Ultimate College Softball
Register Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 3      1   2   3   Next
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #1 
I've tried to have a self reliance exchange many times inside this forum with little success.  I'm going to try once more here.

The Right says the Left is all about a nanny state and against self reliance.  From my perspective, they're completely wrong.  I have no desire to pay for the elderly, the sick, or the uninsured if it's unnecessary.  For this reason, I'm in favor of SS, Medicare, and mandating health insurance coverage so each individual creates their own safety net.  As I said earlier, this solves my concerns about potentially having to care for those who fail to be responsible.  These programs require everyone to put up from the beginning so as not to be a burden later.  Now I ask, how would you handle this in your world and why would it be any better?
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,603
Reply with quote  #2 
Quote:
From my perspective, they're completely wrong.


when you start from that perspective you will get as far as obama has in 5 years

__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
GrizzlyFan

Registered:
Posts: 2,053
Reply with quote  #3 
Dewey people pay into SS and medicare and the government spends that money on other programs to buy votes and the tax payers have to bail those programs out eventually.
Mandating health insurance is a violation of the constitution.
Liberals want to tell us what light bulbs we can use and what size soda we can drink, but we can make our own decision on killing an innocent baby in the womb because they believe in choice. Does that pretty much sum it up?

__________________
If Obamacare is such a good thing, why did he have to lie about it to get it passed?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #4 
Grizzly - I've explained the SS trust fund to you more times than I can count so it's probably futile for me to go down that road again.  Let's get back to the topic of this thread.  I have no desire to fund those who fail to fund their own retirement and medical needs so I'm for these programs that make people fund their own safety net.  Now please tell me how in your world, with your design of how things should work, I'll be better off.  Thanks.

PS:  You do know I had you in mind with regards to Sen. Cruz being qualified to be President.  I'd like you to chime in with your opinion, based around his birthplace being Canada, if you don't mind sharing.
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #5 
Dewey the sad thing is you think you can dictate to people and give control to the govt to accomplish that.  Can you dictate what your kids do?  Yea,  I didnt think so.  Just like you cant dictate the other stuff.  So you are willing to kill the majority for the sake of the small minority.  But unfortunately, your method actually enables the power mongers to incentivise dependency and invent things like man made global warming to further grab power, kill our industry, and kill our country.  

You and Obama sure are two peas in a pod, thinking you know best for everybody and trying to dictate and take freedoms away.  Sad.  Totally against the founding and what is good for people and helping them to be the best they can be so they do have that safety net you are talking about.

__________________
Susan
TheHammer

Registered:
Posts: 11,135
Reply with quote  #6 
sbmom, a mixture of black pea and white pea is one of a kind
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #7 
Dewey -

SS seems to work, so I have no problem with it.  However, it is going to go bankrupt as the receivers outnumber the payers.  Therefore, something must change.  It seems to me that means testing it would be the best place to start.  If you make more than number, then your qualification for SS is deferred for 5 years or something.  I don't have the whole answer, but something like that would seem to work.

Medicare is the same thought.

Medicaid is probably also useful, but not for all eternity, like some of the other assistance programs.  You can't freeload forever - at some point, you have to go join the workforce with the rest of the folks.

Forced purchase of health care (which is what Obama care is) is an abomination upon the land.  It is an abomination not necessarily because it is healthcare, although that in and of itself is a huge issue.

It is an abomination because, for the first time in our country's history, the government has decided what is best for you, and has legislated that you MUST purchase a product against your will.  I wonder if this then goes to any number of a million other things that the government can decide is in your best interest, and will make you buy.  What if they decide it's in the nation's best interests to rebuild all of the indian reservations, so they require every American to buy a native-American made pair of moccasins and a blanket?

This is a Pandora's box of erosion of liberty, and must be aborted.

In terms of health care, this law as designed is a trainwreck.  I don't have time to go into it now, but we have debated it here ad nauseum.  The biggest thing that could have been done to make health care affordable (Isn't the Affordable Health Care Act?) would have been to allow competition and portability.  Create a true free market, where this is limited free market now.

Beyond the free market, the whole program is a lie.  People can not keep their current coverage, workers are losing benefits and jobs because of the Act, prices are going up, and care is being rationed.  Many of us saw that coming.

The left must believe that all of the people being hurt by this Act right now are acceptable casualties in its quest to provide a utopian society.  If a few million people get hurt, so be it.
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #8 
Mikec, SS, medicare, and especially medicaid are ripe with fraud and costs the taxpayers dearly, as well as though that really need their safety net.  It has been proven that these would be better off privatized, but politicians dont want to lose that power and control.  I think its galveston, tx, but cant remember exactly, but there is a city in tx that is demonstrating they is a much better safety net when privatized, with much less fraud as it is done at the local level.  Needless to say, media and politicians dont want this to get out to the common man.
__________________
Susan
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #9 
sbmom - You didn't even try to sell me on how your world would work.  If we don't make these folks fund their own safety net, I know I'm going to have to pay for many of them in the long run.  I'm glad somebody understands this would be unfair to me and is willing to require each to take care of their own responsibilities during their working years through these three programs.

mikec - We require folks to buy a retirement plan and an old age insurance plan.  I can't see why a current day health insurance plan is any different.  Like I said, I have no interest in paying the health costs for the uninsured, unless it's necessary.  You've talked a lot about liberty and what you believe a Government has a right to do but you didn't explain how you would keep me from having to fund sick uninsured people.  My rates haven't gone up much, I still have the same insurance at my Company as well as my wife's Company, and I still have my same doctors.  I'll watch as this unfolds to see what happens but, right now, much of this talk this sounds like scare tactics.  In any event, if you support SS and Medicare, we're not that far apart.  Someday maybe you'll accept Obamacare too.

Again, bashing the programs has been done ad nauseum.  I want to see what we would do in your world and how it would save me money.  I know darn well, (we've been paying for people to use ER for medical care for years now), if people don't fund their own lifetime obligations, I'm going to be asked to.  Until I hear an alternative, these requirements to fund our social programs is the best way to make others responsible.

sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #10 
Dewey you dont read very well.  

Many alternatives have been given but you love to ignore so reiterating them for you is a joke.

__________________
Susan
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #11 
Dewey -

Obamacare is a trainwreck, and is having the opposite effects that it was intended to have.

I asked my insurer two weeks ago about Obamacare, and they said, buckle in come January, because your rates are skyrocketing.  Mostly, this is because they will be offered to require all kinds of coverage that I don't need.  So, come January, I'm screwed because they must sell me a more expensive plan.

We are requiring people to buy their old age retirement plan.  My SS taxes don't pay for me to retire - they fund other people's retirements, even people who are retired and bringing in more in salary than I bring in.  Medicaid is doing the same thing.

The Obamacare law requires people to enter the private market place and buy something they might not have bought.  It is astounding for government to have that power.

Besides being bad public policy, it is dangerous precedent.

If you haven't noticed, young people are not signing up.  The whole premise of it was that healthy young people paid the premiums for sick people.  Well, that it isn't happening.

This program is a slow-moving train wreck.

What stops this scenario:

What if they decide it's in the nation's best interests to rebuild all of the indian reservations, so they require every American to buy a native-American made pair of moccasins and a blanket?
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #12 
States predict more insurance customers.  I think we're getting different information.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/19/health-care-law-uninsured-estimates-obama/2671489/

mikec - You're still not selling me.  I don't see a train wreck but I'll keep my eyes open.  September 1 started my new insurance rate and it went up 1.5%.  I think maximum out of pocket went up $500.

I'm certain you have funded your retirement and you have a plan at the ready when you make it.  Same with Medicare.  Again, I want everyone to be required to fund their own retirement plan, old age insurance, current health insurance, and current auto insurance.  I don't want their failure to prepare to come back and haunt me.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #13 
Dewey - as far as wanting everyone to fund their own retirement, I agree.  But that train left the station a long time ago when the politicians started raiding the trust fund to pay for other programs.  If Social Security had not been altered and left with the idea that what you put in is saved just for you when you retire, we wouldn't have an enormous unfunded liability.

As for Obamacare, we can argue until we're blue in the face about its future.  We'll just have to wait and see.  But everything I read points to a looming disaster.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pabar61
Dewey - as far as wanting everyone to fund their own retirement, I agree.  But that train left the station a long time ago when the politicians started raiding the trust fund to pay for other programs.


pabar - That's inaccurate.  If I put $10,000 into the bank and they lend to other folks.  Does that mean my money is gone?  Of course not.  We put our money into SS trust fund and the fund buys Treasuries from the US Government.  The entire trust fund is included in our $16 trillion debt.  I suppose we could borrow four trillion from China, pay back the trust fund, and stick it in the SS Passbook account earning zero interest but that would be foolish.  It would simply send interest payments to China rather than SS.  It's sad so many people don't understand this accounting of the trust fund.

However, I am glad that we're getting somewhere with regards to people funding their own eventual needs.
pabar61

Registered:
Posts: 11,035
Reply with quote  #15 
Social Security is not a bank either in operation or in its regulatory requirements - if it was, it would have been shut down long ago.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #16 
pabar - You have to read a little closer.  SS is not a bank.  Like me in the earlier analogy, the fund invests the money it is holding.  In this case, and by law, it lends the money to the Treasury.  Also like me, their money does not disappear.  It's always there when needed for withdrawal.
mikec

Registered:
Posts: 8,296
Reply with quote  #17 
Dewey - in post 12, you sound like you don't want ss or any of the rest of it.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #18 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikec
Dewey - in post 12, you sound like you don't want ss or any of the rest of it.


mikec - Quite the contrary.  By required I'm saying SS, Medicare, Obamacare, and auto insurance are all examples of mandatory participation which rightly forces everyone to pitch in along the way.  I think they're all great ideas to relieve the rest of us from potentially caring for those who fail to be responsible.  In other words, they help ensure self reliance.
DietCoke

Registered:
Posts: 2,181
Reply with quote  #19 
Interesting comment made at a Ted Cruz rally recently.  A woman stood up and said she lost her health insurance and had to go to Mexico to buy her diabetes medications, because she couldn't afford the prices in the US.  She asked Cruz what he was going to do to help the six million uninsured Texans?  Before he could respond, someone in the crowd yelled out "We can take care of ourselves."

Really?  Almost everyone who gets their health insurance through their employer is only a day away from being uninsured.  Unless you are independently wealthy, this could be devastating.  Buying private insurance is extremely costly and usually comes with a very high deductible.  Only generic medications may be covered.  Lifetime caps may be exhausted.  Networks may be limited.  If you get cancer or need a bypass or whatever, forget about going to Mayo or Johns Hopkins, as they probably aren't going to be in your network.  And if you have had cancer or diabetes or a stroke or migraines or ear infections, count on anything related to them to be excluded as pre-existing conditions.  And if you can't afford to get your own health insurance, just pray every night that you don't get sick, because the resulting medical bills could force you into bankruptcy.

Is this what Republicans want again?  Because this is what health care reform tries to take care of.  How can you possibly oppose these provisions?  But if "Obamacare" is defunded or repealed, this is where we will be again.

Interesting articles about Clint Murphy, a former GOP staffer, who now supports "Obamacare".  This could be you.  Or you son or daughter.  Or your grandchild.  Is this what you really want for yourself - and them?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/clint-murphy-obamacare_n_3781538.html

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/political-insider/2013/aug/17/two-changing-views-top-and-bottom-gop-health-care-/



__________________
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," - John F. Kennedy
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #20 
dewey  there are mainy drawing SS that have never funded a dime.  So you really are enabling the stealing of money not for people to have to fund their own retirement.  You can keep up the facade, but thats why the govt is broke. 
__________________
Susan
woody

Registered:
Posts: 9,010
Reply with quote  #21 
Dewey, if you privatized SS and allowed every contributor to invest the 12.4% in private accounts over a lifetime, retirement would be a pretty sweet deal for most Americans after working till age 60-65. The catch in privatizing is that the government would not have access to the funds to give to people for their vote. In addition people that are working into their late 60s, early 70s would retire earlier creating more job openings. What's that? What about the people that are disabled? Well start a disability program seperate from SS and fund it with taxes. What a about welfare? Start another program and fund it with taxes. What about people that dont want to work? start a new program and fund it with taxes. You see if people actually knew their retirement money was theirs, and couldn't be raided and given out to others, and that money would be willed to their children things might be different. In addition, if every working American paid a tax out of their paychecks, item for item to fund the other programs I mentioned, things would likely change as well. I would also recommend that instead of an employer withholding taxes on individual tax payers, that individuals be required to file a quarterly or monthly tax deposit with the federal government. Lets see how socialist ideals work around the kitchen table when average working people are required to write a check, and send in their monthly tax payment to the federal government to fund those other programs. I would think a lot of fiscal conservatives would emerge in short order, and socialist democrat politicians would be finding new employment
__________________
Rats flee from the sinking vessel. They traverse nimbly upon a rope, safely cleated to the dock, that is private enterprise. Socialism is dead, and tits up in the water. A bloated, death show, for rubberneckers of all classes to view.

"IT'S GOOD TO BE DA KING"
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #22 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbmom1812
dewey  there are mainy drawing SS that have never funded a dime.  


Can you give me the title of the article describing such a case?  I will Google it.  Anyway, that's a different subject.  I'm trying to explain how I'm glad folks are forced to pay into SS so I don't have to be responsible for any of them later.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #23 
woody - I don't where to begin.  Let's start with the false statement that Government is taking the SS money.  If the Government needs to borrow a trillion dollars, they can borrow it from the trust fund or China.  In woody's program if people are keeping their money then I suppose Uncle Sam will borrow it directly from the people.  That's whose carrying most our debt today anyway.  That inaccurate comment about raiding the lockbox needs to disappear one of these days. 

Secondly, there is no guarantee one will have more money investing on their own.  I've seen many rich people lose their investments.  How about China?  Why do you think they lend money to the USA as opposed to lending it to business or investing in stock market for greater returns?  Because the US is the safest investment around and that is what's needed to guarantee a SS retirement fund.

As for the rest of your comments, they're mostly irrelevant to me.  I simply want people to put money away so they won't be a burden to me later in life.  Was your program mandatory and guaranteed?  Same goes with health needs.  Everyone should be required to invest in covering their own health needs be they needed today or when they're old.  We're doing that now.
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #24 
Typed a long response and deleted it.  Too bad.  It had some good stuff in it.  Long story short, I eat bologna every day for lunch.  I have a handful of chips.  I drink water.  I drive an old Saturn Vue.  I don't count on any retirement.  I can't since I live and have taught in the State of Illinois for 28 years.  However, I have made sure that my child will be set.  I am insurance poor knowing that the inevitable will happen.  I will take care of mine.  I've told you before on this site that I have taken care of my sisters gravesite, gravestone, ... 

SS has to be fixed.  There are so many ways it can be but it is a Democrat Property for elections.  Scare the old folks and get the votes.  I believe is supporting the elderly, handicapped, ...  I don't believe in doing so when those entities are political pawns and where the money is wasted via fraud etc. and no one is held accountable. 

Ok so I've posted too much.
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #25 
CoachB - We all have ways in which we prepare for retirement.  Some of us have done better than others while some of us have simply been more fortunate.  My only goal here was to explain why I'm pro SS, Medicare, and Obamacare programs.  It has almost nothing to do with the nanny state, (with the exception of those who can't afford health care), and everything to do with saving me the money it might otherwise cost to help support the millions who might not prepare properly.  With these programs, people are forced to contribute to their own safety nets.  If they fail to save any money before they're old, I'm comforted to know they'll have insurance and an income.  Otherwise, I'll surely end up paying more taxes to help cover all these ill prepared folks.  So next time you think my kind wants a nanny state, stop and remember why yours truly supports these social programs today.  It's so I don't have to support these folks tomorrow.  Until someone can describe better programs, I'm going with these.  We've had two hundred years to think about them and I think we've come up with about as good as ones as we can.  Now it's up to us to properly fund them or the budget fights will continue forever.
keepinitreal

Registered:
Posts: 23,603
Reply with quote  #26 
Long live the budget fights
__________________
"I like to establish the parameters of my own thoughts and don't think I need a director."

"This is not debate class. And this is not about politeness. We're talking about the damn future of our country"

"It is not just simply yelling out a name and yelling down dissenters........................... and I'll defend your right to even insult me" 
CoachB25

Registered:
Posts: 2,234
Reply with quote  #27 
Dewey, I understand the purpose of this thread but, again, Obamacare has not lowered the health care cost of anyone I know of and my costs have skyrocketed.  You see, again, you talk about those less fortunate.  What percent of those are people who made choices and refused to go without like I am doing to enable my family to have more?  You see me as a "fortunate one."  I see me as someone who has refused entitlements and busted my butt.  I see me as someone motivated to care for mine.  I see me as someone who wants to keep what I worked for instead of giving it to those who chose to waste their money.  Convince me that those you speak of aren't waisting their money on drugs, cigarettes, alcohol ...  go ahead.  So, they see a safety net there from the government and so why should they do without.  I see myself as someone who is punished for my drive and ambition to rise above extreme poverty.  Dewey, it isn't like I don't know the exact type of people you speak of.  BTW, I am raising my child to do the same.  Work hard, sweat, get blisters, cry some, and know that no one owes her a dime. 
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #28 
Coach, bless you and your family.  Wish more people had your philosophy.  Wish more people cared as much about the consequences of their decisions on other people.
__________________
Susan
Dewey

Registered:
Posts: 24,423
Reply with quote  #29 
CoachB - Maybe it's me but I'm not sure we're even on the same subject.  I do believe you are either in the SS program or a State pension plan.  I'm guessing you weren't allowed to opt out and I'm trying to say I'm glad you had to contribute.  I'm glad everyone is forced to contribute to their retirement days.  That's the point I'm making in this thread.  Outside of including poor people in the rule we all have health insurance, I'm not talking about giving anyone anything.  I'm simply stating how I believe the three social programs will save me a lot of tax dollars over the long run.  Thanks to these programs people are required to chip in during their working years instead of spending all their money and then knocking on our door when they're old.  I'm trying to tell you I like the fact we've forced people to be insured and to put aside money for old age.  I'm uncertain what you are trying to tell me.  Maybe you're on the food stamp subject.
sbmom1812

Registered:
Posts: 3,002
Reply with quote  #30 
Dewey you make a nice little dictator.   Just like Obama.  Stealing peoples money for what you think is best.  Unfortunately, govt only picks winners and losers and enables people not to be self reliant, even in their retirement.  The more you talk though the more you really do show.
__________________
Susan
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.