Preliminary Read on Medical Plans

[59 Dano]

I've made my points. And you're flat out lying.

And I quote from the Dano post:

"Let's be truthful about the reality. Life expectancy in 1940 was 62 years. You weren't eligible to collect benefits until age 65. Stop acting like there was this big problem of all these old people struggling with poverty. MOST PEOPLE WEREN'T LIVING LONG ENOUGH TO STRUGGLE WITH POVERTY IN OLD AGE."

So which was it Dano? Were most people dying before they had a chance to collect benefits or were millions living past 65?
Keep in mind that the country's population was less than half of what it is now. There wasn't a big Baby Boomer generation. A very large % of seniors once they stopped working ended up in poverty.

Are you a liar, or just dishonest?

I gave you the stats, van. They come from the Social Security Administration.

In 1940, 42% of 21 year-olds would be dead by their 65th birthday. In 1940, the number of US citizens aged 65 or over was just under 8 million (6% of the population). There's the data. Deal with it. I can't help you if you just want to duck the numbers and cling to the vague and the abstract because you don't know what you're talking about.

Have you tried writing to the SSA and informing them that their data isn't consistent with your agenda? Are you even sure what your agenda is?

 

[vantexan]

This may come as a shock to you, but there's not a single verse in the Bible advocating for the government to provide income benefits to people, let alone levy taxes for that purpose.

You're just blindly invoking scripture and making silly comments to refute arguments that I didn't make, and sounding like a royal crybaby in the process.

And we're to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. So keep paying your FICA and fight your worst impulses to take from the poor to make yourself rich. I know it be tough, but you can humble yourself. Well, maybe not.

 

[vantexan]

I gave you the stats, van. They come from the Social Security Administration.

In 1940, 42% of 21 year-olds would be dead by their 65th birthday. In 1940, the number of US citizens aged 65 or over was just under 8 million (6% of the population). There's the data. Deal with it. I can't help you if you just want to duck the numbers and cling to the vague and the abstract because you don't know what you're talking about.

Have you tried writing to the SSA and informing them that their data isn't consistent with your agenda? Are you even sure what your agenda is?

Still trying to shoehorn your own worldview into what was happening then? People had big families then. They needed to because so many died young. My own great-grandfather died in 1921 at the age of 27 from tuberculosis. People weren't getting old and dying by 62. If they stayed healthy millions lived into their 70's and 80's. You said flat out that most didn't live long enough to suffer from poverty in their old age. Before Social Security, especially in the Great Depression, people worked until they couldn't then depended on family and church. Social Security was created to specifically assist them at a time when many poor were a burden on their poor families. Look it up.

 

[59 Dano]

Still trying to shoehorn your own worldview into what was happening then? People had big families then. They needed to because so many died young.

And the rabbit hole grows deeper! I'm sure the idea of Ma and Pa sitting at the table and deciding to have 8 kids because they need 6 and 2 will probably die is appealing to you, but no. That's not how it worked.

People had big families then because "then," there were fewer forms of birth control, access to that birth control was limited, the birth control itself wasn't that reliable, abortion was all but non-existent, and on and on we can go. In the social realm, the use of birth control was frowned upon and often illegal.

Practically any and every study of demographic shifts finds, to some degree and in every culture, the same trends. Namely that birth rates decline when there is a significant influx of women into the workforce; as education rates of parents rise; with the availability of birth control. The size of the average US family peaked around 1920. Guess which three things were taking shape around that time? Why, it was the increase in women entering the workforce, the emergence of better educated parents (result of compulsory education laws in most parts of the country), and the legalization and greater availability of birth control!!

WHO KNEW?

My own great-grandfather died in 1921 at the age of 27 from tuberculosis. People weren't getting old and dying by 62.

I like how you tell us how your great-grandfather died at the age of 27, then said people weren't dying by 62.

If they stayed healthy millions lived into their 70's and 80's.

Healthy people tend to live longer. Thanks for pointing that out.

You said flat out that most didn't live long enough to suffer from poverty in their old age.

OMG YOU FINALLY QUOTED ME CORRECTLY!!!!

Here's how I know that's true: we can look at the numbers and see for ourselves. Old people as a percentage of the population was low. Mortality rates for every adult age bracket were significantly higher than they are now. This leads to an amazing revelation: it's hard to be an old man who has struggled with poverty for years when you die at 54.

Thanks for playing.

 

[59 Dano]

And we're to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. So keep paying your FICA and fight your worst impulses to take from the poor to make yourself rich. I know it be tough, but you can humble yourself. Well, maybe not.

Where did you get this dumb idea that I want to take anything from poor people? You whine enough as it is, do you think I want to take something from you and listen to you whine even more?

 

[vantexan]

And the rabbit hole grows deeper! I'm sure the idea of Ma and Pa sitting at the table and deciding to have 8 kids because they need 6 and 2 will probably die is appealing to you, but no. That's not how it worked.

People had big families then because "then," there were fewer forms of birth control, access to that birth control was limited, the birth control itself wasn't that reliable, abortion was all but non-existent, and on and on we can go. In the social realm, the use of birth control was frowned upon and often illegal.

Practically any and every study of demographic shifts finds, to some degree and in every culture, the same trends. Namely that birth rates decline when there is a significant influx of women into the workforce; as education rates of parents rise; with the availability of birth control. The size of the average US family peaked around 1920. Guess which three things were taking shape around that time? Why, it was the increase in women entering the workforce, the emergence of better educated parents (result of compulsory education laws in most parts of the country), and the legalization and greater availability of birth control!!

WHO KNEW?


I like how you tell us how your great-grandfather died at the age of 27, then said people weren't dying by 62.


Healthy people tend to live longer. Thanks for pointing that out.


OMG YOU FINALLY QUOTED ME CORRECTLY!!!!

Here's how I know that's true: we can look at the numbers and see for ourselves. Old people as a percentage of the population was low. Mortality rates for every adult age bracket were significantly higher than they are now. This leads to an amazing revelation: it's hard to be an old man who has struggled with poverty for years when you die at 54.

Thanks for playing.

People had big families way back when because it was an agrarian society and that extended over into the 50's. You're absolutely right that when women became more educated and birth control became available families started shrinking. And eventually having children has become so expensive that they're limiting the number of children or are avoiding them altogether. Or, as many educated women have found out, if they put off marriage and kids while pursuing a career their options are often very limited when they get older.

I'm not following your logic. I've pointed out repeatedly that the average was 62 and that was caused by so many children and young adults dying from disease. What you were saying was that most adults died by 62 and thus weren't living long enough to be impoverished in their old age. That being eligible at 65 meant very little. Then you looked up stats and realized as I was saying that millions actually were living past 65 so you've been CYAing ever since.

Here's the thing pal. You don't want Social Security. And are willing to push any argument to get rid of it. Bottom line you don't care about the predicament millions find themselves in. You just want to hang on to the money. You deserve it more than than these lazy people do.

And for all you hourly UPS guys not wanting Social Security too because you think you'd do a lot better keeping that money. Do you think your taxes aren't factored in when negotiating your contract? Do you think if SS wasn't collected that UPS would give you as much money? You're kidding yourselves if you think you'd get that extra plus a generous contract also.

Not to mention a lot of people would squander it rather than putting it into savings. And someone grossing $500 a week, or less, would probably need it rather than investing it. But hey, they get what they deserve. Only management types or other "superior" people deserve to have anything.

 

[59 Dano]

I'm not following your logic. I've pointed out repeatedly that the average was 62 and that was caused by so many children and young adults dying from disease. What you were saying was that most adults died by 62 and thus weren't living long enough to be impoverished in their old age. That being eligible at 65 meant very little. Then you looked up stats and realized as I was saying that millions actually were living past 65 so you've been CYAing ever since.

You are beyond delusional. You aren't following my logic, or any logic. Sometimes you properly attribute statements to me, other times you miss the mark by a country mile. You're so incapable of following (or unwilling to follow) any reasoned explanation that I give up. You terribly misinterpret and misunderstand basic data to such a degree that it's a waste of time to even bring it up.

You have no interest in the actuarial and mathematical side of the issue and I have no more interest in your repetitive emotional arguments. So, as I said, thanks for playing.

Here's the thing pal. You don't want Social Security. And are willing to push any argument to get rid of it.

Except that I don't advocate getting rid of it.

Not to mention a lot of people would squander it rather than putting it into savings. And someone grossing $500 a week, or less, would probably need it rather than investing it. But hey, they get what they deserve. Only management types or other "superior" people deserve to have anything.

We get it, you squandered and mismanaged your money and your professional career. You've only told us about two hundred times.

 

[vantexan]

You are beyond delusional. You aren't following my logic, or any logic. Sometimes you properly attribute statements to me, other times you miss the mark by a country mile. You're so incapable of following (or unwilling to follow) any reasoned explanation that I give up. You terribly misinterpret and misunderstand basic data to such a degree that it's a waste of time to even bring it up.

You have no interest in the actuarial and mathematical side of the issue and I have no more interest in your repetitive emotional arguments. So, as I said, thanks for playing.

Except that I don't advocate getting rid of it.

We get it, you squandered and mismanaged your money and your professional career. You've only told us about two hundred times.

You are beyond delusional. You aren't following my logic, or any logic. Sometimes you properly attribute statements to me, other times you miss the mark by a country mile. You're so incapable of following (or unwilling to follow) any reasoned explanation that I give up. You terribly misinterpret and misunderstand basic data to such a degree that it's a waste of time to even bring it up.

You have no interest in the actuarial and mathematical side of the issue and I have no more interest in your repetitive emotional arguments. So, as I said, thanks for playing.

Except that I don't advocate getting rid of it.

We get it, you squandered and mismanaged your money and your professional career. You've only told us about two hundred times.

And you've told us repeatedly that you would take away needed income from hundreds of millions of people when they're too old to work. That frontline workers are lazy, or incompetent, or unintelligent, that their value to an organization is minimal. You're a greedy SOB which describes at least half of all management types imo.

You've repeatedly misstated the definition of life expectancy to the point of either being extraordinarily stupid or you're being deceptive because you believe you can get one over on us simpletons. A hallmark of managers everywhere. Life expectancy is the average of all deaths. It isn't lifespan. If in 1940 a newborn has the life expectancy of 62, it doesn't mean he will get old and die by 62 on average. It means with so many young adults and children dying from diseases at that time it brought the overall average(life expectancy) down to 62.

You said that with the age to collect Social Security at 65 most wouldn't live long enough to collect it or to live in poverty. And when you discovered that yes according to the census there were millions older than 65 in 1940 then you started CYAing. And as always you have to resort to personal attacks to discredit because your arguments don't hold up.

I have never supported socialism to replace capitalism. But I have said that one of the problems with capitalism is it's exploitive. And those with the power often have no problem exploiting others for their own personal gain. Sometimes laws have to be put in place to protect people. It's why we have unions, which you would do away with in a heartbeat. And why Social Security was created. Otherwise people like you would use people up and cast them aside without anything to show for years of faithful service. You've made that very clear with your criticism of older couriers.

You're nothing but a Darwinian capitalist.

 

[bacha29]

If you're going to do something in your own behalf you better get going. Your conservative hero Mike Johnson is preparing a plan to amend SS and Medicare.
Full retirement age goes to 69. Early out goes to 64 and Medicare eligibility age goes to....get this....69!. Oh yeah,....along with higher premiums along with looking once again to Paul Ryan's private insurance voucher plan.. Can't wait to see if insurers will bite on it this time.
This along with another formula that will result in lower COLA annual adjustments.

 

[vantexan]

If you're going to do something in your own behalf you better get going. Your conservative hero Mike Johnson is preparing a plan to amend SS and Medicare.
Full retirement age goes to 69. Early out goes to 64 and Medicare eligibility age goes to....get this....69!. Oh yeah,....along with higher premiums along with looking once again to Paul Ryan's private insurance voucher plan.. Can't wait to see if insurers will bite on it this time.
This along with another formula that will result in lower COLA annual adjustments.

Which, if true, will be phased in over some time so that people can plan accordingly.

 

[bacha29]

Which, if true, will be phased in over some time so that people can plan accordingly.

Some planning that will be. Say your age 57 and an Express driver who had to go to work for a Ground contractor because it was all he could get. Less income, no pension, no healthcare no benefits of any kind.
If if that isn't a big enough kick in the crotch then you discover that it will be TWO more years of suffering until full retirement and FOUR more years until Medicare kicks in which if Johnson has his way will mean higher premiums and higher co pays.

You're the one who wanted to see spending cuts....Here you go!.

 

[BrownFlush]

Damn those Unions! Oh wait, you guys ....

 

[vantexan]

Some planning that will be. Say your age 57 and an Express driver who had to go to work for a Ground contractor because it was all he could get. Less income, no pension, no healthcare no benefits of any kind.
If if that isn't a big enough kick in the crotch then you discover that it will be TWO more years of suffering until full retirement and FOUR more years until Medicare kicks in which if Johnson has his way will mean higher premiums and higher co pays.

You're the one who wanted to see spending cuts....Here you go!.

Has it happened? No. You're saying it like they've already cut a deal. And when I say phased in it's likely over a decade or two away. They've never proposed anything that was happening right away. That 57 year old courier you cited. If he had started at Express when he was 23 he would have started in 1989. That means if he was fulltime he would've had 19 years on his pension when they terminated it in 2008. And would've been accumulating under the portable pension since then. And most likely would've contributed to a 401k. So not the best example of someone totally broke. Of course it could be one of many situations but you always go for the most extreme one. Better vote Democrat! They're going to get you I tell ya!

 

[bacha29]

Has it happened? No. You're saying it like they've already cut a deal. And when I say phased in it's likely over a decade or two away. They've never proposed anything that was happening right away. That 57 year old courier you cited. If he had started at Express when he was 23 he would have started in 1989. That means if he was fulltime he would've had 19 years on his pension when they terminated it in 2008. And would've been accumulating under the portable pension since then. And most likely would've contributed to a 401k. So not the best example of someone totally broke. Of course it could be one of many situations but you always go for the most extreme one. Better vote Democrat! They're going to get you I tell ya!

I noticed how conveniently you left out the issue of health insurance for this ageing individual. We can't all be lucky enough and it is a question of dumb luck experience a major medical emergency requiring costly emergency treatment have no insurance but go walking out a week later whistling Dixie and turn around as simply say...." see ya later suckers".

 

[vantexan]

I noticed how conveniently you left out the issue of health insurance for this ageing individual. We can't all be lucky enough and it is a question of dumb luck experience a major medical emergency requiring costly emergency treatment have no insurance but go walking out a week later whistling Dixie and turn around as simply say...." see ya later suckers".

Everyone at 57 who isn't employed has insurance issues. He would've still been 8 years away from Medicare at 65.

So you think that a non-profit hospital that has programs for the poor is a sucker for offering forgiveness?

 

[bacha29]

Everyone at 57 who isn't employed has insurance issues. He would've still been 8 years away from Medicare at 65.

So you think that a non-profit hospital that has programs for the poor is a sucker for offering forgiveness?

The suckers are the socially responsible people who continue to make the personal sacrifices needed in order to buy health insurance when others who refuse to buy health insurance crying poverty get free care anyway.
And BTW, so called "not for profit" hospitals are just as bottom line driven just as profit focused as those that re for profit hospitals. The only difference is they pay no taxes on their profits and pay no real estate taxes on their properties.
In fact the network provider I am subscribed to generated 1.25 billion in profits last year and their physical plant holdings comprises more that 35% on the total real estate value of the entire city but don't pay a dime in real estate taxes but continues to receive all on the same city services as those that are taxed.

 

[vantexan]

The suckers are the socially responsible people who continue to make the personal sacrifices needed in order to buy health insurance when others who refuse to buy health insurance crying poverty get free care anyway.
And BTW, so called "not for profit" hospitals are just as bottom line driven just as profit focused as those that re for profit hospitals. The only difference is they pay no taxes on their profits and pay no real estate taxes on their properties.
In fact the network provider I am subscribed to generated 1.25 billion in profits last year and their physical plant holdings comprises more that 35% on the total real estate value of the entire city but don't pay a dime in real estate taxes but continues to receive all on the same city services as those that are taxed.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

If you're going to do something in your own behalf you better get going. Your conservative hero Mike Johnson is preparing a plan to amend SS and Medicare.
Full retirement age goes to 69. Early out goes to 64 and Medicare eligibility age goes to....get this....69!. Oh yeah,....along with higher premiums along with looking once again to Paul Ryan's private insurance voucher plan.. Can't wait to see if insurers will bite on it this time.
This along with another formula that will result in lower COLA annual adjustments.

Some planning that will be. Say your age 57 and an Express driver who had to go to work for a Ground contractor because it was all he could get. Less income, no pension, no healthcare no benefits of any kind.
If if that isn't a big enough kick in the crotch then you discover that it will be TWO more years of suffering until full retirement and FOUR more years until Medicare kicks in which if Johnson has his way will mean higher premiums and higher co pays.

You're the one who wanted to see spending cuts....Here you go!.

You sure do like to make stuff up.

 

[MassWineGuy]

The Times (is there another than the N.Y. Times?) had a good story last week about how long-term care bankrupts middle class people. And how, given few good options, will continue doing so. I’m sure higher Medicare premiums will solve the problem.

 

[vantexan]

The Times (is there another than the N.Y. Times?) had a good story last week about how long-term care bankrupts middle class people. And how, given few good options, will continue doing so. I’m sure higher Medicare premiums will solve the problem.

Los Angeles Times.