Medicare For All: Threat Or Menace?

Dec 2015
14,162
13,070
Arizona
#11
Medicare for All WILL HAPPEN. In some form. Sooner or later. After all the fussing and feuding---after all the denials and all the "it won't work" twaddle it will happen because the majority of the American people WANT IT. AND need it.

This country is starting to look ridiculous. This beautiful, wealthy place is starting to look and feel like a Budget Inn, a short drive off the highway to nowhere. Shame on us.
 
Nov 2012
2,460
1,514
Rhondda
#12
It is unbelievable that a country as rich as the USA could go on with a ludicrous third-world health system that costs twice as much as anyone else's and leaves millions uncovered. Obviously private insurance has to MAKE MONEY, so everything costs hugely more, and is inefficient. To pay more just to spite the poor seems astonishingly sick, really it does.
 
Nov 2018
1,890
790
Montana
#13
Yes lets look at the success of that

12% of an employee's income is taken to fund retirement.

a person making 20,000/year will receive 100o/month when they retire. 65-73 is 12 years 144 months

They receive in principle and return of 144,000 dollars

This employee is not a real good employee lets say they worked for 30 years and did not get a raise from their original 20,000 there total investment is 30,000 with a match from the employer of 30,000 (total 60,000 investment)

Now if the SAME FUNDS had been put in an average investment of Stock index funds.

How Would Historical Stock Market Returns Have Impacted You?

average return since 1973-2017 was 11.6% (lets say 12% for ease of calculation)

1988-2017..

12% of 20,000 is 200/month

What would have the employee have if this was properly invested
View attachment 2969


Social security cost the retiree

616,000-144,000 = 472,000 dollars.

This loss does not include the return on the investment that occurs from 65-73

instead of a benefit of 60,000/year the social security benefit is only 24,000/year 1/3rd
NUFF SAID.
Your first error is to assume that the stock market reliably provides 12% return. Show me ANY investment that reliably provides that return over any 3-50 interval, and I will be convinced. Retirement funding is not about betting on a string of horse races, even if over a long interval of 10-20years because the interval when the return is needed may not match what is returned by the investment (12% return can occur after years of return of 2, 4,-5,-10, 20 %). Your exponential growth depends upon consistent and MOST of the growth is in the last 5 years of the projection. Failure of return in just those LAST 5 years will destroy the overall return.
So, as soon as you prove that the retiree can depend upon the stock market, your argument might have legs.

The problem with retirement funding, or any financial plan, it that a monetary system inherently has risks due to currency fluctuation, financial system instability, inflation (and deflation), social instability (insurrection or external threat) and, even, environmental destructive acts. So, when the market risk is added to the inherent risks of any wealth aggregation, there is no way to justify market investment in an individuals retirement account.
 
Likes: catus felis
Nov 2018
1,890
790
Montana
#14
It is unbelievable that a country as rich as the USA could go on with a ludicrous third-world health system that costs twice as much as anyone else's and leaves millions uncovered. Obviously private insurance has to MAKE MONEY, so everything costs hugely more, and is inefficient. To pay more just to spite the poor seems astonishingly sick, really it does.
I will not defend this system, but technically it is not third-world. It is very sophisticated at the top. It is motivated by certain social institutions to be unequal. Essentially health spending is spent on very highly trained specialists, expensive and extraordinary medications and medical equipment, and on a system of motivation that rewards those aspects. In a sense, the US provides the research that the rest of the world cannot afford and once discovered, knock-offs are created cheaply.
So, the problem with the US system is that it rewards medical entrepreneurship, not medical delivery and care. If we gave up rewarding costly solutions to less common problems we could have a more equitable system. Do we want to reduce research on cancer, HIV, genetics, or rare diseases such as Ebola?
That will be a decision for future generations.
 
Likes: iolo
Jul 2014
13,231
8,020
massachusetts
#15
Yes I do. Is reading not fundamental in Massachusetts.

Citizens of Canada sued the government because they were suffering and dying, they sued for the right to purchase US Style Private health insurance so they would not be left to die due to Rationing of the Canadian NHS.

The Canadian Supreme Court ruled in FAVOR of the citizens right to live.
Before Obamacare, there were 800,000 children in Texas, with out access to health care.
There are still millions of Americans who cannot access health care

The Canadians pay half as much as Americans and get twice as much health care.
 
Nov 2018
1,890
790
Montana
#16
This is because we have 20,000,000 PEOPLE that have migrated illegally from 3rd world countries bringing these diseases to this country.

we screen for these illnesses in the US and have ended them, then we have 20,000,000 illegal migrants, in Australia this does not occur because the people carrying these diseases are NOT ALLOWED to immigrate they are turned away..
Look into the measles epidemics in Washington state and on the East coast...
My daughters pediatrician made the observation that the vaccination rate was higher in East Africa than in wealthy parts of LA...
 
Likes: catus felis
Dec 2015
14,162
13,070
Arizona
#17
Let's reiterate and emphasize the cost of prescription meds! Talk about a crisis.
From CNBC: "For at least a decade, a majority of Americans have been dissatisfied with the country's largely for-profit health-care system, according to Gallup. In one poll, 71 percent of respondents said the system is "in a state of crisis" or "has major problems." That's partly because costs are more expensive in the U.S. than elsewhere: Overall, the country spends twice as much as its peers, yet it gets poorer results."

AND don't even bother with the argument that "OH THOSE poor poor pharma companies--sad face--they spend SO MUCH on research and development---they absolutely MUST recoup all those billions and more". Well, guess what? Research and development is only about 17 percent of total spending in most large drug companies. Once a drug has been approved by the FDA there are minimal additional research and development costs so drug companies cannot justify price increases by claiming research and development costs.
WE the people can blame that on the regulatory environment in the U.S. which allows for price increases much higher than in other countries. Americans are SKIPPING doses of their medications because they can't afford them.

When news broke that his company bought the rights to a 62-year-old drug and jacked the price up from $13.50 to $750 a pill, the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals Martin Shkreli became “the most hated man in America.”
The price of insulin doubled between 2012-16. EpiPens? The cost skyrocketed from about $100 a pack to over $600.

I'm all for capitalism, but this is outrageous and it's criminal.
 
Apr 2013
35,420
24,036
Left coast
#18
I will not defend this system, but technically it is not third-world. It is very sophisticated at the top. It is motivated by certain social institutions to be unequal. Essentially health spending is spent on very highly trained specialists, expensive and extraordinary medications and medical equipment, and on a system of motivation that rewards those aspects. In a sense, the US provides the research that the rest of the world cannot afford and once discovered, knock-offs are created cheaply.
So, the problem with the US system is that it rewards medical entrepreneurship, not medical delivery and care. If we gave up rewarding costly solutions to less common problems we could have a more equitable system. Do we want to reduce research on cancer, HIV, genetics, or rare diseases such as Ebola?
That will be a decision for future generations.
You have bought into another myth. The first ebola vaccine in use was developed in Canada. Most pharmaceutical breakthroughs happen at university research labs and is then bought for cheap by BigEvilPharma. BigEvilPharma's constant claims that they need their massive rip-off profit margins to fund drug development is a lie. Many medical breakthroughs have come from many other countries.

I'm not saying the US does nothing, but it is not some pinnacle of achievement.
 
Mar 2013
8,969
9,695
Middle Tennessee
#19
Yes lets look at the success of that

12% of an employee's income is taken to fund retirement.

a person making 20,000/year will receive 100o/month when they retire. 65-73 is 12 years 144 months

They receive in principle and return of 144,000 dollars

This employee is not a real good employee lets say they worked for 30 years and did not get a raise from their original 20,000 there total investment is 30,000 with a match from the employer of 30,000 (total 60,000 investment)

Now if the SAME FUNDS had been put in an average investment of Stock index funds.

How Would Historical Stock Market Returns Have Impacted You?

average return since 1973-2017 was 11.6% (lets say 12% for ease of calculation)

1988-2017..

12% of 20,000 is 200/month

What would have the employee have if this was properly invested
View attachment 2969


Social security cost the retiree

616,000-144,000 = 472,000 dollars.

This loss does not include the return on the investment that occurs from 65-73

instead of a benefit of 60,000/year the social security benefit is only 24,000/year 1/3rd
NUFF SAID.

And you have proven once again that your math and logic are pure fiction. The first problem with your scenario is that the individual DOES NOT PAY 12%. We only pay 6% and our employers match that number. The truth is most people just starting out simply don't have the money to save. When I was young, just married, it took every dime both of us could earn just to put roof over our heads, food on the table and keep gas in the cars so we could even go to work. And I've had weeks where I had to choose between gas and food. Thank god for PB&J and cheap macaroni and cheese. And the rest of story is it has not gotten any easier. Wages have been flat for nearly 3 decades now. It takes all the adults in a house hold working to make ends meet for many people in this country. 50% of working adults make less than $30,000 dollar a year. This is just fact. We've been off shored, downsized and outsourced to the point that many people can't afford the very products and services they provide. So where in the middle of just trying not to starve or freeze to death, are they supposed to find money to invest ??


The second issue is the stock market has NOT averaged anywhere near 12%. It is in truth less than half that. Especially when adjust for inflation. So with half the investment and half the return, SS doesn't seem such a bad bargain after all. You also don't take into account situation like 2008 where the market fell to less than half it's peak. Obama and congress actually passed legislation that allowed retirees to keep their investments in the market until it recovered rather than having to take the required minimum cash payments. So if you're unfortunate enough to retire in a down market year, you're kinda fucked if the government doesn't allow for it.

This is not say the market isn't a good place to build a nest egg. I have certainly done well. But it wasn't automatic and I didn't have the money to invest until I got divorced the second time.
 
Nov 2018
1,890
790
Montana
#20
And you have proven once again that your math and logic are pure fiction. The first problem with your scenario is that the individual DOES NOT PAY 12%. We only pay 6% and our employers match that number. The truth is most people just starting out simply don't have the money to save. When I was young, just married, it took every dime both of us could earn just to put roof over our heads, food on the table and keep gas in the cars so we could even go to work. And I've had weeks where I had to choose between gas and food. Thank god for PB&J and cheap macaroni and cheese. And the rest of story is it has not gotten any easier. Wages have been flat for nearly 3 decades now. It takes all the adults in a house hold working to make ends meet for many people in this country. 50% of working adults make less than $30,000 dollar a year. This is just fact. We've been off shored, downsized and outsourced to the point that many people can't afford the very products and services they provide. So where in the middle of just trying not to starve or freeze to death, are they supposed to find money to invest ??


The second issue is the stock market has NOT averaged anywhere near 12%. It is in truth less than half that. Especially when adjust for inflation. So with half the investment and half the return, SS doesn't seem such a bad bargain after all. You also don't take into account situation like 2008 where the market fell to less than half it's peak. Obama and congress actually passed legislation that allowed retirees to keep their investments in the market until it recovered rather than having to take the required minimum cash payments. So if you're unfortunate enough to retire in a down market year, you're kinda fucked if the government doesn't allow for it.

This is not say the market isn't a good place to build a nest egg. I have certainly done well. But it wasn't automatic and I didn't have the money to invest until I got divorced the second time.
I agree with all that except the twice divorced part.
Also the issue with Social Security that should be mentioned is that the benefits for the retired are paid by the working. It is not a fully beneficiary funded annuity.
 

Similar Discussions