Health Care Question

[misterman]

So there was no SS surplus in 2000?

There was an SS surplus yes. But there was ALSO a surplus in "on-budget" discretionary accounts that don't include SS and other trust funds. In other words, there were two surpluses that year.

As I said the third largest. Reagan was second and WW2 was the first

Okay. So don't forget that either.

 

[Jiyuu]

Deficit, debt or whatever, this country does not need government run health care at this time. As a matter of fact, people seem to think it's all going to be peachy and better than nothing.

The government never offers programs without tax implications to the payors. This program will not only tie the hands of doctors and pharmaceudicals but will be overseen by board members. I haven't been happy with the cost of medicine of the charges that doctors can bill you for. Think about if for a moment. These doctors are not going to be allowed to always order the tests you may need and pharmacies aren't going to cut that much in medicine costs. They have to stay in business too.

The public option is a joke. Most young people may not even want to purchase it but will have no choice. There's the catch all. This way they can cut Medicaid and certain coverages under Medicare.

People are raging about leaving out coverage for abortions.

This bill has been revised so many times, we don't even know what the heck to expect.

What I do know, is in this recession, we don't need the governments heavy hand forcing us into something we may not want. Imo, I don't want government interferring in forcing any bill that creates no choice but to live with it.

 

[Conservative]

Deficit, debt or whatever, this country does not need government run health care at this time. As a matter of fact, people seem to think it's all going to be peachy and better than nothing.

The government never offers programs without tax implications to the payors. This program will not only tie the hands of doctors and pharmaceudicals but will be overseen by board members. I haven't been happy with the cost of medicine of the charges that doctors can bill you for. Think about if for a moment. These doctors are not going to be allowed to always order the tests you may need and pharmacies aren't going to cut that much in medicine costs. They have to stay in business too.

The public option is a joke. Most young people may not even want to purchase it but will have no choice. There's the catch all. This way they can cut Medicaid and certain coverages under Medicare.

People are raging about leaving out coverage for abortions.

This bill has been revised so many times, we don't even know what the heck to expect.

What I do know, is in this recession, we don't need the governments heavy hand forcing us into something we may not want. Imo, I don't want government interferring in forcing any bill that creates no choice but to live with it.

Exactly, the American people are waking up and most realizing what is being jammed down our throats. The support for this bill is waning and the Democrats will pay a big price in November for going against the will of the people

 

[ptif219]

There was an SS surplus yes. But there was ALSO a surplus in "on-budget" discretionary accounts that don't include SS and other trust funds. In other words, there were two surpluses that year.

So then the surplus went into the general fund and was his surplus.

Okay. So don't forget that either.

I have stated it correctly as I am about SS

 

[misterman]

So then the surplus went into the general fund and was his surplus.

There was a surplus even without SS in 2000. SS is irrelevant.

I have stated it correctly as I am about SS

Nope. Sure, add a surplus to a surplus and you get a surplus. But the claim was that there was NO surplus without adding SS. That is false.

 

[misterman]

The public option is a joke. Most young people may not even want to purchase it but will have no choice. There's the catch all. This way they can cut Medicaid and certain coverages under Medicare.

This is false. Nobody will be forced to buy the public option.

If they are able to drop coverage under Medicaid, so what? People will simply be switching to new coverage.

 

[Conservative]

LOL.

I know more about civics than you will ever know.



Because it wasn't 2000 yet, genius. There were still deficits, though they were getting steadily smaller.

1995 wasn't the only time that Clinton shutdown the govt. thus I don't see an answer to the question. You want so badly to give Clinton credit that you ignore the reality of why the govt. was shutdown.

You continue to embarrass yourself. Have you no pride.

 

[ptif219]

There was a surplus even without SS in 2000. SS is irrelevant.



Nope. Sure, add a surplus to a surplus and you get a surplus. But the claim was that there was NO surplus without adding SS. That is false.

No SS is part of the general fund so it is relevant

 

[misterman]

1995 wasn't the only time that Clinton shutdown the govt.

What other times do you refer to?

thus I don't see an answer to the question. You want so badly to give Clinton credit that you ignore the reality of why the govt. was shutdown.

You continue to embarrass yourself. Have you no pride.

More talk.

 

[misterman]

No SS is part of the general fund so it is relevant

SS is not part of the general fund. SS has a trust fund. Trust funds are not part of the general fund, which is why they are called trust funds.

 

[ptif219]

SS is not part of the general fund. SS has a trust fund. Trust funds are not part of the general fund, which is why they are called trust funds.

FDR’s “Voluntary” Social Security | FactCheck.org

Trust Fund Falsehoods. The message claims that FDR promised Social Security funds would be used "for no other government program," but that Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress later took Social Security into the General Fund "so that Congress could spend it." This is twisted history. The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits. As DeWitt states: "[T]here has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government." All LBJ did in 1968 was to make Social Security taxes and spending part of a "unified budget."

 

[Conservative]

FDR’s “Voluntary” Social Security | FactCheck.org

Trust Fund Falsehoods. The message claims that FDR promised Social Security funds would be used "for no other government program," but that Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress later took Social Security into the General Fund "so that Congress could spend it." This is twisted history. The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits. As DeWitt states: "[T]here has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government." All LBJ did in 1968 was to make Social Security taxes and spending part of a "unified budget."

No one is ever going to get misterman to admit what is happening for yesterday he told me he drives by the White House which I guess makes him believe he is smarter than the rest of us.

By the way, I drove by the hospital today and am now as smart as most doctors.

 

[misterman]

FDR’s “Voluntary” Social Security | FactCheck.org

Trust Fund Falsehoods. The message claims that FDR promised Social Security funds would be used "for no other government program," but that Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress later took Social Security into the General Fund "so that Congress could spend it." This is twisted history. The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits. As DeWitt states: "[T]here has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government." All LBJ did in 1968 was to make Social Security taxes and spending part of a "unified budget."

This supports my statement.

The trust funds are separate accounts for revenue. Cash from them can be used for discretionary spending (not "general fund" - that is a revenue source, not spending category) - but with an IOU, which are the "intragovernmental holdings" that I referred to.

But again, none of this matters in 2000, because there was a surplus in the general fund/discretionary accounts alone in that year. In other words, when you don't count any of the money coming from SS taxes, or any of the money spent on SS benefits, there was still a surplus.

 

[misterman]

No one is ever going to get misterman to admit what is happening for yesterday he told me he drives by the White House which I guess makes him believe he is smarter than the rest of us.

By the way, I drove by the hospital today and am now as smart as most doctors.

Ever think about where I might have been driving TO? It's a hint, remember - you have to do some further thinking to get a hint.

I know more about this stuff than you will ever know. I think that's obvious by now.

 

[ptif219]

This supports my statement.

The trust funds are separate accounts for revenue. Cash from them can be used for discretionary spending (not "general fund" - that is a revenue source, not spending category) - but with an IOU, which are the "intragovernmental holdings" that I referred to.

But again, none of this matters in 2000, because there was a surplus in the general fund/discretionary accounts alone in that year. In other words, when you don't count any of the money coming from SS taxes, or any of the money spent on SS benefits, there was still a surplus.

Did you miss this

but that Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress later took Social Security into the General Fund "so that Congress could spend it." This is twisted history. The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits.


Clinton used SS in 2000


http://rpc.senate.gov/releases/1999/bd030499.htm


President Clinton has promised to protect Social Security, to reduce the debt to the maximum extent possible, to control spending, and reduce taxes. But, Congress' official estimators show that on all four counts, the President's budget fails. Instead, Clinton's budget raids the Social Security trust fund for $158 billion in five years, it artificially erases the surplus, it lowers the public debt less than doing nothing would, it increases spending, and it raises taxes by $89.7 billion over the 1999-2009 period.

Clinton Raids Social Security: According to CBO, Clinton spends $40 billion of the Social Security surplus in his budget's first year (2000) and $158 billion over the first five years (2000-2004).

* This is the same Social Security surplus that he has promised to save in its entirety.

Clinton Reduces the Surplus: According to CBO, Clinton's budget actually reduces the overall surplus by $436 billion from 2000-2004 and by $1.168 trillion from 2000-2009.

* That means less debt reduction than doing nothing.

 

[misterman]

Did you miss this

but that Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress later took Social Security into the General Fund "so that Congress could spend it."

Congress never put SS into the General Fund. This is false.

The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits.

No, they cannot "use" SS funds - they can BORROW them. Cash that goes from SS receipts for discretionary spending goes on the books of the SS trust fund as a loan, and to the general fund as a liability.

Clinton used SS in 2000

False. Cash from the SS fund was not used to fund discretionary expenses in 2000.

Your link dates from 1999, dude. It was based on budget PROJECTIONS. The ACTUAL numbers turned out differently.

 

[Conservative]

Ever think about where I might have been driving TO? It's a hint, remember - you have to do some further thinking to get a hint.

I know more about this stuff than you will ever know. I think that's obvious by now.

Of course you do and you tell us that in just about every post. The problem is not many here are buying it.

 

[misterman]

Of course you do and you tell us that in just about every post. The problem is not many here are buying it.

:2wave::2wave::2wave:

 

[Conservative]

Honestly, this was meant as friendly advice. When I took the plunge on a debate forum, several years ago, among other things, I had no idea how to quote parts but not all of a post so I could respond to a particular sentence. I have been there. I asked my son ( who is a "native" with computers) for help. It is very easy with the, quote /quote, in brackets. Thank goodness the younger generation can teach us old farts.

Interesting how history doesn't teach young people that if you do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result you are insane. This is what happens when the govt. gets involved.

Mayo Clinic Arizona Drops Medicare

 

[Conservative]

Brilliant Response that ignores history. I believe you have spent so much time in your "think tank" mentality that you are out of touch with reality. Anyone that disagrees with you and thus the govt. approach to solving problems is automatically dismissed. It is that liberal arrogance that got us into this mess and made it worse.

You continue to ignore history and thus are doomed to repeat it. Clinton results were not as you paint them nor were Bush's. History will judge both and do so using actual facts, not partisan opinions from either the left or the right.

This country wasn't built on the principles of either Clinton or Obama and the more you and others promote those principles the more outrage you are going to see.

Free enterprise and capitalism is what made this country great and not the massive growth of govt. services that is unsustainable. For someone who takes great pride in claiming to want surpluses maybe on your next drive by the WH you can pass a note to Obama and tell him that the 290 billion dollars in deficits in October and November 2009 is irresponsible and violates another campaign promise he made.

 

[misterman]

Brilliant Response that ignores history. I believe you have spent so much time in your "think tank" mentality that you are out of touch with reality. Anyone that disagrees with you and thus the govt. approach to solving problems is automatically dismissed. It is that liberal arrogance that got us into this mess and made it worse.

You continue to ignore history and thus are doomed to repeat it. Clinton results were not as you paint them nor were Bush's. History will judge both and do so using actual facts, not partisan opinions from either the left or the right.

This country wasn't built on the principles of either Clinton or Obama and the more you and others promote those principles the more outrage you are going to see.

Free enterprise and capitalism is what made this country great and not the massive growth of govt. services that is unsustainable. For someone who takes great pride in claiming to want surpluses maybe on your next drive by the WH you can pass a note to Obama and tell him that the 290 billion dollars in deficits in October and November 2009 is irresponsible and violates another campaign promise he made.

Talk talk talk.

Meanwhile, there was a real surplus in 2000. All your pointless talk doesn't change that.

 

[Conservative]

Here are the facts about SS and it is a slippery slope. Funds ARE being borrowed and have been borrowed now for decades and there in lies the problem. The money has been spent and long term the IOU's in the "Trust Fund" are just that IOU's and the funds for those IOU's has to come from future generations and the workforce of the future cannot fund those IOU's.

Whether we have a surplus or not is irrelevant because that surplus should pay off those IOU's and they haven't. The money you are putting into that trust fund now is being used and being replaced by an IOU. What happens when you retire?

Social Security is not part of the Federal Budget general fund. It is a separate account and has its own source of income. Social Security payments do not go into the general fund, they go in the Social Security trust fund, and should NOT be counted as general revenue. The trust fund is supposed to be used to pay future benefits. But....keep reading....

Currently, there is more being payed into the Social Security Trust Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. What's left over is routinely being "borrowed" and used as if it were general budget revenue. Government agencies using that money promise to pay it back (IOUs). All of the money in the Social Security Trust Fund has been spent! That's part of the National Debt. So Social Security is just a very large tax collection tool.

Beware the term "Social Security Surplus"; there is no such thing. Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme, there is never more in the Trust Fund than will ever be needed.

 

[misterman]

Social Security is not part of the Federal Budget general fund. It is a separate account and has its own source of income. Social Security payments do not go into the general fund, they go in the Social Security trust fund, and should NOT be counted as general revenue. The trust fund is supposed to be used to pay future benefits. But....keep reading....

Currently, there is more being payed into the Social Security Trust Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. What's left over is routinely being "borrowed" and used as if it were general budget revenue. Government agencies using that money promise to pay it back (IOUs). All of the money in the Social Security Trust Fund has been spent! That's part of the National Debt. So Social Security is just a very large tax collection tool.

Correct so far (except in 1999 and 2000 this did not happen because the general fund took in more than what was spent on non-SS).

Beware the term "Social Security Surplus"; there is no such thing.

Wrong - you are using the term "surplus" incorrectly here.

A surplus is an ANNUAL event. It means there was more money coming in than went out, in one year. It does not mean there is money sitting there in an account. Surplus is the opposite of deficit, not of debt.

However, as you note, while there is no cash in the SS trust fund, there are government securities that represent the same value that the general fund owes it. It's pretty much the same as if you went out and invested your retirement fund in government bonds.

 

[Conservative]

Correct so far (except in 1999 and 2000 this did not happen because the general fund took in more than what was spent on non-SS).



Wrong - you are using the term "surplus" incorrectly here.

A surplus is an ANNUAL event. It means there was more money coming in than went out, in one year. It does not mean there is money sitting there in an account. Surplus is the opposite of deficit, not of debt.

However, as you note, while there is no cash in the SS trust fund, there are government securities that represent the same value that the general fund owes it. It's pretty much the same as if you went out and invested your retirement fund in government bonds.

Better tell that to that federal govt. that you drive by every day as that definition and claim came right from their web site.

The facts continue to escape you. You "contribute" money to the SS Trust Fund for the purpose of a retirement fund available to you when you retire. If any of that money is used to fund anything other than SS it will not be there in the future unless future workers are there to pay it. It is a ponzi scheme that you simply cannot understand.

What this shows is you are unable to even think about the affects of spending today have on the future, just like you are incapable of understanding how consumer spending affects the economy, creates jobs, and grows govt. revenue. I find it frustrating that people living in a think tank cannot actually think.

 

[misterman]

Better tell that to that federal govt. that you drive by every day as that definition and claim came right from their web site.

Cite it please so I can explain it to you.

A surplus can mean both, of course. In this debate, it means the opposite of deficit.

Anybody with even a rudimentary understanding of this stuff understand that.

The facts continue to escape you. You "contribute" money to the SS Trust Fund for the purpose of a retirement fund available to you when you retire. If any of that money is used to fund anything other than SS it will not be there in the future unless future workers are there to pay it. It is a ponzi scheme that you simply cannot understand.

You really aren't even capable of basic debate. You don't even know what you're debating. This debate isn't about SS. Most of the time, you waste everyone's time debating things that I agree with you about. It's true that SS is like a Ponzi scheme, for instance, though not as bad as you make it.

You love to hear yourself talk, don't you? You'd be wise to listen every once in a while, you might learn something.