Thread: How will the POTUS healthcare law decision effect manufacturing?

"1: Those who want to be on the single payer system pay the government for the .... well the price of a single payer fee ( actually a tax ) and use the services provided by the single payer system.
2: Those who do not want to be in the single payer system will not pay the tax but will have to live by the same rules we have in place today. That is get their own health insurance and get the same coverage and service they get today.
"

Interesting thought. What happens to the folks who cannot get insurance today, are they guaranteed "their own coverage and service they get today?" Another question is, what if the single payer fee
winds up being less costly than private insurance? This effectively puts private insurance companies out of busines. They won't like that.

One big complication to unravelling this mess is that right now there's a patchwork of systems that serve a variety of segments. Medicare is a functioning single-payer system that works well. The VA
is another single payer. Then you have employed people who get some subsidy to purchase private insurance. Of course there's a large segment that is under or not insured at all. Some very
poor people get medicaid.

The folks who have *something* are terrified that any change will remove their coverage or make it more expensive. Hence you have the "Keep Government Hands Off My Medicare" signs.

This means you don't just have to worry about the providers and the funding. You have to try to convince everyone who's currently getting *something* that it could be better somehow. Not worse.

Your idea of one more choice (government single payer as an option) is good - but doubtful that insurance companies would allow it to happen. Consider how hard they, and the AMA, fought
against the last single payer option - medicare. "The end of doctors as we know them" as ronnie reagan said in the paid ads.

I like the concept of incrimental improvements. The extension of private benefits to dependents up to age 26 is one of those. Insurance companies LOVE the idea of the mandate. It
prevents the inevitable 'death spiral' that they're currently experiencing.

Originally Posted by dp

Ries - I think you misunderstand. You and I are on the sensible side of this. It is others here who have made the claim of the fund. The entire reason for SS in the beginning was for the government to have cheap money. There was never any interest in investing it, nor stashing it for the recipients. A lot of people still think there is a fund full of money the government has set aside for us SS recipients. That was never true.

No, the entire reason for SS in the first place was to give a safety net for the most destitute of old workers, and to pay for it with a TAX, pure and simple.

Originally Posted by willbird

Well the worst part of the whole mess with SS is you have no CHOICE, you are required to purchase an annuity. Even if you know for a fact that you will not live a day past 30 you are STILL required to buy in at the full rate of "tax".

Sort of like the lottery when it had no lump sum option, and the day you dropped dead the money vanished, same deal with SS.

The $250 death benefit is a pathetic joke.

Its not an annuity, its a TAX. It never was called a savings plan of any kind, its not one.
You pay a tax now, you get a benefit later. The amount you get is almost always more than you paid in.

When you pay taxes for fire protection, do you complain if your house doesnt burn down, and you dont get X dollars worth of firemans time?
Same thing. You pay a tax, you get a benefit, but there is no direct relationship between the dollar amounts.
You might pay more gas tax than I do, and yet where I live they have to replace a bridge, and they use your gas tax money.

Life aint fair. Taxes are not directly allocatable to a benefit to the individual taxpayer.
We all pay in, varying amounts. We all take out, varying amounts.

Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke

Are you sure? The USA dropped its credit rating from AAA to AA some time ago. Has it gone back up and I didn't notice?

S&P | Ratings Credit Ratings Definitions & FAQs | Americas

Gordon

Gordon, the short term borrowing rate for the US government is still, basically zero.
So the dropping of the rating from AAA to AA has had no practical effect.

What does the Danish government have to pay as interest on Government bonds?
(Actually, I just checked, and it looks like the Danes are getting a big 1.5% to 2%- still a very low interest rate, but still more than the US has to pay)
Here is a link to todays T bill rates- that is the rate the market is willing to lend the US government money at-
Daily Treasury Bill Rates Data

observe how the 4 week rate is .003%!

Now if you or I try to borrow money, the market prices our loans at between 4% or so, for a 30 year mortgage here, with real estate as collateral, up to 20% or 30% or more for short term unsecured debt.

Contrast my Visa bill, which, if I dont pay it every month, is something like 18%, to .003%.

1 year treasuries are .17%- well below the rate of inflation, which means, in reality, lenders are accepting a NEGATIVE interest rate to lend to the US government. You have to be pretty confident you will be paid back to loan money at a negative interest rate.

Originally Posted by Ries

You have to be pretty confident you will be paid back to loan money at a negative interest rate.

Indeed.

I would describe the condition differently than "pretty confident".

Originally Posted by Ries

Gordon, the short term borrowing rate for the US government is still, basically zero.
So the dropping of the rating from AAA to AA has had no practical effect.

What does the Danish government have to pay as interest on Government bonds?
(Actually, I just checked, and it looks like the Danes are getting a big 1.5% to 2%- still a very low interest rate, but still more than the US has to pay)
Here is a link to todays T bill rates- that is the rate the market is willing to lend the US government money at-
Daily Treasury Bill Rates Data

observe how the 4 week rate is .003%!

Now if you or I try to borrow money, the market prices our loans at between 4% or so, for a 30 year mortgage here, with real estate as collateral, up to 20% or 30% or more for short term unsecured debt.

Contrast my Visa bill, which, if I dont pay it every month, is something like 18%, to .003%.

1 year treasuries are .17%- well below the rate of inflation, which means, in reality, lenders are accepting a NEGATIVE interest rate to lend to the US government. You have to be pretty confident you will be paid back to loan money at a negative interest rate.

I don't think you have a question in there

Interesting thing though. The Danish currency (Crown aka DKK) is tied to the Euro (allowed to swing ±2%) but as it is stronger and more stable than the Euro it's attracts investors. I think they're hoping that it will be revalued to more than it is at present against the Euro € plus of course a slightly better investment than the Euro.

I'm in the happy situation that it's been a long time since I borrowed money from my bank.

Gordon

Nobody prevents anyone from buying real insurance on top of the tax that SS imposes. We have the
two-tier system there as well. Seems to work.

Originally Posted by jim rozen

Interesting thought. What happens to the folks who cannot get insurance today, are they guaranteed "their own coverage and service they get today?" Another question is, what if the single payer fee
winds up being less costly than private insurance? This effectively puts private insurance companies out of busines. They won't like that.

Jim, that's the whole idea.
Those who cannot get insurance today can and will go on the single payer system, just as they are in every other country with a single payer system
As far as the single payer being less costly, then oh well, perhaps that will prove to be the better system. The insurance co's extinction will result and none of us will shed a tear.
At least this way you and I will not have to fight over which is better.
As I've said, I grew up in the single payer, folks and friends still live in it, others work in it in various EU countries.
One thing is for certain, all of those countries with single payer system also still have the option for additional private insurance and there are still private healthcare providers outside of the
reach and requirements of the single payer system.
I wonder why that is?

Some interesting readables here:
Health insurance

Originally Posted by Ries

No, the entire reason for SS in the first place was to give a safety net for the most destitute of old workers, and to pay for it with a TAX, pure and simple.

If that is true then why did they decide to use a Ponzi scheme? They are all doomed to fail.

I think Justice Roberts just got Romney elected. Time will tell. If that's his game then he is one sinister SOB.

its not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a criminal enterprise designed to swindle money from people, with no intention of ever paying off the imaginary returns promised.

When you institute a tax, and then use the income from that tax to support seniors, thats not a Ponzi scheme.

When the income, over the years, was not enough to ensure paying the CURRENT benefits, the income, in the form of taxes, was raised. SS taxes have been raised, and benefits changed, all the time. You have no guarantee, or even, really promise, that you will receive a certain amount, or be taxed at a certain percentage- sure, they send you those letters in the mail, but, legally, congress can change the terms of SS any time- which, of course, is what Paul Ryan is proposing- to lower the benefits. Although I dont agree with the idea, I certainly think its entirely legal for congress to end SS, or to raise the tax to ten percent, or to raise or lower the age of retirement, or change the benefits up or down, or add or drop cost of living benefits. Totally legal, and none of it is intended to rip anybody off.

When benefits have been increased, the tax rate has usually been increased as well.

Is the gas tax a Ponzi scheme, because the tax is used to pay for future road improvements?
Is the sales tax a Ponzi scheme?
Are VA benefits a Ponzi scheme?


The SS TAX has been raised to meet its need many times. Its only recently that there has been the Grover Norquist rule, in which no taxes can be raised.
A sensible SS revision would be to remove the upper income lid- currently at around $108,000, over which you pay no SS tax. This would more evenly match the tax income with the benefits being paid.

What I find most interesting about Robert's findings, is how he finessed his opinion-
For instance, unlike the four liberals on the court, Roberts did NOT find the mandate constitutional under the Commerce Clause.
Instead, he came up with some circuitious reasoning where he claims that the mandate is actually a tax, and taxes are legal.

In addition, they invented a new, and quite bizarre, constitutional right- the right of States to get all money from the FEDs for health care.

In Obamacare, the ACA was written so that if a State did not set up a health insurance exchange, they would lose their Medicaid funds.
This type of carrot and stick reasoning has been used by the Feds on the States for many years, and no Supreme Court has ever had a problem with it- for instance, in the 70's, the Feds said if you dont raise your drinking age to 21, you wont get federal highway funds.

Under the newly invented "Roberts Right", which he found in the constitution, this would be illegal now- because this supreme court decision seems to say that once a State gets Federal money for a program, they have a right to keep getting that money forever.

Weird, if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Ries

its not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a criminal enterprise designed to swindle money from people, with no intention of ever paying off the imaginary returns promised.

A Ponzi scheme is a simple mathematical method. Ignoring intent, which has nothing to do with the math, there is no important difference between anything Ponzi did and SS. In order to cloak the pure math relationship between Ponzi's method and common government programs it has become PC to say a Ponzi scheme has to include intent to defraud. BS. My take is any time you use Ponzi's method you are by default intending to defraud.

you are then saying that any time the government announces a program that will include expenditure, and then taxes to pay for it, its a Ponzi scheme?

for instance, the government has announced it will pay VA health care benefits and college tuition- but it doesnt have all the cash right now, so it taxes people today, to pay for VA benefits today. And then, when future VA benefits are payable, in future years, it will take tax revenue from THAT year, and use it to pay benefits then.

Which is exactly what its doing with SS- its paying benefits to current retirees with the taxes it takes in this year, and will pay future retirees with the taxes it takes in in the future.

In addition, it has been taking in MORE money than it needs this year, and, yes, parking it in Treasuries. In anticipation of more people retiring.

But the fact remains- current taxpayers are paying for current bills. That is not a Ponzi scheme.
Nobody gets SS benefits, for example, if they die. Unlike a Ponzi scheme, where, theoretically, you pay in now, and get money back, with interest, later.
SS is not a savings plan, its not an investment, and its not a case of you paying now to get money back later.
You are paying taxes now.
Period.
You might die, or congress might change the law, and you have NO guarantee that you will get any SS.
No promises, no savings, no interest on your money.

Its a tax, pure and simple.

And the tax is totally disconnected from the benefit payments.

Some people pay far MORE taxes than they ever see in benefits, because the two are not connected.
Some people pay far LESS taxes than they ever see in benefits, because the two are not connected.

Its not your money any more, after you pay it in in taxes.
It becomes the government money, in the SS dept, and they take THEIR money, and pay it to whomever they think is qualified for benefits this year.

No relation to a Ponzi scheme.

Originally Posted by dp

I think Justice Roberts just got Romney elected. Time will tell. If that's his game then he is one sinister SOB.

You are wrong this has just gave Mittens a huge black eye!! He came up with this affordable health care act over six years ago!! It is working very well here in Mass!!!

Gov. Deval Patrick : Mitt Romney shift ?extraordinary? - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com

Originally Posted by Ries

you are then saying that any time the government announces a program that will include expenditure, and then taxes to pay for it, its a Ponzi scheme?

It is also incorrect to presume that every government program is a Ponzi. I make no such assumption or claim. You have to examine the workings of the program to make that determination. A clue is, the value of the method depends on ever increasing numbers of payers. Didn't work for Ponzi, didn't work for Madoff, and is not working for SS. Were it not for immigration SS would be well behind the 8-ball.

Pay attention to how this is different than people pooling their money in investments which actually grow the pool of money. There is risk in investment but it can be managed. There is no risk in a Ponzi because the outcome is known from the beginning to be a total loss of contributions for those in the end game of the method. The draw is not everyone in a Ponzi loses their ass. Those that get in and get out early do well. That usually includes those that start the scheme in the first place.

Unlike Ponzi and Madoff, when SS fails the government, not being subject to jail time, will have to default or find another way to overcome the inevitable.

Like the WOPR says - the only way to win is to not play the game.

JoeE,

You first. As you might have read in that post, I lost my reply, had to start over with Wordpad, and the formatting sucks. I backspace, because the paragraphs are triple spaced. I backspace, when I copy/paste to the Reply form, it is almost all one paragraph. I always Do specify whom I am speaking to and quoting, you should look at that, again.

DP,

"Quote Originally Posted by Ries View Post
No, the entire reason for SS in the first place was to give a safety net for the most destitute of old workers, and to pay for it with a TAX, pure and simple.
If that is true then why did they decide to use a Ponzi scheme? They are all doomed to fail. "

Why do you insist on calling it a Ponzi Scheme? In a Ponzi, somebody, Ponzi, is defrauding investors, paying them ever increasing returns, with no actual increase in Value of the supposed Asset. That is not the case with SS, nor, and I think it is you who call it an "Annuity", it is most definitively NOT an Annuity. An Annuity, by definition, is, YOU give an Insurer a lot of money, today, they take some number drawn from thin air, assume that the rate of interest over the life of the "Scheme", and "Guarantee" you a GIVEN return 50 years in the future. FIXED, for the rest of your life, NEVER goes up!

SS has paid COLA according to 3rd quarter Inflation for the past few years, I think it USED to be for the entire year. 2 years, I think, I got no raise, evidently there was no inflation in those 3 months of those years. Annuity is more like a typical Pension Plan, what you get when you retire is what you will get for the rest of your natural lfe. When you die, it ends, unless there is an option, and I don't know if there is, I have not sold Insurance for 40 years or more, to allow a smaller payment to survivors.

Willbird,

"Sort of like the lottery when it had no lump sum option, and the day you dropped dead the money vanished, same deal with SS."

From Day One, MY Lottery, at least, had Million Dollar Winners who had a guaranteed 20 year payout of 50K per year. You could die the day after, it would still pay to your Estate, every year.

SS will pay for your spouse, when she hits, I think it is still 60, and any minor children, up to age of 18.

If you made over the max for taxation, I think five of the last 10 years, you can get the max benefit, 2513 bucks, over 30 thou per year. I did till about the mid 70's, but that was easy. I made way less in later years, still, I think it took maybe 2 years to get all my taxes back in checks.

Seymour,

"One thing is for certain, all of those countries with single payer system also still have the option for additional private insurance and there are still private healthcare providers outside of the
reach and requirements of the single payer system.
I wonder why that is?"

There is also the option, here, for private, if you want to call it that, Insurance. Most of us HAVE that, either though our employes, or, self employed, you buy it yourself. This bill means nothing to any who HAVE Insurance, though it is possible that employers may drop Insurance Coverage.

You should go to factcheck.org, I believe they have read all 2700, not 2000, pages OF the Health Bill, and they debunk LOTS of what you have heard from Limbaugh and the Orange Guy.

It IS the Law of the LAND, now, USSC says so, and I am very surprised. I think a lot was about the BS that they pulled from Bush v. Gore, 2000, thru Citizens United. They were afraid to look like they WERE all that Partisan. They ARE, but it was Roberts, and everybody thought it would be Stevens who was the tie breaker.

I THINK you will all be happy with what eventually comes of this. It is going to be all political, for a while. IF it gives better and cheaper Health Care, we are going to ask what the hell were we arguing about?

I think it shoots down Romney. His plan was the basis Of Obamacare and the Reps LOVE Obamacare under any other name.

Ries,

"You have no guarantee, or even, really promise, that you will receive a certain amount, or be taxed at a certain percentage."

The only "Guarantee" is written in the original Law. Benefit can never fall. They may not RISE, but in deflationary times, never can they fall.

"I certainly think its entirely legal for congress to end SS."

i do NOT think it is "entirely legal", for the Gov to end SS. It IS a LAW, though enacted 77 years ago. Roosevelt said "That'll hold the Bastards, they'll never undo that Law." He, supposedly crossed every T, dotted every I. As iron tight a Law as could be written, BUT, we have sharper, and more, Lawyers, hired by people who want to make you work till you die, as employers did, until the LAW was instituted.

DP,

"My take is any time you use Ponzi's method you are by default intending to defraud.

I would posit that SS does NOT use Ponzi methods. You might use your argument for insurance, in general. I would use my Homeowner's Ins. I pay 600 or so per year, I have a home of about 200 thou value. Do I suffer a loss, they pay.

I pay 40 bucks, in 1958 in SS, and , Lo and Behold, rising taxes all along, I wind up getting WAY more than I ever paid in. And that the USG says that the "Surplus", actual "Ledger Entries", that is ALL that Banking IS, anymore, is 2.7 TRILLION Bucks. LARGEST holder OF The US National Debt. All others are agglomerates of many Mutuals, the Fed, China, ONE TRILLION, Japan, ONE TRILLION.

I think you are old enough to BE on SS. You had a hip replacement, and I hope that is still going well, and I would advise you to keep up with the therapy. Without, as mentioned elsewhere, you can hurt for a long time.

IF you ARE on Medicare, and getting basically free Health Care, are you just jacking us off, to show HOW Republican you are, or are you just pulling a John Welden? Or are you actually just that dumb?

Manana,

George

Originally Posted by GP15-1

You are wrong this has just gave Mittens a huge black eye!! He came up with this affordable health care act over six years ago!! It is working very well here in Mass!!!

At this point Hitler could win this election provided he's against Obamacare. What works in a leftist state is not necessarily what will work in a non-leftist state. But in any event, state control of this is more appropriate than federal control. It puts the entirety of the program in the voter's local government where it can be better fitted to local needs. Washington state is an odd one. We're split down the middle along the crestline of the Cascade mountains - liberal on the left side, conservative on the right. The larger population is on the left side, and the right side is endlessly miserable as a result. City folk vs rural, a classic tale. You could be considered ignorant beyond belief for thinking what is good for Mass is close to being acceptable in Wyoming or Utah, or any other red state.

Never the less, I stand by my guess that this decision was deliberate and intended to energize the right wing voters. And I think this is, if true, a black eye for, and duplicitous of Justice Roberts. This is not how to win the moral high ground or elections.

I would prefer you are correct than me.

DP,

"There is risk in investment but it can be managed. " IF you could manage YOUR risk in Investment, you would not be here, you would be in Tahiti or somewhere. ie, YOU don't know how to make money every time. Nor does anybody else, else we would have lots more rich people than we do.

I invest. I make a "bet", basically what it is, and I win or I lose. I am not going to go broke with a thou here and there. I can't lose LOTS of them and be solvent.

You cannot manage risk, anymore than the guys who lost BILLIONS of dollars for Bank of England of and Goldman.

If you think you are an exceptional Investor, again, I say, you would spend LOTS more time on Investment Forums than here. Dart board with the Stock Charts is better than you choosing. Kinda like a "Random Walk Down Wallstreet".

George

Originally Posted by gmatov

DP,

"Quote Originally Posted by Ries View Post
No, the entire reason for SS in the first place was to give a safety net for the most destitute of old workers, and to pay for it with a TAX, pure and simple.
If that is true then why did they decide to use a Ponzi scheme? They are all doomed to fail. "

Why do you insist on calling it a Ponzi Scheme?

As I have explained, a Ponzi is a method whereby the "treasure" grows entirely by increasing the size of the number of participants that are paying in. There is no investment, no cost recovery, no wealth being created from contributions. All the while the promises of payback at a greater amount than paid in is made, and for a while it is even possible to do. At some point the costs exceed the income and the whole thing comes crashing down. That is what SS is. Exactly.

In a Ponzi, somebody, Ponzi, is defrauding investors, paying them ever increasing returns, with no actual increase in Value of the supposed Asset.

Get past the intent. It is a method, pure and simple. The method Ponzi and SS use is identical.

DP,

"My take is any time you use Ponzi's method you are by default intending to defraud.

I would posit that SS does NOT use Ponzi methods. You might use your argument for insurance, in general. I would use my Homeowner's Ins. I pay 600 or so per year, I have a home of about 200 thou value. Do I suffer a loss, they pay.

They are going broke, George - the end is 8 years away. More being paid out than is coming in. The inevitable death of a Ponzi.

I think you are old enough to BE on SS. You had a hip replacement, and I hope that is still going well, and I would advise you to keep up with the therapy. Without, as mentioned elsewhere, you can hurt for a long time.

IF you ARE on Medicare, and getting basically free Health Care, are you just jacking us off, to show HOW Republican you are, or are you just pulling a John Welden? Or are you actually just that dumb?

I am now on Medicare and have recently signed up for Part B and Medigap coverage which starts July 1. It is far from being free. Medicare is also going down in flames and for the same reason - it is another Ponzi (part of the SS Ponzi, actually). The doctor that replaced my hip under my personal insurance has said he would not likely have taken me as a Medicare patient. That's something to think about.

My hip replacement was paid for by my insurance before I retired (my last working day is tomorrow). I'm doing very well - better than typical, in fact. My PT is sending me home because I'm essentially back to normal after just 5 weeks. I have sciatica worse than before, but I have had that for years. I think my stenosis was worsened by the contortions they put your leg through while replacing the parts.

I've been taking long walks, exercising hard, and just bought a stationary bike to increase my workload. Once in a while I'll get a muscle spasm and take a Tylenol, but otherwise I'm off all pain meds. I can climb several flights of stairs in a natural diagonal stride, and while I still carry a cane around it is not needed except for maintaining precautions about keeping the affected hip at less than 90º angle to the spine, and that is usually only when getting up off a non-handicap toilet