Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 115

Thread: AARP loses members over health care stance

  1. #61
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: AARP loses members over health care stance

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058202122

    Forbes lists the THREE insurance companies in America. To show you that all the rest are under the umbrella I would have to post everyone listed website where they claim their affiliations, I am by far too lazy to do all of that.
    Thank you for not supporting your positon.
    Enjoy your day.

  2. #62
    Guru
    tlmorg02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Last Seen
    07-23-15 @ 11:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,347

    Re: AARP loses members over health care stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Thank you for not supporting your positon.
    Enjoy your day.
    You better thank me, otherwise you would see how wrong you really are.

  3. #63
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: AARP loses members over health care stance

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    You better thank me, otherwise you would see how wrong you really are.
    Somehow, I doubt it.
    In fact, that you refuse to support your posiiton is FAR more likely an indication that you know how wrong YOU are.

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    New Orleans
    Last Seen
    05-06-11 @ 07:54 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,082

    Re: AARP loses members over health care stance

    People on medicare can join a private medicare HMO. The HMO makes health care decisions, not the government.

    Our city has "People's Health" which is owned by a group of local doctors. Just about everybody accepts it. It offers dental and eyeglasses whereas medicare does not. But it costs nothing extra per month.

    And then they get discounts and free gym memberships and free events.

    If somebody is not happy with it they can just go to a different HMO. But all the old ladies in the hood like it.

  5. #65
    Guru
    tlmorg02's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Louisville, Ky
    Last Seen
    07-23-15 @ 11:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    3,347

    Re: AARP loses members over health care stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Somehow, I doubt it.
    In fact, that you refuse to support your posiiton is FAR more likely an indication that you know how wrong YOU are.
    Sure, like I am going to go through all of those websites to prove to you I am right.

    I will not hinder you to take a look though and see for yourself. If I were wrong, I would not want you to, but I really do want you to take a glimpse and see for yourself.

  6. #66
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: AARP loses members over health care stance

    Quote Originally Posted by tlmorg02 View Post
    Sure, like I am going to go through all of those websites to prove to you I am right.
    Its YOUR claim. If you don't want to support it, that's fine with me.
    Just dont expect it to carry any weight.

  7. #67
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: AARP loses members over health care stance

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Medicare Administrative costs are very low compared to their counterparts in the private sector. Fraud is a bigger issue with Medicare than Administrative Costs. I remember reading in the Business Journal a few years back where the local head of Blue Cross Blue Shield was holding up Medicare's Administrative costs as a goal for them to reach.
    Actually, Medicare requires three times the paperwork of private coverage insurance, and everything signed goes to different administrators and departments for processing, sorry, but you lose on that, it's not that private insurance is exactly efficient from an administration standpoint either, but that comes from government compliance rather than strictly internals.

    Only a minority of seniors earn enough to actually pay any significant taxes on their Social Security benefits.
    You're not getting this are you? They did what they were required to do for the programs, they followed the law, every other argument is irrelevent, and benefits are taxed, whether they have enough in benefits or not.

    Do the math. You have a median household income in the United States of 48k a year. Do away with Social Security and Medicare, and lets say that typical household saves 10% of their income for their retirement at an average annual return of 8% over the course of their working years (say for 40 years). Saving an average of 10% of your income for retirement considering all the other expenses a typical household will encounter over the course of their working lives is pretty optimistic, but just the same lets say they can do that. Considering you would no longer be paying fica taxes, you ought to be able to put aside 10% of your income for retirement.
    Good, you made a point that I was holding back, in a roundabout sort of way, we are already overtaxed and the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is diminished because of government overregulation and this makes someone's 48k a year "just enough" to live in most areas, and insufficient in others, so the idea from the party causing this problem is another entitlement that will require more money than currently used, thus will need to be funded by more tax, therefore people will then have less than 10% to save for retirement by your same math, since salaries don't automatically adjust, end even then they would lose MORE money in income tax.

    If they retire at 65, then by the time they reach retirement age they are going to have around 1.2 million dollars in their retirement savings. That's a lot of money, but inflation will be working against you for 40 years, so buying power will be less.
    There are ways other than lump sum payouts to keep accumulating retirement money.
    When you take into account average inflation, you will be looking at around 750k of purchasing power. Still a pretty good chunk of money the problem is you got to stretch that out for you and your wife until you die, preferably at least in your early 80s.
    If the representatives in washington would do something about their problematic regulations and entitlement programs then that 1.2m could have the effect of more buying power, but that would be too hard for most people politically.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #68
    Student LowRevs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Downeast in NC
    Last Seen
    07-12-12 @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    272

    Re: AARP loses members over health care stance

    I am not a hypocrit. I attended the on-line Obama townhall. He said nothing which made sense. Posters to the live blog were populated with ACORN and SEIU who were basically insulting. I researched the AARP website and discovered that they have associated themselves with SEIU through Divided We Fail. SEIU is of course a cell of a global socialist organization bent on socialist domination of the planet. Check out SEIU site if you don't believe me.

    The health care plan now proposes to save 1/2 a TRILLION $ by cuts and saving in Medicare. Now anyone with any sense knows that one can only do that through cuts in benefits. The fraud and abuse numbers are nowhere near that and efficiencies never yield huge numbers.

    I watched a local AARP townhall later on YouTube and it was chaired by a younger woman (not a senior). When she was asked the first question, something like, "how can AARP support a bill that proposes reducing funding for seniors healthcare by 1/2 TRILLION $". She replied that AARP didn't support any bill and that she was there to pass on information and if she got any more interruptions she would cancel the meeting. The crowd of seniors roared and she left. They stayed and had a pretty good meeting which concluded that they should cancel their memberships. People should respect their elders.

    The day the whitehouse was looking for "fishy" emails, I received one from the president of AARP looking to dispel all the misinformation with a section they wanted me to pass on to all my friends and family. I replied with a somewhat scathing diatribe and requested my membership be cancelled for their lack of concern, but mostly their association with SEIU and therefore ACORN. I have sent three following requests for the remainer of my dues back to no avail. They've lost a lot more than they are reporting!!

    Healthcare needs tweaking not wholesale replacement. Obama has said he wants a single payer system and that his proposal will result in a one payer system after a number of years. That means shutting down the medical insurance system entirely. Seniors are already satisfied with Medicare that's why they don't want it scrapped. This bill needs to be scrapped. They are lying and cannot be trusted.

    Not a hypocrit...I'm against all socialist organizations bent on global domination.
    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.--Thomas Jefferson

  9. #69
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,415

    Re: AARP loses members over health care stance

    [quote=LaMidRighter;1058202386]
    Actually, Medicare requires three times the paperwork of private coverage insurance, and everything signed goes to different administrators and departments for processing, sorry, but you lose on that, it's not that private insurance is exactly efficient from an administration standpoint either, but that comes from government compliance rather than strictly internals.
    The fact is, Medicare has a 3% Administrative overhead compared to around 15% in the private sector. Part of that is due to the shear size of Medicare, part due to it not having to worry about generating profits, and part of it is due to not not committing sufficient resources to fraud prevention. Just the same, when your administrative costs are a fifth what they are in the private sector, its obvious that is not the problem as to its future solvency.

    You're not getting this are you? They did what they were required to do for the programs, they followed the law, every other argument is irrelevent, and benefits are taxed, whether they have enough in benefits or not.
    And you are not getting the fact that if you love your socialist program its rather hypocritical to go out and rail against socialism.

    Good, you made a point that I was holding back, in a roundabout sort of way, we are already overtaxed and the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is diminished because of government overregulation and this makes someone's 48k a year "just enough" to live in most areas, and insufficient in others, so the idea from the party causing this problem is another entitlement that will require more money than currently used, thus will need to be funded by more tax, therefore people will then have less than 10% to save for retirement by your same math, since salaries don't automatically adjust, end even then they would lose MORE money in income tax.
    If you are in a household earning just 48k a year or less, more than likely you are hardly paying anything in taxes outside of FICA. My point was that unless you want to have a majority of seniors without health care, we have to subsidize it somehow for them.

    There are ways other than lump sum payouts to keep accumulating retirement money.
    Of course, most people would get an annuity, or keep it invested and just get monthly withdrawals. Just the same, if your insurance is running you thousands of dollars a month, as it would be absent subsidies, few people could afford it no matter how well they planed for retirement.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  10. #70
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: AARP loses members over health care stance

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post

    The fact is, Medicare has a 3% Administrative overhead compared to around 15% in the private sector. Part of that is due to the shear size of Medicare, part due to it not having to worry about generating profits, and part of it is due to not not committing sufficient resources to fraud prevention. Just the same, when your administrative costs are a fifth what they are in the private sector, its obvious that is not the problem as to its future solvency.
    The fact that Insurance overhead in private is 15%, I call bull****, first off, where did you get that from, considering adm. overhead isn't in public reporting and only insiders would know that, and secondly there is no way to rate that considering there are different companies out there, even as an average it is still disingenuous.


    And you are not getting the fact that if you love your socialist program its rather hypocritical to go out and rail against socialism.
    Contributory versus non-contributory, sorry, you've gotta counter that before I will acknowledge you have a point.



    If you are in a household earning just 48k a year or less, more than likely you are hardly paying anything in taxes outside of FICA. My point was that unless you want to have a majority of seniors without health care, we have to subsidize it somehow for them.
    Bull, it takes the average family 6+ months out of every year to pay there tax share, that extends beyond FICA.



    Of course, most people would get an annuity, or keep it invested and just get monthly withdrawals. Just the same, if your insurance is running you thousands of dollars a month, as it would be absent subsidies, few people could afford it no matter how well they planed for retirement.
    Thousands a month? Yeah, okay, they don't typically get that high, even traditional plans which cover everything and cost the most typically average around 5-6h, if you are stuck with a 1k/mth. plan you've done something wrong.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •