Bruce Bartlett, as always, is a fascinating read, and we should all be thankful for both his service and his clarity of thought. He actually makes for a pretty good example of a modern day Mugwump, and thus he is an example of the sort of former Republican that we ought to want back in the fold.
I share one of his concerns, particularly about the party’s greater level of partisanship, and the changing face of conservative media. But understand; there is a perception among conservatives of a partisan edge to the Democrats’ victories in 2006 and 2008 that we did not see in the ’90s (even in Democratic years like 1998). The way many conservatives see it, the way to win is not by emulating the no-drama strategy of the Obama campaign, but rather the hard-nosed, foul-mouthed Chicago tactics of Rahm Emanuel circa 2005 and 2006. I don’t share that view, and here’s why: we can’t count on the media cover that Democrats get. We take maximum damage for our transgressions against taste and decorum. They don’t. Still, I understand the other side, and I try to heed the words of Reagan: they accept our agenda, not the other way around, and if you’re ever happy with everyone inside the party, then it’s probably too small to win.
One of Bruce Bartlett’s concerns I do not share, exactly, and that is over the Republican’s new emphasis on defending Medicare. I know that Medicare needs to be put on sounder fiscal footing, and that Medicare Part D did not do so, but I also know that there’s a huge wave of baby boomers, a large number of whom were the core of Republican support throughout the 80’s, who are going to need decent medical care, and lots of it. One of the nice things about Republicanism is that we have continually put forward ideas for modernizing Medicare, even when they were utterly rejected: Newt Gingrich’s far-too-soon plans in 1995, Medicare Advantage, Part D, and so forth. One of the weaknesses of Democrats is that they have not. I’m on the record in favor of ethical comparative effectiveness, but it’s not the piggy-bank that will fund universal coverage; it’s actually the very basis of how private insurance works, and it hasn’t shown much promise at controlling overall premium costs as new and better medical technology comes online and the population ages. Otherwise, the Democrats’ ideas for fixing Medicare basically amount to paying less money for everything and to everyone because we’re the government and we can. That, to me, is a path towards some severe inequalities in the provision of needed care over the next thirty years or so. Michael Steele’s op-ed on the GOP’s Seniors Health Care Bill of Rights wasn’t perfect, but I think we need to lay down our marker on how a system that isn’t going away will serve our once and future voters.
So I’m not an ex-Republican yet. I decided never again to say “I’m a conservative, not a Republican!” on the morning of November 8, 2006, and I haven’t looked back, so to a large extent Bruce Bartlett and I will have to agree to disagree. But on reaching out to former Republicans and minorities who will be aided by our agenda? I think there’s plenty of room for agreement.
42 responses so far
1 ProfNickD // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:15 am
The day of courting the Washington Post and the CBS Evening News are over: the mainstream media is completely irrelevant, except for those who watch American Idol, the View, and other socially retarded broadcasts. Who cares what it thinks.
So if supporting socialistic, utterly anti-Constitutional program like Medicare is some scheme to get the media to like conservatives, forget it. If, on the other hand, supporting Medicare is an ideological position, then you aren’t conservative at all.
2 rbottoms // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:54 am
Bravo. It’s about time the leadership of the GOP show some backbone and denounce Medicare as the socialism it is.
Har, and double-har.
Good luck in 2010 guys.
3 joedee1969 // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:12 am
A mad Party gets us no where:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/08/conservatism-gets-buried-with-kennedy/
4 MFarmer // Aug 31, 2009 at 7:36 am
As profnickd wrote, the MSM are never going to report favorably on Republicans, no matter what they do. But I don’t see it as a problem of getting the media to favor one side or the other — the goal should be a media which is objective. I’ve had hopes that the new media would show this much needed objectivity, but it seems to be just as biased as the old — there is merely a diversity of bias.
It hardly matters if a political party is angry — perhaps there are reasons for the anger. The Democrats are showing as much anger as the Republicans. Neither party appears to understand the extent to which government involvement in the economy is burying the U.S. in debt and regulations. The Republicans are more interested in regaining power than proposing a principled plan to limit government and allow the free market to operate according to capitalist principles.
The free market will offer individuals savings plans and healthcare choices which the majority of people can afford, and which will address retirement healthcare, if the government gets out of the way. The government has ruined healthcare and has created a dependency on Medicare which will further bankrupt the country, yet our politicians want us to believe there is some type of compromise between Republicans and Democrats which can fix the problems they created? It won’t happen. We continue to be fooled by new plans. What’s needed is objectivity and the courage to admit government is the problem, not the solution, when it comes to issues outside defense, police and the courts — government is incapable of centrally planning the economy, and it’s certainly too incompetent to manage healthcare delivery.
The anger of the Republican Party is not the problem — the anger of the American people is going to be a problem for both parties. Even if many people asked for all the government programs, now that we’re broke, everyone is going to have accept we need free market solutions.
5 sinz54 // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:43 am
One factor that Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Marier both omitted, is that in the inevitable march of time, millions of Americans who had enthusiastically voted for Reagan are now drawing Medicare benefits. Despite their willingness to vote for doctrinaire conservative candidates, virtually none of these folks are eschewing their Medicare benefits on some conservative principle. And neither will I, despite my right-of-center leanings. (Will Mr. Bartlett take a pledge to refuse Medicare benefits after he retires?) Note the total absence of a mass movement among conservative citizens age 65 and older to refuse Medicare benefits.
This accounts for why you see elderly folks at town hall meetings who oppose ObamaCare but demand that not one dollar be cut from Medicare. They’re conservative but they’re not refiusing Medicare on principle. This cognitive dissonance will force the GOP to act like true conservatives–defending the status quo (of which Medicare has become a part) while refusing any new radical steps like a public option inside ObamaCare.
6 sinz54 // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:48 am
One more point: Neither Reagan nor Gingrich campaigned as doctrinaire conservatives, demanding that the citizenry support a sharp move to the right. They both campaigned as reformers, each promising to fix the broken instruments of government. In was in that spirit that neither Reagan nor Gingrich demanded that Social Security or Medicare be dismantled (even though a free-market philosophy would seem to demand it, and in fact Reagan had criticized Medicare and all forms of “socialized medicine” years earlier).
If the GOP adopts the same reformist stance, they can promise to fix things like Medicare and the stupid links between health care and employment and the stupid pre-existing condition exclusion, without demanding that Medicare be cut sharply. Seniors would respond to that type of message. Whereas a hard-right message would imply that Medicare should be cut, alienating seniors.
7 Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:56 am
They’re conservative but they’re not refiusing Medicare on principle.
And why should they? For decades money was taken out of their paycheck so that they would have insurance after 65. This is not socialism. This is no different than making payment into a VA or some other insurance product and then collecting the benefits promised.
8 joedee1969 // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:02 am
Chekote is 100% right and that is the bottom line.
9 Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:07 am
the stupid pre-existing condition exclusion
First of all, insurance will cover any pre-existing condition after a waiting period. Second, the reason the insurance adopts this policy is not because they are MEAN. It is because otherwise people will wait until they are sick to purchase health insurance and they won’t be able to pay benefits if only sick people are paying into the system. They need a way to spread risk. Why doesn’t anyone complain about the fact that you can’t purchase auto insurance AFTER you had an accident and expect them to pay to get your car fixed?
10 Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:16 am
Social Security and Medicare reform is difficult because of the nature of the programs. People were told if you pay into the system, the following benefits will be available to you once you reach 65. So retirement plans were made based on that contract. Now that it is time for you to collect the benefits promised, government wants to change the rules of the game. I would be upset too. Is not like people have a choice to participate in said programs. Nothing to do with ideology. It is basic contract law principles.
11 Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:19 am
Joe
I do wish you could make your point without using negative sterotypes created by the Left. “Angry Party”. Sheesh. BTW, did anyone ever refer to the Dems as the angry party when Gore and others were screaming about Bush and his policies?
12 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:51 am
“…we can’t count on the media cover that Democrats get.”
Well THAT’S a fair point.
(*NOD*)
“One of the nice things about Republicanism is that we have continually put forward ideas for modernizing Medicare, even when they were utterly rejected: Newt Gingrich’s far-too-soon plans in 1995, Medicare Advantage, Part D, and so forth. One of the weaknesses of Democrats is that they have not. ”
Agreed.
Which… unfortunately… brings us back to the main stream media and their… er… “presentation” of the news.
(*FROWN*)
“…the Democrats’ ideas for fixing Medicare basically amount to paying less money for everything and to everyone because we’re the government and we can.”
EXACTLY…!
(*PAT ON THE BACK*)
Funny… you don’t remind me of Bartlett at all, Tom.
* Hey… your bio notes that you’re a church musician. Here’s an out of the blue, out of the box recommendation:
ONE Christmas carol at EVERY service.
Yep. One Christmas carol on a Sunday in June… one Christmas carol on a Sunday in September. Every single Sunday service – ONE Christmas carol.
Hey… why not celebrate the Birth of the Baby Jesus EVERY Sunday?
Folks LOVE Christmas carol!
And, hey… I’m not exactly Mr. Churchgoer; I attend Christmas Eve Mass religiously (*GRIN*) and that’s about it except for Easter, Memorial Day, and the occasional wedding or funeral.
Yeah, yeah… off topic… but I just wanted to throw it in there.
Think about it… the little kids would LOVE it! (*WINK*)
BILL
13 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:00 am
Re: Profnickd // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:15 am (#1) –
“…the mainstream media is completely irrelevant…”
(*FROWN*)
I only wish that were true, Nick.
“…except for those who watch American Idol, the View, and other socially retarded broadcasts.”
WHICH MAKES MY POINT…!!!
Nick. Buddy. Pal. The idiots ARE most of the nation. (*SNORT*)
Your average “young’un” gets his or her “political info” via the Daily Show and Colbert. And what Stewart and Colbert and the rest of our “celebrity centric” culture riffs off is the mainstream media.
Hey… Nick… you know the NYT is a rag and I know the NYT is a rag (I’m talking in the sense of ideological and partisan spin), but for the vast majority of our fellow citizens… (*SHRUG*)… they still take “the paper of record” seriously. Same with the networks (particularly seniors).
I wish you were right, Nick, I truly do!
Don’t get me wrong… I’m not saying knuckle under. Hey… you read my posts… you know my “style.” But what I am saying is that we can’t underestimate the power to set the storyline and underlying national agenda that the mainstream media still wields.
BILL
14 balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:07 am
Chekote: “And why should they? For decades money was taken out of their paycheck so that they would have insurance after 65. This is not socialism. This is no different than making payment into a VA or some other insurance product and then collecting the benefits promised.”
Methinks that some people have a very odd functional appreciation of what the term “socialism” actually means.
15 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:08 am
Re: Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:56 am (#7) –
“For decades money was taken out of their paycheck so that they would have insurance after 65. This is not socialism. This is no different than making payment into a VA or some other insurance product and then collecting the benefits promised.”
(*SIGH*)
Actually it is, Chekote. At least for the majority of current day recipients.
(Hang on… let me flesh out what I’m trying to get across here…) (*PAUSE*)
I posted the following a few days back on another thread. Perhaps you missed it:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/08/25/the-health-care-elephant-in-the-room-medicare/6
QUOTING –
Medicare is generally described as a social insurance program administered by the United States Government to provide health insurance coverage to people 65 and over. But it isn’t really insurance, and here’s why. Insurance is essentially protection against the lottery wheel of life: the cost of fire insurance on our homes is relatively low because only one in a 100 houses will burn down in any given number of years –odds which can be actuarially assessed.
But getting old and dying of some disease or illness is not something that only happens to a few unfortunates — it happens to all of us. And with modern medicine’s constant advances, there is almost always some test, treatment or procedure that can be administered to stem the disease or illness.
So Medicare is not insurance; it’s akin to a community in which everyone’s house burns down within about 20 years, and the costs of attempting to stave off the inevitable are rising three times faster than the overall economy, year in and year out.
Once we understand Medicare/Medicaid is not really insurance, then we can understand the system’s fundamental problem. No matter what their wage level, marital status, or retirement date, a recipient will receive benefits that far exceed the taxes he or she paid into the system.
Let’s run through some simple arithmetic. The average wage in the U.S. is about $40,000 a year. The Medicare tax is 2.9 percent –1.45 percent from employer and employee, and 2.9 percent for self-employed. Over 30 years (yes, some will work 40 years but others only 10 years, so let’s take 30 as an average), that means the average wage earner (and his/her employer) will pay in about $36,000 in Medicare taxes.
The average benefits extracted from the system run from $393,000 to $525,000 (due to the benefits extended to non-working spouses, benefits for never-married people may be somewhat lower).
That means each of us who make it to 65 years of age — which is the majority of us — will take out 10 to 15 times more than we paid in. That is clearly a huge gap.
We can easily get lost in quibbling about details: What about all the unfortunates who lose their lives before reaching 65? Yes, in a cold actuarial sense, their contributions go to the survivors. But on the other hand, people who worked sporadically or part-time — stay-at-home spouses, etc. — will also be drawing full benefits even though they might have only paid in a fraction of our $36,000 average lifetime Medicare tax.
But Medicare/Medicaid is a “pay as you go” system, so there are several workers paying in for each retiree. True, but as the 60 million Baby Boomers start entering Medicare and structural issues in our economy sap long-term job prospects, this ratio is falling rapidly. Right now there are over 50 million people drawing Social Security benefits of one type or another, and about 130 million wage earners. So we should count on perhaps 2.5 workers paying Medicare taxes for each recipient.
If we multiply $36,000 by 2.5, we get $90,000–that’s roughly the total amount paid in for each recipient. That’s still only 20 to 25 percent of the average benefits paid out per retiree.
The Medicare recipient makes some co-pays: for most, it’s about $100 a month plus another small sum for the drug plan. There’s also about a $1,000 co-pay for a hospital stay, and various other fees. But over the course of 15 years-from 65 to 80 years of age-these co-pays add up to around $25,000.
Any way you slice it, the total taxes and co-pays paid into the system only add up to around $125,000-roughly a third to a fifth of expected benefits paid by the system.
* So much for “insurance.” (*SHRUG*)
BILL
16 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:21 am
Re: Balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:07 am (#14) –
“Methinks that some people have a very odd functional appreciation of what the term “socialism” actually means.”
(*SIGH*)
See. This is what I mean. It’s not like Balc’s a bad guy or anything. No! It’s just that he often doesn’t know what the heck he’s talking about.
Folks… remember back when we were kids and we’d play pick-up sports? Remember choosing sides? Remember those kids who always got picked last?
Well… THAT WAS OK…!!!
(*GRIN*)
That’s what blogging is like. You have people of all levels of ability (knowledge) chatting with each other.
To paraphrase Orwell… “All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.”
Balc. Let me ask you a SIMPLE question: Are you aware that when the Ponzi scheme we all know as Social Security was enacted the idea (from the government’s actuarial perspective) was that you were supposed to retire, cash a few checks, and… DROP DEAD?
(*SHRUG*)
Hey… I’m all about “sharing the wealth” – the INFORMATIONAL WEALTH that is. (*WINK*)
Knowledge is power, right…? Well… then I’m all about “sharing power.” (*SMILE*)
I don’t do this often, but I invite folks to head on over to my personal blog for a gander at my latest post. It concerns a congressional town hall I attended last week. The post is (hopefully) interesting on it’s own, but what I really would like to direct you to is the comments section of the thread. I’ve used it to throw out some bullet point like facts on fiscal issues facing the United States. There’s quite a bit there about the federal budget, deficits, debt, unfunded liabilities, specifics on HR 32oo… etc.
Check it out: http://usalyright.blogspot.com/2009/08/for-some-strange-reason-john-hall-wasnt.html
BILL
17 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:30 am
Because being the angry party kept the Democrats out of power in the previous 3 years….
LOL!
18 balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:32 am
“Balc. Let me ask you a SIMPLE question: Are you aware that when the Ponzi scheme we all know as Social Security was enacted the idea (from the government’s actuarial perspective) was that you were supposed to retire, cash a few checks, and… DROP DEAD?
Hey – Bill is back in arrogant ass mode again! Welcome back, AA Bill.
Anyhow – you did nothing to dispute my contention – that Medicare is a form of socialism. Period.
Again, Chekote wrote: “For decades money was taken out of their paycheck so that they would have insurance after 65. This is not socialism.”
Who took the money out of their paycheck? Who provides the insurance? What part of “socialism” is that hard to understand. Hell – Medicare is actually far MORE socialistic than a public healthcare option would be, because Medicare contributions are manditory, and a public option would be … optional.
19 djnichol66 // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:33 am
Re: barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:08 am
By the logic in the article you quote, health insurance isn’t insurance at all. I have never seen a health insurance policy that didn’t pay for the costs of pregnancy and childbirth. Not only is pregnancy and childbirth something that happens to most couples, it is the result of an intentional act.
Whether we call it insurance and whether it is insurance is a semantic quibble and besides the point.
20 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:51 am
Again, Chekote wrote: “For decades money was taken out of their paycheck so that they would have insurance after 65. This is not socialism.”
That isnt how Social Security works at all. Money was taken out of peoples paycheck to pay for current expendiatures, and surpluses were to be held for the purpose you speak of. Instead the government stole that money to fund current spending…..and now the government will have to raise taxes to pay for current spending.
Socialism by anyone other name should be as corrupt & broke.
21 Cforchange // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:51 am
Bill is correct here:
“Once we understand Medicare/Medicaid is not really insurance, then we can understand the system’s fundamental problem. No matter what their wage level, marital status, or retirement date, a recipient will receive benefits that far exceed the taxes he or she paid into the system.”
My grandparent inlaws – never every accepted a single red cent of social security. They were entitiled but didn’t take it because they didn’t need it because they banked every paycheck she made. They also felt that they were fortunate to pay taxes because that meant they had income. They willingly paid taxes but were very angry when the government squandered it. They were life long Republican’s.
It’s just a different day, the “me” generation has permeated life. It’s always “me” and what “me” deserves. Now “me” has become angry at both paying taxes and feels completely entitiled to collect payments from the government. Doing math about what “me” has paid into the system if irrelevant. That’s why we complain about excessive taxes when it’s actually FICA that is stiffling. That too is why we have bridges collapsing.
22 sinz54 // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:25 pm
chekote:
23 sinz54 // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Whoops, did the tags wrong. Let me try that again:
chekote:
FYI, both Social Security and Medicare are pay-as-you-go systems, in which workers are taxed to pay for the retirement benefits of those who have already retired.
So for these elderly folks at town hall meetings, money was taken out of their paychecks while they were working, to support other folks who were no longer working. Now that these town hall folks have retired, they’re gladly taking tax money from younger workers.
That is precisely the type of wealth transfer entitlement that conservatives used to oppose.
But as I said, the conservatives who voted for Reagan while they were still working (and whose tax money was going to pay for the retirement of the previous generation) are now retired themselves. And their benefits are being paid by the taxes on their children. The baby boomers’ retirement is being funded by Generation X and Generation Y.
24 oldgal // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:32 pm
If Medicare is not insurance because everyone dies, what then is life insurance?
25 Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:42 pm
That isnt how Social Security works at all. Money was taken out of peoples paycheck to pay for current expendiatures, and surpluses were to be held for the purpose you speak of.
The contract was that that money would be set aside. People are told that the money taken out of their paycheck will result in them getting benefits after they reach 65. This is a contract. Nothing to do with ideology.
That is precisely the type of wealth transfer entitlement that conservatives used to oppose.
Just because politicians break the contract by borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund, it doesn’t make the program a socialist adventure. The deal with SS and Medicare was that you pay into the system and at age 65 you got certain benefits. People upheld their part of the deal and now politicians who misappropriated the funds are trying to change the terms. How about sending the thieves to jail? If a private insurance company failed to make payments on a VA because they misappropriated the fund, they would be charged with fraud. How about charging some of these politicians with fraud?
26 Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Okay everyone. I know how SS and Medicare works. Current payers are funding the reciptients. As a Wall Streeter, I can tell you that it operates as a Ponzi scheme. But that was not the original intent of SS. I also know that people pay into the system less than what they will receive. Again, this is not the fault of the people. It is the fault of the administrators of the program, i.e. politicians. They needed to put in place a mechanism in place to adjust for longer life spans. Manage the money so that they would get higher returns instead of paying for the 100th Robert C. Byrd bridge in West Virginia.
27 balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Manage the money so that they would get higher returns instead of paying for the 100th Robert C. Byrd bridge in West Virginia.
Or, say, temporarily hide the effects of a large cut in marginal tax rates on the federal debt. Or finance a military budget that’s larger than the rest of the world combined. Or pay for some more wars.
That’s not to say that your comment about the Robert C Byrd bridge is wrong. It’s just that pork has been chump change in the whole Federal budgetary process. It’s the military, it’s the large entitlement programs, and increasingly it’s the interest payments to service the debt (which is a massive time bomb).
Personally, I loved the idea of a “lockbox” back in 2000. But others mocked it.
28 balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:17 pm
chekote: Just because politicians break the contract by borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund, it doesn’t make the program a socialist adventure.
No – it’s a socialist adventure because it is entirely managed by the Federal Government.
It becomes a socialist adventure from the moment the Federal Government takes money from your paycheck and decides that it will be used for a social insurance program to fund not only retirement … but disability benefits, survivor benefits, etc.
29 Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Balcon
This may shock you but I agree with you. That money should have not been spent on war or anything else other than to provide the benefits promised. Same with the Highway fund. The money should be spent on providing infrastructure. That’s the contract. Politicians stealing or mismanaging the money does not make said programs socialistic.
30 tim.or.tom // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:55 pm
“He actually makes for a pretty good example of a modern day Mugwump, and thus he is an example of the sort of former Republican that we ought to want back in the fold.”
Actually, he, you, and the other writers on this site are excellent examples of the kind of “Republican” who gave us the absolutely horrible candidate of John McCain and then tried to blame Sarah Palin for McCain’s loss. McCain picked Palin, his advisers picked Palin, the responsibility for Sarah Palin is on John McCain and the other “moderate” Republicans. She is a disaster (that could someday turn into a victory, who knows) for the party, unleashed by the very people who now attack her. You guys thought she would just sit around and be pretty and energize the base and be the perfect tool.
Oops.
We neither need nor want people like you, or Bruce Bartlett, or David Frum in the party. Judging by the polls, doing exactly the opposite of everything the “New Majority” says has been working more than well enough to justify continuing that strategy.
31 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Re: Balconesfault // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:32 am (#19) –
“Hey – Bill is back in arrogant ass mode again! Welcome back, AA Bill.”
(*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)
Well… I cop to the “arrogant” part.
As for the “ass” part…
Hmm… you’re the one who seems most at home with the Party of the Jackass.
(*WINK*) (*CHUCKLE*)
Balc. Seriously. I understand why you hate getting called on your ignorance… but think about it… isn’t it BEST that you learn here – in an anonymous online forum – than to later be humiliated in “real life” in live debate…???
You should be THANKING me…!
(*GRIN*) (*SHRUG*)
Re: Djnichol66 // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:33 am (#20) –
“By the logic in the article you quote, health insurance isn’t insurance at all.”
YES! Absolutely frigg’n correct! Gold star!
(*SMILE*)
Yep… our current system of mainly “bumper to bumper” private insurance is a far cry from the original ideal of “insurance.”
(Hey… bet you didn’t expect THAT response from me!) (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)
(*WINK*)
Re: Oldgal // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:32 pm (#25) –
“If Medicare is not insurance because everyone dies, what then is life insurance?”
(*SNORT*)
If a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it…
(*CHUCKLE*)
Oldgal. Seriously. I trust that you’re bright enough to answer your own question. Heck… you’re the one always advising others to google their own info!
(*SMILE*) (*WINK*)
(Hey… how old ARE you, anyway…??? Just curious…)
Re: Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:42 pm (#26)
“The contract…”
(*SIGH*)
Chekote. THERE IS NO CONTRACT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
* Again… Balc and others… I know that I come across as an arrogant son of a bitch… but seriously… I’ve forgotten more political/social/economic/historical “trivia” than most of you folks will ever know.
(*SHRUG*)
It’s not a brag; it’s a fact. (*SHRUG*)
(OK… ya got me… it’s BOTH a brag and a fact.) (*WINK*)
BILL
(*SHRUG*)
32 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Re: Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 12:49 pm (#27) –
“Okay everyone. I know how SS and Medicare works.”
(*SMILE*) Referring back to your claim concerning “a contract” and my subsequent efforts to educate you by referring you to “Nestor…” (*SHRUG*) No you don’t, Chekote.
(*SMILE*)
(Oh, com’on… don’t get mad! I’m just trying to have a bit of fun. And seriously… you can’t deny I’m educating you!)
“…the original intent of SS.”
Chekote. SERIOUSLY. The “original intent” of SS was that recipients would DIE within a year or so of retirement and thus no matter what the Ponzi scheme would always run smoothly.
I’m NOT joking about this.
(*SHRUG*)
BILL
33 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Re: Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 1:19 pm (#30)
Chekote. Because I like you… (*SMILE*)… basically because I think you have the right instincts and all that is missing is the knowledge… (*GRIN*)… let me explain to you the fallacy of the “lock box” theory.
OK. Take the highway fund. In theory it’s supposed to go to… er… funding highway construction and repairs, right?
If there’s an excess that excess goes to…
(*SHRUG*)
Chekote. I left the sentence hanging for a reason.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Highway_Trust_Fund_%28United_States%29
Anyway… let’s segway into Social Security and “pay as you go.”
Let’s say that the federal government LITERALLY “saved” excess Social Security contributions. I’m talking literally piling up $100 bills in Ft. Knox or somewhere.
Imagine a United States government which didn’t (and which hadn’t) ever run deficits.
Imagine a United States government with no debt. NO DEBT!
Well… I suppose then government COULD (have) stockpiled “excess revenues” – perhaps converted them to gold. (*SHRUG*)
OR… in this fantasy world of no deficits and no debt I suppose the government could (have) INVESTED the money… billions and billions and billions (trillions?) of dollars.
“Invested” where though?
Certainly not domestically! I mean… think about it for even a moment and you’ll immediately see the problem with that scenario. Namely, in short order the federal government would have bought up much of the private sector! (*GRIN*) Given enough time and enough “excess” Social Security “contributions” and they would have bought the whole (privately owned) country up!
(*CHUCKLE*)
We couldn’t have that – could we? I mean even if we slow down a bit and don’t go to the logical extreme of government “investing” ALL of the entire HISTORY’S worth of Social Security “excess contributions,” at the very least such governmental actions would by necessity act as a skew to free markets – you see that, right?
But, hey… here’s what we COULD have done and probably SHOULD have done:
Social Security “excess” contributions should have either been turned into gold and other precious metals, etc. (yeah… I’m serious… but again… we’re working off a “lock box” scenario here – the one Balc brought up) and “stored” across the nation… OR… we could have created a separate “U.S. Government Foreign Investments” Entity which would have for the past 74 years been buying up FOREIGN properties and assets…
* THINK PRESENT DAY CHINA’S FOREIGN “INVESTMENT” POLICIES! (*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)
Anyway… seriously… bottom line… there is no lock box. There never was a lock box. When you think about it, the very concept of a lock box challenges credibility.
BILL
34 Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Chekote. THERE IS NO CONTRACT.
I was using the word figuratively. Look people were promised certain benefits once they paid into the system. This is not socialism. Everybody pays a set rate.
35 midcon // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:56 pm
You know, Medicare may be socialism, or not socialism, or some other ism. But that really is not germane to the issue. Medicare exists – should it? If it should, does it need to be improved, modified, etc?. Is Medicare a valid insurance model for providing coverage for medical care for those of advanced age?
Personally, I believe that Medicare (or some equivalent) is as necessary as government provided insurance is necessary for the entire population of citizens and legal residents. There should be no distinction based on age because a citizen is a citizen. I don’t care how old they are. Consequently, I see no point in a program that is established especially for class of citizen vs another. If one can get coverage in a government program then everyone should be able to OR no one should be able to.
Again I will suggest that health care insurance must be considered in terms of the society’s obligation to it’s citizens. While health care insurance does have direct impact on the individual, it’s status as insurance requires an assessment of the risks by individuals and families and a determination whether they are willing to accept those risks. And society must determine if it can tolerate the individual risks or must require coverage for everyone except those who demonstrate the financial wherewithwal to not become a burden upon society in the event of accident, illness, etc.
While health care insurance is much more important than auto insurance, it is similar it must be based in part on individual risk acceptance (the likelihood of occurence and consequence if it does occur) balanced with society’s tolerance for individual risk acceptance. I don’t care is someone’s auto insurance has a collision provision as long as I (society) are covered if that person run’s into me. We have to balance individual rights with the societal needs and one governing factor in that analysis is the impact upon society of an individual exercising their rights. Of course thrown into the equation needs to be society’s obligations to all it’s citizens.
The discussion of whather a something is socialistic, socialism, or whatever, is useless. Thank God I haven’t been around to have to read such stuff. The tendency to devolve into debating labels continues to hold sway here with the scoring of points the only outcome.
36 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Re: Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 3:43 pm (#36)
“…people were promised…”
(*HEADACHE*)
(Well… you know what they say… “You can lead a horse to water…”)
Chekote. Dear, sweet Chekote. Well-intentioned, well-meaning, sensitive Chekote. I deal in facts. I deal in reality. You should too.
(*SHRUG*)
Did you even bother to read the Supreme Court decision I provided the link regarding?
(*SIGH*)
Anyway…
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
BILL
37 MFarmer // Aug 31, 2009 at 6:14 pm
“Personally, I believe that Medicare (or some equivalent) is as necessary as government provided insurance is necessary for the entire population of citizens and legal residents.”
It’s the “some equivalent” that’s important here, and i wouldn’t say “equivalent” but better option. The way Medicare is set up, and the fact that it’s controlled by government, has led to a situation where it’s no longer sustainable. With the baby boomers retiring, it can’t last.
It needs to be phased out as young people start joining a different system set up in the market — a health savings and retirement plan which is started at 18-20, or even before, so that money is saved, invested, and the interest over the years will be enough to have safe and comfortable golden years.
This needs to be done separately from poverty issues. I have ideas on that, too, but for the majority of people who will be working all their lives, a private health savings and retirement plan would be much better than breaking the government — we will be forced to something at some point — why not start now.
People much smarter than I am would have to work out the details, but I have no doubt it can be done.
38 midcon // Aug 31, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Just to clarify, I intended to say that if one believes that government provided insurance is necessary at all, it should apply to all and not just a specified segment of the population. Currently, we have Medicare and if there is a better model – especially one that does not originate with the government or employers, I am all for pursuing that. Of course the government must establish a framework that ensures affordability, competition, service, and quality standards.
39 EscapeVelocity // Aug 31, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Frum has been all over the place. Lots of paychecks coming his way I presume. The media is eating him up….or rather supporting the attacks on Conservatives and Conservatism, and giving Frum a megaphone to do so.
I mean really, Bill Moyers Jorno?
Pathetic.
40 31 August 09 (am) « blueollie // Aug 31, 2009 at 9:08 pm
[...] will the GOP come back? Will being the “Angry Party” work? (note the whining about the media [...]
41 Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Chekote. Dear, sweet Chekote. Well-intentioned, well-meaning, sensitive Chekote. I deal in facts. I deal in reality. You should too.
I deal with reality. Why are people told that SS and Medicare taxes are taken out their paychecks? Because they will get benefits when they get old. You must have never had to deal with 941 paperwork in your life.
42 barker13 // Aug 31, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Re: Chekote // Aug 31, 2009 at 10:18 pm (#43) –
“Why are people told…”
Ahh, Chekote… precious Chekote… (*SMILE*)
Why do birds suddenly appear… every time… you are near…?
FURTHERMORE…
How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?!
And on that note…
(*WINK*)
BILL
You must log in to post a comment.