ACA already at work for me and my family

[BHM]

Originally Posted by dtc

Are you guys trying to tell me that three times per week is a lot?

Did any of you ever go to college?

You are claiming 3 times a week while married. Maybe the first year but after that, BS.

[BHM]

Originally Posted by dtc

I've only explained to you a couple of dozen times that I despise the eitc and think everyone should pay something even if it's only a dollar. The notion that you get a tax credit greater than the taxes paid is offensive and if we're going to give welfare, let's call it welfare.

Everyone should have skin in the game. Those who make more can afford more, but that doesn't excuse anyone except the totally incapacitated from paying something.

Having those on Medicaid pay a fee for ER visits would reduce our healthcare cost drastically. Unless it is a life threatening issue, have 25 or 50 bucks cash in hand or go see your doctor in the morning.

[Pleading the Fif]

Originally Posted by Legion of Dome

When we became pregnant with my first born son, I had to drive my wife to her home state of Michigan to see a doctor in 2006.

We were contract workers at Ft. Knox Military Base with no health insurance when we became pregnant. The jubilation settled and we realized that we would need to see a doctor relatively soon. We began researching doctors in the area and making calls to figure out our insurance situation. Like many other experiences in our lives, we had no idea what we were getting into. I thought "this is America, we can see a doctor, no problem."

So, after calling 6 or 8 insurance providers, we realized that being pregnant is a "preexisting condition" and that a pregnant woman had no shot at securing health insurance. Ok, fine, we don't have health insurance so we'll just pay cash. Good luck. We began calling some of the doctors we had researched and the first question from the receptionist was 'who is your insurance provider?' The second question was ' what is your Medicaid number?' We had neither. Most doctors would not see pregnant patients without insurance or Medicaid. We found a couple that would be willing to see us. The costs began with a ~$2,000 charge to make the first appointment that would not be credited to future visits. The fees for basic services were escalated well above the normal rates because we were high risk with no insurance or Medicaid.

Next step, let's try public assistance. We made a trip to the local public healthcare office in Elizabethtown, KY. We were turned down for Medicaid or ANY other public assistance because we had jobs. The day I left that office with my pregnant wife and nowhere else to turn was possibly the lowest day in my life.

The only way we could see a doctor was to drive to Michigan to visit her doctor that she had been seeing since she was a kid. That doctor did not ask to see our insurance information; otherwise, I don't know what we could have done.

She eventually quit working when we moved to Mississippi and then qualified for Medicaid, which paid for the surgery to have our son. We would have preferred to have insurance and pay for it ourselves, but we had no other options.

I'm posting this story to share how the ACA is already at work for my young family. We received a check this weekend for $778 because the insurance provider for me and my boys (my wife has to be on another policy because of a "preexisting"; that's another story) spent only 57% of a total of $22 million in premiums last year on health care and activities to improve health care quality.

I worked in Louisville, KY at the University Hospital (I actually lived less than 20 minutes up I-65 from Elizabethtown). I know for certain that you and your wife could have received prenatal care through the University system at very little or no cost. The vast majority of people we would see were for indigent care.

[wcklink]

Originally Posted by gwballin

No, this is not how employment taxes work. Taxes are collected now from people working now to pay benefits to people that now qualify.

When (or should I say if) you and I qualify for benefits it will be paid for by collecting taxes on the individuals that are working then.

Social Security is not some bank account that the government put your money into for your use in the future. When Bush was in office he suggested changing it to such a system but it didn't go far.

What you described is the textbook definition of a Ponzi scheme, paying current investors with new investors money. Illegal if you and I run it, ask Bernie Madoff. Apparently fine if you're the federal government.

[Sarcastic]

Originally Posted by wcklink

What you described is the textbook definition of a Ponzi scheme, paying current investors with new investors money. Illegal if you and I run it, ask Bernie Madoff. Apparently fine if you're the federal government.

You don't understand Ponzi schemes.

If you go to the bank, and deposit 100 bucks, do they keep that exact hundred bucks for me when I return? No? You mean to say, the guy behind me who deposited 100 bucks a year ago, and now needs to use it, will be paid the same 100 bucks I just deposited?

PONZI SCHEME!!!!!!!

This is why we can't have a democratic economy.

[wcklink]

Originally Posted by Sarcastic

You don't understand Ponzi schemes.

If you go to the bank, and deposit 100 bucks, do they keep that exact hundred bucks for me when I return? No? You mean to say, the guy behind me who deposited 100 bucks a year ago, and now needs to use it, will be paid the same 100 bucks I just deposited?

PONZI SCHEME!!!!!!!

One of us doesn't.

[Sarcastic]

Ok. Are all banks ponzi schemes?

[wcklink]

Originally Posted by Sarcastic

Ok. Are all banks ponzi schemes?

Banks returning your deposit the identical bills you deposited has nothing to do with investments and a Ponzi scheme, SS is. Here is the definition of a Ponzi scheme, it almost perfectly describes SS.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. Perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to keep the scheme going.

But I think you knew that.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by wcklink

Banks returning your deposit the identical bills you deposited has nothing to do with investments and a Ponzi scheme, SS is. Here is the definition of a Ponzi scheme, it almost perfectly describes SS.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. Perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to keep the scheme going.

But I think you knew that.

Since you guys on the right correctly assert that when viewed as an investment, SS pays a diminutive return in most years, why would you now flip flop and assert that it attracts investors based on promises of higher returns than other available options?

Don't bother. I know the answer.

[wcklink]

Originally Posted by dtc

Since you guys on the right correctly assert that when viewed as an investment, SS pays a diminutive return in most years, why would you now flip flop and assert that it attracts investors based on promises of higher returns than other available options?

Don't bother. I know the answer.

Of course you do. I'm continually amazed by you guys on the left deliberately acting like you don't understand. In the private sector, it's higher returns, in SS case it is forced investment. The real basis, and the illegality, of the Ponzi scheme is that money is never invested and old investors, those retired now, are getting a direct transfer from new investors, the currently employed. There is no money, no trust fund, just a bunch of IOU's and the requirement of the payroll tax deduction from the working to make the whole thing work. It's just like the movie Dumb and Dumber, after they spent all the money and left IOU's in the briefcase that they could never pay back. That's what our government has done. If they weren't collecting payroll tax to pay those collecting SS today they would be forced to borrow that money. Bernie Madoff went to jail for it, our government just chugs along running a criminal enterprise.

[dtc]

This post is completely incorrect.
Either intentionally or not.

[wcklink]

Originally Posted by dtc

This post is completely incorrect.
Either intentionally or not.

Really? What part. Do you dispute Madoff ran a Ponzi scheme? Do you dispute the government is paying retirees with the direct transfer of payroll tax from workers. Perhaps it's "never invested" thing. Somehow I think we know that the treasuries the SS fund is required to invest in are IOU's based on 15T in debt that I believe you stated in an earlier post was never going to be repaid. So please unleash that big brain of yours and tell me what was "completely incorrect" in my post.

I mean you're the guy that just a couple of days ago claimed that Bain took 401k and SEP/IRA accounts from the companies they acquired, so I think you may have missed the day they taught retirement plans in the various and sundry universities you attended.

[Beast]

How did a thread about Obamacare turn into Social Security is not really a Ponzi scheme?

[JonsDuu]

Originally Posted by wcklink

Banks returning your deposit the identical bills you deposited has nothing to do with investments and a Ponzi scheme, SS is. Here is the definition of a Ponzi scheme, it almost perfectly describes SS.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. Perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to keep the scheme going.

But I think you knew that.

You left out a key element of a Ponzi scheme -- it's fraudulent only because of the fraud element -- lying about how the money flow.

If I create a Donzi scheme, where I tell potential investors the way to make money fast is to give me money with no promises of anything and then find other investors who do the same -- that's perfectly legal.

SSI is not a Ponzi scheme, nobody lied about how the money flow. Money is collected from one group and paid out to another group. That's just taxation. To convince the populace to support this form of taxation, the promise of future benefit is thrown in.

I personally feel it's morally bankrupt -- to vote in a system that bound those who can't vote yet to pay for my retirement. The current generation should decide for themselves if they want to tax themselves to support a certain group (retiree). Abolish SSI and incorporate it into the general taxation.

The affordable care act will go the same way as SSI. Pay now (insurance premium) for some future promises (health care later). The Ponzi claim will be there. It's not a ponzi scheme. Just a poorly designed taxation. It's bad because they move the amount of taxation (insurance premium) outside the review of the elected govt. If you don't think it's taxation, wait until the health insurance company can't pay out and need a massive bailout.

[dtc]

Originally Posted by wcklink

I mean you're the guy that just a couple of days ago claimed that Bain took 401k and SEP/IRA accounts from the companies they acquired, so I think you may have missed the day they taught retirement plans in the various and sundry universities you attended.

What?