house passes health care bill 220-215

[apple0154]

Social security virtually ensures that folks on the lower end of the earning scale can never accumulate wealth to pass on to the next generation. Most poor people enter nursing homes with little or nothing left, as required by SS rules, then die more or less penniless.

They are not obliged to enter nursing homes. Do you expect the government to pay for a person's care so that person can give their money to their offspring who didn't care for them?

 

[Canceled2]

\

Why aren't you demanding we cut military spending, and shrink our global military posture?

Oh, that's right. Because you republicans love massive military spending, and you love wars that don't need to be fought.

Anytime anyone talks about cutting out nation's bloated militaristic spending, a republican will come along and call them a cheese eating surrender monkey.

The only people at the national level I've ever heard talk about realigning our priorities with regard to spending - towards societal needs, and reducing our military spending - are ultra lefties like Kucinich. Hell, like Zappa said, all obama did was cut a stupid F-22 program, and republicans were freaking out about it.

The reason, as chapdog says, that liberal democracies like ireland and the scandanvians have universal healthcare and free college and free universal day care is because of how they prioritize the way they spend their tax money. They don't have bloated militaries, and they don't love wars. Especially wars that don't need to be fought.

You are such a shill...get a fucking piece of cheese for that whine ...as per usual lefty logic goes down the toilet.

The reason Euro nations can spend that way dork breath IS BECAUSE THEY DEPEND ON OUR MILITARY TO PROTECT SHIPPING LANES and every other fucking kind of threat in the fucking world. We allowed this to happen via all kinds of treaties and commitments. We have tied our military protection to numerous self interests as well as those of our allies....try being a little fucking happy that we are so fucking generous and keep the fucking world safe for so many.

Do I think we should become isolationists and let Ireland and the other western nations look out for themselves? Yeah, I do...but it ain't gonna happen. What would be super fucking great is if we untied our use of military aid and protection and gave those tax dollars back to the folks so our free market could once again dominate the world...but NEVER do I think it should be given away to our government so that they can control 1/6 of our GDP to provide mediocre health care!

 

[DamnYankee]

They are not obliged to enter nursing homes. Do you expect the government to pay for a person's care so that person can give their money to their offspring who didn't care for them?

Their offspring are busy working their assess off to pay social security taxes and can't take care of their parents full time.

Are you aware that if the same taxes were put into a conservative investment account then the person could retire at age 65 at several times their working income? And that's just the interest, never touching the principle, so when they died at age 70 or 170 their relatives could fight over millions in inheritance.

When my grandparents died I got a radio and some furniture.

 

[apple0154]

Their offspring are busy working their assess off to pay social security taxes and can't take care of their parents full time.

Are you aware that if the same taxes were put into a conservative investment account then the person could retire at age 65 at several times their working income? And that's just the interest, never touching the principle, so when they died at age 70 or 170 their relatives could fight over millions in inheritance.

When my grandparents died I got a radio and some furniture.

You're not making any sense. You complain about paying for social security while complaining the government demands people who have money to pay for their care.

As for private investing that's why social security came about. People don't know how to invest. People don't save for the future. Do you have any idea how many people have lost money on the stock market?

 

[DamnYankee]

You're not making any sense. You complain about paying for social security while complaining the government demands people who have money to pay for their care.

As for private investing that's why social security came about. People don't know how to invest. People don't save for the future. Do you have any idea how many people have lost money on the stock market?

No one who has invested wisely in the markets for 45 years has ever lost money.

Lower wage earners can't save money because social security takes such a huge amount of the earnings. Again, if they were allowed to invest that money, they would retire at several times their working income on interest alone, and the principle would be available to their heirs when they die.

These are undeniable facts.

 

[apple0154]

No one who has invested wisely in the markets for 45 years has ever lost money.

Lower wage earners can't save money because social security takes such a huge amount of the earnings. Again, if they were allowed to invest that money, they would retire at several times their working income on interest alone, and the principle would be available to their heirs when they die.

These are undeniable facts.

The undeniable fact is people never feel they have enough money. If I get a raise....if I get a better job....just a little bit more money...

Why do you think doctors and lawyers and executives go bankrupt? Why are people losing $300,000 homes?

People don't save. That's why social security came about. We didn't start with social security. We had to implement it.

As for investing for 45 years....

 

[meme]

I would ask you to prove how this bill will enslave the American people as you claim, but everyone already knows you don't do answers. All you've got are your pitiful insults.

waaaaa ya little baby
you have some nerve talking about insults...read my signature line, a love note from you..
get a friggen life.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Got news for you, insurance companies are exempt from anti-trust laws...which alters your analogy here. And the gov't option is an OPTION by the federal gov't, NOT a corporate plan. If you like you plan, keep it. And if you change jobs, you can keep the same plan....something a LOT of companies don't allow.

Yes, I am quite aware that the POLITICIANS granted them anti-trust exemptions..... THAT is the GOVERNMENT at work for you.

That's why people must stay involved...to make sure they're gov't works FOR them and not against them. Let's get real, low voter turn out in local and national elections opens the door for special interest to take control. The result...you get some good, you get some bad.

It is NOT the company a person works for that doesn't 'allow' you to keep the plan. It is the SYSTEM. A SYSTEM that sets up 'corporate' plans to begin with.

The company has a certain plan, it sticks to it. The SYSTEM currently says you can't stick to your old plan. So essentially, you're saying the same thing I am.

As mentioned, we don't have 'corporate' auto insurance plans or mortgage insurance plans. Why do we do so for health care? Oh, thats right... because the idiots in DC (both parties) allow the insurance companies to bribe (but they call it 'lobby') them into allowing them exemption from anti-trust. They bribe the politicians to create the monstrosities that are HMO's.

Tell me something I don't know....essentially you're repeating all the reasons why the Obama healthcare plan is such a major threat to the system (well, the original single-payer options anyway). Which is what I pointed out in the beginning....so you're bitching about not trusting gov't, yet you bitch about people trying to change how gov't works. You can't have it both ways, man.

Health care costs began their ever increasing cost spiral when the idiots in DC decided to make health insurance costs deductible for corporations, but not for individuals. When Medicare was created, costs further escalated as seniors went in for anything and everything because they no longer had to 'pay' for it. People have a natural tendency to spend more when it is not coming directly from their pocket.

Ahhh, "not...directly" is the key. And again, how does all this you've just said
affect what I previously stated? There is NOT going to be a total abandonment of every existing health insurance plan in America, and insurance companies could neve justify their BS by blaming Medicare no more than they could blame the vets getting their VA benefits. Like I said above, you can't have it both ways.

 

[christiefan915]

And we could cover that with catastrophic coverage without creating a massive government entity and increasing taxes or debt. Nobody is afraid of reform, they aren't even "afraid" of government, they are simply aware that the government is not always the best option.

Very often that child would wind up coming down here from Canada for care for her cancer. There is a reason for that.

That child does live here, in International Falls, MN. That was his point.

 

[Damocles]

That child does live here, in International Falls, MN. That was his point.

Not the fictional child he made up about Canada. Keep up, you were the one that brought that one up, I just extended the point.

It would be foolish for us to give up what is good, even great, about the US system so that we can participate in the mediocrity of a system that is failing as we type and which takes advantage of those things that are good, even sometimes great, about the system in the US.

 

[christiefan915]

Not the fictional child he made up about Canada. Keep up, you were the one that brought that one up, I just extended the point.

It would be foolish for us to give up what is good, even great, about the US system so that we can participate in the mediocrity of a system that is failing as we type and which takes advantage of those things that are good, even sometimes great, about the system in the US.

The "fictional child" he made up about Canada, the same as the fictional scenario you made up about her coming here for treatment.

I never said the quality of care here is bad. It's the costs and the delivery system that need a major overhaul. You have no special ability to predict that the current system would change for the worse under universal health care; your thinking is being influenced by partisan bias.

 

[Damocles]

The "fictional child" he made up about Canada, the same as the fictional scenario you made up about her coming here for treatment.

I never said the quality of care here is bad. It's the costs and the delivery system that need a major overhaul. You have no special ability to predict that the current system would change for the worse under universal health care; your thinking is being influenced by partisan bias.

No, my opinion lies in my belief that government should be the last choice of solution, not the only one considered. It is true that I believe differently than you do in that manner, and I likely always will. It isn't that I think government will always fail at things, it is that I think that it should always be the last resort.

However saying I have nothing to base it on is ridiculous. We can look at government run systems and see how they differ from ours. For instance, is the technology better and more accessible here? Yes, it is. We can then ask, "Why is it more accessible and better here?"...and so forth. With comparisons like that we can come up with an opinion based in logic and past experience, something of substance and can learn what pitfalls might be likely and come up with solutions that avoid those pitfalls.

Learning from the mistakes of others is a difficult lesson to learn in life, especially when it runs contrary to your own urge to have government solve every issue as the first resort and not the last, but it is something we can and should do before we just repeat the mistakes of others.

 

[DamnYankee]

The undeniable fact is people never feel they have enough money. If I get a raise....if I get a better job....just a little bit more money...

Why do you think doctors and lawyers and executives go bankrupt? Why are people losing $300,000 homes?

People don't save. That's why social security came about. We didn't start with social security. We had to implement it.

As for investing for 45 years....

Right now the workers "invest" 6.2% of their gross income in Social Security and these funds are matched by their employer. Most folks start to work when they are around 20 and retire at 65: that's 45 years. Again, if that money were invested in conservative private funds those workers would have a retirement income of several times their working income. And again, that income would be the interest only, and perpetual, so that upon death the money would be inheritance.

Compare that with the relative bankruptcy that most low wage earners face upon their death: you can thank Democrats for that. You can laugh all you want but it is the Democrat Party that is laughing at you.

 

[apple0154]

Right now the workers "invest" 6.2% of their gross income in Social Security and these funds are matched by their employer. Most folks start to work when they are around 20 and retire at 65: that's 45 years. Again, if that money were invested in conservative private funds those workers would have a retirement income of several times their working income. And again, that income would be the interest only, and perpetual, so that upon death the money would be inheritance.

Compare that with the relative bankruptcy that most low wage earners face upon their death: you can thank Democrats for that. You can laugh all you want but it is the Democrat Party that is laughing at you.

If the money was invested. The point is the money never was invested in the past. That's why social security came about.

People don't save money. At least nowhere near the amount they would require.

How many people continually save for 45 years? Be realistic. They buy a house. The lose their job. They need a new car. Something comes along and the savings are raided.

That's why governments have penalties for withdrawal from retirement saving accounts or stipulate the funds have to be replaced if used for certain things. They know people would withdraw that money at some point unless they are prevented from doing so.

Most countries have similar laws because most people do similar things. It's been proven. That's why most countries have social security/old age pensions. It's never worked the way you suggest.

 

[Damocles]

If the money was invested. The point is the money never was invested in the past. That's why social security came about.

People don't save money. At least nowhere near the amount they would require.

How many people continually save for 45 years? Be realistic. They buy a house. The lose their job. They need a new car. Something comes along and the savings are raided.

That's why governments have penalties for withdrawal from retirement saving accounts or stipulate the funds have to be replaced if used for certain things. They know people would withdraw that money at some point unless they are prevented from doing so.

Most countries have similar laws because most people do similar things. It's been proven. That's why most countries have social security/old age pensions. It's never worked the way you suggest.

LOL.

Instead of working on paying that money into something worthwhile the ONLY solution looked at was government. It sucks. Require a certain amount to be set aside into specific safer investments and they'd all be set and very few would need the type of "help" SSI gives.

 

[DamnYankee]

If the money was invested. The point is the money never was invested in the past. That's why social security came about.

People don't save money. At least nowhere near the amount they would require.

How many people continually save for 45 years? Be realistic. They buy a house. The lose their job. They need a new car. Something comes along and the savings are raided.

That's why governments have penalties for withdrawal from retirement saving accounts or stipulate the funds have to be replaced if used for certain things. They know people would withdraw that money at some point unless they are prevented from doing so.

Most countries have similar laws because most people do similar things. It's been proven. That's why most countries have social security/old age pensions. It's never worked the way you suggest.

They can't save because Social Security takes 12.4% of what they would have made. As an alternative to forced Social Security, the government should offer forced savings of the same percentage. If they are out of work for 5 of the 45 years they'd still be rolling in the dough at retirement and upon their deaths.