Quick Poll

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by bigrun

26 more years!...yippee, i accept!....all you guys 40 and under are on your own...good luck with your investments...

just listen to Riot. she knows everything.

all we have to do is tax people more and we will be fine forever.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

just listen to Riot. she knows everything.

all we have to do is tax people more and we will be fine forever.

Riot has already lived through quite a few GOP, "OMGZ, SS will be GONE in ..... years!" false scares.

[Antitrust32]

^ not worried about the future cause she'll get her money from it.

selfish just like Obama. who cares if he adds trillions upon trillions to the debt as long as he gets re-elected.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Unfortunately, yes.

I say unfortunately as all of us are forced into paying for this Ponzi scheme, which after paying for the typical 45 years from age 22 to age 67, wil not yield any gains. In fact, you will be paid a "benefit" less than you paid in, in principal only - no yield, and you will be taxed on it again. It was taxed the first time, and then it's taxed again. In addition, the original premise of "your employer pays half" is a farce. If you have a job paying $100,000 a year (just to keep the math easy), and the SS tax is 8%, you get $92,000 before all other taxes are subtracted, and your employer is presumed to pay another $8000. But the cost to your employer of retaining your labor is $108,000, not $100,000. The fact that you didn't see $108,000 as your gross pay is irrelevant.

It's also unfortunate in that this program breeds dependence, as it was designed to do. There is no trust fund, no lock box. The 22 year old young worker is paying for the guy who retired yesterday. There are many less new suckers coming into the system than the people retiring who, understandably, believe they are entitled to what has been sold to them as a benefit. Interestingly. even though most of us will not get back enough money to cover our "investment" (read that as "the amount we've been ripped off over our careers"), there are so many more retirees collecting than those paying, that the program still runs in the red all the time. This is why there are periodic calls to "fix" or "save" social security. Any fund yielding gains over the long term would not need this.

Social Security is the blurriest case, by design, in assessing recipient status because it's a social program trying to masquerade as a retirement investment. It fails on all counts.

The important part is that, as a recipient, the retiree collecting social security does have that necessarily play into his voting. This is why the Democrats love the program, and the Republicans are scared to ever mathematically get it in line so it does not run a deficit.

Great post joey, well written but i like dan's and riot's answers better...
My nickname in the AF was 'Joey' and i am originally from the western part of the great state of PA...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

^ not worried about the future cause she'll get her money from it.

Very worried about the future because I have many nieces and nephews.

selfish just like Obama.

At least I'm not stupid and rude like you.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

baloney that it wont fail at all for 50 years.

paying out 78% is epic failure. 2037 is 26 years away. basically a hop, skip and a jump away.

according to the cbo report i read yesterday, entitlements already take 60% of the federal budget... according to the one i linked to the other day from '09, in about 70 years, entitlements and interest payments will absorb 100% of the federal budget.
no money for interior, defense, energy, all that 'discretionary' spending.

yeah, it just needs a little tweak.
ss might need a little tweak, the entire system needs a complete overhaul.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

according to the cbo report i read yesterday, entitlements already take 60% of the federal budget... according to the one i linked to the other day from '09, in about 70 years, entitlements and interest payments will absorb 100% of the federal budget.

Yeah, if we don't do anything about either entitlements OR interest payments. We do have an exploding population compared to 40 years ago. Of course our social programs will increase, we have more people. We also have more paying in.

no money for interior, defense, energy, all that 'discretionary' spending.

How could there be "no money" for those things, when the taxable population is increasing, even if rates stayed the same as now? That would be only relatable to interest compounding (mostly to interest compounding) The budget won't stay at X = value in 2011, when it's 2070. The budget will increase. Percentage of budget devoted to things will change, of course.

yeah, it just needs a little tweak.
ss might need a little tweak, the entire system needs a complete overhaul

I've agreed that SS just needs a little tweek, but Medicare needs attention, and Medicaid is in deep trouble due to the states being broke and unable to contribute their portions.

The answer is not just to get rid of the programs, no matter how much Ron Paul would like to. They are valuable programs that help our citizens, help those in need. We have to ask the question, "Do we want to remain a first world country, or not?" Because remaining first world is an investment in ourselves - and we don't even do as much as other first world countries do for their citizens now. We already are no longer in the Top Ten or even Twenty for health, education, happiness, longevity, innovation, etc.

I'm tired of people calling these programs "entitlements" and speaking as if they are welfare, or something evil, they most certainly are not. We care about our fellow Americans, and that is what these programs are about, and that is why WE, as a country, decided to do them. I'm sick and tired of people demonizing these programs and attempting to characterize them as evil.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yeah, if we don't do anything about either entitlements OR interest payments. We do have an exploding population compared to 40 years ago. Of course our social programs will increase, we have more people. We also have more paying in.



How could there be "no money" for those things, when the taxable population is increasing, even if rates stayed the same as now? That would be only relatable to interest compounding (mostly to interest compounding) The budget won't stay at X = value in 2011, when it's 2070. The budget will increase. Percentage of budget devoted to things will change, of course.



I've agreed that SS just needs a little tweek, but Medicare needs attention, and Medicaid is in deep trouble due to the states being broke and unable to contribute their portions.

The answer is not just to get rid of the programs, no matter how much Ron Paul would like to. They are valuable programs that help our citizens, help those in need. We have to ask the question, "Do we want to remain a first world country, or not?" Because remaining first world is an investment in ourselves - and we don't even do as much as other first world countries do for their citizens now. We already are no longer in the Top Ten or even Twenty for health, education, happiness, longevity, innovation, etc.

I'm tired of people calling these programs "entitlements" and speaking as if they are welfare, or something evil, they most certainly are not. We care about our fellow Americans, and that is what these programs are about, and that is why WE, as a country, decided to do them. I'm sick and tired of people demonizing these programs and attempting to characterize them as evil.

ask the cbo, they're the ones who put that in their report. apparently, based on their numbers, the currently 60% of the fed budget would grow to the point that there would only be enough money left after the big three of ss/medicare/aid to pay interest on the debt.

and as i've said elsewhere, the word entitlements is a misnomer. unless of course the people getting it out didn't pay in-which does happen.
the issue isn't that 'we paid in, we should get back'. it's that what we're paying in isn't enough to cover what's going out-not so much the ss portion as the medicare portion.
and as the report said, medical costs have exploded, while we have gotten no healthier. i think one issue is that doctors call for every test under the sun, even when not needed, to cover their ass if something odd was to pop up in future with a patient. or, you have insurance, so they call for stuff that you may not need. for instance, i have a back that'll go on occasion-it's the muscle in my lower back. it happens, been that way for 30 years. but recently the hospital here decided they needed an mri machine-and of course it needed paying for. so, the next time i went in with a back issue, they said maybe you should get an mri.
or not.
we called a friend, an orthopedic surgeon, and told him what the gen'l practitioner had said. he said there was no need for one.
oh, and the dr-on the hospital board. i have no doubt that most people would have had it done because the doc said so, and hey, the ins will pay...so what the heck.

ha, then there are the commercials...does everyone know you can actually get a prescription for thinning eyelashes-so you can have thick lashes again...apparently as some women age, they get thin eyelashes.
this is a problem??

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and as the report said, medical costs have exploded, while we have gotten no healthier. i think one issue is that doctors call for every test under the sun, even when not needed, to cover their ass if something odd was to pop up in future with a patient.

We do have some of the most expensive healthcare in the world. 1/5 of our economy is healthcare. In other first world countries, it's half that.

That's why things like letting the gov. bargain for drugs would save billions or Medicare. And frankly? Opening up Medicare would be cheaper.

We have to get the exchanges opened up - see what more direct competition between the privates does to the prices.

We have to remember how our healthcare system is set up: insurance companies are only profitable when they are denying you healthcare; and drug companies are most profitable when they have the newest, limited availability drugs on patent.

Neither health insurance companies nor pharmaceutical companies make money by keeping you healthy. The US healthcare system is set up NOT to keep you healthy. It only profits when you are SICK.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Neither health insurance companies nor pharmaceutical companies make money by keeping you healthy. The US healthcare system is set up NOT to keep you healthy. It only profits when you are SICK.

I even heard that all the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies are buying the fast food joints to clog everybody's arteries faster. They also run all those Cheetos commercials so that all the couch potato welfare recipient types can pack on some extra pounds.

Yeah, that's a real conspiracy going on there.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

I even heard that all the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies are buying the fast food joints to clog everybody's arteries faster. They also run all those Cheetos commercials so that all the couch potato welfare recipient types can pack on some extra pounds.

Yeah, that's a real conspiracy going on there.

Good grief. There is no "conspiracy". Look at the basic business model of every insurance company. Your contention is that insurance companies make money by paying out claims? You're nuts.

You contend that pharmaceutical companies make money by having their exclusive, most-expensive drugs come off patent and become generally available? You're nuts.

Insurance companies and drug companies control the healthcare in this nation - not patients and their doctors - we have the most expensive healthcare of every first world nation as a percentage of our GDP, and we have the least obtainable healthcare system of any first world nation. Insurance companies dictate doctors treatment plans for most conditions, not the doctors.

Every AAA rated first world country - other than ours - has nationalized healthcare.

That's not "right" or "left", it's simply a fact.

And if you want to remain on your Social Security disability, I strongly suggest you stop self-immolating, by supporting the party that labels you are a freeloader and wants to kick you off SSDI and end the program, and you start supporting the people who think you deserve SSDI and want the program to remain in place for you. I am completely amazed that you have spent two years on this board actively supporting the politicians that want to end your SSDI and leave you to fend for yourself with nothing.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

Good grief. There is no "conspiracy". Look at the basic business model of every insurance company. Your contention is that insurance companies make money by paying out claims? You're nuts.

You contend that pharmaceutical companies make money by having their exclusive, most-expensive drugs come off patent and become generally available? You're nuts.

Insurance companies and drug companies control the healthcare in this nation - not patients and their doctors - we have the most expensive healthcare of every first world nation as a percentage of our GDP, and we have the least obtainable healthcare system of any first world nation. Insurance companies dictate doctors treatment plans for most conditions, not the doctors.

Every AAA rated first world country - other than ours - has nationalized healthcare.

That's not "right" or "left", it's simply a fact.

And if you want to remain on your Social Security disability, I strongly suggest you stop self-immolating, by supporting the party that labels you are a freeloader and wants to kick you off SSDI and end the program, and you start supporting the people who think you deserve SSDI and want the program to remain in place for you. I am completely amazed that you have spent two years on this board actively supporting the politicians that want to end your SSDI and leave you to fend for yourself.

They also have a very small percentage of our population. Makes it a bit easier. Oh yeah, things seem to be going very well for all of those countries too . Except Germany of course.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Good grief. There is no "conspiracy". Look at the basic business model of every insurance company. Your contention is that insurance companies make money by paying out claims? You're nuts.

You contend that pharmaceutical companies make money by having their exclusive, most-expensive drugs come off patent and become generally available? You're nuts.

Insurance companies and drug companies control the healthcare in this nation - not patients and their doctors - we have the most expensive healthcare of every first world nation as a percentage of our GDP, and we have the least obtainable healthcare system of any first world nation. Insurance companies dictate doctors treatment plans for most conditions, not the doctors.

Every AAA rated first world country - other than ours - has nationalized healthcare.

That's not "right" or "left", it's simply a fact.

And if you want to remain on your Social Security disability, I strongly suggest you stop self-immolating, by supporting the party that labels you are a freeloader and wants to kick you off SSDI and end the program, and you start supporting the people who think you deserve SSDI and want the program to remain in place for you. I am completely amazed that you have spent two years on this board actively supporting the politicians that want to end your SSDI and leave you to fend for yourself with nothing.

Can't wait until the government controls healthcare instead of the "insurance companies and drug companies". That will be SO much better...

Who's issuing this AAA rating you speak of? Does "NICE" of UK get that great rating too, even though cancer deaths there are much higher than ours, and the waiting list for certain treatments is in years? Other than organ transplants, we don't tend to have that here. Or I should say we didn't have that here.

ObamaCare will rightfully be an albatross around the neck of those who supported it and the political party who rammed it down the throats of the people for a long time to come.

And if you think socialized medicine will do anything but SUCK, you're nuts.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

They also have a very small percentage of our population. Makes it a bit easier. Oh yeah, things seem to be going very well for all of those countries too . Except Germany of course.

exactly. when someone goes on and on about health care in other countries and ignore's that fact... I completely disregard their opinion.

[Antitrust32]

I've lived in two countries with socialized medicine. Ireland and New Zealand. Both places made me long for American health care. The care was terrible and you have to wait FOREVER for appointments.

[GenuineRisk]

Danzig, I'm curious as to where you read that statistic that entitlements currently take 60 percent of the federal budget, as I'm not sure that's accurate. I'm not saying you didn't report it correctly; I'm questioning the source where you read it. Most of the mainstream media, honestly, are idiots and don't understand statistics well enough to report on them.

According to factcheck.org, which is a vehmently non-partisan site I do trust:

"The largest components of federal spending are Social Security and Medicare programs for the elderly (33.5 percent of total outlays in 2010) and national defense (20.1 percent). Interest payments on the federal debt alone accounted for 5.7 percent of all federal spending, and that percentage is rising."

Large, but not 60 percent. Unless I'm misunderstanding what the report you read was saying, which is why I'd love to see the original link if you remember where you saw it.

Here's the link to the Factcheck page, which gives a good historical perspective on where we are now in relation to taxes and revenues:

http://factcheck.org/2011/07/fiscal-factcheck/

I do have problems with them lumping SS and Medicare together, as they are two different programs and are funded differently, but it's overall a decent enough article.

Prior to Social Security, the poverty rate of the elderly was over 50 percent, and now, thanks to Social Security, it's 1 in 8 (about 12 percent). That's still high, but nowhere near what it was. And Medicare, a socialized health care program, not only protects the elderly's finances, but protects anyone who has an elderly relative. Get rid of Medicare, and you're basically imposing a 100 percent inheritance tax on the middle class, as many people will wipe out their own savings in order to pay for Mom or Dad's health care in the last six months of life. Or have to say to Mom and Dad, "Sorry; we can't afford dialysis so I hope death by toxic shock isn't too awful for you. Love you, Mom!"

Economic mobility is more difficult in the United States than it is in Europe. Whatever economic class you're in right now is likely the one you'll die in. If you're currently living in a mansion, you'll probably die in one. If you're currently living in a trailer park. you'll probably die in one. You can tell yourself otherwise, but that's how it is, and all the lottery tickets in the world aren't going to do anything other than take another $1 out of your pocket. SS and Medicare offer the elderly some small bit of security at the point in their lives when they are more likely to have difficulty getting work, not least because our nation is very biased against the elderly.

Now, the SS Disability program is in terrible trouble, and if I were a person on Disability, I'd be sweating bullets right now. But part of what is hurting it is raising the retirement age, as that pushes more people onto SS Disability.

And Medicare's problem isn't Medicare, which costs less than private insurance; it's the rising cost of health care, which Medicare doesn't have anything to do with. We have to tackle the cost of health care, not the existence of Medicare. The Health Care Act does start to tackle the cost of health care. Not as well as it could, but it's, at least, a start.

I'm working freelance this year, and it sucks that I'll be liable for the full 15 percent of Social Security payment, as we're just squeaking by right now, but that's the way it is. I'd rather have the program than not have it. My parents having a retirement that does not involve them having to move in with me because they can't afford their house anymore is a heck of a benefit I get now. SS helps give me, and them, that.

[clyde]

I love it when you talk dirty.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

They also have a very small percentage of our population. Makes it a bit easier. Oh yeah, things seem to be going very well for all of those countries too . Except Germany of course.

What number of people do you think is limiting for having a single payer system,and why? (not "nationally" provided health care)

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I've lived in two countries with socialized medicine. Ireland and New Zealand. Both places made me long for American health care. The care was terrible and you have to wait FOREVER for appointments.

Sort of like the 60 million people in America who have no insurance, and thus can only get minimal emergency care if that?

Oh, wait. No, it's not like that at all. You have insurance so you stroll right into a doctors office by just calling for an appointment.

We don't need to imagine what it's like for those terrible lazy people with cancer or lifetime disability or serious disease who can't get insurance, let alone regular medical care.

Most of the bankruptcies in this country are related to medical bills. Most of those bankrupt people have insurance.

America should be ashamed of our health care system, that's only for the elite and the "haves". And those trying to repeal minimal insurance company standards so they can no longer abuse their clients in certain ways to profit from them (the ACA) - what are you playing at? Do you hate - or care so very little - about your fellow Americans so very much, you want to deny them the basic human need of health care?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

exactly. when someone goes on and on about health care in other countries and ignore's that fact... I completely disregard their opinion.

When someone goes on and on about the vast totality of healthcare in other countries around the world - cost, delivery, quality, etc. - based only upon their minimal personal experience with short-term work visas - I completely disregard their opinion