number of the week: The 49.1%

[lektrode]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

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.

no, and i understand/agree with your frustration and anger.

and assuming (guessing) that you are in your late30s-early40's i will say that you were LUCKY to have grown up during the most unprecedented era of prosperity the world has even known - and have benefitted greatly from this fact - why you should be willing to make sure it can somehow continue.

the risk, as eye see it - will be that the soc-sec system WILL collapse - and if it does, there wont be ANY security for any of us, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY YOU MAKE OR SAVE (nor how many bullets and gold eagles you have).

if the system collapses, all the leafy green (and white) 'burbs will go up in flames, bet on it.

and eye see evidence to support this observation every day (and its getting more obvious by the week)

make no mistake, if the idiots in the beltway dont come up with a solution to THE PROBLEMS THEY THEMSELVES HAVE CREATED (since i dont subscribe to the theory that the present sitch is 'all the fault of the banksters', greed, stupidity of the citizenry, 'failure of the regulators to regulate' yada yada yada and that we 'have only our selves to blame' = HOGWASH, the blame lies _squarely_ on the political class' efforts to feather their own nests at OUR expense) - there will be hell to pay perty quick, here in the 'land of milk n honey' (guns and butter, apple pies and chevrolets)

the other culprit is THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA that continues to ignore the crime, rampant rape/pillage/plunder of the economy by the inhabitants of lower manhattan - who have been enabled BY the political class (on BOTH sides of the aisle)

so - you think its 'unfair' that you gotta or oughta pay more in soc-sec?

just think what real security (12foot electrified razor wire-topped fencing, concrete walls and a pack of hungry pitbulls) is going to cost

[lektrode]

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).
...
....
...
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).

+1
damn! go4bk - thats the best, clearest expression of the salient points of this (decades old) argument that eye have ever!

couldnt have said it better mesself.
thank you, sir.
(you lawyer types DO come in handy every once in awhile ;)

[lektrode]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

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).
..
..
...
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 (purposely) 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. ( and then 'strategically defaulting' )Saying that healthy food is too expensive and then using food stamps to drink Mt. Dew instead of water. ( never mind buying prime rib and lobster ) 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

+1
(with added attractions)
couldntve said it better mesself.
will also say again that i blame it all on 'liberal policies/politix'

individual rights?

how about RESPONSIBILITIES?
or as they say out this way: kuleana (ku-lee-AH-na)

[lektrode]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

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


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.

yes - MOST DEF to all the above - its simply UNCONSCIONABLE that people dont have The Right to pay the same charges that the ins co's pay - in any other industry this would be called COLLUSION if not FRAUD - its hilarious to compare what was done with/to microsoft (never mind netscape) over something as trivial (in the larger picture) as the 'browser wars' back in the 90's


the theme song for all of this is, quite appropriately:

+10 on that one.

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.

that and the 'co-pays' they are charging (in my case with K-P, and most others i assume) i happen to believe represent the Real Price of said service - so we get to pay TWICE: the monthly premiums (or, the euphemism, laffably called 'dues') and then AGAIN with ridiculously exhorbitant CO-PAYS (1500 for a CTscan??)

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.

+1
PRECISELY!!!

if we're not going to (likely ever) see a 'single payer' system (that i have come round to the idea of being the BEST way 'forward' ) - then i think something along the lines of a 6th branch of the 'armed' services that would be known as The US Medical Corps would be just the ticket - it would provide the coverage of last resort for those who simply have no other options - (and it could be staffed by those who would like to be employed in the med field, BUT DONT WANT TO GO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IN DEBT - by those who who would 'sign-up' be educated and then OWE UNCLE SAM some number of years of service to their country by serving We The People by fixing our med problems - (vs 'fixing' the politicians/banksters problems with tanks/bombs) - it would also provide REAL COMPETITION to what is now essentially a monopoly or at least a collusvely-rigged game run by the FIre mob - and what we got in 2008-09 (obama'scare) ??? INSTEAD OF A REAL/CREDIBLE PLAN TO FIX THE FIRE-burnt ECONOMY??? (with/by the clowns running congress during that time) will likely go down as THE BIGGEST BLUNDER IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA

[lektrode]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

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.

yeah jb, i guess thats a reality. (with the most unfortunate reality being i dont work for any of em)

so... how about this: RAISE THE FICA-levied INCOME LIMITS TO THE MAX FED PAY SCALE
(some sort of rule along these lines should apply to state/counties 'ruling class' as well, including the football team coaches....)

surely this would or should be the benchmark or highwater line on just what constitutes as 'fair'

[Polish_Silver]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

's this for a deal: you give the option to people to pay into the system for 2 more years (on ALL our income if you think that's "fair") and then we get to stop forever. In exchange we give up all claims to collect any of the money we paid into the system since birth. Consider it a generous gift to help do our part to solve the problem. Then I won't be getting a "free ride" anymore. Would this satisfy you?

I suspect that high income people would take this option, and make the system more insolvent. I think the rhetoric needs to be toned down. High income people pay more in than they get out. That should be recognized by all. It should also be recognized that the income one gets is partly a matter of luck, being born at the right time, having the right family, etc. Many of the highly lucrative professions of today did not exist even 200 years ago, or had very few people in them. So if you were born then, you would not have a high paying cubicle job that you love.

[Polish_Silver]

Re: number of the week: The 49.1%

. 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.

The lack of price transparency is a barrier to any competition and meaningful choice. I once got charged $700 for a syphilis test !
They couldn't even tell me the charge for a completely routine test that would be $20 in most places!
The internet is bringing information and transparency to the blood test business. Prices have been falling rapidly the last 6 years or so. Complete panel is now only about $250.00

Health care costs in the US are a total out rage!