midwestyankee
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Posts
- 32,076
WD, if you never work a day in your life you still get to collect Medicare benefits when you turn 65.
U.S. politics isolation tank
- Thread starter DeepGreenEyes
- Start date
WD, if you never work a day in your life you still get to collect Medicare benefits when you turn 65.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
What? Wait, that's not right. You should get out of it exactly what you put in, no more, no less. Anything else is unfair.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
This would SO work
In the sense of totally not working.
And WD the problem I am is with fuckers who are like "I'm done with my social safety net so let's kill it now for the newcomers." Leave the misery to the kids and tell them it's a sundae when you shit on them. Just as long as YOU aren't paying they can pay for you later.
Last edited:
midwestyankee
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Posts
- 32,076
Really? Let's say that a young woman chooses to give up a promising career to raise her and her husband's children. Over the course of her adulthood, even with a few part-time jobs after the children are in school, she may pay into the FICA system only a few thousand dollars. At age 65 her husband retires. You're saying that because he has paid into FICA all his life, he should get the full benefits of Medicare while his wife should not. Is that what you mean by fair?
Let's do another hypothetical. Two people begin working at age 21 and put in 44 years in their jobs. One is a middle school janitor and the other is a lawyer and eventually is the school board's official legal representation. At age 65 they both retire. Are you saying that it would be fair for the lawyer's Medicare plan to be large enough to cover cancer treatments but the janitor's should not?
On the surface, it's possible to argue that people should get only what they pay into a system. But that's not how Medicare works. It's not even how Social Security works. People receiving Social Security today receive benefits that have been increased many times since they first paid into the system so that if they live to their full life expectancy they may get back far more than they paid in (which is a little less than $15,000 per year right now after the employer contribution but was much, much less 30 years ago.
Medicare covers all Americans of age 65 and older. If you want additional coverage beyond what Medicare provides, that insurance is available from an insurance broker.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
Yeah, I know, I'm just being sarcastic.
SO SHUL ISM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Cm4NxHf7E&feature=more_related
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
Looking rather fit there, MWY. Golf agrees with you.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
WriterDom
Good to the last drop
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2000
- Posts
- 20,077
So what's your point? You want tea party people who never worked a day in their life to refuse Medicare so they'll die sooner? I don't get this bug up your ass about Medicare. Or why you hate old people. Some people do vote democratic even when they grow up.
I want outspoken rich Hollywood liberals to not hire accountants and tax lawyers. That's cheating. And to pay double the Clinton rate because it is best for the country. They can afford it.
midwestyankee
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Posts
- 32,076
Sweet Jeebus, WD. Every time you see me post something like "and don't touch my Medicare" I'm quoting folks from the Tea Party.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
No I want even dipshits to have health care. Which is why I want a public option. If medicare is operating in the red why not let everyone who wants in to go on it and pay into it for stuff they get now, in some reasonable income sized chunk.
Oh, because it's better when your government is sucking corporate cock - fuck Europe, I'm FREE.
I'd be happy to do 500 per mo instead of what I'm paying now (you don't want to know) and I don't think that's insane. I think that's a reasonable France-like do-able versus Norway like you need to be wee and homogenous (you know those assholes with the best health care per dollar SPENT) way to deal with it.
Really, even the morons screaming do not want should be able to get sick without going bankrupt. I don't care if they're spitting on the whole thing.
With one exception:
I want anyone who rants and raves about the high cost of insuring children to refuse their gov't medical treatment and check out posthaste, yes. I want hypocritical libertarian dumbfucks to have an "opt out" box to check on the tax forms that says "pay nothing get nothing" and I want the people who like to punish babies for their parents to be first off the plank. They've forfeited.
Last edited:
intothewoods
Truth seeker
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Posts
- 10,966
Loooooooooooove.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Seriously, this is bullshit.
The boomers have trashed the entire economy, and they're telling everyone else "sorry kids, it's gonna have to be really really bleak, but you're going to get medicare later - IF it's around, you're going to retire later, social security may not exist by the time you are around, but isn't it GREAT that we are deluding ourselves that we're leaving you less national debt?"
It's not exactly a high priority when you can't take care of yourself.
The tying of insurance to employment has been one of the worst ideas in history.
The equating of "right to health" with "working hard at some jobs but not others" has some design flaws to it. Like the fact that truly sick people aren't going to be working. Like the fact that, if we supposedly want to be a society that doesn't just let people drop dead in the street - and generally we don't - the actual costs are so much higher than insuring every motherfucker in the first place.
The boomers have trashed the entire economy, and they're telling everyone else "sorry kids, it's gonna have to be really really bleak, but you're going to get medicare later - IF it's around, you're going to retire later, social security may not exist by the time you are around, but isn't it GREAT that we are deluding ourselves that we're leaving you less national debt?"
It's not exactly a high priority when you can't take care of yourself.
The tying of insurance to employment has been one of the worst ideas in history.
The equating of "right to health" with "working hard at some jobs but not others" has some design flaws to it. Like the fact that truly sick people aren't going to be working. Like the fact that, if we supposedly want to be a society that doesn't just let people drop dead in the street - and generally we don't - the actual costs are so much higher than insuring every motherfucker in the first place.
Last edited:
DeepGreenEyes
Whittled
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2007
- Posts
- 8,500
Totally agree. It's oddly puritanical, too. Besides the inadequate coverage, the high costs and the fact that businesses seem to hate it as much as anyone, it fucks up entrepreneurship: how many people stay in shitty jobs they hate just for the health care, rather than strike out on their own and create a small business or go it alone? I think a public option safety net would usher in a new era of economic creativity.
00Syd
Secret Agent
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Posts
- 4,580
What a lovely dream.
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Yes.
To be fair though: also don't believe the hype.
Depending on your field, it CAN be done. If I were not a fucking mess, I could have reasonable coverage, not just high deduction broke every bone in my body coverage to the tune of 250-300 a month. That's not so bad.
Everyone with the inclination SHOULD look into all options for breaking away.
And read the "four hour work week" even though it's like sticking a fork repeatedly in your cheek to do it.
The problem is when the unanticipated happens to you if you are under the age of medicare.
ImOnIt
I'm so happy:3
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2007
- Posts
- 1,079
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Oh I do too. And it's still the most useful compendium of info in one place that I've ever found as a small business. He's a twat, I hate that it's useful. Provided you're not too literal in your reading.
I'm not into outsourcing my thank-you notes to India, but it does get my brain flowing in the "can I make someone else do this" direction where it never did.
DeepGreenEyes
Whittled
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2007
- Posts
- 8,500
And then... I woke up.
Oh yeah! That guy! I haven't seen the 4-hour work week, but read an interview with him about the 4-hour body, which I thought looked intriguing in a Jackass 5 kind of way. Maybe sticking a fork in your cheek was the training for that book.
Your advice is sound; Also, I think the pre-existing stuff with the A.H.C act will help entrepreneurs in the present system. I don't think that's going away, no matter what the Republicans manage to do.
DeepGreenEyes
Whittled
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2007
- Posts
- 8,500
Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing glue!
WriterDom
Good to the last drop
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2000
- Posts
- 20,077
They learned from the early Clinton administration that you can't get everything you want at once. You have to go in steps. The democrats lost 54 House seats in 1994. Do you want to see that happen again Netzach?
So their best thinking got us RomneyCare. Buy insurance or go to the Gulag.
So their best thinking got us RomneyCare. Buy insurance or go to the Gulag.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
Hm, that looks interesting.
midwestyankee
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Posts
- 32,076
Moving a discussion over here from another thread where it began.
This chart shows some remarkable differentials. Not only do better educated people vote at a much higher rate than those with only a high school diploma or less, they also are much less affected by unemployment in the current recession.
Tek had this to say about the chart:
The idea that receiving unemployment benefits encourages people to not look for paying work has been put forward by numerous politicians and pundits from the right in their arguments against extending unemployment benefits. Since unemployment pays a whopping $200 or so per week, I'm very very skeptical. That's about what my young son makes working at a local hardware store and it's nowhere near enough to live on anywhere near a city. Particularly if there's anything of a family to support.
I don't think the dollars available through unemployment insurance are high enough to provide any kind of incentive to stay on unemployment. At the same time, the ratio between the number of people who are unemployed and the number of available jobs right now makes it impossible to test the assertion.
Thoughts?
This chart shows some remarkable differentials. Not only do better educated people vote at a much higher rate than those with only a high school diploma or less, they also are much less affected by unemployment in the current recession.
Tek had this to say about the chart:
The idea that receiving unemployment benefits encourages people to not look for paying work has been put forward by numerous politicians and pundits from the right in their arguments against extending unemployment benefits. Since unemployment pays a whopping $200 or so per week, I'm very very skeptical. That's about what my young son makes working at a local hardware store and it's nowhere near enough to live on anywhere near a city. Particularly if there's anything of a family to support.
I don't think the dollars available through unemployment insurance are high enough to provide any kind of incentive to stay on unemployment. At the same time, the ratio between the number of people who are unemployed and the number of available jobs right now makes it impossible to test the assertion.
Thoughts?
Similar threads
- Locked
