This is the Government that You Want to Run Health-care?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

So, if you "invest" in Social Security and are promised (or receive) much more than you put in, it's a Ponzi scheme.

But if you get out less or nothing (i.e., you die before age 67), then it's not a Ponzi scheme.

Oh, yeah, I understand you now.

Oh noes, the strawmen!

Where the hell did I say that?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Oh noes, the strawmen!

Where the hell did I say that?

What are you saying?

How is it not a Pozi?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

What are you saying?

How is it not a Pozi?

To repeat:

But there are numerous differences. In SS people know how the system works. There aren't really high returns immediately. The number of investors doesn't have to increase at such a huge rate or else it will collapse.

Have you bothered reading the list I posted earlier as well?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

To repeat:



Have you bothered reading the list I posted earlier as well?

You have not repeated anything. You have posted anonymous quotes stating that it is not.

Please explain in your words how it is not. Quoting someone else stating that it is not means nothing. It's not even an appeal to authority.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You have not repeated anything. You have posted anonymous quotes stating that it is not.

Please explain in your words how it is not. Quoting someone else stating that it is not means nothing. It's not even an appeal to authority.

Those were my own words from my post!

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Those were my own words from my post!

You got me there. These are your words:

"But there are numerous differences. In SS people know how the system works. There aren't really high returns immediately. The number of investors doesn't have to increase at such a huge rate or else it will collapse."

Let us take these differences one by one.

1. People do not know how the system will work. It changes.

2. There were fantastic returns for the initial recipients.

3. The number of dollars has increased at a huge rate or else it would have collapsed.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You got me there. These are your words:

"But there are numerous differences. In SS people know how the system works. There aren't really high returns immediately. The number of investors doesn't have to increase at such a huge rate or else it will collapse."

Let us take these differences one by one.

1. People do not know how the system will work. It changes.

People know what they are paying into. People know that the money they are putting in goes to the people on SS now (And if you want to say "Well so and so didn't know" don't bother, the info is freely out there). In a Ponzi scheme this isn't the case.

2. There were fantastic returns for the initial recipients.

What does that have to do with anything? Or are you admitting that there were only fantastic returns for the very initial recipients, but not for people after? Which would make it not a Ponzi, in which new members get uber-high returns right away up until the system collapses.

3. The number of dollars has increased at a huge rate or else it would have collapsed.

Yes, population, inflation, and other variables have to be accounted for. Of course the number of dollars would have increased. And the rate isn't that huge compared to the rate that the investors in a Ponzi system have to increase. And the fact that SS has a relatively stable number of "investors" is evidence that it isn't a Ponzi scheme.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

People know what they are paying into. People know that the money they are putting in goes to the people on SS now (And if you want to say "Well so and so didn't know" don't bother, the info is freely out there). In a Ponzi scheme this isn't the case.

You seem to think that SS knowledge is in the vacuum of today.

What does that have to do with anything? Or are you admitting that there were only fantastic returns for the very initial recipients, but not for people after? Which would make it not a Ponzi, in which new members get uber-high returns right away up until the system collapses.

This is what makes it worse than a traditional Ponzi. The vast majority receive less than they put in.

Yes, population, inflation, and other variables have to be accounted for. Of course the number of dollars would have increased. And the rate isn't that huge compared to the rate that the investors in a Ponzi system have to increase. And the fact that SS has a relatively stable number of "investors" is evidence that it isn't a Ponzi scheme.

The percentage of income taxed has increased dramatically. This fact invalidates the other factors you have presented.

 

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Why do you keep attempting to compare a government system to another government system?

I am arguing against government systems.

Sorry, I thought hoped you shared the assumption that even poor people should get healthcare.

Are you actually arguing that poor people shouldn't get any healthcare (except, possibly from charities)? Or are you arguing that they should, but that they should magically fund it from their (by definition) insufficient funds? Or are you arguing something else?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Are you actually arguing that poor people shouldn't get any healthcare (except, possibly from charities)? Or are you arguing that they should, but that they should magically fund it from their (by definition) insufficient funds? Or are you arguing something else?

I am arguing that if the system was not government controlled than health-care would be affordable for the poor.

 

[jimbob]

I am arguing that if the system was not government controlled than health-care would be affordable for the poor.

How, and why?


How can someone on 6USD/hour afford a consultation with a professional at say 100USD/hour, then say an MRI scan on a machine that cost 2million USD, which has to be depreciated ofver five years, plus the fees of the technical support staff, and maintenence, plus any cost of drugs, especially if their job does not allow them any sick pay.

How does a person with a chronic medical condition get an insurer to take them on? With no regulation, an insurer isn't going to touch a money sink.

Insurers have to make a profit. This means that on average the income from insurance has to cover both the expected medical costs plus the insurer's costs plus the insurer's profits. This means insurers are betting, that on average, that they will receive more money in from their clients than they will pay out in claims.

If someone has a chronic medical condition, or even a genetic predisposition to such a condition, the expected fees to cover this are going to be very large. How can any deregulation of the market allow a poor person pay this?

 

[jimbob]

I am arguing that if the system was not government controlled than health-care would be affordable for the poor.

So, how exactly would deregulation reduce the costs in the cases below:

What is the capital cost of an MRI scanner?

What is the capital cost of an intensive care unit?

What is the capital cost of a large general hospital?

How much does it cost to run? How many employees are needed?

How can you not have a large bureaucracy?

Now, given that some medical care is expensive, only large insurers would be able to have the financial security to cover many expenses.

If you need large insurers, how do you avoid a large organisation and a large bureaucracy?

Or was quixotecoyote's answer correct?

 

[balrog666]

To repeat:

But there are numerous differences. In SS people know how the system works. There aren't really high returns immediately. The number of investors doesn't have to increase at such a huge rate or else it will collapse.

Social Security doesn't have "investors", it has captives. The last opt out period ended 25 years ago and isn't coming back.

Social Security has been a pyramid scheme from the beginning. Those who paid in first received money from those who paid in second — and so on, generation after generation. This was great so long as the small generation when Social Security began was being supported by larger generations resulting from the baby boom.

But, like all pyramid schemes, the whole thing is in big trouble once the pyramid stops growing. When the baby boomers retire, that will be the moment of truth — or of more artful lies. Just like Enron.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You seem to think that SS knowledge is in the vacuum of today.

Qua?

This is what makes it worse than a traditional Ponzi. The vast majority receive less than they put in.

Evidence? And what does it matter? SS isn't meant to be an investment system, that's why I've been putting "invest" in quotes when comparing it to a Ponzi. One could look at it from the perspective of it being an insurance (Though that doesn't fit it completely). But it isn't a Ponzi scheme.

The percentage of income taxed has increased dramatically. This fact invalidates the other factors you have presented.

Evidence? And I don't see why that would "invalidate" population and inflation being the reason for it costing more.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Social Security doesn't have "investors", it has captives. The last opt out period ended 25 years ago and isn't coming back.

Ugh, now they are tossing in "pyramid scheme", which is an even worse comparison than Ponzi scheme.

And the SS system can undergo some simple reforms to keep it soluble for when the baby boomers retire.

And lol at the captives label .

 

[WildCat]

401k programs cover disability, survivorship, etc?

Since when is a 401(k) "private insurance"?

Way to ignore the rest of what I posted.

I said that the current members dues going to the older members returns was the only way they were similar.

And that's the essence of a Ponzi scheme, isn't it?

And I am not saying that changes won't have to be made to adapt to other variables like changing demographics. However, these changes won't involve an exponential expantion of people paying into the system.

Now you're catching on! Fewer people paying into the system while more people are collecting money out of the system. I suppose if you define a pyramid scheme in just the right way SS won't qualify...

I really wish you'd explain to me how this system can be considered worthwhile, since it certainly won't be able to fulfill it's original purpose.

 

[WildCat]

And the SS system can undergo some simple reforms to keep it soluble for when the baby boomers retire.

Explain what you think these reforms will entail. Even higher SS witholdings? Lower benefits? Means testing of benefits? A combination of the above?

 

[balrog666]

Explain what you think these reforms will entail. Even higher SS witholdings? Lower benefits? Means testing of benefits? A combination of the above?

To socialists, higher taxes solve everything wrong with the world.


But I guess we just haven't taxed enough to actually solve anything yet to demonstrate that.

 

[quixotecoyote]

To socialists, higher taxes solve everything wrong with the world.


But I guess we just haven't taxed enough to actually solve anything yet to demonstrate that.

Ohh is the new text generator out already?

Lemme check....

Yep!

"To [group I don't like], [gross generalization of their position] solve everything wrong with the world.

But I guess we just haven't [past tense of gross generalization] enough to actually solve anything yet to demonstrate that.
"


Let's test it!

"To libertarians, reducing regulations solve everything wrong with the world.

But I guess we just haven't reduced regulations enough to actually solve anything yet to demonstrate that.

"

"To anarchists, destroying governments solve everything wrong with the world.

But I guess we just haven't reduced destroyed governments enough to actually solve anything yet to demonstrate that.

"

"To Christians, enacting Christian governments solve everything wrong with the world.

But I guess we just haven't enacted Christian governments enough to actually solve anything yet to demonstrate that.

"

"To skeptics, demanding evidence will solve everything wrong with the world.

But I guess we just haven't demanded evidence enough to actually solve anything yet to demonstrate that.

"


Beautiful!

 

[skeptical]

Rights are not given by the Constitutions, the Constitutions were created to guarantee the natural rights which inherently exist in the individual.

That is a moral argument, not a legal one. From a legal standpoint, you have only those rights that society agrees you have and is willing to defend for you.