[OT] Rabid Dog 2020

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:57:20 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc
I have been hoping that the Democratic Party would choose the most electable
candidate possible, so as to have the best chance to unseat President Donald J.
Trump.
Well, now I hear that Joe Biden has recieved the most crucial endorsement
possible, from no less a personality than the Glorious Leader Kim Jong-Un himself,
by describing him as a rabid dog that ought to be beaten to death with a stick.
After a ringing endorsement like this, who can resist him any longer?
Will Joe Biden be the Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump's Jimmy Carter, leading to Kim
Jong-Un making a nuclear deal with Trump, as one of his recent tweets urges?

I, too, have been hoping the Dems would run someone electable -- and
at least 20 years younger than Trump.

But they appear to be intent on running another Old Fogie, two of whom
are undeniable (IMHO, of course) whackos.

Still, there is hope -- recent statements by one of the whackos
suggests that their medical programs may be the same thing as the
Republican's anti-abortion stance: something to be loudly proclaimed
to attract voters, but never, ever, to be achieved. Because achieving
them might mean that those voters stop going to polls, having gotten
what /they/ wanted.

And the only "nuclear deal" N Korea is likely to make is one that
involves transferring USA technology and welcoming them into the
Nuclear Club. The only question is, will Trump agree?

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

h***@gmail.com

2019-11-20 01:26:07 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 12:57:20 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

What names and why?

Post by Paul S Person
Still, there is hope -- recent statements by one of the whackos
suggests that their medical programs

You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries who cover almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita than the US federal government does for health care?

Post by Paul S Person
may be the same thing as the
Republican's anti-abortion stance: something to be loudly proclaimed
to attract voters, but never, ever, to be achieved. Because achieving
them might mean that those voters stop going to polls, having gotten
what /they/ wanted.
And the only "nuclear deal" N Korea is likely to make is one that
involves transferring USA technology and welcoming them into the
Nuclear Club. The only question is, will Trump agree?

Quadibloc

2019-11-20 06:53:06 UTC

Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries who cover
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?

Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.

Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.

John Savard

J. Clarke

2019-11-20 11:29:32 UTC

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:53:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.
Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.

So let's see, according to hamish, medicine in the US already costs
the Federal government more per capita than it does in any other
country? And so having the government increase the number of people
for whom it provides medical treatment by a factor of 5 is going to
make that per capita cost _decrease_? How does that work?

Ted Nolan <tednolan>

2019-11-20 13:20:20 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:53:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries

who cover

Post by h***@gmail.com
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?

Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.
Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.

I read an interesting column several years ago on the invalid assumption
that "Because other countries do it, we can do it too". The US has
a different scope (it's huge) and structure (all the levels of government
fight each other) than many countries. So France can build high speed
rail because the country is small, and there aren't lots of environmental
impact statements and NIMBY lawsuits, state infighting etc. Certainly
the healthcare sytems the feds *do* run (VA, Indian Health Service) are
not inspiring of confidence.

--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

Paul S Person

2019-11-20 17:39:13 UTC

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:53:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries

who cover

Post by h***@gmail.com
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?

Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.
Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.

I may be wrong, but I don't recall nationalizing all doctors and
hospitals to be part of the plan. It appears to be aimed at the
Insurance Companies, who (apparently) won't even be able to offer the
endless variety of Medicare-related plans that are so large a part of
the current system for oldsters. The theory, apparently, is that if
there were /only one insurer/, that insurer could /control costs/.

Well, maybe -- if they nationalize the entire medical supply industry,
all the drug companies, all the hospitals/clinics/whatever and draft
all the doctors/nurses/technicians/etc. Otherwise, the various
businesses would have the option to shut down and the various
professionals could look for some other line of work.

But my point is that one of them is now talking about "slowly
adopting" her insane scheme. This suggests that, 50 years from now,
the Dems may be campaigning on "Medicare for All", just as the
Republicans have compaigning on "Traditional Family Values" since,
when, 1980? With neither side actually interested in actually
/achieving/ their alleged goals.

I would prefer a system where the major parties campaigned on things
they /actually planned to do/, leaving these grand but never to be
done schemes to the wierdo parties. Some of which are quite amusing
when you read their proposals in the Voter's Pamphlet.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

J. Clarke

2019-11-20 23:49:58 UTC

On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:39:13 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 22:53:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by h***@gmail.com
You mean having a medical system more like other 1st world countries

who cover

Post by h***@gmail.com
almost all medical costs from government funds and still pay less per capita
than the US federal government does for health care?

Yes, apparently that's so radical it would cost them the election.
Go figure. But then, I'm a Canadian, so I'm hoplessly biased.

I may be wrong, but I don't recall nationalizing all doctors and
hospitals to be part of the plan. It appears to be aimed at the
Insurance Companies, who (apparently) won't even be able to offer the
endless variety of Medicare-related plans that are so large a part of
the current system for oldsters. The theory, apparently, is that if
there were /only one insurer/, that insurer could /control costs/.
Well, maybe -- if they nationalize the entire medical supply industry,
all the drug companies, all the hospitals/clinics/whatever and draft
all the doctors/nurses/technicians/etc. Otherwise, the various
businesses would have the option to shut down and the various
professionals could look for some other line of work.
But my point is that one of them is now talking about "slowly
adopting" her insane scheme. This suggests that, 50 years from now,
the Dems may be campaigning on "Medicare for All", just as the
Republicans have compaigning on "Traditional Family Values" since,
when, 1980? With neither side actually interested in actually
/achieving/ their alleged goals.
I would prefer a system where the major parties campaigned on things
they /actually planned to do/, leaving these grand but never to be
done schemes to the wierdo parties. Some of which are quite amusing
when you read their proposals in the Voter's Pamphlet.

The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.

Like you've got 150 days of hospital time, if you use it all you're
out of pocket $51,600. Then if you are out of the hospital for 90
days you can go back for 90 days for another $11,400. Skilled nursing
care will cost you 13,400 for 100 days after which you're screwed
unless you can do without for 90. Non-hospital treatment has a 20
percent copay, and then you have the premiums for part B and part D.

Anybody who thinks that "Medicare for all" is "free insurance" is
going to have a big fat surprise.

h***@gmail.com

2019-11-21 04:14:58 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
The thing the Democrats are trying to sell right now is "Medicare for
all", which sounds like a good deal until you look into what Medicare
actually provides and what it costs those who are on it.

You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?

Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody

https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.

Post by J. Clarke
Like you've got 150 days of hospital time, if you use it all you're
out of pocket $51,600. Then if you are out of the hospital for 90
days you can go back for 90 days for another $11,400. Skilled nursing
care will cost you 13,400 for 100 days after which you're screwed
unless you can do without for 90. Non-hospital treatment has a 20
percent copay, and then you have the premiums for part B and part D.
Anybody who thinks that "Medicare for all" is "free insurance" is
going to have a big fat surprise.

Paul S Person

2019-11-21 17:55:38 UTC

You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.

Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.

I mean, heck, we can't even do meaningful comparisons of health
insurance plans. It is basically a "pick the one you want and pray it
actually covers whatever you need" system.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

h***@gmail.com

2019-11-21 23:41:57 UTC

You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.

Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.

So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.

Paul S Person

2019-11-22 17:33:28 UTC

You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.

Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.

So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.

The fact that "Medicare for All" is simply a cynical attempt to
leverage "Medicare" for something quite different requires only a
cursory examination of the actual concept to discover. It does not
require a detailed examination of what may or may not happen.

Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

If the Dems win, they'd better get the whole thing up and running
within the first two years, 'cause the chances are that, once the
reality becomes clear, the House will flip and that will be it for a
while.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

J. Clarke

2019-11-22 18:34:08 UTC

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.

Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.

So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

The issue with the individual mandate is that they are saying, in
essence, "if you exist within the United States you _must_ purchase
this product". Once the legal precedent that they can require one to
purchase insurance solely because one exists, then they can require
one to purchase _anything_. Housing sales are down, everybody _must_
buy a house. Car sales are down, everybody _must_ buy a car. Airliner
sales are down, everybody _must_ buy an airliner.

Post by Paul S Person
If the Dems win, they'd better get the whole thing up and running
within the first two years, 'cause the chances are that, once the
reality becomes clear, the House will flip and that will be it for a
while.

Chris Buckley

2019-11-22 22:54:52 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true. Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up. There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)

Chris

J. Clarke

2019-11-22 23:22:05 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

You pay for it whether you use it or not. There is no way to opt out
of payroll tax unless you work in one of those fields where there is a
strong enough union to get an exemption. The government is, of
course, perfectly happy to keep your money if you decide that you
don't want to start using the benefits, but you still paid for it.

Post by Chris Buckley
Most people should and there are Medicare cost
penalties if you delay signing up, but there's no good reason for
somebody with excellent retiree health benefits who will never adopt
Medicare to sign up.

They still paid for it.

Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.

You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.

Post by Chris Buckley
My wife is a long-time federal employee and we will continue to use
FEHB after retirement - Medicare duplicates those benefits to a large
extent (search for Medicare vs FEHB if you're interested in details.)
Chris

Chris Buckley

2019-11-23 00:37:10 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

You pay for it whether you use it or not.

No, not true again (or true only in part). Your medicare payroll tax
pays completely for part A (hospital), but there are still substantial
premiums for Part B (doctors, etc). They range from $3400 to $4500 a
year for most couples. Part D coverage(drugs) is an additional premium
(normally) on top of that. You do NOT pay these premiums if you do
not sign up for Medicare Part B or D. *I* regard paying a $4000/year
difference as important; you may not.

And none of this has anything to do with my claim that you were
incorrect when you said Medicare signup is required. You remain incorrect.

Chris

J. Clarke

2019-11-23 01:43:56 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

You pay for it whether you use it or not.

No, not true again (or true only in part). Your medicare payroll tax
pays completely for part A (hospital), but there are still substantial
premiums for Part B (doctors, etc). They range from $3400 to $4500 a
year for most couples. Part D coverage(drugs) is an additional premium
(normally) on top of that. You do NOT pay these premiums if you do
not sign up for Medicare Part B or D. *I* regard paying a $4000/year
difference as important; you may not.
And none of this has anything to do with my claim that you were
incorrect when you said Medicare signup is required. You remain incorrect.

OK, tell me how to get out of paying for it, since you are so certain
that "signup is not required".

Paul S Person

2019-11-23 18:11:58 UTC

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:43:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

You pay for it whether you use it or not.

No, not true again (or true only in part). Your medicare payroll tax
pays completely for part A (hospital), but there are still substantial
premiums for Part B (doctors, etc). They range from $3400 to $4500 a
year for most couples. Part D coverage(drugs) is an additional premium
(normally) on top of that. You do NOT pay these premiums if you do
not sign up for Medicare Part B or D. *I* regard paying a $4000/year
difference as important; you may not.
And none of this has anything to do with my claim that you were
incorrect when you said Medicare signup is required. You remain incorrect.

OK, tell me how to get out of paying for it, since you are so certain
that "signup is not required".

By not applying for it?

Your question actually has a point -- I was on Social Security before
I turned 65, and was enrolled in Medicare pretty much automatically.
There may have been a way to avoid it. Or the two may be linked; that
is, the /first/ step is to keep working (or at least, don't sign up
for SSA, which /is/ something you must do or not do -- nothing
automatic about /that/) until after you are 65 and then not sign up
(which may involve /telling/ someone you are not signing up).

It may not be required, but that doesn't mean it is easily avoided.
However, since I never tried to avoid it, I really have no idea.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

J. Clarke

2019-11-23 18:24:39 UTC

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 10:11:58 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 20:43:56 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

You pay for it whether you use it or not.

No, not true again (or true only in part). Your medicare payroll tax
pays completely for part A (hospital), but there are still substantial
premiums for Part B (doctors, etc). They range from $3400 to $4500 a
year for most couples. Part D coverage(drugs) is an additional premium
(normally) on top of that. You do NOT pay these premiums if you do
not sign up for Medicare Part B or D. *I* regard paying a $4000/year
difference as important; you may not.
And none of this has anything to do with my claim that you were
incorrect when you said Medicare signup is required. You remain incorrect.

OK, tell me how to get out of paying for it, since you are so certain
that "signup is not required".

By not applying for it?

I do not recall ever "applying for it". Nonetheless, every month a
certain amount is deducted from my paycheck to pay for it. Tell me
how to go about lawfully avoiding that deduction other than by leaving
the United States and renouncing my citizenship.

Post by Paul S Person
Your question actually has a point -- I was on Social Security before
I turned 65, and was enrolled in Medicare pretty much automatically.
There may have been a way to avoid it. Or the two may be linked; that
is, the /first/ step is to keep working (or at least, don't sign up
for SSA, which /is/ something you must do or not do -- nothing
automatic about /that/) until after you are 65 and then not sign up
(which may involve /telling/ someone you are not signing up).

I also pay for Social Security whether I want it or not.

Post by Paul S Person
It may not be required, but that doesn't mean it is easily avoided.
However, since I never tried to avoid it, I really have no idea.

Paul S Person

2019-11-23 18:07:56 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

You pay for it whether you use it or not.

The Medicare premium when you are on Social Security is ... a bit
wierd.

In 2019 it is (for just me) $135.50, which is nowhere near $4k. The
FEHB plan, OTOH ... is a lot more.

But that's not the end of the story, oh no. Apparently, there is a
rule (or law) that the Social Security amount after Medicare cannot go
down. So, if SSA increases by a lower dollar amount than Medicare
does, the entire SSA increase goes to Medicare -- and if, in the
future, the SSA increases more than Medicare, the Medicare premium may
go up more than expected, until the entire increase goes to Medicare
or the /actual/ amount is reached. Comparison of 2018 to 2019 shows
/both/ increasing, so apparently I am now paying the full Medicare
premium. Which is, indeed, for Part B.

Or, at least, I /think/ that is correct. When I was planning for
retirement, I did a spreadsheet to project what the annuity should be
(it turned out that I could just as well have used the amount
projected by SSA), and was introduced to "flex points" and other
arcana that made it /very/ hard to compute. Complification is, of
course, the first step in mystification.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Chris Buckley

2019-11-23 19:11:18 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

You pay for it whether you use it or not.

The Medicare premium when you are on Social Security is ... a bit
wierd.
In 2019 it is (for just me) $135.50, which is nowhere near $4k. The
FEHB plan, OTOH ... is a lot more.

Not that much more, depending on how much health care you need. For
the two of us, Medicare Part B next year would be 144.60/month *
2 persons * 12 months or $3470/year (adding Part D (average $850/year)
or Part C wraparound gets you over the $4000 figure of mine). Our FEHB
premium next year for self+1 is $285/month or $3420/year. A bit
cheaper (actually much cheaper if you consider it's paid pre-tax at
the moment, but once retired the premium will be post-tax), but has an
$1800 deductible which makes it pretty close to MedicareB+C if you
don't use all of your deductible.

Post by Paul S Person
But that's not the end of the story, oh no. Apparently, there is a
rule (or law) that the Social Security amount after Medicare cannot go
down. So, if SSA increases by a lower dollar amount than Medicare
does, the entire SSA increase goes to Medicare -- and if, in the
future, the SSA increases more than Medicare, the Medicare premium may
go up more than expected, until the entire increase goes to Medicare
or the /actual/ amount is reached. Comparison of 2018 to 2019 shows
/both/ increasing, so apparently I am now paying the full Medicare
premium. Which is, indeed, for Part B.
Or, at least, I /think/ that is correct. When I was planning for
retirement, I did a spreadsheet to project what the annuity should be
(it turned out that I could just as well have used the amount
projected by SSA), and was introduced to "flex points" and other
arcana that made it /very/ hard to compute. Complification is, of
course, the first step in mystification.

Yes, fun and games.

Chris

Paul S Person

2019-11-23 17:57:38 UTC

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

They still paid for it.

Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.

You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.

Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.

IOW, you are paying to support Medicare for those who get it. You are
not paying for your own coverage when you pay the payroll tax.

And the tax must be paid; unions may get the employer to pay the
employee half and not show it on the pay stub, but it is still paid.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Dimensional Traveler

2019-11-23 19:34:58 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

They still paid for it.

Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.

You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.

Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.

Social Security works the same way.

--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"

Chrysi Cat

2019-11-23 22:58:20 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

They still paid for it.

Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.

You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.

Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.

Social Security works the same way.

Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.

Which in turn makes it the absolutely most regressive tax in the US and
also makes it appear it's specifically designed to _keep_ the majority
of middle-income earners from ever saving up enough to become "rich" at
least until they can legally tap their IRA.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

Dimensional Traveler

2019-11-24 01:46:58 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

They still paid for it.

Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.

You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.

Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.

Social Security works the same way.

Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.

Please explain why you believe this to be true.

Also I was addressing the mistaken statement that current payments into
Social Security are not being used to make current payouts.

--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"

Chrysi Cat

2019-11-24 07:35:24 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

They still paid for it.

Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.

You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.

Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.

Social Security works the same way.

Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.

Please explain why you believe this to be true.
Also I was addressing the mistaken statement that current payments into
Social Security are not being used to make current payouts.

I got the latter part. As for the question you're asking me to explain,
remember that all income over 195K yearly is immune to Social Security
taxation. Now imagine how much more solvent the administration would be
if it were allowed to collect tax on more than the first 195K of a guy
with a 2.2M annual salary.

--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

Kevrob

2019-11-24 08:19:15 UTC

.....As for the question you're asking me to explain,
remember that all income over 195K yearly is immune to Social Security
taxation. Now imagine how much more solvent the administration would be
if it were allowed to collect tax on more than the first 195K of a guy
with a 2.2M annual salary.

Then it wouldn't be "an insurance scheme," unless that
"contributor" got much larger payments.

Being honest,and calling FICA "tax" and the payments
"welfare" would have eroded support for the program.
Income redistribution, in order to be sold in the US,
has to be disguised.

Kevin R

Paul S Person

2019-11-24 17:41:21 UTC

Post by Kevrob

Then it wouldn't be "an insurance scheme," unless that
"contributor" got much larger payments.
Being honest,and calling FICA "tax" and the payments
"welfare" would have eroded support for the program.
Income redistribution, in order to be sold in the US,
has to be disguised.

Which is why "Medicare-for-all" is likely to fail if attempted.

The financing schemes all seem to involve income redistribution on a
/massive/ scale.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

D B Davis

2019-11-24 18:40:35 UTC

Post by Kevrob

Then it wouldn't be "an insurance scheme," unless that
"contributor" got much larger payments.
Being honest,and calling FICA "tax" and the payments
"welfare" would have eroded support for the program.
Income redistribution, in order to be sold in the US,
has to be disguised.

It's a carpetbag croaker class [1] Ponzi scheme that redistributes your
income to banksters in the Deep North if you ask me.

Note.

[1] https://www.eapoe.org/works/pollin/brp20416.htm#m274

☮

Thank you,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``.
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Lynn McGuire

2019-11-26 22:30:39 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

They still paid for it.

Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.

You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.

Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.

Social Security works the same way.

Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.

Please explain why you believe this to be true.
Also I was addressing the mistaken statement that current payments
into Social Security are not being used to make current payouts.

Actually, the Social Security tax stops at $132,900 of income in 2019.
https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751

However, as a part of Obamacare, there is an additional individual
Medicare tax of 0.9% of all income above $200,000 per year.

Lynn

Paul S Person

2019-11-24 17:39:24 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

They still paid for it.

Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.

You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.

Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.

Social Security works the same way.

Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.

Apparently, one of the Dems is proposing to raise the limit. This
/would/ raise the benefit for those paying more, but not enough to
keep the additional cash flow from funding Social Security.

Post by Chrysi Cat
Which in turn makes it the absolutely most regressive tax in the US and
also makes it appear it's specifically designed to _keep_ the majority
of middle-income earners from ever saving up enough to become "rich" at
least until they can legally tap their IRA.

I would say that, in my experience, saving is a state of mind -- you
just have to live well within your income and want to do it. And I
would be telling the truth.

But not the whole truth. My experience is not very typical. The people
you are talking about, and those lower down on the ladder, /do/ have
problems saving because they can't live well within their income.

For example: when I was in the Army, I was saving 50% of my net pay.
But I was also unmarried and living on base and owned no vehicle. Had
I been married, living off-base, and owned a vehicle I would not have
been able to do that. There are trade-offs, I cannot recommend my
solution to anyone.

But becoming "rich" isn't the goal. Having enough (which should
include some savings to weather the occasional crisis) to get by is
the goal. Having enough to get by in retirement is the goal when you
get old enough.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Lynn McGuire

2019-11-26 22:26:21 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

They still paid for it.

Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.

You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.

Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.

Social Security works the same way.

Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.
Which in turn makes it the absolutely most regressive tax in the US and
also makes it appear it's specifically designed to _keep_ the majority
of middle-income earners from ever saving up enough to become "rich" at
least until they can legally tap their IRA.

You can tap your IRA at any age. There is a 10% penalty tax if you are
younger than 59.5 years of age when you do it. I will be 59.5 in a
couple of weeks.

And, regardless of age, you must pay income tax on any IRA withdrawal.

Lynn

Paul S Person

2019-11-27 17:16:19 UTC

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 16:26:21 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

They still paid for it.

Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.

You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.

Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.

Social Security works the same way.

Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.
Which in turn makes it the absolutely most regressive tax in the US and
also makes it appear it's specifically designed to _keep_ the majority
of middle-income earners from ever saving up enough to become "rich" at
least until they can legally tap their IRA.

You can tap your IRA at any age. There is a 10% penalty tax if you are
younger than 59.5 years of age when you do it. I will be 59.5 in a
couple of weeks.

IIRC, you must start doing so at 72.5.

But maybe that only applies to 401(g)/401(k) plans.

Post by Lynn McGuire
And, regardless of age, you must pay income tax on any IRA withdrawal.

As must anyone you leave it to: it cannot be rolled over by anyone
else.

As opposed to a non-IRA/401(g/k) stock/bond/mutual fund account, where
the /shares/ can be inherited. Pick reliable heirs and do this for two
or three generations and /your/ family may have enough wealth to live
off it!

Come to think of it, this /entire post/ is IIRC! And, even if I do, I
may be recalling how it used to be rather than how it is.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Lynn McGuire

2019-11-27 19:07:01 UTC

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 16:26:21 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

They still paid for it.

Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.

You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.

Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.

Social Security works the same way.

Well, except for the fact that it stops being assessed as soon as you
got through the border between middle and high income.
Which in turn makes it the absolutely most regressive tax in the US and
also makes it appear it's specifically designed to _keep_ the majority
of middle-income earners from ever saving up enough to become "rich" at
least until they can legally tap their IRA.

You can tap your IRA at any age. There is a 10% penalty tax if you are
younger than 59.5 years of age when you do it. I will be 59.5 in a
couple of weeks.

IIRC, you must start doing so at 72.5.
But maybe that only applies to 401(g)/401(k) plans.

Post by Lynn McGuire
And, regardless of age, you must pay income tax on any IRA withdrawal.

As must anyone you leave it to: it cannot be rolled over by anyone
else.
As opposed to a non-IRA/401(g/k) stock/bond/mutual fund account, where
the /shares/ can be inherited. Pick reliable heirs and do this for two
or three generations and /your/ family may have enough wealth to live
off it!
Come to think of it, this /entire post/ is IIRC! And, even if I do, I
may be recalling how it used to be rather than how it is.

Yup, I left off the mandatory IRA distributions starting at age 70.5.

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-required-minimum-distributions

Lynn

Paul S Person

2019-11-24 17:30:47 UTC

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 11:34:58 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 18:22:05 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

No, not true.

They still paid for it.

Post by Chris Buckley
There is no mandatory requirement. I'm
approaching that age and I've been debating it internally for years.

You still paid for it. And if you keep working past 65 you'll
continue to pay for it.

Unlike Social Security, IIRC, the Medicare portion of the payroll
taxes pays for /current/ expenses.

Social Security works the same way.

It does /now/, but, in the past, it built up a surplus.

A surplus /both/ parties used to "balance the budget" -- or, at least,
"reduce the deficit". The SSA was left holding some very special
bonds.

Well, times change, and now SSA is /cashing/ those bonds -- and
neither party appears to be particularly eager to /pay the money
back/.

Never mind to /fully fund/ it as a retirement plan.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person

2019-11-23 17:54:02 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

There is no mandatory requirement; however, IIRC, at least one part
has the premiums rising if you don't start it at the right time. This
would, IMHO, have been a better idea than the tax: let people who
don't want medical insurance when young find themselves when, after 30
years, they decide the need it, find that /their/ premiums are 30%
higher than anybody elses.

You may want to investigate FEHB further. Some of this may not be
entirely accurate. Also, this is based on /my/ FEHB plan; other plans
may vary, although I would expect not.

The FEHB drug plan satisfies the requirements for Medicare Part D,
which you would otherwise have to purchase separately (or as part of
some other Medicare-supplementing policy).

After retirement, if you are eligible for Medicare and /not/ on it,
then your FEHB benefits /shrink/ to whatever Medicare would pay, at
least for those items covered by Medicare.

OTOH, once you retire, if you drop the FEHB plan, you can (with one
unlikely exception) /never/ get it back again.

In retirement, FEHB + Medicare acts like a very expensive
Medicare-supplemental policy -- if Medicare covers it, the FEHB plan
will be the secondary insurer and will pay all deductibles,
copayments, coinsurance with no FEHB deductible. IOW, you pay nothing
out of pocket (but, of course, quite a bit for the insurance) for
anything Medicare covers.

Anything Medicare doesn't cover but the FEHB does is covered as usual,
the FEHB deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance applying as usual.

So, you /may/ want to consider whether FEHB + Medicare makes sense in
your particular situation. And your wife's particular plan. And the
/current/ rules, which should be in the Plan Booklet, just to be sure
you are working with the real situation and not my memory of what it
was seven years ago, when I faced the same decision.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Chris Buckley

2019-11-23 19:50:15 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

Not quite right, as I understand things. *Your* FEHB benefits are
completely defined by your plan and won't be affected if you are not
on Medicare. *Your doctor's* benefits (what they get paid) will indeed
shrink to the Medicare limit, which may be a problem for some doctors.

Everything else you say agrees with my understanding of things; thanks.

Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, once you retire, if you drop the FEHB plan, you can (with one
unlikely exception) /never/ get it back again.
In retirement, FEHB + Medicare acts like a very expensive
Medicare-supplemental policy -- if Medicare covers it, the FEHB plan
will be the secondary insurer and will pay all deductibles,
copayments, coinsurance with no FEHB deductible. IOW, you pay nothing
out of pocket (but, of course, quite a bit for the insurance) for
anything Medicare covers.
Anything Medicare doesn't cover but the FEHB does is covered as usual,
the FEHB deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance applying as usual.
So, you /may/ want to consider whether FEHB + Medicare makes sense in
your particular situation. And your wife's particular plan. And the
/current/ rules, which should be in the Plan Booklet, just to be sure
you are working with the real situation and not my memory of what it
was seven years ago, when I faced the same decision.

Things have improved in the past 3-4 years as far as coordination
between FEHB and Medicare. There are now FEHB plans that only make
sense when combined with Medicare (Aetna Direct is the big one), and
the combination of those plans plus MedicareB is cheaper on average
than just MedicareB+C/D or the FEHB plan without MedicareB. Even more
ordinary FEHB plans now waive all deductibles/copayments/coinsurance
if you have Medicare.

A major reason to keep FEHB is that many specialist doctors do not
accept Medicare now, and that will be worse if Medicare expands.
Our son is partially disabled and has been on Medicare for years.
He (or we) pays many thousands of dollars a year to specialists who
do not take Medicare.

For those interested, Consumer Checkbook has a nice summary at
https://www.checkbook.org/newhig2/year20/advice/should-federal-annuitants-enroll-in-medicare-part-b-after-age-65

Chris

Paul S Person

2019-11-24 18:00:41 UTC

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Oh, BTW, wouldn't this sort of thing require the Return of the
Individual Mandate? I mean, if it is truly /universal/, would not
everyone be /required/ to sign up?

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.

That's actually worse than I remembered.

Post by Chris Buckley
Everything else you say agrees with my understanding of things; thanks.

Things have improved in the past 3-4 years as far as coordination
between FEHB and Medicare. There are now FEHB plans that only make
sense when combined with Medicare (Aetna Direct is the big one), and
the combination of those plans plus MedicareB is cheaper on average
than just MedicareB+C/D or the FEHB plan without MedicareB. Even more
ordinary FEHB plans now waive all deductibles/copayments/coinsurance
if you have Medicare.
A major reason to keep FEHB is that many specialist doctors do not
accept Medicare now, and that will be worse if Medicare expands.
Our son is partially disabled and has been on Medicare for years.
He (or we) pays many thousands of dollars a year to specialists who
do not take Medicare.
For those interested, Consumer Checkbook has a nice summary at
https://www.checkbook.org/newhig2/year20/advice/should-federal-annuitants-enroll-in-medicare-part-b-after-age-65

Well, that puts a different light on things. My plan's current booklet
(web version) is even less clear.

Neither make it clear that the plan itself pays the Medicare
deductible, copays, and coinsurance -- although it certainly worked
that way a few years ago. But I don't intend to find out what happens
currently any time soon.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Paul S Person

2019-11-23 17:37:25 UTC

On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:34:08 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.

Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.

So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
The issue with the individual mandate is that they are saying, in
essence, "if you exist within the United States you _must_ purchase
this product". Once the legal precedent that they can require one to
purchase insurance solely because one exists, then they can require
one to purchase _anything_. Housing sales are down, everybody _must_
buy a house. Car sales are down, everybody _must_ buy a car. Airliner
sales are down, everybody _must_ buy an airliner.

And yet, most states, if not all, require /all/ car owners to have
auto insurance.

So an "individual mandate" is /acceptable/ for car owners, but not for
body owners?

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

J. Clarke

2019-11-23 18:33:06 UTC

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 09:37:25 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:34:08 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.

Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.

So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
The issue with the individual mandate is that they are saying, in
essence, "if you exist within the United States you _must_ purchase
this product". Once the legal precedent that they can require one to
purchase insurance solely because one exists, then they can require
one to purchase _anything_. Housing sales are down, everybody _must_
buy a house. Car sales are down, everybody _must_ buy a car. Airliner
sales are down, everybody _must_ buy an airliner.

And yet, most states, if not all, require /all/ car owners to have
auto insurance.

No, they do not. If you want to drive it on a public road you have to
register it and maintain insurance. If it is never operated on a
public road then you need to do neither.

Post by Paul S Person
So an "individual mandate" is /acceptable/ for car owners, but not for
body owners?

Body owners? That is called "slavery" and is explicitly prohibited by
the Constitution.

Paul S Person

2019-11-24 18:02:35 UTC

On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:33:06 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 09:37:25 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:34:08 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.

Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.

So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
The issue with the individual mandate is that they are saying, in
essence, "if you exist within the United States you _must_ purchase
this product". Once the legal precedent that they can require one to
purchase insurance solely because one exists, then they can require
one to purchase _anything_. Housing sales are down, everybody _must_
buy a house. Car sales are down, everybody _must_ buy a car. Airliner
sales are down, everybody _must_ buy an airliner.

And yet, most states, if not all, require /all/ car owners to have
auto insurance.

No, they do not. If you want to drive it on a public road you have to
register it and maintain insurance. If it is never operated on a
public road then you need to do neither.

Precisely. You are /mandated/ to have auto insurance if you don't want
to just drive it up and down your own driveway.

Or your farm, of course.

Post by Paul S Person
So an "individual mandate" is /acceptable/ for car owners, but not for
body owners?

Body owners? That is called "slavery" and is explicitly prohibited by
the Constitution.

On the contrary, we each own one body -- our own.

No slavery involved.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

J. Clarke

2019-11-24 18:43:15 UTC

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 10:02:35 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:33:06 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 09:37:25 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:34:08 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.

Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.

So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
The issue with the individual mandate is that they are saying, in
essence, "if you exist within the United States you _must_ purchase
this product". Once the legal precedent that they can require one to
purchase insurance solely because one exists, then they can require
one to purchase _anything_. Housing sales are down, everybody _must_
buy a house. Car sales are down, everybody _must_ buy a car. Airliner
sales are down, everybody _must_ buy an airliner.

And yet, most states, if not all, require /all/ car owners to have
auto insurance.

No, they do not. If you want to drive it on a public road you have to
register it and maintain insurance. If it is never operated on a
public road then you need to do neither.

Precisely. You are /mandated/ to have auto insurance if you don't want
to just drive it up and down your own driveway.
Or your farm, of course.

Or a racetrack, or display it in a museum.

The point is that the insurance is tied to the act of using public
roads, not to mere existence.

Post by Paul S Person
So an "individual mandate" is /acceptable/ for car owners, but not for
body owners?

Body owners? That is called "slavery" and is explicitly prohibited by
the Constitution.

On the contrary, we each own one body -- our own.
No slavery involved.

On the contrary, it is based in the notion that we are all slaves of
the almighty State.

Now, will you feel the same way when you are told that you _must_ buy
a house, whether you want one or not and whether you can afford one or
not? After all, if the government can make it mandatory as a
condition of operating a body within the United States, then it can
make it mandatory that one shelter that body.

I'm sorry, but you are trying to turn existence into a "privilege" for
which one must expect to make some compromises.

Paul S Person

2019-11-25 23:21:37 UTC

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 13:43:15 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 10:02:35 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 13:33:06 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 23 Nov 2019 09:37:25 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 13:34:08 -0500, J. Clarke

Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 22 Nov 2019 09:33:28 -0800, Paul S Person

You really think you can examine what a health care proposal is just by looking at the name?
Medicare for All is a branding, it's not meaning that the current, exact medicare system is rolled out for everybody
https://www.healthline.com/health/what-medicare-for-all-would-look-like-in-america#4
has discussion of some of the proposals and it's a long way off what you're talking about below.

Without in any way impugning the integrity of healthline, until we
have it, it will not be possible to tell what it does or does not do.

So instead let's just look at the name and claim that shows everything...
If you're addressing policies you have to look at the policies.

With rare exception, everyone is /required/ to sign up for Medicare
you know. Extending it to "Medicare for All" would merely reduce the
mandatory enrollment age and increase the payroll tax.
The issue with the individual mandate is that they are saying, in
essence, "if you exist within the United States you _must_ purchase
this product". Once the legal precedent that they can require one to
purchase insurance solely because one exists, then they can require
one to purchase _anything_. Housing sales are down, everybody _must_
buy a house. Car sales are down, everybody _must_ buy a car. Airliner
sales are down, everybody _must_ buy an airliner.

And yet, most states, if not all, require /all/ car owners to have
auto insurance.

No, they do not. If you want to drive it on a public road you have to
register it and maintain insurance. If it is never operated on a
public road then you need to do neither.

Precisely. You are /mandated/ to have auto insurance if you don't want
to just drive it up and down your own driveway.
Or your farm, of course.

Or a racetrack, or display it in a museum.
The point is that the insurance is tied to the act of using public
roads, not to mere existence.

Post by Paul S Person
So an "individual mandate" is /acceptable/ for car owners, but not for
body owners?

Body owners? That is called "slavery" and is explicitly prohibited by
the Constitution.

On the contrary, we each own one body -- our own.
No slavery involved.

On the contrary, it is based in the notion that we are all slaves of
the almighty State.
Now, will you feel the same way when you are told that you _must_ buy
a house, whether you want one or not and whether you can afford one or
not? After all, if the government can make it mandatory as a
condition of operating a body within the United States, then it can
make it mandatory that one shelter that body.
I'm sorry, but you are trying to turn existence into a "privilege" for
which one must expect to make some compromises.

What do you think the Draft was about, except to turn existence into a
privilege?

Yes, I know that it's in remission (so to speak) and that it was and
is a blatant form of institutionalized sexism, but all that needs to
happen is for the "Universal Manpower Training Act" to be modified to
make it clear that "Manpower" means both men and women to fix the
sexism.

And it could, theoretically, be revived at any time.

Ever read /On Liberty: Man v. the State/ by Milton Mayer? This was
published by the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_the_Study_of_Democratic_Institutions).
IIRC, it concluded that the State would win, every time. Liberty was a
luxury that would vanish whenever the state was threatened.

So, between legal precedent (the draft) and theoretical speculation,
the idea that existence is, in practice, a "privilege" has been
well-established in the USA for a long, long time.

--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

J. Clarke

2019-11-25 23:35:13 UTC