Forum Thread

Spavinaw Lake Topics

(Spavinaw Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

84,070 messages

Updated 10/30/2024 8:48:25 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,204 messages

Updated 9/14/2024 10:10:50 AM

Spavinaw Lake Fishing

(Spavinaw Lake Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,172 messages

Updated 9/9/2024 5:04:44 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,261 messages

Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,979 messages

Updated 6/26/2024 5:03:03 AM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Lets Get Serious - Healthcare
Date:	8/9/2009 8:05:25 AM

(1) Tort reform: our crazy system of casino malpractice suits results in massive and random settlements that raise everyone's insurance premiums and creates an epidemic of defensive medicine that does no medical good, yet costs a fortune.
An authoritative Massachusetts Medical Society study found that five out of six doctors admitted they order tests, procedures and referrals -- amounting to about 25 percent of the total -- solely as protection from lawsuits. Defensive medicine, estimates the libertarian/conservative Pacific Research Institute, wastes more than $200 billion a year. Just half that sum could provide a $5,000 health insurance grant -- $20,000 for a family of four -- to the uninsured poor (U.S. citizens ineligible for other government health assistance).
What to do? Abolish the entire medical-malpractice system. Create a new social pool from which people injured in medical errors or accidents can draw. The adjudication would be done by medical experts, not lay juries giving away lottery prizes at the behest of the liquid-tongued John Edwardses who pocket a third of the proceeds.

(2) Real health-insurance reform: Tax employer-provided health care benefits and return the money to the employee with a government check to buy his own medical insurance, just as he buys his own car or home insurance.
There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless. It makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness.
The health care benefit exemption is the largest tax break in the entire U.S. budget, costing the government a quarter-trillion dollars annually. It hinders health-insurance security and portability as well as personal independence. If we additionally eliminated the prohibition on buying personal health insurance across state lines, that would inject new and powerful competition that would lower costs for everyone.
Repealing the exemption has one fatal flaw, however. It was advocated by candidate John McCain. Obama so demagogued it last year that he cannot bring it up now without being accused of the most extreme hypocrisy and without being mercilessly attacked with his own 2008 ads.
But that's a political problem of Obama's own making. As is the Democratic Party's indebtedness to the trial lawyers, which has taken malpractice reform totally off the table. But that doesn't change the logic of this proposal. Go the Reagan-Bradley route. Offer sensible, simple, yet radical reform that strips away inefficiencies from the existing system before adding Obamacare's new ones -- arbitrary, politically driven, structural.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Lets Get Serious - Healthcare
Date:	8/9/2009 10:44:45 AM

You make some interesting points. I agree on tort reform.

I question whether a health care rebate could ever be enough to actually pay for a private policy that would be as good as a group policy. You could end up with a lesser policy that doesn't cover as much and costs more. I'm not crazy about that solution.
I think another possiblity is to give business a tax credit or rebate for sponsoring a group policy for their employees.

Name:	JustAGuy -	Reply
Subject:	Lets Get Serious - Healthcare
Date:	8/9/2009 6:44:13 PM

I agree with you on tort reform ... although I wouldn't limit the reform to medical malpractice. I think we need tort reform across the board.

As for health care, I must admit that the problems are too big for me to wrap my arms around, in terms of a single solution. I would rather see the various problems with the current health care/health insurance systems tackled individually, instead of a single solution.

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Why do we have to figure
Date:	8/9/2009 8:01:42 PM

out the solutions here and our high paid legislators just vie for press coverage? We agree, the current health care system needs fixing, start with tort reform and go one from there. If we could pay a couple of Auburn economics undergrads, and a Bama post grad to take notes, we could have a bill drafted..

Name:	Lady -	Reply
Subject:	Lets Get Serious - Healthcare
Date:	8/9/2009 8:22:24 PM

I'm ready for the blast, but I found this very interesting. It's a 'cut and paste'.

Debunking Canadian health care myths

By Rhonda Hackett
Posted: 06/07/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT

As a Canadian living in the United States for the past 17 years, I am frequently asked by Americans and Canadians alike to declare one health care system as the better one.

Often I'll avoid answering, regardless of the questioner's nationality. To choose one or the other system usually translates into a heated discussion of each one's merits, pitfalls, and an intense recitation of commonly cited statistical comparisons of the two systems.

Because if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes.

Yet, the debate rages on. Indeed, it has reached a fever pitch since President Barack Obama took office, with Americans either dreading or hoping for the dawn of a single-payer health care system. Opponents of such a system cite Canada as the best example of what not to do, while proponents laud that very same Canadian system as the answer to all of America's health care problems. Frankly, both sides often get things wrong when trotting out Canada to further their respective arguments.

As America comes to grips with the reality that changes are desperately needed within its health care infrastructure, it might prove useful to first debunk some myths about the Canadian system.

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and underinsured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks — unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.

From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.

And these are just some of the myths about the Canadian health care system. While emulating the Canadian system will likely not fix U.S. health care, it probably isn't the big bad "socialist" bogeyman it has been made out to be.

It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery is finally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her qualit

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Lets Get Serious - Healthcare
Date:	8/9/2009 8:28:04 PM

o-BAMA's got a real dilemma here. All the Plaintiff lawyers are democrats and all the doctors are about to become federal employees. O-BAMA's about to lose 10,000,000 lawyer votes (there's at least that many) along with 20% of his donations because I don't think you can sue a Fed employee. What's a socialist to do?

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Lets Get Serious - Healthcare
Date:	8/9/2009 8:33:12 PM

I don't have a comprehensive knowledge of the Canadian Healthcare system. I have already related the horror story of a good friend sister's bout of rare breast cancer. Here is what she wrote me yesterday:

[Sister}
went for a cardiac CT scan today because the ultrasound of her heart didn't show the area that needed to be seen. They were unable to get venous access so the radiologist cancelled the test. Radiologist is going to write to the cardiologist to see if he wants any further work-up or just to let it drop. I'm guessing he'll let it drop but sh*t.... she's symptomatic of something. She's got a chronic shortness of breath on exertion and a persistant cough.

I don't want a health care system where they just "let it drop".

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Actually
Date:	8/9/2009 8:34:45 PM

you can sue a federal employee. Most of us carried liability insurance for that reason.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Only A Fool
Date:	8/9/2009 9:00:25 PM

Only a fool can truly believe that physicians will be on the government payroll. The current Medicare is better than any HMO. Your health decisions are now decided by your HMO which decides them based on profit rather than your physician. Medicare doesn't decide which doc, specialist, or hospital can treat you. I am not suggesting a single payer system, but rather, tell the truth to be taken seriously. Trying to allow individuals to buy their own insurance will fail as salesman will be like vultures for commission. The poor individual has no real understanding of the small print. The only reason that Medicare supplements work is that the government finally decided to mandate 10 plans. All companies sell the same plan and their premium and services determine the winners. Years ago, insurance we free to design their own plans and it was a total mess for individuals trying to buy coverage.

The biggest concern, and a legitimate one, is that those currently insured fear the additional insured clogging the system. Guess better to let them die than provide decent coverage.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	GF, Only A Fool
Date:	8/10/2009 12:33:07 AM

would say some of the stuff you just said. Only Fed Employees have to be guided through the insurance maze. People in the real world deal with all sorts of insurance on a daily basis; we think and make decisions for ourselves.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Really, we can sue
Date:	8/10/2009 12:34:56 AM

Fed employees. I'll start tomorrow. Anyone want to join in the fun?

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Healthcare
Date:	8/10/2009 12:44:08 AM

Y'all are right --as a nation let's get serious about health care.
-However, I doubt this forum allows us the space or medium to discuss it. It's just too complex. We need a beer summit of "off Topic" pundits. Where should we meet?
-I'm not sure this is as much a health care problem , as it is a health insurance problem. I personally agree with Obama that every American should have good health insurance (I just don't believe illegal aliens should be included).
-HOwever, unlike Obama, I believe this insurance problem can be dealt with by a set of regulations on the industry that are enforced (there were sufficient regulations in place to prevent the financial collapse, but the government never enforced them). I do not believe we need the current proposed bill (HR 3200) with its wide breadth and depth which, instead of fixing the health insurance problem, changes the very nature of our health care system and of a good part of our economy, ...and adds loads of dem party pet programs that are too numerous to go into here.
-Right now, everyone who wants health care in America can get it. The problen is the low and middle class citizens with no or poor insurance sometimes have to go bankrupt to get it for really serious problems. Poor people have medicade to pay the bills; old people have medicare; lucky people have good insurance programs; other low and middle class elements have social security programs like SCHIP, survivors' benefits etc. That 45 million number, really comes down to 10-15 million that need help. I believe we can help them without what I consider to be all the trash in this bill.
-I'm all for social justice; I'm just not for calling it social justice when it's pork barreling or pandering for votes.
-I believe that the money needed can come from stopping the graft, corruption, and inefficiencies in the present systems, ...and adding about another $100 billioin dollars (no I'm not going to provide sources, rationale, or footnotes, --so don't ask :) )
-Where's the money coming from? $100 billion is better that $1 trillion; it's out there.
-So what's the solution? --hell, I don't know, but then again I'm not getting paid to know. However, it's a good bet that the solution is probably a combination of all teh things we've talked about above, plus some: tort reform, better regulating the insurance business, cutting down on the serious waste and fraud, etc.. However, I believe the solution should NOT include cuttin services to seniors, rationing for eveyone, or government mangement. I've spent 40 years working in our government agencies, and 25 of those years studing and monitoring the activities of socialist and communist governments. One lesson of those 40 years is: --society needs some government, but less is usually better than more.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Hear! Hear! to yankee
Date:	8/10/2009 9:13:08 AM

One of the ones with an open mind I referenced in a post above.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Really, we can sue
Date:	8/10/2009 9:51:54 AM

You are a sick puppy.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Really Excellent Points
Date:	8/10/2009 9:56:34 AM

You have made some really excellent points.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Only A Fool
Date:	8/10/2009 12:18:23 PM

I don't know what HMO you have ... but I have Kaiser and could not be happier. I get appointments quick and they normally want to do more than what I want done in terms of tests and follow up. I even had my doctor call me at home to discuss a test i had done so I did not have to come in to the office to discuss. All medical records are on line including history or various procedures. You can make appointments on line, etc.

My parents have medicare and it has been a nightmare for them. Mostly because the doctors do not get paid timely and more and more are refusing new patients and then trying to get a referal through medicare has been a huge problem.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	The biggest question
Date:	8/10/2009 12:25:52 PM

continues to be why have a massive overhaul of the existing system that works for 95% of americans better than good, are generally satisfied. Why not propose a plan for the 5% first, before saying government needs to run the whole system.

That is what is nuts. No one is saying there should not be "some" healthcare reform. But address the problems before taking over the whole system. Why run the risk and then make it too difficult to turn back. Because you know the answer will be, give it time, we just need to spend more money. We underestimated how difficult this would be.

They underestimated that unemployment would get to the level it did. They can not even run a cash for clunker program. Why would we want to let the government take over the whole healthcare system ... that is not broke. Fix medicare and address the 5% that d not have or can not get coverage. There have been many solutions put forth ... but Obama will only listen to a socialized system.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Water Man
Date:	8/10/2009 1:11:07 PM

This is direct from the Medicare.gov website. I believe you are confused. I suggest you check with your parents. They must be enrolled in Medicare Advantage which is a Medicare HMO.

Original Medicare

This fee-for-service plan covers many health care services. You can go to any doctor or supplier that is enrolled and accepts Medicare and is accepting new Medicare patients, or to any hospital or other facility.

Medicare Health Plans (like HMOs and PPOs)

These plans are approved by Medicare and run by private companies. When you join one of these plans, you are still in Medicare. Some of these plans require referrals to see specialists. They provide all of your Part A (hospital) and Part B (medical) coverage. They generally offer extra benefits, and many include prescription drug coverage. These plans often have networks, which means you may have to see doctors who belong to the plan or go to certain hospitals to get covered services. In many cases, your costs for services can be lower than in Original Medicare, but it is important to check with the plan because the costs for services will vary.

Name:	water_watcher -	Reply
Subject:	Water Man
Date:	8/10/2009 2:19:31 PM

not to be rude ... but yes ... it says any doctor that is accepting new medicare patients. That seems to be the problem.

I am not sure is they have the HMO or not ... just comments they have made and they are totally against the Obama Care proposal.

Which I do not blame them. Seniors are the ones that get the shaft under all 4 of the bills I have read.

Our whole medical system does not need to be turned on its head just because Obama wants and thinks we should have socialized healthcare and a single payer system. The american people clearly do not want tis ... so lets see if our elected officials go with the voice of the people or not. They are there to represent all and the majority do not agree that a TOTAL overhaul to our healthcare system is needed.

And they are right.

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	Medicare Advantage Plans
Date:	8/10/2009 5:12:25 PM

My wife and I are on Medicare Advantage plans (BCBS) and are much more satisfied that when we were on the Original Medicare Plan. However, Obama wants to eliminate the Medicare Advantage program supposedly as a cost savings...what he really wants is to have the federal government making the health care decisions rather than a private company. We much prefer the freedom to choose a private company rather than the tyranny of his administration.

Name:	Mack -	Reply
Subject:	Majority of People Voted for H
Date:	8/10/2009 8:57:55 PM

Mr. Obama. and his ideas, his platform, his face, his charm,??

Now, the elected majority is trying to enact these same ideas thru legislation. Why question it now?? We put him and his party where they are??

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	Majority of People Voted for H
Date:	8/10/2009 9:34:20 PM

There are many of us who have no responsibility for Obama being in office or for the 'elected majority.' We will continue to question as we did before the election. For those who do bear the responsibility for this calamity, just sit back and watch...don't dare do any thinking and question your loss of freedoms!

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	I'm curious
Date:	8/10/2009 10:07:30 PM

Why you would feel so much better about having a profit driven company making decisions over your health, than a non-profit government? Unknown persons at Insurance companies make decisions about our health care for us every day. Have you never had your Drs. office in discussions with your insurance company? You probably have, but maybe you didn't know it.

I'm really very curious about this.

I don't know anything about medicare (yet), but I vaguely remember hearing something about Medicare Advantage companies ripping people off? Did you ever hear that?

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	I don't think the majority of
Date:	8/10/2009 10:14:15 PM

people know the facts of what is really being proposed. There is so much misinformation floating around out there by those whose political purpose is to create controvery. I've heard Obama say no less than 5-6 times that if you have insurance you like you'll be able to keep it, yet a large number of people don't believe it. I don't pretend that I know or understand the totality of what is being proposed, so it doesn't scare me yet. Why go to a Town Hall meeting to scream instead of listening to what's being said.

This reminds me of when they start talking about SS. As soon as they do, everyone shuts down in panic.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	The Sad Thing
Date:	8/10/2009 10:29:53 PM

is that our elected representatives don't know what is being proposed.

From what I have read, they couldn't because it hasn't been proposed yet. Doesn't matter, because they wouldn't if it were available.

Sorry, but this train has jumped the tracks big time.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Majority of People Voted for H
Date:	8/10/2009 10:50:11 PM

In case you hadn't noticed before, that's the way we do it in this country. Maybe it will turn out that I made a mistake in voting for Obama in 08 just as I did in voting for Bush in 04

Name:	lamont -	Reply
Subject:	Yep...
Date:	8/11/2009 8:23:33 AM

The Doctor of my choice and many unknown physicians and Private Insurance Company Representatives made a bunch of decisions, quickly, regarding my diagnosis and treatment. Many of these decisions, unknown to me at the time, and that is why I am still alive to talk about it. The $$ I pay for my private insurance are the absolute best $$ I spend. Please, almighty, powerful "O," allow me to continue my obvious delusional persuit of private healthcare.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Yep...
Date:	8/11/2009 2:40:55 PM

I'm not arguing with you. I like my insurance too. My only point is that we have unknown people making decisions about our health care either way.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	We Agree about that
Date:	8/11/2009 2:44:11 PM

We're definitely racing down the highway to Abilene on this one.
And sadly, I think you are right -- a number of proposals are floating around, and other than a handful of people, I doubt most have read any of them other than bits and pieces. I know I tried to read the one that someone posted the link to, and frankly, I couldn't make heads or tails out of it. Should be a rule that any legislation has to be written in such a way that it is readable to the average citizen.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	We Agree about that
Date:	8/11/2009 3:42:08 PM

My colleague and I have a gentleman's agreement to do a "Napoleon's Corporal" review of each others' work. We harken back to the days when Napoleon would not send out an order until the Corporal assigned to guard his tent had read it. If the Corporal understood it, then the order was dispatched. If he didn't, the order was rewritten until he did.

We need some Napoleon's Corporal reviews on legislation before it is passed.

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	I'm curious
Date:	8/11/2009 3:52:54 PM

You really reveal a lot of yourself when you imply that a 'profit driven company' can't provide a service better than a 'non-profit government.' What do you think made this country the greatest in the history of mankind? If you say government rather than individual initiative and capitalism with its reward for hard work (profit), then I don't think you and I would ever agree on many things.

I'm well aware of decisions made by insurance companies that effect me, and I am also very aware that my doctors and my insurance companies have discussions. I'm knowledgeable of my coverage because I had a large number of providers to select from.

The reason I prefer private company services to government services is simply...in all my sixty-six years, I cannot recall a government entity at any level that provided a service in a timely, efficient and cost-effective manner.

Name:	Mack -	Reply
Subject:	AU67>>>
Date:	8/11/2009 7:22:54 PM

You assume a lot about me. You have no hint.
There is no "us" in your posts. You might fit well on either side of the "aisle" in Congress as a solid vote one way or the other.

Name:	Mack -	Reply
Subject:	So, Are You Saying
Date:	8/11/2009 7:33:03 PM

that pre-election promises are lies??
Perhaps>>> Perhaps,,, our Real Problem is not with HealthCare, or Illegal Aliens, or our Economy, but>> But
Our belief that the people who represent "us" to the nation are corrupted, and that they are mainly motivated by the need to be Re-Elected?? And, to enjoy the perks associated??

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	Mack
Date:	8/11/2009 9:19:34 PM

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	Mack
Date:	8/11/2009 9:25:59 PM

I haven't assumed anything about you... I don't know you. I was simply responding to your comment that (and I paraphrase) 'We put him in office...' I pointed out that many of us did not help with that effort. Those who did help elect Obama should be the ones scratching their heads. It should be very clear from my posts on this forum which side I'm on.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	I'm curious
Date:	8/11/2009 10:20:00 PM

So I would guess that you don't participate in Social Security? Are you paid on time every month? Are your taxes collected regularly? You like having a standing military to defend you?
Sorry, I didn't realize you were anti-government.

I think some of your ideas about how government functions are a bit dated, and I can think of a number of businesses that I don't think function efficiently at all starting with my cell phone company. If all companies were so efficient and wonderful, then why are so many of them filing for bankruptsy and going out of business?

I'm just asking why you feel more comfortable having a company -- one that makes a profit; than having the government make a health care decision for you. I don't think you answered my question.

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	I'm curious
Date:	8/12/2009 8:58:25 AM

I participate in Social Security because I had no choice; I participate in Medicare because I had no choice. I prefer private companies because I still have a choice. Do you not understand and cherish freedom???

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Social security check, comes
Date:	8/12/2009 5:27:50 PM

every month, and I cash it. However, comma, had I paid into a safe, low interest paying investment for the last 55 years, instead of getting this small check for the past 2 years, what would my financial situation be now?? Go figure..

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	I'm curious
Date:	8/12/2009 6:44:10 PM

Of course I do. But, I also think the government can play a meaningful role.

OBTW, you did have a choice on Social Security. You could have just declined your benefits.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Social security check, comes
Date:	8/12/2009 6:46:30 PM

I guess that depends on how much you invested and where you invested it. Not every investment went belly up. I have a nice little nest egg and it's survived just fine.

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	I'm curious
Date:	8/12/2009 7:15:25 PM

Those benefits are my money, not the governments...do you have a clue????

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Social security check, comes
Date:	8/12/2009 8:05:30 PM

Well we need an expert here to add their perspective, but I have been a wage earner for well over 5 decades... The federal government take 4-7 percent of my income so I would be 'socially secure.' Well I am socially (and financially) secure, but not because of the meager check I get from the Social Security Administration. I worked it for it.. If I could get a payback for what I paid into the World's greatest Ponzi scheme, less what I have collected for the past 2 years, I would take it in a heartbeat..

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Very sage post..
Date:	8/12/2009 8:17:08 PM

But it's a whole easier to just issue the orders and rush them through, before the troops know what's coming..

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Social security check, comes
Date:	8/12/2009 10:24:43 PM

You can argue Social Security's good and bad points, but please, it is not and never has been a mandatory retirement or pension investment scheme. It is FICA (Federal Insurance Collection Authority). Get it, INSURANCE. The money being collected from you today is not to pay for your retirement. It is paying for your parent's retirement. The money your children are paying in will help pay you when you reach 62+. Now we can argue as to whether the surplus FICA funds are well used (invested), but we can not complain that it is a poor retirement investment because it is not a retirement investment at all!

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Social security check, comes
Date:	8/12/2009 10:31:22 PM

Then why is the amount of your check at retirement age tied to the amount you paid before retirement? Under your scenario everyone would expect to get the same check as everyone else -- and that ain't the way it is!

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Of course I have a clue
Date:	8/13/2009 2:16:57 AM

And your SS is adjusted for cost of living too, isn't it? And will be paid to you as long as you live, and possibly to your spouse if you pass on. It doesn't cut off suddenly when your benefit exceeds the dollar amount you actually invested, as it would if you had made a private investment. So it's not just "your money" is it? It's a benefit that you are now getting as a result of your having participated.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Ah yes
Date:	8/13/2009 2:19:55 AM

but see my response "I have a clue" above. You are not just getting back what you put in. It's adjusted for cost of living and it will go on for as long as you live, and possibly as long as your spouse lives.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Social security check, comes
Date:	8/13/2009 2:25:26 AM

But it does cap out at a maximum benefit. And it is adjusted for Cost of Living. And it goes on for the rest of your life.

Not singing the praises of SS -- my only point is this -- someone was saying how "inefficient" government operations are and I'm saying for an "inefficent" government, you still get your SS check on time every month.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Social security check, comes
Date:	8/13/2009 7:38:00 AM

Me thinks you are confusing inefficient and ineffective.

Inefficient is where it takes way too much input for the amount of output.

Ineffective is when there is no output, or the output is intermittent.

I would venture to say SS is effective, yet inefficient. Checks come, but the Social Security Administration is a bloated bureaucracy.

Just my $.02 worth on a Thursday morning....

Name:	lamont -	Reply
Subject:	Remarkable Insight Hound...
Date:	8/13/2009 8:00:29 AM

Yeah, let's just decline the measley ss checks we get that we paid into for 50+ years. We had no choice paying into this bankrupt system but, we do have a choice to not cash the checks. This could be the next Obama proposal. If you don't like the amount of your ss check, just send it back or don't cash it. Perhaps, if about 90% of Social Security recipients would buy into this philosophy, Social Security could rebound and be solvent again..... 50 years down the line. Some people's line of rationale simply astounds me.

Name:	lamont -	Reply
Subject:	In addition Hound....
Date:	8/13/2009 8:24:53 AM

There are private companies that offer products that pay you for a lifetime, meaning, if you outlive your mortality rate, you get back more than you invested. These are called annuities and, I know, Clark Howard demonizes them because he usually uses annuities marketed 40 years ago to make his point. My point is, forget the annuity, if you run the #'s, tally up all the money you have contributed to SS. Take that sum invested in a money market at an average of 5% for the 50 years you invested and, your monthly payout, in my case, would be over 4 times the amount of my ss check. Oh yeah, in this example, I never touch the principle; I'm only withdrawing interest and, the principle remains in my control, not the government's. That sum could be passed on to my undeserving children..... or better yet.... my grandchildren.
You make the call.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	You Obviously
Date:	8/13/2009 7:37:40 PM

didn't read the whole thread. I asked the question why someone would be more comfortable having a private company with a profit motive than having the government - a non-profit entity - make the same call. That person then talked about "government inefficiency" so I merely asked if their SS check is on time every momth.

I don't care about SS, so I'm not going to defend it. I've only minimually paid into it, and even if I met the minimum quarters, my benefit would be offset by my federal retirement. So don't come railing at me about SS. And it's easy to say you would have done so much better if you privately invested it. Hindsight is 20/20 and talk is cheap. You might not be any better off -- in fact, if you had, SS might be looking mighty good to you.

And for anyone that feels so strongly about it, I just pointed out that you can refuse you benefit. Or you can donate it back to the treasury. Or you can donate it to your favorite charity so you don't have to sully your principles.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	How do you know
Date:	8/13/2009 7:43:31 PM

it's a bloated bureaucracy. Do you have facts to back that up?
You know, some of the assumptions here about the government are seriously outdated. A lot of government operations have been downsized so it's probably not as bloated as you may think.

But, I don't collect SS, I will never collect SS, so I really don't care one way or the other.

But, let me ask you, doesn't your company have contracts with a "bloated bureaucracy"? I'm surprised your principles would allow you to accept a paycheck. I suppose you are going to tell me that you are being paid off of a direct line on an FMS case for "program management". Talk about bloated... absolutely the most abused entity in the FMS world.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Ah yes; ah no
Date:	8/13/2009 8:10:54 PM

-My opinion is that SS is both inefficent and ineffective compared with what it should be and could be if congress didn't steal the surplus every year.
-It is not a very good insurance system on my parents, for I and my employers paid in more than $250,000 over 40+ years. My parents collected a total of $47,000. If it's insurance why would I pay for someone else's parents? (please don't anyone answer,--I know all the social reasons; it was just a rhetorical question)
-It's not a good retirement system either. Again I have to live to be 79 to get my $250,000 back. During that time I will be paying taxes of teh SS $$$ I receive, approximately another $40,000; that will pay for another 2 years. SO I will have to live beyond 81 to break even. The sad part is that none of my money was/is earning "real" interest during that time. In otherwords had I invested that $250,000 it probably would have been worth two to three times that much when I retired.
--Social Security is another welfare tax, so let's just call it that. Those who didn't pay into it, for a number of good reasons both good and bad, get money out of it; they get that money as a gift from those that do put in money. Low income workers, depending on how much they made, might get 50-90% of their actual working wages in retirement. People who were "lucky" enough to earn a "max out" wage, say about $100,000, will receive about 20% of their working wages in retirement. That is a regressive/reverse tax.
-Do I think we shouldn't have the SS. No , I think there are people who are always going to need help from society or from government to get by for any number of reasons; -some of their own making and some from unfair fates.
-But lets call it what it is, a redistribution of wealth for social program purposes.
-Yo know, if I keep giving my 2 cents woryh on this forum, I'll be broke ---and need more ss help :)

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	How do you know
Date:	8/13/2009 8:42:17 PM

Not sure where to start.

Government may have downsized, but have you ever been in a Social Security office lately? From your comments I'd guess not. I have, and I also have a friend who was a GS-15 in the SSA, so maybe I have more reason to say it is bloated than you do to say it is not.

Never mind that. I only hope your post was after a little too much vino. Indeed, my Government customer organization is a sick puppy and in dire need of some decent management. I have expressed that sentiment to some of my trusted colleagues in that organization. But why would that affect whether I pull my weight and earn my pay? I am not Government, I am a contractor. We work on a cost plus fixed fee basis. My company is not getting rich on my work, but we are not going under either. The big difference here is that my customer is getting my work at half the price that a similarly educated, experienced, and skilled Govvie would cost. Sorry, but I and many of my contractor colleagues are what is keeping that organization afloat.

And what does FMS have to do with it? My customer is US Navy. His customer is US Navy. My customer's customer is the Italian Navy. I am not sure what your experience with FMS cases might be, but we have done great things for my customer' customer's customer and I won't back into any pay line, I will walk in tall and proud and probably deserve to get more than I do.

You know not what you speak and should keep to what you do know.

Nasreddin Hodja

Name:	lamont -	Reply
Subject:	Of, So Many assumptions....
Date:	8/14/2009 7:46:27 AM

on your part. Some of us do have the discipline to save knowing, full well, there is a chance SS will not be there to supplement our retirement income. Yes, I said supplement. That was it's original purpose.
I'm so glad you only paid "a little bit" into this ancient, inefficient program. Other then guv'ment employees, we common folk had no choice. Score another one for our compassionate politicians. You know, "do as I say, not as I do."
And your continual diatribe regarding giving the ss check back just furthers your Elitist, non-caring attitude towards us, the great unwashed. That's just stupid.
Anywho, not to worried about my financial situation and retirement. My personal investment program is still in tact although, admittedly, has taken some hits for the past 2 years. Also, my retirement portfolio is not part of my "General Budget."
Another novel concept. Fully solvent.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Of, So Many assumptions....
Date:	8/14/2009 3:28:00 PM

Glad to hear it. You are still working, are you not?

Not everyone who invests ends up the better for it.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	How do you know
Date:	8/14/2009 3:44:19 PM

Last time I was in an SS office was to update my name. Since I wasn't under SS, I never changed my name when I got married. The IRS got upset.

Anyway, I don't doubt that you are doing a day's job for your pay. However, I will seriously debate with you whether you are cheaper than a government employee. In my last job, I had both contractors and government employees, so I understand the cost breakdown pretty well. It's a myth that contractors are cheaper than government employees. The only reason the government decided to use more contractors was Al Gore's "reinventing" government.

I actually know a tremendous amount about FMS. Before I moved to technology transfer, that was my career for more years than I care to think about. I worked it out in the field (for the Army), I worked it at the Headquarters (USASAC) and I worked for a time for DSCA. The program management line is much beloved by the services as their very own little pot of money to hire a bunch of people (contractors too) to "manage" a large FMS program, with little or no Headquarters oversite. Kind of a multipurpose fund for travel and activities that are limited to one given program, direct cite from a particular FMS case. Perhaps in truth you are being paid from such a line several layers down.

As far as me keeping to what I know, well I assume you are talking about your own given situation. I'm not sure why you felt the need to be so defensive. Lots of people are taking money from the ill managed, bloated old government. Don't feel bad about it, just keep bad mouthing it. I'm sure the employees at the Navy would be happy to hear you think they are so poorly managed. Too bad so many support contractors employ and are managed by former military and former government employees --.
And in my experience, those same people would be happy to get a government job.
But,I won't talk about that which I know nothing about... you must think I've been living with my head under a basket for all these years... LOL

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Having Said all that
Date:	8/14/2009 3:48:40 PM

how would you change it? And if it so bad, why do so many people panic when they talk about doing away with it or changing it?

The only thing you said that I agree with is that Congress shouldn't be allowed use of the funds.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Actually....
Date:	8/14/2009 4:45:34 PM

Your experience and mine are vastly different with regard to FMS cases. My experience is with one, and frankly I don't care about the others. You are the one who seems to be hung up on the FMS part of it.

I tried to make you understand that the fact that my work is paid for three or four layers up the chain by the Italian Government is inconsequential to what I do and its worth to my customer, my customer's customer, and my customer's customer's customer (the Italians). I also mentioned that we work on a CPFF basis, and thus are only paid if we work and for the amount that we work. You have no way of knowing how specific my Statements of Work are written and how specific my cost estimates are, or the task and financial reporting I am responsible to my customer for every other week. I can assure you that I and my company (which, by the way is among the top five biggest defense contractors) believe that the way we continue to thrive is by delighting our customers, and that means giving them maximum value for the taxpayer dollars they spend with us. (Of course Obama wants to do away with cost plus contracts - one of the few ways that, properly managed, neither the Government nor the contractor gets gored and the job gets done).

In the case of my customer's organization, their take-home paycheck for a person of comparable knowledge, skills, and experience is roughly equivalent to a contractor's paycheck. But the way we stay in business and continue to win contracts is by keeping our overhead, fringe, and G&A rates very low. That is where we beat the sox off our Govvies price-wise. Between their bloated overhead (yes, bloated, it went up 15% this year alone, while ours stayed roughly the same) and all their lost time for mandatory basketweaving training and other time away from the job of that ilk, our cost is less, making our price less (fixed fee), and thus we are indeed cheaper.

You said something about my being defensive. Hound, if you'll go back and look at your posts over the long run you'll find that YOU are the one who has been continually defensive about the Government and Government workers. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your service, and indeed I have every reason to believe that you were among some of the start performers. But for every one of those like you - and I have known many - I have seen three or four dolts whose productivity and progress is best measured in angstroms per eon. You need to be realistic and admit they are there. Difference in the contracting world is that if you don't produce you don't have a job.

OK, I need to finish up my work day. Looks like I'll be staying a little later than usual - wouldn't want anyone to think I was playing on the computer during work time.

Quick Links
Spavinaw Lake News
Spavinaw Lake Photos
Spavinaw Lake Videos