Coming soon to the US, if this administration suceeds in taking over the Healthcare Industry --

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

"The National Health Service is today condemned over its inhumane treatment of elderly patients in an official report that finds hospitals are failing to meet “even the most basic standards of care” for the over-65s."

Sooo...How do you feel about Medicare in general? Wanna keep it? Abolish it?

*crickets* I asked you a question, Kid Raw, and I expect an answer!!!!!!!! You see, Medicare for Everyone is how we can easily transition into a decent, REAL healthcare renovation. This farce which exists is just more $$$$ for the insurance companies. It actually boggles my mind that we are forced to pay ANY private company A THIN DIME! And I also refer to auto insurance. That is actual fascism--when corporations control the political sphere.

I knew it was a loaded question, and if I said Medicare is good, then you would say that Medicare is Socialized Medicine. The same argument is used with Social Security as the straw man. "How can you not like Socialism and still like Social Security, because Social Security is Socialism." I think we talked about that in the Obamacare thread.

Anyway, I don't like the Government running anything. Whether it's healthcare or Retirement. But we all paid into Social Security and Medicare, and at least with Social Security, I paid into it, and I want my money back. And I'm sick of people calling Social Security and Medicare "Entitlements", because they are not entitlements if it's our own money you are getting back. Entitlements are Welfare, Food Stamps, and Medicaid where you get other people's money given to you by the Government for nothing, for not lifting a finger.

But the fact is, anything the Government takes over and runs is totally inefficient and loaded with fraud, abuse, bureaucracy, red tape, and much more expensive for the consumer.

Anyway, the point of the article is that when the Government takes over healthcare, it's a failure and a waste of money and the people and the economy suffer

Just ran across this, which reinforces my position that Social Security and Medicare (and Unemployment) are not 'Entitlements' because we pay into them --

[wiki.answers.com]

What is an Entitlement?


"An "Entitlement Program" is generally one for which an individual qualifies simply by virtue of his or her circumstances. For example, the Social Security law has several components, some of which are "entitlements" and some are not. The largest program, SS Retirement is NOT an entitlement as an individual qualifies for it only by virtue of having paid into the program at least forty quarters; Supplemental Security Income and Social Security Disabilities ARE entitlements because an individual is entitled to SSI simply by having a very low income and to SSD after being disabled for at least six months. Similarly, the largest portion of Medicare--health insurance of seniors--is NOT an "entitlement" as one qualifies by paying into the system and paying premiums. Medicaid and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, on the other hand, ARE entitlements as qualification depends on a set of circumstances in which an individual may find himself. Unemployment Compensation is an insurance program paid by employers and is NOT an entitlement.

First of all, I think we discussed that you never put in what you take out. I cannot pull out numbers but it's putting money into a pool and counting on younger people to pick up the slack and put in for you when it's time for you to take out the money. And the money you put in each week is in effect a TAX. So whether they take it out of your check each week or at the end of the year, taxes are what they are. Look at the tax rate during the Eisenhower 50s Nirvana years and see how *gasp* socialistic and incredibly high they were! 80, 90%. And Reagan slashed it to under 40% along with sending jobs overseas, thereby shuttering factories, becoming way less productive, etc. And every president since has been a Republican including Obama

You say you don't like the government running stuff by private companies? Ever watch "Sicko" regarding insurance companies? You'd think you were dealing with Ebeneezer Scrooge on steroids!

What I mean to say is that if I have to deal with waste, I'd rather it be with the government than private entities. That greed is concentrated with individuals; the government is a massive, impersonal body. And I feel better with some of my student loans being owned by the government versus Chase bank, I can tell you that much!

Yes, that's right, we talked about Social Security in the other thread and you and Curator said you get more back than what you paid in and I say you would get more back if you handled it yourself, probably even only getting 5% interest a year. I'll have to go research that and find an article to corroborate my position.

Well, I'm the opposite, I don't trust the Government handling anything. I'd rather take my chances in the marketplace, the private sector, competition. And I don't like the Welfare/Warfare state, both sides of the government.

But the point is, if the government takes over healthcare, we can expect what we see in England, gross negligence and incompetence and a waste of money and bankrupting of the country.

And when the whole Obamacare thing started, I said (to my husband) I bet what they are doing is -- they're in bed with the insurance companies and they just want to make everybody HAVE to get insurance, so they're going through the whole dog and pony show about 'healthcare' and demonizing the insurance companies so that it ends up we are all forced to get insurance and then the insurance rates will go through the roof - which is exactly what's happening now.

And the insurance companies have been so lousy because they were always heavily regulated by the government, rather than following free-market principles, that's what made them cumbersome and expensive. If we had free-market insurance companies, it would be great. There can't be more fraud than what you get with Medicare and Medicaid.

