• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

How then, do you explain the United States? Unencumbered means without the distortions that governments bring to the markets when they go beyond simple police powers.


Do you believe today's market, twisted and contorted by massive government interference is unencumbered?


Are you denying your socialist tendency?
How can anyone be free who depends on the government for health care?


The US is easy! It was started by the capitalist’s ideals of those rich colonists who did not qualify to participate in the executive branches of the British monarchy, so they had designs on starting their own government that played by their own rules and gave them the financial freedom they wanted.

Today’s markets are not contorted or twisted by anything the US or US state governments have done. In fact, quite the contrary has been a work since 1979 in this country: corporate and Wall Street interests have legislated a tax code and financial market system of loopholes and speculation (on the come gambling) that has ripped the very strength and trust of this country’s economy right out from underneath everybody’s feet, and I defy you to prove that my assessments are not true.

Lastly: You seem a bit incapable of separating reason from your political prejudices: labeling me a socialist is just a lazy dodge for an inability to argue reason. Moreover, trying to mix freedom with health care and the government is almost pornographic in that “freedom” used as such, exploits something very dear and intimate to every US citizen as well as those trying to achieve citizenship, not to mention the losses of those who have died trying to maintain it under the attacks of autocratic despots.

I suggest that you rethink your position and try a reasonable and credible approach at making a case for your opinions.
 
Sigh. Students.

Do you believe it is possible to appear wise without taking any effort to achieve wisdom?

(chuckle)

I'm 55 years old. My life's experience afforded me the wisdom to start thinking about my long term future when I turned 21 and joined the Teamster's Union. Having then reached the age of 50 in 2007, and knowing that in less than a year I could retire making as much money playing on the internet as I did working, I planned to retire and continue my education; which I'm doing now.

So, again; reason wins over prejudice every time.

Think - research - engage
 
(chuckle)

I'm 55 years old. My life's experience afforded me the wisdom to start thinking about my long term future when I turned 21 and joined the Teamster's Union. Having then reached the age of 50 in 2007, and knowing that in less than a year I could retire making as much money playing on the internet as I did working, I planned to retire and continue my education; which I'm doing now.

So, again; reason wins over prejudice every time.

Think - research - engage


Retired at 50? My God...That is part of the problem that unions give us.

j-mac
 
I agree with some of what you're saying, however Health exams as such do go on at colleges, but should not be the practice of everyday health. There are many nurse pratisioners etc that can set bones, deliver babies and things like that who have been practicing for a number of years and are a good choice for those who desire a less formal participation, but to lower the standards by which medicine operates is disaster waiting to happen.

You're trying to lower the participation of federal and state government and we have seen over and over again that less regulation only increses hardship for others.

I'm trying to break the monopoly of care doctors have successfully lobbied. There is no reason why nurse practitioners shouldn't be allowed to preform these actions, but in a number of states they aren't allowed to. There's no reason why specialization, which reduces cost, can't be the norm script that doctors have prevented it through controlling the education system and licensing regimens.

Retired at 50? My God...That is part of the problem that unions give us.

j-mac

Don't blame the union blame the failure it management to negotiate properly.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
 
Retired at 50? My God...That is part of the problem that unions give us.
Do you put 5% or more of your income into retirement - not counting FICA?
 
Don't blame the union blame the failure it management to negotiate properly.


Oh please. I have told it many times before, I grew up around plenty of UAW members in Lansing Mi. Closed shops, walk outs, pressure tactics, etc...I know the deal.


j-mac
 
Do you put 5% or more of your income into retirement - not counting FICA?

Yeah, I've done that in 401K's for about 25 yrs now...I have a decent nest egg, but nothing able to retire me at 50, which for me would be next year. Tell the truth, the generous pension helps that scenario.

j-mac
 
Retired at 50? My God...That is part of the problem that unions give us.

j-mac

That is a benefit of union membership and propper planning. When I exited my position, there a good man to replace me and to continue his long range planning. Now, when I receive my degree and reenter the work force, my pension becomes an asset; capital gain if you will, which can be invested and passed on.

