djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,532
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 16:26:05 GMT -5
Angel:
i think i see your point, and i think you are right. this argument is not really about the deficit, it is about priorities. and this is actually where the left, right, liberal, and conservative converge. the problem is that we have different things on our grocery list.
liberals want less entanglement between government and business, particularly the MIC, and more social liberty. leftists want a wider safety net, and less elitism in all aspects of society. rightists want a government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, including social programs, and no military cutbacks. conservatives want smaller government and more individual and corporate liberty.
there is very little overlap in those four groups, even though the goal is the same: lower deficits.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 5, 2024 7:13:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 16:27:50 GMT -5
wow so because i dont believe a couple that has saved for 40-45 years should be penalized over a couple that has the same income but spent it frivolously, i am just a "hater" of the ACA you think it is okay to "punish" the savers, and the people who have done things the "right" way and i gotta wonder, what makes you believe that is okay to do...... instead of boats, cars, vacations, and a nicer house.....my example couple lived frugally, spent wisely, and built a nice nest egg over a long period of time of say a million bucks the other couple lived it up.... they BOTH s/b entitled to the same ss payments.....both based on what they paid into the system to penalize the first couple is the worst decision i could ever foresee they SHOULD be able to live a better life in their golden years..... as the old saying goes....."THEY HAVE EARNED IT" I am just pointing out an inconsistency in your opinions. You claim you want to the ACA over the deficit. Which will leave millions lacking insurance and affordable healthcare. But, you aren't willing to contemplate any changes to SS because all those middle & upper class savers "earned it and deserve it". Both increase the deficit and both changes will leave a large group screwed. How is one change necessary "because of the deficit", yet the other is unthinkable when it affects the deficit as well? Seems a very inconsistent logic, IMO. maybe to you there is one to me...the ACA is a big boondoggle....another huge federal project that will add who knows how many trillions to the deficits of not only the feds, but the states also i dont know what to do to fix the healthcare situation, but imo the ACA is NOT the answer in the other, you have a program where people have PAID INTO the system for 30, 40 years or more they were promised some return for all the money that was confiscated from them..... social security is that promise..... i would be willing to discuss means testing but not at the levels of the fictional couple maybe 10 million in assets, or 500k in annual income........ ss changes need to be made.....but medicare is a much bigger problem
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 24, 2013 16:30:10 GMT -5
Angel: i think i see your point, and i think you are right. this argument is not really about the deficit, it is about priorities. and this is actually where the left, right, liberal, and conservative converge. the problem is that we have different things on our grocery list. liberals want less entanglement between government and business, particularly the MIC, and more social liberty. leftists want a wider safety net, and less elitism in all aspects of society. rightists want a government small enough to be drowned in a bathtub, including social programs, and no military cutbacks. conservatives want smaller government and more individual and corporate liberty. there is very little overlap in those four groups, even though the goal is the same: lower deficits. Good point & wise words.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,532
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 16:31:37 GMT -5
I am just pointing out an inconsistency in your opinions. You claim you want to the ACA over the deficit. Which will leave millions lacking insurance and affordable healthcare. But, you aren't willing to contemplate any changes to SS because all those middle & upper class savers "earned it and deserve it". Both increase the deficit and both changes will leave a large group screwed. How is one change necessary "because of the deficit", yet the other is unthinkable when it affects the deficit as well? Seems a very inconsistent logic, IMO. maybe to you there is one to me...the ACA is a big boondoggle....another huge federal project that will add who knows how many trillions to the deficits of not only the feds, but the states also i dont know what to do to fix the healthcare situation, but imo the ACA is NOT the answer in the other, you have a program where people have PAID INTO the system for 30, 40 years or more they were promised some return for all the money that was confiscated from them..... social security is that promise..... don't take this personally, but there was no promise, gd. i know that people like to say it, but promise implies a contract, and there is absolutely no obligation for the SSA to pay out 100% on benefits. i know that seems harsh, and wrong, and a million other things, but it is a fact. it is only liable for what is paid IN. and if that fails to match what is paid OUT, then benefits will be cut, and that is just how it is.i would be willing to discuss means testing but not at the levels of the fictional couple maybe 10 million in assets, or 500k in annual income........ ss changes need to be made.....but medicare is a much bigger problem agreed. it is the elephant in the room. and it is not even being seriously discussed, which worries me.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 24, 2013 16:33:59 GMT -5
I am just pointing out an inconsistency in your opinions. You claim you want to the ACA over the deficit. Which will leave millions lacking insurance and affordable healthcare. But, you aren't willing to contemplate any changes to SS because all those middle & upper class savers "earned it and deserve it". Both increase the deficit and both changes will leave a large group screwed. How is one change necessary "because of the deficit", yet the other is unthinkable when it affects the deficit as well? Seems a very inconsistent logic, IMO. maybe to you there is one to me...the ACA is a big boondoggle....another huge federal project that will add who knows how many trillions to the deficits of not only the feds, but the states also i dont know what to do to fix the healthcare situation, but imo the ACA is NOT the answer in the other, you have a program where people have PAID INTO the system for 30, 40 years or more they were promised some return for all the money that was confiscated from them..... social security is that promise..... i would be willing to discuss means testing but not at the levels of the fictional couple maybe 10 million in assets, or 500k in annual income........ ss changes need to be made.....but medicare is a much bigger problem I think it is like DJ said - it comes down to priorities. It isn't about the deficit per say, but rather your priorities. The deficit in your opinion is a bigger priority than healthcare. SS is a bigger priority to you than the deficit. I understand now, although I still think all the screaming about the deficit is just because it is the one thing you can cling to and use to explain why you want to the ACA. The truth is you just hate it. But, honestly until republicans come up with a better solution, I don't really care how much they hate it. And as much as PBP wants to believe otherwise, the ACA is here to stay.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 24, 2013 16:35:05 GMT -5
I have a tendency to think some of the states that are whining about budget problems might do themselves a lot of good if they take the time and effort to slap some of those greedy hands out of the till. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/whistle.gif)
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 24, 2013 16:35:54 GMT -5
don't take this personally, but there was no promise, gd. i know that people like to say it, but promise implies a contract, and there is absolutely no obligation for the SSA to pay out 100% on benefits. i know that seems harsh, and wrong, and a million other things, but it is a fact. it is only liable for what is paid IN. and if that fails to match what is paid OUT, then benefits will be cut, and that is just how it is. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/yeahthat.gif) What is more, SS would be one of the easiest things to long term. For some weird reason, most everyone under 40 has been conditioned to believe they won't be getting anything from SS.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 5, 2024 7:13:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 16:41:40 GMT -5
Yeah, I never understood that conditioning. I mean, if they cut the benefits in half, the program will stay solvent possibly forever. So why not assume you'll get at least half? I don't count SS in my planning, but I'm sure I will get it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 24, 2013 17:30:42 GMT -5
I've offered the only solution there really, realistically is: deregulation. 1. Make insurance- insurance. It won't cover maintenance and the sniffles- it is there to cover catastrophic losses that could not possibly or reasonably be expected to be borne by an individual- like totaling a car, or a house fire. 2. Shift from third party payer to a market-based, consumer-driven delivery of health services.
3. Allow consumers to form buyers co-ops, and buy across state lines for insurance and health services. 4. Make healthcare and health insurance tax deductible. 5. Make health insurance, and the delivery of health services the responsibility of the individual. 6. Allow charitable organizations, doctors, and hospitals to fill in the gaps and begin to phase out Medicare and Medicaid as well- because they've both failed and can no longer be sustained. Ok, so help me out: How does your plan help say a 53 yr old with MS who under the previous system could not purchase insurance due to pre-existing conditions? I know how Obamacare helps this person, so explain how your system makes it so this person can both find isnurance and afford it.
ObamaCare helps this person? How? You first- I already know how the free market helps people in every situation- even the one you just described by making the best products and services available at the lowest price to the most people- that's what the market does. And the market produces a surplus of wealth, much of which goes to charities to help people. Now, I've already directly refuted- both in its very own thread, and in this thread at LEAST once, the notion that pre-existing conditions are covered. They are, but since your hypothetical 53 year old will be paying the fair market premium- there's effectively no coverage. notmsnmoney.proboards.com/thread/35524/free-lunch-um-yeah?page=1How does your plan help a single mom with 2 kids that makes 30K/yr? I understand that your plan would make insurance somewhat cheaper, but now you aren't covering well visits, vaccines, flu shots, ear infections. So insurance is slightly cheaper, although likely still not affordable to someone of that income level and it has tons more out-of-pocket costs. Suppose one of the kids has asthma. Does your plan cover the $400/month needed in asthma meds? Or does your plan only cover when the kid needs to be rushed to the ER and hospitalized for several days after the mom couldn't afford the maintenance medication that would work best and had to settle for cheap rescue inhalers?
My 'plan' which is really just leaving people the fuck alone- is the only plan that's ever really worked. Your plan- which is the same old central planning- tax, spend, mandate, regulate, and micro-manage people plan that has NEVER worked does this for your single mom: If she has full time employment, she could be cut to part time, or fired. If she's lucky enough to keep her job, she's mandated to buy insurance (if she doesn't already have it through her employer- in which case she doesn't need ObamaCare) from a government run internet health insurance exchange that currently doesn't work, pay premiums- depending on her state- that are significantly higher than what she can get prior to the ObamaCare trainwreck. And while yes, I did notice there are 5 states where premiums are expected to decrease- here's the comprehensive state by state expected increase in premiums by age under ObamaCare: If she doesn't have full time employment, she won't be able to find a full time job anytime soon in the current environment of Obama economic chaos- caused in large part by the trainwreck that is ObamaCare. I'm really incredulous that you actually believe your own bullshit anymore? Seriously? Are you saying this plan helps anyone? I want details on how these people get insurance. I understand the details of the ACA. If we are going to repeal and replace it, then I want to understand how the new plan ensures that these folks can get insurance and can afford it. Broad ideas that in theory will lower the costs aren't good enough for me. Lower costs only help some and without regulations protecting the sick, those with pre-existing conditions are still screwedNobody understands the details of the ACA. I doubt you're "THE" person that does. As has been discussed- people that are screwed remain screwed under the ACA- so I guess you don't really understand it quite as well as you thought you did. Further, will you now admit my sources were correct? You were wrong. ACA was no where close to being ready for prime time, and is as of now not "glitchy" but not even launched.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 24, 2013 17:45:27 GMT -5
I am just pointing out an inconsistency in your opinions. You claim you want to the ACA over the deficit. Which will leave millions lacking insurance and affordable healthcare. But, you aren't willing to contemplate any changes to SS because all those middle & upper class savers "earned it and deserve it". Both increase the deficit and both changes will leave a large group screwed. How is one change necessary "because of the deficit", yet the other is unthinkable when it affects the deficit as well? Seems a very inconsistent logic, IMO. maybe to you there is one to me...the ACA is a big boondoggle....another huge federal project that will add who knows how many trillions to the deficits of not only the feds, but the states also i dont know what to do to fix the healthcare situation, but imo the ACA is NOT the answer in the other, you have a program where people have PAID INTO the system for 30, 40 years or more they were promised some return for all the money that was confiscated from them..... social security is that promise..... i would be willing to discuss means testing but not at the levels of the fictional couple maybe 10 million in assets, or 500k in annual income........ ss changes need to be made.....but medicare is a much bigger problem SPOT ON.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 24, 2013 17:47:14 GMT -5
Yeah, I never understood that conditioning. I mean, if they cut the benefits in half, the program will stay solvent possibly forever. So why not assume you'll get at least half? I don't count SS in my planning, but I'm sure I will get it. Nah. It's going to be phased out.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 24, 2013 17:53:58 GMT -5
NOBODY- least of all you- has made the case that the ACA won't leave millions lacking in insurance. It's already destroying the health insurance industry in America making what problems there were with lack of coverage much, much worse. Florida is just the latest story- 300,000 Floridians just got a letter notifying them that their coverage is ending because they don't have the plan the government thinks they should have. jacksonville.com/business/2013-10-22/story/florida-blue-policies-transition-not-being-dropped
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 24, 2013 17:55:25 GMT -5
Ok, so help me out: How does your plan help say a 53 yr old with MS who under the previous system could not purchase insurance due to pre-existing conditions? I know how Obamacare helps this person, so explain how your system makes it so this person can both find isnurance and afford it.
ObamaCare helps this person? How? You first- I already know how the free market helps people in every situation- even the one you just described by making the best products and services available at the lowest price to the most people- that's what the market does. And the market produces a surplus of wealth, much of which goes to charities to help people. Now, I've already directly refuted- both in its very own thread, and in this thread at LEAST once, the notion that pre-existing conditions are covered. They are, but since your hypothetical 53 year old will be paying the fair market premium- there's effectively no coverage. notmsnmoney.proboards.com/thread/35524/free-lunch-um-yeah?page=1Obamacare helps this person because now they are able to purchase health isnurance, whereas before insurers would refuse to sell them insurance. How aren't you able to grasp that? As far as the rest of your free-market mumbo jumbo talk - the free market is what currently allows insurers to deny this person insurance. Explain to me what in your changes will allow this person to get affordable insurance. Free market doesn't cut it or we wouldn't have problems today. Wait - the question was how does your plan help this woman? You didn't actually answer that. Leaving her the fuck alone doesn't help her if she needs & wants insurance. Leaving her the fuck alone doesn't help her pay the $400/month for medication her son needs. You want to answer the question rather than deflect? As far as all your ACA complaints - very few jobs are shifting workers to part-time or firing, so odds are she would be just fine. More importantly she can now afford insurance. Yes, premiums did go up in many locations. In part due to the changes in minimum coverage and in part due to no longer allowing insurers to only insure the healthy. But, this woman would get her insurance subsidized so that she can afford insurance on her low income. Her family can get coverage under the ACA. Can she get coverage under your plan? I think many people understand the details of the ACA although you seem to be showing you aren't one of them. You don't even seem able to grasp that the ACA is more than just a single website. Even if the website wasn't working, it doesn't kill the ACA. I gave you two examples of people helped by the ACA and asked what your plan would do to help them. You deflected the question and rambled on about the free market and the evils of Obamacare. So you want to actually answer the question instead of deflecting and trying to change the subject? The ACA helps people like those in the examples I gave. How does your plan help them? They need and want insurance. They have pre-existing conditions and/or low income. With the ACA they can get insurance. Explain to me how your plan helps them. And here is a hint - if free market were the answer then the ACA never would have been proposed because it wouldn't be need.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 24, 2013 17:58:10 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 24, 2013 17:59:52 GMT -5
Angel- the ACA is more than a website. The website is the tip of the iceberg. If and when they ever get it fixed- then the real fun starts. I'm truly miffed at how anyone that thinks the gang that can't shoot straight (or design a working website in THREE FUCKING YEARS!) has ANY BUSINESS IN OUR HEALTHCARE?!?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 24, 2013 18:02:56 GMT -5
NOBODY- least of all you- has made the case that the ACA won't leave millions lacking in insurance. It's already destroying the health insurance industry in America making what problems there were with lack of coverage much, much worse. Florida is just the latest story- 300,000 Floridians just got a letter notifying them that their coverage is ending because they don't have the plan the government thinks they should have. If it leaves millions uninsured it will be by their own choice, not lack of access or affordability. Right now millions are uninsured that want insurance. They just can't buy it because insurance companies don't have to offer it to people with pre-exisitng conditions. Or they can't buy it because it is unaffordable. As a result they lack access to adequate health care. How does your plan ensure everyone has access to affordable insurance? That is all I am trying to get from you. How does your plan accomplish what the ACA accomplishes? You may not like how it does it, but the ACA does accomplish this goal. I would love to consider any other proposal that accomplishes this same goal (and hopefully more) in a better manner than the ACA. You provided a proposal, but failed to explain how it accomplishes what I see as the most important thing that the ACA accomplishes - affordable insurance for all.
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 7,057
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Oct 24, 2013 18:31:24 GMT -5
Yeah, I never understood that conditioning. I mean, if they cut the benefits in half, the program will stay solvent possibly forever. So why not assume you'll get at least half? I don't count SS in my planning, but I'm sure I will get it. I'm 44 and through high school my Mom always told me I wouldn't get any social security, so I need to start saving as soon as I start working. That kind of programming is hard to overcome.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 24, 2013 18:34:43 GMT -5
So let me get this right- according to PBP spouses cannot obtain insurance through Obamacare or their own workplace so they are out, people with shitty healthcare policies can't either so they are out- and of course people with pre-existing conditions are out because they cannot afford the new polcies, you know, the ones that cost the same as everyone elses will- because people with pre-existing conditions apparently are broke or don't work. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/sarcasm.png) Pretty much obvious that there is no one on this board that hates this law more than PBP- hence the full out assault regardless of truth or accuracy. Maybe he can get a job at Fox Love the Heritage chart comparing the previous 'non group market' rates to the exchange rates- can't even logically compare the two- but I find it a miracle that they couldn't run the entire table in the red as biased as manipulative as they are. Funny- wasn't it Heritage that came up with the individual mandate back when it was popular with the personal responsibility Republicans?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,532
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 19:25:59 GMT -5
the Heritage chart is complete bullshit. just look at VIRGINIA. it doesn't even pass the sniff test. anyone who actually CARED about looking utterly ridiculous would never publish such data. but apparently, in desperation, Heritage doesn't really care if they look, act, and smell like Krusty The Clown, they are gonna go ahead and lay their already alarmingly poor reputation on the line in a Sysyphan attempt to kill the ACA. good luck with that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,532
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Oct 24, 2013 19:27:21 GMT -5
Employers are dropping coverage for spouses due to ObamaCare: no, they are dropping spousal coverage and BLAMING ObamaCare. candidly, we never had spousal coverage, here. the other place where i am CFO doesn't either.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 24, 2013 20:06:38 GMT -5
NOBODY- least of all you- has made the case that the ACA won't leave millions lacking in insurance. It's already destroying the health insurance industry in America making what problems there were with lack of coverage much, much worse. Florida is just the latest story- 300,000 Floridians just got a letter notifying them that their coverage is ending because they don't have the plan the government thinks they should have. If it leaves millions uninsured it will be by their own choice, not lack of access or affordability. Right now millions are uninsured that want insurance. They just can't buy it because insurance companies don't have to offer it to people with pre-exisitng conditions. Or they can't buy it because it is unaffordable. As a result they lack access to adequate health care. How does your plan ensure everyone has access to affordable insurance? That is all I am trying to get from you. How does your plan accomplish what the ACA accomplishes? You may not like how it does it, but the ACA does accomplish this goal. I would love to consider any other proposal that accomplishes this same goal (and hopefully more) in a better manner than the ACA. You provided a proposal, but failed to explain how it accomplishes what I see as the most important thing that the ACA accomplishes - affordable insurance for all. Ahhh, so all we need is a law that forces them to buy it. Because Lord knows I have to have a gun to my head before I'll buy anything I want. ![](http://www.slobodaiprosperitet.tv/sites/default/files/images/statism.preview.jpg) I suppose the obvious retort will be that the law also mandates insurance companies to sell insurance to those currently uninsurable, and that it subsidizes their premiums- maybe. And for these and the other various and sundry benefits of ObamaCare, we need 2,700 pages of law, and another (so far) 50,000 pages of regulations? Put down the Koo-Aid, Angel. The game is up.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 24, 2013 20:10:43 GMT -5
Yeah, I never understood that conditioning. I mean, if they cut the benefits in half, the program will stay solvent possibly forever. So why not assume you'll get at least half? I don't count SS in my planning, but I'm sure I will get it. I'm 44 and through high school my Mom always told me I wouldn't get any social security, so I need to start saving as soon as I start working. That kind of programming is hard to overcome. My dad is a CPA (not practicing anymore) but in the 80's he was practicing and as early as 1989 when I joined the Navy he explained to me about the fact that even at that time the government's own experts described the program as "actuarily unsound" and financial planners that used to talk about Social Security as one of the three legs of the financial stool (at this time- in 1989) were increasingly starting to talk about a fourth leg: work. If you recall, this was in the shadow of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which so graciously lifted earnings "limits" so as to "allow" people drawing social security to continue working- until they die, I guess. And don't even get me started on the "return" on Social Security taxes had they been invested in an indexed fund.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 24, 2013 20:17:53 GMT -5
the Heritage chart is complete bullshit. just look at VIRGINIA. it doesn't even pass the sniff test. anyone who actually CARED about looking utterly ridiculous would never publish such data. but apparently, in desperation, Heritage doesn't really care if they look, act, and smell like Krusty The Clown, they are gonna go ahead and lay their already alarmingly poor reputation on the line in a Sysyphan attempt to kill the ACA. good luck with that. That's a really good way to look at it ![](http://images.proboards.com/new/tongue.png) They are going to be pushing this boulder uphill forever I guess- and why not- they still are not over the New Deal. I have an idea- vote to repeal it some more over the next few years- and don't forget to put the country's finances in jeopardy over it at every opportunity either. Eventually you will win ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/crazy.gif) (Or you could act like the people we pay you to be and find a way to improve it, adjust it, etc. through compromise- otherwise known as governing)
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 24, 2013 20:23:40 GMT -5
Your still deflecting Paul. So you've got nothing to propose that solves the lack of access and affordability of millions to health insurance?
I'm still waiting to hear the "replace" part of the "repeal and replace" that you and others keep proposing. Everything I've heard suggested doesn't come close to fixing the major issues with health insurance like the ACA.
You may not like the ACA, but just admit you've got nothing better to offer.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 5, 2024 7:13:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 20:26:59 GMT -5
I'm 44 and through high school my Mom always told me I wouldn't get any social security, so I need to start saving as soon as I start working. That kind of programming is hard to overcome. My dad is a CPA (not practicing anymore) but in the 80's he was practicing and as early as 1989 when I joined the Navy he explained to me about the fact that even at that time the government's own experts described the program as "actuarily unsound" and financial planners that used to talk about Social Security as one of the three legs of the financial stool (at this time- in 1989) were increasingly starting to talk about a fourth leg: work. If you recall, this was in the shadow of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which so graciously lifted earnings "limits" so as to "allow" people drawing social security to continue working- until they die, I guess. And don't even get me started on the "return" on Social Security taxes had they been invested in an indexed fund. You speak so authoritatively... if only you could get your language correct. "Actuarily" is not a word. A statistician who crunches numbers for the Insurance industry is called an "actuary". ("Actuary" is a noun) That statistician performs "actuarial" tasks. ("Actuarial" is an adjective) The actuary's statistical analyses are done "actuarially" ("actuarially" is an adverb). But "actuarily"... is nonsense. It's not a word. It's not merely grammatical sloppiness or careless spelling. Actually, it's gibberish.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jul 5, 2024 7:13:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 20:31:21 GMT -5
I have a tendency to think some of the states that are whining about budget problems might do themselves a lot of good if they take the time and effort to slap some of those greedy hands out of the till. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/whistle.gif) What greedy hands might you be referring to?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Oct 24, 2013 20:31:28 GMT -5
I'm 44 and through high school my Mom always told me I wouldn't get any social security, so I need to start saving as soon as I start working. That kind of programming is hard to overcome. My dad is a CPA (not practicing anymore) but in the 80's he was practicing and as early as 1989 when I joined the Navy he explained to me about the fact that even at that time the government's own experts described the program as "actuarily unsound" and financial planners that used to talk about Social Security as one of the three legs of the financial stool (at this time- in 1989) were increasingly starting to talk about a fourth leg: work. If you recall, this was in the shadow of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which so graciously lifted earnings "limits" so as to "allow" people drawing social security to continue working- until they die, I guess. And don't even get me started on the "return" on Social Security taxes had they been invested in an indexed fund. Of course it is unsound without adjustments- demographics change, people live longer, DUH! Of course back when they talked about the 3 legged stool a PENSION was one of them- long replaced by the 401K where the future retiree is being hammered on multiple fronts. And for the last time on Social Security- IT IS NOT AN INVESTMENT! Tell me genius- what would an index fund do for you if you became disabled and could never work again? What will it do if your child is born disabled needing a lifetime of special care? It is always the same argument- from people that were/are fortunate and have yet to have a need for SS that want to trash the whole system. Get over it- you are just a likely as the next person to end up on the government tit so quit equating SS to some bullshit investment.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Oct 24, 2013 20:38:00 GMT -5
And frankly- like the rest of the sane, rational people in America- I'm far too impatient with this discussion to continue it. The fact that the ACA is a giant disaster will dawn on the rest of America soon enough. The key "features" of the law will unravel, officially through piecemeal acts of Congress, or unofficially through the utter impossibility and impracticality of implementation, and a combination of outright nullification, or due to the unpopularity and impracticality of enforcement.
The GOP will declare victor here and there, the Democrats will blame whatever failure they are backed into a corner and have to accept responsibility for on GOP sabotage and obstructionism.
The debate will continue long into the future- and while the ACA may not only be a website today, in ten years- the reality is that in ten years it will be- only a website.
The Democrats dream of deliberately destroying private sector health insurance and healthcare so that the public clamors for their vaunted "single payer" is now dead. They've simply lost too much credibility on the issue, and it's getting to the point of irreversibility. Like I said they'll never be held fully accountable- they never are. But they won't dare bring up the topic. It's going to be Democrat Kryptonite for a very, very, very long time.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Oct 24, 2013 20:48:19 GMT -5
I have a tendency to think some of the states that are whining about budget problems might do themselves a lot of good if they take the time and effort to slap some of those greedy hands out of the till. ![](http://syonidv.hodginsmedia.com/vsmileys/whistle.gif) What greedy hands might you be referring to? The greedy hands of elected and appointed critters, gdgyva. To what greedy hands did you think I might be referring?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Oct 24, 2013 20:55:10 GMT -5
And frankly- like the rest of the sane, rational people in America- I'm far too impatient with this discussion to continue it. Lol! Just admit it, you've got nothing. You hate the law but can't come up with something better. It sucks, but this is why Republicans are failing to kill the ACA. There is no better solution that keeps a free market aspect to insurance while ensuring everyone has access at the same time. And the old system sucks enough that many of us feel like going back would be a step backwards.
|
|