More Job Losses

[HartfordTycoon]

health care lobbyists. health care is a multi billion dollar industry. they've got big guns.

Exactly. The corporations that control the big business of healthcare don't want it. I'm sure other employers would be exstatic, they just don't want to step on another industry's toes. I'm talking about all diseases from STD's to the flu. Pretty much everything goes untreated if you don't have coverage. Even if you can't get something from casual contact, some insured people may have some intimate contact with un-insured people. Either way you look at it, it's bad news for all of us that so many sick people are going undocumented, undiagnosed, and untreated.

[beerbeer]

Universal anything is bad. I am for a safety net for folks who really need it. Not for everyone.

Look at social secuity. Millionaries and Billionaires are receiving social security. Does that make any sense? That's why universal systems are bad. Safety nets for those who need help are good.

Millionries and Billionaries should pay into these systems. They should not be eligible for benefits.

[drc72]

Universal anything is bad. I am for a safety net for folks who really need it. Not for everyone.

Look at social secuity. Millionaries and Billionaires are receiving social security. Does that make any sense? That's why universal systems are bad. Safety nets for those who need help are good.

I'm not adovocating millionaires getting SS, but they probably did pay into the system. More so then some.

[runawayjim]

I'm adovocating millionaires getting SS, but they probably did pay into the system. More so then some.

actually once you make $90k a year, you stop paying into SS. taxes come out each paycheck until your YTD gross pay reaches $90k. after that, you don't pay into SS anymore because the idea is that you don't need to collect it (many millionaires don't collect it, no reason to).

[drc72]

actually once you make $90k a year, you stop paying into SS. taxes come out each paycheck until your YTD gross pay reaches $90k. after that, you don't pay into SS anymore because the idea is that you don't need to collect it (many millionaires don't collect it, no reason to).

Yeah that would make sense.

[damus]

Yeah that would make sense.

Well it's not entirely fair. Why not tax income for social security past 90k, and only provide benefits for the first 90k? The real problem with social security has been that congress raided the social security fund year after year... I think this mess really got bad from the 1960s on..

[drc72]

Well it's not entirely fair. Why not tax income for social security past 90k, and only provide benefits for the first 90k? The real problem with social security has been that congress raided the social security fund year after year... I think this mess really got bad from the 1960s on..

There really isn't a social security trust fund. SS taxes are combined with general incomes taxes, so we never know exactly how much SS taxes the gov't is collecting from us.

[runawayjim]

There really isn't a social security trust fund. SS taxes are combined with general incomes taxes, so we never know exactly how much SS taxes the gov't is collecting from us.

i'm not sure what you're saying... when i get paid, i have SS tax taken out and income tax taken out separately.

[KRC]

There really isn't a social security trust fund. SS taxes are combined with general incomes taxes, so we never know exactly how much SS taxes the gov't is collecting from us.

Oh no. They are put into the SS Trust Fund. They are not lumped into a general income fund. We know exactly how much is collected. That's how they can calculate your benefits (the statement you get every year now) and give us an estimate as to when the fund will become insolvent (if it ever does).

The issue is that during times when the fund was flush, it was siphoned off for other lavish expenditures...you know, real important things like pork.

[drc72]

Oh no. They are put into the SS Trust Fund. They are not lumped into a general income fund. We know exactly how much is collected. That's how they can calculate your benefits (the statement you get every year now) and give us an estimate as to when the fund will become insolvent (if it ever does).

The issue is that during times when the fund was flush, it was siphoned off for other lavish expenditures...you know, real important things like pork.

Yeah they keep track of what you paid, but don't fooled it's all thown in the general fund. Some legislaters even admitted this.

[monsoon]

I have removed the attacks posted by JimSawhill and he was suspended for making them. This thread is now open. Please everyone, follow our rules and show some respect, that would be befitting an adult, to the other forumers that post here. Thanks!

[jcrc]

Social Security is a perfect example why we can't trust the gevernment to run another program such as universal health care. SS was poorly planned, namely the original planners never thought people might live longer and therefore take out more than they put in; and poorly run, not only the trust fund was raided repeatedly, it was also poorly invested. So now those who are planning to retire are going to have to work more, those are in the work force need to pay more, and those in retirement are facing benefit cut. And we are suppose to trust the same people with more of our money, and our health?

[HartfordTycoon]

Social Security is a perfect example why we can't trust the gevernment to run another program such as universal health care. SS was poorly planned, namely the original planners never thought people might live longer and therefore take out more than they put in; and poorly run, not only the trust fund was raided repeatedly, it was also poorly invested. So now those who are planning to retire are going to have to work more, those are in the work force need to pay more, and those in retirement are facing benefit cut. And we are suppose to trust the same people with more of our money, and our health?

I'm just curious. Do you have or advocate any solutions to help people in need? Or do you just advocate letting whatever happens to them happening without making any attempt to help. The people who are hurt the most are poor kids. These kids will never have the opportunities afforded to others, not saying they won't still be successful, but odds are against it. They will grow up without proper healthcare and be more succeptible to everything. I'm open minded, maybe universal or nationalized healthcare is not the answer. I never said it definately was, just expressed that I thought it could be. Are there other ways to improve healthcare in America? Meaning access to and quality of?

[runawayjim]

Social Security is a perfect example why we can't trust the gevernment to run another program such as universal health care. SS was poorly planned, namely the original planners never thought people might live longer and therefore take out more than they put in; and poorly run, not only the trust fund was raided repeatedly, it was also poorly invested. So now those who are planning to retire are going to have to work more, those are in the work force need to pay more, and those in retirement are facing benefit cut. And we are suppose to trust the same people with more of our money, and our health?

actually, the problem is not that people live longer but that people live longer and expect to retire at the same age. when SS was started, people generally only lived maybe 5 years (10 max) after retiring. now people live another 20 years. the retirement age needs to be raised. but i'd be willing to bet AARP will be up in arms over that. if your health becomes a problem, you can retire early (early being the current retirement age) through a clause that should be added to the ADA.

but i do agree with hartfordtycoon... what policies will be put in place to ensure that the children will not be forgotten? i have had too many discussions/arguments with republican types who seem to think that everyone has a fair chance. this is not the case when you're born into a poor family.

[monsoon]

actually, the problem is not that people live longer but that people live longer and expect to retire at the same age. when SS was started, people generally only lived maybe 5 years (10 max) after retiring. now people live another 20 years. the retirement age needs to be raised. but i'd be willing to bet AARP will be up in arms over that. if your health becomes a problem, you can retire early (early being the current retirement age) through a clause that should be added to the ADA.

This in fact has already happened once. People born prior to 1958 could get full benefits at 65. For people born after 1960 its been raised to 67. For those in between it was graduated by month. They will most likely do this again.

There is nothing wrong with the idea of social security. Amongst the industrialized western countries, the USA provides the least social benefits of any nation and I don't have any problem providing a minimum living benefit to the elderly in this country. I do volunteer work with a meals on wheels program and most people simply have no idea how many elderly depend upon their SS benefits for just the essentials like eating. There is much much more wasteful spending in the federal government that needs to be cut out before they start taking away benefits from old people. And BTW, these are earned benefits. You actually have to work to get a payment from SS unlike so many other freebies the government passes out.

[runawayjim]

This in fact has already happened once. People born prior to 1958 could get full benefits at 65. For people born after 1960 its been raised to 67. For those in between it was graduated by month. They will most likely do this again.

2 years is nothing by today's standards. it should be 70 for full benefits. if you have well documented medical issues, you can get them at 67, otherwise, there's no reason people can't work until 70. there's a woman who works in my department who is about 80 i think and she's still going strong and still drives 6+ hours for vacation every year... alone (to visit family). my fiancee's grandparents, both over 80 just decided this year that they were going to sell their second home in florida to live in CT permanently rather than drive back and forth each year.

[monsoon]

No doubt it's a bigger deal for someone who is 65. They don't have as much time left as someone say in their 20s or 30s.

[runawayjim]

No doubt it's a bigger deal for someone who is 65. They don't have as much time left as someone say in their 20s or 30s.

that's why i said i'll catch some flack from AARP, but the fact remains that when they originally set the retirement age, people were only expected to live a couple years after that. now they're living 15-20 years longer. the retirement age hasn't changed much. i realize 2 years is a bigger deal for someone who is 65 than it is for me at 26, but when that 65 year old is retired until their death at 85, it's not as big a deal now is it?

[monsoon]

that's why i said i'll catch some flack from AARP, but the fact remains that when they originally set the retirement age, people were only expected to live a couple years after that. now they're living 15-20 years longer. the retirement age hasn't changed much. i realize 2 years is a bigger deal for someone who is 65 than it is for me at 26, but when that 65 year old is retired until their death at 85, it's not as big a deal now is it?

In your example 2 years is 10% of the time they have left on this planet. And given the very last years for people are usually not able to get about much, it is a significant time of their active retirement years left.

Time has a habit of changing people's perceptions on this. You will most likely think differently when you get older.

[runawayjim]

In your example 2 years is 10% of the time they have left on this planet. And given the very last years for people are usually not able to get about much, it is a significant time of their active retirement years left.

Time has a habit of changing people's perceptions on this. You will most likely think differently when you get older.

but do people realize that when they set the retirement age at 65, very few people lived beyond 70, making retirement last only 5 years? now with the age at 67, people are living beyond 80 with retirement lasting 15-20 years. i don't think 2 years really matters that much. and like i said before. i think something should be added to the ADA so that those with documented medical conditions can retire at the former age (67, assuming they raise it like i think they should).

[monsoon]

The average age of the American male was 74 or so in 2002 and is no longer increasing. I don't think it is going to be that much of an issue. Due to their very unhealty lifestyle, increasing pollution and toxins in the environment, and lack of fresh food, the life expectancy of today's youth isn't expected to be as long as those now approaching retirement age.

More here.

[jcrc]

I'm just curious. Do you have or advocate any solutions to help people in need? Or do you just advocate letting whatever happens to them happening without making any attempt to help. The people who are hurt the most are poor kids. These kids will never have the opportunities afforded to others, not saying they won't still be successful, but odds are against it. They will grow up without proper healthcare and be more succeptible to everything. I'm open minded, maybe universal or nationalized healthcare is not the answer. I never said it definately was, just expressed that I thought it could be. Are there other ways to improve healthcare in America? Meaning access to and quality of?

Do you know we have a strategic helium reserve since 1925? The purpose of it is in case we have to fight the Kaiser with blimps again, we don't want to be short on helium. So at the cost of billions, not millions, we have helium. By now you must be asking what does this have to do with universal healthcare? Well, once you have a federal program on the book, it is very hard to kill it, even if the program out lived its purpose. Federal government is not good at managing anything let alone our healthcare.

I think you need to define who are the people in need? I just had a major equipment failure in my shop, which government agency do I go to get money that I don

[runawayjim]

Do you know we have a strategic helium reserve since 1925? The purpose of it is in case we have to fight the Kaiser with blimps again, we don't want to be short on helium. So at the cost of billions, not millions, we have helium. By now you must be asking what does this have to do with universal healthcare? Well, once you have a federal program on the book, it is very hard to kill it, even if the program out lived its purpose. Federal government is not good at managing anything let alone our healthcare.

I think you need to define who are the people in need? I just had a major equipment failure in my shop, which government agency do I go to get money that I don

[MadVlad]

Maybe we can just breathe in all the Helium, talk like Pixies for a few minutes each and be solved with that problem...

[runawayjim]

Maybe we can just breathe in all the Helium, talk like Pixies for a few minutes each and be solved with that problem...

mmmmmmmm... helium