition" has precious little business messing with basic healthcare.
"choice, free market competition, and free market innovation via Medicare Advantage plans and Medicare Supplements."

Overpriced garbage. Every bit of it.They've had more than enough chance to prove themselves worthy of the people's trust. Fuck 'em all.

It's a solid system, at least to those who understand how it works.

Sure. Got it. The only way anyone could think it's not a solid system is if they don't understand how it works. :eyeroll:

Few people do, yet that doesn't stop them from making assumptions about it.

But I'm sure you're right.
.

 

[ElmerMudd]

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

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