ForumGarden

bush is tryingt o get his social security bill passed i think h will runinto a lot of trouble getting it passed.

You have no idea how much that burns me up. I'm 45, and he tells the country if you're over 55 you are OK, but if you're under that age you will work longer, get less and retire later.

Thanks a bunch George, you blasted idiot. What about all the money I have put in in my life?! I've been working since I was 15 and have been unemployed for a total of 7 days in all that time. Doesn't that count for something?

Give me my money you blasted theif!

I absolutely hate George Bush. He's the AntiChrist. (sigh)

OMG, Jives! :wah:

Personally, I'd like more details. Like, what happens to all the money I've already paid in? Do I get to invest that, or is it still mine to be paid out when I do retire, or what? What about my employer match?



I also want to know exactly which funds I'd get to invest in, so I can study them in depth.



So far, it doesn't sound compulsory, but of course I want to know for sure.

On one hand, I think that taking our own retirement back is a good thing. People are screaming about it, but what's so awful about being in control of your own money? It means that people will have to become educated about investments, but oh well. We should be smart about it.



On the other hand, I'm none too thrilled about being in the generation who's likely to be hardest hit by the changes. But what are my options? Pass it on to my kids? My mom? That's not appealing, either.



At this point, I just don't know enough to make a good decision on it all.

Yeah, I agree. I wish I had been in control of my own money from the first day I started to work, because then....

It would still be there!!!

Jives wrote: Yeah, I agree. I wish I had been in control of my own money from the first day I started to work, because then....



It would still be there!!!
I needed that belly laugh - thank you!!

i'm absolutely fed up with the democratic party - it should be renamed the demagogue-ic party.

here's a fun game - thinking about how the democrats right now are bellyaching and ballyhooing about how social security is FINE, don't touch it, there's no crisis, keep your hands off social security - let's play the an exciting round of Guess Who Said It!



"We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system. By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security."



now, put on your thinking caps all you Limousine Liberals out there.....was it....george bush?



No!



Bill Clinton, in 1998.



the ONLY reason democrats are squeeling like stuck pigs is because george bush is now saying it. That's demagoguery, in all its hideous accoutremente.



social security is a Ponzi scheme, that would be illegal if it were being run in the private sector. not one penny of the tens of thousands of dollars i've contributed to my "social security" will ever be returned to me to provide social security for me. my benefits have all been spent. Ponzi scheme. but unlike an illegal Ponzi scheme, i can't exit the scheme - i'm required by law to participate in it!



feh. jives, your money was spent long ago. you'll only get benefits by extracting them from your children's labors. talk about mortgaging our children's futures. it ain't got nothing to do with george bush - social security has been running like this for decades.

anastrophe wrote: the ONLY reason democrats are squeeling like stuck pigs is because george bush is now saying it. That's demagoguery, in all its hideous accoutremente.No argument, Paul. Some of us trusted Bill Clinton more than we trust George Bush to reform Social Security. But Demagoguery? Doth not the pot call the kettle black?



anastrophe wrote: social security is a Ponzi schemeYep. So's the stock market. I loved W's famous call for all of us to put our retirement eggs in the stock market, which promptly tanked. That was the best line since "Let them eat cake." My 401K gained $400 and lost $4000 before I cashed it out and bought my own business, in which I plan to work until they nail the lid on my coffin.

There are two differences betweeen the Stock Market and Social Security. One is with Social Security, you put your trust in Big Government. With the Stock Market, you put your trust in Big Business. It's a matter of whom you trust. The second difference is the fact that we are all stuck in Social Security is the thing that makes it work- If we could pull a Martha Stewart, the whole thing would collapse. Certainly there will be times when the ratio of payers to collectors will change. The cost of defending our country also goes up and down with world events, but nobody advocates scrapping the DOD.

Keeping the Social Security system alive will not, nor did it ever, prevent those few very smart and lucky people who chose to secure their own future by prudent investments. All Social Security does is take everyone's money and do with it what they should have done themselves, but which many people don't have the smarts or business acumen to do. In a small way, it helps level the playing field between the few money-smart people and the many money-dumb people. Yeah, it's communistic. Hate it if you want, but without it, America would probably be a banana republic with a few super-wealthy fat cats and their favorites, and a great, sweaty, unwashed mass of grindingly-poor.

The fifth commandment, in the heart of the Decalogue, says "Honor your father and mother so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you." It's written in stone by the finger of God that if we don't take care of our elderly, we won't last long as a nation.



anastrophe wrote: you'll only get benefits by extracting them from your children's labors. I don't have any children. All I have are parents who, if not for Medicare, Social Security and pensions would drain every penny I now earn to keep them from dying in a puddle of their own wastes. So what do I care that I have been paying into this system all my life and it might not be there for me when I'm old? The help it gives my parents frees me to invest in my business. If I never get a penny, Social Security has done a lot for me. I for one, would like to see the system continue for future generations.

Do you get state pensions? Seriously, I was under the impression that everything was private in the US. No state benefits unless you were actually destitute, what is medicare, I am under the impression that in the US if you can't afford a doctor you don't get treated, end of story. Maybe ER and programmed like that give the wrong impression.

gmc wrote: Do you get state pensions? ...I am under the impression that in the US if you can't afford a doctor you don't get treated...My Father was an L.A. Policeman, and afterwards worked as a Welfare Fraud investigator (He had some interesting stories). He has a Police pension and a county pension. Civil Service workers often have pensions, but the new workers will be getting less and less, even as the cost of living increases. Some non-government employers offer pensions, but that is becoming rarer, and the amounts smaller.

My father was recently hospitalized with a broken hip. Medicare would pay for 20 days in a convalescent hospital. After that, they would pay part, and his insurance would have to pay the rest. My parents have pretty good insurance as part of Dad's retirement package. But again, he worked practically all his life as a civil servant.

If a person is completely without any insurance and can't afford medical care, There is either Medicare (Federal) if they're over 65, or medicaid (State) if they are younger. Private hospitals of the type and quality of care that you see on T.V.- you won't even be admitted without a very good insurance plan, or a lot of cash. The county hospitals that take the paltry reimbursement Medicare or Medicaid pays are the kinds of places you won't see on T.V. and you would never allow a loved one to spend one night there. They are third world.

From a doctor's point of view, I accept both Medicare and Medi-Cal (Medicaid in California). You can make an adequate living on them if you see huge numbers of patients and see them very quickly. They are a population that is sicker and requires more care- for less money. So fewer doctors are taking Medicare and Medicaid, and those of us who still take them have to work with roller skates on. Medicaid is the most precarious situation. If they reduce the reimbursements much, I may find I will have to stop accepting it, and a lot of people will have to do without. What can you do when the reimbursement pays less than it costs you to provide the service?

Private insurances also pay us less and less, while they charge you more and more in premiums. I don't know what to suggest, except that I don't advise anyone to go into the health care field.

Our NHS may have problems but the basic principle is everybody gets treated for free at the point they need it. OK there might be a waiting list but that's better than being turned away. Private medicine tends to be more on the cosmetic side but can extend to other things as well. As a rough rule of thumb anything chronic gets dumped back on the NHS cos there is no profit. If anything goes wrong with your cosmetic surgery it is usually the NHS that sorts it out-there have been a few well publicised cases recently with just that happening. It's not free we pay through our taxes.

Mt Father in Law had a heart by-pass op postponed theree times due to emergencies, while he could have gone privately he views it as morally wrong that someone can get better treatment just because they are well off, a sentiment that I suspect most people in this country would agree with.

It's a major political issue here and the govt ignores public sentiment at their peril we expect the govt to provide this kind of thing and tampering with the NHS and trying to privatise it really raises the hackles.

I've always considered myself a conservative with a lean toward the liberatarion so I have no problem with letting people invest their own money but I also have no problem with social programs. The day of everyone being a rugged individual with no relationship with any kind of government is over.

So how does lowering the amount of money going to S/S help? Sure you lower outgo but also income to the program I see no gain.

There is no S/S trust fund we all know that. Dems and Reps have taken every time out of the program and now say boo hoo there is a problem. The first step to solving S/S's problems should be to get the gov. to invest the funds instead of spending them as fast as they come in.

anastrophe wrote: i'm absolutely fed up with the democratic party - it should be renamed the demagogue-ic party.


And the republican party should be renamed the Regurgitating Party. Since it's replaying the past and wants stagnation, not progress.

social security is a Ponzi scheme, that would be illegal if it were being run in the private sector. not one penny of the tens of thousands of dollars i've contributed to my "social security" will ever be returned to me to provide social security for me. my benefits have all been spent. Ponzi scheme. but unlike an illegal Ponzi scheme, i can't exit the scheme - i'm required by law to participate in it!


See? Democrats and Republicans can get along! I agree! I guess what makes me mad is that I actually believed that I would one day see my money. Fool that I am.



feh. jives, your money was spent long ago. you'll only get benefits by extracting them from your children's labors. talk about mortgaging our children's futures. it ain't got nothing to do with george bush - social security has been running like this for decades.


Yeah, I realize that. I was just hoping to make it under the line and get a little. But it was George Bush that just drew that line at 55, cutting me off from my bucks.

Truthfully, though, I'm not too worried about it. I have few needs and have an austere and plain lifestyle. I've been planning for the last 11 years for this day and I'll be fine without Social Security.

I used the good times during the Clinton Administration to pile up $160,000 in my stock portfolio, then I cashed out as soon as Bush was elected the first time.

Take that George! :wah:

Poolah you may be right in your assessment of S/S.but I think what some on this thread are saying and I agree is that the pols. both Dems and Reps are using S/S as a political football They just try to make points against their opponents rather than give an honest veiw of the problems we face with S/S. It is to the point where I don't know who to beleive.

I force myself to watch the business channels on TV and most of the pundits on these channels say that both parties are lying.

I don't see how Bush's plan will help, But I also don't think there is no problem. And one of the preveious comments is true when the Dems Were in power they told us that S/S would be broke soon now they say it just needs some minor adjustments and that isn't what they said a few years age.

I personally think we have placed some of the worse people ever in public office I don't trust any of them Dem or Rep

excellent post, well thought out.

I would urge you to watch some of the debates on the business channels on the TV it takes some time but after a while you begin to know who is talking straight and who is pushing an agenda. I like the TV forum because sometimes they get heated and you hear stuff you don't get in newspapers and magazines

Poolah wrote: With a little tweaking here, we could make the Social Security fund solvent indefinitely. How can you call this a crisis?
the democrats were, in 1998. clinton's words were echoed by al gore, barbara boxer, ted kennedy, al gephart. to wit "this is a crisis".





What Bush is proposing would make the system insolvent right now. Today. It would cost upwards of 750 billion over the next ten years to cover the money that Bush’s plan would allow workers to take out of the system
this is what bugs me. this mentality that people are 'taking out' or 'taking away'. IT'S THEIR MONEY.





”remember that Social Security is a “pay as you go” system, so if current workers take money out of the system to invest in private accounts, there is less money to pay benefits to current retirees.
would you please define "pay as you go"? i really can't grasp the meaning. i get a cable tv bill every month. as long as i pay it, i get cable tv. is that 'pay as you go'?



the intent of social security was for a worker to contribute to the system for THEIR retirement. not that workers would contribute to a system that pays for the previous generation that is in retirement *right now*. that intent has been perverted.







Bush has mumbled a bit about “reducing benefits” (usually when asked if he would raise taxes to cover the cost of his plan) but he has given no clue as to how he would pay for this (sound familiar?)
'pay for it'. look, we can't keep living in this fantasy world that it's okay for the government to reach into our pockets in order to redistribute wealth as it sees fit. social security funds were years ago rolled into the general budget. on paper, they are set aside, in reality, the govt dips into that huge money pot regularly to fund this and that petty pork barrel project. they are stealing from us, and redistributing our earnings. they are not ensuring our 'social security'. maybe people need to get their minds wrapped around the notion that you can't just bleed the people dry, and expect benefits to keep rolling in?





If there is a crisis in Social Security, how could pulling more money out of the system with no clear plan for how to replace that money fix it?
it is not 'pulling money out'. it is allowing those whose pockets are being picked to at least have some say in how the money is invested, so that it might generate a better return. considering that the stock market has *always* been an 'up' proposition when investing long term. *always*. the return, over a worker's lifetime, will be better if invested in the stock market than if invested in govt bonds. the whole idea is to find a way for social security benefits to increase long term. if social security funds earn more long term, then there will be more available at the payout 30 years down the road.







Cutting through all this hyperbole (what the heck does “accourremente" mean?)
um, you are familiar with google? the word is accoutremente. feel free to look it up.





allow me to lay some of your fears to rest. First of all, even if we do nothing, you will still receive 73% of your benefits.
why should i accept 73% 30 years from now, when had i invested it myself, it could be 120%?



But no one is suggesting that we do nothing. With a couple of sensible tweaks, like reducing benefits of high-income recipients and/or raising the maximum income level for contributions, you’ll receive every penny of your projected benefits.
soothing words. so, the democrats said we were in crisis eight years ago. now that a republican is in office, strangely we are now *not* in crisis.



perhaps i'm simply too dumb to understand who the demagogues really are.







Again, it’s a pay as you go system, so I’m not sure what your point is here.
as above. i have no idea what that phrase is supposed to illuminate.

Poolah wrote:

In this case, however, the distortions offered up by the democrats, pale in comparison to the outright lies the Bush administration is pumping out.
sigh. republicans lie, but demcrats merely 'distort'.



if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....





Bush repeatedly stated that Social Security will be “flat busted” in 2042, which is simply untrue.
a system paying out more than it takes in is bankrupt.





Bush has said repeatedly that the social security revenue shortfall is “10.5 trillion dollars!” Poppycock. The projected SEVENTY FIVE YEAR shortfall is only 3.7 trillion.
only!





Bush’s plan would pull 750 billon out of the system over the next ten years and he’s had nothing to say about how this would be paid for.
again, the money isn't being 'pulled out'. it is being shifted to other instruments that can and likely will earn far MORE than those moneys invested by the government.





Bush is also fond of stating that "there is no social security trust fund," because the surplus is transfered into the general fund, leaving behind "IOUs." There is a Social Security surplus, Since 1983 the fund has been collecting more taxes than it needs for current benefits to prepare for retiring baby boomers. The surplus is used in the general fund, but what's left behind are not IOUs (which sound like the world's riskiest loan) bu US Treasury bonds (still the world's safest investment). The money is there.
no, it isn't. it's debt. pure and simple. funny, everybody whines about the 'record deficit'. never mind that the deficit right now as a proportion of the GDP is a fraction of what it was 30 years ago. there isn't enough money to pay for all government programs, with soc sec funds as part of the general fund. they've mortgaged it off.





The biggest distortion about Social Security, which I believe has caused the most confusion, is that it's a retirement account. It has been sold since day one as a program where you put money in while you're working and you get that money back when you retire. This implies that it's a retirement account, similar to a 401k or IRA, where you invest "your" money in order to get a return when you retire. The whole Bush plan is based on the concept (again, a concept that has been incorrectly put forth since FDR founded the program) that private retirement accounts will provide better return than Social Security--which by the way, is absolutely true. The problem is that Social Security is not an investment account at all. It's a Government program that gives money to retired people and is funded by a tax on current workers. The money you put in IS NOT YOUR MONEY, it belongs to the Government.
dear god. there it is. the socialist's wet-dream.



it IS your money. that the government takes it from you doesn't make it any less your money. we the people fund the government. the government is there to work on OUR behalf. the government does NOT own my money. that they take it, and take it by force - and take way, way too much - does not make it right.



social security WAS promoted as a retirement account, from the very beginning. that it was misrepresented to the people doesn't make it right. social security is a TAX. no more, no less. that people are mislead by their government into believing that it's not, is pathetic. that there are people who would go so far as to say that we're all 'mistaken' for believing it's a retirement fund merely speaks to the depths to which socialism can reach its dirty little fingers into people's mentality.

Poolah wrote:

. If we change nothing, the Social Security system is projected to go into deficit in 2019. That’s when the amount of money it receives in benefits will be less than the amount is pays out. It will be 2042, again if we do nothing, before the system is unable to pay out full benefits.
i'm a little confused by this. in 2019, it'll take in less than it pays out. in 2042, it'll be unable to pay out full benefits. what's happening in the years between 2019 and 2042? how will it pay out full benefits while not taking in enough to pay them out?





3.7 trillion dollars is a pretty dang big number, I’ll grant you, but this is the projected amount of the Social Security deficit in 75 years if we make no changes at all and Bush has been saying it’s going to be more than double that amount.
i have little faith in any projection more than two years out. as the boom was peaking just as bush came into office, they were trumpeting huge govt surpluses for a decade to come. the govt loves to trumpet what will/will not happen decades down the road, and it bears little resemblance to reality. the democrats, in 1998, were saying socsec would turn in 2032, now it's 2042. ten years is a hell of a big difference.





You still seem unclear on the pay as you go concept. Current benefits are funded by current taxes. If you reduce the current taxes”and allowing people to invest part of what they were paying in taxes in private accounts does this”you reduce the money available to pay benefits to current retirees. The reduction of money going into the social security system that partial privatization will cause is what I’m referring to when I say “pulling money out of the system.”
it may reduce current benefits. but the reality is, as with all pyramid schemes, at some point, somebody gets the shaft. by converting a portion of socsec OUT of the ponzi scheme, at least those who are toiling now have a better chance of getting full benefits down the road than if we continue with this charade.





Everybody agrees that the fact that fifteen years from now Social Security will be taking in less money that it must pay out is a problem. Reducing the money that comes into the system makes this problem worse, not better. A serious conversation about privatizing Social Security must include a plan to deal the tremendous cost of covering this lost revenue. To date, I’ve heard no such plan from George Bush, or you for that matter.
again, this is an important part of the issue - 'reducing the money that comes into the system' - that's not right. a portion of the money will be diverted to instruments that will earn *more* than socsec currently earns. that diverted money is not the government's money, it is the taxpayer's money. it may cause some degree of hardship for current retirees. there are other ways of dealing with that (the same 'working at the edges' principal, but applied differently, as i'll get to).





I’ve already said that I don’t think the Government should be dipping into the SS surplus and I don’t dispute that this creates debt. But we’re only talking about the surplus, not the money that’s currently required to pay benefits. I also think it’s a bit disingenuous for republicans to refer to Treasury Bonds as “IOUs.”


if there is indeed a surplus *now*, then wouldn't it be best to start a system *now* that diverts some of the socsec income into instruments that will earn *more* longterm, and fill the 'gap' in current income from the surplus?





As to the deficit, in 1975 the deficit was about 3.3% of the GDP and in 2004 it was 2.7%. So, technically you’re correct that “it’s a fraction of what it was 30 years ago,” but that fraction is about four-fifths. Given the economy in the seventies, I’m not sure I’d hang my hat on that one.



i misremembered the quote. here's the quote:As a percentage of the national income, the national debt today is less than half of what it was in 1950 and about where it was in 1940.





I’m sorry sir, but you’ll have to submit to an environmental impact report before you dump all that tea into the water.



Hey, I’m not crazy about how the government spends some of my money, believe me, but I am happy for police and fire protection, parks, roads, the SBA, FEMA, and my local little league. Maybe that’s why I’m not feeling as violated as you seem to feel.
you do realize that most of what you list above doesn't come from federal taxes, right? local police and fire - property and local taxes. parks - not national parks of course - property taxes. roads - gasoline taxes. SBA, FEMA, them's federal all right.



that the average person must work the equivalent of more than three full months a year exclusively to pay taxes to the federal government shoudl be shocking, but most people are inurred to the pain.





Now it’s your turn to look a word up; socialism. I hate to be a stickler about this, but I think it’s important. Calling liberals, or ANY government program “socialism” is simply not using the word correctly”by the way I have the same problem with liberals calling conservatives “fascists.” Socialism is when a central Government owns (that’s the key word) and controls the economy.
that is one of the meanings of socialism. it is by no means the only definition. one can have a defacto socialist regime when the government taxes the people to the point that what they actually take home is far less than what they give to the government. see scandinavian countries with marginal tax rates of 70%. they are defacto socialist nations.





Having the government offer services paid for by taxes is not socialism any more than opposing abortion is fascism. This is really just name-calling and reduces our collective ability to identify a true socialist or fascist, should one emerge and I think that’s dangerous.
i disagree. there are such things as creeping socialism, and creeping fascism. a great many of the social programs in the united states are little more than robin hood schemes. our tax system is designed to rob from the rich to give to the poor. yes, it's fiery rhetoric, but the fact is as above, we've become inurred to the pain. the rich pay 4 out of 5 of the tax dollars the federal goverment takes in - the left/liberals/democrats (trying to be fair in my labels!) all want to 'tax the rich' - they're already taxed out the yin/yang. any time anyone suggests a tax cut that also cuts taxes to the rich - the most overtaxed among us - it's 'government welfare for the rich'. it's enough to make one scream.









While I doubt I could match your fiery oratory, I basically agree with you up until the point you blame it all on a socialist plot to control our minds. ahem. i neither said, nor suggested, same. as denny crane would say: trix are for kids!





Yeah, Social Security was marketed as a retirement system and I think that’s why, now that we’re talking about privatizing it, people are having such a hard time coming to grips with the idea the whole pay as you go thang.
my only retort is: current surplus in socsec system? great! pay benefits from same. offset amount 'taken out' by diversion to private savings, which will earn many times what the current surplus is earning, as a long-term investment.

i should add that i agree that there is no crisis. even the most pessimist projection is that things will start to tank somewhere out beyond the 2030's. that's a long way off. but ignoring a looming problem won't make it go away. now is the time to make fundamental changes, so that socsec will become what it was originally promised to be - insurance for your retirement.

i forgot to go into some of the 'working at the edges' ideas. some are proposing increasing the earnings cap, so that people earning more than $87K will keep paying into socsec. i have a different idea - how about putting some actual earnings/assets tests into the socsec payout schemes? my mom, thanks to my late father's govt service, takes in a comfortable retirement, a combination of two public employees retirement funds, *and* social security. she could live just fine without social security. oh, i certainly know she's not complaining about getting it, and heck, it continues to add to the estate that some day i'll inherit something from. but wouldn't it make sense that if someone is already getting guaranteed retirement benefits, that socsec benefits be reduced commensurately? socsec was never intended to be an "entitlement", it was intended to be insurance in old age for those who had nothing. considering that the elderly in the US are the most affluent segment of the population, it seems like an awful lot of benefits are being given to those who don't need them......

Poolah wrote: Things can change in a just a few years, can’t they? This is why it’s so dang silly of Bush to be quoting projections that are more than a hundred years out! (gosh, you don’t suppose that would be demagoguery, do you?) of course it is. by the same measure as the democrats now claiming 'there is no crisis', when they claimed so in 1998, and nothing has changed in the intervening seven years.



same as it ever was.





While the numbers may move around we know for sure that people are living longer and having fewer children and eventually this will lead to more old people with their hands out than young people working the salt mine and we need to be prepared for this. which is why moving to a system where the assets can actually earn a much greater return makes sense to get going now. and it has a double benefit - those 'privately' invested funds go to increasing the assets and value of industry, which makes the economy work better. unless one subscribes to the 'all business is evil' theorem.







It may reduce benefits? Dude, we’re talking 750 billion dollars over the next ten years. That’s a lot of sweet little old ladies not getting their checks. I’d be interested to hear how you plan to explain to them that you’re sorry they’re eating cat food but gee whiz, somebody had to get the shaft in the whole social security thing”better you than me granny”but damn, check out all the money I made on the stock market!ahem. what were we just saying about demagoguery? how about this - how about all the 'little old ladies' who have hundreds/millions salted away in their own investment funds, guaranteed retirement benefits, real estate - *not* get social security? or have it reduced on a sliding scale? sure - they have their expectation of getting back from it - but so do i. again - everyone says if current trends continue, it runs out. so.....again, somebody is going to get the shaft. no, i am by no means saying 'better granny than me'. i'm saying maybe those who don't need it should be willing to give it up. again, my mom doesn't need it. i'd have no problem with the govt holding back some portion of it against future bankruptcy of the system.



and again, let's not forget - the elderly in this country are the most affluent segment of the population. the image of granny eating catfood is real, for some portion of them. they're the ones that should be getting their *social security*. auntie hazel living in a $2M home in upstate new york, taking in $3K a month from her govt pension, is not in need of social security benefits.





Current retirees paid into the system with the same expectation you have; that they’d get their money back some day and I doubt that the fabulous return you’d make for yourself with the money that would have gone towards their benefits would make them forget about this expectation. They paid their money in and it's really not unreasonable that they expect you to do it also.


the expectation is what's wrong. those who don't need it, shouldn't expect it. one pays insurance without an expectation that one will get it all back - unless one has a valid claim.







What if I said “reduces the money coming into the account that is used to pay current retirees their benefits?” Would that make it more clear? The key component of privatization is allowing current tax payers to invest funds for themselves that currently are going to today’s retirees. If current workers all tripled their money through private investment it wouldn’t change the fact that there would be less money available for current retirees.well there again there's that small problem of the alleged surplus. if indeed there's a surplus, the gap can be covered. it is 2005. if the surplus is alleged to be large enough to fill the gap between 2019 and 2042, without any changes in current benefits, then gosh - apply those surpluses between now and 2019. in just those 13 years, the 'privatized' assets will have earned more than enough to fill the gap. again, investing in safe stock/bond instruments will yield much greater returns than what is being returned now.







Remember that the surplus is what gets us from 2019 to 2042 (or whatever the dates turn out to be). If you use only the surplus, you would increase the national debt”because the Government would now have to come clean about the money it diverted to the general fund”in my view, that would be a good thing. This is beginning to sound like a plan, but you would be only be dipping your toes into the privatization waters compared to what Bush has suggested. And you’d still have to figure out how get us from 2019 to solvency.
it's a sticky wicket.









You didn’t look it up, did you. Webster’s defines socialism as "any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
ahem. dueling dictionaries is a fools game. first, i would point out that a dictionary isn't the first or best source for details of a complex concept such as socialism. to indulge you, i'm reviewing my columbia encyclopedia's entry for socialism. which runs for nearly a full page of tiny print. let me quote the following brief passage, which may assuage your absolutist stance re socialism:

In a broader sense, the term socialism is often used loosely to describe economic theories ranging from those that hold that only certain public utilities and natural resources should be owned by the state to those holding that the state should assume responsibility for all economic planning and direction. In the past 150 years there have been innumerable differing socialist programs. For this reason socialism as a doctrine is ill-defined, although its main purpose, the estabilsihment of cooperation in place of competation remains fixed.

emphasis mine. varieties and formal organizations of socialism include collectivism, marxism and gradualism, christian socialism, scientific socialism, democratic socialism, socialist labor parties, etc.



the 'dangerous' one in this country, is gradualism, the doctrine of 'working within the system to adapt and gently overthrow it through socialist principles'.





Without central ownership of the economy, you can’t have socialism. false, as above.





This is what I what I’m talking about when I say the meaning of words like socialism and fascism are getting distorted to the point where people no longer understand what they truly mean.i would submit that it is inadequate understanding of the broader concept of socialism that is at play here. an absolutist, minimalist definition of socialism is incorrect.





If somebody comes along who truly advocates government ownership of the economy, he’ll get called a socialist just like Kennedy, Kerry and Clinton (both of them) who have never, and will never advocate any such thing, or really anything like it.
as above. gradualists.





I do a fair amount of business in Scandinavia and a bit in China also and I can tell you that the difference between a highly regulated and taxed economy and a state-owned one is pretty striking. I would never advocate that we do anything like either place here and that’s why I think it contributes a general lack of understanding to call Government entitlement programs “socialism,” because they simply are not.again, as above. they are forms of socialism. redistribution of wealth by a centrally controlling body, the federal government.











US citizens are taxed at among the lowest rates in the industrialized world.
and we have one of the highest standards of living, are one of the 'free-est' nations on earth, are a dominant force in innovation, and have extraordinary good will for the rest of the world. i wonder if there's a connection.



The top twenty percent of income earners in the US represent half of the total income, so while it’s true that the rich pay a higher percentage of their income, it’s not as big a gap as the widely quoted “top 20% of earners pay 80% of income tax” stat might lead one to believe.
ahem. the top 1% of wage earners pay more than 40% of the taxes the IRS collects from individuals. sounds like a dandy 'gap' indeed.



The United States offers more opportunity for people to rise up to that top income level than any other country on earth and I don’t think it’s too much to ask that the folks given that opportunity kick back in a bit more”especially given the dramatic increase in income disparity in the US.
why should they pay a greater proportion than anyone else? i do not fathom that mentality. if everyone payed the same rate - call it 10% flat tax - someone earning $10,000 would pay $1000 in taxes. someone earning $1,000,000 would pay 100,000 in taxes. what's wrong with everyone paying an equal proportion? why is it 'fair' to stick it to the rich? *everyone* in this country has the same opportunities available - give or take. of course there are disparities. that doesn't mean the opportunities aren't there.









I guess that’s the image that “speaks to the depths to which socialism can reach its dirty little fingers into people's mentality” called up for me. If that’s not what you intended, my apologies.as above.



Again, you could be on to something here, but this would be a far more modest proposal that what Bush is asking for, and you’d still have to figure out how to get from 2019, when the system’s input can no longer cover the output, to solvency.
by starting with changes now, the system might avoid insolvency by investing the money in instruments that will earn back far more than the surplus mouldering in govt bonds or whatever.



i won't pretend i've even read in any depth what bush's proposal is. i don't see much point - even with a solid republican majority, socsec is such a hot potato, such a greased football, i don't see massive, dramatic change happening - too many politicians would like to be re-elected, ya know? what's important is to get the ideas out there, get people debating it (success!) and maybe change the mentality that socsec is the benificent govt handing out money to us. *we* are handing our money to the goverment, and as usual, they've mismanaged it into a big mess. that's what centralized govt tends to do. at least the concept of privatization will get people considering that silly idea that it's *their* money, not the governments.

Just throwing my two cents in here, messing the place up - again! LOL



If rugged individualism is no longer a viable option in this country, then a huge portion of our freedom died. The whole point, the thing that makes us special is the fact that we have unlimited opportunity. Doesn't matter what your circumstances were at birth, you have the ability to improve it.



People are responsible for themselves. This victim attitude makes me retch, I'm sorry! The old woman eating cat food is ridiculous - didn't she know she'd retire one day? What was she eating when she was 30, 40? Where did she put her money? And why is her lack of foresight my problem?



If I spent all of my money on vacations and pretty clothes, should I expect the next generations to pay my way? Am I implying that people recklessly spend and then demand that everyone else foot the bill? Yes, I am actually. No apology for that.



As an aside, of course people get into unexpected situations. Tragedies occur, and sometimes they are overhwelming. In such cases, it would be nice to have programs to assist these people. But it should in no way be the norm.



If I'm selfish, so be it. I work very hard for my income. Taxing 30% of it to hand out to other people does not make me happy. See, I have to find a way to live on less, fulfill my goals, and one day retire myself - all on my own! Imagine that - not expecting anyone else to take care of me. It ticks me off that I must do it within the confines of taking care of everybody else.



I used to have grandiose ideas about the poor. Then I lived with the poor, for years. It was the only way I could afford to support myself and my son, and still go to college. There are some that work very hard. I don't worry about them too much because they will get out their poverty, just as I have. As for the majority, well, living beside them was a rude awakening. They will never get out of their circumstances because they are too busy putting their problems onto everyone else, thinking short-term, demanding immediate gratification, and generally lazy.



I realize this is not PC. Oh well. Had you read my thoughts from 5 years ago, you would not recognize me. I really did have high-flown ideas that we should all take care of each other...what I didn't realize is that there are immense segments of the population who will happily sit back and let you take care of them, no matter the cost. And their defenders will tell you a bunch of BS about how your income does not belong to you...wtf?



(I'm a little cranky today).

Poolah wrote: When time were tight for you, did you eschew the use of any government programs, funded by tax dollars, designed to help you out? ADFC, food stamps, the renter's rebate, Medicare, the earned income tax credit, the child tax credit and many, many more programs are designed not only to offer a handout, but a hand up (cliche' I know) to people like you, who I agree are the execptions rather than the rule, who have it together enough to climb out of poverty.
I didn't use any government benefits. I did use the YWCA to help me get on my feet when I moved out here. They gave me a set of dishes, a sleeping bag, and a place to lay my head for a few days.



I do use student loans to help pay for my education.



Poolah, I respectfully disagree that I am an exception. I am an average person, with no great talent or skill that sets me apart in some way...I work hard, I do without, and I don't give up on my goals. Anyone can do it, if they tried...and that is my point. Why must "those who do" give to "those who can't be bothered"?



Poolah wrote: Is it so terrible now that you're doing better, and if you're paying 30% income tax, I'd say you certainly are, that you have to kick in a bit to help out somebody else who might also be able to pull themselves up?
Ok, I'll gloat a bit. LOL. I am doing much better these days.

I had a very ugly divorce and was hit with all of our debt, twice. (Once when we divorced, and then again when he died.) I lost everything getting out, but that happens sometimes. I have my life, and I am all in one piece, and that is enough to make me have no regrets.



The only difference between me and the people I'm complaining about is that I don't expect anyone else to fix things for me. I'm perfectly capable of getting myself to where I want to be, and I guess I've proved that by moving into a higher tax bracket. (grin)



If a person is going to pull themselves up, then they will succeed so long as they don't quit. My income isn't going to influence that one way or another. Success relies on the will of the person.



Is it so terrible that I kick in to "help" these others? Yes, actually. I don't think it helps them, it doesn't build a stronger society, and it sure doens't help me any, either. You may think that I'm all safe now, with a larger income. But I still have my own retirement to pay for, school to repay, and somewhere in between I might want to live a bit, travel maybe, or own a nice home. I've a long way to go yet.



So, from your point of view, explain to me why I owe these folks. (That wasn't intended to be as rude as it sounded.)

Poolah wrote: I got into this thread largely because of your assertion that the “Democratic party should be re-named the demogogue-ic party.” Is it now your position that both parties should be re-named the demogogue-ic party?

sure, why not.





I’ve stated that I would support a reduction of benefits for current retirees whose income is greater than $100k and the elimination of benefits for retirees who’s income is greater than $250k. Would you support this also? no. it should be asset based, not earning/income based. rather defeats the purpose the reduction - those who retire, tend not to have earnings, at least not '9 to 5' earnings. the problem is that if it were entirely asset based, it would encourage asset concealment, though that already takes place from coast to coast.





You are also not correct in stating that the elderly are the most affluent segment of the population. While it’s true that households who’s head is 61-65 years old have the most wealth, households who’s heads are between 51 and 55 have the greatest earnings and income. Households whose head is over 65, the age when SS benefits typically kick in, fall off in terms of wealth, earnings and income and continue to fall as age increases. well, of course their earnings and income fall. they *retire*. i stand by my statement. affluence is the combination of assets, earnings, debt, etc. - most older folks own their home outright, have money in the bank, and have low earnings, because they're retired.



now please, let's not leap to the other side of it, and suggest that because i say that, i'm denying that there are people in need of social security. i'm not saying that. i *am* saying that there's a pretty large segment of the retired population that has absolutely no _need_ for social security, but because it's there, they take it. which is their privilege, currently. but i think it should be restricted, because if the purpose of social security is to care for those who can *not* take care of themselves in old age, then logically those who can care for themselves should not glom onto it.





Now you’re comparing social security to an insurance policy?yes, that's exactly what i said, how would you have me have written what i wrote? "social security". a safety net for the elderly. safety nets are insurance - they're there in case you fall, not something you wrap yourself in while standing on the ground.





The argument that people “shouldn’t” have the expectation that they’ll receive social security payments is specious.oh, i think it's quite valid, actually. for example, i've had no expectation that i'll ever see a ****ing dime of the money i've paid into social security since the day i started my first job back in 1974 or so. it's always been essentially 'common knowledge' among my generation that social security is a ponzi scheme, and we're at the bottom of the pyramid. i'm not being dramatic, either - i honestly have never had any sense that i'll see a penny of what i paid come back to me.





Given the way the program was set up and presented it is totally reasonable that they have this expectation. i guess we disagree. i don't have that expectation and never have, as above. maybe i'm unusual. :yh_silly







If now, in order to save the program, we need to adjust people’s expectations, which is a challenge I doubt any politician is willing to take on, that’s a reasonable strategy, but to say that people are wrong to have the expectation in the first place is not reasonable.i think there's a difference between what i wrote, which was "the expectation is what's wrong" and suggesting that i meant "that people are wrong to have the expectation". it's perhaps a fine rhetorical line, but i am not suggesting that 'people are wrong' to have the expectation, i'm saying it is the *expectation* that was fostered/promulgated by our dear friends the politicians that was wrong.





The surplus is not “alleged.” It’s there and it’s real The only cloudy part about it is that the borrowing of the surplus money into the general fund hides the true size of the deficit, but since you don’t think the deficit is any big deal, that shouldn’t worry you too much.hmm, more rhetorical twisting of my words. oh well.





Having dictionaries which duel would be difficult in that it would require finding dictionaries which had a significant difference in opinion, which would sort of defeat the purpose of a dictionary in the first place, don’t you think?ahem. please look up world war II in a dictionary. Then look it up in a different dictionary. then look it up in yet another dictionary. then tell my you came away with an understanding of world war II.





The entry you posted about socialism expanded on the simpler Webster’s entry, but it certainly did nothing to refute my point that socialism requires central ownership. if you want to use a very narrow, absolutist definition, and ignore the complexities of it, by all means.





From the entry you posted; “the term socialism is often used loosely to describe economic theories ranging from those that hold that only certain public utilities and natural resources should be owned by the state to those holding that the state should assume responsibility for all economic planning and direction.” So even “socialism-lite” involves ownership of public utilities and natural resources, which is not the case in the US,you're kidding, right? please tell me you're kidding. you are aware of who the single largest land-owner in the united states is, are you not?





nor is this advocated by any democrats that I know of.nor is turning the US into a conservative christian kingdom advocated by any republicans i know of, but i swear i hear that every time george bush mentions anything about 'faith'...





Your entry also stated "although its main purpose, the estabilsihment of cooperation in place of competation remains fixed.” Again, no democrat that I know of is advocating Fed-based cooperation over private sector competition in the economy. Regulation is not central cooperation over competition. Taxation is not central cooperation over competition. not if you have an absolutist mentality about it, no. a massive federal government, which the founding fathers did not want, pushes that definition outward. the fact is, federal, state, county, city, sales, etc taxes enslave each and every working american for 1/4 of the calendar year. i toil so that the government can redistribute what i earn to others.







There is nothing in the entry you provided that supports the idea that government tax codes, which favor the poor are socialism. There is nothing in this entry which says anything at all about redistribution of wealth, you went there by yourself. oh, okay. so socialism has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth. i'm sure many folks will be relieved to learn that. ignoring that it's a ridiculous statement on its face.









What is with this “ahem” stuff? tourrettes? it's my style. it's a little throat clearing, to express either disdain, skepticism, umbrage, or what have you. it's onomatopoeia, actually. wow, i think i spelled that right, and i didn't even look it up in the dictionary.





Hey, now we are on the same page! Let’s make Social Security a true flat tax! If we abolish the taxable income limit, we could reduce the overall percentage everybody pays in, fund privatization and fatten up the old surplus.no, let's not make social security a true flat tax. the money that comes trucked into the feds from social security is rolled into the general fund anyway, so let's just lose the fiction that it is 'social security', and set a true flat federal tax. having a 'flat social security tax' and a 'flat federal income tax' would be silly.







The problem with this is that private investment does nothing to bolster the surplus as the gains made only go to the individual. It will be a long time before the people who begin private investment now will be using those returns, and presumably reducing their expectations for social security benefits. You still have to pay current beneficiaries and you’ll have less money to do this with. okay. i thought i covered that, though in saying that i'm not suggesting i "have a plan" or every detail is worked out to a crossed 't' and dotted 'i'.





So, if you don't really know what the Bush proposal even is, why were you so upset with Democrats for objecting to it?go back and reread. you know, the stuff about demagoguery. if i must repeat, the democrats claimed we were in crisis in 1998, and did nothing about it. now that a republican is saying we're in crisis, they're claiming we're not in crisis. adamantly.



but whatever. i think we've exhausted this topic. i know i have. we disagree on most, and agree on some. at least there's that, and it's not strictly black versus white with no grey in between...

Poolah wrote: Is it so terrible now that you're doing better, and if you're paying 30% income tax, I'd say you certainly are, that you have to kick in a bit to help out somebody else who might also be able to pull themselves up?
a karenina has spoken for herself, so i'll just chime in that i find the above highly offensive. it's not a question of 'kick[ing] in a bit to help out'. because when my earnings are taken from me by force to hand to someone else, on yet a third party's terms, that's not 'kick[ing] in a bit to help out'. that's having my money taken from me to give to someone who has less than me.



i abhor open discussion of one's charitable endeavors - i believe that trumpeting one's charitable work cancels its charity - it is an act of ego. i will say that when i was at the height of my earnings during the internet boom, i gave enormous sums to the charities of my choice. since i'm now barely able to pay my bills, i don't feel too bad about pointing that out - i can't afford to give to charity now, nor have i been able to the last two years. when things get better, i'll resume.



the point is, *i* gave, to help others. had i not had nearly $20,000 a year forcibly taken from me each year, to be redistributed the way the government wants to redistribute it, i'd have given *even more* to charity.



charity at gunpoint isn't charity. there's another word for it.



and no, i'm not some wild-eyed 'all taxes are theft' kookoos. some taxes are necessary, that's a no-brainer. massive government pork isn't necessary, it's just a way of making people ever more dependent upon the government's teat.

Hi Karenina,

Since I am the one who first coined the rugged Individual idea I will respond to your post.

I agree that we would be better off if we depended less on gov, but I don't think that is possible as gov. has snuck into our lives in almost everyway. From scientific reserch to the sidewalks we walk on the gov. is everywhere I'll bet and I admit I don't know for certain, that the university you attended would need to raise tuition a huge amount if the gov. didn't use tax dollars to help fund it.

As far as Social Security is concerned I think the program should be dissolved. In its place we should use the Argentine progam as a model. And I know only what I've read and admit I may be msinformed on their program. But I think you chose from five different private programs that are gauranteed by the gov. but are the property of the individual. In other words the gov. is a safeguarder not the provider of peoples retirement funds.

jahamaa wrote: Hi Karenina,



Since I am the one who first coined the rugged Individual idea I will respond to your post.



I agree that we would be better off if we depended less on gov, but I don't think that is possible as gov. has snuck into our lives in almost everyway. From scientific reserch to the sidewalks we walk on the gov. is everywhere I'll bet and I admit I don't know for certain, that the university you attended would need to raise tuition a huge amount if the gov. didn't use tax dollars to help fund it.



As far as Social Security is concerned I think the program should be dissolved. In its place we should use the Argentine progam as a model. And I know only what I've read and admit I may be msinformed on their program. But I think you chose from five different private programs that are gauranteed by the gov. but are the property of the individual. In other words the gov. is a safeguarder not the provider of peoples retirement funds.
Hey there jahamaa, it's nice to see you. I think we agree on the basic issue - we are dependent on gov't and becoming more so all the time - to the point that it's considered the norm. But then we split ways. I believe that people can reverse this direction, if they want to. I also think that to continue down this particular path we will allow the gov't to step into other areas of our life that we really don't want to see...as we debate such things as prayer in schools, abortions, and homosexuality on a national level.



Universities have had to raise tuition rates to compensate for decreased amounts of federal funding. Education is not considered important enough to provide adequate funding, apparently. I think that's tragic, at every school level, because education is the one thing that's almost guaranteed to move a person out of poverty, and into rugged individualism. I like the term



I was slammed with that increase in tuition, and in addition to the increase, my company eliminated the tuition reimbursement program, increased the cost of our health benefits, and cut our annual increases in half. Basically, my tuition went up $1,100 a year, my benefits cost increased $1,200 a year, and I lost the supporting $2,500 a year in reimbursement. Nice, eh? Any progress I had made over 4 years was wiped out in 6 months...and if you think I wasn't pounding my head against a wall and crying...well, let's just say it wasn't one of my shining moments. LOL.



I'll be hit again this year. My loans don't cover the cost of my tuition and my recent pay increase throws me into a higher tax bracket, allowing less loan money. The cost of getting ahead in the early years is staggering. I get visuals in my head of people leeching onto me, trying to drag me down into themuck, and with all my dogged unreasoning stubborness, I grit my teeth and say, "I'm not going down." Of course, I usually add a few swear words to that as well. (grin)



But I repeat that I am not special, unique, or exceptional. Humans are capable of great things, far beyond the paltry things I do. I don't need gov't to take care of me, and I don't want it. I've tried to get my mind around the notion that people are entitled to gov't help, to my tax dollars, etc...and I fail miserably. (And if you are thinking of my college loans, please keep in mind they are loans - not handouts. I will pay back into the system more than I took out.)



Social security, on the other hand, is a way of saying that we're too stupid or irresponsible to handle our own money, to choose our own investments, and we need Big Daddy to take care of things for us. It's bondage. It's choiceless. And this isn't easy for me to contemplate. I'm an accountant but I'm not a financial planner. In fact, that is my greatest weakness...but it's still my job to learn it, to master it, and to provide for myself.



I'm ranting in circles, I think. It's not directed at anyone personally, but at the idea that people aren't clever enough or determined enough to take care of themselves.

Karenina,

I agree with everything you've said. You would not beleive the change in my life I am having to make to pay for my health care. I'm leaving a job where I've worked my way up to a management level with no formal education just to get health care because individual health care has risen beyond my ability to pay. I'm taking a job that is no brain labor just to get health insurance. But it's what I have to do and I ain't afraid to do what must be done.

Retirement programs I beleive must have some gov. control because some people will not be prepared to work till they die like me or to start a retirement fund. And unless we are prepared to watch them starve in the streets the gov. will help them. A gov. controlled retirement program is the least painful way,I think, to help

Jahamaa, I admire you for doing what you have to. Seems crazy that you'd have to get a no-brainer job, and with your background in management, I'll admit to being a bit ticked off on your behalf.

The need for health insurance is why I went to work for a health insurance company. Are there any insurance offices in your area that might need your skills? I know it sounds like a dull industry, but it's actually quite a career choice...very detailed, very interesting. Some of them still offer decent benefits, as well. Just a thought...

Karenina thank you for being there and letting me sound off it's good to have the friends on the forum at whom to vent.

See the problem is I have no formal degree and the only knowledge I have is in the business that I am presently in.

It is a very competitive and cutthroat business and not to brag but I'm pretty good at it, and have already turned down a position with a competitor.

It's so cutthroat that in order to advance past a certain level all companies make you sign a non compete contract. I am literally forbidden by contract to take a better job with benefits doing the only thing I am trained at for the next two years.

Oh well that's life. A little rain don't mean the sun ain't shining somewhere.

gmc wrote: Do you get state pensions? Seriously, I was under the impression that everything was private in the US. No state benefits unless you were actually destitute, what is medicare, I am under the impression that in the US if you can't afford a doctor you don't get treated, end of story. Maybe ER and programmed like that give the wrong impression.Medicare is the same as our BUPA. I don't think they get any state benefit like we do.

capt_buzzard wrote: Medicare is the same as our BUPA. I don't think they get any state benefit like we do.
Our system, fellas, is pretty much no system at all.

If you have no health insurance and go to an emergency room they must by law treat you. There are some private and a few public programs that will help with the bills but if it gets real expensive you say good bye to your home and any savings you may have.

as far as what medicare is, none of us know what it is either. My mother is on it and most times not even the medicare office can tell her if she is covered for this or that. Our system really is a joke and it will stay that way because the amount of money involved is unbelievable.

The average health insurance policy for a family, going by what my friends and I pay, is $700.00 per month figure it out.

Where my wife was employed they had around 500 employees and were paying $714.00 per month per employee

get the picture?

capt_buzzard wrote: Medicare is the same as our BUPA. I don't think they get any state benefit like we do.
Our system, fellas, is pretty much no system at all.

If you have no health insurance and go to an emergency room they must by law treat you. There are some private and a few public programs that will help with the bills but if it gets real expensive you say good bye to your home and any savings you may have.

as far as what medicare is, none of us know what it is either. My mother is on it and most times not even the medicare office can tell her if she is covered for this or that. Our system really is a joke and it will stay that way because the amount of money involved is unbelievable.

The average health insurance policy for a family, going by what my friends and I pay, is $700.00 per month figure it out.

Where my wife was employed they had around 500 employees and were paying $714.00 per month per employee

get the picture?

In my state Blue Cross / Blue Shield is a non profit insurance Co. started to help people get health ins. they charge over 700 dollars per month per family and it was just revealed that this non profit had 4 billion dollars in reserve, double what the gov. required

The Geisinger Group another non profit hospital and insurer, we discovered that last year this non profit org collected over 600 million dollars over what they needed to cover expences but they still raised their rates this year

we are being raped and the insurers own our government so there is nothing we can do. :-5

jahamaa wrote: Our system, fellas, is pretty much no system at all.

If you have no health insurance and go to an emergency room they must by law treat you. There are some private and a few public programs that will help with the bills but if it gets real expensive you say good bye to your home and any savings you may have.



as far as what medicare is, none of us know what it is either. My mother is on it and most times not even the medicare office can tell her if she is covered for this or that. Our system really is a joke and it will stay that way because the amount of money involved is unbelievable.



The average health insurance policy for a family, going by what my friends and I pay, is $700.00 per month figure it out.



Where my wife was employed they had around 500 employees and were paying $714.00 per month per employee



get the picture?



In my state Blue Cross / Blue Shield is a non profit insurance Co. started to help people get health ins. they charge over 700 dollars per month per family and it was just revealed that this non profit had 4 billion dollars in reserve, double what the gov. required



The Geisinger Group another non profit hospital and insurer, we discovered that last year this non profit org collected over 600 million dollars over what they needed to cover expences but they still raised their rates this year



we are being raped and the insurers own our government so there is nothing we can do. :-5Oh dear.

We pay (depending on wages/salary) 49% tax + 24% in 100 euros towards our state pensions. But now the government wants do scrap the state pensions and still hang onto our money. Industial action looms.

jahamaa, I know you really hate insurance companies, so I'm not trying to change your mind on it. I'd like to ask exactly which gov't requirement for reserves is being doubled. We are subject to several requirements, including one from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, located in Chicago...and a place I'd recommend you contact with your complaints about the BCBS in your state. They have a website as well as an 800 number, and would be happy to answer any questions you have.



Also, look at their financials, and look at the AM Best historical data as well. Look especially at the trends in claims. Health insurance is currently on an upswing, but it will go down again. It always does, and companies must cover those impending costs.



The problem, as I see it, is that people expect health care in a way that they don't expect fancy tires or the latest electronic gadget. But insurance is still a business, regardless of what people think it ought to be.



Exactly how much is the reserve for BCBS in your state, and for what companies? There are usually subsidiaries, so only the parent company has the info I'm asking for. And again, I'd love a link to the article about this.



Thanks in advance, and no sweat about the venting thing. Sure, and don't I do it all the time?

Karenina if there were more people like you in insurance companies I would change my opinion of them.

The figures on BC/BS were published in our local paper from one of the major news lines.

You have to admit when a not for profit organization keeps double the reserves that the gov. requires to the tune of a couple of Billion dollars and then claims they have to raise rates that is going to make people question the honesty of their claim to need a raise in rates.

The Geisinger Health Care System is an insurer and Hospital also claiming to be not for profit. Same kind of thing here. They show, according to our local paper a surplus of cash last year of 600 million and then claimed they also needed a rate hike. It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't claim to be non profit. But if your non profit what would you call all this cash laying around? It sure looks like profit to me.

I'm sorry if I'm taking shots at your industry and will admit I don't know a heck of a lot about it. But what I read seems to violate common sence.

Tons of Money laying around while they seem to plead poverty and keep raising rates.

This is an interesting insight in to somethimg I know nothing about.

posted by Jahamaa

t's so cutthroat that in order to advance past a certain level all companies make you sign a non compete contract. I am literally forbidden by contract to take a better job with benefits doing the only thing I am trained at for the next two years.


Interesting, such contracts are almost just about illegal here, even the ones calling for non disclosure of company secrets are almost impossible to enforce here-they can't stop you earning a living



posted by Poolah

Now it’s your turn to look a word up; socialism. I hate to be a stickler about this, but I think it’s important. Calling liberals, or ANY government program “socialism” is simply not using the word correctly”by the way I have the same problem with liberals calling conservatives “fascists.” Socialism is when a central Government owns (that’s the key word) and controls the economy. Having the government offer services paid for by taxes is not socialism any more than opposing abortion is fascism. This is really just name-calling and reduces our collective ability to identify a true socialist or fascist, should one emerge and I think that’s dangerous.


posted by anastrophe

ahem. dueling dictionaries is a fools game. first, i would point out that a dictionary isn't the first or best source for details of a complex concept such as socialism. to indulge you, i'm reviewing my columbia encyclopedia's entry for socialism. which runs for nearly a full page of tiny print. let me quote the following brief passage, which may assuage your absolutist stance re socialism:

In a broader sense, the term socialism is often used loosely to describe economic theories ranging from those that hold that only certain public utilities and natural resources should be owned by the state to those holding that the state should assume responsibility for all economic planning and direction. In the past 150 years there have been innumerable differing socialist programs. For this reason socialism as a doctrine is ill-defined, although its main purpose, the estabilsihment of cooperation in place of competation remains fixed.

emphasis mine. varieties and formal organizations of socialism include collectivism, marxism and gradualism, christian socialism, scientific socialism, democratic socialism, socialist labor parties, etc.

the 'dangerous' one in this country, is gradualism, the doctrine of 'working within the system to adapt and gently overthrow it through socialist principles'.


posted by Poolah

The entry you posted about socialism expanded on the simpler Webster’s entry, but it certainly did nothing to refute my point that socialism requires central ownership.


Try looking up social democrat. We could have fun arguing about what that means in today's terms. But I will resist the temptation.

Also anastrophe

how about all the 'little old ladies' who have hundreds/millions salted away in their own investment funds, guaranteed retirement benefits, real estate - *not* get social security? or have it reduced on a sliding scale? sure - they have their expectation of getting back from it - but so do i. again - everyone says if current trends continue, it runs out. so.....again, somebody is going to get the shaft. no, i am by no means saying 'better granny than me'. i'm saying maybe those who don't need it should be willing to give it up. again, my mom doesn't need it. i'd have no problem with the govt holding back some portion of it against future bankruptcy of the system.


Good grief I agree with you, in this country everybody gets state pensions, but they are taxed as income so anyone over the tax thresholds pays tax accordingly. Those with good pensions regard this as unfair but tend to get little sympathy, at least they have enough to pay tax on. There are different issues of course.



posted by jahamaa

we are being raped and the insurers own our government so there is nothing we can do.


You are a democracy why keep voting in politicians that don't want to change things?

posted by Jahamaa

Our system, fellas, is pretty much no system at all.

If you have no health insurance and go to an emergency room they must by law treat you. There are some private and a few public programs that will help with the bills but if it gets real expensive you say good bye to your home and any savings you may have.


