number of the week: The 49.1%

[DSpencer]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

Seriously? You're trying to argue American laws as contracts?

Why aren't you arguing the fact of your citizenship - another contract that you were entered into before you were an adult?

What about all the other laws we are supposed to follow, like the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, criminal law, etc etc. You were also entered into these without your consent.

News flash: consent isn't necessary.

Seems more like you're looking for an excuse to not participate in something you dislike.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not trying to argue that since this is not a valid contract that I shouldn't have to pay it. My point is just that it's not a really contract at all and should not be discussed as if it were. It is just like any other tax that exists as part of being a citizen.

Yes, I dislike it and want it changed. However, as we've already established, consent doesn't matter and so having an excuse not to participate won't help me one bit.

I get frustrated by listening to the rationalizations about how the generation that is largely responsible for plunging the country into unimaginable debt in order to live beyond their means is now OWED even more by younger people because the government took their money and spent it on other programs. It just feels like one more kick the can game until the road runs out. That I expect to reach the end of that road in the prime of my life isn't the most thrilling prospect.

Personally, I find the idea of passing along a huge debt to the next generation to be distasteful. I guess I'm in the minority though.

[DSpencer]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

You're correct about the proposed fix with respect to the cap --- increasing the cap would increase your taxes and mine (in most years). But I have a significant IRA and a home free and clear. I've traveled enough to know I was blessed to be born in this country at this time and don't mind paying another 1-3k a year to keep older Americans from eating cat food. But, you are correct that this would be a tax increase for the wealthy who presently pay no Social Security taxes on income over $110k.

As for the contract, I was using the term as John Locke did --- a social contract between the governed and the government. Of course I didn't sign any contract to pay for anything I use that was built before I was born, including libraries, databases, roads, armies or our court system. Yet the day after I passed the bar exam, I was able to sell my services as a lawyer --- a service that would have no value without a civilization, a judicial system, courts, court reporters, libraries and about 1000 years of common law developed from the millions of cases that came before me --- and claim all of that income as all MINE.

Doesn't that strike you as an odd notion? That the world begins with us? That what we "earn" in this entirely artificial and man-made civilization is all ours with no obligation to anybody else?

All I'm saying is that when some retired American stands up to ask that his government's promises to him be honored, I am going to support him regardless of whether I think that promise will be honored when I am retired. If I am concerned about the latter (which I am) it is my job to change the system through democratic means or, failing that, save more for my own retirement. I don't consider default to be an option, at least with respect to obligations we owe to our vulnerable elders (which is why I would support means testing and/or increasing the cap if it is necessary to ensure that our promises to tomorrow's vulnerable elders are likewise honored).

I truly enjoy your posts. They are much more honest and focused on the real issues as opposed to "winning" arguments compared to most (probably including my own).

When you earn your money as a lawyer, you are part of the system that makes it possible for other people and future generations to make their own money. It's not like you are some parasite on the system just taking without providing anything. Oh wait, you said you are a lawyer! Just kidding. Sure the system is not perfect but at least in theory you are getting what is supposed to represent a fair payment for your contributions to society.

I agree that without each other we would be scratching around in the dirt for food as opposed to living a life of unprecedented luxury. The source of my frustration is largely the feeling that more and more people aren't pulling their weight or even trying. I make good money and still worry about whether I can afford to have kids and give them the life I want. Yet left and right people are getting knocked up without a care in the world. They know that someone else will pay. Same for so many other things: smoking a pack a day and then saying health care is too expensive so it should be a basic human right to get a lung transplant. Going into crazy debt by lying on your mortgage app to impress everyone with a fancy car and a mini-mansion and then complaining about how you can't pay your bills. Saying that healthy food is too expensive and then using food stamps to drink Mt. Dew instead of water. Having the government (aka taxpayers) pay for job training but admitting to other students that you don't plan on getting a job and just take the class to stay eligible for your other gov. benefits. Buying a dog when you can't even take care of your kids or yourself and then just releasing it into the streets when you're bored with it.

If everyone was working hard and living reasonable lifestyles and there was simply not enough money to keep old people from eating cat food, I would pay more without complaining. When everyday is an abrupt confrontation with the irresponsibility of so many people, it becomes harder and harder to accept. So I choose the "bitch on internet forums" option

[dcarrigg]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

Indeed. No rational person could argue that medicare is in fine shape. That's different than Social Security. Healthcare has been, is, and will be the major cost-push source of US government budget woes. It is also the major source of declining income. Nobody who looks at the figures can deny that.

Medicare is ruining the Federal Budget. Medicaid is ruining all states' budgets. Health insurance is ruining employers' and employees' budgets. At this point we have lost 5-6% of our cumulative national wealth per year chasing some healthcare fantasy in the US. That's about one Obama Stimulus per year. Wasted. Health outcomes are no better.

Think about that.

A stimulus every year.

$14TGDP * 5% = $700B.

A stimulus every year.

Just to avoid the single payer solution that even Mexico is putting in place.

Every other nation has a path to do it cheaper. There are many choices to copy. This should be a no-brainer.

When will the country wake up, I wonder? When it is 2 stimuluses per year? Three? Four? The total cost is doubling every 10 years. We'll get there within many of our lifetimes should we not end the "insurance" charade.

[c1ue]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

My point is just that it's not a really contract at all and should not be discussed as if it were. It is just like any other tax that exists as part of being a citizen.

I'm glad that you do recognize the reality of Medicare.

Yes, I dislike it and want it changed. However, as we've already established, consent doesn't matter and so having an excuse not to participate won't help me one bit.

I dislike the Medicare tax as well, but Medicare is not the ultimate source of the problem. The ultimate source of the problem is the US health care system, of which Medicare is a major component.

Be that as it may, your lack of desire to participate in Medicare is irrelevant. Few people like the income tax either - that's why they're called taxes and not charitable contributions.

Personally, I find the idea of passing along a huge debt to the next generation to be distasteful. I guess I'm in the minority though.

It is kind of interesting that all of your arguments to date have been 'I' and 'me', but now suddenly you're saying 'the next generation'.

The source of my frustration is largely the feeling that more and more people aren't pulling their weight or even trying. I make good money and still worry about whether I can afford to have kids and give them the life I want. Yet left and right people are getting knocked up without a care in the world. They know that someone else will pay. Same for so many other things: smoking a pack a day and then saying health care is too expensive so it should be a basic human right to get a lung transplant. Going into crazy debt by lying on your mortgage app to impress everyone with a fancy car and a mini-mansion and then complaining about how you can't pay your bills. Saying that healthy food is too expensive and then using food stamps to drink Mt. Dew instead of water. Having the government (aka taxpayers) pay for job training but admitting to other students that you don't plan on getting a job and just take the class to stay eligible for your other gov. benefits. Buying a dog when you can't even take care of your kids or yourself and then just releasing it into the streets when you're bored with it.

Given your anti-government, are at least small government leaning, I fail to see how you can prevent people from not doing something without massive government supervision/regulation.

Or is your view that creating suffering in some way causes people to 'pull their own weight'? If so, I'd suggest you read some of the writings by those nasty anti-democracy/anti-capitalist 1% of the previous century - not illustrious company.

The problems we face aren't going to be solved by austerity. Sure, there are all sorts of abuses that occur - and whether it is these same abuses or other ones, this will always happen.

The path out must be one of growth - and you can't grow when your primary priorities are simple survival.

Medicare is ruining the Federal Budget. Medicaid is ruining all states' budgets. Health insurance is ruining employers' and employees' budgets. At this point we have lost 5-6% of our cumulative national wealth per year chasing some healthcare fantasy in the US. That's about one Obama Stimulus per year. Wasted. Health outcomes are no better.

Fully agreed. But private health care is no different for the individuals.

The problem is health care in the United States period.

[Prazak]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

I'm glad that you do recognize the reality of Medicare.



I dislike the Medicare tax as well, but Medicare is not the ultimate source of the problem. The ultimate source of the problem is the US health care system, of which Medicare is a major component.

Be that as it may, your lack of desire to participate in Medicare is irrelevant. Few people like the income tax either - that's why they're called taxes and not charitable contributions.



It is kind of interesting that all of your arguments to date have been 'I' and 'me', but now suddenly you're saying 'the next generation'.



Given your anti-government, are at least small government leaning, I fail to see how you can prevent people from not doing something without massive government supervision/regulation.

Or is your view that creating suffering in some way causes people to 'pull their own weight'? If so, I'd suggest you read some of the writings by those nasty anti-democracy/anti-capitalist 1% of the previous century - not illustrious company.

The problems we face aren't going to be solved by austerity. Sure, there are all sorts of abuses that occur - and whether it is these same abuses or other ones, this will always happen.

The path out must be one of growth - and you can't grow when your primary priorities are simple survival.



Fully agreed. But private health care is no different for the individuals.

The problem is health care in the United States period.

There was a pretty good summary of the problem in today's WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...h2U_story.html

Funny how many of those who yell the loudest about government spending are retired and swanning around South Florida on the backs of their children and grandchildren's federal transfer payments.

[c1ue]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

There was a pretty good summary of the problem in today's WaPo:

From the article:

Our toxic politics are not helped by our government’s dubious accounting standards and poor disclosure. We deserve better information and an honest discussion of our choices.

Which part of this is not equally applicable to private health insurance?

I written at length at the difficulties I and others I know personally have had in even trying to get a reasonably accurate estimate on costs.

It is very possible that a major reason for the out of control medical system is the sheer lack of pricing information: one thing all national health care systems provide is a clear alternative at a fixed price.

It might be a national health care services price list as Japan has or it might be the free or nearly free national health care clinic, but it is there.

[goodrich4bk]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

c1ue, here's my personal story that supports your hypothesis:

One night I had a seizure as a result of low blood sugar (I'm a type 1 diabetic). My wife called 911 but had to stay home with our young children. I was admitted to the hospital unconscious, but she had told the paramedics that I was diabetic and just needed glucose.

About two hours later I awoke on a gurney in a hallway of the hospital. I asked a passing nurse what had happened. She told me I was under observation but could check out once the doctor came by to approve. I waited another hour and finally got the approval. I called my wife and she came to pick me up.

As I have no insurance, I paid the doctor and the paramedics for their services, about $1600. I later received notification from the hospital that my insurance company had denied coverage and that I owed $4,800. I called the hospital and told them I didn't have insurance so I was not surprised that coverage had been denied. I then asked them what the insurance company would have paid them had I been covered, and told them I would immediate pay that amount in cash. They refused to tell me, saying they couldn't reveal that information. Moreover, they demanded $4,800 or they would sue me.

As an attorney, I said "bring it on". At the first hearing in front of the judge, I told him the above story and said I would pay whatever they thought they were going to get paid when they thought I had insurance. The judge agreed that was very reasonable. He explained to the hospital's counsel that because I was unconscious when admitted, all the hospital could recover was the reasonable value of their services and that the best evidence of that value was what they thought they were going to be paid before they provided the services. Unbelievably, the lawyer said she couldn't provide that information. The judge continued the hearing and at the continued hearing the hospital's attorney did not show and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

There are two conclusions I have drawn from this experience. First, our system of private insurance has grossly inflated the "rack rate" for medical services --- a rate that only uninsured patients must pay. Insured patients ---i.e., their insurance companies---pay much less, usually less than half or even 70% less. These insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws and, therefore, have no obligation to disclose their reimbursement rates. Nor is it illegal for them to prohibit hospitals and doctors from revealing those reimbursement rates to uninsured patients. The result is that the uninsured are under severe pressure to buy insurance, because without insurance they simply will not be able to afford the special rates that apply only to them. Of course, these are the very people, such as myself, who also cannot afford insurance because of pre-existing conditions. In any event, I haven't found a single person who believes that $4,800 for a three hour stay on a gurney and a blood test is even close to a reasonable value.

Second, I think most of the cost issues would disappear with the passage of a simple law requiring public disclosure of all medical charges in advance of treatment and allowing individuals who pay cash to receive the same price as insured patients receive. Throw out Obamacare if you want, but pass just that one page bill and let's see what happens.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

I’ve lived in S.E. Asia for twenty years. Fixed prices for goods and services are rare and always suspect. New foreigners, not use to constantly “discovering” the true price of things, are extremely frustrated, but after awhile, you realize that all consumers have magically banded together to force lower prices and spread the word.

This applies to healthcare. The average educated Thai can tell you the price of a variety of healthcare services. Two months ago, fearing I might have pneumonia, I got a chest x-ray and EKG. With a doctor visit the total cost was 35 dollars. A blip on the EKG caused me to go back for a stress test on the treadmill. Total = 100 dollars. I was told by several Thai friends that the hospital I was planning to go to would charge a little above average. Both predicted the price of the procedures within 10 – 15 percent of the actual cost.

Accurate price disclosure is one of the keys to lowering healthcare prices in the US. I don't have much hope. The insurance industry has conspired to make it impossible. 10 years ago while fighting my insurance company over an ambulance ride my wife took after fainting in LAX and realizing that my 10 % co-pay was 1,000 dollars because the three-mile ride “cost” 10,000 dollars, I realized I would never know what healthcare services would or should cost ever again.

700 dollar hammer, 500 dollar toilet seat, 4,000 dollar broken arm.

Goodrich4bk, your good story is disheartening even though you won. What percentage of people have the energy, smarts, and resources to fight?

If 45 % of children are going to develop type 2 diabetes, how is this going to play out?

[lektrode]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

congress does pay into social security and has done so for a long time. Here is one link about that
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcongress.htm

thanks jb - i appreciate being corrected when i dont get my... uhh... rants quite right.. err... i mean.. correct

but this is an interesting point:

they seem to get quite a bit in retirement (appx 1/3 of their 'base pay' annually- who else gets that much on soc-sec?)

according to: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscong...ongresspay.htm

Members elected since 1984 are covered by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS). Those elected prior to 1984 were covered by the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). In 1984 all members were given the option of remaining with CSRS or switching to FERS.
....
.......
..
According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.

this seems to be a bit extravagant, considering that the MAX soc-sec payout is:
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answ...rement-benefit

The maximum benefit depends on the age a worker chooses to retire. For example, for a worker retiring at age 66 in 2012, the amount is $2,513. This figure is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21

so let me get this straight: a private sector workin stiff, aka Citizen, maxes out his contribs for his entire working life, gets to collect a max bene of 2500/mo or 30156/annual - while a congresscritter seemingly gets a minumum avg of 35k, with most of em getting 60k (plus whatevah else they've been able to pad/connive/consult/lobby/swindle The Rest of US out of, all the while voting themselves raises - meanwhile they FAIL to perform even their most basic functions, like.. say... oh i dunno.. COME UP WITH A PHREAKIN BUDGET vs 'continuing resolutions' ??? - NEVER MIND a "balanced budget" like The Rest of US certainly must... well... cept for those who got all them liar-loan mortgages/HELOCs and spent it all on monster SUV's, 186inch LCD tv's, mocha latte's and trips to dizzyland - and THEN theres the criminal class that inhabits the upper floors of lower manhattan skyscrapers, but i digress...)

[lektrode]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

.... That we are all already Socialists in fact so we should just realize it and go along with the trend. How do you convince an enemy to surrender without a fight? Convince them they are already surrounded and have no hope of winning.

excellent point/observation.

[jiimbergin]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

thanks jb - i appreciate being corrected when i dont get my... uhh... rants quite right.. err... i mean.. correct

but this is an interesting point:

they seem to get quite a bit in retirement (appx 1/3 of their 'base pay' annually- who else gets that much on soc-sec?)

according to: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscong...ongresspay.htm


this seems to be a bit extravagant, considering that the MAX soc-sec payout is:
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answ...rement-benefit


so let me get this straight: a private sector workin stiff, aka Citizen, maxes out his contribs for his entire working life, gets to collect a max bene of 2500/mo or 30156/annual - while a congresscritter seemingly gets a minumum avg of 35k, with most of em getting 60k (plus whatevah else they've been able to pad/connive/consult/lobby/swindle The Rest of US out of, all the while voting themselves raises - meanwhile they FAIL to perform even their most basic functions, like.. say... oh i dunno.. COME UP WITH A PHREAKIN BUDGET vs 'continuing resolutions' ??? - NEVER MIND a "balanced budget" like The Rest of US certainly must... well... cept for those who got all them liar-loan mortgages/HELOCs and spent it all on monster SUV's, 186inch LCD tv's, mocha latte's and trips to dizzyland - and THEN theres the criminal class that inhabits the upper floors of lower manhattan skyscrapers, but i digress...)

I don't disagree they have a good pension plan, but FERS applies to all federal employees, not just members of congress. Of course there are many private companies that also provide decent retirement benefits.

[lektrode]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

It was the worry that "Programs for the poor are poor programs".
If FICA was hugely progressive, it would lose support among the upper income (voting) class.

but then theres the rub, eh?
its NOT 'progressive' at all: its a flat rate, with a limit on the amount of income that it gets levied upon -
so essentially its regressive, in that a workin stiff on the low end pays a HUGE % of his net takehome pay in relation to minimum costs of existing (fergit about 'livin'), while the upper end gets, as i put it, a free ride, beyond 110k - when even 110k is LOTS more than what one needs to simply stay alive?? (hell, i'd be squirtin all over the chance to pay 15% of a 110k - but i AM considerate of those who do, as having been in, ever so briefly, the 25% bracket and noting that the TOTAL TAKE was just about 50% of my total net income)

The high income people were supposed to pay in more than they got out, and above the limit, they had already paid for themselves and several low income people.

In today's world of growing inequality and financial corruption, it is perfectly reasonable to raise the limit. Still, one should be aware of the distinction between "mandatory savings" and "income redistribution".

I think the government should only guarantee a basic standard of living, regardless of age.
Something like a poor farm. You would only move there if you really needed to. There would still be a need for a gate keeping system. For this to work, there would need to be strong incentive for personal savings, since most people do not think long term.

on all of that, i would most certainly agree.

why i think there ought to be means testing of soc-sec payouts, assuming one equates soc-sec with INSURANCE and not an 'entitlement' no matter what ones retirement sitch is

i am personally aware of people who are collecting nearly 10k/mo in pensions PLUS soc-sec?
(and never mind investment income)
sorry - even for a small-r type from the Live Free or Die state like me, thats a bit over the top.

[lektrode]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

Whatever you personally might think, it sure doesn't seem like the rest of the population shares this belief. There's a reason why this is one of the third rails in politics.

precisely!
and why we cant get any discussion of the topic inside the beltway: they are all simply too afraid of not being re-elected, so wont even bring it up, beyond a few of the repub's talk about cutting benefits?

when all that really needs to be done is UP THE LIMITS on FICA-levied income (that and TERM LIMITS for congress, to remove their 'fear of the unknown')

the other phreakin SCAM is the use of the subchapter-s corp to dodge it - i have a smartass pal o mine who has made fun of me for years because i havent gone that route - examined it from several POV's and decided that all the extra BS paperwork wasnt worth the effort - at least not in MY bracket - that and my suspicion that altho the payout in my case might not be worth all that much, i'm not at all confident that i can 'beat the system' by saving/investing the diff and dont want to gamble that i'll have the savings to offset what i dont get from soc-sec (because i didnt pay much into it) - that and the concern that at some point the infernal revenuers will be comin after guys like him....

[lektrode]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

SS is insurance against living beyond your ability to support yourself. It is insurance for basic survival needs, nothing more. If you want a better retirement, you need to supplement SS with IRA/401k/private pensions....

You will be demanding that taxpayers 30 years from now --- who never received the benefits of your loan --- be forced to pay you with interest. How dare you act like you are entitled to repayment....

+1
is how i've always thought about it.
the idea that its become mid-upper-mid (and beyond) padding for ones own efforts at saving/planning for retirement is what, IMHO, The Problem is or has become: the mid-upper-mid thinks they are ENTITLED to it.

and thats ok - its also why, coming from a state like NH, that i believe in the concept of USER FEES for all .gov services - levied in direct proportion to the cost/value of the service rendered.

too many people in The US today think the .gov owes em something and think that the .gov somehow creates our prosperity and that they are ENTITLED to the .govs 'largesse'

something i blame squarely on liberal policies and politix

[charliebrown]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

+10 on that one.

Even if you have insurance, try calling the insurance and asking if a diagnostic code will be covered, and at what rate and even if a given provider is in network. You will get a tapped message of quoates are no guarantee of coverage ..., or you will have to check with provider to really see if they are in network, or the O.R. is in network but the anestheologist may not be ....

I can go on and on about being in battle with the insurance / medical complex. Search my posts. I have had a bunch of run ins.

One time I had coverage, my wife had a baby, then my self insured company went chapter 7 a week later. Some services reverted back to the rack rate after the procedure was performed! Some medical providers gave me a break others did not. I had 25K in bills that I was suddenly responsible for. I did recover about half through a bankruptcy claim against my former employer, but that took two years.

Private attorneys advised me not suit, since I owed about 8 different parties and the legal fees would probably be a wash.

I have heard that the rack rate is always set high, because if you have insurance its best to ask for a riducuosly high rate. That way the amount paid will always be at the top of the insurance's pay out range, and the insurance customer sees the value in the insurance when the get their EOB.


Besides transparency, maybe ... instead of a gvt payment system, we need a government provider system. It would provide common procedures at or slightly above cost, and costs from private providers would be transparent. That way, you can decide to go gvt, or if you think you can get better/faster/cheaper service from a private provider you can go to them.