Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-19-2016, 2:16 PM Reply   
While everyone is bashing Trump, no one is paying attention to health care. Looks as though we are going to a single payer system, namely only one insurer will provide coverage. I think that is called a monopoly. Oh well, who need health insurance anyway. http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/0...acare-yet.aspx
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       10-19-2016, 2:52 PM Reply   
Right now the cost of health care is being driven by the greed of providers. Administration costs have skyrocketed (note that I didn't say doctor's salaries) partly because health insurance companies have to pay whatever a provider chooses to charge. This isn't free market or capitalism because nobody compares prices on their way to the hospital unconscious after a car accident. You end up where you end up and your insurance company pays what they are dictated to pay. People don't even compare prices when they go for a checkup. Why would you? You aren't paying for it directly. This has driven up costs because greed just can't help itself. If you know anything about Medicare and Medicaid, then you know that unlike standard insurance the provider doesn't choose the cost of care. Medicare and Medicaid dictate this charge. Many providers won't take Medicare or Medicaid but this would change if that was the only option because the provider would have to choose to see patients for less or see no patients at all. This is the only thing that will bring down the costs of healthcare with one exception. We could eliminate health insurance altogether. This would also drive down the cost of health care because providers would have to choose between charging based on what the average person can afford or charging a higher price but once again having almost no patients. This option doesn't allow or people to choose in emergency situations (an obvious downfall). This option does bring the free market back into play. I'd go along with either option at this point but the current system isn't working. It wasn't working before the ACA and it still isn't working. The ACA was like putting a Band-Aid on a severed limb. Everyone knew that but it was also the only way to wake people up so they would notice that the proverbial leg of our health care system had been ripped off.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-20-2016, 10:48 AM Reply   
Americans apparently don't have the stomach to control costs in HC. Agree with Eric's post 100%. Doctors aren't the ones getting all the money. Hospitals are out of control and are sucking the system dry. HI companies don't have much incentive to keep costs down until the money source dries up. But with the govt intervening that can't happen until it hits crisis level. HI companies are required to spend 80% of premiums to HC costs or return money. Every year my HI company has returned some indicating that they left money on the table. Yet at the same time every year the premiums go up. Short of getting more clients, increasing HC costs is the only way a HI company can increase the size of the 20% it's allowed to keep.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-22-2016, 9:58 AM Reply   
I see the ACA as only driving up costs. I compare it to requiring insurance companies to charge the same price for people having 5 DWI's and countless accidents to those having no accidents or tickets, and allowing people to buy insurance after they have totaled their car.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-22-2016, 10:04 AM Reply   
I see the ACA for exactly what it is.... Driving up costs *and* insuring people who previously couldn't get insurance. I also see the prior HC policy as only driving up costs while often excluding people. I also compare the previous decades of HI before the ACA as partly the same in both were inflationary and socialized. Remember it was socialized in the workplace. No consideration of health or past illnesses if you were insured in the workplace.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-22-2016, 9:48 PM Reply   
FWIW I have to switch to an ACA plan later this year and it's actually a slightly better plan and $200/mo less.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-23-2016, 8:30 AM Reply   
Which one, the bronze?
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       10-23-2016, 2:55 PM Reply   
We all agree that the ACA hasn't been a miracle cure for the healthcare industry but you are trying to tell me that the best solution is to go back to what we used to have. Do you think that insurance companies would lower your rates if the ACA was repealed?? Of course they wouldn't. My guess is that rates would increase even more. Remember that you weren't arguing against the ACA in your original post. You were arguing against a single payer, public option, or Medicaid expansion calling it a monopoly. You sound like the person who thinks that ticket prices for football games would go down if we only paid football players less money. As if the excessive profits owners would receive as a result of football players making less would be distributed to the fans out of the goodness of the NFL owners' hearts. That isn't how business works.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-23-2016, 4:31 PM Reply   
It appears to be a "gold" plan from what I can tell.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-24-2016, 6:11 PM Reply   
No, Eric I do not see prices going down but I see a public option increasing our deficit and managed with the efficiency of all other government programs. The monopoly I speak of is not the public option but the last remaining insurance company, standing if you will, setting prices as the other companies opt out. I liked the way things were, but that is not going to happen. Wes, my wife has the Gold Plan and even though her premiums did not increase, her deductibles skyrocketed.
Old     (pesos)      Join Date: Oct 2001       10-24-2016, 6:19 PM Reply   
You mean "a" Gold plan, not "the" Gold plan, right? They definitely do seem to vary a bit as far as deductibles/coinsurance goes but I believe the target to be gold is still 80/20?
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       10-24-2016, 8:54 PM Reply   
Do some research about the efficiency of Medicare/Medicaid vs. private insurance. Make sure you are using reputable sources that don't have an agenda. I think you would be dumbfounded by the giant gulf in efficiency ratings. The government run programs are the efficient ones in this case by far. That government inefficiency argument is more of a political talking point than a fact. It certainly applies to the DOD and I think that's where most of the data showing inefficiencies comes from. The government can be inefficient but it isn't inherently inefficient. It can also be the best option.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       10-25-2016, 12:33 PM Reply   
I can't believe that anyone is in favor of this POS
Oblummer and the rest of the liberal idiots screwed the pooch for years to come. Premiums are set to go even higher next year. I seriously debate on even keeping insurance. Unless they change the tax code, I certainly can play the game and not pay heavy penalties.

And before anyone starts rattling on about how Oblubbler care isn't at fault....I call BS

and

those idiots had 2 years to address whatever they wanted to address. They could have addressed costs, tort, standardized procedure costs.....etc. They didn't

and now we will have at least 4 more years of the same mindless crap.

arg
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-25-2016, 2:03 PM Reply   
I know that when using government programs, a patient can't go to Wal-Mart and buy a heating pad. He/she will have to buy a particular heating pad from a particular company at 10 times the price. Another case is a patient cannot just purchase the medicine and syringes and administer the shots him/herself but has to go to the doctor and is charged for the not only inflated medicine, but also an added administration fee. Plus all of the unnecessary paperwork. Eric, neither private nor the government can a good job managing money because our complicated legal system makes prosecuting fraud too expensive. Unfortunately, we live in a society where it is cheaper to absorb the loss than to pay the court costs and if the individual is found guilty, it's only a slap on the wrist..
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       10-25-2016, 2:13 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post

and now we will have at least 4 more years of the same mindless crap.
Assuming the dems take the white house, that doesn't have to be the case. I think reasonable people can see that ACA has had unintended consequences and some of the models and projections haven't played out in reality. It's gonna take some tweaking to fix.

Is there any chance that the GOP could participate meaningfully to make it better?
Old     (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       10-25-2016, 2:16 PM Reply   
Reasonable people knew it was a disaster from the beginning and the only reason it had ANY support is because those on the right knew it would lead to a single pay system.
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       10-25-2016, 3:55 PM Reply   
The ACA saga was, IMHO, the beginning of division in our country, and adding the single-payer system, which is where we are headed, may aggravate the situation even more as the middle class will be taxed more to support this. I'm not sure how willing Ms. Clinton will be to negotiate, but from what I've read, I'm sure that will be her proposal.
Old    deltahoosier            10-25-2016, 5:16 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
Assuming the dems take the white house, that doesn't have to be the case. I think reasonable people can see that ACA has had unintended consequences and some of the models and projections haven't played out in reality. It's gonna take some tweaking to fix.

Is there any chance that the GOP could participate meaningfully to make it better?
If you payed attention to leftist sites, they talked about how this was a poison pill to get single payer. Some where mad initially that Obamacare did not go far enough until they realized what this was for.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       10-25-2016, 5:18 PM Reply   
I'm all for single payer personally. I don't hear trump or his mostly elderly fanbase clamoring to dismantle medicare after all.
Old    deltahoosier            10-25-2016, 5:20 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
The ACA saga was, IMHO, the beginning of division in our country, and adding the single-payer system, which is where we are headed, may aggravate the situation even more as the middle class will be taxed more to support this. I'm not sure how willing Ms. Clinton will be to negotiate, but from what I've read, I'm sure that will be her proposal.
This goes to show you that the democrats are no longer friends of the middle class.
Old    deltahoosier            10-25-2016, 5:23 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
I'm all for single payer personally. I don't hear trump or his mostly elderly fanbase clamoring to dismantle medicare after all.
You have to pay 4.5% of your salary for life to be able to receive this insurance. Why should they want to be kicked off of it. They paid for it for 40 plus years. With that said it has 50% of all healthcare expenditures. Wonder what kind of policy you can get with 4.5% of your salary for the next 45 years being saved?
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       10-25-2016, 5:27 PM Reply   
by 4.5% you mean 1.45%, with a kicker to 2.35 for earnings over 200K, right?

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751.html
Old    deltahoosier            10-25-2016, 5:35 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
by 4.5% you mean 1.45%, with a kicker to 2.35 for earnings over 200K, right?

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751.html
Actually it is 2.9% for employee and employer total. Still you have to pay for life to get it.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-25-2016, 7:11 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
I can't believe that anyone is in favor of this POS
Oblummer and the rest of the liberal idiots screwed the pooch for years to come.
I know! And all the while Republicans were working on a comprehensive HC plan, but nobody cares. The way we are all acting you'd think they've been sitting on their thumbs for the last 8 years. Or worse trying to obstruct any progress at all.
Old     (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       10-25-2016, 8:13 PM Reply   
you calling Oblubber's agenda progress....now that's funny

I hope that the house slows down or halts any "progress" that Hildabeast calls her agenda too.
Old     (deuce)      Join Date: Mar 2002       10-25-2016, 8:29 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
you calling Oblubber's agenda progress....now that's funny

I hope that the house slows down or halts any "progress" that Hildabeast calls her agenda too.
Posts like this keep me coming back!
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       10-26-2016, 8:07 AM Reply   
I always find it insulting when old people tell me about how they paid into the Medicaid and Social Security system for their whole life and now they are entitled to it.

Let's say that I set aside $200 a year for my entire life in a saving account for a nice retirement home. Then I borrow $2000 dollars a year from that account plus a loan so that I can purchase a new corvette every few years. Am I entitled to my fancy retirement home???

The boomers voted to spend their SS and FICA contributions on useless wars and corporate welfare. That money is gone and so are all of my contributions as well as yours.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-26-2016, 9:29 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ord27 View Post
you calling Oblubber's agenda progress....now that's funny

I hope that the house slows down or halts any "progress" that Hildabeast calls her agenda too.
With voters setting such a low bar for Congress, how can we go wrong. You do know that it's Congress that writes the laws. They can actually do something even while obstructing the President. Holding repeated failed votes for repealing the ACA, yet not writing a new HC law to replace it is an example of the kind of failure that voters are comfortable with and embrace.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-26-2016, 9:34 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
The boomers voted to spend their SS and FICA contributions on useless wars and corporate welfare. That money is gone and so are all of my contributions as well as yours.
So you'd be happy if the govt took your 401K and IRA too if your gen continues to run up the fed deficit?

Because from my prospective I was forced to contribute to SS and the people who should lose their investments first are the ones who voluntarily contributed. You do know that the money to repay the safest investment in the world, i.e. Treasury Bonds is gone too. Are you advocating defaulting on them because the money is gone?

Also your assessment of how much paid in vs paid out is a bit suspect. I figured that I'd have over a million dollars in FICA investment alone if the govt paid a nominal interest and wanted to just buy me out based on that.
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       10-26-2016, 11:02 AM Reply   
I was certainly harsh but I don't condone the end of Social Security for boomers. I don't want old people in the streets or competing for jobs any more than boomers without savings want that to happen to them. What I do want is for Boomers to quit calling my generation a bunch of moochers when they are the actual moochers. You claim that you would have gained interest but it's hard to gain interest on an account that doesn't actually have any money in it because it was already spent. The boomers doing the most complaining are generally the ones who voted for Reagan and the Bushes as well as the congressman who spent most of the money on their political donors. There hasn't been a gen X president yet and very few senators and reps are younger than boomers. My generation hasn't even begun to have the power to burn money the way boomers have. Then, while simultaneously complaining about government spending, boomers complain about a small COLA increase during a year with almost no real inflation. That is what I would call entitled. Instead of yelling insults at my generation you should be thanking us for doing our best to pick up your tab.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-26-2016, 11:22 AM Reply   
Whenever I hear some one put down the current generation as entitled my reaction is to refute that claim and turn it around on the accuser. The absurdity is a generation that benefited from unions and high paying jobs in the US and subsequently destroyed all of that in the name of gluttony is not legitimately entitled to make that claim. So yeah, I totally get that point.

But the whole "money is gone" argument is the same argument that could destroy the economic power of the US if one actually took that serious. We could not repay any debt. And as I said before the first in line should be those who were forced to invest in SS by law.

If you were really concerned about it, then you should be more focused on medical costs. If the US doesn't implement cost controls on HC, then we are going to have a struggling society for a long time. For a country that's steeped in the myth of the virtue of 100% capitalism yet not knowing what that is, that's not likely to happen.
Old    deltahoosier            10-26-2016, 3:51 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
I was certainly harsh but I don't condone the end of Social Security for boomers. I don't want old people in the streets or competing for jobs any more than boomers without savings want that to happen to them. What I do want is for Boomers to quit calling my generation a bunch of moochers when they are the actual moochers. You claim that you would have gained interest but it's hard to gain interest on an account that doesn't actually have any money in it because it was already spent. The boomers doing the most complaining are generally the ones who voted for Reagan and the Bushes as well as the congressman who spent most of the money on their political donors. There hasn't been a gen X president yet and very few senators and reps are younger than boomers. My generation hasn't even begun to have the power to burn money the way boomers have. Then, while simultaneously complaining about government spending, boomers complain about a small COLA increase during a year with almost no real inflation. That is what I would call entitled. Instead of yelling insults at my generation you should be thanking us for doing our best to pick up your tab.
That is rich. You know that Social Security is a Democrat led program right? Wasn't it part of FDR's social safety net. People were forced into saving the money and it was supposed to be put aside for them so they would not become a society issue in their retirement years. Now you are trying to say it is not peoples money? Huh. I wonder why Republicans have a natural distrust of the government and don't want you democrats anywhere near their pocketbooks. This almost sounds like the new democrat college students who want forced segregration on campus.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       10-26-2016, 4:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
That is rich. You know that Social Security is a Democrat led program right? Wasn't it part of FDR's social safety net. People were forced into saving the money and it was supposed to be put aside for them so they would not become a society issue in their retirement years. Now you are trying to say it is not peoples money? Huh. I wonder why Republicans have a natural distrust of the government and don't want you democrats anywhere near their pocketbooks. This almost sounds like the new democrat college students who want forced segregration on campus.
The money was never "set aside." The program has ALWAYS depended on the currently-working to fund the beneficiaries.
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       10-26-2016, 4:19 PM Reply   
Social Security is a good thing and as ALL good things done by government it was done by Democrats. I agree with getting health care costs under control and I agree that the national debt is a boogey man used by the GOP to scare simple minded conservative voters. The money you contributed to Social Security WAS your money. It very much WAS. Then people like Delta voted for scumbags that spent it before it even had a chance to earn interest and now it's gone. You can't say "that's my money because I was the one who contributed it to the fund". The reason you can't claim it is because it isn't there anymore. The Democrats didn't take it. Ronald Reagan took it. GHWB took it. Little coke head Bush took it. Newt Gingrich took it. They gave it away to people who are a hell of a lot richer than you are and you let them take it because you worshipped the so called "job creators" like they were gods. You let them give away a dollar so that someone could use that dollar to pay someone 50 cents with it. Now you need me and those younger than I am to fix it after you let them put laws in place to prevent us from fixing it. In the mean time you continue to screw it up on your way to the grave.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-26-2016, 4:44 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
The money was never "set aside." The program has ALWAYS depended on the currently-working to fund the beneficiaries.
Wrong! The money is invested in "Pay on demand" Treasury Bills that earn interest. The current contributions do not fund the payouts because the SS trust fund has a positive balance to the tune of a couple trillion.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-26-2016, 4:52 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
The money you contributed to Social Security WAS your money. It very much WAS. Then people like Delta voted for scumbags that spent it before it even had a chance to earn interest and now it's gone. You can't say "that's my money because I was the one who contributed it to the fund". The reason you can't claim it is because it isn't there anymore. The Democrats didn't take it. Ronald Reagan took it.
Good F*K'n lord. Get an education. The money contributed is not your money because the SC ruled that it's not your money. So yeah, you depend on your elected representatives to protect your "entitlement" to some measure of your contributions. But nobody *stole* the money. It's invested in Treasury Bonds and accounted for. Now if you are a huge douchbag like Trump you might consider it a good idea to default on US debts. But it's the responsibility of sane people to make sure that doesn't happen.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       10-26-2016, 5:04 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Wrong! The money is invested in "Pay on demand" Treasury Bills that earn interest. The current contributions do not fund the payouts because the SS trust fund has a positive balance to the tune of a couple trillion.
John, when the funds collected exceed the annual expenditures, they are invested as you describe. However, that's only if there's a surplus in collections over expenditures. The SYSTEM was not intended to be an individual investment where "your" social security deductions get paid into "your" trustfund account to be released on your retirement. Rather, the deductions all go into a big pool to pay current year expenses (with excess funds "invested" in the trust fund).

of course we all just hope that the entitlement is still there when we retire. But without current peeps paying in, the system fails.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-26-2016, 5:23 PM Reply   
"The amount bought in 2015 was $1,101 billion, while the amount sold was $1,104 billion."

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

Saying that the fund bought slightly more than they redeemed in 2015 suggests that payments are in the black. I'm imagining that there may be another reason for the apparent positive influx of money. Regardless, you are wrong about the money not being set aside, which was my point. You are wrong about the money going into a big pool to pay the current year. Treasury bonds are continually redeemed to pay out and continually purchased by SS taxes. Higher interest bonds can be held in the fund and lower interest bonds redeemed first. You might want to say that it's one and the same, but how you word things affects people's understanding of the issue. And both you and denver are making false claims when you say the money was never set aside or that it was stolen,

I think I made it clear in my post to denver that the money is not your money. No need to segway into it not being an individual retirement account. Yes, we need to make sure the find stays solvent. It's a heck of a lot cheaper to make SS solvent than it is to adopt foreign countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       10-26-2016, 5:47 PM Reply   
So if it's not a pay as you go system, how big was the trust fund on day one of social security, John? Oh yeah it was zero. Deductions started in 1937 and then regularly monthly payments began in 1940. How the heck did we fund retirement for every person over age 65 with just three years of those people's savings (since according to your argument, the contributions of working age folks during those years was going into a trust fund for them)? Oh yeah, we didn't. We spent most of the money as it came in. The trust fund is there to act as a shock absorber in years when FICA collections don't meet the annual payout (1975-1981 being the last big example -- as the result of some bad law, it seems).

Of course now we have this huge demographic issue with our parents (boomers) not having as many kids (gen exers) as their parents ("greatest gen") did. So we have too many retirees and not enough workers to keep the system afloat. And also people are living longer (thanks Obamacare!).
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       10-26-2016, 6:00 PM Reply   
Lots of good stuff here about how the Social Security system works if you want to wonk out on it:

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v75n1/v75n1p1.html

Maybe Grant can do a book report for us and find the ROACHES and BEASTS in the policy details?
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-26-2016, 6:49 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
So if it's not a pay as you go system, how big was the trust fund on day one of social security, John? Oh yeah it was zero.
I could flip that around and say if it's pay as you go then how does the fund have $2.6T. But that's not the point. The point is that you claimed that no money is set aside. Then combine that with the typical claim that the govt stole the money and it pretty much makes the argument that there is no money and that all the money from the current contributors will be gone as soon as it's contributed. It's a deceptive narrative.

The reality is that there is $2.6T set aside and making sure that it stays solvent in the future is a plausible task. And the people who say there is no money or claim it's stolen should STFU because they are only trying to sabotage a program that is essential for old Americans.
Old     (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       10-26-2016, 9:51 PM Reply   
Wow. So much false **** to fix.

SS will be broke in 10 years UNLESS we get reform.

BABY BOOMER *** SUCKERS Yes we expect to pay for your ****. There's more of us than there is of you gentleman.

"All things done by this government, this Demogogue "

Last edited by denverd1; 10-26-2016 at 10:01 PM.
Old     (denverd1)      Join Date: May 2004       10-26-2016, 9:58 PM Reply   
War and handouts. We can't do both with a 1% GDP growth.

The combination has us down 20T. The question is can we fix it.

Lets all go to Florida and wakeboard
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       10-26-2016, 10:26 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
I could flip that around and say if it's pay as you go then how does the fund have $2.6T. But that's not the point. The point is that you claimed that no money is set aside. Then combine that with the typical claim that the govt stole the money and it pretty much makes the argument that there is no money and that all the money from the current contributors will be gone as soon as it's contributed. It's a deceptive narrative.

The reality is that there is $2.6T set aside and making sure that it stays solvent in the future is a plausible task. And the people who say there is no money or claim it's stolen should STFU because they are only trying to sabotage a program that is essential for old Americans.
John, actually if you check out the info in that link I posted, it looks like we are both right. SS is basically pay as you go, but as a compromise to deal with the baby boomers since the 70s (and definitely since fixing being upside down in 83 or so) the baby boomers payed in slightly more than was necessary in order to build up the trust fund to deal with the foreseeable spike in entitlements.

My point was NOT that there isn't a cushion in the trust fund, my point was that it's not "your money." It's not saved "for you." It's saved (or built up) to deal with a known and foreseeable strain on the system. But there's not some tiny slice of the bonds with your name on them. That was my point.

Last edited by shawndoggy; 10-26-2016 at 10:31 PM.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       10-26-2016, 10:28 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by denverd1 View Post
SS will be broke in 10 years UNLESS we get reform.
not broke, but trust fund depleted. Many possible tweaks to buy a little time here and there.
Old     (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       10-27-2016, 11:01 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
John, actually if you check out the info in that link I posted, it looks like we are both right.
Well of course we are both right. Everything we say can't be wrong.

My response was fighting the notion that there is no money set aside because it's been stolen. The point is that there is a trust fund, there is $2.6T in it, you can predict when or if it will run out based on income and payments, and that I believe keeping the fund solvent and sustainable is a practical and obtainable goal. George Bush's Iraq boondoggle alone probably cost more than was necessary to secure SS for the distant future.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       10-27-2016, 11:17 AM Reply   
Yeah I mean I get the "stolen" argument -- if what you own is your own debt, the trust fund is only as good as our ability to service the trust fund obligations from the general fund.

Methinks before we default on the national debt that the fed would just print a ton of money to discount the debt. Of course that also discounts social security recipients' buying power.

Man getting old sucks! Totally makes you paranoid about how people are out to get you and your nest egg won't last.
Old    deltahoosier            10-27-2016, 12:26 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
Social Security is a good thing and as ALL good things done by government it was done by Democrats. I agree with getting health care costs under control and I agree that the national debt is a boogey man used by the GOP to scare simple minded conservative voters. The money you contributed to Social Security WAS your money. It very much WAS. Then people like Delta voted for scumbags that spent it before it even had a chance to earn interest and now it's gone. You can't say "that's my money because I was the one who contributed it to the fund". The reason you can't claim it is because it isn't there anymore. The Democrats didn't take it. Ronald Reagan took it. GHWB took it. Little coke head Bush took it. Newt Gingrich took it. They gave it away to people who are a hell of a lot richer than you are and you let them take it because you worshipped the so called "job creators" like they were gods. You let them give away a dollar so that someone could use that dollar to pay someone 50 cents with it. Now you need me and those younger than I am to fix it after you let them put laws in place to prevent us from fixing it. In the mean time you continue to screw it up on your way to the grave.
You mean like freeing the slaves, making them able to be people and so on?

boogey man like telling old people that republicans are going to take their social security, destroy the atmosphere, murder their children with guns, not pay their fair share, hates immigrants, suppresses black people, and so on?

Really Republicans took it huh? You do know that the democrats have historically been in charge of congress like forever. Only time was a small window with the second Bush and now. You obviously don't now how the system works so why bother, however they can say the money is for whatever it is supposed to be for. At the end of the day, money is money. Put too much in the economy you have inflation. Take to much out you have deflation. Keep coming up with programs that use money, you have to print more. Keep signing treaties designed to move money to the 3rd world, they you have to print more again.

You really need to understand where laws originate.

How do you suppose you fix Social Security. Bush tried and democrats ran around in terror that he was taking their funds. Social Security has no growth potential because it is not invested in higher yield investments. So at best it is about future generations putting in to pay for those before. It is a pyramid scheme from the inception.

Last edited by deltahoosier; 10-27-2016 at 12:34 PM.
Old     (skiboarder)      Join Date: Oct 2006       10-28-2016, 8:05 AM Reply   
Well, I found out yesterday that it looks like my knee is going to get hacked on again... I no longer have access to my doctor because of the ACA (In fact, no doctor available to me has ever done this procedure).

The big question now is, do I do it now. Or wait until after the first of the year. Originally, waiting was a no brainer. Meet my deductible in Jan. and be covered all year, but with the new hikes, is that the best idea? I don't know because I still have not gotten any word about the increases from my insurance co. I always get it early Oct.

Why? Am I being cynical to say that they are waiting to let more early ballots to be cast?
Old     (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       11-02-2016, 8:43 PM Reply   
And the news just gets better http://finance.yahoo.com/news/anothe...135616867.html

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 8:37 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us