I find these posts intriguing. It seems an odd way of looking at things. We in the UK tend to look at government and think we expect you to do this and that for us and judge them accordingly. There seems to be a sense that you can't control your government or tell tham what to do, not saying we're actually any better but things like the NHS and pensions lose or win votes for the political parties and the govt ignores sentiment at it's peril. We do put up with a lot mind you but every now and then remind them who is boss.

jahamaa wrote: Karenina if there were more people like you in insurance companies I would change my opinion of them.Sweet talk will get you everywhere. Thank you for the compliment, I'm beaming now.



jahamaa wrote: You have to admit when a not for profit organization keeps double the reserves that the gov. requires to the tune of a couple of Billion dollars and then claims they have to raise rates that is going to make people question the honesty of their claim to need a raise in rates.



The Geisinger Health Care System is an insurer and Hospital also claiming to be not for profit. Same kind of thing here. They show, according to our local paper a surplus of cash last year of 600 million and then claimed they also needed a rate hike. It wouldn't be so bad if they didn't claim to be non profit. But if your non profit what would you call all this cash laying around? It sure looks like profit to me.



I'm sorry if I'm taking shots at your industry and will admit I don't know a heck of a lot about it. But what I read seems to violate common sence.



Tons of Money laying around while they seem to plead poverty and keep raising rates.I know that it appears very frustrating on the surface. To keep this in perspective, health insurance companies think they're doing great when they declare a 3% gain. It's important to use ratios rather than dollars in order to get a clear picture. A company can have a billion in reserves, and a single claim can come in at just under $1 million. The numbers can be mind boggling until you get used to them...so percentages and ratios are a much better basis for analyzing the facts.



(Didn't know you'd get an accounting lecture, huh? LOL)



For a decent comparison, you can find financials of any public company on the web. I'd recommend you look at the big oil companies for the past 3 quarters, and consider it in relation to our gas prices over the same time period.

Then look at a couple of other industries as well. Try to look at more than one company within the same industry so that you get a good feel for what is normal within that industry.

And read the Notes. Very important stuff in there. You'll find that the insurance standard of 3% is far below most other industries.



Not-for-profits rely on the annual budget report - so find that and you can find why the company raised their rates. Not-for-profits do not operate in the traditional market manner...meaning they do not increase premiums based on what the market will bear. They increase premiums based on the calculated costs of services they will provide for the next year.



One other thing that is happening with insurance companies that is very crucial to know is that we are subject to the HIPPAA laws. We are required to prove that we have extremely secure, non-breakable systems in place. That we have security measures of every possible kind in place. That we never give out any information to anyone beyond HIPPAA compliance. You'll have felt the frustration of HIPPAA already when your doctor tries to call you and can't tell you who they are. Argh!



This is a very expensive undertaking, and we're all suffering from the ghastly amounts of money we're putting into new systems. My company nearly went under 2 years ago for a variety of reasons all stemming from HIPPAA compliance. That is why they cut raises and raised the cost of benefits to employees. We also laid off a large percentage of our workforce. We've had cutbacks, reorganization, centralization, and new company mission goals - every possible change we could put in, we have. And we are reporting a gain this year.



To do this, we've had to change the type of member we want to insure. The aim is now for smaller companies instead of large (costly) groups. I can't describe the poor morale at work as we dropped each large member group that was basically our bread and butter for a long time, and switched to smaller groups and individuals. Employees didn't believe in the plan at first, but it worked after all. We've got smart executives; I'm very impressed.



We will be re-investing a huge portion of those gains into HIPPAA compliance. It costs several million to put in one single system.



In addition to all of that, we're are also beginning our Sarbanes-Oxley Act compliance. Sarb-Ox or SOx is the accounting industry's response to Enron. It requires a very thorough examination/proof of how we do each particular thing, and it's massive! Because insurance is already highly regulated, we are not legally bound to SOx compliance. Interesting, yes? The powers that be don't feel that fraud by insurance companies is a danger worth pursuing precisely because we are already highly regulated.



However, the NAIC - the insurance companies big boss - has decided that it would look very bad if we didn't comply, that people would be suspicious of this. So, we are voluntarily complying. Scan the job ads for large cities, and see how many accountant positions you can find that are directly related to SOx. There are TONS of jobs available now, although we aren't required to put it into effect until (estimated) 2006, possibly 2007. This is another expensive undertaking - the salaries alone are starting at $95k, it will require additional hires, new procedures, testing of those procedures, and a series of professional audits. Audits aren't cheap, either.



I'm not trying to excuse my industry by any means. I've said before that I used to be convinced that health insurance was the biggest rip-off known to man - until I started working for them, and began to see what happens from the inside.



Anyway, thank you for your kindness, I do appreciate it. I don't know the answers for the companies in your state, but I can tell you where to look for them...check out the 2005 Annual Budget Report because it will estimate the cost of HIPPAA and SOx compliance, and study other industry financials as well. Hope this helps!

gmc wrote: I find these posts intriguing. It seems an odd way of looking at things. We in the UK tend to look at government and think we expect you to do this and that for us and judge them accordingly. There seems to be a sense that you can't control your government or tell tham what to do, not saying we're actually any better but things like the NHS and pensions lose or win votes for the political parties and the govt ignores sentiment at it's peril. We do put up with a lot mind you but every now and then remind them who is boss.
There is a huge frustration with government, and we can't tell them what to do on a daily or immediate basis. But we can regain control over time. We're an instant gratification society in many ways, so this aspect is annoying! LOL



There is also a battle between those who think the government should handle/control all of these things, and those who think the individual should retain as much control as possible. You'll see these dividing lines quite clearly in our posts. Usually, liberals want more goverment control of social programs, while conservatives prefer less government control of social programs - but lately they want moral control. This is a new twist on an old party.



At the same time, we've confused the purpose of each program, including our own market. So we fight about that as well.



Push...pull...push...pull...We live in a very exciting time from an historical perspective.

posted by a karenina

There is also a battle between those who think the government should handle/control all of these things, and those who think the individual should retain as much control as possible. You'll see these dividing lines quite clearly in our posts. Usually, liberals want more goverment control of social programs, while conservatives prefer less government control of social programs - but lately they want moral control. This is a new twist on an old party.


I do see both strands, an interesting dichotomy. I can never quite follow the logic of the more conservative side-If you elect a government to do these things things then it is not imposing them on you it is doing what it is told.

gmc wrote: I do see both strands, an interesting dichotomy. I can never quite follow the logic of the more conservative side-If you elect a government to do these things things then it is not imposing them on you it is doing what it is told.No offense, but that makes no sense to me. Of course it's an imposition. Hiring or electing a gov't does not make them my owner, nor does it make them the boss.



Maybe I'm not reading it right?

gmc wrote: This is an interesting insight in to somethimg I know nothing about.

Interesting, such contracts are almost just about illegal here, even the ones calling for non disclosure of company secrets are almost impossible to enforce here-they can't stop you earning a living (QUOTE=gmc)

Hi gmc, From what I am told I could probably fight this and win in court but it would cost more money than I have and by the time the case is heard the two years will be up anyway.

See I don't know how it works where you are but in America a lot of times law suits are judged not by right or wrong but by the cost of the fight. Here I would win, probably, but win nothing



quoted from gmc

You are a democracy why keep voting in politicians that don't want to change things?





I find these posts intriguing. It seems an odd way of looking at things. We in the UK tend to look at government and think we expect you to do this and that for us and judge them accordingly. There seems to be a sense that you can't control your government or tell tham what to do, not saying we're actually any better but things like the NHS and pensions lose or win votes for the political parties and the govt ignores sentiment at it's peril. We do put up with a lot mind you but every now and then remind them who is boss.


Buddy don't get me started on this issue. I've been saying this for years.

See we only have two parties that actually have a chance to win (Money). And they act like Frat boys participating in some colleigent contest. They want to win but once they do they do nothing once they are in the office.

Witness Bill Clinton's reform of our health care. he tried once, put on a good show but when he lost on the first try he just went away from the issue and never brought it up again. So actually his failed attempt was more than anybody else has done.

See what I mean a lot of smoke and mirrors but nothing done

There has been a lot written about the low turnout in American elections most of the folks I know don't bother to vote because, dispite what you read in the press about the difference btween Democrats and Republicans, there is really no difference at all and many Americans think driving to the polls is just a waste of gas and time.

They make all these public announcements and pass all these bills but the average American sees nothing change. I would say the most common emotion in Americans concerning their Gov. is cynisim.