So, I think you're really just a bit shocked that union membership affords such things when a man puts his mind to it. This also reveals why teh right is trying to do away with teh current pension system in unions.
 
That is a benefit of union membership and propper planning. When I exited my position, there a good man to replace me and to continue his long range planning. Now, when I receive my degree and reenter the work force, my pension becomes an asset; capital gain if you will, which can be invested and passed on.

So, I think you're really just a bit shocked that union membership affords such things when a man puts his mind to it. This also reveals why teh right is trying to do away with teh current pension system in unions.


Not quite there Tex...See, when these large, generous pensions go insolvent then their cost gets passed on to me as a taxpayer...So hurry up and get back in the workforce, because I can't, nor do I want to subsidize your retirement.

j-mac
 
Not quite there Tex...See, when these large, generous pensions go insolvent then their cost gets passed on to me as a taxpayer...So hurry up and get back in the workforce, because I can't, nor do I want to subsidize your retirement.

j-mac

BTW, are you suggesting that because someone works for the tax payer, they are not entitled to a decent benefit package? I don't mean just this person, who suggests you may get your money's worth in return, but those who retire after years of service?
 
BTW, are you suggesting that because someone works for the tax payer, they are not entitled to a decent benefit package? I don't mean just this person, who suggests you may get your money's worth in return, but those who retire after years of service?

What? Wait...First off, I think he said he was a Teamster, not a Public Sector Union worker. Second, explain "entitled"...


j-mac
 
I think being shot at defending this country, is just a little different from driving a truck.


j-mac

In the past, a lot of people retire without being shot at. That's just a fact.
 
What? Wait...First off, I think he said he was a Teamster, not a Public Sector Union worker. Second, explain "entitled"...


j-mac

I admit I'm kind of blending all our conversations together, and did try to specify not his comment in particular. But someone who works for the taxpayer (and I did misread taxpayer in your comment, which makes your statement even less logical), which would include a lot of folks.
 
Last edited:
I admit I'm kind of blending all our conversations together, and did try to specify not his comment in particular. But someone who works for the taxpayer (and I did misread taxpayer in your comment, which makes your statement even less logical), which would include a lot of folks.


Here, let me help you out with a question....What happens to union pension programs when they go insolvent?


j-mac
 
Here, let me help you out with a question....What happens to union pension programs when they go insolvent?


j-mac

They go insolvent. **** happens. Be it to a union employee or a private employee. Both negotiate. And both have a partner in that negotiation. Fixating on the union is kind of silly. Business has no more moral authority than unions, and vise versa. Both have done good and bad, and both effect the public with bad decisions.
 
Oh please. I have told it many times before, I grew up around plenty of UAW members in Lansing Mi. Closed shops, walk outs, pressure tactics, etc...I know the deal.


j-mac

And if you support freedom you should support any legitimate, non-criminal, tactics employed by unions.

Not quite there Tex...See, when these large, generous pensions go insolvent then their cost gets passed on to me as a taxpayer...So hurry up and get back in the workforce, because I can't, nor do I want to subsidize your retirement.

j-mac


How would be subsiding his pension if he's not a pubic sector worker? I'm sorry, but the law that Obama got passed that makes unions have a say in bankruptcy hearings was a just law. If anything, workers should be compensated first, especially if they are on the verge of retiring.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
 
Here, let me help you out with a question....What happens to union pension programs when they go insolvent?


j-mac


There are some guarantee programs. Some are optional for the union to subscribe.

""Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act," a bailout for union-run retirement plans. Similar to House legislation from North Dakota Democrat Earl Pomeroy and Ohio Republican Patrick Tiberi, the bill would transfer tens of billions of dollars worth of retiree liabilities to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, i.e., to taxpayers.

"All of this is a raw deal for union pensioners who worked a lifetime in expectation of certain benefits. The PBGC's current maximum payment to any plan participant is $12,800 a year. Mr. Casey's bill raises that to $21,000 year, still only a fraction of existing pension promises."

Wall Street Journal

Review & Outlook: The Union Pension Bailout - WSJ.com



Union Pension Underfunding Time-Bomb Soars By 75% In One Year, Nears $400 Billion | ZeroHedge




\\
 
It is true I don't put too much stock in the parties. However, even independents tend to vote for one more than the other. And on occasion those who belong to one vote for another (like me voting for Grassly).

They may vote for a certain party more than the other but that does not make them a part of that party. It just means that particular person holds more of their views than the other person running for office. In essence voting for a particular party more than the other is just a side effect of voting for a person that holds your similar views.
 
BTW, are you suggesting that because someone works for the tax payer, they are not entitled to a decent benefit package? I don't mean just this person, who suggests you may get your money's worth in return, but those who retire after years of service?

Many people work their whole lives, giving years of service, and do not get to then sit back on the tax payers dime. One that tax payers never voted for or approved.
 
Many people work their whole lives, giving years of service, and do not get to then sit back on the tax payers dime. One that tax payers never voted for or approved.

State and federal pensions are definitely out of step with the private sector, but in large part that's a result of the private sector being a lot less generous than it used to be. I do think that government pensions need to be scaled back, however. Especially the practice where employees can work extra hours in their last few years and then lock in that higher salary for time immemorial.
 
Not quite there Tex...See, when these large, generous pensions go insolvent then their cost gets passed on to me as a taxpayer...So hurry up and get back in the workforce, because I can't, nor do I want to subsidize your retirement.

j-mac
Uh, wrong: My pension fund is a private one between private employer and representing labor union . . . So, no, you don't pay for anything. What you're alluding to are municple pension funds; and they are nowhere near insolvent. There is a phony projection going around that although contributions are down, at the former rates with increased hiring and less tax revenue: the no - taxes right-wing remember (this is how you set your own traps), a projection of loss has been made through alchemy. If rates increase and employment decreases, then the fund amount will last a lot longer than increasing employment and decreasing funding. The right is trying to decrease funding simply because company retirement plans are nowhere near as good as union plans; 401Ks belong to the subscriber who must market their plan to perspective employers in the hope of getting a good matching 401K that they can roll into, but employers, as usual, are on the cheap about it. Union plans on the other hand are an umbrealla plan that covers an entire jurisdiction; in my case, both the western and southwestern conference of Teamsters, that stay with you from company to company until you decide you want to "go out" as well call it, or freeze your pension; drawing at 62, and work in another profession . . . The right-wing can't touch this kind of security and they're so envious of it that they have mounted a campaign against it. Why? becasue they want the intrest that floats in these 401s and like funds, and Wall Street wants the gambling capital.

So, like everything else in this world a union worker (Teamsters for instance) have to be very careful about where one works: the highest pension contributions are the best places to work: Teamsters pay into our plans and companies match. (ou can't borrow against it, you can't cash it in: it's held in trust until you are qualifed to retire and draw, and takes some years of preparation as well.

So, I'm going to suggest that you put some more thought into your opinions here.
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to break the monopoly of care doctors have successfully lobbied. There is no reason why nurse practitioners shouldn't be allowed to preform these actions, but in a number of states they aren't allowed to. There's no reason why specialization, which reduces cost, can't be the norm script that doctors have prevented it through controlling the education system and licensing regimens.



Don't blame the union blame the failure it management to negotiate properly.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

(chuckle) unions and companies do negotiate properly. Companies don't have to worry about finding attractive plans and teh trusts are managed jointly, so . . .

And BTw let's try and not get off track: I was retirees in light of health care.
 
Yeah, I've done that in 401K's for about 25 yrs now...I have a decent nest egg, but nothing able to retire me at 50, which for me would be next year. Tell the truth, the generous pension helps that scenario.

j-mac

Right. In the Teamsters union it's not percentages but actual money. Barns build their contribution rates out of their own pocket, and it does not take long to build up to $7 or $9 an hour which matched, and after number of years, it's not a nest egg, but an anuity that is paid for life . . . So many guys in my age group; who built it up anyway, chose early retirement, seek work elsewhere adn your retirement becomes a real asset!

It's fool proof plan. The only trouble that ever comes from it is when campaigns like hte lying by the right going on now, and the union busting: think Scott Walker, that goes on strictly for the purposes of sabotaging someone else's retirement plan: it's preditory practice.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom