The 2024 Presidential Election- The LONG General Election

[Archy1221]

6 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Yep. You probably can't do this on a case by case basis, but some people simple deserve a Social Security retirement more than others. 

Here is where accumulated wealth could play a role.  If one has $XXXX of wealth they qualify for full SS at the lowest age, if someone else has $YYYY of wealth they qualify for SS at age 70, if another person has $ZZZZ wealth then they don’t qualify for SS at all.  Just as an example of how it could possibly be done.  Similar to how we do taxes each year.  Once you get to age 62, you fill out a wealth form for SS qualification.  

[TGHusker]

45 minutes ago, nic said:

I had no idea Manchin was considering a run. Why would he not run as a Democrat? Someone asked what it would take to vote Democrat. He could be it.

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-growing-worried-prospect-joe-manchin-launching-3rd-party-presidential-bid-terrible-idea

 

If it is between Trump (or Trump light  - Desantis) and Biden - I could see Joe running wt a moderate GOPer on the unity ticket.  If it is Biden vs someone else, I think Manchin sticks with the Senate race.  While the Senate race may be difficult test this time around, it is more of sure thing than running 3rd party unless he's running against a criminal and an off the rocker old man.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

I think Democrats and Republicans will have to work together to come up with genuinely working solutions for Social Security, and give each other political cover for the result.

 

It sounds insane in this day and age, but this could be the issue where that actually happens. (Just not during the Presidential campaign)

[Archy1221]

52 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I think Democrats and Republicans will have to work together to come up with genuinely working solutions for Social Security, and give each other political cover for the result.

 

You are correct here.   I feel a tear coming down my cheek 

[JJ Husker]

4 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Respectfully, your comparisons are completely wrong.   No one is asking people to give up insurance and force other people to buy insurance in order to save the private insurance industry (it is/was doing just fine in case you weren’t aware) No one is asking people to not wear masks so others are forced to wear masks and save the mask industry.  
 

What your point about consistently is, who knows

 

In terms of SS (which is what was being discussed) if you ask some people to go without it after paying in for a lifetime, or have others raise their retirement age all because SS could become insolvent in its current form, it’s wholly appropriate to ask the rest of working society to not be complete idiots and contribute to a retirement plan.  The other option would be to put a small percentage of their SS into an index fund and the problem would go away, but our politicians are too stupid for the common sense solution. 

If you missed the very apt comparisons, that’s not a me problem.

 

You proposed requiring (mandating) people to save for their own retirement as a way to unburden soc sec. How would that mandate be any different than requiring people to have health insurance? Both would benefit the person and all other taxpayers as well.

 

Or are you going to tell me you weren’t opposed to the mandate in the ACA as almost all Rs were? That is the consistency issue I broached.

[Archy1221]

2 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

6 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

If you missed the very apt comparisons, that’s not a me problem.

When it’s an awful comparison then it is a you problem.  
 

2 hours ago, JJ Husker said:

 

You proposed requiring (mandating) people to save for their own retirement as a way to unburden soc sec. How would that mandate be any different than requiring people to have health insurance? Both would benefit the person and all other taxpayers as well.

Requiring health insurance doesn’t “unburden” the private health insurance market.  So as you can see, your comparison doesn’t work.  
 

 

[funhusker]

25 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

When it’s an awful comparison then it is a you problem.  
 

Requiring health insurance doesn’t “unburden” the private health insurance market.  So as you can see, your comparison doesn’t work.  
 

 

If hospitals and doctors are required to help people with no insurance and are unable to pay, what do you think they do with prices to make up those losses?

[BigRedBuster]

8 minutes ago, funhusker said:

If hospitals and doctors are required to help people with no insurance and are unable to pay, what do you think they do with prices to make up those losses?

Or, we could just have Medicare for all and don’t worry about it. 

[Archy1221]

32 minutes ago, funhusker said:

If hospitals and doctors are required to help people with no insurance and are unable to pay, what do you think they do with prices to make up those losses?

1) again, the private health insurance market is doing just fine.   Those companies are making a good chunk of change.  They are not in danger of being insolvent.  
2) in my scenario, people are actually given up their rightfully paid in SS payments and asking those that still get SS to invest a certain % of their income (could be as low as 2 or 3%).  In JJ’s non comparison comparison, people are not being asked to pay their insurance premiums but give up all the benefit payments to others.   He’s just saying everyone should be required to buy a product.  
 

3). Hospitals and Doctors ARE NOT required to help people with no insurance, unless it’s an emergency room life saving situation (I believe that may be all the instances). 
 

4) Doctors reimbursement rates are set by CMS and then private insurance sets theirs.  Only cash pay patients would be affected by a hospital raising rates or a doctor raising rates.   They could charge a million dollars for a cataract extraction if they want, but it doesn’t matter cause their reimbursement rate of $600 is already a negotiated amount.  

[funhusker]

2 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

1) again, the private health insurance market is doing just fine.   Those companies are making a good chunk of change.  They are not in danger of being insolvent.  
2) in my scenario, people are actually given up their rightfully paid in SS payments and asking those that still get SS to invest a certain % of their income (could be as low as 2 or 3%).  In JJ’s non comparison comparison, people are not being asked to pay their insurance premiums but give up all the benefit payments to others.   He’s just saying everyone should be required to buy a product.  
 

3). Hospitals and Doctors ARE NOT required to help people with no insurance, unless it’s an emergency room life saving situation (I believe that may be all the instances). 
 

4) Doctors reimbursement rates are set by CMS and then private insurance sets theirs.  Only cash pay patients would be affected by a hospital raising rates or a doctor raising rates.   They could charge a million dollars for a cataract extraction if they want, but it doesn’t matter cause their reimbursement rate of $600 is already a negotiated amount.  

Thanks to the ungodly premiums they charge every month!

 

The ACA was meant to relieve Americans, not the insurance industry.

[Archy1221]

1 minute ago, funhusker said:

Thanks to the ungodly premiums they charge every month!

No doubt 

[JJ Husker]

1 hour ago, Archy1221 said:

When it’s an awful comparison then it is a you problem.  
 

Requiring health insurance doesn’t “unburden” the private health insurance market.  So as you can see, your comparison doesn’t work.  
 

 

Who in the f#&% is concerned about unburdening private health insurance? Now you’re just making s#!t up.

 

You know exactly what I am saying but just can’t bring yourself to admit you’re not being consistent in your approach to two very similar issues.

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

1) again, the private health insurance market is doing just fine.   Those companies are making a good chunk of change.  They are not in danger of being insolvent.  
2) in my scenario, people are actually given up their rightfully paid in SS payments and asking those that still get SS to invest a certain % of their income (could be as low as 2 or 3%).  In JJ’s non comparison comparison, people are not being asked to pay their insurance premiums but give up all the benefit payments to others.   He’s just saying everyone should be required to buy a product.  
 

3). Hospitals and Doctors ARE NOT required to help people with no insurance, unless it’s an emergency room life saving situation (I believe that may be all the instances). 
 

4) Doctors reimbursement rates are set by CMS and then private insurance sets theirs.  Only cash pay patients would be affected by a hospital raising rates or a doctor raising rates.   They could charge a million dollars for a cataract extraction if they want, but it doesn’t matter cause their reimbursement rate of $600 is already a negotiated amount.  

 

there are lots of instances where the insurance industry screws everything up. 
 

We had an employee one time that had to go to cardiac rehab. We were being billed $500 per week. We are self insured up to a certain amount. 
 

At the same time, an old farmer friend was going to cardiac rehab and had no insurance. He was wealthy enough he didn’t carry any. He was getting charged $50 per week because he was uninsured. 
 

Our insurance company at the time didn’t care, they just pass it on to us in premiums. 

[Archy1221]

30 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Who in the f#&% is concerned about unburdening private health insurance? Now you’re just making s#!t up.

 

You know exactly what I am saying but just can’t bring yourself to admit you’re not being consistent in your approach to two very similar issues.

Congrats and welcome to the party.  Now you understand why your comparison was, shall we politely say, not the greatest.  
 

you tried to make the comparison not me.  I just let you know why it doesn’t work.  Don’t shoot the messenger

[Archy1221]

33 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

there are lots of instances where the insurance industry screws everything up. 

Who said any different?