free health care

[chrlswltrs]

Social Security isn't welfare spending. It's a retirement plan. And privatizing it guarantees way better returns than what you're currently getting.

There are way more than a dozen lefties in Washington.

Social Security is welfare spending. It was NEVER intended to be a retirement plan. A retirement plan is a 401k or other type of retirement plan. That is why Social Security is in such bad shape, because it is expected to be a retirement plan. Well, that and all the other flaws with it.

A retirement plan you pay into, then you draw from after retirement. Social Security you pay into so that the money can be distributed to those currently drawing money, then you have to hope it is still around when you retire.

 

[A.Nonymous]

What our was intended to be is really irrelevant. The fact is it is a retirement plan in its current state. Sadly there are people who are counting on it to retire on.

 

[SiempreTuna]

Re the idea that privatisation improves returns: we tried that with part of our pensions provisions in the UK back in the 80s and it has been a total disaster. Returns have been awful and people - like me - who switched from the government pension to private are much, much worse off.

As for privatising social security: if the government with 100% of contributions can't make it pay, how will an insurance company with perhaps 5-10%? It simply does not compute. What will end up happening is that the tax payer will be obliged to bail them out. Like we just did.

 

[saptech]

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage | Harvard Gazette

“Historically, every other developed nation has achieved universal health care through some form of nonprofit national health insurance. Our failure to do so means that all Americans pay higher health care costs, and 45,000 pay with their lives.”

 

[A.Nonymous]

Re the idea that privatisation improves returns: we tried that with part of our pensions provisions in the UK back in the 80s and it has been a total disaster. Returns have been awful and people - like me - who switched from the government pension to private are much, much worse off.

As for privatising social security: if the government with 100% of contributions can't make it pay, how will an insurance company with perhaps 5-10%? It simply does not compute. What will end up happening is that the tax payer will be obliged to bail them out. Like we just did.

All I know is this. On my Social Security statement that I get it tells me it returns 2-3%. That's it. On my Roth statement that I get it tells me over the past 5-6 years (which have been bad economically) it's returned 11%. Which is better?

 

[SiempreTuna]

That 45,000 only includes people who are uninsured, it excludes people who's insurance doesn't cover things .. like, say, pre-existing condidions ..

 

[JimmyRayBob]

1. Social Security was never intended to be the only "retirement" money available. It was only supposed to be 1 of 3 things - the others being personal savings and some sort of pension.
2. The average life expectancy when Social Security started was something like 62 (don't quote me on that), and the retirement age was set at 65. Today's life expectancy is closer to 80, and the age at which you can collect social security is still 65.
3. No one is proposing a complete privatization of social security - only voluntary. And only for "younger" people.

 

[Bob Maxey]

According to the newly released report by the Government Accountability Office, Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion. The report confirms much of what us damn Republicans and detractors have been saying all along . . . this is one bloody costly government program and as with most programs, the costs will surely rise over time and if it is not stopped, it will be with us forever.

This is the largest entitlement program in U.S. history and Obama's previous assertion that it will not add one dime to the deficit clearly shows Obama was either clueless or lying.

 

[Bob Maxey]

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage | Harvard Gazette

How many of those people do not elect to buy insurance because they want a new TV or iPhone? How many die because they eat too much, never get up out of their easy chair and walk about a bit after a super-sized McDonalds dinner? How many smoke or think something is wrong and do not talk to a doctor until it is too late?

 

[A.Nonymous]

1. Social Security was never intended to be the only "retirement" money available. It was only supposed to be 1 of 3 things - the others being personal savings and some sort of pension.
2. The average life expectancy when Social Security started was something like 62 (don't quote me on that), and the retirement age was set at 65. Today's life expectancy is closer to 80, and the age at which you can collect social security is still 65.
3. No one is proposing a complete privatization of social security - only voluntary. And only for "younger" people.

Regardless of what it was intended to be, it is, as of today, a retirement plan. Furthermore, for a lot of people it's their ONLY retirement plan which is just pathetic on those people's part.

All I'm saying is I'm in my early 30s and I would opt out of Social Security today if they let me and they could keep everything I've paid into it over the past 15 years or so that I've been working. The average benefit today is $1230 a month. That's it. It's ridiculously low and anyone who doesn't have their own retirement plan is a fool.

But all that aside, your private retirement plan is going to beat the living snot out of any returns you get from Social Security. If your private plan can't out earn Social Security then you need to get another plan.

 

[chrlswltrs]

According to the newly released report by the Government Accountability Office, Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion. The report confirms much of what us damn Republicans and detractors have been saying all along . . . this is one bloody costly government program and as with most programs, the costs will surely rise over time and if it is not stopped, it will be with us forever.

This is the largest entitlement program in U.S. history and Obama's previous assertion that it will not add one dime to the deficit clearly shows Obama was either clueless or lying.

When does Obama ever open his mouth without lies coming out?? His goal is to drive this nation into poverty, something he has been working very hard to do for years and is succeeding.

Regardless of what it was intended to be, it is, as of today, a retirement plan. Furthermore, for a lot of people it's their ONLY retirement plan which is just pathetic on those people's part.

Then why should everyone have to pay for other people's mistakes? We shouldn't. If they didn't plan better, then their family, community, etc should take care of them because they choose not. Not force the government to take care of them at the expense of an entire nation.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

Regardless of what it was intended to be, it is, as of today, a retirement plan. Furthermore, for a lot of people it's their ONLY retirement plan which is just pathetic on those people's part.

All I'm saying is I'm in my early 30s and I would opt out of Social Security today if they let me and they could keep everything I've paid into it over the past 15 years or so that I've been working. The average benefit today is $1230 a month. That's it. It's ridiculously low and anyone who doesn't have their own retirement plan is a fool.

But all that aside, your private retirement plan is going to beat the living snot out of any returns you get from Social Security. If your private plan can't out earn Social Security then you need to get another plan.

I agree ... it is a retirement plan. I terrible retirement plan. I am 45 and I would opt out in a heartbeat.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Then why should everyone have to pay for other people's mistakes? We shouldn't. If they didn't plan better, then their family, community, etc should take care of them because they choose not. Not force the government to take care of them at the expense of an entire nation.

You see, society, via the state, is this community. They are who take care of you. People now longer live in simple medieval villages. The concept of hundred soul communities is gone.

I don't understand how someone's tennis club or whatever is supposed to pay for their healthcare. It's mad. And it shortens peoples' lives.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Regardless of what it was intended to be, it is, as of today, a retirement plan. Furthermore, for a lot of people it's their ONLY retirement plan which is just pathetic on those people's part.

Given the fact that wages have plateaued for many workers since the 1980s, it isn't quite so ridiculous. That said the US does lack a saving culture but it is easy for those earning well above the average wage to say this.

All I'm saying is I'm in my early 30s and I would opt out of Social Security today if they let me and they could keep everything I've paid into it over the past 15 years or so that I've been working.

Well unfortunately for you these things only work based on universality.

But all that aside, your private retirement plan is going to beat the living snot out of any returns you get from Social Security. If your private plan can't out earn Social Security then you need to get another plan.

Social security shouldn't be about earning, its such a bullshit idea. Generally in most of the world social security funds are far more vague. Contributions are 'kind of' supposed to match expenditures. It isn't a sovereign wealth fund ffs, states can have separate funds if they so wish where they take dodgy risks.

 

[SiempreTuna]

When does Obama ever open his mouth without lies coming out??

He's a politician - it's part of the job defintion.

His goal is to drive this nation into poverty, something he has been working very hard to do for years and is succeeding

You have to give it to the Republicans: they drove the entire world into poverty. Without even trying.

The US was booming and running the largest surpluses in history when Bush II came along. By the end of his first term it was up sh*t creek. By the end of his second term the entire world had joined it.

Then why should everyone have to pay for other people's mistakes? We shouldn't. If they didn't plan better, then their family, community, etc should take care of them because they choose not. Not force the government to take care of them at the expense of an entire nation.

Thing is, that's what the OLD system was doing. People were free loading then going to hospitals or relying on medicade when it all went pear shaped.

The point of Obamacare is that you stop people making the mistakes that will affect the rest of the community when things go wrong. Which they will. And simply saying you're on your own isn't an answer: these people are not going to just lie down and die.

 

[A.Nonymous]

You see, society, via the state, is this community. They are who take care of you. People now longer live in simple medieval villages. The concept of hundred soul communities is gone.

I don't understand how someone's tennis club or whatever is supposed to pay for their healthcare. It's mad. And it shortens peoples' lives.

YOU are supposed to pay for YOUR healthcare. Not anyone else. At the end of the day it's your responsibility, not mine. If I must pay for your healthcare, then I want a say in whether you can smoke or drink or how much you exercise 'cuz I want to make sure my money is being spent responsibly.

Given the fact that wages have plateaued for many workers since the 1980s, it isn't quite so ridiculous. That said the US does lack a saving culture but it is easy for those earning well above the average wage to say this.

It is ridiculous because your retirement is your responsibility, not the state's. It's yours. The savings culture here is ridiculous. On that we are in full agreement. The failure to plan for retirement at all is beyond insanity. I'll never forget listening to a financial show and some guy called in who was in his early 50s and he had $5k in retirement and wanted to know what to do to retire at 60. I was baffled at how someone who was clearly a hard worker had failed to save anything at all. But that shouldn't be my responsibility to help that guy out because he failed to plan.

Social security shouldn't be about earning, its such a bullshit idea. Generally in most of the world social security funds are far more vague. Contributions are 'kind of' supposed to match expenditures. It isn't a sovereign wealth fund ffs, states can have separate funds if they so wish where they take dodgy risks.

It's supposed to be a nationalized pension fund. The problem we have is that retirees are living too long and spending several decades in retirement. So we don't have enough workers to support them. The system is broken. But that's a different thread entirely.

The point of Obamacare is that you stop people making the mistakes that will affect the rest of the community when things go wrong. Which they will. And simply saying you're on your own isn't an answer: these people are not going to just lie down and die.

And that is my problem with Obamacare right there. Why is it my responsibility to stop people from making mistakes? Why is it my responsibility to clean up their mess when they do? My family/friends make mistakes I help clean it up. That's my family/friends. And some of them I help by letting them face the consequences of their mistakes. Keeping them from any consequences for their mistakes would harm them rather than helping. The idea of letting people just blunder through life and act irresponsibly over and over and over again and the responsible people in the world just follow along and pick up the pieces and enable them is repulsive to me.

 

[ElasticNinja]

YOU are supposed to pay for YOUR healthcare. Not anyone else. At the end of the day it's your responsibility, not mine. If I must pay for your healthcare, then I want a say in whether you can smoke or drink or how much you exercise 'cuz I want to make sure my money is being spent responsibly.

Why should I be forced to pay excessive premiums which don't even cover me fully just because I have asthma, or diabetes, or say, cystic fibrosis? That's not a sustainable or moral concept. Yes some people smoke or whatever but they still pay taxes and contribute to society. You can't just deny someone the right to good health. Not when resources are there.

It is ridiculous because your retirement is your responsibility, not the state's. It's yours. The savings culture here is ridiculous. On that we are in full agreement. The failure to plan for retirement at all is beyond insanity. I'll never forget listening to a financial show and some guy called in who was in his early 50s and he had $5k in retirement and wanted to know what to do to retire at 60. I was baffled at how someone who was clearly a hard worker had failed to save anything at all. But that shouldn't be my responsibility to help that guy out because he failed to plan.

But you see, if I earn the average industrial wage, I will have a shitty pension pot. Society needs lower paid workers. There is no reason these people should be denied a decent quality of life in retirement. Sure, if they want to jet off to America or Brazil they should have funded a big pension pot. But making them so poor they can't visit near relatives or afford a TV? Why?

It's supposed to be a nationalized pension fund. The problem we have is that retirees are living too long and spending several decades in retirement. So we don't have enough workers to support them. The system is broken. But that's a different thread entirely.

Your attitude to everything: Something has a problem: DESTROY IT. It's irrational.

And that is my problem with Obamacare right there. Why is it my responsibility to stop people from making mistakes? Why is it my responsibility to clean up their mess when they do? My family/friends make mistakes I help clean it up. That's my family/friends. And some of them I help by letting them face the consequences of their mistakes. Keeping them from any consequences for their mistakes would harm them rather than helping. The idea of letting people just blunder through life and act irresponsibly over and over and over again and the responsible people in the world just follow along and pick up the pieces and enable them is repulsive to me.

Its your responsibility as a member of society. Besides, most people don't have well-to-do family and friends - and why should they go broke to help someone when the state should?

Humanity is a cooperative species. Societies are based on this. Stop trying to pretend you are some sort of bacteria that don't need no help.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Why should I be forced to pay excessive premiums which don't even cover me fully just because I have asthma, or diabetes, or say, cystic fibrosis? That's not a sustainable or moral concept. Yes some people smoke or whatever but they still pay taxes and contribute to society. You can't just deny someone the right to good health. Not when resources are there.

How is it immoral to demand personal responsibility from people? At the end of the day, MY health is MY responsibility. It's not yours. It's not my neighbors. It's not my congressman's. It's not Obama's. It's my responsibility. No one else is responsible for my health (or lack thereof) than me. How is that immoral?

But you see, if I earn the average industrial wage, I will have a shitty pension pot. Society needs lower paid workers. There is no reason these people should be denied a decent quality of life in retirement. Sure, if they want to jet off to America or Brazil they should have funded a big pension pot. But making them so poor they can't visit near relatives or afford a TV? Why?

If you do, then you're not saving. Who's fault is that? If you have a poorly funded pension and I have a well funded one, who's fault is that?

Your attitude to everything: Something has a problem: DESTROY IT. It's irrational.

You're right. The current system is structurally flawed, broken and not working. We should stick with it though. It'll turn around sooner or later. Scrapping it for something that might actually work would be ridiculous.

Its your responsibility as a member of society. Besides, most people don't have well-to-do family and friends - and why should they go broke to help someone when the state should?

Humanity is a cooperative species. Societies are based on this. Stop trying to pretend you are some sort of bacteria that don't need no help.

Completely disagree. It is not my responsibility to fund the misbehavior of others. In what way does it make any sense to have the responsible members of society fund the irresponsible ones so they can continue being irresponsible?

Let's say I have a hypothetical 25 yr old who is perfectly healthy and mentally sound. He is unemployed and lives with his parents and plays Xbox all day. He hasn't looked for a job in months and has no intention of ever doing so. When asked about it he comments that as long as he's unemployed his parents feed him and he can play video games all day. Why should he work? Do his parents do him any favors by continuing to feed, clothes and shelter this guy? Are they really helping him?

 

[ElasticNinja]

How is it immoral to demand personal responsibility from people? At the end of the day, MY health is MY responsibility. It's not yours. It's not my neighbors. It's not my congressman's. It's not Obama's. It's my responsibility. No one else is responsible for my health (or lack thereof) than me. How is that immoral?

So you demand personal responsibility from five year olds? Because that's what American society does.

 

[lightsleeper23]

Never mind. Missed something.

 

[A.Nonymous]

So you demand personal responsibility from five year olds? Because that's what American society does.

No, I demand responsibility from their parents.

 

[copestag]

New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage | Harvard Gazette

bogus study which cannot possibly determine that lack of healthcare led to a single death

it makes as much sense as saying if 45000 are linked to lack of healthcare then that means 2,420,000 deaths annually linked to having healthcare

 

[saptech]

How many of those people do not elect to buy insurance because they want a new TV or iPhone? How many die because they eat too much, never get up out of their easy chair and walk about a bit after a super-sized McDonalds dinner? How many smoke or think something is wrong and do not talk to a doctor until it is too late?

Well it did say those who lack health insurance. I assume it means those who could not afford it. Buying a new tv or iphone is a one time payment. Buying insurance is very costly on a monthly basis, much more costly then a cell phone plan.

Doesn't those with insurance die because of the same reasons? (they eat too much, never get up out of their easy chair and walk about a bit after a super-sized McDonalds dinne. I'm sure just as many people with insurance die prematurely.

 

[saptech]

bogus study which cannot possibly determine that lack of healthcare led to a single death

it makes as much sense as saying if 45000 are linked to lack of healthcare then that means 2,420,000 deaths annually linked to having healthcare

I'm not sure if it is bogus or not but the study was conducted between 1986 and 1994. It started during Reagan years and that's when the big businesses had a friend in office! So this was done before Obama took office!

The 45,000 died because lack of insurance. The 2,420,000 may have died for other reasons, not because lack of insurance.

 

[SiempreTuna]

If you do, then you're not saving. Who's fault is that? If you have a poorly funded pension and I have a well funded one, who's fault is that?

It could be their fault, but based on recent history, it's more likely to be their employer, the banks or the insurance companies.

Scrapping it for something that might actually work would be ridiculous

The problem is you have no viable alternative. Other than, let's destroy civilisation (i.e. helping one and other).

Let me guess: you believe the absurd notion that you don't owe any part of your success to anyone else and particularly not the government?

In what way does it make any sense to have the responsible members of society fund the irresponsible ones so they can continue being irresponsible?

It's basically the definition of society. Take that away and all you have is the law of the jungle. If you want to see how that works, try living somewhere like Somalia.

Let's say I have a hypothetical 25 yr old who is perfectly healthy and mentally sound. He is unemployed and lives with his parents and plays Xbox all day. He hasn't looked for a job in months and has no intention of ever doing so. When asked about it he comments that as long as he's unemployed his parents feed him and he can play video games all day. Why should he work? Do his parents do him any favors by continuing to feed, clothes and shelter this guy? Are they really helping him?

So you're saying we should base policy on your demonisation of a fictional, one in ten million character?

That's patently ridiculous.

The vast majority of people who are struggling are suffering because of the selfish, immoral and often criminal actions of people for whom profit justifies anything - that is Republican 'philosophy' in a nutshell - and who's greed and selfishness almost destroyed the global economy but 3 years ago: the attitudes you express caused the problems faced by the people you choose to demonise.

The right wing needs to wake up, take a look at recent history and realise that they are the problem not the solution. Something the electorate just told them. Again.