Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-30-2013, 03:38 PM
 
Location: Cape Coral
5,503 posts, read 7,333,723 times
Reputation: 2250

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
Most people who are receive Medicare pull more out of Medicare far exceeding what they paid into it. So they have not strictly speaking paid for all the Medicare costs they incur.
The people that are on medicare and haven't contributed at all, or very little is one reason for the problem with it. We need more people working and paying their fair share, not more people on the gov't dole.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-30-2013, 03:40 PM
 
6,073 posts, read 4,752,027 times
Reputation: 2635
maseman started a thread and got absolutely mutilated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Cape Coral
5,503 posts, read 7,333,723 times
Reputation: 2250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73 View Post
Medicare is not the problem.

America's health care costs are so much more expensive when compared to other nations who manage to insure everyone.

In other words, America's issue is figuring out a way to control health care costs like other nation's already are managing to do.
Other countries just give LESS health care. We have the finest health care in the world. Naturally it costs more. If we would listen to the GOP plan we could cut costs dramatically while still providing the same level of care. That is not what ACA does. A Serious Republican Health-Care Plan - Bloomberg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 03:44 PM
 
34,279 posts, read 19,371,187 times
Reputation: 17261
Quote:
Originally Posted by 60sfemi View Post
Wow, have you gotten that backward. Do you seriously not pay attention to which party favors the wealthy, or are you just trolling!
Uhmmm....both of them seem to. Obama has been great for the rich, just as the presidents before him. Until they tackle that issue theres nothing they can do to stop it, increasingly income and wealth inequality is being accelerated by the simple fact of having it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 03:55 PM
 
Location: Cape Coral
5,503 posts, read 7,333,723 times
Reputation: 2250
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZcardinal402 View Post
My responses are in bold.
One disagreement; Tort reform would cut back on defensive medicine which can be costly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 03:57 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13711
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Uhmmm....both of them seem to. Obama has been great for the rich, just as the presidents before him. Until they tackle that issue theres nothing they can do to stop it, increasingly income and wealth inequality is being accelerated by the simple fact of having it.
How do you propose to equalize the wealth gap when those who are rich go bankrupt from making bad financial decisions and those of modest means amass enough wealth to qualify for the top 1% merely by making wise life, lifestyle, and financial decisions? You do realize the gap isn't all about income or even inherited wealth, don't you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Cape Coral
5,503 posts, read 7,333,723 times
Reputation: 2250
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
None of the computations I've seen have analyzed the exponential growth of what the premium payments would have achieved if invested for those decades instead of just squandered by the government.

Using an investment calculator, I plugged in an unchanging $40,000 annual income with the 1.45% employee Medicare tax amount of $580 per year. After 40 years (age 25-65), if the same static amount were invested over time, the total Medicare tax paid would have been only $23,200 while the accumulated value of an investment after 40 years (average annual return of 7%) would be $123,894.

The invested value would be more than 5 times the amount paid. By even the most generous estimates, the average value of Medicare benefits received is only 3 times that of Medicare tax paid.

So, let's not pretend that Medicare taxpayers aren't losing money on the deal.
The same goes with social security.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 04:07 PM
 
Location: The High Plains
525 posts, read 508,658 times
Reputation: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl View Post
One disagreement; Tort reform would cut back on defensive medicine which can be costly.
???

this was my quote, "I could care less about tort reform. Frivolous lawsuits are bad, but they aren't a major driver...I agree with you here."

I'm not concerned about tort reform...it's shown itself to be fairly minor in the grand scheme of medical spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,629,107 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by rikoshaprl View Post
Other countries just give LESS health care. We have the finest health care in the world. Naturally it costs more. If we would listen to the GOP plan we could cut costs dramatically while still providing the same level of care. That is not what ACA does. A Serious Republican Health-Care Plan - Bloomberg
ACA is a GOP plan. It is a copy of the GOP "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2013, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Cape Coral
5,503 posts, read 7,333,723 times
Reputation: 2250
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Uhmmm....both of them seem to. Obama has been great for the rich, just as the presidents before him. Until they tackle that issue theres nothing they can do to stop it, increasingly income and wealth inequality is being accelerated by the simple fact of having it.
True Obama has been great to the rich, with his FED pumping money into the markets and the bailouts he has continued. Buy the real issue is what he has don to the middle class. "Median annual household income has fallen 4.4% to $52,098 in the four years since the economic recovery began." Obama's four years.
Economy recovers, income doesn't - Economy
And poverty rates have soared from 12.5% when Obama took over to 15% of Americans living in poverty. But the stock market is higher.
Those working full time is at the lowest level in 40 years too.
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:09 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top