A little History test, not sure if all the Qusetions are real

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Neither isn't a solution..........it's avoiding the question.No, it is rejecting the only two solutions you gave, I gave my opinion and you must be rejecting that one

Letting the public deal with it obviously hasn't workedDid you miss the point that the gov at the state levels is in it and messing it up alreadY? You are the one avoiding things............notice how there's so many ways that the insurance companies can choose not to cover stuff. A policy is purchased. As a consumer you need to understand what you got for your moneyDo you think that was like that when they first started? No, until the states got involved forcing insurance agencies into coverages there was a free and growing product and market. Are all corps evil to you? Obviously not.......so then are consumers happy about it? Obviously not. A plaitude. Surveys have shown the public does not see health coverage as a problem. The perception of a problem is being generated by politions so they have an issue So there alone your theory has failed.My theory has already been proven to work. We are seeing your theory start to fail as gov gets more of thier damed fingers into it support special interests ....you know, ones like you

Now.......will insurance companies listen more to customers or the government? Obviously the government, they have more power. So why hasn't anything been done about that? Gee you think it has anything to do with the insurance company special interest groups bribing congress reps for votes? Broken, not working.Not broken yet but you are working on it

So you don't believe in the privilidged few...........take Mr Bush for instance. Let's say he didn't inherit his millions or billions, who knows. Where do you think he would be today without the family's money? He didn't earn it. Do you think he ever needed to worry about healthcare? There's just one of the priviledged few. Then look at a kid raised by a single mother who makes $20k a year.......which do you think is gonna get better healthcare? Not one of the priviledged few.Oh grow up. Are you mad because someone has more than you? Ahhhh, too bad. Get over it

I believe in taking care of everybody equally.........the country's benefits isn't just for the top 1%.....it's for everybody.You are a socialist. There are countries you can go to support you views

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If 17k people are dying a year because of lack of health insurance that's failure.

If health insurance companies are allowed to weasel their way out of covering life saving procedures, that's failure.

A lot of people aren't in debt, trouble, or dead due to not having health insurance..........but rather due to the fact that they are or were underinsured.

There's two parts to fixing that problem though.........reasonable healthcare prices and reasonable insurance rates for complete coverage.

One fix for that would be a government run healthcare plan.........it's the easiest way to keep prices low and make sure everything is covered.

Just take a look at oil prices, this theory that by letting companies compete it will keep the prices down isn't working.

Also, I'm not saying that government run healthcare isn't the only option........but it would be the quickest and easiest.

Quote

Quote

Quote

SS is the one headed toward failer. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too

Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure?

Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older).

What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison.

VR/Marg

First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money.

The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers.

Now, you say the health care system is failing. How?

I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures

Gov run health care is starting to fail in Canada, the UK France and other countries. The horror stories coming from those countries should give pause to anyone that thinks the gov can run it better. The biggest part of the problems we do have today are govenment caused as I gave example earlier. And to think gov taking over is one of the "easiest" fixes ?????????? That whold thought process scrares me to death

If you're not happy with the current administration, then vote and make sure you get everyone you know to vote.always do

Let me ask you this...........would it be easier for private individuals to fix healthcare prices and insurance rates and coverage or would it be easier for a government?Neither, get the government out of it and let the private sector do it. And it would

And I'm not saying theoretical application, I'm saying who are the companies going to listen to better.The people, they do not listen to government, the comply

And the people I've personally talked to about canada's healthcare prefer it over the us system......and they also at one time lived in the us. You will find those but I do not buy it. Hell, even Canadian officials come to the US when their like is on the line. More stories of waiting is what I have heard I haven't personally spoke to anybody from france or the uk about their healthcare systems. But if we're the richest and greatestest country anywhere like we keep hearing, than I think we would have a better shot than anybody else at making it work right for everybody rather than just the priviledged few that can currently afford insurance.

Again, I do not buy the "privalaged few " mantra. That is talking point bull shit and a gernality. The route you support is socialism. If that is your opinion fine. But call it what it is.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money.

The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers.

Now, you say the health care system is failing. How?

I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures.

Quote

Apologize for the delay in responding, started writing in Illinois and finished in Georgia.
Agree that in the context of the overall spectrum of possibilities, i.e., along the spectrum from notionally perfect (whatever that is) to failed state in the developing world under oppressive regime, the US healthcare system is not failing.

Quote

(quoting my original question)
On a relative scale which system is having more problems currently healthcare or Social Security? And why?

Both social security and healthcare expenditures will increasingly impact the US economy.

From my perspective, the trends w/r/t the US healthcare system are deleterious and of more concern than Social Security.

The impact of healthcare expenditures (~16% of GDP FY06) is larger on the overall US national economy than Social Security (~4.1% GDP FY06, http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/press/2005/analysis_midsession2005071405.pdf). The rate of increase of cost of healthcare (private costs and benefits/entitlements) is larger than Social Security, inflation, GDP, population.

----

Nota benes: A couple comparative because the budget is a zero-sum game:

-- Defense-related spending ~3.9% of GDP in FY05 (not including Supplementals for OEF/OIF, See Chart 1 at http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues/issuearea/Defense.cfm and Chart 4: “modernization” covers a lot of budget items, including Basic Research, Applied Research, and Advanced Technology Development (BA1-BA3).

-- Foreign Aid, which includes some military aid, accounts for ~0.2% of GDP, see Figure 8, p.19 of http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf

----

Heathcare costs:

The rising costs of health care aren’t necessarily coming from the type of illnesses that are getting the most attention today and I suspect that you will agree with me that the government (aka ‘the taxpayer’) can’t pay for it. Someone else can argue the normative of who "should" pay for it in a free-market.

"In eight of the top fifteen conditions [by cost not by incidence], a rise in the cost per treated case, not rising numbers of cases treated, accounted for most of the growth in spending. For instance, the treated prevalence of heart disease remained constant between 1987 and 2000. Thus, a rise in the cost per treated heart disease case accounted for nearly 70 percent of the rise in medical care spending btween 1987 and 2000." (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w4.437/DC1)

The 6 mostly costly conditions are heart disease, pulmonary issues [asthma, smoking,etc], mental health conditions, cancer, hypertension, and trauma; see data table:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/vol0/issue2004/images/data/hlthaff.w4.437/DC1/Thorpe_Aug_Ex2.gif

In 1950, the US spent ~5% of GDP on health care. If you had a heart attack in 1950, it was usually fatal. Most of us value living longer and staying healthy. How are we going to pay for it?

Projections for the U.S. health care spending range from
-- 24% of GDP by 2011 ( http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w3.1v1/DC1)
to
--20% of GDP by 2015 (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.25.w61)
to
--“one-third of GDP” by 2050 ( http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st286/)

If current expectations of care continue (in which you might include “elective care”) eventually hard choices are going to have to be made, e.g., including but not limited to rationing care &/or increased taxes.

Medicare & Medicaid are also expected to grow, as those costs are connected to overall increase in medical expenses.

Two different estimates:
Medicare expenses are estimated to increase from 3.1% (FY06) to 7.3% of GDP by 2035.
Medicare expenses are projected to increase to 11.3% of GDP by 2081 (2007 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, pp. 92-93, and 141-142, http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR06/trTOC.html[/urk]
&
[url]http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/AlternativePhysicianUpdate.pdf)

The U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the cost of Medicare & Medicaid to consume 21.9% of GDP by 2050, assuming that medical costs overall continue to rise at their historical rate rather than increase (The Long-Term Budget Outlook, Congressional Budget Office, December 2005, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=6982).

I don’t know of any good, robust analysis of the economics of a severe health care strain, such as mutation of H1N1 avian influenza to a strain that is highly contagious human to human. Larry Wein (Stanford Business School, altho’ he’s more of an operations research mathematician) has done some *very good* work constructing models but the assumptions he makes w/r/t the biology and epidemiology have been problematic, im-ever-ho.(References most welcome.)

Social Security: ‘Running out of money’ or not expected to maintain a surplus indefinitely? Benefits are expected to exceed income from payroll taxes ~2015. Between ~2015 & 2025, Social Security is expected to cover the gap btw payroll taxes and benefits using interest from investments. Around 2025, economists estimate the Social Security Trust fund will begin redeeming (i.e., cashing out investments), which will impact the overall US federal budget surplus or deficit.

In the same analysis cited above, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Social Security to rise from 4.2% (FY05) to 6.4% of GDP by 2050.

Social Security is also fixed *comparatively* to healthcare. Yes, there will be more people (as Baby Boomers retire) but the benefits are not going to increase based on costs of new technology. Benefits from Social Security may actually decrease; it’s not quite the ‘third rail’ of US politics that it once was. Retirement age w/r/t receiving Social Security benefits is already set to increase.

----

Both healthcare and Social Security are facing economic challenges due in no small part to changing demographics.

Is the likely impact of increasing healthcare costs potentially going to have a greater impact on the US economy and nation than aging critical infrastructure, especially all the bridges and highways built initially as part of the Eisenhower’s “Limited Access System”?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money.

The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers.

Now, you say the health care system is failing. How?

I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures.

Quote

Apologize for the delay in responding, started writing in Illinois and finished in Georgia.
Agree that in the context of the overall spectrum of possibilities, i.e., along the spectrum from notionally perfect (whatever that is) to failed state in the developing world under oppressive regime, the US healthcare system is not failing.

Quote

(quoting my original question)
On a relative scale which system is having more problems currently healthcare or Social Security? And why?

Both social security and healthcare expenditures will increasingly impact the US economy.

From my perspective, the trends w/r/t the US healthcare system are deleterious and of more concern than Social Security.

The impact of healthcare expenditures (~16% of GDP FY06) is larger on the overall US national economy than Social Security (~4.1% GDP FY06, http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/press/2005/analysis_midsession2005071405.pdf). The rate of increase of cost of healthcare (private costs and benefits/entitlements) is larger than Social Security, inflation, GDP, population.

----

Nota benes: A couple comparative because the budget is a zero-sum game:

-- Defense-related spending ~3.9% of GDP in FY05 (not including Supplementals for OEF/OIF, See Chart 1 at http://www.heritage.org/research/features/issues/issuearea/Defense.cfm and Chart 4: “modernization” covers a lot of budget items, including Basic Research, Applied Research, and Advanced Technology Development (BA1-BA3).

-- Foreign Aid, which includes some military aid, accounts for ~0.2% of GDP, see Figure 8, p.19 of http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf

----

Heathcare costs:

The rising costs of health care aren’t necessarily coming from the type of illnesses that are getting the most attention today and I suspect that you will agree with me that the government (aka ‘the taxpayer’) can’t pay for it. Someone else can argue the normative of who "should" pay for it in a free-market.

"In eight of the top fifteen conditions [by cost not by incidence], a rise in the cost per treated case, not rising numbers of cases treated, accounted for most of the growth in spending. For instance, the treated prevalence of heart disease remained constant between 1987 and 2000. Thus, a rise in the cost per treated heart disease case accounted for nearly 70 percent of the rise in medical care spending btween 1987 and 2000." (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w4.437/DC1)

The 6 mostly costly conditions are heart disease, pulmonary issues [asthma, smoking,etc], mental health conditions, cancer, hypertension, and trauma; see data table:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/vol0/issue2004/images/data/hlthaff.w4.437/DC1/Thorpe_Aug_Ex2.gif

In 1950, the US spent ~5% of GDP on health care. If you had a heart attack in 1950, it was usually fatal. Most of us value living longer and staying healthy. How are we going to pay for it?

Projections for the U.S. health care spending range from
-- 24% of GDP by 2011 ( http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w3.1v1/DC1)
to
--20% of GDP by 2015 (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/hlthaff.25.w61)
to
--“one-third of GDP” by 2050 ( http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st286/)

If current expectations of care continue (in which you might include “elective care”) eventually hard choices are going to have to be made, e.g., including but not limited to rationing care &/or increased taxes.

Medicare & Medicaid are also expected to grow, as those costs are connected to overall increase in medical expenses.

Two different estimates:
Medicare expenses are estimated to increase from 3.1% (FY06) to 7.3% of GDP by 2035.
Medicare expenses are projected to increase to 11.3% of GDP by 2081 (2007 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, pp. 92-93, and 141-142, http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR06/trTOC.html[/urk]
&
[url]http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/AlternativePhysicianUpdate.pdf)

The U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated the cost of Medicare & Medicaid to consume 21.9% of GDP by 2050, assuming that medical costs overall continue to rise at their historical rate rather than increase (The Long-Term Budget Outlook, Congressional Budget Office, December 2005, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=6982).

I don’t know of any good, robust analysis of the economics of a severe health care strain, such as mutation of H1N1 avian influenza to a strain that is highly contagious human to human. Larry Wein (Stanford Business School, altho’ he’s more of an operations research mathematician) has done some *very good* work constructing models but the assumptions he makes w/r/t the biology and epidemiology have been problematic, im-ever-ho.(References most welcome.)

Social Security: ‘Running out of money’ or not expected to maintain a surplus indefinitely? Benefits are expected to exceed income from payroll taxes ~2015. Between ~2015 & 2025, Social Security is expected to cover the gap btw payroll taxes and benefits using interest from investments. Around 2025, economists estimate the Social Security Trust fund will begin redeeming (i.e., cashing out investments), which will impact the overall US federal budget surplus or deficit.

In the same analysis cited above, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Social Security to rise from 4.2% (FY05) to 6.4% of GDP by 2050.

Social Security is also fixed *comparatively* to healthcare. Yes, there will be more people (as Baby Boomers retire) but the benefits are not going to increase based on costs of new technology. Benefits from Social Security may actually decrease; it’s not quite the ‘third rail’ of US politics that it once was. Retirement age w/r/t receiving Social Security benefits is already set to increase.

----

Both healthcare and Social Security are facing economic challenges due in no small part to changing demographics.

Is the likely impact of increasing healthcare costs potentially going to have a greater impact on the US economy and nation than aging critical infrastructure, especially all the bridges and highways built initially as part of the Eisenhower’s “Limited Access System”?

