Why do I have to pay for society's screw-ups?

[rightwinger]

Patrick

You are a member of society. As a member, you are free to pressure your representative to change what you do not like.

You are also free to seek out another society that will take you

Maybe you should try China

 

[BDBoop]

Patrick

You are a member of society. As a member, you are free to pressure your representative to change what you do not like.

You are also free to seek out another society that will take you

Maybe you should try China

But it's more fun flailing around an anonymous message board, bitching.

 

[Stashman]

How many geezers didn't provide for their old-age, thinking medicare/social security is supposed to be their retirement plan?

I agree with a lot of what you said but have to disagree with this comment.

Social Security IS a retirement plan. That's what it was made to do. One generation pays into the fund for the next. So if someone pays into the fund for 40 years and than has to retire, why would they than not use the money they've already paid in?

 

[Chris]

Why do you have to pay for society's screw-ups?

You mean like George Bush and the Tea Party?

 

[Patrick2]

Patrick

You are a member of society. As a member, you are free to pressure your representative to change what you do not like.

You are also free to seek out another society that will take you

Maybe you should try China

I should try china?????

 

[Patrick2]

Patrick

You are a member of society. As a member, you are free to pressure your representative to change what you do not like.

You are also free to seek out another society that will take you

Maybe you should try China

But it's more fun flailing around an anonymous message board, bitching.

Shaddup.

 

[Patrick2]

How many geezers didn't provide for their old-age, thinking medicare/social security is supposed to be their retirement plan?

I agree with a lot of what you said but have to disagree with this comment.

Social Security IS a retirement plan. That's what it was made to do. One generation pays into the fund for the next. So if someone pays into the fund for 40 years and than has to retire, why would they than not use the money they've already paid in?

Not a chance. Quote from its creator, FDR:

“We shall make the most lasting progress if we recognize that Social Security can furnish only a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts.”

The age of onset of payments was set back when it was expected the person would only live a couple more years. Now, people live 20 and even more years past.

 

[Patrick2]

Why do you have to pay for society's screw-ups?

You mean like George Bush and the Tea Party?

He's made a joke - everyone applaud.

...............clap...................................clap.....................................clap...............

 

[Douger]

Well P2. If you leave today you'll only have to file/pay for 10 years. I have 3 to go. That's just due to the mistake of being born in The Great Satan.You seem to be at the point of no longer waving your flag. Be careful. You'll be on a "terruh suspect" list.

 

[Patrick2]

Well P2. If you leave today you'll only have to file/pay for 10 years. I have 3 to go. That's just due to the mistake of being born in The Great Satan.You seem to be at the point of no longer waving your flag. Be careful. You'll be on a "terruh suspect" list.

But hasn't obama and the leftwingers decided there is no such thing as a terrorist?

 

[Stashman]

How many geezers didn't provide for their old-age, thinking medicare/social security is supposed to be their retirement plan?

I agree with a lot of what you said but have to disagree with this comment.

Social Security IS a retirement plan. That's what it was made to do. One generation pays into the fund for the next. So if someone pays into the fund for 40 years and than has to retire, why would they than not use the money they've already paid in?

Not a chance. Quote from its creator, FDR:

“We shall make the most lasting progress if we recognize that Social Security can furnish only a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts.”

The age of onset of payments was set back when it was expected the person would only live a couple more years. Now, people live 20 and even more years past.

Doesn't matter it's still their money that is going into the fund, and theirs to use if they need it.

 

[Greenbeard]

Yes it is. If it's impossible for new companies to enter a state's market, how did any which are there NOW do it when they were new? Sorry, you're not making any sense.

I didn't say it's impossible for companies to enter the market, I pushed back on the oversimplified assertion that simply having more insurers in the market leads to lower premiums (a claim you yourself also rejected in this thread). The reality is that the situation in most health insurance markets is different from that in many markets. To quote Austin Frakt:

Understanding how hospital versus insurance concentration affects hospital prices and premiums is difficult due to the complex nature of price competition in the market for hospital services. A simplified picture of this complex relationship is illustrated in Figure 1, which shows how health insurance premiums in a market would be expected to vary depending on the “balance of power” between insurers and hospitals. This curve assumes a fixed level of concentration among hospitals so that the relative balance of power varies as insurer concentration changes along the horizontal axis. When insurance market concentration is low relative to that of hospitals (point “A”), the dominant hospitals can exercise market power and command relatively high prices from insurers, which are passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums. As insurer concentration and relative power vis-à-vis hospitals increase (moving from point “A” toward point “B”), dominant insurers gain monopoly-busting power and can use the threat of network exclusion to negotiate lower prices and, thereby, offer relatively lower premiums. If, however, insurer market concentration far exceeds that of hospitals (point “C”), insurers can mark up the lower prices they obtain from hospitals and retain the difference as profit with little fear of losing enrollees to other insurers.

The rough shape of the curve illustrated in Figure 1 can be reproduced with formal economics models and features of it have been empirically verified by numerous studies.​

Diluting the insurance market with too many insurers can in fact lead to a significant rise in premiums due to the alteration in the payer-provider interaction.

You said I want to federalize tort law. Once more, I said no such thing, but pointed out one example how the federal government can encourage reform by sanctioning states if they don't reform their >>>OWN<<< state law.

I said if you're advocating for a federalization of tort law, you're going to run into opposition from far right lawmakers, states, and other allies on the right. I'll also say that if you're simply advocating for federal sanctions on states that don't conform to the federal government's vision of tort reform, you're likely to meet resistance from the very same people.

Positive incentives for state-level tort reform, namely seed money for states to test new and alternative models, were enacted by the feds last year. It remains to be seen what the state response will be.

I don't want to tell fat people or smokers what to do (as long as I don't have to breath their exhaust) but then by same token I shouldn't have to pay, even indirectly, for the consequences of their bad habits.

Health insurance premiums can still be rated for tobacco use.

 

[Patrick2]

I agree with a lot of what you said but have to disagree with this comment.

Social Security IS a retirement plan. That's what it was made to do. One generation pays into the fund for the next. So if someone pays into the fund for 40 years and than has to retire, why would they than not use the money they've already paid in?

Not a chance. Quote from its creator, FDR:

“We shall make the most lasting progress if we recognize that Social Security can furnish only a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts.”

The age of onset of payments was set back when it was expected the person would only live a couple more years. Now, people live 20 and even more years past.

Doesn't matter it's still their money that is going into the fund, and theirs to use if they need it.

You comnpletely missed several points.

 

[bill5]

Patrick

You are a member of society. As a member, you are free to pressure your representative to change what you do not like.

You are also free to seek out another society that will take you

Maybe you should try China

But it's more fun flailing around an anonymous message board, bitching.

And incoherently at that. That OP is one of the most ridiculous cries for attention I've ever seen.

 

[Patrick2]

Patrick

You are a member of society. As a member, you are free to pressure your representative to change what you do not like.

You are also free to seek out another society that will take you

Maybe you should try China

But it's more fun flailing around an anonymous message board, bitching.

And incoherently at that. That OP is one of the most ridiculous cries for attention I've ever seen.

Stop making yourself out to be a pussy - why advertise that you are unable to debate? Geez.

 

[bill5]

Name-calling. More impressive stuff.

Welcome to the ignore list, little attention whore. Enjoy all the chum everyone else is feeding you.

 

[Flopper]

The issue raised wasn't socialized health plans. Everyone knows health care costs are high - I personally pay about $10,000/year in premiums. The costs all stem, one way or another, to government malfeasance, but the cure is ever more government control? And you have it exactly backwards - going down the obamacare path will eventually lead to eight-month waiting lists for eg MRIs, with people dying on the waiting list, and rationed care, with specific decisions about who should live and who should die, as is done with the NHS's death panel (N.I.C.E.) in the UK.

I met with Canadian and British providers at a convention/conference back in 2005. That whole "waiting 6 months or longer to see a specialist in the UK and Canada" isn't true. The average wait for an MRI is two weeks in Canada, and about 3 in England. I'm interested in seeing anything you have read about that long waiting period that wasn't published by anti healthcare reform folks. I'm not doubting you, just skeptical because I'm only hearin that complaint from rightwing Americans.

I've seen tons of stuff contradicting your claims, but I'll let you tutor yourself. It's easy:

Google nhs and horror story, national institute for clinical excellence and protest, nhs hospital conditions, nhs and sent home to die, etc etc etc. All you can stomach is just a few clicks away - read up.

I have a cousin with cancer who lives in Ottawa. She has had no problem scheduling procedures, tests, and treatment. I suspect delays in treatment are much like the the US. I just waited two months to see a dermatologist on my insurance plan and three months for a colonoscopy.

 

[Flopper]

How many geezers didn't provide for their old-age, thinking medicare/social security is supposed to be their retirement plan?

I agree with a lot of what you said but have to disagree with this comment.

Social Security IS a retirement plan. That's what it was made to do. One generation pays into the fund for the next. So if someone pays into the fund for 40 years and than has to retire, why would they than not use the money they've already paid in?

Not a chance. Quote from its creator, FDR:

&#8220;We shall make the most lasting progress if we recognize that Social Security can furnish only a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts.&#8221;

The age of onset of payments was set back when it was expected the person would only live a couple more years. Now, people live 20 and even more years past.

We need to increase the retirement age to bring it closer to the increase in life expectancy. That should solve the social security problem, however it will create another problem, more people in the workforce pursuing jobs.

 

[Patrick2]

I met with Canadian and British providers at a convention/conference back in 2005. That whole "waiting 6 months or longer to see a specialist in the UK and Canada" isn't true. The average wait for an MRI is two weeks in Canada, and about 3 in England. I'm interested in seeing anything you have read about that long waiting period that wasn't published by anti healthcare reform folks. I'm not doubting you, just skeptical because I'm only hearin that complaint from rightwing Americans.

I've seen tons of stuff contradicting your claims, but I'll let you tutor yourself. It's easy:

Google nhs and horror story, national institute for clinical excellence and protest, nhs hospital conditions, nhs and sent home to die, etc etc etc. All you can stomach is just a few clicks away - read up.

I have a cousin with cancer who lives in Ottawa. She has had no problem scheduling procedures, tests, and treatment. I suspect delays in treatment are much like the the US. I just waited two months to see a dermatologist on my insurance plan and three months for a colonoscopy.

First, my best wishes for a recovery to your cousin. My uncle just got a colonoscopy two months ago - got an appointment within a week. I've heard lots of storeis of canadians not waiting for treatment and instead heading for the US, because when something is really wrong, time matters.

 

[Patrick2]

I agree with a lot of what you said but have to disagree with this comment.

Social Security IS a retirement plan. That's what it was made to do. One generation pays into the fund for the next. So if someone pays into the fund for 40 years and than has to retire, why would they than not use the money they've already paid in?

Not a chance. Quote from its creator, FDR:

“We shall make the most lasting progress if we recognize that Social Security can furnish only a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts.”

The age of onset of payments was set back when it was expected the person would only live a couple more years. Now, people live 20 and even more years past.

We need to increase the retirement age to bring it closer to the increase in life expectancy. That should solve the social security problem, however it will create another problem, more people in the workforce pursuing jobs.

More people in the workforce are only a problem when you have a government with an anti-business attitude which suppresses job opportunities with excessive taxes and regulation - which is the REAL problem.