Social Security and health care

[Votto]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

How does letting people fend for themselves and simply going without healthcare if it's unaffordable make things any better?

Well, that's what we are doing now.

Yes, we still have more than 30 million not covered.

Wow, 30 million people breaking the law and not signing up for Obamacare.

Sounds like we need to build more prisons.

 

[Conservative65]

JoetheEconomist is using his own terms and definitions to fit his cognitive dissonance.

Social Security is easily fixed.

Actually my data, terms and definitions come from the SSA. I am simply explaining what the facts mean. Which fact are you contesting?

You are explaining your opinion of the facts, and you are dodging that SS is easily fixable. How would you fix it?

How would you fix it?

I'd give people the ability to opt out and invest their own money the way they see fit.

That's one way, and one that allows you to privatize profit but if you fail the system takes care of you in your old age. No, you will be responsible and contribute to your old age security program.

They don't remember what I saw and witnessed. Most of the young people have never even heard of "County Poor Houses."

A long time ago.....before any kind of government assistance, each county maintained a couple of acres of land with some kind of big house on it. When old folks became destitute that was where they ended up. The ones who were still able raised enough food for them to survive. While this atrocity was occurring those at the top were living in luxury and leaving millions to their heirs. At some point this goddam problem become academic. Do Americans want to take world cruises and count their millions while others barely keep from starving to death? If they do they should read the story of Lazrus and the rich man.......OH!!! I forgot, they don't believe in fairy tales. Well.....I don't believe in fairy tales either but I've watched it for about 70 of my 80 years on this planet and believe me.........it evens out in the long run. SHIT HAPPENS!!!!!

You mean old folks whose family didn't give a shit about them?

What's wrong with someone leaving their money to the person of their own choosing? What seems to bother you isn't that they leave it but that they leave it to someone other that who you think they should. If it's not your money, it's not your business. Don't worry about my parents, children, or other family members. If they need help someday, I will be more than happy to help them. That's what families do and that's how it should be done. If other people would take that same outlook instead of expecting someone they're jealous of to do it for them, the problem would solve itself. You don't want to solve problems. You want the government to force someone else to do it so you can take credit for it.

If you bleeding hearts would do with your own money what you claim you have compassion for doing, the government isn't involved and you get done what you say should be done. That you involve the government tells me you don't care as much as your words say and you do it so you can be seen doing it by others.

You're a Liberal. You're entire viewpoint is a fairy tale.

 

[Conservative65]

The poor houses have a terrible history.

But they no longer exist.

They existed because someone's family member wouldn't help their own. The government had to get involved and force someone unrelated to that person to do for them what their won damn family wouldn't do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

How does letting people fend for themselves and simply going without healthcare if it's unaffordable make things any better?

Well, that's what we are doing now.

Yes, we still have more than 30 million not covered.

Wow, 30 million people breaking the law and not signing up for Obamacare.

Sounds like we need to build more prisons.

It's not a criminal offense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The poor houses have a terrible history.

But they no longer exist.

They existed because someone's family member wouldn't help their own. The government had to get involved and force someone unrelated to that person to do for them what their won damn family wouldn't do.

That's the role of government. To try to solve problems the private sector can't or won't.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Actually my data, terms and definitions come from the SSA. I am simply explaining what the facts mean. Which fact are you contesting?

You are explaining your opinion of the facts, and you are dodging that SS is easily fixable. How would you fix it?

How would you fix it?

I'd give people the ability to opt out and invest their own money the way they see fit.

That's one way, and one that allows you to privatize profit but if you fail the system takes care of you in your old age. No, you will be responsible and contribute to your old age security program.

They don't remember what I saw and witnessed. Most of the young people have never even heard of "County Poor Houses."

A long time ago.....before any kind of government assistance, each county maintained a couple of acres of land with some kind of big house on it. When old folks became destitute that was where they ended up. The ones who were still able raised enough food for them to survive. While this atrocity was occurring those at the top were living in luxury and leaving millions to their heirs. At some point this goddam problem become academic. Do Americans want to take world cruises and count their millions while others barely keep from starving to death? If they do they should read the story of Lazrus and the rich man.......OH!!! I forgot, they don't believe in fairy tales. Well.....I don't believe in fairy tales either but I've watched it for about 70 of my 80 years on this planet and believe me.........it evens out in the long run. SHIT HAPPENS!!!!!

You mean old folks whose family didn't give a shit about them?

What's wrong with someone leaving their money to the person of their own choosing? What seems to bother you isn't that they leave it but that they leave it to someone other that who you think they should. If it's not your money, it's not your business. Don't worry about my parents, children, or other family members. If they need help someday, I will be more than happy to help them. That's what families do and that's how it should be done. If other people would take that same outlook instead of expecting someone they're jealous of to do it for them, the problem would solve itself. You don't want to solve problems. You want the government to force someone else to do it so you can take credit for it.

If you bleeding hearts would do with your own money what you claim you have compassion for doing, the government isn't involved and you get done what you say should be done. That you involve the government tells me you don't care as much as your words say and you do it so you can be seen doing it by others.

You're a Liberal. You're entire viewpoint is a fairy tale.

The problem is that Social Security and poverty are not really connected. Today a typical worker will lose money on the system. That means that on average SS cannot lift someone out of poverty that it did not put there with its high cost. This is a longer story because the statistics are not good, the measure of poverty is not correct. If you are interested here is a longer piece that I put into TheHill :

Social Security is not an anti-poverty program

"Common sense should tell us that something is amiss with this endearing myth. Social Security does not pay a penny of benefit based on need. The system does not even have visibility into need. So at best any benefit that goes to a poor person is more a matter of luck than systemic policy.

The benefit formula of the program is designed to make that outcome less than likely though. The system allocates benefits based on among other things wages and the number of years worked. So until working a long and productive career causes poverty, Social Security will never be an anti-poverty program."

 

[Conservative65]

You are explaining your opinion of the facts, and you are dodging that SS is easily fixable. How would you fix it?

How would you fix it?

I'd give people the ability to opt out and invest their own money the way they see fit.

That's one way, and one that allows you to privatize profit but if you fail the system takes care of you in your old age. No, you will be responsible and contribute to your old age security program.

They don't remember what I saw and witnessed. Most of the young people have never even heard of "County Poor Houses."

A long time ago.....before any kind of government assistance, each county maintained a couple of acres of land with some kind of big house on it. When old folks became destitute that was where they ended up. The ones who were still able raised enough food for them to survive. While this atrocity was occurring those at the top were living in luxury and leaving millions to their heirs. At some point this goddam problem become academic. Do Americans want to take world cruises and count their millions while others barely keep from starving to death? If they do they should read the story of Lazrus and the rich man.......OH!!! I forgot, they don't believe in fairy tales. Well.....I don't believe in fairy tales either but I've watched it for about 70 of my 80 years on this planet and believe me.........it evens out in the long run. SHIT HAPPENS!!!!!

You mean old folks whose family didn't give a shit about them?

What's wrong with someone leaving their money to the person of their own choosing? What seems to bother you isn't that they leave it but that they leave it to someone other that who you think they should. If it's not your money, it's not your business. Don't worry about my parents, children, or other family members. If they need help someday, I will be more than happy to help them. That's what families do and that's how it should be done. If other people would take that same outlook instead of expecting someone they're jealous of to do it for them, the problem would solve itself. You don't want to solve problems. You want the government to force someone else to do it so you can take credit for it.

If you bleeding hearts would do with your own money what you claim you have compassion for doing, the government isn't involved and you get done what you say should be done. That you involve the government tells me you don't care as much as your words say and you do it so you can be seen doing it by others.

You're a Liberal. You're entire viewpoint is a fairy tale.

The problem is that Social Security and poverty are not really connected. Today a typical worker will lose money on the system. That means that on average SS cannot lift someone out of poverty that it did not put there with its high cost. This is a longer story because the statistics are not good, the measure of poverty is not correct. If you are interested here is a longer piece that I put into TheHill :

Social Security is not an anti-poverty program

"Common sense should tell us that something is amiss with this endearing myth. Social Security does not pay a penny of benefit based on need. The system does not even have visibility into need. So at best any benefit that goes to a poor person is more a matter of luck than systemic policy.

The benefit formula of the program is designed to make that outcome less than likely though. The system allocates benefits based on among other things wages and the number of years worked. So until working a long and productive career causes poverty, Social Security will never be an anti-poverty program."

Social Security wasn't designed to provide security. Even the Liberals that support it say it's not enough to live one. It was designed as a form of redistribution of wealth. Liberals regularly propose increasing the income cap on which SS is taken out. I decided to run a few numbers and ask some questions along those lines. I don't exact figures but proportions were my primary concern.

Let's say someone works 40 years and their average wage is $30,000/year. Another person works 40 years and their average wage is 5x that much or $150,000/year. They both work where the employee/employer withholding is the same percentage so it's an apples to apples comparison.

I've asked more than one Liberal supporter of SS should the worker making 5x as much and for whom 5x as much went in get 5x as much per month when each starts drawing. All of them said no and used the reason that if someone makes the higher wage they likely don't need it. While that may be true, what they're telling me is it's OK for the government to force you to be a part of something and not provide you with what they said would come in return when you started getting it back. In other words, redistribution of wealth. I know that the money someone put in the system when they worked wasn't put into an account with their name and that workers today fund it with their contributions. However, if what one is supposed to get out is calculated using what they put in, it doesn't matter whether it is funded by workers now or it was put into an account.'

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

How would you fix it?

I'd give people the ability to opt out and invest their own money the way they see fit.

That's one way, and one that allows you to privatize profit but if you fail the system takes care of you in your old age. No, you will be responsible and contribute to your old age security program.

They don't remember what I saw and witnessed. Most of the young people have never even heard of "County Poor Houses."

A long time ago.....before any kind of government assistance, each county maintained a couple of acres of land with some kind of big house on it. When old folks became destitute that was where they ended up. The ones who were still able raised enough food for them to survive. While this atrocity was occurring those at the top were living in luxury and leaving millions to their heirs. At some point this goddam problem become academic. Do Americans want to take world cruises and count their millions while others barely keep from starving to death? If they do they should read the story of Lazrus and the rich man.......OH!!! I forgot, they don't believe in fairy tales. Well.....I don't believe in fairy tales either but I've watched it for about 70 of my 80 years on this planet and believe me.........it evens out in the long run. SHIT HAPPENS!!!!!

You mean old folks whose family didn't give a shit about them?

What's wrong with someone leaving their money to the person of their own choosing? What seems to bother you isn't that they leave it but that they leave it to someone other that who you think they should. If it's not your money, it's not your business. Don't worry about my parents, children, or other family members. If they need help someday, I will be more than happy to help them. That's what families do and that's how it should be done. If other people would take that same outlook instead of expecting someone they're jealous of to do it for them, the problem would solve itself. You don't want to solve problems. You want the government to force someone else to do it so you can take credit for it.

If you bleeding hearts would do with your own money what you claim you have compassion for doing, the government isn't involved and you get done what you say should be done. That you involve the government tells me you don't care as much as your words say and you do it so you can be seen doing it by others.

You're a Liberal. You're entire viewpoint is a fairy tale.

The problem is that Social Security and poverty are not really connected. Today a typical worker will lose money on the system. That means that on average SS cannot lift someone out of poverty that it did not put there with its high cost. This is a longer story because the statistics are not good, the measure of poverty is not correct. If you are interested here is a longer piece that I put into TheHill :

Social Security is not an anti-poverty program

"Common sense should tell us that something is amiss with this endearing myth. Social Security does not pay a penny of benefit based on need. The system does not even have visibility into need. So at best any benefit that goes to a poor person is more a matter of luck than systemic policy.

The benefit formula of the program is designed to make that outcome less than likely though. The system allocates benefits based on among other things wages and the number of years worked. So until working a long and productive career causes poverty, Social Security will never be an anti-poverty program."

Social Security wasn't designed to provide security. Even the Liberals that support it say it's not enough to live one. It was designed as a form of redistribution of wealth. Liberals regularly propose increasing the income cap on which SS is taken out. I decided to run a few numbers and ask some questions along those lines. I don't exact figures but proportions were my primary concern.

Let's say someone works 40 years and their average wage is $30,000/year. Another person works 40 years and their average wage is 5x that much or $150,000/year. They both work where the employee/employer withholding is the same percentage so it's an apples to apples comparison.

I've asked more than one Liberal supporter of SS should the worker making 5x as much and for whom 5x as much went in get 5x as much per month when each starts drawing. All of them said no and used the reason that if someone makes the higher wage they likely don't need it. While that may be true, what they're telling me is it's OK for the government to force you to be a part of something and not provide you with what they said would come in return when you started getting it back. In other words, redistribution of wealth. I know that the money someone put in the system when they worked wasn't put into an account with their name and that workers today fund it with their contributions. However, if what one is supposed to get out is calculated using what they put in, it doesn't matter whether it is funded by workers now or it was put into an account.'

