The perfect alternative to the public option...

[Accountable]

Minor's right, from what I recall about politicians stealing from SS. I think it would be solvent now. But it's not an investment, it is a ponzi scheme by any definition.

If not for SS, most of these people would have nothing.

I disagree. If not for SS, most of these people would have taken responsibility for their own retirement and built a nest egg ... like people used to. Or they would stay in a nuclear family where children take care of the people who used to take care of them ... like people used to. SS damaged or destroyed the best of American culture.

 

[retro]

Minor's right, from what I recall about politicians stealing from SS. I think it would be solvent now. But it's not an investment, it is a ponzi scheme by any definition.

The only way that a Ponzi Scheme or in this case, Social Security, could be solvent is if you could guarantee that you would have as many or more new workers entering the workforce than you have leaving the workforce. If that status quo gets tipped in the wrong direction, it is instantly insolvent, and that's without any external influences.

 

[Accountable]

The baby boomers were putting in excess funds. If they had kept the money instead of spending it, it's conceivable that it would've remained solvent through this retirement bubble.

 

[Alien Allen]

The baby boomers were putting in excess funds. If they had kept the money instead of spending it, it's conceivable that it would've remained solvent through this retirement bubble.

It is not a bubble. The original formulas were based on people living 15-20 years less. There is no way to make it solvent without many changes. Such as removing the limit on how much you have to pay in each year. Extending the age of retirement. Reducing benefits. Plus you have people still getting benefits that are way beyond what they ever contributed. Back in the early 80's if I remember right if a person took SS at 65 they had already used up every penny they put in by the time they were 70. Were this a voluntary system it would be deemed a ponzi scheme and illegal.

 

[Accountable]

You got no argument with me. It's an unconstitutional program. I'm just giving credit where I think credit is due. Even if it's not solvent longterm, it would have lasted a lot longer had the politicians not stolen from it.

 

[Alien Allen]

You got no argument with me. It's an unconstitutional program. I'm just giving credit where I think credit is due. Even if it's not solvent longterm, it would have lasted a lot longer had the politicians not stolen from it.

Make no mistake I am aware the programs money was robbed. That is the shell game congress play. Both sides of the aisle. It can be social programs attributed to the liberals to military stuff on the right. Or pork barrel bull shit in the middle. No prioritizing at all.

 

[IntruderLS1]

A letter to the president from Thom Hartmann. It makes more sense than anything currently before the house or senate.




So what are the drawbacks to a proposal like this?

Strangely enough, I have no major heartburn with this idea. 10-20% mark up over cost... I can buy into that. It reminds me of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac.

There would obviously have to be massive oversight in order to prevent the type of problems we have seen in the government mortgage companies, but it could probably be done.

Fanny and Freddie were large culprits in our current financial mess. I don't excuse the private banks for their part, but in their defense, they were trying to survive against government backed banks which could assume any risk, and never had the possibility of failure. Had the private banks not taken massive risks, they would have been put out of business in our lifetimes. Much to the sadness of Barnie Frank and Nancy Pelosi.

Hmmm... You know, as I write this, I'm actually talking myself out of the plan.

It would have to be run by an absolutely airtight group of non-partisans. As soon as it went political, Medicare would be Freddie and Fanny on steroids. The 10-20% profit margin would have to be placed on a floating scale to protect private insurance.

Man, now that I really think about this, the only way to make it work would be to make it unpalatable to the author of the letter.

I dunno Tim. I think it would be possible to work out, but I don't think I'm smart enough to make it work, and I have very little confidence in Washington to make it happen.

Realistically, how would this solve the stated goal of covering every American anyway? The same people who don't buy from Kaiser or Blue Shield, are still not going to buy from Medicare. Remember, that lack of medical insurance is a financial choice, not a medical one. The majority of uninsured Americans could in fact purchase their own coverage if they felt it necessary. If you take out the young, and the illegals, you're left with about 8% of the country that genuinely cannot afford medical insurance.

 

[Tim]

Realistically, how would this solve the stated goal of covering every American anyway? The same people who don't buy from Kaiser or Blue Shield, are still not going to buy from Medicare. Remember, that lack of medical insurance is a financial choice, not a medical one. The majority of uninsured Americans could in fact purchase their own coverage if they felt it necessary. If you take out the young, and the illegals, you're left with about 8% of the country that genuinely cannot afford medical insurance.

It's not only a matter of costs but eligibility. There is an ever growing number of people who cannot get coverage at any cost because of preconditions. Or if they can get coverage, those preconditions will not be covered. I know enough people who preconditions affect personally so I know this isn't a few isolated cases across the US.
So without some sort of "public plan" how do we make it possible for these people to cover themselves?

A personal story...
A few weeks ago I was feeling run down and tired, seemed thirsty all the time and I thought I was showing early signs of diabetes. I have a few relatives with diabetes so I knew it wasn't out of the question.
I'm not overweight, I moderately exercise (I need to step that up a bit) so I'm not out of shape, I eat very well 95% of the time (no fast food for me) and I rarely get sick (maybe once a year on average) I can't remember the last time I had to go to the doctor/hospital and I have nothing in my medical file at all, it's clean.
But when I thought I was showing the early signs of diabetes, I didn't call my doctor and make an appointment, I called a relative to borrow their blood sugar monitor so I can check my levels periodically and make the call myself. Because I know that if I was a border line type II diabetic, the doctor would have me make lifestyle changes to head off the problem and keep it under control, these are things I can do on my own. And here's the reason I did not go to the doctor..... Under no circumstances did I want this to go into my medical file. Even if I was a borderline type II that was able to control it with proper diet and exercise, it would be in my file for life and I would face the probability of higher life insurance premiums and denied medical coverage, and that's if I was able to get coverage later if I needed to change policies...
I have personally seen what diabetics go through when it comes to health insurance and how much more it costs them. I have seen the denied payment of services and even dropped policies. I was not going to put myself into that sinking ship.

Yes, I believe it is a crime to have "for profit" companies anywhere near our basic health care, because by law, they are beholden to the profits of the shareholders without regard to the well being of the patient. Can you imagine if it was like that for doctors? Can you imagine doctors that were not beholden to the Hippocratic Oath and only cared about profit???

Scott, do you agree with "for profit" health care when it comes to basic health care? Do you know that we are the ONLY industrialized nation that it's legal to make profit on basic health care?

 

[Minor Axis]

You say that people should be able to decide if they want increased taxes or a reduction of services... shouldn't it also stand to reason that people should be able to decide whether or not they want to pay into the system to begin with?

Sure thing. But in dismantling the system you'd better cover those people who have invested in it. If SS does not pay out in retirement, it makes it one hell of a tax.

What it boils down to is personal advantage. Are you young and just starting or are you old and have been paying into it? If you are say a college student, what a windfall to get out of SS. If I had been offered that choice when I was 16, I would have considered it. But what happens when you in your 40's and you have been paying into it for a couple of decades or more? What do we do for those people, pay them back or screw'em? What would you say?

The system is a forced savings plan to cover people in their retirement. If the system is controlled, payoffs are balanced against inflow, the system remains viable. Is the philosophy of the program bad? I don't know where you imagine your figures but last I heard, the program was good as-is until the 2020s. No matter how much you want to detract against SS, that does not qualify as a ponzi scheme. Is it any worse than forcing people to have insurance when they drive? If it is going to remain, it must be tweaked to remain viable and the government must stop robbing the fund.

And for reference, the system was created because the capitalist bozos of the 1920s screwed it up just like the bozos of today, seventy some years later. A very strong argument for government regulations. Of course it does not help that the bozos in government have been stealing from SS for a long time. But unfortunately the government is all you have, unless you'd rather see a revolution. We owe it to ourselves to try to place responsible people in control. And I know in this forum everyone has their own ideas about that.

What if we take part of the stimulus money and pay back everyone their funds invested in SS? And the people who are currently receiving SS payments will continue be covered and then we close it down? What'da think? How much would that cost?

 

[Alien Allen]

It fits almost every definition of a ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme. And it will be one day when congress officially closes the doors which the Supreme Court said could be done. Why kind of bullshit is it where the govt can mandate you pay into a system with potentially false premises. Will they close SS? Hard to say. Nobody thought 40 years ago it would be illegal to have a cigarette ad on a race car. Fookin govt asshats.

 

[Minor Axis]

It fits almost every definition of a ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme. And it will be one day when congress officially closes the doors which the Supreme Court said could be done. Why kind of bullshit is it where the govt can mandate you pay into a system with potentially false premises. Will they close SS? Hard to say. Nobody thought 40 years ago it would be illegal to have a cigarette ad on a race car. Fookin govt asshats.

You keep throwing the word around, but do you guys know what a ponzi scheme is?? And let me guess, the cigarette makers are a poor besieged group of honest business men being picked on by the government...

 

[Accountable]

You keep throwing the word around, but do you guys know what a ponzi scheme is?? And let me guess, the cigarette makers are a poor besieged group of honest business men being picked on by the government...

That was precisely the question I was going to ask you.

A Ponzi scheme is one in which a person pays in with an expectation of a higher payout later. That payout comes in the form of pay-ins from later contributors. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Social Security is set up to pay out current "contributions" to currently retired former "contributors." It is a Ponzi scheme in every sense.

 

[Minor Axis]

That was precisely the question I was going to ask you.

A Ponzi scheme is one in which a person pays in with an expectation of a higher payout later. That payout comes in the form of pay-ins from later contributors. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Social Security is set up to pay out current "contributions" to currently retired former "contributors." It is a Ponzi scheme in every sense.

I'll forgive your poor comparative skills.

Ponzi schemes promise a return on investors money from legitimate investments. But returns are fabricated and instead money is taken from new investors to pay the older investors in a fraudulent manner where no money is being made by the investments. The Administrators of this system are crooks and what they do are not ment to be discovered.

SS is a honest collective investment. Everyone's money is legitimately invested. Profits from all the investments go back into the pool and are paid out on a schedule when people retire. The Administrators of SS run the program in public and must make adjustments to keep the system in balance. However, robbing the system to fund the federal budget is complete Bullshit. However that could be fixed if enough political will power is mustered.

Considering the source, your SS = Ponzi is not that surprising. It reminds me of how your people like to say Obama pals around with terrorists and is not a U.S. citizen. Then they fabricate how we are moving to Canadian/English socialism. Playing loose with definitions comes right out of the conservative's hand-book.

 

[Alien Allen]

You keep throwing the word around, but do you guys know what a ponzi scheme is?? And let me guess, the cigarette makers are a poor besieged group of honest business men being picked on by the government...

Yeah I know it is not a Ponzi Scheme. Not in the truest sense. Nor is it a prototype Pyramid Scheme. The govt is much better at getting away with this shit. I doubt you would find a private enterprise that would ever be allowed to pull this kind of scam off. And yes it is a scam because it is not sustainable. There is no way it can continue without some major reforms. And you hear zip, nada from Congress about reform.

 

[Accountable]

Playing loose with definitions comes right out of the conservative's hand-book.

No, it comes right out of the Washington handbook. You're going to get a crick in your neck from always looking in one direction.


And it's communists he hangs out with, not terrorists. Pay attention.

 

[Accountable]

Yeah I know it is not a Ponzi Scheme. Not in the truest sense. Nor is it a prototype Pyramid Scheme. The govt is much better at getting away with this shit. I doubt you would find a private enterprise that would ever be allowed to pull this kind of scam off. And yes it is a scam because it is not sustainable. There is no way it can continue without some major reforms. And you hear zip, nada from Congress about reform.

That's because old people vote, and just like Madoff's victims they want to get their money back.

 

[Minor Axis]

Yeah I know it is not a Ponzi Scheme. Not in the truest sense. Nor is it a prototype Pyramid Scheme. The govt is much better at getting away with this shit. I doubt you would find a private enterprise that would ever be allowed to pull this kind of scam off. And yes it is a scam because it is not sustainable. There is no way it can continue without some major reforms. And you hear zip, nada from Congress about reform.

It is sustainable if corrections are made. But I admit, politics being politics, that is not a sure thing.

 

[Alien Allen]

It is sustainable if corrections are made. But I admit, politics being politics, that is not a sure thing.

I find it interesting that the SC has confirmed there is no guarantee we would get the benefits.

The problem is that every day that goes by the more serious the corrections will be required.

I think it is a mistake to blame the problem on robbing the money from the fund. It was gonna go bankrupt no matter what. Robbing the fund just expedited that.

This along with medicare is a massive problem.

Somebody needs to be an adult and address this.

And making massive expenditures like NHC and the stimulus IMO is like a spoiled teenager getting whatever they want. No lesson learned

 

[Minor Axis]

I think it is a mistake to blame the problem on robbing the money from the fund. It was gonna go bankrupt no matter what. Robbing the fund just expedited that.

Why do you insist that such a fund MUST go bankrupt? It is no different than any kind of joint investment. Payments out must reflect the ability of the fund to pay. You've made your mind up that there is no way any kind of a group insurance or retirement policy could possibly work. It must be your belief that government can't do anything right. You are a pessimist. I tend to be an optimist. It can work, if the adjustments that need to be done are done and the program is run with integrity. Maybe you should join the anarchists movement?

 

[Alien Allen]

Why do you insist that such a fund MUST go bankrupt? It is no different than any kind of joint investment. Payments out must reflect the ability of the fund to pay. You've made your mind up that there is no way any kind of a group insurance or retirement policy could possibly work. It must be your belief that government can't do anything right. You are a pessimist. I tend to be an optimist. It can work, if the adjustments that need to be done are done and the program is run with integrity. Maybe you should join the anarchists movement?

Pretty sure I said it would go bankrupt unless corrections are made.

You are not an optimist. You are delusional :24:

If you think the govt is running efficiently

I am a pessimist because I am a realist