Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

more attacks on Social Security

Page 3 of 5 [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,264
Location: the island of defective toy santas

24 Nov 2014, 3:54 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
3. Also, we need means testing. Those CEOs shouldn't draw anything from SS with millions in the bank.
D. With longer lifespans we're gonna hafta face the fact that we need to raise the retirement age. We simply cannot have healthy, fit people drawing off the system for 15 or 20 years...

but the average life expectancy of working-class males here is about 78 years. if you make them retire at 76 [what GOP has proposed on many occasions] chances are most of them will have to work until they drop in place. IOW retirement under that new age will be just for the wealthy. no other western nation has as high a retirement age as we do, as it is. instead of raising the age, replace the whole system with a social security universal income, paid for with 1]raising the income levels subject to present SS taxation to essentially no limit, and 2] a massive reduction in the bureaucracy needed to vet the present system and its clients.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

24 Nov 2014, 11:04 pm

auntblabby wrote:
but the average life expectancy of working-class males here is about 78 years. if you make them retire at 76 [what GOP has proposed on many occasions] chances are most of them will have to work until they drop in place. IOW retirement under that new age will be just for the wealthy. no other western nation has as high a retirement age as we do, as it is. instead of raising the age, replace the whole system with a social security universal income, paid for with 1]raising the income levels subject to present SS taxation to essentially no limit, and 2] a massive reduction in the bureaucracy needed to vet the present system and its clients.


Actually, our current retirement age is right in line with most of Europe... And I can certainly agree that 78 is too old. I'd say move the retirement age 70 with special eligibility for anyone 65+ for SSDI. I don't want unhealthy or 'broken down' people to work themselves to death, but it will be necessary for healthy and fit people to work longer as lifespans lengthen.

As for the whole universal income thing, there's just not enough money to go for more than poverty line levels there. That would be better for people on SSI and A LOT better for people on TANF, but I think it should be separate from SS/SSDI...

I've been doing a lot of reading and research on welfare/social insurance recently, and I think the above is what we could actually maintain. It ain't perfect, but it's a lot better than what we have now...

Actually, the real threat to social insurance is not all the baby boomers getting SS. It's all the baby boomers getting Medicare.

Healthcare costs are the real threat to the system here. If we don't find a way to contain those costs we're all screwed anyway. :(


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,264
Location: the island of defective toy santas

24 Nov 2014, 11:17 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
Healthcare costs are the real threat to the system here. If we don't find a way to contain those costs we're all screwed anyway. :(

the old system pre-ACA, was rationing by income. a more fair system would be rationing by lottery - not fair per se, but less UN-fair, IMHO. as long as the wealthy feel that taxation is "only for the little people" this is what we are left with.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

24 Nov 2014, 11:47 pm

auntblabby wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
Healthcare costs are the real threat to the system here. If we don't find a way to contain those costs we're all screwed anyway. :(

the old system pre-ACA, was rationing by income. a more fair system would be rationing by lottery - not fair per se, but less UN-fair, IMHO. as long as the wealthy feel that taxation is "only for the little people" this is what we are left with.


old system, new system... neither is sustainable. We need standardized prices for EVERYTHING related to medicine... My pre-insurance hospital bills are always 3 times higher than what my insurance company settles for.

We need realistic prices... but that would take government regulation, and we can't have THAT in America!


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,264
Location: the island of defective toy santas

24 Nov 2014, 11:54 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
old system, new system... neither is sustainable. We need standardized prices for EVERYTHING related to medicine... My pre-insurance hospital bills are always 3 times higher than what my insurance company settles for. We need realistic prices... but that would take government regulation, and we can't have THAT in America!

the same big business types who believe that we can ship out all the jobs yet still have a captive audience for their products, also believe that big medicine can survive when almost nobody can afford their product. I don't know what that kind of arch cluelessness is called.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

25 Nov 2014, 12:05 am

auntblabby wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
old system, new system... neither is sustainable. We need standardized prices for EVERYTHING related to medicine... My pre-insurance hospital bills are always 3 times higher than what my insurance company settles for. We need realistic prices... but that would take government regulation, and we can't have THAT in America!

the same big business types who believe that we can ship out all the jobs yet still have a captive audience for their products, also believe that big medicine can survive when almost nobody can afford their product. I don't know what that kind of arch cluelessness is called.


Before the ACA, markets were actually shrinking in many places. That was driving up premiums too. The ACA, has allowed the market to expand again. That has slowed premium inflation, but it's not enough.

We need to do a Japanese style system here.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,264
Location: the island of defective toy santas

25 Nov 2014, 12:27 am

GoonSquad wrote:
Before the ACA, markets were actually shrinking in many places. That was driving up premiums too. The ACA, has allowed the market to expand again. That has slowed premium inflation, but it's not enough. We need to do a Japanese style system here.

in order for that to happen, we first need a different electorate, one not stuck on voting for the people who claim to hate the same people as they do, and one that reliably gets up off of it AND VOTES consistently, year in and out. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

25 Nov 2014, 12:38 am

GoonSquad wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
GoonSquad wrote:
old system, new system... neither is sustainable. We need standardized prices for EVERYTHING related to medicine... My pre-insurance hospital bills are always 3 times higher than what my insurance company settles for. We need realistic prices... but that would take government regulation, and we can't have THAT in America!

the same big business types who believe that we can ship out all the jobs yet still have a captive audience for their products, also believe that big medicine can survive when almost nobody can afford their product. I don't know what that kind of arch cluelessness is called.


Before the ACA, markets were actually shrinking in many places. That was driving up premiums too. The ACA, has allowed the market to expand again. That has slowed premium inflation, but it's not enough.

We need to do a Japanese style system here.


What does the Japaneses system entail?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,264
Location: the island of defective toy santas

25 Nov 2014, 12:59 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
What does the Japaneses system entail?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_car ... m_in_Japan



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

25 Nov 2014, 11:38 am

Kraichgauer wrote:

What does the Japaneses system entail?


To my mind, the best thing about the Japanese system is price control. Everything is private but nonprofit. The government sets prices according to ACTUAL COST plus a reasonable amount of compensation for doctors, nurses, etc.

As a result, hospital rooms cost less than $100/day as opposed to more than $500/day in the US.

MRIs cost $100's as opposed to $1000's in the US.

And guess what?

In spite of all that government regulation, there's no shortage of doctors, and Japanese people have much better access to high quality care at much lower prices than we do in the US.

The last MRI I had took 45 minutes, involved two people (the MRI tech and my doctor) and cost $5000.00!
There's NO WAY to justify that... But stuff like that happens ALL THE TIME in our FREE market.

:roll:


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

25 Nov 2014, 12:07 pm

khoaz, thanks for posting this. have reposted on facebook.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

25 Nov 2014, 12:21 pm

Humanaut wrote:
trollcatman wrote:
The US debt is not that high at all.

This is true. They have inflated away major parts of it. Some of the side-effects are lower wages, a decrease in spending on Social Security, other benefits, and future obligations.

Image


If federal debt has decreased so drastically in terms of gold, isn't that an indication of a legit decrease and not a simple inflating away of debt?


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

25 Nov 2014, 1:19 pm

beneficii wrote:

If federal debt has decreased so drastically in terms of gold, isn't that an indication of a legit decrease and not a simple inflating away of debt?


No, because the price of gold has 'inflated' or increased drastically in the last few years...

In 2000 in was $273.00/oz by 2010 it was $1410/oz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_as_an_investment

However, there are lots of factors that influence the price of gold, so , it's not really a very good argument for anything... It's like comparing the US debt to the price of Google stock.

I used to do a lot of gold and silver trading, and I can tell you, that market is just as irrational as the stock market.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

25 Nov 2014, 3:25 pm

beneficii wrote:
If federal debt has decreased so drastically in terms of gold, isn't that an indication of a legit decrease and not a simple inflating away of debt?

Gold is the most stable metric.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

25 Nov 2014, 4:28 pm

Humanaut wrote:
beneficii wrote:
If federal debt has decreased so drastically in terms of gold, isn't that an indication of a legit decrease and not a simple inflating away of debt?

Gold is the most stable metric.


Eh? In the last 10 years gold has been one of the most volatile. Just about anything has gone down in value massively compared to gold. So all other goods, stocks, bonds, and currencies have halved in value when measured in gold but it's gold that is stable...? Gold has been going down in value for a while now, or would you say that everything else is going up in value for no reason compared to gold?
And don't forget that other investments can actually yield dividends, with gold there is no yield at all unless someone will overpay you even more for your gold.



GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

25 Nov 2014, 4:39 pm

trollcatman wrote:

Eh? In the last 10 years gold has been one of the most volatile. Just about anything has gone down in value massively compared to gold. So all other goods, stocks, bonds, and currencies have halved in value when measured in gold but it's gold that is stable...? Gold has been going down in value for a while now, or would you say that everything else is going up in value for no reason compared to gold?
And don't forget that other investments can actually yield dividends, with gold there is no yield at all unless someone will overpay you even more for your gold.


The one thing you can say about the price of gold is that it can reflect a certain lack of confidence in US Treasury bonds among a set of fringe investors... It also reflects the level of fear of inflation.

Those two factors have driven the price way up over the last 15 years.

However, in spite of the GOP's best efforts to undermine confidence in US credit, US bonds are still seen as 'better than gold' by most of the world, and not only has inflation NOT happened, deflation is dragging Europe's economy down right now...

That's why gold has been relatively stagnant for the last 4 years... bouncing between $1000.00 and $1400.00/oz.


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus