U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-02-2019, 04:14 PM
Status: "45 is a Puppet" (set 12 days ago)
 
18,333 posts, read 11,228,427 times
Reputation: 9640

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
That may have been true when Medicare was started in 1965. Back then, most women hadn't worked much, mostly not enough to qualify. They were collecting on their husband's earnings because that's how society was then. Plus, a lot of people hadn't paid into Medicare that long. It had only been 30 years since SS was established, and at first a lot of people weren't included, farmers, etc. But by now, most people have fully paid in and lots of us actually have paid in for close to 50 years, since we were 15 or so. Even in my mom's generation (b. 1921) most women worked at least 10 years.
The article was written in 2013. Plenty of time to include women who have "started" working. All it takes is ten years of contribution to qualify for Medicare. Bottom line is Medicare recipients are extremely heavily subsidized by taxpayers in order to receive those generous medical benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-02-2019, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,137 posts, read 102,944,990 times
Reputation: 33178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
The article was written in 2013. Plenty of time to include women who have "started" working. All it takes is ten years of contribution to qualify for Medicare. Bottom line is Medicare recipients are extremely heavily subsidized by taxpayers in order to receive those generous medical benefits.
I'd like to see their math, which they didn't show.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2019, 04:30 PM
Status: "45 is a Puppet" (set 12 days ago)
 
18,333 posts, read 11,228,427 times
Reputation: 9640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
I'd like to see their math, which they didn't show.
Actually they do show it, the research is found here:

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/...me--Update.PDF

Now the numbers are outlined in various scenarios. Let's look at page six where a generous scenario is outlined:

Two-Earner Couple: High Wage/Average Wage ($71,400/$44,600 in 2012 dollars)

For 2020 Medicare taxes and benefits the following is shown:

Lifetime Medicare benefits: $499,000
Lifetime Medicare taxes: $199,000

I'm excluding the Social Security because that is not part of this discussion and also, Social Security taxes are on average more neutral. Medicare is not neutral. The less one pays, the worse it gets because the benefits are based on averages whereas Social Security is based on contribution. See how that works? Note the average lifetime benefits number does not change, just the contribution. Note that it gets worse in 2030.

On page 5 is a lower income example:

Two-Earner Couple: Average Wage ($44,600 each in 2012 dollars)

For 2020 Medicare taxes and benefits the following is shown:

Lifetime Medicare benefits: $499,000
Lifetime Medicare taxes: $153,000
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2019, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,137 posts, read 102,944,990 times
Reputation: 33178
Have you never heard of investments? Do you think the Medicare money is put into the equivalent of a non-interest bearing account? Hell, no, it isn't. It's invested. Some of that money was paid in 50 years earlier.

You have a history of being very anti-"elderly". Some day, God willing, you'll be there yourself. If you think Medicare is "tax and steal" what do you think of enrolling someone at birth, someone who likely won't work ie pay in for at least another 15 years and then at the very lowest levels for a while?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2019, 04:55 PM
 
8,944 posts, read 3,974,608 times
Reputation: 1739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Have you never heard of investments? Do you think the Medicare money is put into the equivalent of a non-interest bearing account? Hell, no, it isn't. It's invested. Some of that money was paid in 50 years earlier.

You have a history of being very anti-"elderly". Some day, God willing, you'll be there yourself. If you think Medicare is "tax and steal" what do you think of enrolling someone at birth, someone who likely won't work ie pay in for at least another 15 years and then at the very lowest levels for a while?
Maybe you mean the Medicare Trust Fund money.

Smoke and mirrors accounting to comply with our laws and appease the gold std mental paradigm of most people. But truth is the Federal Gov't does not need to save it a currency it can create.

Paid in or not, placed in some accounted for fund, as a score if you will. Unnecessary for it to be actual USD's at the Federal level.

With our modern fiat money system, conceivably no one pays in and we all take out. Of course politically and economically unreasonable at this time. But moving forward with HC, the huge costs will continue to require more new central money creation.

A link a bit far out there, but the gist is inevitable. IMO of course:

https://mythfighter.com/2019/08/01/c...-takes-longer/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2019, 04:56 PM
Status: "45 is a Puppet" (set 12 days ago)
 
18,333 posts, read 11,228,427 times
Reputation: 9640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Have you never heard of investments? Do you think the Medicare money is put into the equivalent of a non-interest bearing account? Hell, no, it isn't. It's invested. Some of that money was paid in 50 years earlier.

You have a history of being very anti-"elderly". Some day, God willing, you'll be there yourself. If you think Medicare is "tax and steal" what do you think of enrolling someone at birth, someone who likely won't work ie pay in for at least another 15 years and then at the very lowest levels for a while?
So when shown the numbers that show that the middle class is already being stolen from by Medicare recipients, say I'm picking on the elderly? The numbers were requested, I showed the numbers. If I'd shown a married couple that made minimum wage and only paid in for ten years, the benefits paid out would still be an average of $499,000 and a contribution of probably less than $20K. That's the thing, the benefits are the same, the contributions are not. The average taxpayer is paying for their own health care, their contribution to their future health care in the form of Medicare taxes AND the health care benefits of seniors they've never even met - not to mention nursing home care via Medicaid which no one contributes to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2019, 05:00 PM
 
11,141 posts, read 6,179,582 times
Reputation: 6124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976 View Post
Wow, you are so superior to me, aren't you? You care about others, and I'm a selfish ***. And when did I say it's all about ME? I am talking about the third of Americans who are on, or soon will be on, Medicare and have paid into all their lives.
I'm four years away from being eligible. I have paid in, too, all my life. I am still concerned about my fellow Americans who remain uninsured. Apparently you feel differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976 View Post
So you want to make sure everyone gets health insurance, eh? I bet you were all going-ho for Obamacare then, weren't you? It sounds so altruistic - "helping" everyone!
I was, yes. It allowed me to have insurance after more than a decade without. I found a potential life-threatening condition that I am now on medication for. If not for the ACA I would have not gone to a doctor for the routine physical that caught it. And expanded Medicaid literally saved my sister's life. I won't apologize for being grateful for those things. Life without health insurance is a scary and risky way to live.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976 View Post
Medicare for all will be a disaster. The ones who will suffer the most are the elderly, who contributed for decades. They will now have their taxes raised to cover what will effectively be MEDICAID for all.
What we have now is a disaster for millions of Americans. The money we give to the useless, greedy middle man insurance company could be paid into Medicare instead. I'd much rather my premiums went to actual health care than to finance a rich old insurance CEO's fifth yacht.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2019, 05:29 PM
 
8,944 posts, read 3,974,608 times
Reputation: 1739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
So when shown the numbers that show that the middle class is already being stolen from by Medicare recipients, say I'm picking on the elderly? The numbers were requested, I showed the numbers. If I'd shown a married couple that made minimum wage and only paid in for ten years, the benefits paid out would still be an average of $499,000 and a contribution of probably less than $20K. That's the thing, the benefits are the same, the contributions are not. The average taxpayer is paying for their own health care, their contribution to their future health care in the form of Medicare taxes AND the health care benefits of seniors they've never even met - not to mention nursing home care via Medicaid which no one contributes to.
A lot of this is a crap shoot and no way can be absolutely fair for all.

For instance, how many years you pay in. Federal taxes of any kind, not just FICA.
How rich you were, are or become over your life time.

And then at age 65 the great equalizer is that about all of us will eventually participate. But of course not all. Some die.

And then there is your health and then HC spending from age 65 onward.
If you are unfortunate, you will be sick and reap great benefits.
If you are fortunate you will stay well and lose out on the money.

No way to equalize out all these variables, uncertainties and unknowns for everyone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2019, 05:37 PM
Status: "45 is a Puppet" (set 12 days ago)
 
18,333 posts, read 11,228,427 times
Reputation: 9640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose View Post
A lot of this is a crap shoot and no way can be absolutely fair for all.

For instance, how many years you pay in. Federal taxes of any kind, not just FICA.
How rich you were, are or become over your life time.

And then at age 65 the great equalizer is that about all of us will eventually participate. But of course not all. Some die.

And then there is your health and then HC spending from age 65 onward.
If you are unfortunate, you will be sick and reap great benefits.
If you are fortunate you will stay well and lose out on the money.

No way to equalize out all these variables, uncertainties and unknowns for everyone.
Absolutely true. Which is why the payout averages don't change but the contributions do. The premise of this thread is that Medicare for All would be stealing from the middle class. But the truth is seniors steal from the middle class already and have been for a long time. Medicaid pays for most nursing home care and no one is directly contributing to that, it is purely funded from taxpayers.

It's kind of shocking that a person can contribute only ten years at minimum wage and qualify for Medicare at 65 but there it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2019, 05:52 PM
 
8,944 posts, read 3,974,608 times
Reputation: 1739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
Absolutely true. Which is why the payout averages don't change but the contributions do. The premise of this thread is that Medicare for All would be stealing from the middle class. But the truth is seniors steal from the middle class already and have been for a long time. Medicaid pays for most nursing home care and no one is directly contributing to that, it is purely funded from taxpayers.

It's kind of shocking that a person can contribute only ten years at minimum wage and qualify for Medicare at 65 but there it is.
With modern fiat we the people or our elected officials will decide on the middle class 'score'. Benefit or detriment. It needs to be our educated and voting middle class that makes this determination. Our money is essentially a public utility and should serve the broad middle class's best interests.

We already care for our poor. The rich care for themselves.

Any expanded national HC program needs to benefit the middle class. We need to create a program and fund that program that improves on the std of living of our middle class.

From what I've seen, heard and read, the largest complaint is due to OOP HC spending. IMO we need to cut that by about 1/3, and give our broader middle class a similar deal as with Medicare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top