Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Monkeyleg on January 09, 2017, 08:31:19 PM
-
Take a peek:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flensandlasers.com%2Fvanessa.jpg&hash=669853ee4e35b7ea1f2c4ef2518f0f9367d340a2)
And what is Bernie's magic solution for SS? Why, make the wealthy pay their "fair share", of course! It's a closed-loop tape.
-
Having the wealthy pay "their fair share" ignores the uncomfortable fact that Social Security was not supposed to be an entitlement, and there was never supposed to be anybody's "fair share" in the fund except each person's own money. The money was supposed to have been invested, so it earned income while the person was working so he or she could then draw down the money his/her investment had earned as a pension.
But, Noooooo ... the geniuses who run our government saw all that moeny sitting there and decided they could just "borrow" some of it to pay the day-to-day expenses of running the government. And now that they've borrowed much more than they can figure out how to repay, they act like it's a big mystery why Socuial Security is in trouble.
-
Having the wealthy pay "their fair share" ignores the uncomfortable fact that Social Security was not supposed to be an entitlement, and there was never supposed to be anybody's "fair share" in the fund except each person's own money. The money was supposed to have been invested, so it earned income while the person was working so he or she could then draw down the money his/her investment had earned as a pension.
But, Noooooo ... the geniuses who run our government saw all that moeny sitting there and decided they could just "borrow" some of it to pay the day-to-day expenses of running the government. And now that they've borrowed much more than they can figure out how to repay, they act like it's a big mystery why Socuial Security is in trouble.
But but...
fair share!
-
Having the wealthy pay "their fair share" ignores the uncomfortable fact that Social Security was not supposed to be an entitlement, and there was never supposed to be anybody's "fair share" in the fund except each person's own money. The money was supposed to have been invested, so it earned income while the person was working so he or she could then draw down the money his/her investment had earned as a pension.
But, Noooooo ... the geniuses who run our government saw all that moeny sitting there and decided they could just "borrow" some of it to pay the day-to-day expenses of running the government. And now that they've borrowed much more than they can figure out how to repay, they act like it's a big mystery why Socuial Security is in trouble.
Had government bought marketable bonds to replace the money in the supposed "trust fund" there'd be plenty of money available. But what they did was take the money and put unmarketable treasury bonds in its place. Effectively just slips of paper saying IOU. They are so worthless that even the Chinese wouldn't buy them even if they legally could.
-
What a crazy idea that YOU pay for what YOU need! :facepalm:
The simple reality is that healthcare is expensive and someone is going to pay for it. If insurance companies are going to be forced to cover pre existing conditions, "kids" up to 26, and can't place any cap on payouts then they're going to need to make up for it somewhere else and lately that means higher premiums for everyone.
-
...higher premiums for everyone.
I believe that's what's known as "change we can believe in."
(Not to be confused with the second clause of my sig line.)
-
Having the wealthy pay "their fair share" ignores the uncomfortable fact that Social Security was not supposed to be an entitlement, and there was never supposed to be anybody's "fair share" in the fund except each person's own money. The money was supposed to have been invested, so it earned income while the person was working so he or she could then draw down the money his/her investment had earned as a pension.
But, Noooooo ... the geniuses who run our government saw all that moeny sitting there and decided they could just "borrow" some of it to pay the day-to-day expenses of running the government. And now that they've borrowed much more than they can figure out how to repay, they act like it's a big mystery why Socuial Security is in trouble.
Social Security today is trillions in surplus - the money is in a special class of government bonds, similar in concept to T-bills or savings bonds, but exclusive to SS funds. Being in surplus, SS today is not contributing to the current national debt; in fact, it's funding the national debt, since .gov has "borrowed" the money.
The problem is, with cash flow projections, SS is slated to go into negative cash flow in 20 years or so; that's a problem.
What I find disturbing is that a program that has old age benefits based on the premise that they'll be paid to people who WORKED and CONTRIBUTED for 3 or 4 decades is supposed to be "balanced" in the future by benefit cuts - WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH TRANSFERRING WELFARE BENEFITS TO SS? Since 2012, we've been spending over $1,000,000,000,000.00 a year on UNEARNED welfare benefits, which include everything from direct payments to free Obama phones . . . NONE OF WHICH WERE EARNED BY THE RECIPIENTS!
Why do lifetime freeloaders have higher priority for .gov funding than retired working people?
-
Social Security today is trillions in surplus - the money is in a special class of government bonds, similar in concept to T-bills or savings bonds, but exclusive to SS funds. Being in surplus, SS today is not contributing to the current national debt; in fact, it's funding the national debt, since .gov has "borrowed" the money.
The problem is, with cash flow projections, SS is slated to go into negative cash flow in 20 years or so; that's a problem.
