Being a Liberal

[ToddBburn]

Advances in drugs and medical technology are possible because of the potential profit in the US market. Other countries have government price controls so companies are not allowed to change over a certain amount. If the US had the same price controls there would be none of the profit incentive for medical companies to fund the advances and progress would be curtailed significantly.
These other countries leech off of the US market for cheap products.
Medical prices could be much lower but that would involve tort reform. Excessive liability insurance costs on doctors and drug companies is also unique to the US. If we had a loser pays legal system then all of the frivolous lawsuits could be greatly reduced. But, when you have a bunch of lawyers making these laws they will always block that reform.
In the other countries where the government runs healthcare they are for the most part protected from liability. So they can limit expenses. The problem is also, where there really is medical malpractice you have limited recourse compared to the US.

I have friends in Canada and Europe as well. All but one of them hate their medical system. The one in UK is younger and knows nothing about the medical industry beyond the cheap costs he sees when he rarely uses it.

There’s nothing emotional about my post, but “sucks” is certainly a broad and ill-defined word, so it’s reasonable to expect further detail.

I agree that those with money, such as your example of those who can afford to fly here and pay a premium for care, can get exceptional care here. That’s true about many services in the US and it’s not a great measure of the overall system quality.

For exceptional care, people also fly to Switzerland, Tokyo, Singapore and other places beyond the US.

The quality of an overall healthcare system should be rated by a number of factors. Accessibility, including access to preventative care, cost, health outcomes and difficulty of usage. You also need to look at the average experience and cost, not premium experience and cost. By those measures, our system sucks and depending on what rankings you care to look at, we consistently rank at or near the bottom of industrialized nations.

With spend 50% or higher per capita than those same countries for healthcare.

Outcomes? Compare longevity, cancer rates, infant mortality. Compared to other wealthy nations, our rankings are horrible.

I’ve worked for two large international companies and so spend a lot of time with both European and Asian co-workers. Not one of those that I have had the conversation with, which is a significant number, would even consider for a second swapping healthcare systems. In fact, they all, without exception, cannot imagine how we ended up with such a mess.

U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2022: Accelerating Spending, Worsening Outcomes

This cross-national comparison of health care systems assesses U.S. health spending, outcomes, status, and service use relative to 12 other high-income countries.

www.commonwealthfund.org

Sorry but sucks seemed emotional. My perception was off base.
All of those countries with government sponsored healthcare are fairly good as long as you are healthy. When you have major health issues you have really bad outcomes because of the inability to get surgeries and testing in a timely manner. That is why many of those with money go to other countries.
When you talk about outcomes you are focusing on the wrong part of the health equation. The vast majority of the health issues in the US are diet related. Half of our population is obese and that causes the biggest difference in outcomes versus other countries. That I know is true and if we did not have the good healthcare( with all of its flaws) the outcomes would be worse. I have worked in the healthcare industry for more than 35 years and I have seen how much our poor diet diet habits have impacted our overall health.
Those articles are slanted with a bias and do not include the diet differences and their affect.

 

[willdup]

Sorry but sucks seemed emotional. My perception was off base.
All of those countries with government sponsored healthcare are fairly good as long as you are healthy. When you have major health issues you have really bad outcomes because of the inability to get surgeries and testing in a timely manner. That is why many of those with money go to other countries.
When you talk about outcomes you are focusing on the wrong part of the health equation. The vast majority of the health issues in the US are diet related. Half of our population is obese and that causes the biggest difference in outcomes versus other countries. That I know is true and if we did not have the good healthcare( with all of its flaws) the outcomes would be worse. I have worked in the healthcare industry for more than 35 years and I have seen how much our poor diet diet habits have impacted our overall health.
Those articles are slanted with a bias and do not include the diet differences and their affect.

Fair point about diet and lifestyle. I totally agree that these are the primary causes of our overall level of health compared to the other industrialized countries.

We grew up with the food pyramid, which is nutritionally a disaster. The high carb/low fat movement in the ‘70s and ‘80s continues to have a negative impact on our health.

Regarding the healthcare system overall, I have a lot of experience on the consumer side of the industry. We have had great (relative to the market) insurance the entire time and it has still been a very difficult, expensive and many times underwhelming journey. That includes places like Mayo, where both the care and the billing/insurance situation was bad to a degree I doubt you’d believe it.

So, I’ll admit to some bias (again) based on our experience, and we have other friends and family members with similar stories.

I also know a number of doctors personally and the administrative burden for them is overwhelming and getting worse.

I can agree with you that it’s not all bad, and we have some exceptional doctors that we work with. It’s just that the cost/benefit ratio seems bad when compared to our peer group.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

Getting in this one late but I will say there is a huge difference between "liberal" and the progressive/Marxist movement of today. Under the definition of the past, I considered myself to be a classic liberal in so far as I believed in the government operating in a constitutionally constrained way financially and socially. Iows, spend our treasure wisely on items authorized by the constitution, staying the hell out of personal issues as long as my personal conduct didn't intrude on someone else's rights and equal protection under the law for all.

During my youth in the 60s, we fell far short of ensuring equal protection under the law and the liberals fought for changes in practices there were not in accordance with basic constitutional rights. The same can be said for the abolition of slavery and women's suffrage. The changes liberals called for were actually based in constitutional principles.

Fast forward to today, the progressives are engaged in using the power of government to stifle the free speech of citizens by using private social media companies to change algorithms. They are using fed LE to intimidate opponents of their agenda. (Think FBI targeting PTA moms, etc) We've already seen choice in health insurance plans crushed and income distribution openly promoted by the progs and on and on.

So, if you say you are a liberal, I will respect your opinion and likely agree as long as the changes you support are in accordance with the constitution. If you wish to provide super rights for some while suppressing the constitutional rights of others, we will disagree. If you vote for a Harris/Walz ticket, you aren't voting for liberalism, you are straight up voting for prog/Marxism.

 

[doerunn]

The Border bill contained poison pills. Citizenship for illegals, Millions continually allowed in, no deportation among several pills.

Not the bipartisian bill that congress passed! The Senate bill is garbage

 

[doerunn]

What has happened to private insurance all of a sudden. I have been retired for over twenty years but I had good insurance at my work place. Why is the deductible so high all of a sudden.

When you have to purchase something, said merchant, will jack up the price. IE if everyone had to wear a red shirt on friday, red shirts price would double.

 

[Captain]

Not the bipartisian bill that congress passed! The Senate bill is garbage

Correct Schumer Bill as crap. House Bill was far better, would sail through Senate but Schumer refuses to allow a vote.

 

[Dillenger1914]

Not the bipartisian bill that congress passed! The Senate bill is garbage
[/QUOTE

What happed to the bipartisan bill? Is this the "one" that people say President Trump thwarted?

 

[Captain]

When you have to purchase something, said merchant, will jack up the price. IE if everyone had to wear a red shirt on friday, red shirts price would double.

Obamacare imposed requirements / mandates on insurers, Doctors, Hospitals. Somebody has to pay for Government imposed mandates. Additionally, millions of uninsured illegals are taxing the health care system forcing operating costs up, then the insured are forced to pay. When Biden decided to open the borders to the world then encourage people to flood in by offering money, food, housing with no fear of being returned to their country, somebody pays.

 

[Dillenger1914]

Obamacare imposed requirements / mandates on insurers, Doctors, Hospitals. Somebody has to pay for Government imposed mandates. Additionally, millions of uninsured illegals are taxing the health care system forcing operating costs up, then the insured are forced to pay. When Biden decided to open the borders to the world then encourage people to flood in by offering money, food, housing with no fear of being returned to their country, somebody pays.

Affordable Care Act

 

[Captain]

It was a joke. Bi-partisan? Mitch, Romney and Langford are the three R’s which isn’t near as bi-partisan as double digit Dems supporting the House bill.

 

[Captain]

Affordable Care Act

Or more aptly named Un-affordable Care Act, but we know it as Obamacare

 

[Dillenger1914]

Or more aptly named Un-affordable Care Act, but we know it as Obamacare

Definitely understand that some families got screwed with this law and its mandates.

My position with it is that President Obama at least tried something vs. throwing his hands up and letting the medical costs continued to grow.

This is where our Congress have to do their jobs. You don't like the law and it's not working... fine. Change it or update it to work properly.

Do anything, but continuing to cry about the costs when no one else has presented a better plan.

 

[celticdawg]

Definitely understand that some families got screwed with this law and its mandates.

My position with it is that President Obama at least tried something vs. throwing his hands up and letting the medical costs continued to grow.

This is where our Congress have to do their jobs. You don't like the law and it's not working... fine. Change it or update it to work properly.

Do anything, but continuing to cry about the costs when no one else has presented a better plan.

It was also a coverage issue. I had pre-existing conditions and couldn't change my coverage so we got to pay $36,000 a year to keep insurance. Fortunately, I was getting ready to go on Medicare which has been wonderful. There are problems, but like you said, it can be changed.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

Definitely understand that some families got screwed with this law and its mandates.

My position with it is that President Obama at least tried something vs. throwing his hands up and letting the medical costs continued to grow.

This is where our Congress have to do their jobs. You don't like the law and it's not working... fine. Change it or update it to work properly.

Do anything, but continuing to cry about the costs when no one else has presented a better plan.

He tried something he knew he had to lie about to promote because the numbers could never add up. Now, I'll be the first to admit there were some things rotten with health insurance pre ACA but they were magnitudes less than the actual "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" law.

So, yeah some people got screwed. I got screwed to the tune of a 400% increase in premiums and $6500.00 per person deductible vs a $3500.00 family deductible but I'm covered if I decide I want to cut off my schlong. Iows, my current premium is more than my old max out of pocket. Hell, I buy insurance to protect myself from financial loses that are lower than my ACA premium.

 

[Dillenger1914]

He tried something he knew he had to lie about to promote because the numbers could never add up. Now, I'll be the first to admit there were some things rotten with health insurance pre ACA but they were magnitudes less than the actual "we have to pass it to find out what's in it" law.

So, yeah some people got screwed. I got screwed to the tune of a 400% increase in premiums and $6500.00 per person deductible vs a $3500.00 family deductible but I'm covered if I decide I want to cut off my schlong. Iows, my current premium is more than my old max out of pocket. Hell, I buy insurance to protect myself from financial loses that are lower than my ACA premium.

Holy chit. That is a crazy deductible amount.

 

[stray]

Holy chit. That is a crazy deductible amount.

That is actually pretty good these days. I used to have a $1000 deductible before Obamacare, it's now $10K. When we went to renew our policy they laughed at my deductible, they told me $5k is the lowest they knew of and most where at $10K. After working the quotes we had to go to $10K and our premium still doubled from what it was.
Almost any medical procedure I have I pay 100% now. If I get in a major accident I will be OK but regular stuff is no longer covered because I never reach the deductible.

We no longer have health insurance it's only catastrophe insurance.

 

[celticdawg]

Anyone who thinks that health insurance is going to change much in the next four years is dreaming. Maybe not at all. With the declining health of the aging overweight population there are a lot of costs. We have two large health systems where we live and it's like an arms race. Adds to the cost. Don't know what the solution is.

 

[Dillenger1914]

Anyone who thinks that health insurance is going to change much in the next four years is dreaming. Maybe not at all. With the declining health of the aging overweight population there are a lot of costs. We have two large health systems where we live and it's like an arms race. Adds to the cost. Don't know what the solution is.

So question- if most of the mandates from the Affordable Care Act were basically taken away... do you think that IF those mandates or requirements had remained..... would it have provided any relief?

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

That is actually pretty good these days. I used to have a $1000 deductible before Obamacare, it's now $10K. When we went to renew our policy they laughed at my deductible, they told me $5k is the lowest they knew of and most where at $10K. After working the quotes we had to go to $10K and our premium still doubled from what it was.
Almost any medical procedure I have I pay 100% now. If I get in a major accident I will be OK but regular stuff is no longer covered because I never reach the deductible.

We no longer have health insurance it's only catastrophe insurance.

Exactly. I now have a Rolls Royce premium for what amounts to slightly more than an old fashioned catastrophic plan. Not only did my premium and deductible explode, I also ended up scrapping my plan for my employee's program. Most of my guys make between 80 to 100K per yr and they couldn't afford to pay their contribution towards insuring their families. Fifteen K per yr in premiums is a big chunk of a family's budget after taxes when you gross 100K per yr.

 

[celticdawg]

So question- if most of the mandates from the Affordable Care Act were basically taken away... do you think that IF those mandates or requirements had remained..... would it have provided any relief?

I'm confused or misreading. I'm reading "if most of the mandates were removed" and then if they remained which seems contradictory.

I'm going to guess the question is if we didn't have the mandates. I think it just changes who pays for it. We would have probably continued to pay for it. We could have handled a high deductible policy, but for me it was the same question of covering pre-existing conditions. Others wouldn't have coverage. And things like expansion of Medicaid would have also left more people without coverage. Doctors wouldn't take patients if they didn't have insurance- who would want to be in that situation. Hospitals are different but we need a manageable amount of uninsured. I think overall costs would have continued to increase.

There are other ways to reduce costs. The government does a terrible job of preventing fraud. We were supposed to have better sharing of medical information to reduce costs and that basically hasn't worked. We don't have the two parties working together. And they keep pushing the funding of Social Security and Medicare down the road.

If I can better answer the question let me know.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

Anyone who thinks that health insurance is going to change much in the next four years is dreaming. Maybe not at all. With the declining health of the aging overweight population there are a lot of costs. We have two large health systems where we live and it's like an arms race. Adds to the cost. Don't know what the solution is.

Well, a nice start would be a small copay for anyone using the system. I remember about 20 yrs ago there was a proposal for Medicaid patients in Georgia to pay a $2.00 fee for being seen at emergency rooms. You would have thought it was a proposal to abolish the bill of rights. The bottom line is healthcare services are like any other commodity or service. If you give away the service or product, you'll have no shortage of customers but you'll eventually go broke. I have no problem subsidizing the truly needy but people with able minds and bodies shouldn't be getting services for free.

 

[Dillenger1914]

I'm confused or misreading. I'm reading "if most of the mandates were removed" and then if they remained which seems contradictory.

I'm going to guess the question is if we didn't have the mandates. I think it just changes who pays for it. We would have probably continued to pay for it. We could have handled a high deductible policy, but for me it was the same question of covering pre-existing conditions. Others wouldn't have coverage. And things like expansion of Medicaid would have also left more people without coverage. Doctors wouldn't take patients if they didn't have insurance- who would want to be in that situation. Hospitals are different but we need a manageable amount of uninsured. I think overall costs would have continued to increase.

There are other ways to reduce costs. The government does a terrible job of preventing fraud. We were supposed to have better sharing of medical information to reduce costs and that basically hasn't worked. We don't have the two parties working together. And they keep pushing the funding of Social Security and Medicare down the road.

If I can better answer the question let me know.

Great synopsis. I thought I vaguely remembered that many factors of the original bill, was removed and thus maybe it's (ACA) is not performing as it should. I will have to go back and research.....Thank you for your response.

 

[celticdawg]

Well, healthcare has some similarities, but many differences. Most covered healthcare is not elective, so one consideration is the design. If you have a small copay, then you are going to have less coverage somewhere or pay more premium. Supporting the needy is one issue, but it's just being able to have coverage.

I've been retired for 14 years and on Medicare for almost 13 now, so I have no idea what plans look like now. But Medicare and a supplement plan plus a drug plan takes good care of us with no copay or deductible except for drugs.

 

[ToddBburn]

Fair point about diet and lifestyle. I totally agree that these are the primary causes of our overall level of health compared to the other industrialized countries.

We grew up with the food pyramid, which is nutritionally a disaster. The high carb/low fat movement in the ‘70s and ‘80s continues to have a negative impact on our health.

Regarding the healthcare system overall, I have a lot of experience on the consumer side of the industry. We have had great (relative to the market) insurance the entire time and it has still been a very difficult, expensive and many times underwhelming journey. That includes places like Mayo, where both the care and the billing/insurance situation was bad to a degree I doubt you’d believe it.

So, I’ll admit to some bias (again) based on our experience, and we have other friends and family members with similar stories.

I also know a number of doctors personally and the administrative burden for them is overwhelming and getting worse.

I can agree with you that it’s not all bad, and we have some exceptional doctors that we work with. It’s just that the cost/benefit ratio seems bad when compared to our peer group.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

The government systems you are comparing us to are good for the people who are healthy. The people who have serious conditions and need surgeries have to deal with long waits and not the best care as a whole. That helps reduce the cost as well. I have had family members and friends of family members who have had to wait more than 6 months for some treatments. If you are older you could wait even longer.

 

[JoeDogs]

I just saw this comment yesterday (it is an old one from LawrenceO'Donnell). Thought about everyone here who love to throw out the word "liberal".

"What did liberals do that was so offensive to the Republican Party?

I'll tell you what they did.
Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote.
Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation.
Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act.
Liberals created Medicare.
Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water act.

What did conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things, EVERYONE.

So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, ‘liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."

Lawrence O'Donnell Jr.

I feel sorry for you if you think I believe any of what you said if y'all win I feel our country will go down the drain as it is slowly going there now because of y'all

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

We could have handled a high deductible policy, but for me it was the same question of covering pre-existing conditions.

First, you don't buy insurance for pre existing conditions. You don't have to be an actuary to figure out a person that already has 2K per month in expenses can't be covered for 1K in premiums. Now, that doesn't mean you throw those with pre existing conditions to the curb but it does mean you're adding more expenses to an already struggling system without adding enough additional revenue. At that point, you are no longer engaged in insuring, you're simply shifting cost.

There is one major issue with health payments in this country and the ACA did a horrible job addressing that issue. Simply put, there are way to many people consuming services that contribute little or nothing to funding their own care. We've played shell games for decades trying to shift costs from those that pay nothing on to the health insurance buying public. The ACA was nothing more than a huge wealth transfer from middle class Americans to health insurance companies in order for them to pay the bills for those paying premiums far below the actual cost they will incur.

 

[Dillenger1914]

I feel sorry for you if you think I believe any of what you said if y'all win I feel our country will go down the drain as it is slowly going there now because of y'all

I didn't say anything. It was a quote. But point taken.

You have your right to your opinion. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Ludlow's Porch]

Many flaws about your presumptions but I'll just point this out- Social Security was/is a HORRIBLE idea to start with and has become even worse in time!! If every person would simply take the money that is taken out for FICA and invested it in any fund that just closely mirrors S&P we would all be SO MUCH better off!! (somebody link Tommy Tubberville video)

 

[Dillenger1914]

First, you don't buy insurance for pre existing conditions. You don't have to be an actuary to figure out a person that already has 2K per month in expenses can't be covered for 1K in premiums. Now, that doesn't mean you throw those with pre existing conditions to the curb but it does mean you're adding more expenses to an already struggling system without adding enough additional revenue. At that point, you are no longer engaged in insuring, you're simply shifting cost.

There is one major issue with health payments in this country and the ACA did a horrible job addressing that issue. Simply put, there are way to many people consuming services that contribute little or nothing to funding their own care. We've played shell games for decades trying to shift costs from those that pay nothing on to the health insurance buying public. The ACA was nothing more than a huge wealth transfer from middle class Americans to health insurance companies in order for them to pay the bills for those paying premiums far below the actual cost they will incur.


[There is one major issue with health payments in this country and the ACA did a horrible job addressing that issue. Simply put, there are way to many people consuming services that contribute little or nothing to funding their own care.]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the ACA try to correct this, with the mandate that everyone had to have medical insurance and it was stricken down?

 

[Dillenger1914]

Many flaws about your presumptions but I'll just point this out- Social Security was/is a HORRIBLE idea to start with and has become even worse in time!! If every person would simply take the money that is taken out for FICA and invested it in any fund that just closely mirrors S&P we would all be SO MUCH better off!! (somebody link Tommy Tubberville video)

Perhaps an "option in/out" approach. Giving Americans an option to contribute or not. Don't know if that's fiscal possible or not. Just a thought.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the ACA try to correct this, with the mandate that everyone had to have medical insurance and it was stricken down?

Nope. Forcing young, healthy people to pay double or triple premiums wasn't making anything cheaper/more affordable. It was simply part of the shell game of hiding the expenses of the demo you wanted insure by shifting it to those that can "afford to pay". In reality, adding customers that aren't concerned with the real cost of the services they consume because the cost will be passed to others is a cost driver not a cost restraint.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

Perhaps an "option in/out" approach. Giving Americans an option to contribute or not. Don't know if that's fiscal possible or not. Just a thought.

That would work or simply placing the funds you contribute and are (LOL) contributed on your behalf by your employer into an interest bearing account in your name that you own would be much better than the IOU ponzie scheme the pols laid on us.

 

[celticdawg]

First, you don't buy insurance for pre existing conditions. You don't have to be an actuary to figure out a person that already has 2K per month in expenses can't be covered for 1K in premiums. Now, that doesn't mean you throw those with pre existing conditions to the curb but it does mean you're adding more expenses to an already struggling system without adding enough additional revenue. At that point, you are no longer engaged in insuring, you're simply shifting cost.

There is one major issue with health payments in this country and the ACA did a horrible job addressing that issue. Simply put, there are way to many people consuming services that contribute little or nothing to funding their own care. We've played shell games for decades trying to shift costs from those that pay nothing on to the health insurance buying public. The ACA was nothing more than a huge wealth transfer from middle class Americans to health insurance companies in order for them to pay the bills for those paying premiums far below the actual cost they will incur.

I'm not going to change your opinion but I don't agree with most of what you said. Yes, you want to buy insurance for pre existing conditions. I've had diabetes for a long time, but my insurance (currently Medicare)doesn't pay anything Drug coverage is separate. But I want to be covered if, for example, I would need a kidney transplant. And what should we be doing for that person who has 2K per month in expenses? Obviously there is no agreement on what to do.

ACA has problems but Congress can't work together to do anything. We're talking about health insurance and costs so I don't understand "way too many people consuming services that contribute little or nothing to funding their own care". If you are talking about low income people then it's a separate discussion of what to do about that which isn't restricted to health insurance. Otherwise people are paying for insurance or getting it through employment. What are we going to do about people who can't get insurance or can't afford it?

Uninsured people are a problem and not just in health insurance. In Florida we have a high number of people driving without car insurance in spite of it being required. That forces me to buy uninsured motorist coverage and pay for something I shouldn't have to. But, of more concern to me, is that people are having to go without insurance on their home. What are we, meaning society, going to do when people's home are destroyed by fire or mother nature. To be determined.

 

[celticdawg]

Many flaws about your presumptions but I'll just point this out- Social Security was/is a HORRIBLE idea to start with and has become even worse in time!! If every person would simply take the money that is taken out for FICA and invested it in any fund that just closely mirrors S&P we would all be SO MUCH better off!! (somebody link Tommy Tubberville video)

You are so wrong about this - saying that Social Security was a horrible idea. Do you realize how many people would have no retirement income if they were supposed to put it aside and invest for themselves? Rich, sophisticated investors would do fine but most of the population would have it spent. And you probably complain about having to support those people now. Of course, if you are looking up to Tommy, then that's another problem.

 

[stray]

Great synopsis. I thought I vaguely remembered that many factors of the original bill, was removed and thus maybe it's (ACA) is not performing as it should. I will have to go back and research.....Thank you for your response

I was VERY suspect(and you should be too) when they proposed this bill and all of the insurance companies supported it. Hmmmm.

 

[Ludlow's Porch]

You are so wrong about this - saying that Social Security was a horrible idea. Do you realize how many people would have no retirement income if they were supposed to put it aside and invest for themselves? Rich, sophisticated investors would do fine but most of the population would have it spent. And you probably complain about having to support those people now. Of course, if you are looking up to Tommy, then that's another problem.

Born the last year of the baby boomers, as a young man I was anything but rich or sophisticated. What was engrained within me, however, was a sense that I, and I alone, was personally responsible to take care of myself and plan for my future. My wife and I practiced delayed gratification and invested 15-25% or more every year in our 403B. I'm still not sophisticated, but .... I have broken the cycle of generations and taught my children what I did, while letting them know we will only be leaving them a little bit of what is left when we die, so you better do the same as we did. If not, they will learn the consequences of stupidity.
If most of the population would have spent the money sent to SS whose fault is that? Play stupid games and win stupid prizes. Btw, what did they do in Washington with that money?? They couldn't keep their hands off of it! Now neither Republicans or Democrats are willing to do what's necessary to make it solvent...both parties are content to keep passing the buck to the next generation but that won't last but so long.
And I'm not looking up to Tommy but simply applauding him for say something many of us have been saying for decades!! You are looking up to FDR and have probably bought the lie taught in schools that his RAW Deal brought America out of the recession.

 

[ToddBburn]

You are so wrong about this - saying that Social Security was a horrible idea. Do you realize how many people would have no retirement income if they were supposed to put it aside and invest for themselves? Rich, sophisticated investors would do fine but most of the population would have it spent. And you probably complain about having to support those people now. Of course, if you are looking up to Tommy, then that's another problem.

We should be held accountable for our choices. We have people who eat poorly and do not exercise should you or I pay more because of their choices?

 

[ToddBburn]

You are so wrong about this - saying that Social Security was a horrible idea. Do you realize how many people would have no retirement income if they were supposed to put it aside and invest for themselves? Rich, sophisticated investors would do fine but most of the population would have it spent. And you probably complain about having to support those people now. Of course, if you are looking up to Tommy, then that's another problem.

This same thing would apply for tax rates. I am by no means a high wage earner. I know that reduced taxes on the upper income people is what spurs growth. If you give them same money to most of the middle class they will spend it versus saving and or investing in new business/texhnology. Investing in new business/technology is what has made us the strongest country financially over time. Socialism and what the Dems are trying to do stifles that growth.

 

[Dillenger1914]

We should be held accountable for our choices. We have people who eat poorly and do not exercise should you or I pay more because of their choices?

In theory... No, we shouldn't, but their are many who, to no fault on their own, can't afford to eat (for this example) as well as they should. Hell, at times I can't....lol.

Most of us are blessed beyond our means and I would think the good lord would want us to help as much as we can.

Does that mean that at times, someone may "get over" on the system...yes. but I will let that be between the lord and them.

 

[ToddBburn]

I

In theory... No, we shouldn't, but their are many who, to no fault on their own, can't afford to eat (for this example) as well as they should. Hell, at times I can't....lol.

Most of us are blessed beyond our means and I would think the good lord would want us to help as much as we can.

Does that mean that at times, someone may "get over" on the system...yes. but I will let that be between the lord and them.

in theory no? How is that?
Whose theory is that you speak of?