Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 81

Thread: April is the Cruelest Month

  1. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,037
    Is it inconceivable that many opposed Obama not out of racism but that they simply disagreed with his policy goals?

    Is it inconceivable that Clinton lost to the worst GOP candidate in the party's history not because she was a strong smart woman but because she was a dreadful, dreadful campaigner carrying her own heavy load of ethical baggage?

    Does every criticism of the structure, goals and impact of social spending programs indicate an avaricious desire to immiserate the poor?

    Is it possible to debate ideas without impugning motives?

  2. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,903
    If you don't think people in this administration or the Koch brothers etc don't have motives for what they do then you are very naive.

  3. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Teacher Terry View Post
    If you don't think people in this administration or the Koch brothers etc don't have motives for what they do then you are very naive.
    Even if thatís true, simply attacking their character doesnít refute their ideas.

  4. #74
    Senior Member flowerseverywhere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,240
    There is so much fear mongering and insults dividing our country.

    Social security will be insolvent, All those rapists and murders from south of the border, all the Muslim terrorists, we all need more guns. We need walls. We need to open our borders and have sanctuary cities. We need to drug test welfare recipients. Lazy cheats steal welfare and food stamps from taxpayers. Democrats just want to murder babies. Republicans just want to kill poor people from starvation and lack of medical care. We need more guns, we need more gun control. Oh those liberals, conservatives, capitalists, greedy rich people. And so on.

    Maybe our whole country will break out of this gridlock and realize the answer is compromise and laws like the system is supposed to work instead of executive orders Putting bandaids on our borders instead of comprehensive immigration reform is not helpful. Partially repealing the affordable care act with no replacement is not helpful. We needed both which Republicans all the way to the top promised. Closing birth control clinics will not help the abortion situation. Poor women need health care and prenatal care. Passing more laws instead of enforcing our current gun and immigration laws is crazy.

    Half of what we are doing is just not making sense.

  5. #75
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,581
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    That kind of opt-out clause could well doom Soc Sec. Given the progressive nature of the benefit calculation and tax treatment, and assuming higher-paid individuals would be the most likely to leave, the march toward insolvency would probably accelerate.
    It would be interesting to see how the higher paid individuals who opted out pay for their old age healthcare. I can only guess how expensive a healthcare insurance policy would be for the 65 and over crowd.

  6. #76
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,037
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    It would be interesting to see how the higher paid individuals who opted out pay for their old age healthcare. I can only guess how expensive a healthcare insurance policy would be for the 65 and over crowd.
    That would in part depend on the degree to which the government left private providers and insurers unmolested. And their departure would also create adverse selection issues for a Medicare program that is already unsustainable in its current design.

    I think where we are likely to end up, sooner or later, with some sort of universal coverage plus a private market for those seeking shorter waits or superior care. I would think the timing on that might depend on whether we see a big blue wave in 2018 and 2020.

  7. #77
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Central Jersey
    Posts
    7,652
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post

    I think where we are likely to end up, sooner or later, with some sort of universal coverage plus a private market for those seeking shorter waits or superior care. I would think the timing on that might depend on whether we see a big blue wave in 2018 and 2020.
    I agree with you. I called a cardiologist I have been to before to make an appointment for a general cardiac check-up. He now operates a concierge service for $1650 a year. You have to be a "member" in order to take advantages of his top tier service.
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

  8. #78
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,581
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    That would in part depend on the degree to which the government left private providers and insurers unmolested. And their departure would also create adverse selection issues for a Medicare program that is already unsustainable in its current design.
    It couldn't really create adverse selection since people would have made the decision back when they were young. Someone who opted out when they were young couldn't then reverse the decision later in life. If they developed an expensive health condition sometime in their 40s/50s and had to purchase health insurance on the open market in old age they'd either need to buy hideously expensive market priced insurance, pay out of pocket, or acknowledge that they had made a life shortening decision back in their early 20's.

  9. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    4,037
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    It couldn't really create adverse selection since people would have made the decision back when they were young. Someone who opted out when they were young couldn't then reverse the decision later in life. If they developed an expensive health condition sometime in their 40s/50s and had to purchase health insurance on the open market in old age they'd either need to buy hideously expensive market priced insurance, pay out of pocket, or acknowledge that they had made a life shortening decision back in their early 20's.
    I think the result of younger healthier people leaving would have the immediate impact of the systems current revenue declining with little immediate impact on claims. As satisfying as it might be to imagine casting dissenters into the outer darkness, none of this stuff can happen in a vacuum.

  10. #80
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,581
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    I think the result of younger healthier people leaving would have the immediate impact of the systems current revenue declining with little immediate impact on claims. As satisfying as it might be to imagine casting dissenters into the outer darkness, none of this stuff can happen in a vacuum.
    I suppose you're probably right. Although for most people opting out of SS/Medicare at a young age and forgoing the benefits later would probably be a terrible decision, undoubtedly there would be plenty of people who would make it anyway. Heck, back when I was 24 if the option had been available I might have made that decision too. It's only been the experience of watching several old people go through long, expensive end of life illnesses that has made me realize how foolish and risky of a decision that would have been.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •