Clinton unveils new health care plan - page 4

... Read More

  1. by   sharona97
    I agree Banditrn and Jolie to a certain degree. some folks may be waiting for the gov't to take of them, true. The majority of people I would hope detail their own destinies for retirement.

    However; in the event of a death, there is a (very small) death benefit to the children. And if a person is disabled and on SSDI, etc, there is an education grant for the children up to a certain age. Not that this will enable to take total care of themselves with these monies, but they may be motivated individuals such as yourself and make the best with what they have and apply themselves to.
  2. by   banditrn
    Quote from sharona97
    I agree Banditrn and Jolie to a certain degree. some folks may be waiting for the gov't to take of them, true. The majority of people I would hope detail their own destinies for retirement.

    However; in the event of a death, there is a (very small) death benefit to the children. And if a person is disabled and on SSDI, etc, there is an education grant for the children up to a certain age. Not that this will enable to take total care of themselves with these monies, but they may be motivated individuals such as yourself and make the best with what they have and apply themselves to.
    Sharon - unless it has changed, that death benefit only goes to the surviving spouse, and it's only a few hundred dollars.

    I agree that the insurance industries in our country need looking at - but I DON'T want the government to take it over. Anything the government has ever done does not turn out well - it just grows cumbersome and expensive.

    I still want the freedom to choose who and when I go to, and what I will pay for.
  3. by   sharona97
    Quote from banditrn
    Sharon - unless it has changed, that death benefit only goes to the surviving spouse, and it's only a few hundred dollars.

    I agree that the insurance industries in our country need looking at - but I DON'T want the government to take it over. Anything the government has ever done does not turn out well - it just grows cumbersome and expensive.

    I still want the freedom to choose who and when I go to, and what I will pay for.
    I'm not an attorney so as far as the stats on who gets what when is controversal at this point and time between you and I.

    I think of my parents who were pushed into retirement when their employee boarded up. Thank Goodness they are doing alright financially, but what if they weren't? Or someone elses parents. This issue involves so many people at different stages in their life. Am I to assume you would reject a social security check at your retirement, (If it was an option?

    Times are a changin, but I haven't lost all hope to form the opinion that my tax dollars taken from me should in some way be given back. I'm not encouraging social medicine, or welfare, just a change. I'd like to see someone in office who has a business head and cares about the American Economy as a priority.

    Personally, my dh and I have pensions that are sound and I consider myself damn lucky. I also realize it could be gone tomorrow. If tomorrow never comes, then great. But what about yesterday?
  4. by   Jolie
    Quote from sharona97
    am i to assume you would reject a social security check at your retirement, (if it was an option?

    no, i wouldn't, because it sould simply be a matter of the federal government returning my money to me. but i seriously doubt that will happen. i would have preferred the opportunity to have invested that money myself all along. even if i had stuck it under the mattress, i would have done better than the zero dollars i am likely to collect from ss.

    times are a changin, but i haven't lost all hope to form the opinion that my tax dollars taken from me should in some way be given back. i'm not encouraging social medicine, or welfare, just a change. i'd like to see someone in office who has a business head and cares about the american economy as a priority.
    i half-way agree with the second part of your statement. i have no hope that my tax money will be returned to me, but i do hope that some enlightened politician of the future will stop taking it from me to fund programs that i could do better myself. i agree that we need an economic-minded business person to run our country. career politicians don't cut it!
  5. by   pickledpepperRN
    All the people over 65 that I know get their Social Check deposited into their account on the 3rd of every month without fail.

    Medicare pays the doctors and hospitals on time and does not cancel anyone’s policy.
  6. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    All the people over 65 that I know get their Social Check deposited into their account on the 3rd of every month without fail.

    Medicare pays the doctors and hospitals on time and does not cancel anyone’s policy.
    Social Security became a pyramid scheme when the ratio of workers to retirees dropped combined with the gov't issuing IOUs (taking) for any surplus.

    These programs are unsustainable. Greenspan, in his new book, says the failure of SS is NEEDED in order to convince the public that you can't vote yourself wealth. He's not calling for its failure, rather, he is acknowledging that it must happen. I said this in another thread today: the failure of SS is the result of what amounts to not heeding simple, fifth grade mathematics. You could get away with that when practically everybody died short of collecting. Not now.

    The engine of money growth is compound interest. Period.

    To answer your quote, it must be nice to get in on the front end of the pyramid scheme. Those of us on the back in, are, as they say, the marks in the con.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 20, '07
  7. by   sharona97
    Timothy, did you get a chance to see the presidential debates this evening? If so, what are your thoughts if you don't mind me asking?


    Sheri
  8. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Social Security became a pyramid scheme when the ratio of workers to retirees dropped combined with the gov't issuing IOUs (taking) for any surplus.

    These programs are unsustainable. Greenspan, in his new book, says the failure of SS is NEEDED in order to convince the public that you can't vote yourself wealth. He's not calling for its failure, rather, he is acknowledging that it must happen. I said this in another thread today: the failure of SS is the result of what amounts to not heeding simple, fifth grade mathematics. You could get away with that when practically everybody died short of collecting. Not now.

    The engine of money growth is compound interest. Period.

    To answer your quote, it must be nice to get in on the front end of the pyramid scheme. Those of us on the back in, are, as they say, the marks in the con.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Sorry but there was a surplus just a few years ago. I hope we can relearn some fiscal responsibility so we can repay what was "borrowed" from the Social Security surplus this century because the insurance you are paying for must be provided if you are blessed with a long life.

    I have paid into Social Security for 48 years and have not collected $0.01. Not exactly the front end of anything.
    People retiring at age 65 began collecting "Old Age Pensions" in 1940, before I was born.
    See I can do 3rd grade arithmatic

    In August of 2001 the White House released new budget numbers showing that almost all of the surplus came from the Social Security Trust Fund:
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/econo...kbox_8-22.html
  9. by   tulip928
    Quote from sharona97
    Thanks Joli
    Exactly one of my points. This is America, taxes are mandated, laws are mandated. Why not healthcare?
    This IS America where we have a Constitution that lays out the purpose of government. It would do us all well to review that document. Micromanaging our health care responsibilities for us is not the purpose of our government. That is the difference between our form of government and socialist and communist forms of government. I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton's "modern progressive" (aka socialistic) proclivities.
  10. by   Shaggyb2000
    A RIGHT is not a RIGHT if someone else has to provide it. A voluntary exchange between customer(patient) and seller(doctor) at an agreed price is the only single payer system that is economically viable and morally correct. Seller(doctor) charges too much then Customer(patient) takes his business elsewhere. That is the only true price control. The seller and customer has the RIGHT to negotiate whatever price they want without any high horsed "intellectuals" who think they know what is fair and best for seller and customer telling them what they can do. That is how the forefathers set it up and it worked just fine before politicians and "do gooders" got involved.
    Last edit by Shaggyb2000 on Sep 22, '07 : Reason: posted too quick
  11. by   Shaggyb2000
    Quote from spacenurse
    All the people over 65 that I know get their Social Check deposited into their account on the 3rd of every month without fail.

    Medicare pays the doctors and hospitals on time and does not cancel anyone’s policy.
    Yeah, because the government can just print off more money with the click of a button. But, this brings the value of those dollars down that the over 65 get every 3rd of the month.
    Last edit by Shaggyb2000 on Sep 22, '07 : Reason: forgot down
  12. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from Shaggyb2000


    Yeah, because the government can just print off more money with the click of a button. But, this brings the value of those dollars that the over 65 get every 3rd of the month.
    The beauty of the necessity to devalue the Dollar to meet future SS obligations is that it will also devalue the retirements of people that worked hard and saved over the years. This puts everybody in the same boat - equal outcomes.

    See, a fair share in an equal, yet dismal, outcome is preferable to differentiations based upon individual effort.

    If you protect against failure, you also protect against success. Everybody equal equals everybody very mediocre.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
  13. by   rigmedic
    The good news in all of this is that our present healthcare system WILL NOT survive in its present form. That is good, because it is a fundamentally immoral system. When a corporation has a vested financial interest (it will make more money) in denying me care for my brain cancer, there is a huge problem. I see the Clinton plan as a middle of the road, achievable plan that will head us where we need to going. All the other countries manage to pull this off with no difficulty. I know lots of people that live in Canada and the UK. Not ONE of them would trade their system for ours. Not one!

close