Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/5/2009 11:57:29 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Willbe... no one is lending. They are grasping at the money they have and whining because they cant get bonuses... yet businesses cant grow because they wont lend money.

Smacks of blackmail to me.


And why wont they lend money?



It certainly isn't because they are prudent with other peoples money.....


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/5/2009 12:00:32 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Willbe... no one is lending. They are grasping at the money they have and whining because they cant get bonuses... yet businesses cant grow because they wont lend money.

Smacks of blackmail to me.


And why wont they lend money?


Depressed credit market until 2010
The industry may be hunkering down for a while. In a recent survey by data firm Reuters LPC, 40 percent of lenders and loan investors said they didn't expect the credit climate to improve significantly until 2010, after the worst of the recession has passed. "Lending won't start until everyone agrees the bottom has been reached," Richard M. Kovacevich, chairman of San Francisco-based Wells Fargo told BusinessWeek in an interview with Maria Bartiromo.

Some contraction is not only unavoidable but desirable. After all, the economy is going through a natural cleansing as borrowers leveraged to the hilt work down their debt.

The markets will eventually find the right equilibrium — but that could take months, or even years. "We have kind of a chicken-and-egg problem" that no bank will lend until others do so first, says Marvin Goodfriend, an economist at Carnegie Mellon University and former research director at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27362013/

To blame Obama for this is twisted logic indeed. Instead, look to where the money trail leads. The above should give you a damn HUGE clue.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 4:29:21 AM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
And thats why health care for profit should never have been allowed.

Yup, Social Security would be in a lot better shape, because life expectancy would still be 67.


Coming from you, it doesn't surprise me that you subscribe to the myth that Social Security is in bad shape.

And it doesnt surprise me that you put words in my mouth. If youve read any of my SS posts you would know that isnt what I think. You would also know that Ive worked with Robert Myers peer reviewing Social Security trustees reports and know a helluva lot more about SS than you do.



I take it that you think that Social Security is in good shape, then? In that case, I apologize. I'm not sure, tough, what you meant when you said "Social Security would be in a lot better shape ..." earlier. That's what my remark was based on. Could you elaborate?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
As to the rest of your post, you have said the exact same things I have said in prior posts regarding the investments of the trust fund.


Doesn't surprise me. I had a feeling that when it comes to the "borrowing from the trust fund" we would agree.

I said this really more in response to somebody else who claimed that excessive borrowing from the trust fund was the problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
However your financial figures are pathetically far off.

Without payroll tax increases or benefit changes, on the intermediate assumptions SS reserves are depleted by 2039 and DI reserves are depleted by 2020.


Actually, we aren't far apart. Depending on whose guesses (or "intermediate assumptions") you rely on, without changes the SS reserves may last until close to 2050 or even 2070. The 2039 figure is news to me but it doesn't surprise me that some people would put their guesses there. And even then, Social Security would have lived for more than 100 years, one of the most long-lived and successful government programs ever.

The bigger point is that all of that is guesswork. It can well be 20, 30, 40 years off from what will actually happen. It is just plain impossible to predict demographic, political or economic developments 40 years into the future. If it was realistically possible to predict that far ahead, Ronald Reagan would have predicted the current economic crash! That's why you hear guesses about the depletion date that are all over the map.

For instance, a simple change in immigration policy may well end up flooding the country with young people, and extending Social Security by decades (or it could do the reverse). And a change in immigration policy has to happen one way or the other; our current immigration system is in almost as bad shape as health care. A cultural shift towards either larger or smaller families could have even more drastic effects. There are many more changes that could have similarly dramatic effects.

Bottom line, the underlying assumption of all these guesses is completely unrealistic: that everything will stay the same way it is right now.

The second important point is that if the SS reserves really are depleted, the reason will be an inverted demographic pyramid. The same inverted pyramid will also cause the economy as a whole to collapse. The reason is that it is a big mistake to think about retirement funds in terms of money. You have to think about it in terms of productivity. When there are too many retired people, there simply aren't enough young people to do all the jobs that need to be done (or to buy the stocks that all the retired people sell from their 401(k)s ).

There is one, and only one, way around that: boost productivity per worker - and I think you have said the same thing in the past, too.

And that, too, would extend Social Security indefinitely.


(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 5:56:59 AM   
Lorr47


Posts: 862
Joined: 3/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

Medicare Part D has been extremely successful and the only government health program to ever come in at lower that projected costs.


