• 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!

Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

County Cooperatives

  • I am a conservative and I do NOT support this proposal

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am neither and I do NOT support this proposal

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I am curious whether people would be in favor of the following proposal. It is only 4 pages long so please take a moment. The budget is not worked out, but assume it will be.

http://vawhigs.org/dp/County Cooperatives.pdf

If you answer NO, please post and tell me why.

thanks.
 
Last edited:
I would add some portability to this plan.
 
Interesting idea.

Not sure as of yet, if I would support or oppose it.
 
I would add some portability to this plan.

Good idea. What would you have in mind? Perhaps issuing healthcare cards that would be used to transfer payments for services in non-home locations? In the absence of a card, when it is an emergency, treatment will be given.
 
I am curious whether people would be in favor of the following proposal. It is only 4 pages long so please take a moment. The budget is not worked out, but assume it will be.

http://vawhigs.org/dp/County Cooperatives.pdf

If you answer NO, please post and tell me why.

thanks.

I like it but I've never been a fan of property taxes unless all other taxes are repealed.
 
I like it but I've never been a fan of property taxes unless all other taxes are repealed.

Why is that? What don't you like about them in the presence of other taxes, yet you are ok when they stand alone?

I would point out that we have funding options at the state/local level. I was trying to reuse existing taxation systems, property taxes with income tax deductions, and state income and/or consumption taxes. We can vary the mixture and it is really up to each state. I can imagine a state that avoids property taxes and institutes income taxes to cover the cost.
 
Why is that? What don't you like about them in the presence of other taxes, yet you are ok when they stand alone?

I would point out that we have funding options at the state/local level. I was trying to reuse existing taxation systems, property taxes with income tax deductions, and state income and/or consumption taxes. We can vary the mixture and it is really up to each state. I can imagine a state that avoids property taxes and institutes income taxes to cover the cost.

With property taxes and modern ownership, you never really own it if you have to pay every year.

A complete land tax on the other hand is explained here [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism]Georgism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame], although very very few people would support it.
 
The term "entitlements" is often present in far right rhetoric designed to push the idea that people are not entitled to assistance from their government.

It's bs and should not be used.
 
You never actually own the land itself, it's the detachment of not being able to pass it on, although you can pass on the structure and the lease can be paid for by your heirs.

Ah.

I can see a flat land tax, based on area owned, being more acceptable.

After all, there are those who argue that the Declaration of Independence was intended by some of it’s composers to read:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property.
Instead of:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
 
I would add some portability to this plan.

I agree with this. There would be lots of scenarios where a guy works his entire life in NY, then retires and moves to a rural area in South Carolina. Which country pays for his Medicaid? NY City has a much higher cost of living than a rural county in the South.

I love the plan though. Anytime we can take power away from a concentrated group of people and spread it out among the populace I'm usually for it.
 
I agree with this. There would be lots of scenarios where a guy works his entire life in NY, then retires and moves to a rural area in South Carolina. Which country pays for his Medicaid? NY City has a much higher cost of living than a rural county in the South.

I love the plan though. Anytime we can take power away from a concentrated group of people and spread it out among the populace I'm usually for it.

The county in South Carolina, the county of residence, would pay for his Medicare (sic) and Social Security. I don't think there is a portability issue here. Do you think otherwise. Explain it to me, please...

I am really glad you love it.
 
The county in South Carolina, the county of residence, would pay for his Medicare (sic) and Social Security. I don't think there is a portability issue here. Do you think otherwise. Explain it to me, please...

I am really glad you love it.

Well Social Security is based on how much money a person earns over their lifetime. If I work in NY City and avg 80k per year for 30 years at my job my SSA check is gonna be much higher than a guy who makes 30k per year in South Carolina.

So when I move from NY City to a rural county I bring the debt of my SSA check with me. The rural country now has to cut a check for me every month, but the rural county hasn't had the years of benefit from my property taxes (and other taxes) that NY got from me.

One of the reasons many people move when they retire is to make their retirement money (their fixed income) "go farther". It's why many people move to areas with a lower cost of living.

Let's say my Social Security check after I retire brings me $2,000 per month. And my wife also gets $2000 per month. We're gonna want to live somewhere that gets me the highest standard of living for that 4 grand per month. That will not be NY City.
 
Well Social Security is based on how much money a person earns over their lifetime. If I work in NY City and avg 80k per year for 30 years at my job my SSA check is gonna be much higher than a guy who makes 30k per year in South Carolina.

So when I move from NY City to a rural county I bring the debt of my SSA check with me. The rural country now has to cut a check for me every month, but the rural county hasn't had the years of benefit from my property taxes (and other taxes) that NY got from me.

One of the reasons many people move when they retire is to make their retirement money (their fixed income) "go farther". It's why many people move to areas with a lower cost of living.

Let's say my Social Security check after I retire brings me $2,000 per month. And my wife also gets $2000 per month. We're gonna want to live somewhere that gets me the highest standard of living for that 4 grand per month. That will not be NY City.

That's right, I had forgotten that the amount is based on your history of income.

What do you recommend we do?

It's totally screwed up because the fed isn't actually investing my contributions.

We could freeze all amounts right now, and for those who will start collecting checks in say 5 years, will get the cost of living fixed amount, not tied to their income.
 
That's right, I had forgotten that the amount is based on your history of income.

What do you recommend we do?

It's totally screwed up because the fed isn't actually investing my contributions.

We could freeze all amounts right now, and for those who will start collecting checks in say 5 years, will get the cost of living fixed amount, not tied to their income.

Well you could have the county where the majority of a person's career (or their residence) is spent continue paying the tab. But they would need to be kept in the loop of where the recipient now resides or if he passes away, etc... That means a whole lot of small counties staying in touch with a lot of big ones (and vice versa) and lots of paperwork. Which means lots of mistakes.

No matter how much money someone collects in their SSA check they're still gonna want to get the most bang for their buck. It's why so money people move when they retire. That and they usually like to move to warmer weather.

It's gonna be tough to find a solution that simplifies SSA, removes the power from DC, and keeps people from freaking out over it. Any change to SSA is going to be met with hostility by those who currently benefit from the system or those who will soon benefit.

The absolute best thing to do, and I have no easy answer for this either, is to find a way to phase out the entire program.
 
Well you could have the county where the majority of a person's career (or their residence) is spent continue paying the tab. But they would need to be kept in the loop of where the recipient now resides or if he passes away, etc... That means a whole lot of small counties staying in touch with a lot of big ones (and vice versa) and lots of paperwork. Which means lots of mistakes.

No matter how much money someone collects in their SSA check they're still gonna want to get the most bang for their buck. It's why so money people move when they retire. That and they usually like to move to warmer weather.

It's gonna be tough to find a solution that simplifies SSA, removes the power from DC, and keeps people from freaking out over it. Any change to SSA is going to be met with hostility by those who currently benefit from the system or those who will soon benefit.

The absolute best thing to do, and I have no easy answer for this either, is to find a way to phase out the entire program.

****, what a mess. I didn't really know what PAYGO represented, but on a hunch I looked it up: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO]PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Social Insurance
In social insurance, PAYGO refers to an unfunded system in which current contributors to the system pay the expenses for the current recipients. In a pure PAYGO system, no reserves are accumulated and all contributions are paid out in the same period. The opposite of a PAYGO system is a funded system, in which contributions are accumulated and paid out later (together with the interest on it) when eligibility requirements are met.

U.S. Social Security
An important example of such a PAYGO system in this second sense is Social Security in the U.S. In that system, contributions are paid by the currently employed population in the form of a payroll tax, also called the FICA tax, which stands for the "Federal Insurance Contributions Act", while recipients are mostly individuals of at least 62 years of age. Social Security is not a pure PAYGO system, because it accumulates excess revenue in so-called Trust Funds, officially known as the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds (OASDI).

And here is the problem, as I see it. The federal government has promised a certain amount of social security to retiring and about to retire individuals, based on their income. However, it is an unfunded system, so our contributions pay for the retirees.

If we do what is proposed with County Co-ops, The FICA payments will stop and county taxes will fund SS. In the common example you have provided, either the county where income was earned pays for the retiree or the county where he resides pays. Both situations are unfair, since neither county had a chance to save funds for retirement of the individual. It is a federal obligation that they promised.

So can we require the fed to pay without making FICA payments? That will wreck the deficit.

Phasing out the entire program would be useful.

Perhaps we need to exclude SS from our little plan and let the fed continue to collect taxes and pay retirees.

What a trap! What a bunch of crooks!
 
Sounds a lot like the dreaded public option. It sounds like a good idea and I am glad people are starting to talk about what to do with the exploding cost of these programs. I am skeptical because the plan sounds a little rough at the moment, but I feel like it is fundamentally a good idea.
 
Last edited:
And here is the problem, as I see it. The federal government has promised a certain amount of social security to retiring and about to retire individuals, based on their income. However, it is an unfunded system, so our contributions pay for the retirees.

If we do what is proposed with County Co-ops, The FICA payments will stop and county taxes will fund SS. In the common example you have provided, either the county where income was earned pays for the retiree or the county where he resides pays. Both situations are unfair, since neither county had a chance to save funds for retirement of the individual. It is a federal obligation that they promised.

So can we require the fed to pay without making FICA payments? That will wreck the deficit.

Phasing out the entire program would be useful.

Perhaps we need to exclude SS from our little plan and let the fed continue to collect taxes and pay retirees.

What a trap! What a bunch of crooks!

The best way to do it is, cancel out all benefits, except for maybe SSD, for everyone under 35, people would no longer have to contribute but their pay outs will be lowered based on the time away from official retirement age.

We could also cut Medicare benefits and transfer the savings to shore up SS.
Subject all people who are receiving SS to an extra 401k/retirement account tax.
Allow opt outs for those who don't want it and they will not have to pay the tax.
 
Sounds a lot like the dreaded public option. It sounds like a good idea and I am glad people are starting to talk about what to do with the exploding cost of these programs. I am skeptical because the plan sounds a little rough at the moment, but I feel like it is fundamentally a good idea.

Well, it isn't like the public option since the public option is a direct government program. Co-ops are semi private. There funding comes from public sources, but their operations are private.

How else can you guarantee universal coverage?
 
The best way to do it is, cancel out all benefits, except for maybe SSD, for everyone under 35, people would no longer have to contribute but their pay outs will be lowered based on the time away from official retirement age.

We could also cut Medicare benefits and transfer the savings to shore up SS.
Subject all people who are receiving SS to an extra 401k/retirement account tax.
Allow opt outs for those who don't want it and they will not have to pay the tax.

It's complicated. I don't want to mix the benefits of one program to the benefits of another, so reducing Medicare to fund SS is out.

I went ahead and removed Social Security as an entitlement we would target with this plan. I am leaving SS alone and I am leaving the SS payroll tax alone. They can deal with it at a later time. :roll: :censored
 
Well, it isn't like the public option since the public option is a direct government program. Co-ops are semi private. There funding comes from public sources, but their operations are private.

How else can you guarantee universal coverage?

I support a public option or the co-ops like you proposed. Your right, it is not exactly the same, because yes it will be privetly operated, however, the main idea of it is the same. Its main function would be to control health costs and to provide to those who cannot afford them at the current prices. Its a good idea.

there was one proposal on the health care reform somewhat similar to yours earlier from senator kent conrad in north dakota. He wanted to make some state level co-ops as a way to compromise with republicans and democrats about a public option.

Senator Kent Conrad | North Dakota

Health Care Co-Operatives: Doing It the Right Way

I think it may have died however because the cbo released a report showing it would have a relatively small impact on the budget defecit.
 
I have a few thoughts

1. I would rather see county cooperatives instead of single counties. My state has something like 140 counties and there is not a critical mass of people for these kinds of initiatives at the local level, unless you are in a metro area. Places like South Dakota would probably need a single entity running these programs for the state as a whole.

2. During a recession, Keynesian economics contain important policies to jumpstart economies and often counties cannot have a budget deficit, this would have to be changed.

3. Because of the duplication of infrastructure in administrative functions, I see a very real possibility of taxes going up.

5. Other than corruption caused by lobbying, I don't really see how this will change much since most of these programs, while funded by the Federal Government, are administered at the local level anyway.
 
I have a few thoughts

1. I would rather see county cooperatives instead of single counties. My state has something like 140 counties and there is not a critical mass of people for these kinds of initiatives at the local level, unless you are in a metro area. Places like South Dakota would probably need a single entity running these programs for the state as a whole.

1. Are you intending to say State cooperatives? Let's say you have a sparsely populated county: it would operate a single outpatient clinic and pharmacy. It would have a small office to distribute healthcare cards. It's administration would likely be one person. YOu could probably go smaller yet and just have the admin and admin office, then let the patients go to out of network doctors or to a neighboring county that actually has a clinic.

I am hesitant to say that states can determine their own structure to administer this.

2. During a recession, Keynesian economics contain important policies to jumpstart economies and often counties cannot have a budget deficit, this would have to be changed.

Why would this need changed? The county won't have to participate in a spending hike.

3. Because of the duplication of infrastructure in administrative functions, I see a very real possibility of taxes going up.

I attempted to address this in the proposal. THe state would have an administration co-op. Also, like in the answer to #1, I am hesitant to say that states can determine their own structure to administer this.

Did you miss a #4?

5. Other than corruption caused by lobbying, I don't really see how this will change much since most of these programs, while funded by the Federal Government, are administered at the local level anyway.

The funding and administration will both change. Currently it is funded at the federal level to the tune of $1.314 trillion dollars. It is currently administered at the federal level, although some of that administration may be deferred to the states. By changing the funding to the counties, we remove that funding from the federal budget. Likewise, we lose the administration at the federal level. I don't expect it to save money.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, sorry I missed 4. It was like 5 am and I have a stomach virus right now, so I may not be completely mentally here.

My only remaining question is #2. During a recession, we have a choice, either let services suffer or we borrow. I believe it is often better to borrow because increasing desperation and decreasing funds in a recession will often lead to a deeper recession and more suffering. Right now most states and counties have to have a balanced budget. This would have to be changed. So, I am not sure we would be better off overall in terms of overall debt.
 
Back
Top Bottom