VR/Marg

So, do you think putting the gov in control of heath care will make it less expensive?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

So, do you think putting the gov in control of heath care will make it less expensive?

That's beyond my areas of expertise.

State government interdiction in Texas w/r/t tort reform seems to be having a positive impact w/r/t availability of physicians, particularly Ob-Gyns: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/05/america/05doctors.php

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

So, do you think putting the gov in control of heath care will make it less expensive?

That's beyond my areas of expertise.

State government interdiction in Texas w/r/t tort reform seems to be having a positive impact w/r/t availability of physicians, particularly Ob-Gyns: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/05/america/05doctors.php

VR/Marg

Well, you and I are on the same page then. Much can be done. Government take over would not be among the choices for me anyway

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, do you think putting the gov in control of heath care will make it less expensive?

That's beyond my areas of expertise.

State government interdiction in Texas w/r/t tort reform seems to be having a positive impact w/r/t availability of physicians, particularly Ob-Gyns: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/05/america/05doctors.php

VR/Marg

Well, you and I are on the same page then. Much can be done. Government take over would not be among the choices for me anyway

If the free market place can (or will) proverbially step up to the plate to deal with the issues in a manner that is acceptable to the majority of population that would be preferable.

I see the current US discussion largely as a response (not a 'backlash') to the problems, rising costs, and expectations that consumers are experiencing with the current private healthcare system.

If the current system was working, would this dialogue be taking place?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Social Security is broken.

I haven't noticed any elderly people starving on the streets recently.

Right now Social Security is a horribly regressive tax, accounting fiction, lousy retirement plan, safety net for elderly poor, disability insurance, and life insurance all rolled into one. We need to throw out the separate tax, stop hiding the government's spending problems, provide a real retirement savings plan, and pay for the rest with general funds like every other line-item on the budget.

The last time I looked at it, the tax meant that the working class are paying a marginal tax rate up to 12.4% higher than wealthy people did on their salary and 27% more than they did on other earnings. That's broken.

Current Social security "surpluses" are used to offset the spending deficit, making the picture look much rosier than it really is. Even Clinton didn't have a balanced budget. That's broken.

An average earning male born after 1966 will get a .5% inflation adjusted rate of return on Social Security. Low-income black males with a shorter life expectancy are likely to have negative return rates. Inflation adjusted bonds return 1.8%. Long term the stock market averages 7%. And no one can leave unused Social Security savings to their children! That's broken.

Depending on your circumstances, you could invest half your money in bonds, half in the stock market, loose the entire stock market investment, and still have higher retirement benefits than you'd have with Social Security!

Assuming the retirement age isn't increased, FICA taxes don't go up, and social security benefits increase with inflation (all of which Congress can change with a pen stroke) I'll need to outlast my statistically expected lifespan by five years to get a 0% inflation adjusted return on my investments. If I took my current investment out, made the same contributions in the future, and got a 3% inflation adjusted rate of return from investing in low-risk high-quality bonds I could get

$134K a year for the same 15 years: over 4X my social security benefit
$72K a year until I die at 100: over 2X my social security benefit
$44K a year forever: nearly 30% more than my social security benefit with $1.5M in today's money going to my heirs

As it stands the numbers are $32K a year with a big fat zero going to my heirs.

That's broken.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

[

Would you consider my interest in ensuring that no flawed or misleading information/citations/data be used in support of my assertions (even though it would go unnoticed by others) to be a good thing? Bad thing? Don't care? Just curious.

I think it is very cool that you take the trouble.

As for presidents before Bush, the baby boom has been in existence since the 1940s and no-one has done a whole lot about the impact it will have on SS, so you can blame all of them.

Quote

As for presidents before Bush, the baby boom has been in existence since the 1940s and no-one has done a whole lot about the impact it will have on SS, so you can blame all of them.

Agreed. The situation with SS has been well known for quite some time, and politicians from both sides share blame.
---------------------------

Quote

Bush(2) is the only one that called it his top priority, though, while achieving bugger-all.

Disagree.

Bill Clinton gave highest priority to SS reform starting in '98, and maintained that priority until the end of his term. By the end of his term he had as might say "achieved bugger-all." (I think he did achieve thing, more later)


Clinton may or may not have ever used the exact words "top priority" that GWB did in in stating his committment to SS reform, but I'm certain hisintent is clear:

WJ Clinton, 1998 State of the Union Address:

"[Social Security] is headed for bankruptcy, if its problems are not addressed...

"I have a simple four-word answer: save Social Security first," "


WJ Clinton, 1999 State of the Union Address:

"First and above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st century,"

There is plenty of documentation that shows the priority he gave to the issue. Hundreds of quotes are recorded. Between 1993 and 1997 he made three statements that SSA thought important enough to put on their historical archive web page. For the years '98, '99, and '00 respectively, there are 24, 24, and 38 statements listed. SS reform became very important in '98.