What I find disturbing is that a program that has old age benefits based on the premise that they'll be paid to people who WORKED and CONTRIBUTED for 3 or 4 decades is supposed to be "balanced" in the future by benefit cuts - WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH TRANSFERRING WELFARE BENEFITS TO SS? Since 2012, we've been spending over $1,000,000,000,000.00 a year on UNEARNED welfare benefits, which include everything from direct payments to free Obama phones . . . NONE OF WHICH WERE EARNED BY THE RECIPIENTS!
Err... no. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/07/social-security-39-billion-deficit-in-2014-insolvent-by-2035
It is ALREADY in negative cash flow. It will be insolvent in 20 years.
-
Why do lifetime freeloaders have higher priority for .gov funding than retired working people?
Because Social security was supposed to be earned, not an entitlement (welfare.)
-
Because Social security was supposed to be earned, not an entitlement (welfare.)
I believe that was Hank's point.
-
Err... no. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/07/social-security-39-billion-deficit-in-2014-insolvent-by-2035
It is ALREADY in negative cash flow. It will be insolvent in 20 years.
TY for the correction - right now, they're tapping into the accumulated surplus of past decades, said surplus is estimated to run out in 20 years or so.
-
Why do lifetime freeloaders have higher priority for .gov funding than retired working people?
Gotta buy votes somehow.
-
My niece and her friends are continuing this discussion, and they're convinced that Medicare for everyone is the way to go, rather than Obamacare. Why? Because from their vantage point, it looks like Medicare is working.
I can argue and argue and argue with her and her friends, but can never make them understand that you can't keep taking money from those with more than you, and nothing is free.
-
My niece and her friends are continuing this discussion, and they're convinced that Medicare for everyone is the way to go, rather than Obamacare. Why? Because from their vantage point, it looks like Medicare is working.
I can argue and argue and argue with her and her friends, but can never make them understand that you can't keep taking money from those with more than you, and nothing is free.
They clearly don't have all that great of a vantage point.
Medicare is a crap shoot, has always been a crap shoot and, IMHO, will always be a crap shoot.
-
My niece and her friends are continuing this discussion, and they're convinced that Medicare for everyone is the way to go, rather than Obamacare. Why? Because from their vantage point, it looks like Medicare is working.
I can argue and argue and argue with her and her friends, but can never make them understand that you can't keep taking money from those with more than you, and nothing is free.
She is nothing more than an Armed Robber. "They have it, we want it, let's have the .gov (men with guns) go get it."
-
She is nothing more than an Armed Robber. "They have it, we want it, let's have the .gov (men with guns) go get it."
I actually said later in the discussion that I couldn't have the the government committing armed robbery for me to get money from others. My niece didn't like that. I repeated that government uses force to enforce laws, and she just didn't accept that.
When Mr. Medicare For Everyone popped back into the discussion, I said my leukemia treatment last year came to $425,000, but Medicare only paid a fraction of that. And the doctors and hospitals must make up the difference somewhere. He essentially said I favored the status quo because it kept me alive, even as poor children can't get quality health care. I thought it was an odd debate tactic to try to win over your opponent by suggesting he should die.
-
When Mr. Medicare For Everyone popped back into the discussion, I said my leukemia treatment last year came to $425,000, but Medicare only paid a fraction of that. And the doctors and hospitals must make up the difference somewhere. He essentially said I favored the status quo because it kept me alive, even as poor children can't get quality health care. I thought it was an odd debate tactic to try to win over your opponent by suggesting he should die.
I think you're reading more into his statement than is actually there.
1. Did your treatment actually cost $425k? How much of that was intended to pay for the people who pay $0 in the emergency room? If hospitals had a much reduced non-pay rate, by Medicare paying something for most visitors, that amount could be much lower.
2. I sense that there was likely some perception of "I have mine, screw you" perceived from you by him.
I favor HSPs, but I think that it should be acknowledged that they're not ideal for a 22 year old college graduate who's $40k in debt for college, $200k in debt for the house, has a baby on the way and was just told that he has cancer.
That's more properly what insurance is for, but I think that it should be obvious to say that our entire healthcare system needs serious reform in order to limit wasteful spending.
-
I think you're reading more into his statement than is actually there.
1. Did your treatment actually cost $425k? How much of that was intended to pay for the people who pay $0 in the emergency room? If hospitals had a much reduced non-pay rate, by Medicare paying something for most visitors, that amount could be much lower.
2. I sense that there was likely some perception of "I have mine, screw you" perceived from you by him.
I favor HSPs, but I think that it should be acknowledged that they're not ideal for a 22 year old college graduate who's $40k in debt for college, $200k in debt for the house, has a baby on the way and was just told that he has cancer.
That's more properly what insurance is for, but I think that it should be obvious to say that our entire healthcare system needs serious reform in order to limit wasteful spending.
Not sure what an HSP is, so I'm going to assume you meant health savings account (HSA).
The purpose of HSA's is to pay for healthcare (ACTUAL healthcare). It should be there for normal, foreseeable expenses- check-ups, minor diagnostics, minor surgeries, etc...
Combined with true insurance (like a very high deductible plan- e.g. $5,000- $10,000), it would return "insurance" to it's proper role- guarding against low probability, but high cost events- and allow "pre-paid health care" to shift to actual payments.
-
I thought it was an odd debate tactic to try to win over your opponent by suggesting he should die.
Obviously, he was just reminding you that you are from the wrong segment of society and that, therefore, your life doesn't matter.
-
I think you're reading more into his statement than is actually there.
1. Did your treatment actually cost $425k? How much of that was intended to pay for the people who pay $0 in the emergency room? If hospitals had a much reduced non-pay rate, by Medicare paying something for most visitors, that amount could be much lower.
2. I sense that there was likely some perception of "I have mine, screw you" perceived from you by him.
The total billed amount was $429,000. I'm pretty sure Medicare paid less than $100,000.
If he had that perception, he has it for everybody. In his rants about replacing Obamacare with Medicare, he talked about limiting the amount of care available to some so that the young people could get better care. He said that medical professionals could get together and decide what care would be most effective for which groups. The "death panels" Sarah Palin talked about.
-
Not sure what an HSP is, so I'm going to assume you meant health savings account (HSA).
The purpose of HSA's is to pay for healthcare (ACTUAL healthcare). It should be there for normal, foreseeable expenses- check-ups, minor diagnostics, minor surgeries, etc...
Combined with true insurance (like a very high deductible plan- e.g. $5,000- $10,000), it would return "insurance" to it's proper role- guarding against low probability, but high cost events- and allow "pre-paid health care" to shift to actual payments.
This. In the Firethorn scenario of a 22 year old with massive debt, a baby and cancer the actual health costs under a traditional high deductible health plan and health savings account would be far lower than most Obamacare plans for the same treatment.
-
The total billed amount was $429,000. I'm pretty sure Medicare paid less than $100,000.
If he had that perception, he has it for everybody. In his rants about replacing Obamacare with Medicare, he talked about limiting the amount of care available to some so that the young people could get better care. He said that medical professionals could get together and decide what care would be most effective for which groups. The "death panels" Sarah Palin talked about.
And lefty types wonder why most folks don't trust them to make life/death decisions for others.
Not sure what an HSP is, so I'm going to assume you meant health savings account (HSA).
The purpose of HSA's is to pay for healthcare (ACTUAL healthcare). It should be there for normal, foreseeable expenses- check-ups, minor diagnostics, minor surgeries, etc...
Combined with true insurance (like a very high deductible plan- e.g. $5,000- $10,000), it would return "insurance" to it's proper role- guarding against low probability, but high cost events- and allow "pre-paid health care" to shift to actual payments.
I work at Megacorp and we have always had some really good health insurance options. I usually chose the best since getting married as I did not want to have to spend skull sweat gaming the system.
What we have now is essentially as you describe: HSA plus big honking deductible catastrophic nsurance. I will find it more than a little amusing if that is the end result of Obamacare: killing off all traditional health insurance in favor of catastrophic plans for all, HSAs, and some sort of subsidy for the indigent. And maybe medicare and medicaid getting destroyed in the mix. Hell, might as well toss the VA into the fire, too. We end up with pretty much the most aggressively libertarian solution plus some subsidies. Because everything else has been broken and/or exhausted of funds so that is all we can afford.
Maybe then lefties would acquire an appreciation for "unintended consequences."
-
If we could just get the lawyers and accountants out of the medical field.
-
If we could just get the lawyers and accountants out of just about any the medical field.
Fixed.
-
medical professionals could get together and decide what care would be most effective for which groups.
I gotta say, this doesn't sound like a bad thing...
The "death panels" Sarah Palin talked about.
:O
-
If we could just get the lawyers and accountants out of the medical field.
Just get 3rd parties out of the payment and decisions all together. IMO, people don't pay for anything themselves and some people think they should pay $100 a month for $300 a month in medical costs. Cost control will always be difficult as long as people don't pay their own bills.
I recall Rush taking calls from a bunch of irate people once after a common anti-stomach acid drug was switched from prescription to over-the-counter. Lots of people were upset that they now had to pay for it. He kept asking them why they expected everyone else to pay for their drugs? Many of them just didn't get it.
-
I gotta say, this doesn't sound like a bad thing... :O
And God so loved the world that he didn't send a committee.