NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Completely Off-Topic => Topic started by: PintOGuinness on August 21, 2003, 01:03:02 pm
-
Young Americans: Pay Attention, Or Pay The Bills
by Derek Hunter
August 19, 2003 | |
If you’re in your 20s or 30s, one of the biggest decisions affecting your life likely will be made this fall.
It’s not whether to get married. Or to buy a house. Or even to have and educate children. But it’s a decision that could affect your ability to afford any or all of those things.
That decision, which will be made by Congress, is whether or not to give senior citizens, regardless of income or need, a prescription-drug entitlement in Medicare.
The House and Senate each have approved separate bills that would add a drug entitlement to the already cash-strapped Medicare program. Each bill was initially estimated to cost $400 billion over the next 10 years. New estimates peg them as being far more costly. Still, a Capitol Hill committee is hammering out the differences between the bills, and President Bush has indicated he’ll sign whatever they put before him.
Our futures are being formed. But are we paying attention? Frankly, most lawmakers don’t expect us to: We rarely make plans for the weekend until Friday rolls around, so it’s a good bet we’re not planning what will happen when we reach age 65 -- or how we’ll obtain medical care when we get there.
But there’s one very good reason we should pay attention as lawmakers tinker with Medicare. We (not they) will have to pay the bills.
Think about the extra $400 billion in taxes we’ll have to pay over the next 10 years.
That’s $400,000,000,000. How huge is that?
To give it some perspective, if you were paid $1 per second, every second of every day from the moment you were born, you’d be a millionaire in fewer than 12 days. But it would take you nearly 33 years to become a billionaire. That’s right, 33 YEARS.
And still, to get the estimated cost of the proposed “reform,” you must multiply that 33 years by 400. The resulting number should worry everyone -- especially young people.
Here’s why: The 77 million baby boomers will begin retiring in 2011. Eventually, that’ll nearly double the number of people on Medicare. By 2030, the typical household will pay $2,855 for Medicare, according to estimates from The Heritage Foundation. That’s without a drug entitlement. Factor one in, and that number rises to $3,980 per household.
Heritage research also finds that between now and 2030, each household will pay an average $56,022 for Medicare, $16,127 of that for the drug entitlement alone.
Essentially, lawmakers are considering imposing a massive tax liability on young people. Keep in mind that while the cost of Medicare skyrockets, the cost of the rest of government (defense, Social Security, etc.) also will continue to rise, and we will have to pay for that, too.
There are poor seniors who genuinely need help and should get it. But three out of four seniors already have some form of drug coverage, many through former employers.
So why would Congress design a benefit for everyone when only a quarter of seniors need it, and make us pay for it? As we’ve seen, this bill covers everyone equally, rich or poor. Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Michael Jordan and all the other rich retirees won’t go hungry if they pay out-of-pocket for prescription drugs.
What’s worse, one-third of seniors with drug coverage through their former employers would lose it because of this bill, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. Companies would save billions of dollars a year by dropping retirees because the taxpayer would automatically pick up the tab. So we get stuck with the check. Talk about corporate welfare.
But it doesn’t have to be like this. We could make it better, for seniors and ourselves.
All we have to do is pay attention -- and now. Seniors vote in large numbers. They contact their members of Congress and stay involved. Unfortunately, too many of us in our 20s or 30s know who won on “Survivor” or “American Idol” but can’t name our senator or congressional representative.
We have to change that. Members of Congress need to listen, and so do our parents and grandparents. Let’s help those seniors who truly need help with their drug bills. But let Bill Gates and friends pay their own way.
No one is going to seek out our opinions. We have to speak up. We have to be engaged. We’d better start paying attention because, either way, we will pay.
-
good info!.....i vote for things when i feel like it makes a difference....meaning for example...i didnt vote for bush or gore, because really, i thought they both sucked..
-
Jason,
We will give them their silly drug entitlement... until they retire and WE are the ones in charge. Then we will take it away again, smack them on the hands, and send them off to the old people home.
---Andrew
-
Jason,
We will give them their silly drug entitlement... until they retire and WE are the ones in charge. Then we will take it away again, smack them on the hands, and send them off to the old people home.
---Andrew
I'm sending my parents to an old folks home asap...
-
Jason,
We will give them their silly drug entitlement... until they retire and WE are the ones in charge. Then we will take it away again, smack them on the hands, and send them off to the old people home.
---Andrew
Andrew... you of all people know that the biggest problem with the governement is taking away a program once it's there...
it will never happen... especially since scaring seniors is the #1 Democratic campaign tactic ;)
-
Jason,
We will give them their silly drug entitlement... until they retire and WE are the ones in charge. Then we will take it away again, smack them on the hands, and send them off to the old people home.
---Andrew
that is so wrong........if they are retired then they will have the time to pay attention, vote, and keep us paying.....especially since they are such a large group....
tylor
-
Andrew... you of all people know that the biggest problem with the governement is taking away a program once it's there...
it will never happen... especially since scaring seniors is the #1 Democratic campaign tactic ;)
Jason,
You of all people should know that I am in support of almost any bill that adds care to the elderly/infirm/jobless/homeless/handicapped etc. I firmly believe that if the US continues on it's current employment and technology path people will start retiring younger and younger. As a result, however, the government will be in charge of caring for more and more people.
Why you ask? Because Technology will get a to a point where only 5% of the worlds population is capable of producing 100% of the worlds needs. The other 95% will be producting luxury goods and services. With us needing fewer workers, people will retire younger and SOMEONE is gonna have to step up an ensure our elderly are cared for. And don't even say "their families" because we know you can't depend on them.
---Andrew
-
Here in the Netherlands the age at which people retire is 63. There are now plans to raise it to 65 or maybe 67 as there just won't be not enough young people to support all the baby-boomers in the future.
-
I bet by the time we're 65, we'll have to work til we're 80 before we can retire
*is skurred
-
I bet by the time we're 65, we'll have to work til we're 80 before we can retire
*is skurred
There's just no evidence to support this. The need for workers should be going DOWN due to technology and efficiency improvements.
someday in the future, all jobs that CAN be done by machine WILL be done by machine and save human work for things that ONLY humans can do.
---Andrew
-
Here in the U.K, all under the age of 16, those in full-time in education and people over 65 get free prescription drugs- what is wrong with that?
America does not have nearly the problem the U.K and Europe have with dependancy ratios soon to become unbalanced.
And that stupid little figure about making a billion- there are more than 250 million people in the U.S- don't you think you could afford it?
Maybe it is this stringent hatred of Federal government you seem to have, and the idea that you should only have to pay minimal taxes. I'm not saying we're all so much better because, hell the NHS is in a state too, but not many people really truely object to paying taxes (as long as they are not extortionate) because we know that when we enter that hospital hurt we won't have to give our insurance number in order to get treated and we know that our operations will be carried out free of charge.
I would say people in Europe know that their government is there to bring the goods for that country. Maybe its because America is so much bigger that you feel you have less control over government? It certainly feels on a local scale here you see and writing to your MP is very easy. I'd be interested to know what you think.
-
I bet by the time we're 65, we'll have to work til we're 80 before we can retire
*is skurred
There's just no evidence to support this. The need for workers should be going DOWN due to technology and efficiency improvements.
someday in the future, all jobs that CAN be done by machine WILL be done by machine and save human work for things that ONLY humans can do.
---Andrew
There is a lot of evidence to support it Andrew. And just because machines are being invented doesn't stop people from growing old. There is soon to be a collapse of government pensions here and the demand sure as hell isn't going down.
-
someday in the future, all jobs that CAN be done by machine WILL be done by machine and save human work for things that ONLY humans can do.
---Andrew
Problem is that you don't know when that 'someday' is. 20, 30, 80 years from now? In my opinion it's better to make plans now that eventually are useless than to sit back and in a few years time go like: 'Where are those machines? Helloo? I was promised some machines here!'
Other problem is that people just get older and older (partly caused by free drugs). But I look at it at the bright side..., suppose our generation lives on average 5 years longer than the previous generation and we can retire 2 years later, than we still 'gain' 3 years! In my opinion it's not that bad to work a little longer, because we live longer.
-
Maybe it is this stringent hatred of Federal government you seem to have, and the idea that you should only have to pay minimal taxes.
The hatred comes Rosie because most Americans lose 33% already of the money they earn in taxes to the government. 33% is an ASTRONOMICAL number. Expecially for services that MOST of the average American will never use. This is where Andrew and I differ imperically in philosophy. Currently in the US, the government acts as a wealth redistrubution system. They feel they should act like Robin Hood. Steal money from every hard working American (the "rich", and use it for programs like welfare and medicaid for lazy underachievers "the poor"). I personally resent this and feel I should be able to decide where my money goes... I should not be taxed as highly, and I should choose what charities get my money. Andrew believes the government must do this forced giving, or no one would give any money and charities woudl all go under.
-
I bet by the time we're 65, we'll have to work til we're 80 before we can retire
*is skurred
But I don't want to work NOW... :(
What happens when we get old and need Medicaid, and we don't have the money to pay for it? I'd rather pay now, so I know that one day, it'll be there in case I need it. Not the amount they are trying to make us pay now, but a more reasonable sum.
-
because we know that when we enter that hospital hurt we won't have to give our insurance number in order to get treated and we know that our operations will be carried out free of charge.
I had a blast reading about that black woman that needed her leg amputated and was told that she woud have to have a white prosthetic leg because that was all that was covered by the NHS. If she wanted one to match her skin color it would be 4000 pounds... LOL I do believe the healthcare system there is definitely a bit off as well... :)
-
There is a lot of evidence to support it Andrew. And just because machines are being invented doesn't stop people from growing old. There is soon to be a collapse of government pensions here and the demand sure as hell isn't going down.
Rosie, if there is evidence for it then SHOW me and prove me wrong.
Yes, it is true that we have ONE big generation coming that is gonna distort things for a bit.
But once they are all dead and gone you will see retirement ages steadily declining. It's a fact of life on Earth. We will get more efficient at things. AND the population is not growing on Earth anywhere near as fast as we are getting efficient at production.
People getting old has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the fact that young people will easily be able to support the needs of the old due to efficiency in production.
---Andrew
-
Problem is that you don't know when that 'someday' is. 20, 30, 80 years from now? In my opinion it's better to make plans now that eventually are useless than to sit back and in a few years time go like: 'Where are those machines? Helloo? I was promised some machines here!'
Other problem is that people just get older and older (partly caused by free drugs). But I look at it at the bright side..., suppose our generation lives on average 5 years longer than the previous generation and we can retire 2 years later, than we still 'gain' 3 years! In my opinion it's not that bad to work a little longer, because we live longer.
I agree completely with the first point. We don't know when we will hit that super efficient point but i think it's still safe to assume that our generation will easily be able to support our parents when they retire. We are more efficient, as a society, than our parents were. We produce more, cheaper and better. So even if we have less workers, we should still have enough to provide for them.
---Andrew
-
Rosie, if there is evidence for it then SHOW me and prove me wrong.
Do you seriously want me to fish out my UK dependency ratio we worked out in geography!? That is buried under a huuge pile of papers. lol
-
This is where Andrew and I differ imperically in philosophy. Currently in the US, the government acts as a wealth redistrubution system. They feel they should act like Robin Hood. Steal money from every hard working American (the "rich", and use it for programs like welfare and medicaid for lazy underachievers "the poor").
Oh please. 90% of the rich are not hard workers. They just inherited it. If they want to keep their riches, then they need to work to replace what the government takes.
And we can't rely on americans to donate money to charity and to the poor. We all know that we just wont donate enough.
Also, it is an economically demonstrateable fact that without redistribution of wealth a GROSS proportion of the wealth would settle to the top (and I mean even worse than it does now) because the more money you have the more money you WILL have. Also, the wealthy do NOT contribute the appropriate proportion of their wealth to charity. The richest 90% do not contribute 90% of the charity donations.
So the worlds wealth would all sit in the bank accounts of the rich and would never get redistributed down to the poor and destitute.
And not all people on medicare or welfare or unemployment are lazy or underachievers. Some of them are purely incapable of making a better life for themselves.
But frankly, if I choose NOT to work, I should STILL be able to subsist in todays society. Subsitance should be a basic right of all humans, luxury should be what we work for.
---Andrew
-
Do you seriously want me to fish out my UK dependency ratio we worked out in geography!? That is buried under a huuge pile of papers. lol
If you want me to change my opinion, then yes. :wink:
why dependancy studies in geography? Shouldn't that be sociology or something like that?
---Andrew
-
Do you seriously want me to fish out my UK dependency ratio we worked out in geography!? That is buried under a huuge pile of papers. lol
If you want me to change my opinion, then yes. :wink:
why dependancy studies in geography? Shouldn't that be sociology or something like that?
---Andrew
Geography here involves anthropological geography aswell. We study population pyramids and learn to analyse and discover reasons as to why whole sections may be missing etc. We also study management strategies for the modern world (sounds weird) and we did dependency ratios for the UK. In my Exam i had to write a 2 page essay on reasons as to why this has occured and to create pratical ways of solving the issue.
-
Oh and Jason- i think calling the poor 'lazy underachievers' is just plain low. I do not think you are stupid enough to be oblivious to the cycle of poverty, i am actually very suprised you even made that comment.
Why do the rich deserve to stay rich and the poor be ground into the floor? American society is based on the fact that you can work your way up to be anything- but the truth is that is only the case if you fit into a stereotypical box. It was you who said to me the other day society there was so very much based on class.
-
Geography here involves anthropological geography aswell. We study population pyramids and learn to analyse and discover reasons as to why whole sections may be missing etc. We also study management strategies for the modern world (sounds weird) and we did dependency ratios for the UK. In my Exam i had to write a 2 page essay on reasons as to why this has occured and to create pratical ways of solving the issue.
Oh my! That sounds SOOOOO much more interesting than our geography! I had to memorize a map of europe. ugh.
Not like most of those countries are even THERE anymore.
---Andrew
-
Oh my! That sounds SOOOOO much more interesting than our geography!
However, learning how meanders are formed isn't as thrilling. lol
-
Oh and Jason- i think calling the poor 'lazy underachievers' is just plain low. I do not think you are stupid enough to be oblivious to the cycle of poverty, i am actually very suprised you even made that comment.
Why do the rich deserve to stay rich and the poor be ground into the floor? American society is based on the fact that you can work your way up to be anything- but the truth is that is only the case if you fit into a stereotypical box. It was you who said to me the other day society there was so very much based on class.
The reason I say that Rosie and the reason I don't think like Andrew is because right now the system does not work... the current system promotes and rewards underachievement. There is no incentive for betterment. No one is stuck in their situation. Anyone can work their way into anything they want. The problem here is we currently have a system that says don't work too hard because we don't reward real success, we tax it. Hell we tax people when they DIE!?!
And Andrew... 90% of the rich inherited their wealth?? Where did you get that statistic? And I understand that it has been shown that if you take a group of "rich" people and a group of "poor" people... and give them equal means... within a set amonut of time.. the rich would be rich again and the poor would be poor again. I don't understand why the successful people should be penalized for that and the underachievers should just be allowed to steal a portion of thier money to clean up their mistakes...
Plain and simple, it is not the government's job to force morality. That's the job of the churches and private organizations... It's interesting to see Decmocrats take such Anti-Religious stances on so many issues, but then be the forefront of "forced-tithing" by income redistribution to help the poor and destitute.
-
The problem is that both social programs and capitalism BOTH don't work. The best we can do nowadays is to combine the two ideas in some desperate attempt to come to a solution, untill some day we either come up with better ideas or solutions OR come to the point where we have met up with Grakthis' fantastical future dream world. :D
tylor
-
The problem is that both social programs and capitalism BOTH don't work. The best we can do nowadays is to combine the two ideas in some desperate attempt to come to a solution, untill some day we either come up with better ideas or solutions OR come to the point where we have met up with Grakthis' fantastical future dream world. :D
tylor
Capitalism DOES work. It works PERFECTLY. We just have yet to actually obtain perfect capitalism. There is a proper mix of capitalism and social welfare that would work if we get there.
It's also interesting to note that socialism works PERFECTLY as well. Except it goes against human nature and is impossible to implement.
---Andrew
-
The problem is that both social programs and capitalism BOTH don't work. The best we can do nowadays is to combine the two ideas in some desperate attempt to come to a solution, untill some day we either come up with better ideas or solutions OR come to the point where we have met up with Grakthis' fantastical future dream world. :D
tylor
Capitalism DOES work. It works PERFECTLY. We just have yet to actually obtain perfect capitalism. There is a proper mix of capitalism and social welfare that would work if we get there.
It's also interesting to note that socialism works PERFECTLY as well. Except it goes against human nature and is impossible to implement.
---Andrew
Your own words are my argument against you. Show me perfect capitalism or socialism. Thank you very much. The most perfect capitalism we have ever had occurred in the late 19 century and was called lasse-faire capitalism. That is capitalism for you.
I guess it depends what you mean by perfect. ;)
tylor
-
Your own words are my argument against you. Show me perfect capitalism or socialism. Thank you very much. The most perfect capitalism we have ever had occurred in the late 19 century and was called lasse-faire capitalism. That is capitalism for you.
I guess it depends what you mean by perfect. ;)
tylor
What i mean is, because perfect capitalism is not possible, the US government must regulate markets on their own. Because there are some neccesary goods and services that cannot be properly regulated by human controlled markets. They just can't. Humans are too decietful. If you assume all people are honest, but greedy, the perfect capitalism is possible. Too bad we can't assume that.
The late 19th century economics close to perfect capitalism. we still had a ton of tarrifs and taxes on imports. Also, I don't think Laissez-faire was ever really a policy in the US, was it? Just in Great Britian. Does England call itself a capitalist country?
---Andrew