Anyway, I don't know why he didn't succeed in enacting his reform plan. Some people say that the impeachment trial, etc. got in the way. There were probably differences of opinion with the Repubs over taxes, etc. Maybe the Repubs just wanted to screw him. Who knows? Same old shit. Politics (BTW, GWB has been working very hard to get his SS reform plan passed just like Clinton did. GWB is getting the same shit form Congress that Clinton probably got.

I think Clinton did achieve things. Clinton was very bright and likely understood the SS system better than anyone, and still does. Interestingly, and certainly due to Clinton's understanding of SS, Clinton came to the conclusion that Private Accounts should be used hold and grow a portion of each persons benefit. The private acounts would allow that portion of the money to gain market-rate interest and more importantly, not be available for politicians to get their grubby paws on it.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

• Quote

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So, do you think putting the gov in control of heath care will make it less expensive?

That's beyond my areas of expertise.

State government interdiction in Texas w/r/t tort reform seems to be having a positive impact w/r/t availability of physicians, particularly Ob-Gyns: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/05/america/05doctors.php

VR/Marg

Well, you and I are on the same page then. Much can be done. Government take over would not be among the choices for me anyway

If the free market place can (or will) proverbially step up to the plate to deal with the issues in a manner that is acceptable to the majority of population that would be preferable.

I see the current US discussion largely as a response (not a 'backlash') to the problems, rising costs, and expectations that consumers are experiencing with the current private healthcare system. part of my point is that is not private. the states have been messing with it for years

If the current system was working, would this dialogue be taking place?Again, I think this is more of a manufactured problem by our politions and special interest groups

VR/Marg

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Casurf1978 0]

Not nearly as scary as these.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushdumbquotes.htm

[kallend 1,626]

Quote

First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money.

NO, IT IS NOT. Bush used that scare tactic as an election ploy and clearly you bought it hook line and sinker. Even if nothing is done SS will be in surplus for decades.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[sv3n 0]

No, I don't think so tim............

Quote

Question: Let me ask you this...........would it be easier for private individuals to fix healthcare prices and insurance rates and coverage or would it be easier for a government?

Answer: Neither, get the government out of it and let the private sector do it. And it would

If it would then what has it been doing so far? Why do prices keep going up? Your theory is failing as we speak.

Your excuse that it's the government's fault at the state level might have some weight, but there would be no reason for state intervention on healthcare if it was dealt with on a national level. And once again, I think you're mistaken............show me some evidence that pre-existing conditions and legal loopholes came out of states getting involved in healthcare policy. Prove it.

I don't think I'm working on anything............the system that's currently in place is failing and health insurance seems to be a problem because of high prices for care and insurance. It's time for some change...........you can't expect to keep doing the same thing and get different results.

Oh I forgot, the new plan is to give tax breaks to the people who pay for their own healthcare bills.........that's great let's give more tax breaks to the rich while the poor can't afford it.

I could care less about how much money I have in the bank.........as long as I can do the things I want to do I'm fine. I don't want anything of your's or anybody else's, but I do believe that as a society we have a responsibility to everyone in it to make sure they are safe and cared for. Wether it's the guy making billions in the oil industry or the guy pumping fuel at the gas station...........your job or bank account doesn't give you more value as a human being. You shouldn't get special tax breaks because you have a larger bank account and you shouldn't get crappy health insurance because you work at low end job. Everybody spends the same amount of time away from their family and friends when they spend an hour at work. And you're gonna say well that's because they have a higher job...........well that's what the better salary is for. If you wanna live in a feudal system where the lords and kings get taken care of while the surfs do the crap work for them then go ahead......but it's not gonna help us evolve as a society.

I hate to tell you this but if you consider taken care of your citizens socialism, then america is a socialist country........we have such horrible things as wellfare, medicaid, and social security. They may not function perfectly, but there only one person to blame for that...........the leadership in charge of making those systems work. Run forest run!

Quote

Quote

Neither isn't a solution..........it's avoiding the question.No, it is rejecting the only two solutions you gave, I gave my opinion and you must be rejecting that one

Letting the public deal with it obviously hasn't workedDid you miss the point that the gov at the state levels is in it and messing it up alreadY? You are the one avoiding things............notice how there's so many ways that the insurance companies can choose not to cover stuff. A policy is purchased. As a consumer you need to understand what you got for your moneyDo you think that was like that when they first started? No, until the states got involved forcing insurance agencies into coverages there was a free and growing product and market. Are all corps evil to you? Obviously not.......so then are consumers happy about it? Obviously not. A plaitude. Surveys have shown the public does not see health coverage as a problem. The perception of a problem is being generated by politions so they have an issue So there alone your theory has failed.My theory has already been proven to work. We are seeing your theory start to fail as gov gets more of thier damed fingers into it support special interests ....you know, ones like you

Now.......will insurance companies listen more to customers or the government? Obviously the government, they have more power. So why hasn't anything been done about that? Gee you think it has anything to do with the insurance company special interest groups bribing congress reps for votes? Broken, not working.Not broken yet but you are working on it

So you don't believe in the privilidged few...........take Mr Bush for instance. Let's say he didn't inherit his millions or billions, who knows. Where do you think he would be today without the family's money? He didn't earn it. Do you think he ever needed to worry about healthcare? There's just one of the priviledged few. Then look at a kid raised by a single mother who makes $20k a year.......which do you think is gonna get better healthcare? Not one of the priviledged few.Oh grow up. Are you mad because someone has more than you? Ahhhh, too bad. Get over it

I believe in taking care of everybody equally.........the country's benefits isn't just for the top 1%.....it's for everybody.You are a socialist. There are countries you can go to support you views

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If 17k people are dying a year because of lack of health insurance that's failure.

If health insurance companies are allowed to weasel their way out of covering life saving procedures, that's failure.

A lot of people aren't in debt, trouble, or dead due to not having health insurance..........but rather due to the fact that they are or were underinsured.

There's two parts to fixing that problem though.........reasonable healthcare prices and reasonable insurance rates for complete coverage.

One fix for that would be a government run healthcare plan.........it's the easiest way to keep prices low and make sure everything is covered.

Just take a look at oil prices, this theory that by letting companies compete it will keep the prices down isn't working.

Also, I'm not saying that government run healthcare isn't the only option........but it would be the quickest and easiest.

Quote

Quote

Quote

SS is the one headed toward failer. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too

Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure?

Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older).

What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison.

VR/Marg

First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money.

The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers.

Now, you say the health care system is failing. How?

I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures

Gov run health care is starting to fail in Canada, the UK France and other countries. The horror stories coming from those countries should give pause to anyone that thinks the gov can run it better. The biggest part of the problems we do have today are govenment caused as I gave example earlier. And to think gov taking over is one of the "easiest" fixes ?????????? That whold thought process scrares me to death

If you're not happy with the current administration, then vote and make sure you get everyone you know to vote.always do

Let me ask you this...........would it be easier for private individuals to fix healthcare prices and insurance rates and coverage or would it be easier for a government?Neither, get the government out of it and let the private sector do it. And it would

And I'm not saying theoretical application, I'm saying who are the companies going to listen to better.The people, they do not listen to government, the comply

And the people I've personally talked to about canada's healthcare prefer it over the us system......and they also at one time lived in the us. You will find those but I do not buy it. Hell, even Canadian officials come to the US when their like is on the line. More stories of waiting is what I have heard I haven't personally spoke to anybody from france or the uk about their healthcare systems. But if we're the richest and greatestest country anywhere like we keep hearing, than I think we would have a better shot than anybody else at making it work right for everybody rather than just the priviledged few that can currently afford insurance.

Again, I do not buy the "privalaged few " mantra. That is talking point bull shit and a gernality. The route you support is socialism. If that is your opinion fine. But call it what it is.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Not nearly as scary as these.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushdumbquotes.htm

Here's some mentality for you:

8. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." —speaking underneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003

7. “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories … And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." —Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003



Uh-huh........and where are they now? Maybe someone was lying?

...and you're in violation of your face!

[Andy9o8 0]

Thanks to all of you for re-copying & re-pasting every goddam line of every goddam post in the thread into each new post before responding with about 5 new words. Really enhances the readability of the thread.

Lazy bastards, alla yiz.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money.

NO, IT IS NOT. Bush used that scare tactic as an election ploy and clearly you bought it hook line and sinker. Even if nothing is done SS will be in surplus for decades.

Your buddy Obama just said Saturday it is! He said more is going out than in in a short period of time. well, what it is it??????

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Social Security is broken.

I haven't noticed any elderly people starving on the streets recently.

It's not broken, it's still in surplus. The problem is it will be broken unless it gets an adjustment to deal with future demographics, and our President who said SS reform is his top priority during two successive election campaigns has actually done sweet F.A.

I think that the President should have pushed the issue harder after the 04 election because he knew he wasn't going to get anything after the 06 election. Congress was not going to capitulate, not with Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid at the helm. They made it clear they were not going to work with the executive branch. In the end, I'll point out that the

Politically, I understand. However, when the baby boomers start retiring en masse over the next 10 years, social security will require an overhaul the government and taxpayer cannot afford. Allowing some form of privatization is the best option to maintain the trust fund, while ensuring some type of piggy bank for future generations.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

No, I don't think so tim............

Quote

Question: Let me ask you this...........would it be easier for private individuals to fix healthcare prices and insurance rates and coverage or would it be easier for a government?

Answer: Neither, get the government out of it and let the private sector do it. And it would

If it would then what has it been doing so far? Why do prices keep going up? Your theory is failing as we speak.CANT YOU READ????? You are only seeing what you want in my posts.

Your excuse that it's the government's fault at the state level might have some weight, but there would be no reason for state intervention on healthcare if it was dealt with on a national level. And once again, I think you're mistaken............show me some evidence that pre-existing conditions and legal loopholes came out of states getting involved in healthcare policy. Prove it.

I don't think I'm working on anything............the system that's currently in place is failing and health insurance seems to be a problem because of high prices for care and insurance. It's time for some change...........you can't expect to keep doing the same thing and get different results.

Oh I forgot, the new plan is to give tax breaks to the people who pay for their own healthcare bills.........that's great let's give more tax breaks to the rich while the poor can't afford it.

I could care less about how much money I have in the bank.........as long as I can do the things I want to do I'm fine. I don't want anything of your's or anybody else's, but I do believe that as a society we have a responsibility to everyone in it to make sure they are safe and cared for. Wether it's the guy making billions in the oil industry or the guy pumping fuel at the gas station...........your job or bank account doesn't give you more value as a human being. You shouldn't get special tax breaks because you have a larger bank account and you shouldn't get crappy health insurance because you work at low end job. Everybody spends the same amount of time away from their family and friends when they spend an hour at work. And you're gonna say well that's because they have a higher job...........well that's what the better salary is for. If you wanna live in a feudal system where the lords and kings get taken care of while the surfs do the crap work for them then go ahead......but it's not gonna help us evolve as a society.

I hate to tell you this but if you consider taken care of your citizens socialism, then america is a socialist country........we have such horrible things as wellfare, medicaid, and social security. They may not function perfectly, but there only one person to blame for that...........the leadership in charge of making those systems work. Run forest run!

Quote

Quote

Neither isn't a solution..........it's avoiding the question.No, it is rejecting the only two solutions you gave, I gave my opinion and you must be rejecting that one

Letting the public deal with it obviously hasn't workedDid you miss the point that the gov at the state levels is in it and messing it up alreadY? You are the one avoiding things............notice how there's so many ways that the insurance companies can choose not to cover stuff. A policy is purchased. As a consumer you need to understand what you got for your moneyDo you think that was like that when they first started? No, until the states got involved forcing insurance agencies into coverages there was a free and growing product and market. Are all corps evil to you? Obviously not.......so then are consumers happy about it? Obviously not. A plaitude. Surveys have shown the public does not see health coverage as a problem. The perception of a problem is being generated by politions so they have an issue So there alone your theory has failed.My theory has already been proven to work. We are seeing your theory start to fail as gov gets more of thier damed fingers into it support special interests ....you know, ones like you

Now.......will insurance companies listen more to customers or the government? Obviously the government, they have more power. So why hasn't anything been done about that? Gee you think it has anything to do with the insurance company special interest groups bribing congress reps for votes? Broken, not working.Not broken yet but you are working on it

So you don't believe in the privilidged few...........take Mr Bush for instance. Let's say he didn't inherit his millions or billions, who knows. Where do you think he would be today without the family's money? He didn't earn it. Do you think he ever needed to worry about healthcare? There's just one of the priviledged few. Then look at a kid raised by a single mother who makes $20k a year.......which do you think is gonna get better healthcare? Not one of the priviledged few.Oh grow up. Are you mad because someone has more than you? Ahhhh, too bad. Get over it

I believe in taking care of everybody equally.........the country's benefits isn't just for the top 1%.....it's for everybody.You are a socialist. There are countries you can go to support you views

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If 17k people are dying a year because of lack of health insurance that's failure.

If health insurance companies are allowed to weasel their way out of covering life saving procedures, that's failure.

A lot of people aren't in debt, trouble, or dead due to not having health insurance..........but rather due to the fact that they are or were underinsured.

There's two parts to fixing that problem though.........reasonable healthcare prices and reasonable insurance rates for complete coverage.

One fix for that would be a government run healthcare plan.........it's the easiest way to keep prices low and make sure everything is covered.

Just take a look at oil prices, this theory that by letting companies compete it will keep the prices down isn't working.

Also, I'm not saying that government run healthcare isn't the only option........but it would be the quickest and easiest.

Quote

Quote

Quote

SS is the one headed toward failer. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too

Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure?

Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older).

What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison.

VR/Marg

First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money.

The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers.

Now, you say the health care system is failing. How?

I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures

Gov run health care is starting to fail in Canada, the UK France and other countries. The horror stories coming from those countries should give pause to anyone that thinks the gov can run it better. The biggest part of the problems we do have today are govenment caused as I gave example earlier. And to think gov taking over is one of the "easiest" fixes ?????????? That whold thought process scrares me to death

If you're not happy with the current administration, then vote and make sure you get everyone you know to vote.always do

Let me ask you this...........would it be easier for private individuals to fix healthcare prices and insurance rates and coverage or would it be easier for a government?Neither, get the government out of it and let the private sector do it. And it would

And I'm not saying theoretical application, I'm saying who are the companies going to listen to better.The people, they do not listen to government, the comply

And the people I've personally talked to about canada's healthcare prefer it over the us system......and they also at one time lived in the us. You will find those but I do not buy it. Hell, even Canadian officials come to the US when their like is on the line. More stories of waiting is what I have heard I haven't personally spoke to anybody from france or the uk about their healthcare systems. But if we're the richest and greatestest country anywhere like we keep hearing, than I think we would have a better shot than anybody else at making it work right for everybody rather than just the priviledged few that can currently afford insurance.

Again, I do not buy the "privalaged few " mantra. That is talking point bull shit and a gernality. The route you support is socialism. If that is your opinion fine. But call it what it is.

You did not read most of my posts. So be it. You want socialism, I dont

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Thanks to all of you for re-copying & re-pasting every goddam line of every goddam post in the thread into each new post before responding with about 5 new words. Really enhances the readability of the thread.

Lazy bastards, alla yiz.

Welcome to speakers corner

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Thanks to all of you for re-copying & re-pasting every goddam line of every goddam post in the thread into each new post before responding with about 5 new words. Really enhances the readability of the thread.

Lazy bastards, alla yiz.

Welcome to speakers corner

No soup for you.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Social Security is broken.

I haven't noticed any elderly people starving on the streets recently.

It's not broken, it's still in surplus. The problem is it will be broken unless it gets an adjustment to deal with future demographics, and our President who said SS reform is his top priority during two successive election campaigns has actually done sweet F.A.

I think that the President should have pushed the issue harder after the 04 election because he knew he wasn't going to get anything after the 06 election. Congress was not going to capitulate, not with Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid at the helm. They made it clear they were not going to work with the executive branch. In the end, I'll point out that the

Politically, I understand. However, when the baby boomers start retiring en masse over the next 10 years, social security will require an overhaul the government and taxpayer cannot afford. Allowing some form of privatization is the best option to maintain the trust fund, while ensuring some type of piggy bank for future generations.

I feel kallend position is don't touch it until it is too late. The ad I just saw this moring was Obama saying we have to fix SS. I wonder if kallend will still say it is just a scare tactic when the Dems say the same as Bush did?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Thanks to all of you for re-copying & re-pasting every goddam line of every goddam post in the thread into each new post before responding with about 5 new words. Really enhances the readability of the thread.

Lazy bastards, alla yiz.

Welcome to speakers corner

No soup for you.

Part of the problem in this tread is one poster is putting the replys at the beginning of the tread not the end. I will bold sometimes to answer specific lines but I try and put replys at the end. (sometimes I screw up)

Can I have some soup now??

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[1969912 0]

Quote

Thanks to all of you for re-copying & re-pasting every goddam line of every goddam post in the thread into each new post before responding with about 5 new words. Really enhances the readability of the thread.

Lazy bastards, alla yiz.

This is applicable.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

Is this the speech you meant?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/27/obama-clinton-dodging-social-security/?eref=ib_politicalticker


The SS solvency/funding issue has been used as a political tool since at least the Reagan Admin. It's busines as usual.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Is this the speech you meant?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/27/obama-clinton-dodging-social-security/?eref=ib_politicalticker


The SS solvency/funding issue has been used as a political tool since at least the Reagan Admin. It's busines as usual.

Probably true but it kind of kicks the arguement that the Bush admin did nothing.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Is this the speech you meant?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/10/27/obama-clinton-dodging-social-security/?eref=ib_politicalticker


The SS solvency/funding issue has been used as a political tool since at least the Reagan Admin. It's busines as usual.

Probably true but it kind of kicks the arguement that the Bush admin did nothing.....

Sure does.


As election the election gets closer we'll start hearing claims that GWB did nothing after he set SS reform as his highest priority. He ha has been trying get a reform bill through, but there is opposition to the private account portion. Bill Clinton recognized the need/importance of private accounts back in the 90's (see my post from yesterday).


Another non-Right-Winger also thought private equity accounts were needed. That was FDR, in 1935.


In an address to Congress on January 17, 1935, FDR said:

"For perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions," the president allowed. But after that, he explained, it would be necessary to move to what he called "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." In other words, his call for the establishment of Social Security directly anticipated today's reform agenda: "It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans,"

"What Roosevelt was talking about is the need to update Social Security sometime around 1965 with what today we would call personal accounts," says one top GOP member of the Ways and Means Committee. "By my reckoning we are only about 40 years late in addressing his concerns on how make Social Security solvent."
---------------------

Congressional leaders are calling private accounts "gambling".

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG