Re: What Social Security (and Its Reform) Say About America
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Dan Minette wrote: It's that SS payments are tied to an index that has gone up faster than the cost of living for 70 years... Except that that's not true. Except that, if you have an intelligent point at all, you are quibling on a minor detail that does not change the point Dan and I are making. The increases were not explicitly tied to wages before 1977 (I didn't say they were, by the way, I said they had been indexed to wages for years because I couldn't remember the year 1977 at the time I made my post). But benefits were increasing even faster than wages before 1977, so that line of argument will get you no where. http://www.ssa.gov/history/notchfile1.html Actually, I suspect you don't have a point at all but are just trying to avoid admitting you made an incorrect statement out of ignorance. Maybe you would do better if you retreat to airplane metaphors. At least then you just look like you are avoiding the question, rather than appearing a complete fool. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Social Security (and Its Reform) Say About America
At 09:56 PM 2/17/2005 -0800, you wrote: JDG wrote: Sure, the Social Security Administration has government bonds, but if Congress were to pass a law establishing the Social Security Retirement Age as 80, then a good portion of those bonds wouldn't be a darned thing. Until the next election cycle, that is. You mean, presuming that the next election installs a government that restores the benefits? But let's do it in reverse.Let's say that the government moves the retirement age to 55. And lets say that this causes the so-called bonds in the Trust Fund to be depleted in the very near term.Those bonds were *still* meaningless, because it is implict that the promises of Social Security are backed up by general revenues funds from the Federal Government. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
Erik Reuter wrote: The benefit formula has been indexed to wages for years. No. COLAs are based on the Consumer Price Index, which is based on a market basket of goods. Although there are plenty of people who argue that the CPI is biased upward, the problem with it relative to the actual cost of living of Social Security beneficiaries is that it doesn't include things like health care and prescription drugs, costs that have gone up faster than the CPI. To be more specific, COLAs are based on the CPI-W -- the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers and thus excludes most SS beneficiaries by definition. The government's own CPI-E, which is designed to track the cost of living for the elderly, has been rising rather faster than the CPI-W. I suspsect that if you talk to actual people have been living off Social Security, you'll find that virtually all are being forced to give up more and more because the benefits don't go as far as they used to. In other words, to reiterate what I said at the start of this, the benefits are based on a sector of the economy that is growing more slowly than the beneficiaries' cost of living. Nick wrote: We haven't [increased social security payments faster than cost of living] in the past. Dead wrong. Not wrong, just inconvenient for those who want to cut benefits. You've accepted a metric that understates the real cost of living for the most needy people in our country. I don't accept it. The government's own data shows that the COLAs understate senior costs. Anecdotally, I sure haven't heard any retired folks boasting of a rising standard of living thanks to Social Security. Pretty much the opposite. Anyone else? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Social Security (and Its Reform) Say About America
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:26:06 -0500, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11:45 AM 2/17/2005 -0600, Gary Denton wrote: Social Security cannot accumulate any excess revenues, be they assets, investments, etc. All current revenues that Social Security cannot spend on current benefits are mandated by federal law to be spent by the federal government. Malicious untrue calumny. There is no such requirement. Malicious? Untrue? Calumny? Despite your over-the-top rhetoric, I will ask you one question. What do you think the requirement to invest those funds in government bonds means?That the federal government will borrow money that it *won't* spend? Thats two. Later question first - Yes, this happened before, or like most conservatives have you forgotten the Clinton budget surplus and the Social Security lock box? First question, I see you avoid directly criticizing Greenspan and Reagan and the Social Security fix they set up. I'll ask you - why did Greenspan require the excess taxes, higher than income taxes for low wage workers, to be invested in government bonds? Why did the GOP prevent Clinton from implementing his proposal that some of the investments be in the private stock and bond market? Was it to set up this present non-crisis, so effete elitists could argue those aren't really government bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States? So that the bonds can be defaulted on with a screw you suckers to all who had been excessively taxed to establish this so-called trust fund? Bush desperately needs his fix, a fix to Social Security to preserve his tax cuts to the rich and to continue with the Nordquist plan to lower taxes each year to eliminate all social spending by the federal government. Gary D, ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
- Original Message - From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 9:45 AM Subject: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform) Erik Reuter wrote: The benefit formula has been indexed to wages for years. No. COLAs are based on the Consumer Price Index, which is based on a market basket of goods. That's true, but the initial benefits are not based on COLA. Quoting the government website on this: http://www.ssa.gov/history/notchfile1.html quote Fixed Formula Introduces Wage Indexing Thus the old law generated, under some economic conditions, inflated initial benefits by linking, or coupling, the effect of both wage and price increases. The 1977 legislation de-coupled(23) those two elements, substituting a fixed formula for determining initial benefits:(24) 90 percent of the lowest range of average indexed monthly earnings, plus 32 percent of the mid range of such earnings, plus 15 percent of the highest range of such earnings (up to a maximum based on amount of earnings on which taxes are paid). Like the old approach, this new approach used average earnings over a working lifetime. But those earnings would now be adjusted (indexed) to reflect the growth of wages in the economy Cin other words, past wages would be translated into their equivalent in current wage levels.(25) end quote I was wrong about the last time inflation beat average wages being in the Great Depression. But, it is very clear that COLA increases are only applicable to people _already_ receiving SS. Initial benefits are tied to wages. The only way I can see to differ with this is to assume that the government site listed above has false information. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 1864 US Union election
To briefly digress to the original root of theis figuring - the Iraqi voter percentage. According to the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, 58 percent (or 8.55 million) of the 14.66 million Iraqis registered actually voted on January 30. This figure is substantially lower than voter turnout in the U.S., which in 2004 was approximately 122 million out of the approximately 173.6 million registered voters, or 70 percent. Between 1992 and 2000, the percentage of registered voters who cast ballots in U.S. presidential elections ranged from 66 to 78 percent. The 58 percent Iraq participacation is higher than nearly all US local elections, but this wasn't a local election. Interesting the Kurds have some areas with more voters than population, they seem to be learning fastest what democracy can mean, and the Sunnis had extremely low turnouts, maybe they are too. How the Iraqi turnout compares to the voting age population in Iraq is disputed but seems to be around 50%. Gary D. Riverbend, who is a secular educated Sunni, is not happy with the election and the rise of the Iraqi form of fundamentalism. http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#110815850766514443 Or even more pessimistic recently http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_riverbendblog_archive.html#110872871401791299 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security cost of living
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: Except that, if you have an intelligent point at all, you are quibling on a minor detail The question of whether or not Social Security benefits have kept up with the actual cost of living of its beneficiaries is no mere detail. Given Which is not the question under discussion, Nick. This is really pathetic. For someone who is otherwise intelligent, you really have a blind spot or some weird defense mechanism against admitting you spoke out of ignorance and were dead wrong. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Cat-astrophe (was: E-mail program questions)
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Cat-astrophe (was: E-mail program questions) Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:09:50 -0600 At 10:13 AM Tuesday 2/8/2005, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Ray Ludenia [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Cat-astrophe (was: E-mail program questions) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 22:52:17 +1100 On 08/02/2005, at 6:09 AM, Travis Edmunds wrote: From: Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] For behaviors/places it isn't workable, I use The Enforcera squirt gun filled with water and a tiny bit (teaspoon) of white vinegar. Why the vinegar my dear? Obvious! It's for a sour-puss. After a squirt of vinegar, I bet they are! Well at least it's not malt I suppose. That'd just be cruel. Oy. I got home about midnight (the hour, about an hour ago now), and Midnight (the cat) walked out of the door... SNIP I had a cat named Midnight about 12-13 years ago. One day he/she (?) just ran away. And since then I've had a slew of pets. But just for some fun, let me list out the names of all the cats that I can remember: -Midnight -Tittles -Mother Cat -Curious -One Eyed Willie -Chauvel -Baby Chauvel -Snowball -Stephen -Blackie -The Grey Mother Cat -The Orange Baby -Frank (little kitten that I rescued/had the cutest blue eyes I've ever seen) -Tickie -The Grey Kitten -The Black Kitten -London -Leo And that's all I remember. And yes, they were all called by those names. -Travis _ Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special stationery, fonts and colors. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security cost of living
Erik Reuter wrote: Which is not the question under discussion, Nick. This is really pathetic. For someone who is otherwise intelligent, you really have a blind spot or some weird defense mechanism against admitting you spoke out of ignorance and were dead wrong. You appear to have resorted to attacking me, rather than the issue, so I'll assume you've run out of reasonable arguments. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Enterprise Cancelled
From: Nick Lidster [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Enterprise Cancelled Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 22:51:40 -0330 - Original Message - From: Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 10:05 PM Subject: Re: Enterprise Cancelled In contrast with the first one, which didn'thave any action, either . . . I dunno why this one gets so much flak. I personally liked it. if your refering to the motion picture... it may have something to do with the supertight jumpers that they wore you see less of a swimmer in a speedo comeon who wants to see shatner in a speedo? Sulu? -Travis _ Take charge with a pop-up guard built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-capage=byoa/premxAPID=1994DI=1034SU=http://hotmail.com/encaHL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security cost of living
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: Which is not the question under discussion, Nick. This is really pathetic. For someone who is otherwise intelligent, you really have a blind spot or some weird defense mechanism against admitting you spoke out of ignorance and were dead wrong. You appear to have resorted to attacking me, rather than the issue, so I'll assume you've run out of reasonable arguments. Assume what you like. Whatever lets you wallow in your blissful ignorance and inability to admit you were wrong.l -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security cost of living
Erik Reuter wrote: Assume what you like. Whatever lets you wallow in your blissful ignorance and inability to admit you were wrong.l What in the world are you suggesting that I admit I'm wrong about? Have you addressed the difference between the CPI-W and the CPI-E or the reason for the existence of the latter? Did you offer any evidence that Social Security benefit increases are keeping up with the *actual* cost of living of its beneficiaries? As far as I can see, you dismissed that as a detail, which to me is a long way from the kind of compassion for the needy that is a foundation of our society. Let's focus on whether or not Social Security today and tomorrow meets their needs. If benefits don't increase as fast as *their* cost of living, we aren't living up to our values, no matter what accounting methods and indexes we choose. When looking at the calculation of the COLAs and the actual benefits to the human beings, isn't a no-brainer that the actual benefits are what matters? We are a society of fairness, compassion and mercy, aren't we? Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 1864 US Union election
Gary Denton wrote: To briefly digress to the original root of theis figuring - the Iraqi voter percentage. According to the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq, 58 percent (or 8.55 million) of the 14.66 million Iraqis registered actually voted on January 30. This figure is substantially lower than voter turnout in the U.S., which in 2004 was approximately 122 million out of the approximately 173.6 million registered voters, or 70 percent. Between 1992 and 2000, the percentage of registered voters who cast ballots in U.S. presidential elections ranged from 66 to 78 percent. The 58 percent Iraq participacation is higher than nearly all US local elections, but this wasn't a local election. Interesting the Kurds have some areas with more voters than population, they seem to be learning fastest what democracy can mean, and the Sunnis had extremely low turnouts, maybe they are too. What percentage of the population eligible to vote did so in Iraq? In the US for the presidential elections in 1992 and later? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security cost of living
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Erik Reuter wrote: Assume what you like. Whatever lets you wallow in your blissful ignorance and inability to admit you were wrong.l What in the world are you suggesting that I admit I'm wrong about? Have Man, you've got it BAD, Nick. Now you are deluding yourself to forget things that Dan and I justed pointed out to you multiple times! Damn that defense mechanism! Go back to wallowing in your ignorance, you're stuck in it, I'm afraid. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security cost of living
On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: We are a society of fairness, compassion and mercy, aren't we? Not lately, no, we're not. We've done a hell of a lot to be ashamed of in the last couple years, and it looks like some nations, such as Iran and Syria, are worried -- justly so -- that we've got a lot more horrible deeds ahead of us. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
Dan Minette wrote: That's true, but the initial benefits are not based on COLA. Wasn't the subject at hand the *increases* in benefits? Are you guys talking about increases in initial benefits only, not COLAs? The Primary Insurance Amounts? Then Erik is right, but in only one sense. Benefits have been increasing in line with the rising standard of living -- that's what the wage index does. It's not as if the current formula results in needy folks enjoying a standard of living that rises faster than anyone else's. Far from it, even ignoring the unfair basis of the COLAs. Tell me, if you're a retiree and you can't afford to enjoy the same increases in standard of living as your neighbors, have your benefits really increased? If you're supporting the switch from wage-based indexing to price-based indexing, then you're advocating freezing retiree's standard of living at the point they retire. It is a plan that says that once you retire, you no longer get to benefit from overall economic growth. Sounds *terribly* fair -- you're no longer contributing, so it's okay to leave you where you are. To simplify this, imagine a society in which butter has been scarce for the entire working lives of those who are now elderly, disabled or otherwise unable to work. A technology breakthrough suddenly makes butter cheap. If butter benefits are tied to prices the way the Bush administration wants to, we'd tell those elderly people that their share of butter is based on the cost of butter *when they stopped working*, so they don't get any more than they did before. That's what it would mean to stop increasing the benefits we're talking about. Now we have a society in which the working people can afford lots of butter, but the neediest can't afford any more than they could when they were working. That won't do -- it is only fair in the greediest sense, and shows no compassion or mercy toward the neediest. I will support a plan that recognizes that there is no such thing as a non-participant, that retirement or disability doesn't mean we forget you helped build the foundation of today's economy. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security cost of living
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Feb 18, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: We are a society of fairness, compassion and mercy, aren't we? Not lately, no, we're not. We've done a hell of a lot to be ashamed of in the last couple years, and it looks like some nations, such as Iran and Syria, are worried -- justly so -- that we've got a lot more horrible deeds ahead of us. Which I believe can only be avoided if we speak our values, steadfastly and often, without buying into language that is based on conflicting values. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Social Security Facts:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:50:00 -0600, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] No, but I would suggest that proposals while there are GOP majorities in the House and Senate and a GOP President will go nowhere. That is likely when something real will happen on the political equation that only Nixon could go to China. Only the Democrats will be able to get the support for a real fix. The last fix, which was bigger than this one needs to be, was with Reagan as president. I think it would be possible for Bush to push through the plan I suggestedespecially if he illustrated that he was putting a high cap on SS. There are also some hidden bias in the example you use. By the time someone will be able to get 90K a year in benefits run through what their income subject to FICA would have to be. (Interesting how increasing this FICA high endcap is also one of the proposals on the table so the GOP doesn't see this as the problem.). Sure, they'd be making a lot of income: roughly two 160k incomes/year. But, that's really the pointas real average wage income rises, so does SS payments. I'm proposing a cap on benefits at roughly 25.25k for a single earner, at roughly 38k for a 1 wage earner couple, and at 50.5k for a two wage earner couple (2005 dollars). This is well above the poverty line. After that, it seems reasonable for people to fund their own retirement. All though this is something that can be pointed to as an example of a system supposedly out of control the real fiscal problems do not come from this maximum wage earners but the low end and the median. It's not so much out of control as needs to be tweaked. In 25 years it would require a massive correction. With my proposal, people now making 30k/year would be maxed out in '45, and folks now making 20k/year would be maxed out around '60. Is there a problem with benefits at the levels I'm suggesting? Dan M. OK, Reagan had bipartisan support - the Democrats will not give Bush bipartisan support because the one time he had it he screwed them. On the No Child Left Behind Act Democrats agreed to his plan because it offered for financial incentives to raise school standards. Three months later his budget chopped off the incentives. He had some but less support on the Medicare Drug bill even though Democrats had always backed this. Most had learned the lesson on NCLB. Sure enough, by the time it was complete it was a huge costly monstrosity with minimal drug benefits but loaded with financial incentives to the GOP constituency - corporations. Corporations receive more of the money from this program than the people on Medicare. Now, would I support lower maximum benefits for Social Security?. I agree in principle, probably not in practice. I also agree that children should be receiving the same kind of program that Social Security has provided for the elderly. They don't because it is a program administered like what you propose to do for Social Security - benefits only to a certain underclass of people. In Texas, where we have the full manifestation of Bush's GOP philosophy, we have the highest number and the highest percentage of children without health insurance and the state refuses to fully fund child health care programs despite most of the cost being picked up by the federal government. So there is a big but here, *But* I am concerned that Social Security has been successful because it had support from all classes except the very rich and was not seen as a welfare program. If you limit it in the way you describe over time there will be more and more support to cut it like all other benefit programs restricted to low incomes have been cut. I am also concerned that you may be misguided as to what a healthy economic society can afford in social benefit programs. There is a big step necessary to fix Social Security permanently, provide a funding mechanism that changes with demographics. That funding mechanism would be funding from an estate tax. Can you think of another one? A less important and not permanently viable solution might be trust funds that are invested in higher rate of return investments. That would be the Clinton solution where as bonds in the trust fund mature they are replaced with common stocks and bond investments. The SSA has recently released a paper that shows if the wage cap on the income subjected to FICA was erased Social Security meets their 75 year viability test. It meets a longer viability test if benefits are not increased for the income over $90,000. Is that an acceptable solution to you? Gary D. This was started early this morning then I had to help my father and stepmother on SocSec and pensions move a new bed. Then I had a call from my nephew Ranger in Mosul who expects to come home in three weeks and see his daughter for the first time. Mosul is bad but better then
Re: the budget
At 06:05 PM 07/02/05 -0800, David Brin wrote: snip * We can't grow our way out of these deficits. As the NY Times analysis notes: Despite strong economic growth and soaring corporate profits last year, federal tax revenues amounted to only 16.3 percent of the total economy, comparable with levels in the 1950's and far below the level of 21 percent reached during the stock market bubble in 2000. Spending is over 20% of GDP and RISING (it went down every year for 8 years under Clinton, to 18% when Bush took office). 20 minus 16 equals A BIG DEFICIT. As Robert Bixby, executive director of the bipartisan Concord Coalition notes, What's unrealistic is that they are trying to fund a government with today's demands on a 1950's stream of revenue. This last point is crucial. The whole basis for giving a trillion dollars to the top 5% in this country was that they would invest it all in ways that generate so much economic growth that new tax revenues will quickly erase the deficit. What a joke. Not really. These people expect the rapture, and that takes care of all the money problems. Of course, they might *get* the techno-rapture, nanotech/AI and the like. Keith Henson PS. I have changed my opinion re upload the lot of them and putting them all in a simulated heaven. It isn't unethical considering what they would do to us otherwise. So go for it. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
William T Goodall wrote: Living costs is one thing, medical care is another. Yes, no? Medicare doesn't cover a lot of medical costs. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
William T Goodall wrote: On 18 Feb 2005, at 11:56 pm, Robert Seeberger wrote: I'm not disagreeing with you and Erik, but I think Nick is also correct. It seems to me that the Cost Of Being Old is rising dramatically, and the main causes are due to the rising health costs that are effecting everyone. We have discussed this a bit in the past. The cost of health care and medicine is rising beyond the ability of our society to pay. Businesses and government are having a hard time affording health insurance for employees. Employees are finding that their insurance covers less and less. I think the real key to reigning in Social Security and Medicare costs is controlling health care costs. It may be that we are coming to a point where we have to decide between economic security for the old, young and infirm, or free market medical and pharmaceutical business practices. I'm not American (thank Dog!) and know nothing about your broken political systems but haven't you just pointed out the fact that Social Security and Medicare are different? So if they are, then bringing Medicare into the argument about Social Security is a big red herring? Living costs is one thing, medical care is another. Yes, no? Sure..but what is happening is that medical and drug coverage is decreasing, and the patient has to bear the balance of what is no longer being covered. I used to not pay for medication at all. Then for a few years I had a 10$ co-pay for pretty much every drug. Now I have a 30$ co-pay and many drugs are not covered at all. I know some older folks who pay a good percentage of their income on medication. If these kinds of problems are not addressed, fixing Social Security will not mean much for many many retirees and quite a few of the rest of us. xponent Herringless Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I don't care to discuss anything further. You call what you were doing discussing? Ha! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
* Robert Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I used to not pay for medication at all. Then for a few years I had a 10$ co-pay for pretty much every drug. Now I have a 30$ co-pay and many drugs are not covered at all. That is a GOOD thing. Small costs that people can pay for should definitely not be picked up by plans. It doesn't make sense to take away the normal free market for lower-priced medical care. It is much better to have medical plans with fairly large deductibles. The plan should be mostly for INSURANCE against very large costs. That way proper incentives are preserved for consumers to be thrifty and careful in their consumption of less expensive medical care. If these kinds of problems are not addressed, fixing Social Security will not mean much for many many retirees and quite a few of the rest of us. How is that a problem? It looks like a step in the right direction to me. The current Medicare all-you-can-eat system is the real problem. When so many things are free, there is much less incentive to be thrifty in one's medical consumption. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Feb 18, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I don't care to discuss anything further. You call what you were doing discussing? Ha! Aren't you overdue for your meds? Isn't that further lowering the level of discourse? I could be wrong, of course, that's just how it looked to me Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
On Feb 18, 2005, at 8:04 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Feb 18, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I don't care to discuss anything further. You call what you were doing discussing? Ha! Aren't you overdue for your meds? Isn't that further lowering the level of discourse? When one is dealing with a child, occasionally the child needs to be spanked. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Feb 18, 2005, at 8:04 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Feb 18, 2005, at 7:38 PM, Erik Reuter wrote: * Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I don't care to discuss anything further. You call what you were doing discussing? Ha! Aren't you overdue for your meds? Isn't that further lowering the level of discourse? When one is dealing with a child, occasionally the child needs to be spanked. *Very* occasionally. And not with a very young child. So far, every situation I've encountered personally, there was a better alternative to spanking. And it's more productive to reward good behavior than to punish bad behavior -- you get the results you're after more quickly, if it's a matter of handling a bad habit. And yes, I guess I've made the banter deteriorate into an actual discussion. My apologies Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
At 01:24 PM 2/18/2005 -0800, you wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Yes, you and I definitely helped build tomorrow's economy. I have no shame in receiving Social Security. But, there is a limit on how much I feel I can ask of my kids to support me in turn. Further, even if I don't have grandchildren, I don't want to pass on a big burden to that generation. What don't seem to be getting and Erik definitely hasn't, is that I have never opposed making changes to Social Security to ensure that we don't burden future generations unfairly. What's fair? It seems to me that fair is for people to take responsibility for their own retirements as best they are possible, and only relying upon the generosity of society when absolutely necessary, and for the bare minimum necessary. Let me put it another way.Retirement is a predictable and forseeable problem.One can reasonably assume that as one advances in years, one will want to continue to consume goods and services, and that one will be either unwilling or unable to work in order to fund that consumption. Thus, isn't the moral thing to do to save in proper amounts to fund one's retirement, rather than leaving that problem to be solved by future generations? JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
On Feb 18, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: *Very* occasionally. And not with a very young child. Really? Huh -- IME, the opposite is true. Corporal punishment is most effective with preverbal (preintellectual) children, because children at that stage of development cannot be reasoned with. A spanking is more effective (seems to me) with a two-year-old than a twelve-year-old. So far, every situation I've encountered personally, there was a better alternative to spanking. Well, sure, but my tranquilizer darts are in storage. :\ And it's more productive to reward good behavior than to punish bad behavior -- you get the results you're after more quickly, if it's a matter of handling a bad habit. If the behavior is about attention-getting, sure; when it's bleating for the sake of making noise, there might be better ways than even duct tape suggests. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Feb 18, 2005, at 8:26 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: *Very* occasionally. And not with a very young child. Really? Huh -- IME, the opposite is true. Corporal punishment is most effective with preverbal (preintellectual) children, because children at that stage of development cannot be reasoned with. A spanking is more effective (seems to me) with a two-year-old than a twelve-year-old. I want to meet this 12-year-old who you can reason with. ;-) I tend to agree with the observation that most spankings are parental temper tantrums. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
JDG wrote: Let me put it another way.Retirement is a predictable and forseeable problem.One can reasonably assume that as one advances in years, one will want to continue to consume goods and services, and that one will be either unwilling or unable to work in order to fund that consumption. Thus, isn't the moral thing to do to save in proper amounts to fund one's retirement, rather than leaving that problem to be solved by future generations? So you put 12.4% of your income (to some limit), your employer matches it and vwala! You've saved for retirement!! -- Doug French, supposedly maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
Doug Pensinger wrote: JDG wrote: Let me put it another way.Retirement is a predictable and forseeable problem.One can reasonably assume that as one advances in years, one will want to continue to consume goods and services, and that one will be either unwilling or unable to work in order to fund that consumption. Thus, isn't the moral thing to do to save in proper amounts to fund one's retirement, rather than leaving that problem to be solved by future generations? So you put 12.4% of your income (to some limit), your employer matches it and vwala! You've saved for retirement!! Actually, you're just putting in 6.2% and your employer is matching it for a total of 12.4% Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: What Social Security (and Its Reform) Say About America
JDG wrote: You mean, presuming that the next election installs a government that restores the benefits? If Congress raised the SS retirement age to 80, I'll flat out garuantee you they'll get throw out on their collective ear. They don't even have the balls to make some of the minor changes we've been talking about. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
Julia wrote: So you put 12.4% of your income (to some limit), your employer matches it and vwala! You've saved for retirement!! Actually, you're just putting in 6.2% and your employer is matching it for a total of 12.4% D'oh! -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
