Maybe, maybe not. I doubt it will seriously damage the economy….Paying down our debt may do wonders for the economy.
Taxes are taxes--don't be so histrionical and selfish. Pay your damn taxes like everyone else.
So running astronomically high debts and then increasing taxes to pay them off is good for the economy? That's a stretch even for a socialist.
I prefer to be charitable with my money at my own discretion, I say again I'm not fond of charity at gunpoint.
Soc. Sec. is the single most successful gov. program in history. It puts to shame any private enterprise re life insurance or retirement benefits (which are generally held under insurance contracts call group annuity contracts.).
I'd say the GI bill was vastly more successful than Social Security. The GI bill helped get education and become productive members of society. Social Security is just an income redistribution program.
Social Security is superior to life insurance and retirement benefits? Do you actually know how much Social Security actually pays people? About $1000 a month on average. WOW what an awesome retirement that would be, a whole 250 bucks a week. All you have to do is pay 9% of your income for you whole life, gain absolutely no interest on it, and then get paid next to nothing when you retire.
If you would pay 9% of your income into a 401(k) plan for your whole life, you'd get all of that money that paid in when you retire PLUS interest and growth of your stock options. 401(k) is a far superior to Social Security.
Comparing life insurance to Social Security to life insurance is comparing apples to oranges. When you die, your life insurance pays your beneficiaries lots of money, Social Security pays your beneficiaries nothing and your Social Security Payments do not transfer over to your spouse, they just stop. What a compassionate way to handle a death of a spouse in retirement, not give the widow(er) a dime. Thanks government!
T-bills are one of the most conservative investments out there. The purpose is not to grow the money, the purpose is to preserve the existing amounts to fund social insurance benefits. Growing wealth means growing risk and the SSA does not want to gamble with the benefits of others.
Get real, politicians are not using the Social Security Trust Fund to buy T-Bills, they're spending it in order to buy votes and fund social programs.
How is growing money risky? Investing in the stock market is not gambling, the stock market grows every year regardless of recessions and depressions.
Plus more than likely you won't get back all of the money you paid into Social Security anyway.
How is it a fake promise?
Because $1000 bucks a month is not a "living wage", and it won't support you in retirement, and payments are likely to go down in the future.
If you have health insurance, you have a preventive medical care plan. If you do not have insurance, or are underinsured, you do not.
Preventive medial plans in the US are a joke, plain and simple. There is no reward for healthy behavior in our system today.
I wasn’t referring to private insurance companies in Canada: “Some private insurance firms have expressed interest in offering policies that would provide service in the United States if one had to wait more than thirty days on a Canadian waiting list; however, there has been no apparent demand for such policies to date.”
One who? A Canadian or American citizen?
How do you know that private health care coverage in UHC countries is increasing?
Because I can read. This information is not a secret.
Maybe there are long lines for some procedures. A long line in Canada for treatment is better than no treatment in the US. Some private insurance firms have expressed interest in offering policies that would provide service in the United States if one had to wait more than thirty days on a Canadian waiting list; however, there has been no apparent demand for such policies to date.
Can you show me the Canadian Statute that bars its citizens from going outside the country for treatment?
I stand corrected on the illegality of pursuing health care abroad for Canadians, I had heard that before but I haven't found evidence for it. My bad.
When is says "to date" on your statement there, when was that? Because only recently has Canada allowed its citizens to pursue health insurance (2005 I think).
I didn't say anyone in particular is advocating $50,000 cap, I just used it as an example. The proposed federal cap is $250,000 by Bush. What’s the difference between $250,000 and $50,000 when your talking about lifelong problems due to the incompetence of others?
It’s nothing. Might as well be $5.
The problem is that a lot of malpractice lawsuits are actually due to errors. There is a huge difference between malpractice and error, but lawyers don't see it this way. So a lot of good doctors are being unfairly sued.
So since the case was decided wrong, I take it the judgment was vacated and poor innocent doctors were made whole again?
I don't think you are giving a faithful recount of the case.
One case does not make the national malpractice situation out of control. Like I said, you want malpractice cases to reduce in number, then start reducing the number of incompetent doctors.
No, it wasn't vacated and the money was never returned. Last time I checked John Edwards was still pretty rich.
What I said was basically this case in a nutshell, if I said something inaccurate please point it out to me.
This one case was an example, this kind of thing happens all the time.
There aren't as many incompetent doctors as the lawyer would like you to think. The more they can convince people that all medical mistakes are due to malpractice, the more money they make, just follow the money.
"The total cost of medical malpractice insurance is less than 2 percent of all U.S. health care spending. So how can such litigation be a serious threat to medical care in the first place?
Malpractice suit awards have declined
Granted, despite these other points, damage awards are at least a factor in rising premiums -- and damage awards are rising. According to Justice Department statistics, the typical (or median) damage award won by plaintiffs in medical malpractice suits increased from $253,000 in 1992, to $431,000 in 2001. (The statistics are based on civil trials conducted in the U.S.'s 75 largest counties.)"
I don't understand your point about unnecessary medical work and malpractice.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/sebok.edwards/index.html?iref=newssearch
It's not just the cost of medical insurance that drives up prices. The threat of litigation changes behaviors. Doctors are more likely to perform unnecessary tests and procedures just to cover their asses in case of a lawsuit. The cost of all these unnecessary procedures are way more than 2%. What's hard to understand about that?
