More ACA mischief

[Long Run]

I really don't get your point Big RR. If it is that insurance (whether private or public) is a good thing for things like retirement and health needs; well yes, we all need that in some form unless we are able to self-insure by saving a ton of money. If it is that any type of insurance, no matter how badly designed is better than simpler alternatives, then I don't get it.

As to the policy of what things need to be insured, it is absurd to compare a person without feet not needing podiatry services (i.e, a .01% situation) to people having to pay for maternity care where 70+% of the population don't need it. Policy makers decide what needs to be covered when it comes to what is going to be covered; in a one-size fits all public model, they will choose some things and exclude others. It is reasonable to criticize making 70% of the people pay for a coverage they will never receive (it is also reasonable to argue that it is an important public policy to make maternity care more affordable). In the private insurance market, at least historically, customers could decide what they wanted to insure themselves for (and many choose not to have coverage for maternity or for podiatry). Losing that flexibility is a cost imposed on society, for both good and ill, but as I said before what it means is that people who don't want/need certain coverage subsidize those who do want/need the coverage.

[Big RR]

Well I question your numbers of pregnancy, but even if 70% of persons never use it, I'd imagine far greater numbers never use coverage for testicular cancer, or ovarian cancer, but I think the coverage is needed. In deciding what coverage to include, one needs to indicate what coverage would benefit the greatest numbers and the design plans accordingly. And, as I said before, that is what insurance does, spread the costs for benefits among the larger population.

[Jarlaxle]

Social Security is a tax, so yer saying we're being taxed back door style?

Actually, it's the world's longest running Ponzi scheme, but thats a different thread.

[rubato]

Calling Social Security a "Ponzi" scheme is the longest running inapt simile in the English language.

SSec. has been paying off as advertized for more than 76 years and the current projection is that it will do so for more than 20 more years without change. That is one of the most successful government programs of all time.

yrs,
rubato

[Jarlaxle]

Yes, when you can force people to put money in, you can keep the Ponzi scheme going for a really long time! Bernie Madoff paid off as advertised for quite a while, too.

[rubato]

Bernie Madoff got away with it because he didn't have to pay off for a long time. He printed reassuring statements and made soothing noises without having to come up with the money.

SSec. pays cash on the nail each month.


yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

A "Ponzi Scheme," by definition, is one that is sold on the basis of high returns on investment, but in fact the "investors" are paid out of new money coming in from subsequent "investors." Because there truly is no investment, the Ponzi scheme implodes when there are insufficient new investors paying in to continue paying the older investors what they have been promised in the way of returns.

Social Security was initially sold as a "trust fund" into which you would pay. The money would be held for you and accrue interest, so that when you retired you would get your money back, with interest. (The sad state of affairs that occurred if you died before retirement was ignored, and is still ignored. You get - and your heirs get - bupkus).

But the Supreme Court subsequently ruled that the people paying into SS had no proprietary rights in their accumulated payments into the system, nor any vested "right" to any monthly stipends after retirement. Congress is free at any time to adjust payouts, taxes, retirement age, disability provisions, eligibility requirements, and so forth, and the citizens have no recourse.

Meanwhile, the Federal Government's financial watchdogs tell us that those paying into social security are not now, nor will they at any foreseeable future time, be paying enough into SS to fund the payouts called for under the current regime. Thus the system is bankrupt, and is only kept afloat by raiding general funds paid for other purposes (the reverse of what was going on until a few years ago).

So why is "Ponzi Scheme" inappropos?

[Jarlaxle]

Because Rube is close enough to collecting that he doesn't want to realize the facts, most likely.

[Econoline]

I think by you guys' definition the whole capitalist economic system could be considered a Ponzi scheme.

[Lord Jim]

A "Ponzi Scheme," by definition, is one that is sold on the basis of high returns on investment, but in fact the "investors" are paid out of new money coming in from subsequent "investors." Because there truly is no investment, the Ponzi scheme implodes when there are insufficient new investors paying in to continue paying the older investors what they have been promised in the way of returns.

The Social Security System has many of the aspects of a classic "Ponzi Scheme"...

But not all of them...

Most Ponzi Schemes are self containing, and therefore self-limiting...

Not so with Social Security...

It has an outside fund source, (the general fund,to make it whole...)