The republican Part D is an abortion.  I know seniors who have dropped out of Part D because every drug prescribed by a doctor ended up classified as not being covered by the insurance company.  It ended up the elders paid for their own prescriptions plus paid for the so called insurance.  My x wife dropped out of Part D. on the recommendation of Social Security since they said the whole program was being used for fraud by the insurance companies which was exactly how the republicans set it up.  Insurance payments are often pure profit since no benefits are paid without a law suit.  In regard to your nonsense that "greed is good" didn't Greco say that and end up in jail?  Someday maybe we will see these zealot profiteers being led to prison in bus loads.

To show how far the republicans went, did you know that there is a penalty for not being enrolled in Part D?  Thus, if you enroll you have to pay but receive no benefits.  And, if you refuse the fraudulent theft, you are penalized in your future social security receipts. So the insurers get to say "pay us for nothing or you will lose benefits in the future." Yep the American way per republicans.

< Message edited by Lorr47 -- 12/6/2009 6:03:50 AM >

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 6:18:43 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
Doctors and nurses, etcetera, should literally be slaves of the state? This may require a constitutional amendment.

What are you thinking exactly. Should Congress buy them as infants from foreign countries? Or how will this work?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

And thats why health care for profit should never have been allowed.


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 8:12:27 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Non profit does NOT equate slavery. Do some homework on the subject.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 8:39:40 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
Would you outlaw cosmetic surgery, if anyone profits?

And yes, forcing a service to be performed for free is slavery, as is the state deciding someones worth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Non profit does NOT equate slavery. Do some homework on the subject.


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 8:56:21 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Question: How Does a Nonprofit Differ From a Business?
Answer: Here are some of the differences between a business and a nonprofit:
•When you start a business, it is for the financial benefit of its owners and/or shareholders. Profit is the goal and the business pays taxes on that profit.

•A nonprofit entity has a mission that benefits the "greater good" of the community, society, or the world. It does not pay taxes, but it also cannot use its funds for anything other than the mission for which it was formed.

•Nonprofit organizations can and do make a profit, but it must be used solely for the operation of the organization or, in the case of a foundation, granted to other nonprofit organizations.

•When a for-profit organization goes out of business, its assets can be liquidated and the proceeds distributed to the owners or the shareholders. When a nonprofit goes out of business, its remaining assets must be given to another nonprofit.

http://nonprofit.about.com/od/qathebasics/f/nopvspro.htm


Someone always defines your worth when you draw a paycheck. So, nurses are the slaves of the for profit group they work for now according to your definition.

Among the differences between nonprofit charitable organizations and for-profits are the following:

A nonprofit is driven by its service mission philosophy rather than by the profit motive.
A nonprofit serves those who cannot afford to pay full costs.
Excess revenue over expenses is used to further the organization’s exempt purpose.
A nonprofit likely will remain in the community even if it suffers financial losses.
A nonprofit is more accountable to its board for public than for-profit organizations.
A nonprofit looks for ways to respond to community needs without regard to profit.
A nonprofit may not compensate its employees higher than reasonable” rates.
A nonprofit’s board of is typically unpaid community leaders motivated by public service.
A charity attracts thousands of hours of volunteer time and philanthropic contributions.
http://www.scoreknox.org/library/versus.htm

Examples
In the United States, two of the wealthiest non-profit organizations are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has an endowment of $38 billion,[19] and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which has an endowment of approximately $14.8 billion. Outside the United States, another large NPO is the British Wellcome Trust, which is a "charity" in British usage. See: List of wealthiest foundations. Note that this assessment excludes universities, at least a few of which have assets in the tens of billions of dollars. For example; List of U.S. colleges and universities by endowment

Measuring an NPO by its monetary size has obvious limitations, as the power and significance of NPOs are defined by more qualitative measurements such as effectiveness at carrying out charitable mission and goals.

Some NPOs which are particularly well known, often for the charitable or social nature of their activities conducted over a long period of time, include Amnesty International, the Better Business Bureau, Oxfam, Carnegie Corporation of New York, DEMIRA Deutsche Minenräumer (German Mine Clearers), Goodwill Industries, United Way, The National Rifle Association, Habitat for Humanity, Teach For America, the Red Cross and Red Crescent organizations, UNESCO, IEEE, World Wide Fund for Nature, Heifer International, and SOS Children's Villages.

However, there are also millions of smaller NPOs that provide social services and relief efforts on a more focused level (such as Crosswind — Community Outreach Ministry and Literacy Center West) to people throughout the world. There are more than 1.6 million NPOs in the United States alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_organization

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 9:09:49 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
So how do you propose we force everyone in the health care industry to work for nonprofits.


< Message edited by Sanity -- 12/6/2009 9:10:24 AM >

_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 9:53:11 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		From an study and Originally Posted: June 29, 2005


Nurses and Other Occupations in Private Hospitals
The average hourly earnings for registered nurses (full and part time) followed the same pattern as the earnings for all workers, with registered nurses in profit hospitals showing a lower rate per hour ($25.58) than those in nonprofit hospitals ($27.02).11 Full-time registered nurses in for-profit establishments earned $25.32 per hour, which is considerably lower than the rate for those working in nonprofit establishments ($27.01 per hour). Yet, for part-time registered nurses, the average hourly rates were virtually identical for those working in for-profit and nonprofit hospitals--$27.02 per hour and $27.06 per hour, respectively. (See chart 4.)

Licensed practical nurses earned nearly the same average hourly rates, whether they were employed by profit hospitals ($15.88) or nonprofit hospitals ($15.82). Similarly, the rates for full-time licensed practical nurses in each type of hospital were within pennies of each other, with those working in profit hospitals earning $15.89 per hour, and those working in nonprofit hospitals earning $15.77. The average hourly rate for part-time workers appeared to be slightly lower in for-profit establishments ($15.64) than in nonprofit establishments ($16.04), although that difference is not statistically significant. (See chart 5.)

http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20050624ar01p1.htm


As far as to how? Many already do. You seem to believe all hospitals are for profits... and they arent.

quote:

Nonprofit hospitals account for about 60% of the more than 4,900 hospitals in the U.S. The rest are either for-profit or government-owned. Nonprofit hospitals are exempt from paying federal and state income taxes, state and local sales tax and most importantly, they are not required to pay local property taxes. In Boston, for example, property owned by nonprofit hospital companies is worth $2.4 billion. One study found that in 2007, the eight largest hospitals in Boston would have had to pay the city nearly $65 million in property taxes if they had not been exempt.


http://takingnote.tcf.org/2009/09/nonprofit-hospitals-need-to-earn-their-exemptions.html

Btw, 18% are for profit.... makes you wonder, dont it.

But, in this same article you will notice there are some who operate as a "for profit" while enjoying the bennies of non profit status. Even that must end.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 10:27:31 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
Well, three things.

One, many on the Left (which is behind the push for "free" health care) would like nothing better than to totally destroy all religion, and religion is declining. Yet Catholics run the majority of nonprofit hospitals in this nation. How is this disparity reconciled in your perfect little world?

Two, the nurses discussed in your link aren't nonprofit. Why should they be allowed to profit while someone who wants to open a private clinic or a small private hospital shouldn't be allowed to? Again, would you outlaw cosmetic surgery, and other medical practices that may not be covered by nonprofits?

And three - how many Doctors are nonprofit? How many desire to be nonprofit. How many students would choose other careers if they were prohibited from profiting in the medical field.




_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 10:40:46 AM   
Lorr47


Posts: 862
Joined: 3/13/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Well, three things.

One, many on the Left (which is behind the push for "free" health care) would like nothing better than to totally destroy all religion, and religion is declining. Yet Catholics run the majority of nonprofit hospitals in this nation. How is this disparity reconciled in your perfect little world?

Two, the nurses discussed in your link aren't nonprofit. Why should they be allowed to profit while someone who wants to open a private clinic or a small private hospital shouldn't be allowed to? Again, would you outlaw cosmetic surgery, and other medical practices that may not be covered by nonprofits?

And three - how many Doctors are nonprofit? How many desire to be nonprofit. How many students would choose other careers if they were prohibited from profiting in the medical field.





Would anybody care to translate?

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 10:43:17 AM   
philosophy


Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorr47

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Well, three things.

One, many on the Left (which is behind the push for "free" health care) would like nothing better than to totally destroy all religion, and religion is declining. Yet Catholics run the majority of nonprofit hospitals in this nation. How is this disparity reconciled in your perfect little world?

Two, the nurses discussed in your link aren't nonprofit. Why should they be allowed to profit while someone who wants to open a private clinic or a small private hospital shouldn't be allowed to? Again, would you outlaw cosmetic surgery, and other medical practices that may not be covered by nonprofits?

And three - how many Doctors are nonprofit? How many desire to be nonprofit. How many students would choose other careers if they were prohibited from profiting in the medical field.





Would anybody care to translate?




...certainly......


"ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHH, BLOODY UPPITY LIBERALS ARE IN CHARGE! RUN FOR THE HILLS!"

(in reply to Lorr47)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 10:48:01 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas


Actually, we aren't far apart. Depending on whose guesses (or "intermediate assumptions") you rely on, without changes the SS reserves may last until close to 2050 or even 2070. The 2039 figure is news to me but it doesn't surprise me that some people would put their guesses there. And even then, Social Security would have lived for more than 100 years, one of the most long-lived and successful government programs ever.

The bigger point is that all of that is guesswork. It can well be 20, 30, 40 years off from what will actually happen. It is just plain impossible to predict demographic, political or economic developments 40 years into the future. If it was realistically possible to predict that far ahead, Ronald Reagan would have predicted the current economic crash! That's why you hear guesses about the depletion date that are all over the map.



Your characterization of the Trust Fund projections as "guesses" is a bit disingenuous. If 2039 is news to you, then go to the SS website, the Trustees Report has been there since May. Under the high cost assumptions, which are far more likely if economic policies are pursued that inhibit growth, assets would be exhausted in 2027.

Far more valuable than the low/medium/high deterministic assumption sets are the stochastic projections. Unfortunately they are too difficult to explain to politicians, much less the general population. 1 standard deviation results on the low side have the trust fund ratio <100% in about 2035 and 2 standard deviation results in about 2031. Unreduced retirement ages should be increased immediately. That should not be a huge political problem, given that actual retirement ages are being stretched out anyway.

(in reply to cadenas)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 10:52:22 AM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
Bzzt, you don't speak Capitalist, may as well quit pretending you do. Besides, if you Libs were truly in charge you wouldn't be crying over someone somewhere earning a profit, would you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

"ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHH, BLOODY UPPITY LIBERALS ARE IN CHARGE! RUN FOR THE HILLS!"


_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to philosophy)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 10:56:44 AM   
Brain


Posts: 3792
Joined: 2/14/2007
Status: offline 		I just wanted to post this here because I think it’s important for people to know what’s going on behind the scenes.

Blue Cross Blue Shield Lobbyists Quietly Helping Extreme Effort To Declare Health Reform Unconstitutional - Think Progress

ThinkProgess has documented how the private health insurance industry is waging a duplicitous, “two-faced” campaign to kill health reform. Because the industry understands that the public views it in a largely negative light, the industry presents itself as proactively working hand-in-hand with legislators to produce reform. However, behind the scenes, the industry is coordinating a massive effort to kill all reform — employing attacks from front groups, allied politicians, think tanks, lobbyists, and right-wing media.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/05/bcbs-alec-health/

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 11:41:36 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Well, three things.

One, many on the Left (which is behind the push for "free" health care) would like nothing better than to totally destroy all religion, and religion is declining. Yet Catholics run the majority of nonprofit hospitals in this nation. How is this disparity reconciled in your perfect little world?

Two, the nurses discussed in your link aren't nonprofit. Why should they be allowed to profit while someone who wants to open a private clinic or a small private hospital shouldn't be allowed to? Again, would you outlaw cosmetic surgery, and other medical practices that may not be covered by nonprofits?

And three - how many Doctors are nonprofit? How many desire to be nonprofit. How many students would choose other careers if they were prohibited from profiting in the medical field.






First, 60% of the hospitals are non profit.... guess what... they run well.. and they have.. gasps.. Drs! Amazing how that works huh.

A non-profit hospital, or not-for-profit hospital, is a hospital which is organized as a non-profit corporation. Based on their charitable purpose and most often affiliated with a religious denomination they are a traditional means of delivering medical care in the United States. Non-profit hospitals are distinct from government owned public hospitals and privately owned for-profit hospitals.

In 2003, of the roughly 3,900 nonfederal, short-term, acute care general hospitals in the United States, the majority—about 62 percent—were nonprofit. The rest included government hospitals (20 percent) and for-profit hospitals (18 percent).[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-profit_hospital

Your point about nurses makes no sense what so ever. Perhaps you need to go back and read the source again. It plainly states those who work in non profit make more than those who work in for profit hospitals.

As far as my private little world? The government funds MANY of these programs, thankful for the help they offer. Dont be fooled... they dont want these charities going anywhere any time soon.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 1:03:30 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
I think you're just being willfully ignorant, taz. You're ignoring questions that are inconvenient for you while countering points I never raised.




_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 2:47:25 PM   
eyesopened


Posts: 2798
Joined: 6/12/2006
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lorr47

quote:

Medicare Part D has been extremely successful and the only government health program to ever come in at lower that projected costs.


The republican Part D is an abortion.  I know seniors who have dropped out of Part D because every drug prescribed by a doctor ended up classified as not being covered by the insurance company.  It ended up the elders paid for their own prescriptions plus paid for the so called insurance.  My x wife dropped out of Part D. on the recommendation of Social Security since they said the whole program was being used for fraud by the insurance companies which was exactly how the republicans set it up.  Insurance payments are often pure profit since no benefits are paid without a law suit.  In regard to your nonsense that "greed is good" didn't Greco say that and end up in jail?  Someday maybe we will see these zealot profiteers being led to prison in bus loads.

To show how far the republicans went, did you know that there is a penalty for not being enrolled in Part D?  Thus, if you enroll you have to pay but receive no benefits.  And, if you refuse the fraudulent theft, you are penalized in your future social security receipts. So the insurers get to say "pay us for nothing or you will lose benefits in the future." Yep the American way per republicans.


I know thousands of beneficiaries who ARE receving benefits without paying any premium at all.  There is no penalty for not being enrolled in Part D!!!!  That is absolutely false!  There is a premium up-charge if you don't enroll when newly eligible and then wish to enroll later (except if you had been covered by other creditable coverage through another type of insurance or covered by a state plan.)  You never have to enroll in Part D if you prefer to pay retail for your prescriptions or choose a different plan.

Social Security would never advise anyone to drop out of Part D because of the possibility of wanting to enroll later on.  Social Security has nothing whatsoever to do with Medicare! 

Please fact check!  These claims you are making are absolutely false! 

EVERY Part D insurer has to follow very strict rules set up by CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  Any Insurer who would deny coverage of a medically necessary drug would be sanctioned! 

Why don't you just go down to your local drug store and ask the pharmacist if Medicare Part D insurance plans only pay for medications after there is a law suit?  What a crock!  Of course Part D plans pay and pay and pay and again, anyone who earns less than 150% of Federal Poverty Level pays no premium at all.

You can go to Medicare.gov or CMS.gov or even call your local SS office and ask them if they can make recommendations on Medicare plans.  Try asking a few pharmacists or reading a little bit on the program.

_____________________________

Proudly owned by InkedMaster. He is the one i obey, serve, honor and love.

No one is honored for what they've received. Honor is the reward for what has been given.

(in reply to Lorr47)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premi... - 12/6/2009 6:00:49 PM   
cadenas


Posts: 517
Joined: 11/27/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: cadenas
Actually, we aren't far apart. Depending on whose guesses (or "intermediate assumptions") you rely on, without changes the SS reserves may last until close to 2050 or even 2070. The 2039 figure is news to me but it doesn't surprise me that some people would put their guesses there. And even then, Social Security would have lived for more than 100 years, one of the most long-lived and successful government programs ever.

The bigger point is that all of that is guesswork. It can well be 20, 30, 40 years off from what will actually happen. It is just plain impossible to predict demographic, political or economic developments 40 years into the future. If it was realistically possible to predict that far ahead, Ronald Reagan would have predicted the current economic crash! That's why you hear guesses about the depletion date that are all over the map.


Your characterization of the Trust Fund projections as "guesses" is a bit disingenuous. If 2039 is news to you, then go to the SS website, the Trustees Report has been there since May. Under the high cost assumptions, which are far more likely if economic policies are pursued that inhibit growth, assets would be exhausted in 2027.


I don't see that in the report. I see the years 2042, 2033, and longer than 2085. That's more than 50 years difference. Yeah, I'd consider it guesswork. I don't mean to denigrate the work of the trustees here. They have done an awesome job telling us what guesses are realistic and which ones aren't.

I am criticizing the way it has been mischaracterized by politicians and media as "fact".

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Far more valuable than the low/medium/high deterministic assumption sets are the stochastic projections. Unfortunately they are too difficult to explain to politicians, much less the general population. 1 standard deviation results on the low side have the trust fund ratio <100% in about 2035 and 2 standard deviation results in about 2031. Unreduced retirement ages should be increased immediately. That should not be a huge political problem, given that actual retirement ages are being stretched out anyway.


Personally, I believe that the solution - if there is one - is much simpler than that: eliminate the cap on social security taxes. That, too, should not be a huge political problem.


(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: MIT analyst supports Senate Health care plan: Premiums will go down for Americans Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094