Most people don't even know what a "Public Option" is.
- Thread starter Vast LWC
- Start date
Varth Dader
Member
at least it's not a PONZI scam
Ahhh social security, biggest ponzi scam in history.
No, it is not.
Taking care of our elderly is the right thing to do.
That must be the craziest part in this debate. People like Michael Steele claim they love Medicare, yet if you propose to expand Medicare to cover more people, they simply explode!
Taking care of our elderly is the right thing to do and no capitalistic system can really take care of all elderly citizen.
Varth Dader
Member
And the worse part is, just like the religious right reduces the bible to an anti-gay and anti-abortion message, modern conservatism reduces the US to "me! me! me!" and unbound greed.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Get a ******* room. 
PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
at least it's not a PONZI scam
Ahhh social security, biggest ponzi scam in history.
No, it is not.
Taking care of our elderly is the right thing to do.
Really do you even understand what a ponzi scheme is?
Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
thanks to reagan, SS surpluses have been raided.
before reagan's social security tax increase of 100%, from 3% to 6% for us and 3% to 6% for our employers, social security had no surpluses to squander, it was PAY AS YOU GO....
Reagan raising the working man's taxes allowed our gvt to collect SS taxes in excess of what they needed to pay for SS, and they have been using these surpluses to pay for what income taxes should have been paying....with an iou to SS.
income taxes will have to pay SS what was used of their surplus taxes collected and SS will continue to be fully funded for another 30 years before SS runs in to the situation where they run in the red....and that is running in the red IF they make no tweaking and changes to the program.
before reagan's social security tax increase of 100%, from 3% to 6% for us and 3% to 6% for our employers, social security had no surpluses to squander, it was PAY AS YOU GO....
Reagan raising the working man's taxes allowed our gvt to collect SS taxes in excess of what they needed to pay for SS, and they have been using these surpluses to pay for what income taxes should have been paying....with an iou to SS.
income taxes will have to pay SS what was used of their surplus taxes collected and SS will continue to be fully funded for another 30 years before SS runs in to the situation where they run in the red....and that is running in the red IF they make no tweaking and changes to the program.
Do you understand what a social program is?
Nice try though.
We will continue to fund Social Security.
It's not going away, as much as the Republicans wish it would.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
OASI was raided to pay for silly social programs way before Reagan came onto the scene.
Moreover, it's completely disingenuous to entirely blame any prez, when it's congress that writes up the spending bills.
Horseshit.
The Congress pasted Reagan's budget with support from all the Republicans and the Dixiecrats.
remember that when you blame obama for this deficit....
Reagan via Greenspan's adivise DOUBLED the working man's payroll taxes....these surplus taxes collected, over and above paying for ones own parent or grandparent's SS at the time, were MEANT to be for the boomers paying these extra taxes since 1983, own retirement when the time came....to offset the fact that there would be less children and grand children paying in to the fund at the time of their own retirements.
Reagan's administration began spending these surplus social security taxes on his defense budget and other things....
Yes, congress allowed him to give budgets using this money and every president after him as well...and yes YOU are CORRECT , congress could have corrected this anytime during the past 27 years.....
the only time it was really feasible to do such, make a lock box was the end of the clinton administration, when we no longer needed the SS surplus funds to come close to a balanced budget....at that time, was our best chances of creating a true lockbox to keep congress's hands off of it.
Right this moment, $4 TRILLION out of the $11plus TRILLION national debt, is owed to social security, which will be paid to SS via income taxes collected.
Care
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
I'm only blaming the tripling (so far) of the deficit on this congress and administration, and am noting they're moving in exactly the opposite direction they claimed they were going to.
None of which is relevant to the fact that the OASI "trust fund" has been raided to pay for spending since WWII.
None of which is relevant to the fact that the OASI "trust fund" has been raided to pay for spending since WWII.
What I am telling you is that there was near nothing TO ROB....there were no surpluses to rob....and no they have not been robbing it since world war ii, that is simply not the case...
It was not until President Johnson put Social security in to the General budget that funds could be stolen if there were any to steal, which there was NOT any surpluses to steal until reagan RAISED AND DOUBLED our social security taxes that the gvt had any extra money of SS to spend....
If you look at the charts from SS inception, it shows when SS began to collect surpluses and be raided of all surpluses, and this was from the Reagan administration onward, NOT world war 2 and not even under Johnson.
The whole purpose Johnson had for putting SS in to the General budget is that he could tell the PUBLIC that he was spending a LESSER percentage of the BUDGET on defense and the vietnam war, by having SS in the budget as well....
And once again, this deficit that ended september of 2009 is attributed to PRESIDENT BUSH....it is the last budget of president bush's 8 years in office....that began september 2008....
Obama's first budget attributed to him began this past october 2009 for the fiscal year of 2010.
And 2010's budget reduces the deficit, that just ended.... and THAT is just the way it is...President Bush's first fiscal budget began october of 2001 which was the fiscal year 2002's budget....so fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 are ALL president bush's fiscal budget....
fiscal year 2010 begins the Obama reign's budgets.
Care
Wow, perhaps this is part of the problem:
In a poll done by the AARP, only 37% of respondents actually knew what a "public option" was:
I know exactly what it is, it will eventually lead to a government take over of 6% of our economy, costs trillions of dollars in new taxes, of which you will pay for and pay dearly, it will lead to rationing and deminish the quality of care in this country.
No matter how you try to spin this, it's not a good deal not for anyone.
Wow, perhaps this is part of the problem:
In a poll done by the AARP, only 37% of respondents actually knew what a "public option" was:
I know exactly what it is, it will eventually lead to a government take over of 6% of our economy, costs trillions of dollars in new taxes, of which you will pay for and pay dearly, it will lead to rationing and deminish the quality of care in this country.
No matter how you try to spin this, it's not a good deal not for anyone.
Horsehit.
If we had national health insurance it would save us a ton of money.
Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because there are inherent cost savings in a single payer system.
PLYMCO_PILGRIM
Gold Member
Wow, perhaps this is part of the problem:
In a poll done by the AARP, only 37% of respondents actually knew what a "public option" was:
I know exactly what it is, it will eventually lead to a government take over of 6% of our economy, costs trillions of dollars in new taxes, of which you will pay for and pay dearly, it will lead to rationing and deminish the quality of care in this country.
No matter how you try to spin this, it's not a good deal not for anyone.
Horsehit.
If we had national health insurance it would save us a ton of money.
Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because there are inherent cost savings in a single payer system.
Yes chris what you said is horseshit. Look at englands defecit from NHS
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
And nobody spreads the horse shit better than you.
Medicare now costs ten times what it was projected to cost, even factoring in inflation....Some savings.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,540
- 2,165
- Banned
- #218
Dude, it gives me great satisfication that you, along with me and the others who have done well, are going to get to pay more than our fair share for health insurance reform. I am thrilled you get to participate fully in the cost.
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
Let's see the 1900 page house bill on page 211 discusses the public option.
http://health.burgess.house.gov/UploadedFiles/House_HCR_bill.pdf
On Page 212:
and why the "Premium" and "Premium Plus" Plans? And why is the government considering a "Cadillac " tax on private health plans that can be called "premium" or "premium plus"?
So the government doesn't want private insurers to offer the too expensive too comprehensive insurance plans and will tax people if they buy them then the government offers premium plus plans subsidized with tax payer dollars to "compete" with private insurers premium plans.
And as an aside here, I have to comment on the front page of the bill and specifically the wording:
What are these "other purposes"? and how much do you want to bet these "other purposes" have nothing to do with health care and will cost us a ton of dough?
http://health.burgess.house.gov/UploadedFiles/House_HCR_bill.pdf
On Page 212:
Now why would the public option offer 4 different plans?
and why the "Premium" and "Premium Plus" Plans? And why is the government considering a "Cadillac " tax on private health plans that can be called "premium" or "premium plus"?
So the government doesn't want private insurers to offer the too expensive too comprehensive insurance plans and will tax people if they buy them then the government offers premium plus plans subsidized with tax payer dollars to "compete" with private insurers premium plans.
And as an aside here, I have to comment on the front page of the bill and specifically the wording:
What are these "other purposes"? and how much do you want to bet these "other purposes" have nothing to do with health care and will cost us a ton of dough?
Last edited:
I know exactly what it is, it will eventually lead to a government take over of 6% of our economy, costs trillions of dollars in new taxes, of which you will pay for and pay dearly, it will lead to rationing and deminish the quality of care in this country.
No matter how you try to spin this, it's not a good deal not for anyone.
Horsehit.
If we had national health insurance it would save us a ton of money.
Every other industrialized country in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because there are inherent cost savings in a single payer system.
Yes chris what you said is horseshit. Look at englands defecit from NHS
England is not a single payer system.
England is socialized medicine.
Socialized medicine is not a good system. It is almost as bad as a for profit system.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
March 15 is the international day to recognize Islamophobia- Started by TroglocratsRdumb
- Replies: 2
-
Canada's population shrank last year — a first for the country, StatsCan says- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 0
-
California’s unfinished wildlife ‘bridge to nowhere’ tops $100M https://- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 2
-
Tulsi Gabbard Caught Changing Testimony on Iran at Last Minute- Started by JimH52
- Replies: 1
-
Zone1 The new threat to free speech- “Your an antisemite” AIPAC and Bibi Netanyahus attempt to punish Americans and silence free speech- Started by Andrew_Jackson_FTW
- Replies: 2