Anyway, all the socialist countries in Europe are collapsing like dominos, so good luck with that.

So you say "That greed is concentrated with individuals", and I say the government is more greedy than any individual ever was because they are insatiable and it is their job to take our money from us by FORCE.

Oh, yeah, I had almost forgotten that the Government took over the Student Loan Industry, too. Socialism and Fascism, that's this administration. The Financial Regulation Bill was another monstrosity so the Government could own or control and regulate more of the economy - great!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2011 02:07AM by KidRaw.

LOL--you are a woman? You said 'my husband' and unless you are a gay man, I am surprised to learn that you are a woman! I thought you were a guy all along! In any case, I can see where you are coming from and it's pretty futile to try and convince you. I wonder how old you are...I remember when Reagan deregulated stuff and it wasn't a pretty picture. I believe that the problems in Europe are due to an aging population that does not have the birthrate to create the same amount of workers, along with global trade--a disaster which has created all this illegal immigration all over the world. Farmers cannot compete with the lowest common denominator, etc. In every survey of the countries with the best standard of living, the USA is down on the list and socialist countries rank at the top. 'Nuff said, IMO!

I'm a neutered transgendered transvestite emo aging hippie redneck

Anyway, I was researching Social Security for a while, and it looks like you are Curator are right, that you get your money back that you pay in and a little bit more - about 1% more. Of course, that's if you live to 85. This article fails to mention that you pay taxes on your Social Security that you get back in retirement.....

What's the 'Return' on Your Social Security Taxes?


[finance.yahoo.com]

Here's where I was right that if you had invested it conservatively, you would have much more money for retirement than what you would get back from Social Security --

Social Security's Rate of Return

[www.heritage.org]

So with Social Security you get about a 1% return on investment, compared to at least 5% of private investment. And with private investment, when you die, your children get the money you saved, but with Social Security, when you die, it's gone.

KidRaw Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm a neutered transgendered transvestite emo
> aging hippie redneck
> [www.myemoticons.com]
> mance/kissgirl2girl.gif

LOLOLOL!!! Alrighty then...That's a demographic that is new to me but I don't doubt it exists.

This article has some links to calculators that are interesting if you want to figure out your financial situation or savings for retirement --

[www.getrichslowly.org]

I like the Bankrate one.

I like the Moneychimp one and there are other cool calculators on the right-hand side --

[www.moneychimp.com]

I'm doing the compound interest one to see how much you would have if you put your money in a bank instead of social security --

[www.moneychimp.com]

If you start with $5000 and put in $5000 a year for 30 years at 3% interest, you end up with about $250,000.

Who has an extra $5000/year though? I put money away in the bank for the kid's education and we live very frugally. I don't make enough money to pay a lot of taxes and I don't buy things the way other people do. We live in a small space, I make a lot of our own stuff, shop second hand, reclaim objects, barter, yardsale, etc. Still, who has an extra $5000 a year? And how are you getting it, that's what I'd like to know...

I was using the $5,000 figure as a theoretical that if a person is making $50,000 a year, they would put 10% of it into a private retirement fund in lieu of Social Security getting taken out of their paycheck.

But - at least in my day - when you were young in your twenties when you should start saving for your retirement to take advantage of compounding interest, you didn't have any extra money at all; just enough for the basics month to month. That's how we lived then, but nowadays it's different with the young people because they seem to have plenty of money for their tech toys, going shopping at the mall, out to eat and movies, etc. Although I guess it's often debt on their or their parents' credit card.

They have no money, they have credit which is like the reverse of saving. You'll be paying that off long after you've payed the original price of things. Credit cards are evil.

"In my day" means...? I am in my mid-40s, Kid. You? I agree with you about people wasting money. I have never had a credit card. Still...I want everyone to not have to worry about paying for birthing their child or having an operation

No can tell (That means I'm old)

When you say "Still...I want everyone to not have to worry about paying for birthing their child or having an operation"

That sounds great, but the labor and money and time has to come from somewhere and someone , and it requires 'others' to pay for it, so it's impossible to be 'free' for everyone, and still be 'fair'. Because it's not 'fair' to take money or time or labor from one person and give it to another BY FORCE, even if one person has plenty of it and the other person does not.

Now if it was all charity and all voluntary, that is 'fair'.

I don't agree. I think we as a community have an obligation to support each other. It's sad that birthing mamas and children are lumped in with people who abuse their bodies into a state of severe ill health but that's our culture. Perhaps if we all cared more about each other in the first place no one would make or sell or allow to be bought the products that are killing us.