All for $110b. Thats a drop in the bucket compared to the Iraq war.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html

Ooooo, scary! Oooooo, SCARY! That big bad Hillary's gonna take away our FREEDOM!
I allus KNEW she wuz a commie!

All for $10b. Thats a drop in the bucket compared to the Iraq war.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html

Actually the article lists the cost at 110 billion. See, there those commie dems go again, spending all our money on things like health care instead of cool stuff like war. :rolleyes:

Actually the article lists the cost at 110 billion. See, there those commie dems go again, spending all our money on things like health care instead of cool stuff like war. :rolleyes:

Correct you are. Changed my OP to reflect.
Still peanuts compared to these wars.

I'd like to look at the details.

All for $110b. Thats a drop in the bucket compared to the Iraq war.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html


Can somebody show me in the constitution where the Government is supposed to provide healthcare?

anybody?

So we are having a potential president elect doing NON CONSTITUTIONAL things - oh, pretty much like the current government (dems and repubs)

Let's get back to the Constitution - and the government does that and ONLY that....

Can somebody show me in the constitution where the Government is supposed to provide healthcare?

anybody?

So we are having a potential president elect doing NON CONSTITUTIONAL things - oh, pretty much like the current government (dems and repubs)

Let's get back to the Constitution - and the government does that and ONLY that....

1. The government is not providing healthcare. It's just an offer of federal assistance to those unable to afford coverage by tax credits, etc.
2. We already have mandatory driver's insurance.
3. It's interesting that a hack like Guiliani attacks Clinton's plan as "more federal subsidies" when he has no problem with the government's provision of these subsidies to say, CORPORATE AMERICA.

I poop on 'reform' that requires everyone to buy insurance. Single-payer system or bust...

This is a cool way to funnel money from the government (ie taxpayers) to insurance companies though, gotta give her credit for that.

Can somebody show me in the constitution where the Government is supposed to provide healthcare?

anybody?

So we are having a potential president elect doing NON CONSTITUTIONAL things - oh, pretty much like the current government (dems and repubs)

Let's get back to the Constitution - and the government does that and ONLY that....

Oh my GAWD!!! :rolleyes: Man this is the kinda twisted logic that got the worst president ever elected... :eek:

Does the Constitution tell us that we should or shouldn't have any social programs, such as Social Security? Does the Constitution tell us that the poor shouldn't pay taxes? Hell, one might argue whether taxes are even Constitutional...

I poop on 'reform' that requires everyone to buy insurance. Single-payer system or bust...

This is a cool way to funnel money from the government (ie taxpayers) to insurance companies though, gotta give her credit for that.

That's a big 10-4!!!

I almost lost it when I saw that.

Nothing like pandering to her special interests...

Does the Constitution tell us that the poor shouldn't pay taxes? Hell, one might argue whether taxes are even Constitutional...

Probably a pretty poor argument to argue against their power to do so...

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That's a big 10-4!!!

I almost lost it when I saw that.

Nothing like pandering to her special interests...

Ok, so what's worse, in terms of cost-benefit:

1) Requiring health insurance, which funnels government subsidy $ to insurance companies

or

2) Allowing people to remain uninsured.

All for $110b. Thats a drop in the bucket compared to the Iraq war.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html

Republican talking points to be trotted out by the right wingers in 3.....2.....1....

I poop on 'reform' that requires everyone to buy insurance. Single-payer system or bust...

This is a cool way to funnel money from the government (ie taxpayers) to insurance companies though, gotta give her credit for that.

This is a really stupid plan. It solves no problems. It does nothing to get rid of the bureaucracy that makes up the insurance industry, and therefore does nothing to reduce the costs. If you are going to have a national health "plan," the only answer that makes any sense is a single payor system. Otherwise, it's a waste of everyone's time.

A single payer system is the only way to assure that costs can be controlled.

I cannot support her in the primary because of this.

Where's my Barak bumper sticker......

BT

A single payer system is the only way to assure that costs can be controlled.

I cannot support her in the primary because of this.

Where's my Barak bumper sticker......

BT

Esplain....

1. The government is not providing healthcare. It's just an offer of federal assistance to those unable to afford coverage by tax credits, etc.
2. We already have mandatory driver's insurance.
3. It's interesting that a hack like Guiliani attacks Clinton's plan as "more federal subsidies" when he has no problem with the government's provision of these subsidies to say, CORPORATE AMERICA.

People that can't afford healthcare on their own don't pay friggin taxes anyhow. How ya gonna allow them to keep more of what they don't pay in the first place? What you're talking about is $110 B in welfare dressed up to look like an engenue. She''s a pig anyhow, lipstick or no.

People that can't afford healthcare on their own don't pay friggin taxes anyhow. How ya gonna allow them to keep more of what they don't pay in the first place? What you're talking about is $110 B in welfare dressed up to look like an engenue. She''s a pig anyhow, lipstick or no.

But the same people tend to go to the emergency room at the last minute costing the taxpayer more than if they could have treated the problem earlier. Basically you still pay even if things stay the same. The difference is that poorer people will now have access to basic medical care.

Very cheap. It will cost at least 100 Billion to print up the phoney road maps that we hand out to Iraqis when we leave, so that they can't follow us home.

People that can't afford healthcare on their own don't pay friggin taxes anyhow.

Lots of people making 25-35k can't afford health insurance, but pay plenty of taxes. Heck, the average household makes about 47k, and is it tough there. Throw in a pre-existing condition and no amount of money will buy a policy.

No, the problem with tax credits is that you have to buy the insurance first. If you can't afford it today, how can you afford it today and wait a year to get the money to pay for it?

Here is a quick take on the plan from one person. http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/the-hillary-pla.html

I think the guy knows his health care policy pretty well in general, but I have not read the plan, and I barely skimmed his summary at this point. Busy busy busy.

People that can't afford healthcare on their own don't pay friggin taxes anyhow. ...

Do you think before you type these little gems? C'mon man, stop being lazy and bring something to the table...

It's the lower-middle to middle class that can't afford health care, and last I checked they still pay an awful lot of taxes... Not only that, the people that can't afford health care don't participate in preventive care which effectively causes higher overall costs to the system, which causes overall rates to be higher than they should be.

But the same people tend to go to the emergency room at the last minute costing the taxpayer more than if they could have treated the problem earlier. Basically you still pay even if things stay the same. The difference is that poorer people will now have access to basic medical care.

I'm not saying I'm against it, I'm on record here as being in favor but we should have honesty above all else. We need a comprehensive plan that addresses the needs of the country and if it's a giveaway for a large part of the population, that chould be clearly defined at the outset. The idea that $110 is the end number is rediculous, it's a foot in the door and it's a socialist program. If we're gonna step on the Constitution, lets give the old girl a heads up, she can probably take the weight if she knows it's coming.

People that can't afford healthcare on their own don't pay friggin taxes anyhow. How ya gonna allow them to keep more of what they don't pay in the first place? What you're talking about is $110 B in welfare dressed up to look like an engenue. She''s a pig anyhow, lipstick or no.


Snake,

You make a great point on taxes; Most of these people do not pay taxes, maybe never have, so tax credits to HELP pay for coverage, not going to do it. She is blowing smoke, and so are the rest of them, both sides.
Man, we all pay TOO MUCH! Thats the problem, and until we get the crooks out of Congress and 40,000 BLOOD SUCKING Lobbyist out, I doubt anything will change. WE NEED TERM LIMITS ON EVERYONE IN CONGRESS.

I'm not saying I'm against it, I'm on record here as being in favor but we should have honesty above all else. We need a comprehensive plan that addresses the needs of the country and if it's a giveaway for a large part of the population, that chould be clearly defined at the outset. The idea that $110 is the end number is rediculous, it's a foot in the door and it's a socialist program. If we're gonna step on the Constitution, lets give the old girl a heads up, she can probably take the weight if she knows it's coming.
Did you support the perscription drug bill Bush passed? Seems that cons can get behind anything that benefits a corporation even if it means that the consumer gets screwed. At least from the onset it seems this may help regulate the industry in favor of the consumer.

Probably a pretty poor argument to argue against their power to do so...

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

"...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

One could argue...

Did you support the perscription drug bill Bush passed? Seems that cons can get behind anything that benefits a corporation even if it means that the consumer gets screwed. At least from the onset it seems this may help regulate the industry in favor of the consumer.

No, I don't like it. It's too damned complicated and expensive.

"...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

One could argue...

...and one would sound quite foolish.

Ok, so what's worse, in terms of cost-benefit:

1) Requiring health insurance, which funnels government subsidy $ to insurance companies

or

2) Allowing people to remain uninsured.

Are there only two options?

#1 rewards the insurance cos and makes them rich, when they're a major part of the problem with the system to begin with. Gotta burn the mother down...

Single payer system. Let the Government roll out medicare to everyone. Let the insurance cos handle the rest. Reduce the costs by taking out the profit motive. Provide incentives for the # of patients a doc sees, as well as the # of life changing habits are made... i.e., patient stops smoking...etc. Pharmas can't advertise anymore...

...and one would sound quite foolish.

Is there uniformity in the tax code as the Constitution mandates??

A single payer system is the only way to assure that costs can be controlled.



BT

I can absolutely assure you that a single payor system does not assure that cost are controlled, in any way.

Theoretically, it does. In practice? Not so much.

Is there uniformity in the tax code as the Constitution mandates??

The 16th Amendment removed that requirement.

"...but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

One could argue...
How did that arguement work out for Hylton...in 1796?


//here is a hint...not well.
//Mohair is right in his comment.
///But the supreme court didn't need the 16th amendment to rule against a carriage owner.

The idea that $110 is the end number is rediculous, it's a foot in the door and it's a socialist program.

Kinda like the end number quoted by the admin for the little debacle in Iraq was a wee bit inaccurate...good to know you're concerning about keeping the lid on runaway expenditures...even if the $110B is off by 100%, it would take far less than a year's worth of bang-bang in the ME to pay for it...

Probably a pretty poor argument to argue against their power to do so...

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


wouldn't health care fall under 'General Welfare'?

not questioning your post TMB but using your post to question the other pov

You make a great point on taxes; Most of these people do not pay taxes, maybe never haveBZZZZT! Wrong.

First of all, EVERY legal American worker pays taxes, if only the 15.3% payroll tax for FICA/Medicare. My son earned about $1000 driving a combine this summer, and he paid about $153 in federal payroll tax. No legal way around it. The notion that poor Americans don't pay taxes is bunk. But then, the whole federal payroll tax system was set up to be misleading so I guess it's mission accomplished there.

Second of all, I think you and Snake are vastly out of touch with the cost of medical insurance these days. A family policy for two adults and two kids on the open market right now is $500+ per month, and that's with massive deductibles. And that's only if you're healthy. Overweight? Smoker? Over age 35? Medical conditions? They'll laugh you out the door!

I'm not poor and pay plenty of taxes, but if I had to buy insurance on the open market right now I probably couldn't. Well I could, but I guess I'd have to quit saving in my kids' college fund and maybe let them repo my wife's car.

BZZZZT! Wrong.

First of all, EVERY legal American worker pays taxes, if only the 15.3% payroll tax for FICA/Medicare. My son earned about $1000 driving a combine this summer, and he paid about $153 in federal payroll tax. No legal way around it. The notion that poor Americans don't pay taxes is bunk. But then, the whole federal payroll tax system was set up to be misleading so I guess it's mission accomplished there.

Second of all, I think you and Snake are vastly out of touch with the cost of medical insurance these days. A family policy for two adults and two kids on the open market right now is $500+ per month, and that's with massive deductibles. And that's only if you're healthy. Overweight? Smoker? Over age 35? Medical conditions? They'll laugh you out the door!

I'm not poor and pay plenty of taxes, but if I had to buy insurance on the open market right now I probably couldn't. Well I could, but I guess I'd have to quit saving in my kids' college fund and maybe let them repo my wife's car.

If your son is your dependent, he should get any federal income taxes returned. FICA always comes up in this tax crap and that is seperate from the income tax and we all pay it in addition to income tax.Tax cuts and raises don't include that, it is regulated seperately.There ARE people in this country that don't pay income tax and they are the ones that will get the government health care. You probably won't qualify for it in the final draft.

I had to pick up my own insurance. My wife now has my daughter on hers. I'm mid 40's healthy, non smoker, no PECs and pay $290 a month for just myself

I can absolutely assure you that a single payor system does not assure that cost are controlled, in any way.

Theoretically, it does. In practice? Not so much.


THANK YOU.....I've been screaming that for years on here....but no one seems to listen. I'm not against a government plan, but it should, and HAS to be a two tiered system, with those being provided basic coverage by the government getting BASIC services only, those with private insurance can get faster appointments, schedule appointments with specialists without referral..etc.etc.etc.:thumbsup:

THANK YOU.....I've been screaming that for years on here....but no one seems to listen. I'm not against a government plan, but it should, and HAS to be a two tiered system, with those being provided basic coverage by the government getting BASIC services only, those with private insurance can get faster appointments, schedule appointments with specialists without referral..etc.etc.etc.:thumbsup:


Why not provide everyone base coverage (wellness/major medical) and allow add-on coverage for those who want/can afford it? Or is that what you're saying?

THANK YOU.....I've been screaming that for years on here....but no one seems to listen. I'm not against a government plan, but it should, and HAS to be a two tiered system, with those being provided basic coverage by the government getting BASIC services only, those with private insurance can get faster appointments, schedule appointments with specialists without referral..etc.etc.etc.:thumbsup:

Screw the insurance cos, they're part of the problem!

That said, insurance cos still exist in socialized health care systems in countries like Spain. There will probably always be a need but no plan should be designed around their profits. They can pick up the crumbs with visitors/tourists.

Weren't you the one who posted that $900 billion ($3k per person) proposal by an insurance CEO and a president of a medical school? Looks like someone wants to keep their profits. Industry insiders can't design the solution. We'll end up with a situation just like Cheney's energy task force, and look at what happened to the price of energy across the board.

Screw the insurance cos, they're part of the problem!

That said, insurance cos still exist in socialized health care systems in countries like Spain. There will probably always be a need but no plan should be designed around their profits. They can pick up the crumbs with visitors/tourists.

Weren't you the one who posted that $900 billion ($3k per person) proposal by an insurance CEO and a president of a medical school? Looks like someone wants to keep their profits. Industry insiders can't design the solution. We'll end up with a situation just like Cheney's energy task force, and look at what happened to the price of energy across the board.


that was a 1500 dollar per person, 3000 dollar per family deductible, and it was proposed by the head of a rather well known medical school. I agree, but I think the UK's two tiered system is the best alternative. I just want to caution people that read this stuff, and think somehow that nationalized healthcare will provide some kind of panacea, or cure-all, that that is not likely. There will still be many significant and some new possibly big problems with healthcare delivery.:thumbsup:

that was a 1500 dollar per person, 3000 dollar per family deductible, and it was proposed by the head of a rather well known medical school. I agree, but I think the UK's two tiered system is the best alternative. I just want to caution people that read this stuff, and think somehow that nationalized healthcare will provide some kind of panacea, or cure-all, that that is not likely. There will still be many significant and some new possibly big problems with healthcare delivery.:thumbsup:

we should just return health care

to a not for profit system and simplify the paperwork to one universal form

no wasted $$ on advertising

no wasted money on crazy CEO pay and stock options

that was a 1500 dollar per person, 3000 dollar per family deductible, and it was proposed by the head of a rather well known medical school. I agree, but I think the UK's two tiered system is the best alternative. I just want to caution people that read this stuff, and think somehow that nationalized healthcare will provide some kind of panacea, or cure-all, that that is not likely. There will still be many significant and some new possibly big problems with healthcare delivery.:thumbsup:

Ok, then we're at a base-line of $450 billion, and a max of $1.35 trillion. Probably landing just at around $900 billion to a trillion. That's still way too much!!!

No question any new system will have its problems. The costs will probably be high at the outset, and then reduce over time. But we must be committed to a national health care system just like we're committed to Social Security.

My son earned about $1000 driving a combine this summer,...

I did that one summer, day and night, back in 1977, I think it was. $3.50 an hour or so. Peas. Tons of peas.

Ok, then we're at a base-line of $450 billion, and a max of $1.35 trillion. Probably landing just at around $900 billion to a trillion. That's still way too much!!!

No question any new system will have its problems. The costs will probably be high at the outset, and then reduce over time. But we must be committed to a national health care system just like we're committed to Social Security.


committment to social security.....?????

Hardly, we will be very lucky if anyone under the age of 35 currently even sees a dime. Neither party has shown any interest in making the necessary changes in order to keep the system solvent. No one wants to the bearer of bad news, so they let if fester.....like a boil. I think social security will be around when I retire in 20+ years, but the payments will be laughable....as if they aren't already, however, they will be insignificant. Just wondering where you got the notion that the politicians are committed to social security...that's a good one...I'm still smiling at that...Thanks for the laugh.

