Looking forward to government run medicine?

[Jarlaxle]

Social Security has worked for 75 years. I don't see many seniors who want to give it up

Yeah? Tell that to the folks coming along who have paid in for their whole lives and will get nothing. You really need to think things through there mr. sewer worker.

Yea, I'm sure none of us will be collecting Social Security.

Unless I decide to be a parasite for the rest of my life someday soon, I'll never see a cent from it.

 

[rightwinger]

Yeah? Tell that to the folks coming along who have paid in for their whole lives and will get nothing. You really need to think things through there mr. sewer worker.

Yea, I'm sure none of us will be collecting Social Security.

Unless I decide to be a parasite for the rest of my life someday soon, I'll never see a cent from it.

More for the rest of us then

 

[Oddball]

Social Security has worked for 75 years. I don't see many seniors who want to give it up

Yeah? Tell that to the folks coming along who have paid in for their whole lives and will get nothing. You really need to think things through there mr. sewer worker.

Yea, I'm sure none of us will be collecting Social Security.

Oh, you'll get your Socialist Insecurity alright....Even if they have to inflate the USD to utter worthlessness, you can rest assured that you'll get your check every month!

 

[Spoonman]

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

WOW, you really are a Faux News brainwashed parrot. Social Security IS solvent, has over a 2 billion dollar surplus and will remain solvent until 2037.

Try to get this FACT to penetrate your brain: not one dime of the huge US deficit has been caused by a benefit check paid by Social Security, and the only parts of Medicare that are funded by general tax revenues are doctors bills and the prescription drug benefit--Medicare Part D--a lousy measure promoted by President George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress which bars the government from negotiating discounts from the Pharmaceutical companies--a problem easily fixed by improved legislation.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

So, you throw euphamisms at me?

A realtime debt clock, showing how bloated SS has become.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Not one dime of the huge US deficit has been caused by a benefit check paid by Social Security.

It is solvent until 2037.

well solvent if they keep holding back on cost of living increases and raise the benefits age.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yea, I'm sure none of us will be collecting Social Security.

Unless I decide to be a parasite for the rest of my life someday soon, I'll never see a cent from it.

More for the rest of us then

I'm seriously considering being a parasite and leeching off the taxpayers for the next 25 years or so. I figure you've been doing it a while already...any pointers?

 

[rightwinger]

Unless I decide to be a parasite for the rest of my life someday soon, I'll never see a cent from it.

More for the rest of us then

I'm seriously considering being a parasite and leeching off the taxpayers for the next 25 years or so. I figure you've been doing it a while already...any pointers?

Millions of Social Security recipients do not consider themselves to be parasites. Paying into the program for 50 years will do that

 

[boilermaker55]

Here is a little test for you, if you dare. Contact your Congress people, you know your REP. and Senator and ask them if they will give up their GOVERNMENT run health care.
Try it and then get back to us.

Yep. Finally the people are beginning to realize just how much they have been screwed by Obama care. Many, many more people are going to die of disease thanks to it.

But I think that was their ultimate goal.

 

[boilermaker55]

Let's see how it works out after all the rip off insurance companies have to run their companies like a health insurance not a rip off corporation.
They are afraid of real competition.

 

[kaz]

More for the rest of us then

I'm seriously considering being a parasite and leeching off the taxpayers for the next 25 years or so. I figure you've been doing it a while already...any pointers?

Millions of Social Security recipients do not consider themselves to be parasites. Paying into the program for 50 years will do that

Not thinking of yourself as a parasite makes you not a parasite. Got it.

And paying into a program for 50 years that didn't save any of the money doesn't make you entitled to other people's money.

We're learning from each other here today, RW...

 

[francoHFW]

Kaz, what a dumazz ignorant hater dupe. LOL

OP- Gov't REGULATED health care? Very much, as are you if you had any clue at all.

SS going broke? AARP's #1 myth...

 

[Harry Dresden]

That is another option. My suggestion is not for anyone to work an extra ten years, although many are choosing to do so these days. In reality, if you are 50 or younger, your full retirement age is now 67. I would only suggest increasing that to 70, leaving those who choose to retire at 67 with a reduced benefit, the same as they do now for those who choose to retire before their full retirement age.

The point is that there are a number of realistic solutions to fix the shortfall. We just need to make a choice and get it done. The reason I tend to lean toward increasing the retirement age is that Medicare faces an even larger problem, and it's going to take a lot more tax dollars to fix it compared to SS. Raising the retirement age for Medicare from the current 65 to 70 would cut cost substantially. The other thing it does is brings more money into the system as people are paying in longer.

As for what happens to those trying to enter the job market if people continue to work longer, I don't see it as a problem. When people are working longer, they will spend more, the economy will grow, and there will be enough jobs for everyone. The biggest reason the economy can't seem to gain any traction is that the baby boomers quit spending money, in part due to the fact so may lost their asses when the market crashed, but also just because they don't have as much reason to spend.

your full retirement age is now 67. I would only suggest increasing that to 70,

so what about the people with physical jobs that break the body down,for some of them even working till your 65 would be unrealistic....unless you want to be a cripple........not all of us sit on our asses all day long....

If you have a physical job that you can't do till you are 70, I would suggest you invest heavily in a 401k as well as other investments. In addition, you might want to learn some skills that would make you employable in your later years.

If not, you can always be a WalMart greeter in your 70s.

so thats a great answer RW.....in other words if you dont sit on your ass all day and you are actually out there busting your ass......if you cant work till you are 70....oh well.....kinda sounds "Republican".....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Here is a little test for you, if you dare. Contact your Congress people, you know your REP. and Senator and ask them if they will give up their GOVERNMENT run health care.
Try it and then get back to us.

my Senators are
Diane Feinstein
Barbara Boxer
Loretta Sanchez is the Rep.....what do you think they will say?

 

[Bfgrn]

The real irony:

The architecture of the Affordable Care Act is based on conservative, not liberal, ideas about individual responsibility and the power of market forces.

This fundamental ideological paradox, drowned out by partisan shouting since before the plan’s passage in 2010, explains why Obamacare has only lukewarm support from many liberals, who wanted a real, not imagined, “government takeover of health care.” It explains why Republicans have been unable since its passage to come up with anything better. And it explains why the law is nearly identical in design to the legislation Mr. Romney passed in Massachusetts while governor.

The core drivers of the health care act are market principles formulated by conservative economists, designed to correct structural flaws in our health insurance system — principles originally embraced by Republicans as a market alternative to the Clinton plan in the early 1990s. The president’s program extends the current health care system — mostly employer-based coverage, administered by commercial health insurers, with care delivered by fee-for-service doctors and hospitals — by removing the biggest obstacles to that system’s functioning like a competitive marketplace.

Chief among these obstacles are market limitations imposed by the problematic nature of health insurance, which requires that younger, healthier people subsidize older, sicker ones. Because such participation is often expensive and always voluntary, millions have simply opted out, a risky bet emboldened by the 24/7 presence of the heavily subsidized emergency room down the street. The health care law forcibly repatriates these gamblers, along with those who cannot afford to participate in a market that ultimately cross-subsidizes their medical misfortunes anyway, when they get sick and show up in that E.R. And it outlaws discrimination against those who want to participate but cannot because of their medical histories. Put aside the considerable legislative detritus of the act, and its aim is clear: to rationalize a dysfunctional health insurance marketplace.

Dang. Well done. I usually suffer from a rare malady known as MBADD (Message Board Attention Deficit Disorder) that makes it tough for me to read longer posts, but this made sense all the way through.

Absolutely, the ACA features a total capitulation by the Democrats to market forces, but it also adds layer upon layer of massive bureaucracies, only feebly addresses the REAL problem (macro cost controls), and STILL leaves millions uncovered. The Dems did what they thought they could, but this thing is a pig.

We needed a way to control costs via diagnostic and preventive care and way to take a huge monkey (providing health care coverage) off the backs of businesses, and a universal, Medicare-For-All chassis would have accomplished that easily. Then we could mimic the current and VERY effective Medicare Supplement (not Medicare Advantage) system to allow people to increase their coverage with a wide variety of options in the free market. And the only added bureacracy would have been to hire more of what we already have to handle the increased amount of covered people. No IRS, not of that shit.

This thing is a mess. It may work, but we could have done much better.

.

Without a doubt, taking healthcare out of employer's hands would have been the ultimate and most logical solution. The problem would be much the same as we have now; some people would claim it unconstitutional to make it illegal for employers to provide health insurance. Of course, most employers would love such a system as the burden would be off of their backs.

That is exactly what was done in Switzerland. While the ACA may show some similarities to the Swiss healthcare system, it is very different. In Switzerland, they made it so everyone has to purchase their own healthcare on the private market. The government subsidizes those who have lower earnings and those on welfare. Insurers cannot make any profit on the basic plan, and the basic plans are all very similar, covering most preventative care. Where insurers can make a profit is in their supplemental plans which the vast majority of people purchase.

The best thing about the Swiss system is that individuals must purchase their own insurance. There are only three rate levels based on age. The thing that is so empowering about it is that everyone actually understands how much health care costs as they must pay for it themselves. One of the biggest problems with our system is that employers pay the bulk of their employees health insurance premiums, so most people really have no clue what the costs really are. These employees are also fooled into believing they actually have a "choice" which is the furthest thing from the truth. In the Swiss system, people have all kinds of choices, here in the US, employers tell you what you can have when it comes to health insurance, because they only have a couple of plans to offer. In some cases, they only have one plan to offer.

Yea, we could have done much better. Unfortunately, there were too many people happy to support the status quo.

Back in 1994 when conservatives were proposing Obamacare 1, Robert E. Moffitt from the Heritage Foundation wrote a paper named "Personal Freedom, Responsibility, And Mandates". In it he makes the case for the 'individual mandate', a conservative idea.

But he also makes a really interesting observations:

1) Employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care.

2) Health insurance provided by your employer is not free at all, and the employer gives employees nothing. Workers are really paying for it, it is really deferred wages. It just comes out of what the employees wage COULD be.

He even suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„

The Taxpayer Mandate

Policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation have wrestled incessantly with this problem, while developing a “consumer choice” plan for comprehensive health system reform, now embodied in a major legislative proposal.3 Only after extensive analysis of the peculiar distortions of the health insurance market did Heritage scholars reluctantly agree to an individual mandate.

On this point, some observations are in order. First, much of the debate over whether we should have a mandate is, in a sense, a debate over a “metaphysical abstraction.” 4 For all practical purposes, we already have a powerful and increasingly oppressive mandate: a mandate on taxpayers.

We all pay for the health care of those who do not pay, in two ways. First, people with private insurance pay through that insurance–even though that insurance is often the property of employers under current law. This reflects the ever-higher costs shifted to offset the billions of dollars of costs of uncompensated care in hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ offices. Second, if those who are uninsured get seriously ill and are forced to spend down their assets to cope with their huge medical bills, their care is paid for, not through employer-based or private insurance premiums, but through taxes, money taken by federal and state tax collectors to fund Medicaid or other public assistance programs that serve the poor or those impoverished because of a serious illness.

Hospitals also have legal obligations to accept and care for those who enter seeking assistance. No responsible public official is proposing repeal of these statutory provisions, and very few physicians, if any, are prepared to deny treatment to persons seeking their help merely because they cannot afford to pay. As taxpayers and subscribers to private health insurance, the American people pick up these bills.

Aside from current economic arrangements, the entire moral and cultural tenor of our society reinforces the taxpayer mandate. Those who are uninsured and cannot pay for their care will be cared for, and those who are insured and working will pay for that care.

So, we already have a mandate. But it is both inefficient and unfair.

A Snare And A Delusion

Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.

Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.

Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a “free good,” an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employer’s contribution is the employer’s money and not theirs, the consumer’s perception is distorted (as is the provider’s), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, “hidden taxes” through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.

Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.

In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a “mandated purchase” of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employer’s “mandated purchase” a “tax” comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the state’s forcible extraction of citizens’ money.

In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nation’s employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: “We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars.” We would add: “Have a nice day!„

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:4p7L_eWVvzwJ:healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1994_personal_freedom_responsibility_and_mandates.pdf+individual+mandate+is+soundly+rooted+in+personal+responsibility&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgUZLdehqhbfP5lDTL2iJjb8vd9t1Wmtq-sX1PaMVgxwRU-arVQlmUuRcYmYwXa0dZrFTkOPvg-siTd6HjDpbVX6j_Y5IhZwfTEpk6FZYIKyQEejgrwKMZH-vP_d7WCCe_wqCRg&sig=AHIEtbSD-XeEiWlBd6BmHxW6ZoBiUfDfNg

 

[Luddly Neddite]

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.


Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S.
65%

England
46%

Canada
42%



Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who
received treatment within six months:


U.S.
93%

England
15%

Canada
43%



Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received
it within six months:

U.S.
90%

England
15%

Canada
43%



Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S.
77%

England
40%

Canada
43%



Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S.
71

England
14

Canada
18



Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":

U.S.
12%

England
2%

Canada
6%



And now for the last statistic:


National Health Insurance?

U.S.
NO

England
YES

Canada
YES


Check this last set of statistics!!

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is; a real-life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.



T. Roosevelt....................
38%

Taft................................
40%

Wilson ...........................
52%

Harding...........................
49%

Coolidge.........................
48%

Hoover............................
42%

F. Roosevelt.....................
50%

Truman...........................
50%

Eisenhower................ ....
57%

Kennedy.........................
30%

Johnson..........................
47%

Nixon..............................
53%

Ford................................
42%

Carter.............................
32%

Reagan............................
56%

GH Bush..........................
51%

Clinton
..........................
39%

GW Bush........................
55%

Obama.............................
8%


This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in
private business!

That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business?

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.

You really do not understand ACA, do you lad?

I can tell because you are attempting to compare socialized medicine to ACA.

You do not have to remain so ignorant, you know.


You could start here and perhaps in just a few minutes you'll know enough to know why the post you wrote above makes you look so completely clueless.

Now remember, I am NOT a fan of ACA.

But unlike you I actually KNOW WHY I don't like it.

They just don't understand that Reagan's EMTALA is socialized medicine.

I'm only a semi-fan of ACA. We needed to have the single payer option the Rs fought against because they knew it was the right thing to do.

But,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...c-opinion-and-conservative-self-delusion.html

 

[Redfish]

A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.


Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S.
65%

England
46%

Canada
42%



Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who
received treatment within six months:


U.S.
93%

England
15%

Canada
43%



Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received
it within six months:

U.S.
90%

England
15%

Canada
43%



Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S.
77%

England
40%

Canada
43%



Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S.
71

England
14

Canada
18



Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":

U.S.
12%

England
2%

Canada
6%



And now for the last statistic:


National Health Insurance?

U.S.
NO

England
YES

Canada
YES


Check this last set of statistics!!

The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is; a real-life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages.



T. Roosevelt....................
38%

Taft................................
40%

Wilson ...........................
52%

Harding...........................
49%

Coolidge.........................
48%

Hoover............................
42%

F. Roosevelt.....................
50%

Truman...........................
50%

Eisenhower................ ....
57%

Kennedy.........................
30%

Johnson..........................
47%

Nixon..............................
53%

Ford................................
42%

Carter.............................
32%

Reagan............................
56%

GH Bush..........................
51%

Clinton
..........................
39%

GW Bush........................
55%

Obama.............................
8%


This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in
private business!

That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business?

How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers." They should have been in an employment line.

You really do not understand ACA, do you lad?

I can tell because you are attempting to compare socialized medicine to ACA.

You do not have to remain so ignorant, you know.


You could start here and perhaps in just a few minutes you'll know enough to know why the post you wrote above makes you look so completely clueless.

Now remember, I am NOT a fan of ACA.

But unlike you I actually KNOW WHY I don't like it.

They just don't understand that Reagan's EMTALA is socialized medicine.

I'm only a semi-fan of ACA. We needed to have the single payer option the Rs fought against because they knew it was the right thing to do.

But,

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...c-opinion-and-conservative-self-delusion.html

so you want what the UK and Canada have? Why don't you move to one of those countries and try it for a few years? I think you would change your opinion.

you fools that keep crying for single payer think it will be free for you and someone else will foot the bill for you. WRONG. YOU will be paying more and getting less. It won't be free for you or anyone else----except maybe illegal aliens.

 

[Moonglow]

Government run retirement plans, i.e. social security, have worked out so well, why should i be the least bit concerned about them running healthcare?

Social Security has worked for 75 years. I don't see many seniors who want to give it up

Yeah? Tell that to the folks coming along who have paid in for their whole lives and will get nothing. You really need to think things through there mr. sewer worker.

I do believe that everyone is currently getting paid. I enjoy mine.

 

[rightwinger]

I'm seriously considering being a parasite and leeching off the taxpayers for the next 25 years or so. I figure you've been doing it a while already...any pointers?

Millions of Social Security recipients do not consider themselves to be parasites. Paying into the program for 50 years will do that

Not thinking of yourself as a parasite makes you not a parasite. Got it.

And paying into a program for 50 years that didn't save any of the money doesn't make you entitled to other people's money.

We're learning from each other here today, RW...

God, I love conservatives.

They manage to offend all Americans while clinging to their indifference. Social Security ensured the retirement of millions of Americans where formerly they worked till they dropped

75 years later, they still don't get it

 

[rightwinger]

your full retirement age is now 67. I would only suggest increasing that to 70,

so what about the people with physical jobs that break the body down,for some of them even working till your 65 would be unrealistic....unless you want to be a cripple........not all of us sit on our asses all day long....

If you have a physical job that you can't do till you are 70, I would suggest you invest heavily in a 401k as well as other investments. In addition, you might want to learn some skills that would make you employable in your later years.

If not, you can always be a WalMart greeter in your 70s.

so thats a great answer RW.....in other words if you dont sit on your ass all day and you are actually out there busting your ass......if you cant work till you are 70....oh well.....kinda sounds "Republican".....

NFL players have a career that lasts 8 years if they are lucky. They have to ensure that either the money they make will last a lifetime or that they have other skills that will support them in later life

You are no different. If you have a job that you know you cannot do in your 50s and 60s you need to plan ahead. Put more money aside in your 401k. Have plans where you can do less strenuous jobs when you get older

To say that the entire Social Security program must compensate for you is ridiculous.

 

[Zona]

Speaking as a retired 20 year military man who dealt with "government run medicine" the entire time, I am good with this.

 

[Obamanation]

If you have a physical job that you can't do till you are 70, I would suggest you invest heavily in a 401k as well as other investments. In addition, you might want to learn some skills that would make you employable in your later years.

If not, you can always be a WalMart greeter in your 70s.

so thats a great answer RW.....in other words if you dont sit on your ass all day and you are actually out there busting your ass......if you cant work till you are 70....oh well.....kinda sounds "Republican".....

NFL players have a career that lasts 8 years if they are lucky. They have to ensure that either the money they make will last a lifetime or that they have other skills that will support them in later life

You are no different. If you have a job that you know you cannot do in your 50s and 60s you need to plan ahead. Put more money aside in your 401k. Have plans where you can do less strenuous jobs when you get older

To say that the entire Social Security program must compensate for you is ridiculous.

Might as well just do away with it...

I could start investing the same money today - retire when I was ready (instead of waiting til 70) and still come out ahead and I'm in my 40s...

Social Security is a joke. Just like every other gov't run social program.