Discussion:
[OT] Rabid Dog 2020
Add Reply
Quadibloc
2019-11-18 20:57:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have been hoping that the Democratic Party would choose the most electable
candidate possible, so as to have the best chance to unseat President Donald J.
Trump.

Well, now I hear that Joe Biden has recieved the most crucial endorsement
possible, from no less a personality than the Glorious Leader Kim Jong-Un himself,
by describing him as a rabid dog that ought to be beaten to death with a stick.

After a ringing endorsement like this, who can resist him any longer?

Will Joe Biden be the Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump's Jimmy Carter, leading to Kim
Jong-Un making a nuclear deal with Trump, as one of his recent tweets urges?

John Savard
Paul S Person
2019-11-19 17:52:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:57:20 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
I have been hoping that the Democratic Party would choose the most electable
candidate possible, so as to have the best chance to unseat President Donald J.
Trump.
Well, now I hear that Joe Biden has recieved the most crucial endorsement
possible, from no less a personality than the Glorious Leader Kim Jong-Un himself,
by describing him as a rabid dog that ought to be beaten to death with a stick.
After a ringing endorsement like this, who can resist him any longer?
Will Joe Biden be the Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump's Jimmy Carter, leading to Kim
Jong-Un making a nuclear deal with Trump, as one of his recent tweets urges?
I, too, have been hoping the Dems would run someone electable -- and
at least 20 years younger than Trump.

But they appear to be intent on running another Old Fogie, two of whom
are undeniable (IMHO, of course) whackos.

Still, there is hope -- recent statements by one of the whackos
suggests that their medical programs may be the same thing as the
Republican's anti-abortion stance: something to be loudly proclaimed
to attract voters, but never, ever, to be achieved. Because achieving
them might mean that those voters stop going to polls, having gotten
what /they/ wanted.

And the only "nuclear deal" N Korea is likely to make is one that
involves transferring USA technology and welcoming them into the
Nuclear Club. The only question is, will Trump agree?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
h***@gmail.com
2019-11-20 01:26:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:57:20 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
I have been hoping that the Democratic Party would choose the most electable
candidate possible, so as to have the best chance to unseat President Donald J.
Trump.
Well, now I hear that Joe Biden has recieved the most crucial endorsement
possible, from no less a personality than the Glorious Leader Kim Jong-Un himself,
by describing him as a rabid dog that ought to be beaten to death with a stick.
After a ringing endorsement like this, who can resist him any longer?
Will Joe Biden be the Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump's Jimmy Carter, leading to Kim
Jong-Un making a nuclear deal with Trump, as one of his recent tweets urges?
I, too, have been hoping the Dems would run someone electable -- and
at least 20 years younger than Trump.
But they appear to be intent on running another Old Fogie, two of whom
are undeniable (IMHO, of course) whackos.
What names and why?
Post by Paul S Person
Still, there is hope -- recent statements by one of the whackos
suggests that their medical programs
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries who cover almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita than the US federal government does for health care?
Post by Paul S Person
may be the same thing as the
Republican's anti-abortion stance: something to be loudly proclaimed
to attract voters, but never, ever, to be achieved. Because achieving
them might mean that those voters stop going to polls, having gotten
what /they/ wanted.
And the only "nuclear deal" N Korea is likely to make is one that
involves transferring USA technology and welcoming them into the
Nuclear Club. The only question is, will Trump agree?
Quadibloc
2019-11-20 06:53:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries who cover
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?
Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.

Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-11-20 11:29:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:53:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries who cover
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?
Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.
Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.
So let's see, according to hamish, medicine in the US already costs
the Federal government more per capita than it does in any other
country? And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2019-11-20 13:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:53:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries
who cover
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?
Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.
Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.
So let's see, according to hamish, medicine in the US already costs
the Federal government more per capita than it does in any other
country? And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
I read an interesting column several years ago on the invalid assumption
that "Because other countries do it, we can do it too". The US has
a different scope (it's huge) and structure (all the levels of government
fight each other) than many countries. So France can build high speed
rail because the country is small, and there aren't lots of environmental
impact statements and NIMBY lawsuits, state infighting etc. Certainly
the healthcare sytems the feds *do* run (VA, Indian Health Service) are
not inspiring of confidence.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Paul S Person
2019-11-20 17:39:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:53:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries
who cover
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?
Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.
Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.
So let's see, according to hamish, medicine in the US already costs
the Federal government more per capita than it does in any other
country? And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
I read an interesting column several years ago on the invalid assumption
that "Because other countries do it, we can do it too". The US has
a different scope (it's huge) and structure (all the levels of government
fight each other) than many countries. So France can build high speed
rail because the country is small, and there aren't lots of environmental
impact statements and NIMBY lawsuits, state infighting etc. Certainly
the healthcare sytems the feds *do* run (VA, Indian Health Service) are
not inspiring of confidence.
I may be wrong, but I don't recall nationalizing all doctors and
hospitals to be part of the plan. It appears to be aimed at the
Insurance Companies, who (apparently) won't even be able to offer the
endless variety of Medicare-related plans that are so large a part of
the current system for oldsters. The theory, apparently, is that if
there were /only one insurer/, that insurer could /control costs/.

Well, maybe -- if they nationalize the entire medical supply industry,
all the drug companies, all the hospitals/clinics/whatever and draft
all the doctors/nurses/technicians/etc. Otherwise, the various
businesses would have the option to shut down and the various
professionals could look for some other line of work.

But my point is that one of them is now talking about "slowly
adopting" her insane scheme. This suggests that, 50 years from now,
the Dems may be campaigning on "Medicare for All", just as the
Republicans have compaigning on "Traditional Family Values" since,
when, 1980? With neither side actually interested in actually
/achieving/ their alleged goals.

I would prefer a system where the major parties campaigned on things
they /actually planned to do/, leaving these grand but never to be
done schemes to the wierdo parties. Some of which are quite amusing
when you read their proposals in the Voter's Pamphlet.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2019-11-20 23:49:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:39:13 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:53:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries
who cover
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?
Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.
Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.
So let's see, according to hamish, medicine in the US already costs
the Federal government more per capita than it does in any other
country? And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
I read an interesting column several years ago on the invalid assumption
that "Because other countries do it, we can do it too". The US has
a different scope (it's huge) and structure (all the levels of government
fight each other) than many countries. So France can build high speed
rail because the country is small, and there aren't lots of environmental
impact statements and NIMBY lawsuits, state infighting etc. Certainly
the healthcare sytems the feds *do* run (VA, Indian Health Service) are
not inspiring of confidence.
I may be wrong, but I don't recall nationalizing all doctors and
hospitals to be part of the plan. It appears to be aimed at the
Insurance Companies, who (apparently) won't even be able to offer the
endless variety of Medicare-related plans that are so large a part of
the current system for oldsters. The theory, apparently, is that if
there were /only one insurer/, that insurer could /control costs/.
Well, maybe -- if they nationalize the entire medical supply industry,
all the drug companies, all the hospitals/clinics/whatever and draft
all the doctors/nurses/technicians/etc. Otherwise, the various
businesses would have the option to shut down and the various
professionals could look for some other line of work.
But my point is that one of them is now talking about "slowly
adopting" her insane scheme. This suggests that, 50 years from now,
the Dems may be campaigning on "Medicare for All", just as the
Republicans have compaigning on "Traditional Family Values" since,
when, 1980? With neither side actually interested in actually
/achieving/ their alleged goals.
I would prefer a system where the major parties campaigned on things
they /actually planned to do/, leaving these grand but never to be
done schemes to the wierdo parties. Some of which are quite amusing
when you read their proposals in the Voter's Pamphlet.
The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.

Like you've got 150 days of hospital time, if you use it all you're
out of pocket $51,600. Then if you are out of the hospital for 90
days you can go back for 90 days for another $11,400. Skilled nursing
care will cost you 13,400 for 100 days after which you're screwed
unless you can do without for 90. Non-hospital treatment has a 20
percent copay, and then you have the premiums for part B and part D.

Anybody who thinks that "Medicare for all" is "free insurance" is
going to have a big fat surprise.
h***@gmail.com
2019-11-21 04:14:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.
You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?

Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody

https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.
Post by J. Clarke
Like you've got 150 days of hospital time, if you use it all you're
out of pocket $51,600. Then if you are out of the hospital for 90
days you can go back for 90 days for another $11,400. Skilled nursing
care will cost you 13,400 for 100 days after which you're screwed
unless you can do without for 90. Non-hospital treatment has a 20
percent copay, and then you have the premiums for part B and part D.
Anybody who thinks that "Medicare for all" is "free insurance" is
going to have a big fat surprise.
Paul S Person
2019-11-21 17:55:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.
You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.
Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.

I mean, heck, we can't even do meaningful comparisons of health
insurance plans. It is basically a "pick the one you want and pray it
actually covers whatever you need" system.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
Like you've got 150 days of hospital time, if you use it all you're
out of pocket $51,600. Then if you are out of the hospital for 90
days you can go back for 90 days for another $11,400. Skilled nursing
care will cost you 13,400 for 100 days after which you're screwed
unless you can do without for 90. Non-hospital treatment has a 20
percent copay, and then you have the premiums for part B and part D.
Anybody who thinks that "Medicare for all" is "free insurance" is
going to have a big fat surprise.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
h***@gmail.com
2019-11-21 23:41:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.
You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.
Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.
So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.
Paul S Person
2019-11-22 17:33:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.
You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.
Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.
So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.
The fact that "Medicare for All" is simply a cynical attempt to
leverage "Medicare" for something quite different requires only a
cursory examination of the actual concept to discover. It does not
require a detailed examination of what may or may not happen.

Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

If the Dems win, they'd better get the whole thing up and running
within the first two years, 'cause the chances are that, once the
reality becomes clear, the House will flip and that will be it for a
while.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2019-11-22 18:34:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.
You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.
Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.
So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.
The fact that "Medicare for All" is simply a cynical attempt to
leverage "Medicare" for something quite different requires only a
cursory examination of the actual concept to discover. It does not
require a detailed examination of what may or may not happen.
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

The issue with the individual mandate is that they are saying, in
essence, "if you exist within the United States you _must_ purchase
this product". Once the legal precedent that they can require one to
purchase insurance solely because one exists, then they can require
one to purchase _anything_. Housing sales are down, everybody _must_
buy a house. Car sales are down, everybody _must_ buy a car. Airliner
sales are down, everybody _must_ buy an airliner.
Post by Paul S Person
If the Dems win, they'd better get the whole thing up and running
within the first two years, 'cause the chances are that, once the
reality becomes clear, the House will flip and that will be it for a
while.
Chris Buckley
2019-11-22 22:54:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true. Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up. There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)

Chris
J. Clarke
2019-11-22 23:22:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not. There is no way to opt out
of payroll tax unless you work in one of those fields where there is a
strong enough union to get an exemption. The government is, of
course, perfectly happy to keep your money if you decide that you
don't want to start using the benefits, but you still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up.
They still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
Chris
Chris Buckley
2019-11-23 00:37:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not.
No, not true again (or true only in part). Your medicare payroll tax
pays completely for part A (hospital), but there are still substantial
premiums for Part B (doctors, etc). They range from $3400 to $4500 a
year for most couples. Part D coverage(drugs) is an additional premium
(normally) on top of that. You do NOT pay these premiums if you do
not sign up for Medicare Part B or D. *I* regard paying a $4000/year
difference as important; you may not.

And none of this has anything to do with my claim that you were
incorrect when you said Medicare signup is required. You remain incorrect.

Chris
J. Clarke
2019-11-23 01:43:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not.
No, not true again (or true only in part). Your medicare payroll tax
pays completely for part A (hospital), but there are still substantial
premiums for Part B (doctors, etc). They range from $3400 to $4500 a
year for most couples. Part D coverage(drugs) is an additional premium
(normally) on top of that. You do NOT pay these premiums if you do
not sign up for Medicare Part B or D. *I* regard paying a $4000/year
difference as important; you may not.
And none of this has anything to do with my claim that you were
incorrect when you said Medicare signup is required. You remain incorrect.
OK, tell me how to get out of paying for it, since you are so certain
that "signup is not required".
Paul S Person
2019-11-23 18:11:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:43:56 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not.
No, not true again (or true only in part). Your medicare payroll tax
pays completely for part A (hospital), but there are still substantial
premiums for Part B (doctors, etc). They range from $3400 to $4500 a
year for most couples. Part D coverage(drugs) is an additional premium
(normally) on top of that. You do NOT pay these premiums if you do
not sign up for Medicare Part B or D. *I* regard paying a $4000/year
difference as important; you may not.
And none of this has anything to do with my claim that you were
incorrect when you said Medicare signup is required. You remain incorrect.
OK, tell me how to get out of paying for it, since you are so certain
that "signup is not required".
By not applying for it?

Your question actually has a point -- I was on Social Security before
I turned 65, and was enrolled in Medicare pretty much automatically.
There may have been a way to avoid it. Or the two may be linked; that
is, the /first/ step is to keep working (or at least, don't sign up
for SSA, which /is/ something you must do or not do -- nothing
automatic about /that/) until after you are 65 and then not sign up
(which may involve /telling/ someone you are not signing up).

It may not be required, but that doesn't mean it is easily avoided.
However, since I never tried to avoid it, I really have no idea.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2019-11-23 18:24:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 10:11:58 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:43:56 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not.
No, not true again (or true only in part). Your medicare payroll tax
pays completely for part A (hospital), but there are still substantial
premiums for Part B (doctors, etc). They range from $3400 to $4500 a
year for most couples. Part D coverage(drugs) is an additional premium
(normally) on top of that. You do NOT pay these premiums if you do
not sign up for Medicare Part B or D. *I* regard paying a $4000/year
difference as important; you may not.
And none of this has anything to do with my claim that you were
incorrect when you said Medicare signup is required. You remain incorrect.
OK, tell me how to get out of paying for it, since you are so certain
that "signup is not required".
By not applying for it?
I do not recall ever "applying for it". Nonetheless, every month a
certain amount is deducted from my paycheck to pay for it. Tell me
how to go about lawfully avoiding that deduction other than by leaving
the United States and renouncing my citizenship.
Post by Paul S Person
Your question actually has a point -- I was on Social Security before
I turned 65, and was enrolled in Medicare pretty much automatically.
There may have been a way to avoid it. Or the two may be linked; that
is, the /first/ step is to keep working (or at least, don't sign up
for SSA, which /is/ something you must do or not do -- nothing
automatic about /that/) until after you are 65 and then not sign up
(which may involve /telling/ someone you are not signing up).
I also pay for Social Security whether I want it or not.
Post by Paul S Person
It may not be required, but that doesn't mean it is easily avoided.
However, since I never tried to avoid it, I really have no idea.
Paul S Person
2019-11-23 18:07:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not.
No, not true again (or true only in part). Your medicare payroll tax
pays completely for part A (hospital), but there are still substantial
premiums for Part B (doctors, etc). They range from $3400 to $4500 a
year for most couples. Part D coverage(drugs) is an additional premium
(normally) on top of that. You do NOT pay these premiums if you do
not sign up for Medicare Part B or D. *I* regard paying a $4000/year
difference as important; you may not.
The Medicare premium when you are on Social Security is ... a bit
wierd.

In 2019 it is (for just me) $135.50, which is nowhere near $4k. The
FEHB plan, OTOH ... is a lot more.

But that's not the end of the story, oh no. Apparently, there is a
rule (or law) that the Social Security amount after Medicare cannot go
down. So, if SSA increases by a lower dollar amount than Medicare
does, the entire SSA increase goes to Medicare -- and if, in the
future, the SSA increases more than Medicare, the Medicare premium may
go up more than expected, until the entire increase goes to Medicare
or the /actual/ amount is reached. Comparison of 2018 to 2019 shows
/both/ increasing, so apparently I am now paying the full Medicare
premium. Which is, indeed, for Part B.

Or, at least, I /think/ that is correct. When I was planning for
retirement, I did a spreadsheet to project what the annuity should be
(it turned out that I could just as well have used the amount
projected by SSA), and was introduced to "flex points" and other
arcana that made it /very/ hard to compute. Complification is, of
course, the first step in mystification.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Chris Buckley
2019-11-23 19:11:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not.
No, not true again (or true only in part). Your medicare payroll tax
pays completely for part A (hospital), but there are still substantial
premiums for Part B (doctors, etc). They range from $3400 to $4500 a
year for most couples. Part D coverage(drugs) is an additional premium
(normally) on top of that. You do NOT pay these premiums if you do
not sign up for Medicare Part B or D. *I* regard paying a $4000/year
difference as important; you may not.
The Medicare premium when you are on Social Security is ... a bit
wierd.
In 2019 it is (for just me) $135.50, which is nowhere near $4k. The
FEHB plan, OTOH ... is a lot more.
Not that much more, depending on how much health care you need. For
the two of us, Medicare Part B next year would be 144.60/month *
2 persons * 12 months or $3470/year (adding Part D (average $850/year)
or Part C wraparound gets you over the $4000 figure of mine). Our FEHB
premium next year for self+1 is $285/month or $3420/year. A bit
cheaper (actually much cheaper if you consider it's paid pre-tax at
the moment, but once retired the premium will be post-tax), but has an
$1800 deductible which makes it pretty close to MedicareB+C if you
don't use all of your deductible.
Post by Paul S Person
But that's not the end of the story, oh no. Apparently, there is a
rule (or law) that the Social Security amount after Medicare cannot go
down. So, if SSA increases by a lower dollar amount than Medicare
does, the entire SSA increase goes to Medicare -- and if, in the
future, the SSA increases more than Medicare, the Medicare premium may
go up more than expected, until the entire increase goes to Medicare
or the /actual/ amount is reached. Comparison of 2018 to 2019 shows
/both/ increasing, so apparently I am now paying the full Medicare
premium. Which is, indeed, for Part B.
Or, at least, I /think/ that is correct. When I was planning for
retirement, I did a spreadsheet to project what the annuity should be
(it turned out that I could just as well have used the amount
projected by SSA), and was introduced to "flex points" and other
arcana that made it /very/ hard to compute. Complification is, of
course, the first step in mystification.
Yes, fun and games.

Chris
Paul S Person
2019-11-23 17:57:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not. There is no way to opt out
of payroll tax unless you work in one of those fields where there is a
strong enough union to get an exemption. The government is, of
course, perfectly happy to keep your money if you decide that you
don't want to start using the benefits, but you still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up.
They still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.

IOW, you are paying to support Medicare for those who get it. You are
not paying for your own coverage when you pay the payroll tax.

And the tax must be paid; unions may get the employer to pay the
employee half and not show it on the pay stub, but it is still paid.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Dimensional Traveler
2019-11-23 19:34:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not. There is no way to opt out
of payroll tax unless you work in one of those fields where there is a
strong enough union to get an exemption. The government is, of
course, perfectly happy to keep your money if you decide that you
don't want to start using the benefits, but you still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up.
They still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.
Social Security works the same way.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Chrysi Cat
2019-11-23 22:58:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know.  Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not.  There is no way to opt out
of payroll tax unless you work in one of those fields where there is a
strong enough union to get an exemption.  The government is, of
course, perfectly happy to keep your money if you decide that you
don't want to start using the benefits, but you still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up.
They still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement.  I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
You still paid for it.  And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.
Social Security works the same way.
Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.

Which in turn makes it the absolutely most regressive tax in the US and
also makes it appear it's specifically designed to _keep_ the majority
of middle-income earners from ever saving up enough to become "rich" at
least until they can legally tap their IRA.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Dimensional Traveler
2019-11-24 01:46:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know.  Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not.  There is no way to opt out
of payroll tax unless you work in one of those fields where there is a
strong enough union to get an exemption.  The government is, of
course, perfectly happy to keep your money if you decide that you
don't want to start using the benefits, but you still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up.
They still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement.  I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
You still paid for it.  And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.
Social Security works the same way.
Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.
Please explain why you believe this to be true.

Also I was addressing the mistaken statement that current payments into
Social Security are not being used to make current payouts.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Chrysi Cat
2019-11-24 07:35:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know.  Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not.  There is no way to opt out
of payroll tax unless you work in one of those fields where there is a
strong enough union to get an exemption.  The government is, of
course, perfectly happy to keep your money if you decide that you
don't want to start using the benefits, but you still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up.
They still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement.  I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
You still paid for it.  And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.
Social Security works the same way.
Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.
Please explain why you believe this to be true.
Also I was addressing the mistaken statement that current payments into
Social Security are not being used to make current payouts.
I got the latter part. As for the question you're asking me to explain,
remember that all income over 195K yearly is immune to Social Security
taxation. Now imagine how much more solvent the administration would be
if it were allowed to collect tax on more than the first 195K of a guy
with a 2.2M annual salary.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Kevrob
2019-11-24 08:19:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
.....As for the question you're asking me to explain,
remember that all income over 195K yearly is immune to Social Security
taxation. Now imagine how much more solvent the administration would be
if it were allowed to collect tax on more than the first 195K of a guy
with a 2.2M annual salary.
Then it wouldn't be "an insurance scheme," unless that
"contributor" got much larger payments.

Being honest,and calling FICA "tax" and the payments
"welfare" would have eroded support for the program.
Income redistribution, in order to be sold in the US,
has to be disguised.

Kevin R
Paul S Person
2019-11-24 17:41:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
.....As for the question you're asking me to explain,
remember that all income over 195K yearly is immune to Social Security
taxation. Now imagine how much more solvent the administration would be
if it were allowed to collect tax on more than the first 195K of a guy
with a 2.2M annual salary.
Then it wouldn't be "an insurance scheme," unless that
"contributor" got much larger payments.
Being honest,and calling FICA "tax" and the payments
"welfare" would have eroded support for the program.
Income redistribution, in order to be sold in the US,
has to be disguised.
Which is why "Medicare-for-all" is likely to fail if attempted.

The financing schemes all seem to involve income redistribution on a
/massive/ scale.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
D B Davis
2019-11-24 18:40:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
.....As for the question you're asking me to explain,
remember that all income over 195K yearly is immune to Social Security
taxation. Now imagine how much more solvent the administration would be
if it were allowed to collect tax on more than the first 195K of a guy
with a 2.2M annual salary.
Then it wouldn't be "an insurance scheme," unless that
"contributor" got much larger payments.
Being honest,and calling FICA "tax" and the payments
"welfare" would have eroded support for the program.
Income redistribution, in order to be sold in the US,
has to be disguised.
It's a carpetbag croaker class [1] Ponzi scheme that redistributes your
income to banksters in the Deep North if you ask me.

Note.

[1] https://www.eapoe.org/works/pollin/brp20416.htm#m274



Thank you,
--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``.
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Lynn McGuire
2019-11-26 22:30:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know.  Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not.  There is no way to opt out
of payroll tax unless you work in one of those fields where there is a
strong enough union to get an exemption.  The government is, of
course, perfectly happy to keep your money if you decide that you
don't want to start using the benefits, but you still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up.
They still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement.  I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
You still paid for it.  And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.
Social Security works the same way.
Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.
Please explain why you believe this to be true.
Also I was addressing the mistaken statement that current payments
into Social Security are not being used to make current payouts.
I got the latter part. As for the question you're asking me to explain,
remember that all income over 195K yearly is immune to Social Security
taxation. Now imagine how much more solvent the administration would be
if it were allowed to collect tax on more than the first 195K of a guy
with a 2.2M annual salary.
Actually, the Social Security tax stops at $132,900 of income in 2019.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751

However, as a part of Obamacare, there is an additional individual
Medicare tax of 0.9% of all income above $200,000 per year.

Lynn
Paul S Person
2019-11-24 17:39:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know.  Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not.  There is no way to opt out
of payroll tax unless you work in one of those fields where there is a
strong enough union to get an exemption.  The government is, of
course, perfectly happy to keep your money if you decide that you
don't want to start using the benefits, but you still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up.
They still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement.  I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
You still paid for it.  And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.
Social Security works the same way.
Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.
Apparently, one of the Dems is proposing to raise the limit. This
/would/ raise the benefit for those paying more, but not enough to
keep the additional cash flow from funding Social Security.
Post by Chrysi Cat
Which in turn makes it the absolutely most regressive tax in the US and
also makes it appear it's specifically designed to _keep_ the majority
of middle-income earners from ever saving up enough to become "rich" at
least until they can legally tap their IRA.
I would say that, in my experience, saving is a state of mind -- you
just have to live well within your income and want to do it. And I
would be telling the truth.

But not the whole truth. My experience is not very typical. The people
you are talking about, and those lower down on the ladder, /do/ have
problems saving because they can't live well within their income.

For example: when I was in the Army, I was saving 50% of my net pay.
But I was also unmarried and living on base and owned no vehicle. Had
I been married, living off-base, and owned a vehicle I would not have
been able to do that. There are trade-offs, I cannot recommend my
solution to anyone.

But becoming "rich" isn't the goal. Having enough (which should
include some savings to weather the occasional crisis) to get by is
the goal. Having enough to get by in retirement is the goal when you
get old enough.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Lynn McGuire
2019-11-26 22:26:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know.  Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not.  There is no way to opt out
of payroll tax unless you work in one of those fields where there is a
strong enough union to get an exemption.  The government is, of
course, perfectly happy to keep your money if you decide that you
don't want to start using the benefits, but you still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up.
They still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement.  I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
You still paid for it.  And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.
Social Security works the same way.
Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.
Which in turn makes it the absolutely most regressive tax in the US and
also makes it appear it's specifically designed to _keep_ the majority
of middle-income earners from ever saving up enough to become "rich" at
least until they can legally tap their IRA.
You can tap your IRA at any age. There is a 10% penalty tax if you are
younger than 59.5 years of age when you do it. I will be 59.5 in a
couple of weeks.

And, regardless of age, you must pay income tax on any IRA withdrawal.

Lynn
Paul S Person
2019-11-27 17:16:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 16:26:21 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know.  Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not.  There is no way to opt out
of payroll tax unless you work in one of those fields where there is a
strong enough union to get an exemption.  The government is, of
course, perfectly happy to keep your money if you decide that you
don't want to start using the benefits, but you still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up.
They still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement.  I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
You still paid for it.  And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.
Social Security works the same way.
Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.
Which in turn makes it the absolutely most regressive tax in the US and
also makes it appear it's specifically designed to _keep_ the majority
of middle-income earners from ever saving up enough to become "rich" at
least until they can legally tap their IRA.
You can tap your IRA at any age. There is a 10% penalty tax if you are
younger than 59.5 years of age when you do it. I will be 59.5 in a
couple of weeks.
IIRC, you must start doing so at 72.5.

But maybe that only applies to 401(g)/401(k) plans.
Post by Lynn McGuire
And, regardless of age, you must pay income tax on any IRA withdrawal.
As must anyone you leave it to: it cannot be rolled over by anyone
else.

As opposed to a non-IRA/401(g/k) stock/bond/mutual fund account, where
the /shares/ can be inherited. Pick reliable heirs and do this for two
or three generations and /your/ family may have enough wealth to live
off it!

Come to think of it, this /entire post/ is IIRC! And, even if I do, I
may be recalling how it used to be rather than how it is.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Lynn McGuire
2019-11-27 19:07:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 16:26:21 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know.  Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not.  There is no way to opt out
of payroll tax unless you work in one of those fields where there is a
strong enough union to get an exemption.  The government is, of
course, perfectly happy to keep your money if you decide that you
don't want to start using the benefits, but you still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up.
They still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement.  I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
You still paid for it.  And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.
Social Security works the same way.
Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.
Which in turn makes it the absolutely most regressive tax in the US and
also makes it appear it's specifically designed to _keep_ the majority
of middle-income earners from ever saving up enough to become "rich" at
least until they can legally tap their IRA.
You can tap your IRA at any age. There is a 10% penalty tax if you are
younger than 59.5 years of age when you do it. I will be 59.5 in a
couple of weeks.
IIRC, you must start doing so at 72.5.
But maybe that only applies to 401(g)/401(k) plans.
Post by Lynn McGuire
And, regardless of age, you must pay income tax on any IRA withdrawal.
As must anyone you leave it to: it cannot be rolled over by anyone
else.
As opposed to a non-IRA/401(g/k) stock/bond/mutual fund account, where
the /shares/ can be inherited. Pick reliable heirs and do this for two
or three generations and /your/ family may have enough wealth to live
off it!
Come to think of it, this /entire post/ is IIRC! And, even if I do, I
may be recalling how it used to be rather than how it is.
Yup, I left off the mandatory IRA distributions starting at age 70.5.

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-required-minimum-distributions

Lynn
Paul S Person
2019-11-24 17:30:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 11:34:58 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true.
You pay for it whether you use it or not. There is no way to opt out
of payroll tax unless you work in one of those fields where there is a
strong enough union to get an exemption. The government is, of
course, perfectly happy to keep your money if you decide that you
don't want to start using the benefits, but you still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up.
They still paid for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.
Post by Chris Buckley
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.
Social Security works the same way.
It does /now/, but, in the past, it built up a surplus.

A surplus /both/ parties used to "balance the budget" -- or, at least,
"reduce the deficit". The SSA was left holding some very special
bonds.

Well, times change, and now SSA is /cashing/ those bonds -- and
neither party appears to be particularly eager to /pay the money
back/.

Never mind to /fully fund/ it as a retirement plan.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2019-11-23 17:54:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true. Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up. There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
There is no mandatory requirement; however, IIRC, at least one part
has the premiums rising if you don't start it at the right time. This
would, IMHO, have been a better idea than the tax: let people who
don't want medical insurance when young find themselves when, after 30
years, they decide the need it, find that /their/ premiums are 30%
higher than anybody elses.

You may want to investigate FEHB further. Some of this may not be
entirely accurate. Also, this is based on /my/ FEHB plan; other plans
may vary, although I would expect not.

The FEHB drug plan satisfies the requirements for Medicare Part D,
which you would otherwise have to purchase separately (or as part of
some other Medicare-supplementing policy).

After retirement, if you are eligible for Medicare and /not/ on it,
then your FEHB benefits /shrink/ to whatever Medicare would pay, at
least for those items covered by Medicare.

OTOH, once you retire, if you drop the FEHB plan, you can (with one
unlikely exception) /never/ get it back again.

In retirement, FEHB + Medicare acts like a very expensive
Medicare-supplemental policy -- if Medicare covers it, the FEHB plan
will be the secondary insurer and will pay all deductibles,
copayments, coinsurance with no FEHB deductible. IOW, you pay nothing
out of pocket (but, of course, quite a bit for the insurance) for
anything Medicare covers.

Anything Medicare doesn't cover but the FEHB does is covered as usual,
the FEHB deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance applying as usual.

So, you /may/ want to consider whether FEHB + Medicare makes sense in
your particular situation. And your wife's particular plan. And the
/current/ rules, which should be in the Plan Booklet, just to be sure
you are working with the real situation and not my memory of what it
was seven years ago, when I faced the same decision.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Chris Buckley
2019-11-23 19:50:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true. Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up. There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
There is no mandatory requirement; however, IIRC, at least one part
has the premiums rising if you don't start it at the right time. This
would, IMHO, have been a better idea than the tax: let people who
don't want medical insurance when young find themselves when, after 30
years, they decide the need it, find that /their/ premiums are 30%
higher than anybody elses.
You may want to investigate FEHB further. Some of this may not be
entirely accurate. Also, this is based on /my/ FEHB plan; other plans
may vary, although I would expect not.
The FEHB drug plan satisfies the requirements for Medicare Part D,
which you would otherwise have to purchase separately (or as part of
some other Medicare-supplementing policy).
After retirement, if you are eligible for Medicare and /not/ on it,
then your FEHB benefits /shrink/ to whatever Medicare would pay, at
least for those items covered by Medicare.
Not quite right, as I understand things. *Your* FEHB benefits are
completely defined by your plan and won't be affected if you are not
on Medicare. *Your doctor's* benefits (what they get paid) will indeed
shrink to the Medicare limit, which may be a problem for some doctors.

Everything else you say agrees with my understanding of things; thanks.
Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, once you retire, if you drop the FEHB plan, you can (with one
unlikely exception) /never/ get it back again.
In retirement, FEHB + Medicare acts like a very expensive
Medicare-supplemental policy -- if Medicare covers it, the FEHB plan
will be the secondary insurer and will pay all deductibles,
copayments, coinsurance with no FEHB deductible. IOW, you pay nothing
out of pocket (but, of course, quite a bit for the insurance) for
anything Medicare covers.
Anything Medicare doesn't cover but the FEHB does is covered as usual,
the FEHB deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance applying as usual.
So, you /may/ want to consider whether FEHB + Medicare makes sense in
your particular situation. And your wife's particular plan. And the
/current/ rules, which should be in the Plan Booklet, just to be sure
you are working with the real situation and not my memory of what it
was seven years ago, when I faced the same decision.
Things have improved in the past 3-4 years as far as coordination
between FEHB and Medicare. There are now FEHB plans that only make
sense when combined with Medicare (Aetna Direct is the big one), and
the combination of those plans plus MedicareB is cheaper on average
than just MedicareB+C/D or the FEHB plan without MedicareB. Even more
ordinary FEHB plans now waive all deductibles/copayments/coinsurance
if you have Medicare.

A major reason to keep FEHB is that many specialist doctors do not
accept Medicare now, and that will be worse if Medicare expands.
Our son is partially disabled and has been on Medicare for years.
He (or we) pays many thousands of dollars a year to specialists who
do not take Medicare.

For those interested, Consumer Checkbook has a nice summary at
https://www.checkbook.org/newhig2/year20/advice/should-federal-annuitants-enroll-in-medicare-part-b-after-age-65

Chris
Paul S Person
2019-11-24 18:00:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Chris Buckley
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
No, not true. Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up. There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
There is no mandatory requirement; however, IIRC, at least one part
has the premiums rising if you don't start it at the right time. This
would, IMHO, have been a better idea than the tax: let people who
don't want medical insurance when young find themselves when, after 30
years, they decide the need it, find that /their/ premiums are 30%
higher than anybody elses.
You may want to investigate FEHB further. Some of this may not be
entirely accurate. Also, this is based on /my/ FEHB plan; other plans
may vary, although I would expect not.
The FEHB drug plan satisfies the requirements for Medicare Part D,
which you would otherwise have to purchase separately (or as part of
some other Medicare-supplementing policy).
After retirement, if you are eligible for Medicare and /not/ on it,
then your FEHB benefits /shrink/ to whatever Medicare would pay, at
least for those items covered by Medicare.
Not quite right, as I understand things. *Your* FEHB benefits are
completely defined by your plan and won't be affected if you are not
on Medicare. *Your doctor's* benefits (what they get paid) will indeed
shrink to the Medicare limit, which may be a problem for some doctors.
That's actually worse than I remembered.
Post by Chris Buckley
Everything else you say agrees with my understanding of things; thanks.
Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, once you retire, if you drop the FEHB plan, you can (with one
unlikely exception) /never/ get it back again.
In retirement, FEHB + Medicare acts like a very expensive
Medicare-supplemental policy -- if Medicare covers it, the FEHB plan
will be the secondary insurer and will pay all deductibles,
copayments, coinsurance with no FEHB deductible. IOW, you pay nothing
out of pocket (but, of course, quite a bit for the insurance) for
anything Medicare covers.
Anything Medicare doesn't cover but the FEHB does is covered as usual,
the FEHB deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance applying as usual.
So, you /may/ want to consider whether FEHB + Medicare makes sense in
your particular situation. And your wife's particular plan. And the
/current/ rules, which should be in the Plan Booklet, just to be sure
you are working with the real situation and not my memory of what it
was seven years ago, when I faced the same decision.
Things have improved in the past 3-4 years as far as coordination
between FEHB and Medicare. There are now FEHB plans that only make
sense when combined with Medicare (Aetna Direct is the big one), and
the combination of those plans plus MedicareB is cheaper on average
than just MedicareB+C/D or the FEHB plan without MedicareB. Even more
ordinary FEHB plans now waive all deductibles/copayments/coinsurance
if you have Medicare.
A major reason to keep FEHB is that many specialist doctors do not
accept Medicare now, and that will be worse if Medicare expands.
Our son is partially disabled and has been on Medicare for years.
He (or we) pays many thousands of dollars a year to specialists who
do not take Medicare.
For those interested, Consumer Checkbook has a nice summary at
https://www.checkbook.org/newhig2/year20/advice/should-federal-annuitants-enroll-in-medicare-part-b-after-age-65
Well, that puts a different light on things. My plan's current booklet
(web version) is even less clear.

Neither make it clear that the plan itself pays the Medicare
deductible, copays, and coinsurance -- although it certainly worked
that way a few years ago. But I don't intend to find out what happens
currently any time soon.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2019-11-23 17:37:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:34:08 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.
You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.
Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.
So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.
The fact that "Medicare for All" is simply a cynical attempt to
leverage "Medicare" for something quite different requires only a
cursory examination of the actual concept to discover. It does not
require a detailed examination of what may or may not happen.
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
The issue with the individual mandate is that they are saying, in
essence, "if you exist within the United States you _must_ purchase
this product". Once the legal precedent that they can require one to
purchase insurance solely because one exists, then they can require
one to purchase _anything_. Housing sales are down, everybody _must_
buy a house. Car sales are down, everybody _must_ buy a car. Airliner
sales are down, everybody _must_ buy an airliner.
And yet, most states, if not all, require /all/ car owners to have
auto insurance.

So an "individual mandate" is /acceptable/ for car owners, but not for
body owners?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2019-11-23 18:33:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 09:37:25 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:34:08 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.
You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.
Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.
So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.
The fact that "Medicare for All" is simply a cynical attempt to
leverage "Medicare" for something quite different requires only a
cursory examination of the actual concept to discover. It does not
require a detailed examination of what may or may not happen.
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
The issue with the individual mandate is that they are saying, in
essence, "if you exist within the United States you _must_ purchase
this product". Once the legal precedent that they can require one to
purchase insurance solely because one exists, then they can require
one to purchase _anything_. Housing sales are down, everybody _must_
buy a house. Car sales are down, everybody _must_ buy a car. Airliner
sales are down, everybody _must_ buy an airliner.
And yet, most states, if not all, require /all/ car owners to have
auto insurance.
No, they do not. If you want to drive it on a public road you have to
register it and maintain insurance. If it is never operated on a
public road then you need to do neither.
Post by Paul S Person
So an "individual mandate" is /acceptable/ for car owners, but not for
body owners?
Body owners? That is called "slavery" and is explicitly prohibited by
the Constitution.
Paul S Person
2019-11-24 18:02:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:33:06 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 09:37:25 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:34:08 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.
You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.
Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.
So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.
The fact that "Medicare for All" is simply a cynical attempt to
leverage "Medicare" for something quite different requires only a
cursory examination of the actual concept to discover. It does not
require a detailed examination of what may or may not happen.
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
The issue with the individual mandate is that they are saying, in
essence, "if you exist within the United States you _must_ purchase
this product". Once the legal precedent that they can require one to
purchase insurance solely because one exists, then they can require
one to purchase _anything_. Housing sales are down, everybody _must_
buy a house. Car sales are down, everybody _must_ buy a car. Airliner
sales are down, everybody _must_ buy an airliner.
And yet, most states, if not all, require /all/ car owners to have
auto insurance.
No, they do not. If you want to drive it on a public road you have to
register it and maintain insurance. If it is never operated on a
public road then you need to do neither.
Precisely. You are /mandated/ to have auto insurance if you don't want
to just drive it up and down your own driveway.

Or your farm, of course.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Paul S Person
So an "individual mandate" is /acceptable/ for car owners, but not for
body owners?
Body owners? That is called "slavery" and is explicitly prohibited by
the Constitution.
On the contrary, we each own one body -- our own.

No slavery involved.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2019-11-24 18:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 10:02:35 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:33:06 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 09:37:25 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:34:08 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.
You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.
Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.
So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.
The fact that "Medicare for All" is simply a cynical attempt to
leverage "Medicare" for something quite different requires only a
cursory examination of the actual concept to discover. It does not
require a detailed examination of what may or may not happen.
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
The issue with the individual mandate is that they are saying, in
essence, "if you exist within the United States you _must_ purchase
this product". Once the legal precedent that they can require one to
purchase insurance solely because one exists, then they can require
one to purchase _anything_. Housing sales are down, everybody _must_
buy a house. Car sales are down, everybody _must_ buy a car. Airliner
sales are down, everybody _must_ buy an airliner.
And yet, most states, if not all, require /all/ car owners to have
auto insurance.
No, they do not. If you want to drive it on a public road you have to
register it and maintain insurance. If it is never operated on a
public road then you need to do neither.
Precisely. You are /mandated/ to have auto insurance if you don't want
to just drive it up and down your own driveway.
Or your farm, of course.
Or a racetrack, or display it in a museum.

The point is that the insurance is tied to the act of using public
roads, not to mere existence.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Paul S Person
So an "individual mandate" is /acceptable/ for car owners, but not for
body owners?
Body owners? That is called "slavery" and is explicitly prohibited by
the Constitution.
On the contrary, we each own one body -- our own.
No slavery involved.
On the contrary, it is based in the notion that we are all slaves of
the almighty State.

Now, will you feel the same way when you are told that you _must_ buy
a house, whether you want one or not and whether you can afford one or
not? After all, if the government can make it mandatory as a
condition of operating a body within the United States, then it can
make it mandatory that one shelter that body.

I'm sorry, but you are trying to turn existence into a "privilege" for
which one must expect to make some compromises.
Paul S Person
2019-11-25 23:21:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 13:43:15 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 10:02:35 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:33:06 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 09:37:25 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:34:08 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.
You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.
Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.
So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.
The fact that "Medicare for All" is simply a cynical attempt to
leverage "Medicare" for something quite different requires only a
cursory examination of the actual concept to discover. It does not
require a detailed examination of what may or may not happen.
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
The issue with the individual mandate is that they are saying, in
essence, "if you exist within the United States you _must_ purchase
this product". Once the legal precedent that they can require one to
purchase insurance solely because one exists, then they can require
one to purchase _anything_. Housing sales are down, everybody _must_
buy a house. Car sales are down, everybody _must_ buy a car. Airliner
sales are down, everybody _must_ buy an airliner.
And yet, most states, if not all, require /all/ car owners to have
auto insurance.
No, they do not. If you want to drive it on a public road you have to
register it and maintain insurance. If it is never operated on a
public road then you need to do neither.
Precisely. You are /mandated/ to have auto insurance if you don't want
to just drive it up and down your own driveway.
Or your farm, of course.
Or a racetrack, or display it in a museum.
The point is that the insurance is tied to the act of using public
roads, not to mere existence.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Paul S Person
So an "individual mandate" is /acceptable/ for car owners, but not for
body owners?
Body owners? That is called "slavery" and is explicitly prohibited by
the Constitution.
On the contrary, we each own one body -- our own.
No slavery involved.
On the contrary, it is based in the notion that we are all slaves of
the almighty State.
Now, will you feel the same way when you are told that you _must_ buy
a house, whether you want one or not and whether you can afford one or
not? After all, if the government can make it mandatory as a
condition of operating a body within the United States, then it can
make it mandatory that one shelter that body.
I'm sorry, but you are trying to turn existence into a "privilege" for
which one must expect to make some compromises.
What do you think the Draft was about, except to turn existence into a
privilege?

Yes, I know that it's in remission (so to speak) and that it was and
is a blatant form of institutionalized sexism, but all that needs to
happen is for the "Universal Manpower Training Act" to be modified to
make it clear that "Manpower" means both men and women to fix the
sexism.

And it could, theoretically, be revived at any time.

Ever read /On Liberty: Man v. the State/ by Milton Mayer? This was
published by the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Democratic_Institutions).
IIRC, it concluded that the State would win, every time. Liberty was a
luxury that would vanish whenever the state was threatened.

So, between legal precedent (the draft) and theoretical speculation,
the idea that existence is, in practice, a "privilege" has been
well-established in the USA for a long, long time.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2019-11-25 23:35:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:21:37 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 13:43:15 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 10:02:35 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:33:06 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 09:37:25 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:34:08 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.
You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.
Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.
So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.
The fact that "Medicare for All" is simply a cynical attempt to
leverage "Medicare" for something quite different requires only a
cursory examination of the actual concept to discover. It does not
require a detailed examination of what may or may not happen.
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
The issue with the individual mandate is that they are saying, in
essence, "if you exist within the United States you _must_ purchase
this product". Once the legal precedent that they can require one to
purchase insurance solely because one exists, then they can require
one to purchase _anything_. Housing sales are down, everybody _must_
buy a house. Car sales are down, everybody _must_ buy a car. Airliner
sales are down, everybody _must_ buy an airliner.
And yet, most states, if not all, require /all/ car owners to have
auto insurance.
No, they do not. If you want to drive it on a public road you have to
register it and maintain insurance. If it is never operated on a
public road then you need to do neither.
Precisely. You are /mandated/ to have auto insurance if you don't want
to just drive it up and down your own driveway.
Or your farm, of course.
Or a racetrack, or display it in a museum.
The point is that the insurance is tied to the act of using public
roads, not to mere existence.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Paul S Person
So an "individual mandate" is /acceptable/ for car owners, but not for
body owners?
Body owners? That is called "slavery" and is explicitly prohibited by
the Constitution.
On the contrary, we each own one body -- our own.
No slavery involved.
On the contrary, it is based in the notion that we are all slaves of
the almighty State.
Now, will you feel the same way when you are told that you _must_ buy
a house, whether you want one or not and whether you can afford one or
not? After all, if the government can make it mandatory as a
condition of operating a body within the United States, then it can
make it mandatory that one shelter that body.
I'm sorry, but you are trying to turn existence into a "privilege" for
which one must expect to make some compromises.
What do you think the Draft was about, except to turn existence into a
privilege?
It was about maintaining a military force.
Post by Paul S Person
Yes, I know that it's in remission (so to speak) and that it was and
is a blatant form of institutionalized sexism, but all that needs to
happen is for the "Universal Manpower Training Act" to be modified to
make it clear that "Manpower" means both men and women to fix the
sexism.
And it could, theoretically, be revived at any time.
Which doesn't make it right or desirable.
Post by Paul S Person
Ever read /On Liberty: Man v. the State/ by Milton Mayer? This was
published by the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Democratic_Institutions).
IIRC, it concluded that the State would win, every time. Liberty was a
luxury that would vanish whenever the state was threatened.
So, between legal precedent (the draft) and theoretical speculation,
the idea that existence is, in practice, a "privilege" has been
well-established in the USA for a long, long time.
And you seem to find that to be acceptable.

And that is why liberalism is so frightening.
Quadibloc
2019-11-25 23:47:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:21:37 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
So, between legal precedent (the draft) and theoretical speculation,
the idea that existence is, in practice, a "privilege" has been
well-established in the USA for a long, long time.
And you seem to find that to be acceptable.
And that is why liberalism is so frightening.
Since one would not find life under Stalin or Hitler to be acceptable, that
perfect freedom must be replaced by imperfect freedom because we are situated in
an imperfect world seems to be the best that is possible.

So taxation to maintain a nuclear arsenal, and even conscription, are accepted
because there seems to be no alternative that isn't even worse.

Either one does what is necessary to avoid being conquered by Xi Jinping or
Vladimir Putin... or one *gets* conquered by Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin. It's
as simple as that.

People so unrealistic as to expect otherwise... now, _they're_ frightening.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-11-26 00:30:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:47:17 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:21:37 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
So, between legal precedent (the draft) and theoretical speculation,
the idea that existence is, in practice, a "privilege" has been
well-established in the USA for a long, long time.
And you seem to find that to be acceptable.
And that is why liberalism is so frightening.
Since one would not find life under Stalin or Hitler to be acceptable, that
perfect freedom must be replaced by imperfect freedom because we are situated in
an imperfect world seems to be the best that is possible.
Quadi, you are not paying attention. The assertion here is that one
may be compelled to purchase a product when one does not have the
means to do so and with on other reason than that one exists.

Hitler and Stalin never went that far.
Post by Quadibloc
So taxation to maintain a nuclear arsenal, and even conscription, are accepted
because there seems to be no alternative that isn't even worse.
We are not talking about taxation.
Post by Quadibloc
Either one does what is necessary to avoid being conquered by Xi Jinping or
Vladimir Putin... or one *gets* conquered by Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin. It's
as simple as that.
People so unrealistic as to expect otherwise... now, _they're_ frightening.
The risk of any place in North America being conquered by either party
is vanishingly small. Neither is set up for that kind of military
operation nor to they seem to be putting any effort into becoming so.

When they are actually attempting to develop that capability, then it
is time to worry about it.
Quadibloc
2019-11-26 03:09:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
The risk of any place in North America being conquered by either party
is vanishingly small. Neither is set up for that kind of military
operation nor to they seem to be putting any effort into becoming so.
When they are actually attempting to develop that capability, then it
is time to worry about it.
You don't think the reason that neither Russia nor China is working to develop
the ability to mount a conventional invasion and conquest of the United States
could be *because* the United States has a strategic nuclear deterrent, thus
making it impossible to pull off such a coup?

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-11-26 09:15:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 19:09:09 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The risk of any place in North America being conquered by either party
is vanishingly small. Neither is set up for that kind of military
operation nor to they seem to be putting any effort into becoming so.
When they are actually attempting to develop that capability, then it
is time to worry about it.
You don't think the reason that neither Russia nor China is working to develop
the ability to mount a conventional invasion and conquest of the United States
could be *because* the United States has a strategic nuclear deterrent, thus
making it impossible to pull off such a coup?
Nope. The notion that the US is so wonderful that everybody in the
world is hell-bent to conquer it is a kind of national paranoia that
is beneficial for the military-industrial complex but doesn't have a
lot to do with reality.

China has plenty of neighbors to conquer if they really want to go in
that direction. So does Russia.
Juho Julkunen
2019-11-26 13:19:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
China has plenty of neighbors to conquer if they really want to go in
that direction. So does Russia.
And, indeed, they are working on it, Putin more aggressively.
--
Juho Julkunen
Jack Bohn
2019-11-26 16:05:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
China has plenty of neighbors to conquer if they really want to go in
that direction. So does Russia.
And, indeed, they are working on it, Putin more aggressively.
China more passively? One advantage of building new islands to conquer is it gives you the sea around them.
--
-Jack
Quadibloc
2019-11-26 03:11:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Quadi, you are not paying attention. The assertion here is that one
may be compelled to purchase a product when one does not have the
means to do so and with on other reason than that one exists.
Hitler and Stalin never went that far.
I was commenting on conscription, not Medicare for All. However, I suppose I
could look into the history of _Winterhilfe_ "donations" to obtain an analogy,
but the statement that Hitler never "went so far" as a universal health care
program seems sufficiently risible on its face that I hardly think attempting a
serious reply is necessary.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-11-26 09:18:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 19:11:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Quadi, you are not paying attention. The assertion here is that one
may be compelled to purchase a product when one does not have the
means to do so and with on other reason than that one exists.
Hitler and Stalin never went that far.
I was commenting on conscription, not Medicare for All. However, I suppose I
could look into the history of _Winterhilfe_ "donations" to obtain an analogy,
but the statement that Hitler never "went so far" as a universal health care
program seems sufficiently risible on its face that I hardly think attempting a
serious reply is necessary.
We were not discussing conscription or a universal health care
program. We were discussing the requirement that everyone existing in
the United States purchase medical insurance from a commercial vendor.

I don't recall Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Caligula or Idi
Amin or any other tyrant through history telling his people "every
single one of you _must_ purchase this product".
Juho Julkunen
2019-11-26 13:23:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Hitler and Stalin never went that far.
I don't recall Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Caligula or Idi
Amin or any other tyrant through history telling his people "every
single one of you _must_ purchase this product".
It's not that they "didn't go that far"; they went much further. It's
just that they didn't have the need for half-measures like that.
--
Juho Julkunen
J. Clarke
2019-11-26 14:52:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:23:51 +0200, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Hitler and Stalin never went that far.
I don't recall Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Caligula or Idi
Amin or any other tyrant through history telling his people "every
single one of you _must_ purchase this product".
It's not that they "didn't go that far"; they went much further. It's
just that they didn't have the need for half-measures like that.
Not in the same sense they didn't.

It amazes me that our society has become so brainwashed that it
accepts "you must purchase this product" as being acceptable behavior
by the state. The left rants about "fascism" without seeing the depth
of their own fascism.
Scott Lurndal
2019-11-26 16:31:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:23:51 +0200, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Hitler and Stalin never went that far.
I don't recall Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Caligula or Idi
Amin or any other tyrant through history telling his people "every
single one of you _must_ purchase this product".
It's not that they "didn't go that far"; they went much further. It's
just that they didn't have the need for half-measures like that.
Not in the same sense they didn't.
It amazes me that our society has become so brainwashed that it
accepts "you must purchase this product" as being acceptable behavior
by the state.
You mean "must pay into SSI and Medicare" isn't acceptable behavior
by the state? I don't see any difference between that and extending
Medicare to cover all (redirecting the current private insurance
premiums to medicare). Sure, the health insurers lose business, but
that's the way the ball bounces (e.g. coal miners), and they'll need to
find more productive jobs instead.
Paul S Person
2019-11-26 16:37:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:23:51 +0200, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
@gmail.com says...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Hitler and Stalin never went that far.
I don't recall Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Caligula or Idi
Amin or any other tyrant through history telling his people "every
single one of you _must_ purchase this product".
It's not that they "didn't go that far"; they went much further. It's
just that they didn't have the need for half-measures like that.
Not in the same sense they didn't.
It amazes me that our society has become so brainwashed that it
accepts "you must purchase this product" as being acceptable behavior
by the state.
You mean "must pay into SSI and Medicare" isn't acceptable behavior
by the state? I don't see any difference between that and extending
Medicare to cover all (redirecting the current private insurance
premiums to medicare). Sure, the health insurers lose business, but
that's the way the ball bounces (e.g. coal miners), and they'll need to
find more productive jobs instead.
In point of fact, the original issue was the Individual Mandate in the
ACA (formerly "Obamacare", now "Trumpcare", whether Trump likes it or
not).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Scott Lurndal
2019-11-26 18:09:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
It amazes me that our society has become so brainwashed that it
accepts "you must purchase this product" as being acceptable behavior
by the state.
You mean "must pay into SSI and Medicare" isn't acceptable behavior
by the state? I don't see any difference between that and extending
Medicare to cover all (redirecting the current private insurance
premiums to medicare). Sure, the health insurers lose business, but
that's the way the ball bounces (e.g. coal miners), and they'll need to
find more productive jobs instead.
In point of fact, the original issue was the Individual Mandate in the
ACA (formerly "Obamacare", now "Trumpcare", whether Trump likes it or
not).
In point of fact, the Individual Mandate was endorsed by the majority
of the Supreme court. The rage against it was limited to the far
right.
Kevrob
2019-11-26 19:47:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
In point of fact, the Individual Mandate was endorsed by the majority
of the Supreme court.
It was deemed constitutional. That's not the same as being "endorsed,"
if one is speaking in policy terms.
Post by Scott Lurndal
The rage against it was limited to the far right.
Opposition came from libertarians, which doesn't map
to "far right."

https://reason.com/2013/09/24/the-libertarian-challenge-to-obamacare/

Of course, back in 2004, the same libertarian `zine was discussing mandatory,
but only possibly mandatory purchase of insurance, including private insurance,
as an alternative to a single-payer takeover.

https://reason.com/2004/11/01/mandatory-health-insurance-now-2/

I can remember the Heartland Institute's Joseph Bast pitching a plan
to decouple health insurance from employment, and allow a tax credit
for the purposes of individual purchase of health insurance. I heard
him give a talk on it once in the early 1990s at a libertarian meeting.

This executive summary contains a link to a .pdf of
his 1993 publication on the subject.

https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/why-we-spend-too-much-on-health-care-executive-summary

Mitt Romney, the never-Trumper, suspected RINO who was supposed to
be the conservative's hope in 2012, had a state-wide mandate when
he was Gov of Mass, though he claimed he wanted the other 49 states
free to experiment with other avenues to universal coverage.

[quote]

MR. ROMNEY: I would not mandate at the federal level that every state do what
we do, but what I would say at the federal level is we'll keep giving you
these special payments we make if you adopt plans that get everybody insured.
I want to get everybody insured.

In Governor Schwarzenegger's state, he's got a different plan to get people
insured. I wouldn't tell him he has to do it my way, but I'd say each state
needs to get busy on the job of getting all our citizens insured. It does not
cost more money.

[/quote] The Republican Debate in New Hampshire, 5 Jan 2008

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-rdebate.html

Justice Roberts was able to cobble a majority together by calling the
mandatory purchase provision a "tax," even if no one selling
it to the voters called it that....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottharrington/2012/06/28/the-individual-mandate-as-a-tax-what-the-court-said/#6685df06aeaa

OR

https://outline.com/KkVDRW


...except when it isn't a tax.

Red Queen's Justice.

--
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Paul S Person
2019-11-27 17:27:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Scott Lurndal
In point of fact, the Individual Mandate was endorsed by the majority
of the Supreme court.
It was deemed constitutional. That's not the same as being "endorsed,"
if one is speaking in policy terms.
Post by Scott Lurndal
The rage against it was limited to the far right.
Opposition came from libertarians, which doesn't map
to "far right."
https://reason.com/2013/09/24/the-libertarian-challenge-to-obamacare/
Of course, back in 2004, the same libertarian `zine was discussing mandatory,
but only possibly mandatory purchase of insurance, including private insurance,
as an alternative to a single-payer takeover.
https://reason.com/2004/11/01/mandatory-health-insurance-now-2/
I can remember the Heartland Institute's Joseph Bast pitching a plan
to decouple health insurance from employment, and allow a tax credit
for the purposes of individual purchase of health insurance. I heard
him give a talk on it once in the early 1990s at a libertarian meeting.
If you itemize and your health insurance costs enough, part of it is
deductible even if incur no other medical costs.
Post by Kevrob
This executive summary contains a link to a .pdf of
his 1993 publication on the subject.
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/why-we-spend-too-much-on-health-care-executive-summary
Mitt Romney, the never-Trumper, suspected RINO who was supposed to
be the conservative's hope in 2012, had a state-wide mandate when
he was Gov of Mass, though he claimed he wanted the other 49 states
free to experiment with other avenues to universal coverage.
[quote]
MR. ROMNEY: I would not mandate at the federal level that every state do what
we do, but what I would say at the federal level is we'll keep giving you
these special payments we make if you adopt plans that get everybody insured.
I want to get everybody insured.
In Governor Schwarzenegger's state, he's got a different plan to get people
insured. I wouldn't tell him he has to do it my way, but I'd say each state
needs to get busy on the job of getting all our citizens insured. It does not
cost more money.
[/quote] The Republican Debate in New Hampshire, 5 Jan 2008
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-rdebate.html
Justice Roberts was able to cobble a majority together by calling the
mandatory purchase provision a "tax," even if no one selling
it to the voters called it that....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottharrington/2012/06/28/the-individual-mandate-as-a-tax-what-the-court-said/#6685df06aeaa
OR
https://outline.com/KkVDRW
...except when it isn't a tax.
If the Supremes /say/ it is a tax, then it is (or was, depending on
whether Trumpcare has it removed or merely reduced to a rate of 0.0) a
tax.

And my understanding was that it was the usual 5-4 split before the
Chief Justice, realizing that this was tax and so constitutional,
changed his. Not much "cobbling" involved. But I could be wrong.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
r***@rosettacondot.com
2019-11-28 14:52:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
Post by Scott Lurndal
In point of fact, the Individual Mandate was endorsed by the majority
of the Supreme court.
It was deemed constitutional. That's not the same as being "endorsed,"
if one is speaking in policy terms.
Post by Scott Lurndal
The rage against it was limited to the far right.
Opposition came from libertarians, which doesn't map
to "far right."
https://reason.com/2013/09/24/the-libertarian-challenge-to-obamacare/
Of course, back in 2004, the same libertarian `zine was discussing mandatory,
but only possibly mandatory purchase of insurance, including private insurance,
as an alternative to a single-payer takeover.
https://reason.com/2004/11/01/mandatory-health-insurance-now-2/
I can remember the Heartland Institute's Joseph Bast pitching a plan
to decouple health insurance from employment, and allow a tax credit
for the purposes of individual purchase of health insurance. I heard
him give a talk on it once in the early 1990s at a libertarian meeting.
If you itemize and your health insurance costs enough, part of it is
deductible even if incur no other medical costs.
Note that (assuming the author used the term properly) the proposal was for
tax credits, which are very different and far more beneficial than tax
deductions (and to far more people).

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Paul S Person
2019-11-28 17:06:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
Post by Scott Lurndal
In point of fact, the Individual Mandate was endorsed by the majority
of the Supreme court.
It was deemed constitutional. That's not the same as being "endorsed,"
if one is speaking in policy terms.
Post by Scott Lurndal
The rage against it was limited to the far right.
Opposition came from libertarians, which doesn't map
to "far right."
https://reason.com/2013/09/24/the-libertarian-challenge-to-obamacare/
Of course, back in 2004, the same libertarian `zine was discussing mandatory,
but only possibly mandatory purchase of insurance, including private insurance,
as an alternative to a single-payer takeover.
https://reason.com/2004/11/01/mandatory-health-insurance-now-2/
I can remember the Heartland Institute's Joseph Bast pitching a plan
to decouple health insurance from employment, and allow a tax credit
for the purposes of individual purchase of health insurance. I heard
him give a talk on it once in the early 1990s at a libertarian meeting.
If you itemize and your health insurance costs enough, part of it is
deductible even if incur no other medical costs.
Note that (assuming the author used the term properly) the proposal was for
tax credits, which are very different and far more beneficial than tax
deductions (and to far more people).
Yes, they are.

Particularly if they are refundable.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2019-11-27 17:21:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
It amazes me that our society has become so brainwashed that it
accepts "you must purchase this product" as being acceptable behavior
by the state.
You mean "must pay into SSI and Medicare" isn't acceptable behavior
by the state? I don't see any difference between that and extending
Medicare to cover all (redirecting the current private insurance
premiums to medicare). Sure, the health insurers lose business, but
that's the way the ball bounces (e.g. coal miners), and they'll need to
find more productive jobs instead.
In point of fact, the original issue was the Individual Mandate in the
ACA (formerly "Obamacare", now "Trumpcare", whether Trump likes it or
not).
In point of fact, the Individual Mandate was endorsed by the majority
of the Supreme court. The rage against it was limited to the far
right.
After that decision, /Christianity Today/ showed, once again, why I
find it /so/ worth reading: in their News section, they reported on a
guy who was lambasting the decision as "judicial overreach" by
"activist judges", and warning that this "newly discovered" right
meant that Congress could cancel the deduction for charitable
contributions.

Well, he /was/ correct that Congress can cancel any deduction it feels
like. Congress can also establish any deduction it feels like.

But, for the rest of it, he was wrong to point of being rediculous.

The Constitution is clear: Congress (specifically, the House) can tax
anything it wants, when it wants, how it wants.

And the Income Tax was created by an amendment to the Constitution.

Oh, BTW, the charitable contribution deduction does have an upper
limit, based on (IIRC) 30% of income. This doesn't mean you can't give
more to charities, but deducting it becomes complicated (IIRC, there
is a carryover provision).
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2019-11-27 19:58:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:21:58 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
It amazes me that our society has become so brainwashed that it
accepts "you must purchase this product" as being acceptable behavior
by the state.
You mean "must pay into SSI and Medicare" isn't acceptable behavior
by the state? I don't see any difference between that and extending
Medicare to cover all (redirecting the current private insurance
premiums to medicare). Sure, the health insurers lose business, but
that's the way the ball bounces (e.g. coal miners), and they'll need to
find more productive jobs instead.
In point of fact, the original issue was the Individual Mandate in the
ACA (formerly "Obamacare", now "Trumpcare", whether Trump likes it or
not).
In point of fact, the Individual Mandate was endorsed by the majority
of the Supreme court. The rage against it was limited to the far
right.
After that decision, /Christianity Today/ showed, once again, why I
find it /so/ worth reading: in their News section, they reported on a
guy who was lambasting the decision as "judicial overreach" by
"activist judges", and warning that this "newly discovered" right
meant that Congress could cancel the deduction for charitable
contributions.
Well, he /was/ correct that Congress can cancel any deduction it feels
like. Congress can also establish any deduction it feels like.
But, for the rest of it, he was wrong to point of being rediculous.
The Constitution is clear: Congress (specifically, the House) can tax
anything it wants, when it wants, how it wants.
And the Income Tax was created by an amendment to the Constitution.
Oh, BTW, the charitable contribution deduction does have an upper
limit, based on (IIRC) 30% of income. This doesn't mean you can't give
more to charities, but deducting it becomes complicated (IIRC, there
is a carryover provision).
The thing is, the "individual mandate" ceased to be any kind of
"mandate" and instead became a tax on the uninsured.

Further, Obama tried to sell it on the basis that it _wasn't_ a tax.
Paul S Person
2019-11-28 17:07:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 14:58:16 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:21:58 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
It amazes me that our society has become so brainwashed that it
accepts "you must purchase this product" as being acceptable behavior
by the state.
You mean "must pay into SSI and Medicare" isn't acceptable behavior
by the state? I don't see any difference between that and extending
Medicare to cover all (redirecting the current private insurance
premiums to medicare). Sure, the health insurers lose business, but
that's the way the ball bounces (e.g. coal miners), and they'll need to
find more productive jobs instead.
In point of fact, the original issue was the Individual Mandate in the
ACA (formerly "Obamacare", now "Trumpcare", whether Trump likes it or
not).
In point of fact, the Individual Mandate was endorsed by the majority
of the Supreme court. The rage against it was limited to the far
right.
After that decision, /Christianity Today/ showed, once again, why I
find it /so/ worth reading: in their News section, they reported on a
guy who was lambasting the decision as "judicial overreach" by
"activist judges", and warning that this "newly discovered" right
meant that Congress could cancel the deduction for charitable
contributions.
Well, he /was/ correct that Congress can cancel any deduction it feels
like. Congress can also establish any deduction it feels like.
But, for the rest of it, he was wrong to point of being rediculous.
The Constitution is clear: Congress (specifically, the House) can tax
anything it wants, when it wants, how it wants.
And the Income Tax was created by an amendment to the Constitution.
Oh, BTW, the charitable contribution deduction does have an upper
limit, based on (IIRC) 30% of income. This doesn't mean you can't give
more to charities, but deducting it becomes complicated (IIRC, there
is a carryover provision).
The thing is, the "individual mandate" ceased to be any kind of
"mandate" and instead became a tax on the uninsured.
Further, Obama tried to sell it on the basis that it _wasn't_ a tax.
Politicians. What can you do?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
David Goldfarb
2019-11-28 01:16:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, the charitable contribution deduction does have an upper
limit, based on (IIRC) 30% of income. This doesn't mean you can't give
more to charities, but deducting it becomes complicated (IIRC, there
is a carryover provision).
There was a Superman story about this, circa 1960. Superman would often
do things like find sunken wrecks with hoards of gold aboard, which he
would salvage and then donate all the money to a charity. An IRS agent
pointed out that all of the recovered gold counted as income, but only
a percentage of the donation could be deducted. Superman therefore owed
a billion dollars in back taxes and penalties.

Superman tried various schemes to raise the money by the deadline, and
(this being a Silver Age Superman story) they all were thwarted by
various ironic twists of fate.

In the end, a more senior IRS agent ruled that since Superman had saved
the world so many times, he was entitled to claim the entire world's
population as his dependents. This created a huge amount of income
exemptions that more than cancelled his actual income.
--
David Goldfarb |"Well, my days of not taking you seriously
***@gmail.com | are certainly coming to a middle."
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- _Firefly_
Moriarty
2019-11-28 02:31:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, the charitable contribution deduction does have an upper
limit, based on (IIRC) 30% of income. This doesn't mean you can't give
more to charities, but deducting it becomes complicated (IIRC, there
is a carryover provision).
There was a Superman story about this, circa 1960. Superman would often
do things like find sunken wrecks with hoards of gold aboard, which he
would salvage and then donate all the money to a charity. An IRS agent
pointed out that all of the recovered gold counted as income, but only
a percentage of the donation could be deducted. Superman therefore owed
a billion dollars in back taxes and penalties.
Superman tried various schemes to raise the money by the deadline, and
(this being a Silver Age Superman story) they all were thwarted by
various ironic twists of fate.
In the end, a more senior IRS agent ruled that since Superman had saved
the world so many times, he was entitled to claim the entire world's
population as his dependents. This created a huge amount of income
exemptions that more than cancelled his actual income.
Hey, I read that one (in the late 70s)! My school had one of those thick hardback omnibuses containing dozens of Superman comics. IIRC one of Supes' money raising schemes involved squeezing coal into diamonds, which didn't work because of some bizarre magnetic (?) field the Earth was moving through which affected the handwavium of carbon.

-Moriarty
Quadibloc
2019-11-28 05:44:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
There was a Superman story about this, circa 1960.
Oh, my, yes. Superman 148, October 1961. I had heard of this story, but not had
the opportunity to read it, and I had assumed that it was from the 1940s or
thereabouts, so when I saw your post, I checked this out.

John Savard
David Goldfarb
2019-11-29 06:32:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Goldfarb
There was a Superman story about this, circa 1960.
Oh, my, yes. Superman 148, October 1961. I had heard of this story, but not had
the opportunity to read it, and I had assumed that it was from the 1940s or
thereabouts, so when I saw your post, I checked this out.
It was reprinted in black-and-white in "Showcase Presents Superman" #3,
which is where I read it. If you want to read it, you can probably
acquire this volume fairly easily and cheaply.
--
David Goldfarb |"Feeling smug about one's opinions is the very
***@gmail.com | lifeblood of the Net."
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Dawn Friedman
Quadibloc
2019-11-26 22:06:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
You mean "must pay into SSI and Medicare" isn't acceptable behavior
by the state?
If anything, I could see a legitimate complaint about Obamacare - but that's the
fault of the Republicans - that you must buy health insurance *from a private
insurer*.

John Savard
Robert Carnegie
2019-11-26 22:40:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 19:11:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Quadi, you are not paying attention. The assertion here is that one
may be compelled to purchase a product when one does not have the
means to do so and with on other reason than that one exists.
Hitler and Stalin never went that far.
I was commenting on conscription, not Medicare for All. However, I suppose I
could look into the history of _Winterhilfe_ "donations" to obtain an analogy,
but the statement that Hitler never "went so far" as a universal health care
program seems sufficiently risible on its face that I hardly think attempting a
serious reply is necessary.
We were not discussing conscription or a universal health care
program. We were discussing the requirement that everyone existing in
the United States purchase medical insurance from a commercial vendor.
I don't recall Hitler or Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Caligula or Idi
Amin or any other tyrant through history telling his people "every
single one of you _must_ purchase this product".
Some of them wrote books...
Paul S Person
2019-11-26 16:42:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 18:35:13 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:21:37 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 13:43:15 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 10:02:35 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:33:06 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 09:37:25 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:34:08 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by J. Clarke
The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.
You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.
Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.
So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.
The fact that "Medicare for All" is simply a cynical attempt to
leverage "Medicare" for something quite different requires only a
cursory examination of the actual concept to discover. It does not
require a detailed examination of what may or may not happen.
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?
With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
The issue with the individual mandate is that they are saying, in
essence, "if you exist within the United States you _must_ purchase
this product". Once the legal precedent that they can require one to
purchase insurance solely because one exists, then they can require
one to purchase _anything_. Housing sales are down, everybody _must_
buy a house. Car sales are down, everybody _must_ buy a car. Airliner
sales are down, everybody _must_ buy an airliner.
And yet, most states, if not all, require /all/ car owners to have
auto insurance.
No, they do not. If you want to drive it on a public road you have to
register it and maintain insurance. If it is never operated on a
public road then you need to do neither.
Precisely. You are /mandated/ to have auto insurance if you don't want
to just drive it up and down your own driveway.
Or your farm, of course.
Or a racetrack, or display it in a museum.
The point is that the insurance is tied to the act of using public
roads, not to mere existence.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Paul S Person
So an "individual mandate" is /acceptable/ for car owners, but not for
body owners?
Body owners? That is called "slavery" and is explicitly prohibited by
the Constitution.
On the contrary, we each own one body -- our own.
No slavery involved.
On the contrary, it is based in the notion that we are all slaves of
the almighty State.
Now, will you feel the same way when you are told that you _must_ buy
a house, whether you want one or not and whether you can afford one or
not? After all, if the government can make it mandatory as a
condition of operating a body within the United States, then it can
make it mandatory that one shelter that body.
I'm sorry, but you are trying to turn existence into a "privilege" for
which one must expect to make some compromises.
What do you think the Draft was about, except to turn existence into a
privilege?
It was about maintaining a military force.
Nope.

It was about ... getting the sons of America to /get a g-dd-mn
haircut/.

That's why it's justification, Vietnam, lost support with each boy who
came home in a box: it wasn't supposed to /kill/ them, just get their
hair cut.

And that's not the point -- it was /clearly/ based on the principle
that people are the property of the state.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Paul S Person
Yes, I know that it's in remission (so to speak) and that it was and
is a blatant form of institutionalized sexism, but all that needs to
happen is for the "Universal Manpower Training Act" to be modified to
make it clear that "Manpower" means both men and women to fix the
sexism.
And it could, theoretically, be revived at any time.
Which doesn't make it right or desirable.
Never said it did.

Although I must say people felt a lot more /connected/ to their
military while it was being used than they appear to now.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Paul S Person
Ever read /On Liberty: Man v. the State/ by Milton Mayer? This was
published by the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Democratic_Institutions).
IIRC, it concluded that the State would win, every time. Liberty was a
luxury that would vanish whenever the state was threatened.
So, between legal precedent (the draft) and theoretical speculation,
the idea that existence is, in practice, a "privilege" has been
well-established in the USA for a long, long time.
And you seem to find that to be acceptable.
Never said I did.

But facts are facts. Ignoring them is never a good idea.
Post by J. Clarke
And that is why liberalism is so frightening.
Which is why I am a moderate.

And consider at least two of the Dem contenders "wackos".

At the moment, however, it is the alt-right that is making itself
abhorrent. Still, the wheel may indeed turn.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Quadibloc
2019-11-26 22:10:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
It was about ... getting the sons of America to /get a g-dd-mn
haircut/.
That's why it's justification, Vietnam, lost support with each boy who
came home in a box: it wasn't supposed to /kill/ them, just get their
hair cut.
And that's not the point -- it was /clearly/ based on the principle
that people are the property of the state.
At least here it's impossible to say that Kim Il Jung "didn't go that far"!

https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/these-are-the-state-approved-haircuts-citizens-are-allowed-in-north-korea/

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-11-26 23:51:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:10:05 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
It was about ... getting the sons of America to /get a g-dd-mn
haircut/.
That's why it's justification, Vietnam, lost support with each boy who
came home in a box: it wasn't supposed to /kill/ them, just get their
hair cut.
And that's not the point -- it was /clearly/ based on the principle
that people are the property of the state.
At least here it's impossible to say that Kim Il Jung "didn't go that far"!
https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/these-are-the-state-approved-haircuts-citizens-are-allowed-in-north-korea/
That depends on whether a haircut in North Korea is something that one
purchases or is a service provided by the almighty State.
Paul S Person
2019-11-21 17:53:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 18:49:58 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:39:13 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:53:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries
who cover
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?
Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.
Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.
So let's see, according to hamish, medicine in the US already costs
the Federal government more per capita than it does in any other
country? And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
I read an interesting column several years ago on the invalid assumption
that "Because other countries do it, we can do it too". The US has
a different scope (it's huge) and structure (all the levels of government
fight each other) than many countries. So France can build high speed
rail because the country is small, and there aren't lots of environmental
impact statements and NIMBY lawsuits, state infighting etc. Certainly
the healthcare sytems the feds *do* run (VA, Indian Health Service) are
not inspiring of confidence.
I may be wrong, but I don't recall nationalizing all doctors and
hospitals to be part of the plan. It appears to be aimed at the
Insurance Companies, who (apparently) won't even be able to offer the
endless variety of Medicare-related plans that are so large a part of
the current system for oldsters. The theory, apparently, is that if
there were /only one insurer/, that insurer could /control costs/.
Well, maybe -- if they nationalize the entire medical supply industry,
all the drug companies, all the hospitals/clinics/whatever and draft
all the doctors/nurses/technicians/etc. Otherwise, the various
businesses would have the option to shut down and the various
professionals could look for some other line of work.
But my point is that one of them is now talking about "slowly
adopting" her insane scheme. This suggests that, 50 years from now,
the Dems may be campaigning on "Medicare for All", just as the
Republicans have compaigning on "Traditional Family Values" since,
when, 1980? With neither side actually interested in actually
/achieving/ their alleged goals.
I would prefer a system where the major parties campaigned on things
they /actually planned to do/, leaving these grand but never to be
done schemes to the wierdo parties. Some of which are quite amusing
when you read their proposals in the Voter's Pamphlet.
The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.
Like you've got 150 days of hospital time, if you use it all you're
out of pocket $51,600. Then if you are out of the hospital for 90
days you can go back for 90 days for another $11,400. Skilled nursing
care will cost you 13,400 for 100 days after which you're screwed
unless you can do without for 90. Non-hospital treatment has a 20
percent copay, and then you have the premiums for part B and part D.
Which is why there is an extensive market for supplemental plans, some
of which do more.

OTOH, there has been a push on for some time to minimize
hospitalization time.

OTGH, some nursing homes have been known to exploit the situation by
shuttling patients to and from the hospital to maximize Medicare
payments.
Post by J. Clarke
Anybody who thinks that "Medicare for all" is "free insurance" is
going to have a big fat surprise.
"Medicare for All" is /not/ medicare. The name has merely been
hijacked to try and sell a pipe-dream.

And, anyway, it's beginning to look like a political slogan, not
something to actually be achieved. Or, rather, attempted.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Magewolf
2019-11-20 18:18:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:53:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries
who cover
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?
Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.
Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.
So let's see, according to hamish, medicine in the US already costs
the Federal government more per capita than it does in any other
country? And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
I read an interesting column several years ago on the invalid assumption
that "Because other countries do it, we can do it too". The US has
a different scope (it's huge) and structure (all the levels of government
fight each other) than many countries. So France can build high speed
rail because the country is small, and there aren't lots of environmental
impact statements and NIMBY lawsuits, state infighting etc. Certainly
the healthcare sytems the feds *do* run (VA, Indian Health Service) are
not inspiring of confidence.
Ah, the incompetence defense.
Paul S Person
2019-11-21 17:59:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Magewolf
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:53:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries
who cover
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?
Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.
Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.
So let's see, according to hamish, medicine in the US already costs
the Federal government more per capita than it does in any other
country? And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
I read an interesting column several years ago on the invalid assumption
that "Because other countries do it, we can do it too". The US has
a different scope (it's huge) and structure (all the levels of government
fight each other) than many countries. So France can build high speed
rail because the country is small, and there aren't lots of environmental
impact statements and NIMBY lawsuits, state infighting etc. Certainly
the healthcare sytems the feds *do* run (VA, Indian Health Service) are
not inspiring of confidence.
Ah, the incompetence defense.
Before I retired, the people I worked for would, quite regularly, make
promises and then break them whenever they felt it was in their best
interest to do so.

Several times, I asked whether they had done this deliberately
("venality') or had simply forgotten their promise ("incompetence").

Being managers, they chose "venality" every time. Anything to avoid
being thought incompetent.

Trump, OTOH, appears to prefer, if not "incompetence", at least
"inadvertence".

The difference between having a clue and not having one, I suspect.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
h***@gmail.com
2019-11-21 04:07:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:53:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries
who cover
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?
Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.
Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.
So let's see, according to hamish, medicine in the US already costs
the Federal government more per capita than it does in any other
country? And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
I read an interesting column several years ago on the invalid assumption
that "Because other countries do it, we can do it too". The US has
a different scope (it's huge) and structure (all the levels of government
fight each other) than many countries. So France can build high speed
rail because the country is small, and there aren't lots of environmental
impact statements and NIMBY lawsuits, state infighting etc. Certainly
the healthcare sytems the feds *do* run (VA, Indian Health Service) are
not inspiring of confidence.
There's a huge difference between a medical system and a railway.
Physical size directly drives the costs up for a railway because you need more track, more trains, more fuel etc.
Having more people doesn't necessarily drive the per capita cost of medical coverage up because there aren't necessarily any automatic additional costs coming from the size which scale above population.
You'll need more hospital beds, more doctors, more diagnostics etc because of more people but you don't necessarily need more of any of them per-capita.
Paul S Person
2019-11-20 17:31:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 06:29:32 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:53:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries who cover
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?
Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.
Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.
So let's see, according to hamish, medicine in the US already costs
the Federal government more per capita than it does in any other
country? And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
It doesn't. IMHO, of course.

Please note that I am /no/ fan of modern medical care.

Not at all.

I repeat something my last manager (I retired while she was my
manager) once said:

When my husband got sick, we found out why doctors are only said to
/practice/ medicine.

When they stop /practicing/ and start /doing/, perhaps I'll be more
supportive.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
h***@gmail.com
2019-11-21 04:03:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:53:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries who cover
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?
Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.
Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.
So let's see, according to hamish, medicine in the US already costs
the Federal government more per capita than it does in any other
country?
Not quite what I wrote.
However the USA spends far more per capita on healtcare overall than any other country (the US is top at over $10,200 per capita per year, Switzerland is second at about $8,000, Germany is 3rd at $5,700. All 2017 figures from https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-average-wealthy-countries-spend-half-much-per-person-health-u-s-spends)

According to https://www.crfb.org/papers/american-health-care-health-spending-and-federal-budget
is about 1.5 trillion of a 3.5 trillion total health spend.
So about the same expenditure per capita as the UK and Australia's total health spends, which are largely one payer systems
Post by J. Clarke
And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
Because
a) people can get to see a doctor when their problems are less serious and can be managed more easily.
Stopping something becoming serious is often a lot cheaper than fixing it after it has become serious (catching a skin cancer early versus catching it after it's spread)
b) do away with the insurance systems and debt collection load.
c) rework how the billing and payments are done.
Robert Woodward
2019-11-21 06:19:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<SNIP!>
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
Because
a) people can get to see a doctor when their problems are less serious and
can be managed more easily.
Stopping something becoming serious is often a lot cheaper than fixing it
after it has become serious (catching a skin cancer early versus catching it
after it's spread)
This is true, but it assumes that people will visit even if it doesn't
cost any money. There are costs in time as well and that is a problem
for many people.
Post by Paul S Person
b) do away with the insurance systems and debt collection load.
c) rework how the billing and payments are done.
IMHO, changing insurance system and how billing is done won't change the
overall costs of the health system significantly*. Since, WWII, health
costs have increased at about twice the rate of GNP growth in the USA.
This cost growth also occurred to those few self contained medical
systems (doctors all work for the same organization that owns the
hospitals, client payments are not affected by their treatment) in the
USA.

*For that matter, IMHO, if the FDR administration had instituted
universal healthcare in the mid 1930s, the current USA health care
expenditures would not be significantly less than they are in OTL.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
J. Clarke
2019-11-21 11:49:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 22:19:25 -0800, Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Woodward
<SNIP!>
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
Because
a) people can get to see a doctor when their problems are less serious and
can be managed more easily.
Stopping something becoming serious is often a lot cheaper than fixing it
after it has become serious (catching a skin cancer early versus catching it
after it's spread)
This is true, but it assumes that people will visit even if it doesn't
cost any money. There are costs in time as well and that is a problem
for many people.
Friend of mine, physics professor, died that way. Another professor's
wife, an RN, noticed the cancer and told him to get it fixed
immediately. He waited until a convenient time and by then it was too
late. Wasn't because he couldn't afford to get it treated.
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
b) do away with the insurance systems and debt collection load.
c) rework how the billing and payments are done.
IMHO, changing insurance system and how billing is done won't change the
overall costs of the health system significantly*. Since, WWII, health
costs have increased at about twice the rate of GNP growth in the USA.
This cost growth also occurred to those few self contained medical
systems (doctors all work for the same organization that owns the
hospitals, client payments are not affected by their treatment) in the
USA.
*For that matter, IMHO, if the FDR administration had instituted
universal healthcare in the mid 1930s, the current USA health care
expenditures would not be significantly less than they are in OTL.
h***@gmail.com
2019-11-21 23:39:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
<SNIP!>
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
Because
a) people can get to see a doctor when their problems are less serious and
can be managed more easily.
Stopping something becoming serious is often a lot cheaper than fixing it
after it has become serious (catching a skin cancer early versus catching it
after it's spread)
This is true, but it assumes that people will visit even if it doesn't
cost any money. There are costs in time as well and that is a problem
for many people.
OTOH there are a lot of people who don't see a doctor in the US because they can't afford it.
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
b) do away with the insurance systems and debt collection load.
c) rework how the billing and payments are done.
IMHO, changing insurance system and how billing is done won't change the
overall costs of the health system significantly*.
And we can say this for sure because other countries' systems are all hugely cheaper so obviously changing the US system can't possibly improve things...
Post by Robert Woodward
Since, WWII, health
costs have increased at about twice the rate of GNP growth in the USA.
This cost growth also occurred to those few self contained medical
systems (doctors all work for the same organization that owns the
hospitals, client payments are not affected by their treatment) in the
USA.
Yes, companies definitely don't look to increase their profits at all...
especially in areas where the customers are locked in, tough to choose not to see an oncologist...
Post by Robert Woodward
*For that matter, IMHO, if the FDR administration had instituted
universal healthcare in the mid 1930s, the current USA health care
expenditures would not be significantly less than they are in OTL.
And we can tell that because the USA paying about 30% more for healtcare per capita than the second most expensive nation has nothing to do with private corporations wanting to make huge profits.
Robert Woodward
2019-11-22 05:49:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Woodward
<SNIP!>
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
Because
a) people can get to see a doctor when their problems are less serious and
can be managed more easily.
Stopping something becoming serious is often a lot cheaper than fixing it
after it has become serious (catching a skin cancer early versus catching it
after it's spread)
This is true, but it assumes that people will visit even if it doesn't
cost any money. There are costs in time as well and that is a problem
for many people.
OTOH there are a lot of people who don't see a doctor in the US because they
can't afford it.
The ones who can't afford it (because of cash outlay) also can't afford
it because of time (because they need the money from working for
everything else).
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
b) do away with the insurance systems and debt collection load.
c) rework how the billing and payments are done.
IMHO, changing insurance system and how billing is done won't change the
overall costs of the health system significantly*.
And we can say this for sure because other countries' systems are all hugely
cheaper so obviously changing the US system can't possibly improve things...
At least one of the European countries with lower health care costs has
private insurance companies.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Woodward
Since, WWII, health
costs have increased at about twice the rate of GNP growth in the USA.
This cost growth also occurred to those few self contained medical
systems (doctors all work for the same organization that owns the
hospitals, client payments are not affected by their treatment) in the
USA.
Yes, companies definitely don't look to increase their profits at all...
especially in areas where the customers are locked in, tough to choose not to
see an oncologist...
Ahem. You are assuming facts not in evidence. One example of such was
Group Health of Seattle which was a non-profit whose board of trustees
was elected by the clients.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Paul S Person
2019-11-22 17:38:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 21:49:51 -0800, Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Woodward
<SNIP!>
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
Because
a) people can get to see a doctor when their problems are less serious and
can be managed more easily.
Stopping something becoming serious is often a lot cheaper than fixing it
after it has become serious (catching a skin cancer early versus catching it
after it's spread)
This is true, but it assumes that people will visit even if it doesn't
cost any money. There are costs in time as well and that is a problem
for many people.
OTOH there are a lot of people who don't see a doctor in the US because they
can't afford it.
The ones who can't afford it (because of cash outlay) also can't afford
it because of time (because they need the money from working for
everything else).
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
b) do away with the insurance systems and debt collection load.
c) rework how the billing and payments are done.
IMHO, changing insurance system and how billing is done won't change the
overall costs of the health system significantly*.
And we can say this for sure because other countries' systems are all hugely
cheaper so obviously changing the US system can't possibly improve things...
At least one of the European countries with lower health care costs has
private insurance companies.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Woodward
Since, WWII, health
costs have increased at about twice the rate of GNP growth in the USA.
This cost growth also occurred to those few self contained medical
systems (doctors all work for the same organization that owns the
hospitals, client payments are not affected by their treatment) in the
USA.
Yes, companies definitely don't look to increase their profits at all...
especially in areas where the customers are locked in, tough to choose not to
see an oncologist...
Ahem. You are assuming facts not in evidence. One example of such was
Group Health of Seattle which was a non-profit whose board of trustees
was elected by the clients.
A hopefully amusing story:

When I was working at the local university (as a "student helper", and
then as a "helper", never as an actual employee) the actual employees
had a medical plan -- Group Health.

They commonly referred to it as "Group Death".

Group Health still exists. My brother has it through his work. He
likes it a bit better than that.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2019-11-22 18:39:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:38:42 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 21:49:51 -0800, Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Woodward
<SNIP!>
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
Because
a) people can get to see a doctor when their problems are less serious and
can be managed more easily.
Stopping something becoming serious is often a lot cheaper than fixing it
after it has become serious (catching a skin cancer early versus catching it
after it's spread)
This is true, but it assumes that people will visit even if it doesn't
cost any money. There are costs in time as well and that is a problem
for many people.
OTOH there are a lot of people who don't see a doctor in the US because they
can't afford it.
The ones who can't afford it (because of cash outlay) also can't afford
it because of time (because they need the money from working for
everything else).
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
b) do away with the insurance systems and debt collection load.
c) rework how the billing and payments are done.
IMHO, changing insurance system and how billing is done won't change the
overall costs of the health system significantly*.
And we can say this for sure because other countries' systems are all hugely
cheaper so obviously changing the US system can't possibly improve things...
At least one of the European countries with lower health care costs has
private insurance companies.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Woodward
Since, WWII, health
costs have increased at about twice the rate of GNP growth in the USA.
This cost growth also occurred to those few self contained medical
systems (doctors all work for the same organization that owns the
hospitals, client payments are not affected by their treatment) in the
USA.
Yes, companies definitely don't look to increase their profits at all...
especially in areas where the customers are locked in, tough to choose not to
see an oncologist...
Ahem. You are assuming facts not in evidence. One example of such was
Group Health of Seattle which was a non-profit whose board of trustees
was elected by the clients.
When I was working at the local university (as a "student helper", and
then as a "helper", never as an actual employee) the actual employees
had a medical plan -- Group Health.
They commonly referred to it as "Group Death".
Group Health still exists. My brother has it through his work. He
likes it a bit better than that.
According to wikipedia the part that actually provides medical
services was taken over by Kaiser Permanente in 2017. There seems to
also be a Foundation but it is not at all clear (to me anyway) what
the Foundation does.
Kevrob
2019-11-22 20:24:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
According to wikipedia the part that actually provides medical
services was taken over by Kaiser Permanente in 2017. There seems to
also be a Foundation but it is not at all clear (to me anyway) what
the Foundation does.
Th Foundation pays money to PBS to carry health care coverage
on The News Hour and like programs.

Somehow, this is not a giant conflict of interest for the "non-profit"
network, or its well-salaried employees.

Kevin R
Paul S Person
2019-11-23 18:14:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
n Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:39:18 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:38:42 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 21:49:51 -0800, Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Woodward
<SNIP!>
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
Because
a) people can get to see a doctor when their problems are less serious and
can be managed more easily.
Stopping something becoming serious is often a lot cheaper than fixing it
after it has become serious (catching a skin cancer early versus catching it
after it's spread)
This is true, but it assumes that people will visit even if it doesn't
cost any money. There are costs in time as well and that is a problem
for many people.
OTOH there are a lot of people who don't see a doctor in the US because they
can't afford it.
The ones who can't afford it (because of cash outlay) also can't afford
it because of time (because they need the money from working for
everything else).
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
b) do away with the insurance systems and debt collection load.
c) rework how the billing and payments are done.
IMHO, changing insurance system and how billing is done won't change the
overall costs of the health system significantly*.
And we can say this for sure because other countries' systems are all hugely
cheaper so obviously changing the US system can't possibly improve things...
At least one of the European countries with lower health care costs has
private insurance companies.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Woodward
Since, WWII, health
costs have increased at about twice the rate of GNP growth in the USA.
This cost growth also occurred to those few self contained medical
systems (doctors all work for the same organization that owns the
hospitals, client payments are not affected by their treatment) in the
USA.
Yes, companies definitely don't look to increase their profits at all...
especially in areas where the customers are locked in, tough to choose not to
see an oncologist...
Ahem. You are assuming facts not in evidence. One example of such was
Group Health of Seattle which was a non-profit whose board of trustees
was elected by the clients.
When I was working at the local university (as a "student helper", and
then as a "helper", never as an actual employee) the actual employees
had a medical plan -- Group Health.
They commonly referred to it as "Group Death".
Group Health still exists. My brother has it through his work. He
likes it a bit better than that.
According to wikipedia the part that actually provides medical
services was taken over by Kaiser Permanente in 2017. There seems to
also be a Foundation but it is not at all clear (to me anyway) what
the Foundation does.
That may well be. My brother didn't mention it, but then, why would
he? That is, what possible context could exist in which it would come
up?

And they may (or may not) be using the name locally, just for
familiarities sake.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2019-11-22 17:44:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Woodward
<SNIP!>
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
Because
a) people can get to see a doctor when their problems are less serious and
can be managed more easily.
Stopping something becoming serious is often a lot cheaper than fixing it
after it has become serious (catching a skin cancer early versus catching it
after it's spread)
This is true, but it assumes that people will visit even if it doesn't
cost any money. There are costs in time as well and that is a problem
for many people.
OTOH there are a lot of people who don't see a doctor in the US because they can't afford it.
Which is what the ACA (formerly "Obamacare", now "Trumpcare" --
whether he likes it or not) is all about.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Paul S Person
b) do away with the insurance systems and debt collection load.
c) rework how the billing and payments are done.
IMHO, changing insurance system and how billing is done won't change the
overall costs of the health system significantly*.
And we can say this for sure because other countries' systems are all hugely cheaper so obviously changing the US system can't possibly improve things...
Post by Robert Woodward
Since, WWII, health
costs have increased at about twice the rate of GNP growth in the USA.
This cost growth also occurred to those few self contained medical
systems (doctors all work for the same organization that owns the
hospitals, client payments are not affected by their treatment) in the
USA.
Yes, companies definitely don't look to increase their profits at all...
especially in areas where the customers are locked in, tough to choose not to see an oncologist...
The inflation index used by Social Security does /not/ include medical
care.

Every Social Security beneficiary who lives long enough will
eventually acquire a steadily-increasing load of medical costs.

This is why you read about little old ladies who have to choose
between their medicine and their food: sooner or later, the increase
in medical costs outpaces the increases in income.

And this is why just replacing the insurance will not work. The
government will /inevitably/ have to nationalize the hospitals and
clinics, the doctors, nurses, and medical support staff, and the
medical supply manufacturers to control costs.

This is the USA. Our pattern for government programs is and always has
been: spend more, get less. This will be no different.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Robert Woodward
*For that matter, IMHO, if the FDR administration had instituted
universal healthcare in the mid 1930s, the current USA health care
expenditures would not be significantly less than they are in OTL.
And we can tell that because the USA paying about 30% more for healtcare per capita than the second most expensive nation has nothing to do with private corporations wanting to make huge profits.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Lynn McGuire
2019-11-22 02:04:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
<SNIP!>
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
Because
a) people can get to see a doctor when their problems are less serious and
can be managed more easily.
Stopping something becoming serious is often a lot cheaper than fixing it
after it has become serious (catching a skin cancer early versus catching it
after it's spread)
This is true, but it assumes that people will visit even if it doesn't
cost any money. There are costs in time as well and that is a problem
for many people.
Post by Paul S Person
b) do away with the insurance systems and debt collection load.
c) rework how the billing and payments are done.
IMHO, changing insurance system and how billing is done won't change the
overall costs of the health system significantly*. Since, WWII, health
costs have increased at about twice the rate of GNP growth in the USA.
This cost growth also occurred to those few self contained medical
systems (doctors all work for the same organization that owns the
hospitals, client payments are not affected by their treatment) in the
USA.
*For that matter, IMHO, if the FDR administration had instituted
universal healthcare in the mid 1930s, the current USA health care
expenditures would not be significantly less than they are in OTL.
OTL = over the line ?
= on the low ?
= over time loss ?
= one true love ?
= out to lunch ?
= over time limit ?

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=OTL
https://www.internetslang.com/OTL-meaning-definition.asp

Lynn
Juho Julkunen
2019-11-22 02:11:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Woodward
<SNIP!>
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
Because
a) people can get to see a doctor when their problems are less serious and
can be managed more easily.
Stopping something becoming serious is often a lot cheaper than fixing it
after it has become serious (catching a skin cancer early versus catching it
after it's spread)
This is true, but it assumes that people will visit even if it doesn't
cost any money. There are costs in time as well and that is a problem
for many people.
Post by Paul S Person
b) do away with the insurance systems and debt collection load.
c) rework how the billing and payments are done.
IMHO, changing insurance system and how billing is done won't change the
overall costs of the health system significantly*. Since, WWII, health
costs have increased at about twice the rate of GNP growth in the USA.
This cost growth also occurred to those few self contained medical
systems (doctors all work for the same organization that owns the
hospitals, client payments are not affected by their treatment) in the
USA.
*For that matter, IMHO, if the FDR administration had instituted
universal healthcare in the mid 1930s, the current USA health care
expenditures would not be significantly less than they are in OTL.
OTL = over the line ?
= on the low ?
= over time loss ?
= one true love ?
= out to lunch ?
= over time limit ?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=OTL
https://www.internetslang.com/OTL-meaning-definition.asp
Lynn
Original timeline, I think.
--
Juho Julkunen
J. Clarke
2019-11-22 02:19:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 04:11:20 +0200, Juho Julkunen
Post by Juho Julkunen
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Woodward
<SNIP!>
Post by Paul S Person
Post by J. Clarke
And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?
Because
a) people can get to see a doctor when their problems are less serious and
can be managed more easily.
Stopping something becoming serious is often a lot cheaper than fixing it
after it has become serious (catching a skin cancer early versus catching it
after it's spread)
This is true, but it assumes that people will visit even if it doesn't
cost any money. There are costs in time as well and that is a problem
for many people.
Post by Paul S Person
b) do away with the insurance systems and debt collection load.
c) rework how the billing and payments are done.
IMHO, changing insurance system and how billing is done won't change the
overall costs of the health system significantly*. Since, WWII, health
costs have increased at about twice the rate of GNP growth in the USA.
This cost growth also occurred to those few self contained medical
systems (doctors all work for the same organization that owns the
hospitals, client payments are not affected by their treatment) in the
USA.
*For that matter, IMHO, if the FDR administration had instituted
universal healthcare in the mid 1930s, the current USA health care
expenditures would not be significantly less than they are in OTL.
OTL = over the line ?
= on the low ?
= over time loss ?
= one true love ?
= out to lunch ?
= over time limit ?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=OTL
https://www.internetslang.com/OTL-meaning-definition.asp
Lynn
Original timeline, I think.
Our Time Line?
Quadibloc
2019-11-22 04:06:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Our Time Line?
Yes, obvious from context.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2019-11-20 17:28:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:53:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries who cover
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?
Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.
Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.
Which they are aware of, which is why they are calling it "Medicare
for All" or something similar -- when it would, in fact, be /nothing/
like Medicare.

These guys are close to turning Trump's "fake news" mantra from
/projection/ into /reality/.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
p***@gmail.com
2019-11-27 19:51:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:28:44 PM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
[snip]
Post by Paul S Person
These guys are close to turning Trump's "fake news" mantra from
/projection/ into /reality/.
Yes. But they are close from *the*other*side* of the boundary.

And not moving towards the boundary.
Paul S Person
2019-11-20 17:26:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:57:20 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
I have been hoping that the Democratic Party would choose the most electable
candidate possible, so as to have the best chance to unseat President Donald J.
Trump.
Well, now I hear that Joe Biden has recieved the most crucial endorsement
possible, from no less a personality than the Glorious Leader Kim Jong-Un himself,
by describing him as a rabid dog that ought to be beaten to death with a stick.
After a ringing endorsement like this, who can resist him any longer?
Will Joe Biden be the Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump's Jimmy Carter, leading to Kim
Jong-Un making a nuclear deal with Trump, as one of his recent tweets urges?
I, too, have been hoping the Dems would run someone electable -- and
at least 20 years younger than Trump.
But they appear to be intent on running another Old Fogie, two of whom
are undeniable (IMHO, of course) whackos.
What names and why?
Post by Paul S Person
Still, there is hope -- recent statements by one of the whackos
suggests that their medical programs
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries who cover almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita than the US federal government does for health care?
But that's not the American Way.

The American Way would be to pay twice as much as any other such
system.

And provide a decidedly lower level of care.

Pay more -- get less. The secret of American commerce.
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Paul S Person
may be the same thing as the
Republican's anti-abortion stance: something to be loudly proclaimed
to attract voters, but never, ever, to be achieved. Because achieving
them might mean that those voters stop going to polls, having gotten
what /they/ wanted.
And the only "nuclear deal" N Korea is likely to make is one that
involves transferring USA technology and welcoming them into the
Nuclear Club. The only question is, will Trump agree?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
nuny@bid.nes
2019-11-21 00:00:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
I have been hoping that the Democratic Party would choose the most electable
candidate possible, so as to have the best chance to unseat President Donald J.
Trump.
Well, now I hear that Joe Biden has recieved the most crucial endorsement
possible, from no less a personality than the Glorious Leader Kim Jong-Un
himself, by describing him as a rabid dog that ought to be beaten to death
with a stick.
After a ringing endorsement like this, who can resist him any longer?
Lil' Kimmie couldn't POSSIBLY be trying to influence the election to get
someone he thinks he can bully into office, could he?

Naw, he'd NEVER do that.
Post by Quadibloc
Will Joe Biden be the Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump's Jimmy Carter, leading
to Kim Jong-Un making a nuclear deal with Trump, as one of his recent tweets
urges?
You have that slightly bass-ackwards.

Not that that's unusual for you.

(Which reminds me; where the hell is Terry Austin?)


Mark L. Fergerson
Kevrob
2019-11-21 01:18:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Quadibloc
I have been hoping that the Democratic Party would choose the most electable
candidate possible, so as to have the best chance to unseat President Donald J.
Trump.
Well, now I hear that Joe Biden has recieved the most crucial endorsement
possible, from no less a personality than the Glorious Leader Kim Jong-Un
himself, by describing him as a rabid dog that ought to be beaten to death
with a stick.
After a ringing endorsement like this, who can resist him any longer?
Lil' Kimmie couldn't POSSIBLY be trying to influence the election to get
someone he thinks he can bully into office, could he?
Naw, he'd NEVER do that.
Post by Quadibloc
Will Joe Biden be the Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump's Jimmy Carter, leading
to Kim Jong-Un making a nuclear deal with Trump, as one of his recent tweets
urges?
You have that slightly bass-ackwards.
Not that that's unusual for you.
(Which reminds me; where the hell is Terry Austin?)
His employer has locked him in his office to get pre-Christmas
tasks done - I am remembering he is a hardware retailer - and
said office is essentially a Faraday Cage.? The signal can't
get out!? If he can use a wired internet connection, he may
just be Too Damned Busy to play right now. He has been known
to travel far afield. He went to Iceland about 2 years ago,
IMS. No obit in his local paper since he last posted.

People GAFIAte and they are FAFIAted, even from USENET. It doesn't
mean they died, necessarily, though death is _extreme_ FAFIAtion.

Most will not need to see:

http://fancyclopedia.org/gafia-fanspeak

http://fancyclopedia.org/fafia

TA may have found a forum more congenial to him.
4096chan, maybe? :)

Kevin R
Lynn McGuire
2019-11-21 01:28:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by ***@bid.nes
Post by Quadibloc
I have been hoping that the Democratic Party would choose the most electable
candidate possible, so as to have the best chance to unseat President Donald J.
Trump.
Well, now I hear that Joe Biden has recieved the most crucial endorsement
possible, from no less a personality than the Glorious Leader Kim Jong-Un
himself, by describing him as a rabid dog that ought to be beaten to death
with a stick.
After a ringing endorsement like this, who can resist him any longer?
Lil' Kimmie couldn't POSSIBLY be trying to influence the election to get
someone he thinks he can bully into office, could he?
Naw, he'd NEVER do that.
Post by Quadibloc
Will Joe Biden be the Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump's Jimmy Carter, leading
to Kim Jong-Un making a nuclear deal with Trump, as one of his recent tweets
urges?
You have that slightly bass-ackwards.
Not that that's unusual for you.
(Which reminds me; where the hell is Terry Austin?)
His employer has locked him in his office to get pre-Christmas
tasks done - I am remembering he is a hardware retailer - and
said office is essentially a Faraday Cage.? The signal can't
get out!? If he can use a wired internet connection, he may
just be Too Damned Busy to play right now. He has been known
to travel far afield. He went to Iceland about 2 years ago,
IMS. No obit in his local paper since he last posted.
People GAFIAte and they are FAFIAted, even from USENET. It doesn't
mean they died, necessarily, though death is _extreme_ FAFIAtion.
http://fancyclopedia.org/gafia-fanspeak
http://fancyclopedia.org/fafia
TA may have found a forum more congenial to him.
4096chan, maybe? :)
Kevin R
Terry works at a B&N. No cages in there that I know of.

Lynn
Quadibloc
2019-11-21 03:02:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@bid.nes
Lil' Kimmie couldn't POSSIBLY be trying to influence the election to get
someone he thinks he can bully into office, could he?
Naw, he'd NEVER do that.
That's entirely possible, but looking at track records, it doesn't seem to be what
is happening this time.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-12-04 01:08:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Well, now I hear that Joe Biden has recieved the most crucial endorsement
possible, from no less a personality than the Glorious Leader Kim Jong-Un himself,
by describing him as a rabid dog that ought to be beaten to death with a stick.
At least they didn't call him a dotard.

Back when the forces of North Korean propaganda used this term in reference to
Donald Trump, the American news media lost no time in pointing out that the term
is somewhat dated, and is no longer in general use, at least in the United
States within the English-speaking world.

So apparently the North Korean propaganda forces have learned their lessen.

But I am now compelled to relate that Joe Biden himself has failed to have learned this same lesson.

When I first heard about it from an episode of the Jimmy Kimmel show on YouTube, I had to double-check with a web search that the van shown wasn't a digital fake like part of Melania Trump's Christmas greeting message as shown on that show, but indeed it wasn't.

Faith and begorrah, I'm after givin' ye no malarkey when I say that Joe Biden is
about to embark on a phase of his campaign for the Demcoratic Presidential
nomination that he has billed as his "No Malarkey Tour", and that apparently the
term "malarkey" and its meaning are both relatively unknown among young
Americans today.

John Savard

Loading...