Why not provide everyone base coverage (wellness/major medical) and allow add-on coverage for those who want/can afford it? Or is that what you're saying?


what I was saying. AND, I think it would be in line with constitutional interpretation. It would provide a basic care provision, payable by the government for the general welfare of the populace. It would cover routine primary care, preventative visits, well child visits, acute illness care, and catastrophic injury or disease...IT WOULD NOT cover, many elective surgeries....(joint replacements, plastics, many neurosurgical procedures, derm, etc.), specialty visits, advanced testing or experimental protocols, etc. Those that can afford to purchase a supplemental, or private insurance can do so, and will get expedited service, and access to specialists, elective procedures, advance testing, etc. That's kind my thoughts at least. Preserve the good of the current system, while ensuring that the 47 million un-insured americans recieve SOME coverage.:thumbsup:

THANK YOU.....I've been screaming that for years on here....but no one seems to listen. I'm not against a government plan, but it should, and HAS to be a two tiered system, with those being provided basic coverage by the government getting BASIC services only, those with private insurance can get faster appointments, schedule appointments with specialists without referral..etc.etc.etc.:thumbsup:

The problem with ANY system run by government, or by any beauracracy is budget creep / expenditure creep.

The idea is marvellous.

The theory is wonderful.

Practical reality is a different animal.

Budgets must be spent, or next year will be less.

Salary increases and pay grade advancements are based in large measure on the size of the budget pie you control.

etc.

No matter what the lofty goal. No matter what the dream human beings remain rather base and venal and subject to all of the baser instincts to control, to play politics and to wage trench warfare to get more budget.

You see it in government, in academe and in private industry.

Reality seldom meets theory and the budget is first to suffer.

The other problem with single payor systems is that they cease to be about the service, or the patient, and they become about the politics. Once they become about the politics, the needs of the system are less important than the sound bites.

The system, and the budget also suffer greatly from the tendency of politicians to do what they do best - make promises, promises usually cost money. And what more basic instinct can pols draw on to reach people than health care. So while there is great talk about controlling the growth of spending in health care, it runs unchecked because the politicians can't stop playing with the system to "win" votes. Votes are "won" through "basic service creep", what starts out as a good idea rapidly gets out of control.

The only health care system that will work is a co-pay system wher the base is a universal single pay; the co-pay is provided out of the patient's pocket.

what I was saying. AND, I think it would be in line with constitutional interpretation. It would provide a basic care provision, payable by the government for the general welfare of the populace. It would cover routine primary care, preventative visits, well child visits, acute illness care, and catastrophic injury or disease...IT WOULD NOT cover, many elective surgeries....(joint replacements, plastics, many neurosurgical procedures, derm, etc.), specialty visits, advanced testing or experimental protocols, etc. Those that can afford to purchase a supplemental, or private insurance can do so, and will get expedited service, and access to specialists, elective procedures, advance testing, etc. That's kind my thoughts at least. Preserve the good of the current system, while ensuring that the 47 million un-insured americans recieve SOME coverage.:thumbsup:


Ok, I'm on board with that. Big thing it must cover is.... drugs.

Ok, I'm on board with that. Big thing it must cover is.... drugs.


legal or illegal????:eek:

The problem with ANY system run by government, or by any beauracracy is budget creep / expenditure creep.

The idea is marvellous.

The theory is wonderful.

Practical reality is a different animal.

Budgets must be spent, or next year will be less.

Salary increases and pay grade advancements are based in large measure on the size of the budget pie you control.

etc.

No matter what the lofty goal. No matter what the dream human beings remain rather base and venal and subject to all of the baser instincts to control, to play politics and to wage trench warfare to get more budget.

You see it in government, in academe and in private industry.

Reality seldom meets theory and the budget is first to suffer.

The other problem with single payor systems is that they cease to be about the service, or the patient, and they become about the politics. Once they become about the politics, the needs of the system are less important than the sound bites.

The system, and the budget also suffer greatly from the tendency of politicians to do what they do best - make promises, promises usually cost money. And what more basic instinct can pols draw on to reach people than health care. So while there is great talk about controlling the growth of spending in health care, it runs unchecked because the politicians can't stop playing with the system to "win" votes. Votes are "won" through "basic service creep", what starts out as a good idea rapidly gets out of control.

The only health care system that will work is a co-pay system wher the base is a universal single pay; the co-pay is provided out of the patient's pocket.


I agree completely, and also with your last statement. The Dean that was at the meeting with us proposed an idea with a 1500 deductible per person, and 3000 per family, I thought that that was very reasonable.:thumbsup:

committment to social security.....?????

Hardly, we will be very lucky if anyone under the age of 35 currently even sees a dime. Neither party has shown any interest in making the necessary changes in order to keep the system solvent. No one wants to the bearer of bad news, so they let if fester.....like a boil. I think social security will be around when I retire in 20+ years, but the payments will be laughable....as if they aren't already, however, they will be insignificant. Just wondering where you got the notion that the politicians are committed to social security...that's a good one...I'm still smiling at that...Thanks for the laugh.

I'd hate to be the party that lets Social Security die... That's part of the commitment I'm talking about. "Don't eff with my grandma/grandpa's money..." Social Security will be around long after you and I are dead and I doubt it will it be insignificant.

Although, at the rate we're going under Bush you may be able to fill your gas tank with it... but that could be more than $100 a week... :rolleyes: But hey, that's something right?

I'd hate to be the party that lets Social Security die... That's part of the commitment I'm talking about. "Don't eff with my grandma/grandpa's money..." Social Security will be around long after you and I are dead and I doubt it will it be insignificant.

Although, at the rate we're going under Bush you may be able to fill your gas tank with it... but that could be more than $100 a week... :rolleyes: But hey, that's something right?

I've never been a fan of SSI... it does too little for too many... but, wouldn't it be better for our retirees to provide them healthcare free and clear than a meager monthly check and out of control medical bills?

I say convert SSI to national healthcare. Seems like a better use of the money.

I'd hate to be the party that lets Social Security die... That's part of the commitment I'm talking about. "Don't eff with my grandma/grandpa's money..." Social Security will be around long after you and I are dead and I doubt it will it be insignificant.

Although, at the rate we're going under Bush you may be able to fill your gas tank with it... but that could be more than $100 a week... :rolleyes: But hey, that's something right?

if some serious changes are made.....

raising the retirement age to 70...
reducing payments
raising the social security tax

You want to see some fun numbers, look up what will happen once the Baby Boomers hit the system starting in about a year or two. And don't think grandma and grandpa give a rat's a*s about you or I. They don't. I was reading a discussion not long ago about this very topic, and one senior citizen wrote something along the lines of ' it's my godd*mned money, and I don't care what the h*ll happens after I die, that's your problem, and you all can kiss our a*ses'. I couldn't believe what I was reading. SS is salvageable, but it will require a complete overhaul, and substantial changes. NO politician on this planet will touch this. Bush tried, Clinton tried, and neither made any headway at all. It's the third rail, and until congress and the public get completely on board, it's going to continue to go downhill.

I've never been a fan of SSI... it does too little for too many... but, wouldn't it be better for our retirees to provide them healthcare free and clear than a meager monthly check and out of control medical bills?

I say convert SSI to national healthcare. Seems like a better use of the money.

Actually, SSI is one of the best managed retirement programs out there (if only our politicians could keep their hands off our money). Where's Gore's "lockbox" when we needed it? :eek:

The management fees are less the .05% compared to that of the private sector which usually start at 1.5% and can range between 6-15%.

Actually, SSI is one of the best managed retirement programs out there (if only our politicians could keep their hands off our money). Where's Gore's "lockbox" when we needed it? :eek:

The management fees are less the .05% compared to that of the private sector which usually start at 1.5% and can range between 6-15%.

I don't disagree that it's well managed. My point is that too many people think that SSI will cover them when it doesn't nor was it ever intended to. Too many people banked on having their pension and SSI. Well, the pension plan was cleaned out and now they just have SSI. SSI doesn't even cover perscriptions for many. Forget the money, give 'em healthcare instead and you'll increase their quality of life in a truly meaningful way.

FICA always comes up in this tax crap and that is seperate from the income tax and we all pay it in addition to income tax.That's exactly how Congress wants you to think. But the fact is, "payroll tax" and "income tax" all goes into the same pot. It is not separate.

If you care at all about how the gov't spends YOUR money you need to understand how they collect the money and how it's spent. Unfortunately payroll tax is set up so that most Americans have no clue.

Ironically, this deception is also why so many people still call Reagan a tax cutter. Reagan cut income tax, but he increased the payroll tax. All but the wealthiest few percent of Americans paid more federal tax in 1989 than they did in 1981. But the pedants can misleadingly claim, "Reagan cut income taxes." Most Americans are fooled by this lie because they don't understand that payroll taxes are just income taxes by another name. :rolleyes: