Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Ha. Not surprised I got my ass handed to me in the one case tried re: McCarran. Kinda helps if you can spell the legislation. Why did I quit law again?

Anyway, I hear you on the Federalism issues, but what about #3? How does our natl health system not become a second class health system without the outlawing of private insurance or fee for service care, which I think we can all agree is an impossible scenario since that would violate the Constitution?

can't the government say that since they license doctors they can limit their salary? if i want a better air traffic controller, can I pay extra for a better one?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
can't the government say that since they license doctors they can limit their salary? if i want a better air traffic controller, can I pay extra for a better one?

Do I need to explain why even a quasi-socialist would realize that can't and shouldn't happen?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Do I need to explain why even a quasi-socialist would realize that can't and shouldn't happen?

what about in canada? it's not as built up, so there is freer airspace.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Clicking through a few articles on Malkin's site - I can across this gem from last week:

[Thottam reappears]

The "Los Angeles National Impeachment Center"? That is funny.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Interactive quiz - sort out the female Fox News anchors from the porn stars.

They're all attractive, but the faces are the key.

There are no wrinkles in mainstream porn.

S_A_M

[Replaced_Texan]

I refuse to get involved in another universal health care debate here.

Just assume I disagree with Sebby and Hank and move on.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I refuse to get involved in another universal health care debate here.

2.

Just assume I disagree with Sebby and Hank and move on.

sebby said with universla care you can always pay for better. I said not true.

I don't think you can disagree with us both.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
2.

sebby said with universla care you can always pay for better. I said not true.

I don't think you can disagree with us both.

Dude, I just read up a little bit about the Canadian plan. It is presently a two tiered plan, and it works a lot like traditional private insurance. Docs who accept govt pay for any procedure cannot accept a private payment for the same procedure, but a patient and doc can opt out for any given procedure, and there are private clinics around the country which do strictly fee for service or insurance payment work.

"Two tiered" is not the same thing as a scenario where the govt "bans all private insurance." I think you're reading too much Heritage Foundation info on the issue. From what I see, we would get a two tiered system.

The "debate," whether that's good or bad, is another issue.

[Diane_Keaton]

Um I just did some calculations and due to my sucky 401K planning habits I would really really like it if I got social security. When do I get that? And can someone explain which candidate is the least likely to negatively affect my chances at having SS when I retire? PS-I'm looking for a reasonably close nexus here between (1_ candidates and (2) the effect on whether SS is scrapped by the time I retire (in other words, I know that a Sharia-controlled America might jeopardize my benefits, so voting for candidate X would....etc. etc. but am looking for a closer tie-in.)

No I will not indicate my age.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Um I just did some calculations and due to my sucky 401K planning habits I would really really like it if I got social security. When do I get that? And can someone explain which candidate is the least likely to negatively affect my chances at having SS when I retire? PS-I'm looking for a reasonably close nexus here between (1_ candidates and (2) the effect on whether SS is scrapped by the time I retire (in other words, I know that a Sharia-controlled America might jeopardize my benefits, so voting for candidate X would....etc. etc. but am looking for a closer tie-in.)

No I will not indicate my age.

Truthfully, I think you should vote for whichever candidates you believe are more sincere about federal budget deficits. If the social security trust fund is ever actually raided for its principal, it will be a desperate measure and will be privately regarded as a political necessity by both parties equally whenever it happens.

Alternatively, if you believe it's possible that SS recipients will become "means-tested" to qualify for benefits, it will probably be the Dems who do it. If you're concerned that poor people will continue to get SS and you won't, vote GOP.

Finally, use Wikipedia to find out when you start getting benefits, and in your next life, defer the maximum unless you have a fully funded defined benefits pension.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Pwned!

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Alternatively, if you believe it's possible that SS recipients will become "means-tested" to qualify for benefits, it will probably be the Dems who do it.

Dang. I don't think I can bear to vote R this election unless the candidate is McCain. Let me ask this then -- do you think "means-testing" will take into existing 401K and savings and what not at the time of retirement? B/c I'm not going to have much of that and may qualify as "poor".

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Dang. I don't think I can bear to vote R this election unless the candidate is McCain. Let me ask this then -- do you think "means-testing" will take into existing 401K and savings and what not at the time of retirement? B/c I'm not going to have much of that and may qualify as "poor".

No one has touched that third rail yet, so who knows what it would look like. My guess is that it will not be means tested like college scholarships but instead will have two components--full taxation of benefits for those with income over a certain amount. And a reduction/limitation in the maximum benefit payable at the high end. If I were asked to design a true "means test" it woudl certainly take into account existing 401k and probably savings as well (401k is easy to take into account through income because of the required minimum distributions).

BTW, missing out on Sarkozy must really be hurting now. On the other hand, his girlfriend sounds like a bit of a strompet, so perhaps there will be a chance soon.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
No one has touched that third rail yet, so who knows what it would look like.

So why has everyone been scaring me saying I won't be getting SS checks by the time I retire?

BTW, missing out on Sarkozy must really be hurting now. On the other hand, his girlfriend sounds like a bit of a strompet, so perhaps there will be a chance soon.

*sigh* I actually don't feel bad now because there is simply no way to compete with Carla Bruni. She's around my age AND has been around the block quite a few times yet she looks like a fresh-faced girl of 20 and has that sexiness that is impossible to pin down. Just like Isabella Adjani. Here's Bruni crooning Quelqu'un m'a dit . I don't know what Quelqu'un m'a dit means but if it means, "Diane will you scissor me?", then I'm like "Oui, N'est-ce pas?"

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
So why has everyone been scaring me saying I won't be getting SS checks by the time I retire?

Politics of fear.

I don't see how SS could actually be eliminated for anyone who's paid into the system. Support for SS relies on the fact that everyone pays with the promise that everyone will get something out (by "everyone" I mean workers). It's not welfare, where you get something for doing nothing. And you can see how much support pure welfare for the poor has had over the last 15 years.

So, SS reform will mean figuring out how to take in more while paying out less, but still maintaining the core concept, which is a guaranteed minimum income for all people over a certain age. But obviously that leaves a lot of flexibility--more revenue comes easily from increasing the earnings subject to the tax. Guaranteed minimum income can be preserved while keeping the maximum down. And, of course, "certain age" can be raised so that you have to be 70 or more before getting full benefits.