A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Current old people & near retirees can go fuck themselves. They are the richest quintile of the population, they voted for Regan (twice), and if they blew all their money on SUVs and monster houses.

Point of clarification--isn't that the baby boomers? I'm kind of hoping that I'll be able to pick up several Mcmansions on the cheap in the next few years when they all retire and need to sell off the media room and wine cellar to pay for their artery surgery.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy


I will pay royally to keep my parents out of my spare bedroom.

I'm happy with that payment arrangement. I don't want to pay royally to keep your parents out of your spare bedroom.

Next time, hide your success and live in a hovel.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
When they say this, what exactly do they mean? I think SS will be around in a form similar to what it is now, albeit different benefit structures (more keyed to the bottom end).

But that's not so important. For anyone on this board, unless there's a really devoted public interest lawyer, SS is irrelevant because the benefit levels are way low. Even if you pay in the max amount each year, the current benefit is about $24k/year. Not a pittance, but hardly enough to keep anyone living in the manner to which they've become accustomed. I've been saving because I don't want to live on only that. And I'd save regardless of SS.

See, but if I save enough to have $48k a year, I'd really rather have $72k/year. While $2k a month is not enough to live on, that extra $2k/month will get me a better class of nursing home.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
See, but if I save enough to have $48k a year, I'd really rather have $72k/year. While $2k a month is not enough to live on, that extra $2k/month will get me a better class of nursing home.

Sure, but the existence of SS shouldn't affect your decision to use other savings vehicles or not. At best it should affect your savings on teh margin, based on a best-guess scenario.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
For anyone on this board, unless there's a really devoted public interest lawyer, SS is irrelevant because the benefit levels are way low.

Not so. I have relatives who depend on SS.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not so. I have relatives who depend on SS.

Are they on this board?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but the existence of SS shouldn't affect your decision to use other savings vehicles or not. At best it should affect your savings on teh margin, based on a best-guess scenario.

No, it shouldn't, but if I were making significantly less money than I am and weren't able to save at the rate I save, I would be fucking panicking at the thought of living w/o that $2k/month.

Though to be perfectly honest, I have not plotted out where I will be at retirement etc. I figure I will off myself if/when the money runs out.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No, it shouldn't, but if I were making significantly less money than I am and weren't able to save at the rate I save, I would be fucking panicking at the thought of living w/o that $2k/month.

Sure. But do you think that if you were making significantly less money and not able to save, that SS would not be there for you?

My point is simple--those to whom SS is most critical will still have it in substantially the same form. Those for whom the benefits are only a small portion of their total retirement savings may or may not have it (and probably will have it, but at lower amounts and with higher taxes on the benefits), but it's less critical because they already know the beeefits won't suffice to keep paying the mortgage on the mcmansion and should be (and likely are) planning accordingly.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Not so. I have relatives who depend on SS.

2. My grandmother entirely depends on SS and family support.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Are they on this board?

Daddy?

I mean: No, but their fortunes are relevant to me, to use your phrase.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure. But do you think that if you were making significantly less money and not able to save, that SS would not be there for you?

My point is simple--those to whom SS is most critical will still have it in substantially the same form. Those for whom the benefits are only a small portion of their total retirement savings may or may not have it (and probably will have it, but at lower amounts and with higher taxes on the benefits), but it's less critical because they already know the beeefits won't suffice to keep paying the mortgage on the mcmansion and should be (and likely are) planning accordingly.

Assuming I don't become disabled or whatever, I would not really object to SS being more need-based which would mean I pay taxes but don't really get a benefit.

But then, I've never complained about tax rates or social support networks, so I'm not really an audience that needs converting.

I think more people should adopt the "off selves when money runs out" approach, though.

[Replaced_Texan]

Background reading. (Spree: Houston surgeon has license revoked and $800+K fine imposed by Texas State Board of Medical Examiners on the basis of 169 violations of proper patient care they found in an examination of Scheffey patient records. Largest fine in TSBME history. There have been over 60 lawsuits against physician, and he's been under investigation by the TSBME on and off for 20 years. That said, he was the highest paid physician in the Texas Worker Compensation program in 2002 ($3.3M), though he was later barred from the program for inadequate patient care.)

Three thoughts.

1.) The TSBME is under sunset review this session. The TMA is none too happy with it right now, and will be lobbying hard to lessen it's power. I think that we're going to see a lot more action that garners public support for the TSBME in the legislative session. If I were a physician with a documented history of inadequate patient care, a lot of lawsuits or some pissed off family members/colleagues, I'd be running scared this session.

2.) I also imagine that the TMA and its constituency are thinking hard now about tort reform. I'd much rather be sued than have my license revoked. Obviously, the insurance industry is looking at this a little differently. I've talked to some physicians since Prop 12 (tort reform) passed, and they mentioned that they didn't realize that one of the effects would be that pissed off patients' only recourse would be to go to the TSBME with their complaints.

3.) Someone needs to figure out why the Texas Workers Compensation Commission kept on sending patients to this guy, why he was credentialled, and how on earth he managed to get any malpractice insurance. He's been sued over 60 times and investigated by the TSBME and the hospital still kept him on the medical staff? The National Practitioner Data Bank has been around for years now, and hospitals as a matter of record should consult the data bank before granting privileges to providers. All sorts of red flags should have gone off over this guy. I'd be gearing up for a massive negligent credentialing lawsuit if I were a hospital where he has been granted privileges.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"If you are thinking of joining a gang, or some other non-Christian assemblage of young men and women, please be aware that the President and I feel very strongly that would be a choice that would impact your life in a meaningful and detrimental way not only now, but well into your future. Have you considered instead your church's youth choir?"

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I read the earlier discussion, which is why I put the word "unsubstantiated" in my post.

Look, I had no problem with the three recounts in the Vo / Helfin race. I had no problem with the room full of Republicans looking over everyone's shoulders during the recount, after all they're all elected officials who are there to make sure the election goes smoothly. There were 14 Replublicans and 4 Democrats in that room during the recount. And Vo still managed to win.

I have a problem with the fact that not a vote has been singled out as having been cast in error, and they still have asked the legislature to put the election results aside and declare Heflin the winner or call for a new election. The closest thing to an allegation of voter fraud that Andy Taylor (Heflin's lawyer) has been able to come up with is that some voters did not reside in Harris county, which, unfortunately for Andy Taylor, is perfectly ok under state election law.

I also object to the challenge of the election of Houston state Sen. Mario Gallegos by his ex-mistress, who ran a write-in campaign. I sort of understand that one a bit better though.

The Legislature assigned Rep. Will Hartnett (R.) to investigate the complaint by Heflin. After a thorough investigation, Rep. Hartnett has found no evidence that the result should be any different than on election day. The report is out today. Here's hoping the rest of the legislature agrees, and we can move on with the session.

May Heflin and Taylor get through the remaining stages of grief faster than they did denial.

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archive...97.html#004897

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
"If you are thinking of joining a gang, or some other non-Christian assemblage of young men and women, please be aware that the President and I feel very strongly that would be a choice that would impact your life in a meaningful and detrimental way not only now, but well into your future. Have you considered instead your church's youth choir?"

POTD