The higher wage worker does not get remotely close to 5x the payout. He is lucky to get double. Wages (and taxes) rise in concert. Wages and benefits do not. The rate of growth of benefits slows dramatically as a worker earns more. In theory, your liberal friends like it. Social Security is very progressive.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

How does letting people fend for themselves and simply going without healthcare if it's unaffordable make things any better?

Well, that's what we are doing now.

Yes, we still have more than 30 million not covered.

Wow, 30 million people breaking the law and not signing up for Obamacare.

Sounds like we need to build more prisons.

That type of post by you is why your are so often not taken seriously.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The myth that some people believe is that SS is paid on need.

The truth is that the program is a government old age insurance program, thus it does affect poverty definitions. For instance,

• Over half of all women age 65 and older and more than two-thirds of nonmarried elderly women would live below the poverty line without Social Security.

• Without Social Security 40% of elderly men would live below the poverty line∗ .

http://go.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/SocialSecurityPovertyOldAge.pdf?docID=1089

 

[Conservative65]

That's one way, and one that allows you to privatize profit but if you fail the system takes care of you in your old age. No, you will be responsible and contribute to your old age security program.

They don't remember what I saw and witnessed. Most of the young people have never even heard of "County Poor Houses."

A long time ago.....before any kind of government assistance, each county maintained a couple of acres of land with some kind of big house on it. When old folks became destitute that was where they ended up. The ones who were still able raised enough food for them to survive. While this atrocity was occurring those at the top were living in luxury and leaving millions to their heirs. At some point this goddam problem become academic. Do Americans want to take world cruises and count their millions while others barely keep from starving to death? If they do they should read the story of Lazrus and the rich man.......OH!!! I forgot, they don't believe in fairy tales. Well.....I don't believe in fairy tales either but I've watched it for about 70 of my 80 years on this planet and believe me.........it evens out in the long run. SHIT HAPPENS!!!!!

You mean old folks whose family didn't give a shit about them?

What's wrong with someone leaving their money to the person of their own choosing? What seems to bother you isn't that they leave it but that they leave it to someone other that who you think they should. If it's not your money, it's not your business. Don't worry about my parents, children, or other family members. If they need help someday, I will be more than happy to help them. That's what families do and that's how it should be done. If other people would take that same outlook instead of expecting someone they're jealous of to do it for them, the problem would solve itself. You don't want to solve problems. You want the government to force someone else to do it so you can take credit for it.

If you bleeding hearts would do with your own money what you claim you have compassion for doing, the government isn't involved and you get done what you say should be done. That you involve the government tells me you don't care as much as your words say and you do it so you can be seen doing it by others.

You're a Liberal. You're entire viewpoint is a fairy tale.

The problem is that Social Security and poverty are not really connected. Today a typical worker will lose money on the system. That means that on average SS cannot lift someone out of poverty that it did not put there with its high cost. This is a longer story because the statistics are not good, the measure of poverty is not correct. If you are interested here is a longer piece that I put into TheHill :

Social Security is not an anti-poverty program

"Common sense should tell us that something is amiss with this endearing myth. Social Security does not pay a penny of benefit based on need. The system does not even have visibility into need. So at best any benefit that goes to a poor person is more a matter of luck than systemic policy.

The benefit formula of the program is designed to make that outcome less than likely though. The system allocates benefits based on among other things wages and the number of years worked. So until working a long and productive career causes poverty, Social Security will never be an anti-poverty program."

Social Security wasn't designed to provide security. Even the Liberals that support it say it's not enough to live one. It was designed as a form of redistribution of wealth. Liberals regularly propose increasing the income cap on which SS is taken out. I decided to run a few numbers and ask some questions along those lines. I don't exact figures but proportions were my primary concern.

Let's say someone works 40 years and their average wage is $30,000/year. Another person works 40 years and their average wage is 5x that much or $150,000/year. They both work where the employee/employer withholding is the same percentage so it's an apples to apples comparison.

I've asked more than one Liberal supporter of SS should the worker making 5x as much and for whom 5x as much went in get 5x as much per month when each starts drawing. All of them said no and used the reason that if someone makes the higher wage they likely don't need it. While that may be true, what they're telling me is it's OK for the government to force you to be a part of something and not provide you with what they said would come in return when you started getting it back. In other words, redistribution of wealth. I know that the money someone put in the system when they worked wasn't put into an account with their name and that workers today fund it with their contributions. However, if what one is supposed to get out is calculated using what they put in, it doesn't matter whether it is funded by workers now or it was put into an account.'

The higher wage worker does not get remotely close to 5x the payout. He is lucky to get double. Wages (and taxes) rise in concert. Wages and benefits do not. The rate of growth of benefits slows dramatically as a worker earns more. In theory, your liberal friends like it. Social Security is very progressive.

That was the point of my post. Those who don't want someone getting out at a proportional rate to what they put in don't mine them contributing at a proportional rate.

SS isn't progressive other than being support by progressives. Based on the disproportional distributions, it's yet another social welfare program that benefits those on the lower end much greater than on the upper.

That doesn't mean I support doing away with it. I do support someone being able to opt out and letting those that think it's so great be a part of it. Liberals, the ones that say they believe in freedom and choice, do not support an opt out. They think, and have said so, that they are looking out for us.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those who opt out are attempting to privatize their profit while socializing their risk.

Won't happen.

 

[g5000]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

Single payer healthcare is coming. It cannot be stopped. The GOP decided to abdicate on health care decades ago. All their bluster and moaning is just theater for the rubes.

Trump wants single payer health care, which is why Democrats should be supporting him. Since Trump has just put an (R) after his name, he can't do any wrong, as far the right wing rubes are concerned. Therefore, they will support single payer if and when Republican President Trump calls for it.

It's a once in a lifetime opportunity to get bi-partisan support for single payer!

As for conservatives, they should wake up to the fact we were all sold down the socialized medicine river sometime in the 80s. Rising health care costs have been outpacing inflation for decades, and the Democrats have been telegraphing during that entire time they would enact socialized medicine if they ever got the chance. Think Ted Kennedy.

The GOP literally had decades to stop this by coming up with a better plan. They even owned the White House and all of Congress and the Supreme Court for quite a while. And what did they do? They created a brand new trillion dollar medical entitlement!

If that wasn't a dead giveaway, I don't know what is.

But the dumb rubes parrot what they see their political masters do. They see the kabuki theater put on by their "leaders" and think it is all real. Poor bastards.

GOP: Damn you Obaaaa....

RUBE: ...maaaaaa!!!

 

[Freewill]

One of the questions I have for people who advocate for a single payer system is, how will it be different from Social Security? With Social Security, government steals from the pot with impunity. In addition, Social Security is not guaranteed to anyone. If there is no money in the pot then there is no money. Government has zero obligation to you. Likewise, as we see with veterans in the VA, if you are too sick and expensive, government has no obligation to you. In fact, government run Medicare turns more people down health care related issues that private insurance currently.

Single payer healthcare is coming. It cannot be stopped. The GOP decided to abdicate on health care decades ago. All their bluster and moaning is just theater for the rubes.

Trump wants single payer health care, which is why Democrats should be supporting him. Since Trump has just put an (R) after his name, he can't do any wrong, as far the right wing rubes are concerned. Therefore, they will support single payer if and when Republican President Trump calls for it.

It's a once in a lifetime opportunity to get bi-partisan support for single payer!

As for conservatives, they should wake up to the fact we were all sold down the socialized medicine river sometime in the 80s. Rising health care costs have been outpacing inflation for decades, and the Democrats have been telegraphing during that entire time they would enact socialized medicine if they ever got the chance. Think Ted Kennedy.

The GOP literally had decades to stop this by coming up with a better plan. They even owned the White House and all of Congress and the Supreme Court for quite a while. And what did they do? They created a brand new trillion dollar medical entitlement!

If that wasn't a dead giveaway, I don't know what is.

But the dumb rubes parrot what they see their political masters do. They see the kabuki theater put on by their "leaders" and think it is all real. Poor bastards.

GOP: Damn you Obaaaa....

RUBE: ...maaaaaa!!!

What problem do you think single payer is going to solve? As I read the take from private insurance is about 5 percent of health care costs.

 

[Campbell]

The poor houses have a terrible history.

But they no longer exist.

My point exactly. In the late 1940's when the first old folks first began to draw social security the poor houses began to disappear. The poor house here within five miles of me was shut down in the mid 1950's.

 

[Freewill]

Here is how the health insurance companies fix rates, in my opinion.

If a person takes medicare at 65, medicare covers 80 percent of let's say an xray. Private insurance creates a network where as you either go to the network or pay out the ass. So they buy up all the hospitals and doctors in an area and fix the prices. So let's say I could walk in and pay cash for an xray. The xray cost me 800 dollars.

The insurance company fixes the rate for the xray at 1000 dollars. Thus they get 800 from the government and any co-pays or deductible from the person or nothing from the customer making their plan look free. Of course the 800 dollars was jacked up in the first place. So the HC company makes out like a bandit. Meanwhile we all get used to an xray costing 800 dollars and think we get a deal if we pay cash.

 

[Campbell]

Here is how the health insurance companies fix rates, in my opinion.

If a person takes medicare at 65, medicare covers 80 percent of let's say an xray. Private insurance creates a network where as you either go to the network or pay out the ass. So they buy up all the hospitals and doctors in an area and fix the prices. So let's say I could walk in and pay cash for an xray. The xray cost me 800 dollars.

The insurance company fixes the rate for the xray at 1000 dollars. Thus they get 800 from the government and any co-pays or deductible from the person or nothing from the customer making their plan look free. Of course the 800 dollars was jacked up in the first place. So the HC company makes out like a bandit. Meanwhile we all get used to an xray costing 800 dollars and think we get a deal if we pay cash.

There are two major facts about health care in the U S:

1) We're the only industrialized country in the world where the government doesn't provide health care for everyone

2) We're the only industrialized country in the world that has hundreds of health care and health insurance companies.

 

[Freewill]

Here is how the health insurance companies fix rates, in my opinion.

If a person takes medicare at 65, medicare covers 80 percent of let's say an xray. Private insurance creates a network where as you either go to the network or pay out the ass. So they buy up all the hospitals and doctors in an area and fix the prices. So let's say I could walk in and pay cash for an xray. The xray cost me 800 dollars.

The insurance company fixes the rate for the xray at 1000 dollars. Thus they get 800 from the government and any co-pays or deductible from the person or nothing from the customer making their plan look free. Of course the 800 dollars was jacked up in the first place. So the HC company makes out like a bandit. Meanwhile we all get used to an xray costing 800 dollars and think we get a deal if we pay cash.

There are two major facts about health care in the U S:

1) We're the only industrialized country in the world where the government doesn't provide health care for everyone

2) We're the only industrialized country in the world that has hundreds of health care and health insurance companies.

1) didn't Obamacare take care of that? And i think you are talking about health care insurance not health care. Health care was always and is still available to everyone, insurance not so much.

2) SO?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is how the health insurance companies fix rates, in my opinion.

If a person takes medicare at 65, medicare covers 80 percent of let's say an xray. Private insurance creates a network where as you either go to the network or pay out the ass. So they buy up all the hospitals and doctors in an area and fix the prices. So let's say I could walk in and pay cash for an xray. The xray cost me 800 dollars.

The insurance company fixes the rate for the xray at 1000 dollars. Thus they get 800 from the government and any co-pays or deductible from the person or nothing from the customer making their plan look free. Of course the 800 dollars was jacked up in the first place. So the HC company makes out like a bandit. Meanwhile we all get used to an xray costing 800 dollars and think we get a deal if we pay cash.

There are two major facts about health care in the U S:

1) We're the only industrialized country in the world where the government doesn't provide health care for everyone

2) We're the only industrialized country in the world that has hundreds of health care and health insurance companies.

1) didn't Obamacare take care of that? And i think you are talking about health care insurance not health care. Health care was always and is still available to everyone, insurance not so much.

2) SO?

Keep telling yourself that right up to single payeer.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The poor houses have a terrible history.

But they no longer exist.

My point exactly. In the late 1940's when the first old folks first began to draw social security the poor houses began to disappear. The poor house here within five miles of me was shut down in the mid 1950's.

Then it means that SS had nothing to do with it. In 1950, only 15% of seniors were eligible for SS benefits. If poor houses began to disappear, SS had nothing do with 85% of the seniors not using them. So are you just making up what you can't possibly actually remember.