On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:33:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

So, now tell me if you think there's any serious discussion about having the
US move to a Canadian-style scheme? Most people realize will need a uniquely
American program, which will be a hybrid of several systems.

Sorry but I'm not going to discuss it further, after all this is
supposed to be a boating group. My point is, and was, that
governmental health care is not necessarily utopia, and that it is a
mistake to rush in just because it is politically expedient. My other
point is that we can barely afford the entitlement programs that are
now in place.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:33:13 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

So, now tell me if you think there's any serious discussion about having
the
US move to a Canadian-style scheme? Most people realize will need a
uniquely
American program, which will be a hybrid of several systems.

Sorry but I'm not going to discuss it further, after all this is
supposed to be a boating group. My point is, and was, that
governmental health care is not necessarily utopia, and that it is a
mistake to rush in just because it is politically expedient. My other
point is that we can barely afford the entitlement programs that are
now in place.


Too bad. I don't think anyone here has missed that point, which is accurate.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:43:28 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:29:14 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:44:20 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:28:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You can't cut any existing programs because it is
politically unacceptable. I already stated that.

Actually, you can cut existing programs, but you have to have two things in
order to do it. 1) intestinal fortitude 2) ability.

If the Republicans get control of the House, it will definitely not happen.
If the Democrats retain control, it's unlikely to happen, but it's possible.


I am skeptical. Our senate race may eventually come down to who will
admit Social Security in it's present state is unsustainable and that
person is going to lose.

Everyone says they are going to fix our deficit problem but they are
unwilling to tackle entitlements. It can't be done.

SS can be fixed relativiely quickly by taking the cap off salaries

That is not true at all. There are not that many rich people and the
real rich people don't get salaries.

IOW you haven't looked at the numbers. SS is not in that bad a shape.
the fixes are simple

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:43:28 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 03:29:14 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:44:20 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 15:28:00 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You can't cut any existing programs because it is
politically unacceptable. I already stated that.

Actually, you can cut existing programs, but you have to have two things in
order to do it. 1) intestinal fortitude 2) ability.

If the Republicans get control of the House, it will definitely not happen.
If the Democrats retain control, it's unlikely to happen, but it's possible.


I am skeptical. Our senate race may eventually come down to who will
admit Social Security in it's present state is unsustainable and that
person is going to lose.

Everyone says they are going to fix our deficit problem but they are
unwilling to tackle entitlements. It can't be done.

SS can be fixed relativiely quickly by taking the cap off salaries

That is not true at all. There are not that many rich people and the
real rich people don't get salaries.

and if there arent that many rich people, why does the GOP think
giving them all these tax cuts is the cure for what ails us?

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:24:34 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That is a cultural problem promoted in the 70s when we were told it
was better to "use other people's money and pay them back with
inflated dollars".
I never bought into it but there are lots of people who fell for the
debt trap.
I was saved by a stock broker named John Flick from AG Edwards who sat
me down in 1971 or so and ran the numbers of that "live on credit"
lifestyle. Then he showed what happens when you save up money to buy
things. It didn't take long for me to understand I was too poor to
borrow money.
I will say it again. If you are too poor to pay your bills, how can
you afford to pay your bills plus paying a banker 20% (now 29.999%)
You can be broke at zero or you can live large a little longer and be
broke at your credit limit, hoping the bankruptcy court will make your
neighbors pay your bills.

I will say it again. When you have a relatively low monthly payment, even
though the interest rate is very high, you can typically make the payments
for some period of time. As a short-term solution, it works. Of course,
for
long-term, the principal balance needs to be paid off.

Do you not understand this basic concept?


You do not understand that this is how they sell the debt trap.
It always gets rationalized as a temporary solution and it becomes a
lifestyle.
The reality is you can eat bologna now and save your money or you can
be up to your ass in debt and eat bologna for the rest of your life.
Unfortunately our government is the worst offender, dooming our kids
to a lifetime of debt.

Sure.. we all get it, but the point is that some people have little choice.
They either borrow or their kids don't eat. Feel free to blame them of
course.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:26:57 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Who only gets 2 weeks off? new hires?

Most workers get 2 weeks off in the US. You have to be there a while
before
that changes. Are you disputing this? If so, please provide the data.

What part of "new hire" confuses you?

So? How many weeks off does a new-hire European get? What part of European
confuses you?


it.
What nonsense. Did you even read what you wrote?

If you are strictly talking health, our system is so good it is bad.
We can afford to eat red meat at every meal and a lot of people do.
There is also the "corn" problem. Our farm policy ensures there is
corn in everything you eat. It might be the corn in your meat (higher
fat content, starch or the high fructose corn syrup that shows up in
most of the things you eat or drink. Sugar substitutes come with their
own health warnings
Obiesity is a serious health problem and the US is at or near the top
of the list every year.

Well, so with all our fancy medical treatments, we don't do as well as
other
countries. As I said..


... but that is not a health care problem, it is a lifestyle problem.

Yes, it is a health problem. Obesity is a health and education problem. It's
not just lifestyle. Most people don't really choose to eat crappy food. They
just don't know any better and they don't have an opportunity to get decent
food. We're not an agrarian country any longer.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:28:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

There is nobody willing to even talk about reform. That means it won't
get fixed until it crashes. A few politicians suggest we might have to
look at the retirement age and get suddenly tagged as wanting to kill
SS. They quickly say they were misquoted.
(I am watching one of those ads as we speak)

That's completely untrue. Perhaps it's true in an election year, but after
that's over, the serious people talk about it and try to do something.
Please show us some serious people from the far right.


That is why we are in trouble. If you even have the conservatives
saying we can keep this ponzi going on forever, we are doomed.
Have you actually looked at the entitlements vs the GDP out into the
2020s? It demonstrates we can't tax our way out of this


?? All this doom and gloom. The sky isn't falling, despite your assertion
that it is.

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:46:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Bull**** Social Security is upside down this year and Medicare has
been upside down for several years. (not close to revenue neutral) The
boomers have not really even hit the system yet in any significant
numbers. There are some in SS at the age 62 level but they don't get
to medicare until next year.

It's not upside in the sense of impacting the deficit now and is
adequately
funded until 2040 (?). It's right wing nuttiness to imagine otherwise.


Funded? You mean there are IOUs in the box, not "Funded".
This is and always has been "Pay as you go" and we now are not paying
for all of it, so we are borrowing to pay.
The trust fund is just a line item on the debt. We spent all of that
money.


So, you think we should hoard the cash? Give me a break!

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 14/10/2010 5:54 AM, YukonBound wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:47:47 -0400, wrote:

We use more health care than canadians.

Health care in Canada is rationed by the government. Unless you have
an imminently life threatening condition you can not get to see a
specialist right away or have surgery performed. This applies even
to severe injuries like fractures.

Canadians who can afford it come to the US since they are not allowed
to go outside the system in their own counrty. Sounds great doesn't
it?


Depends on what you mean by "right away".
I had a few little marks on my face that were marring my usual 'rugged
handsome' appearance. ;-)
It took 6 weeks to see a skin specialist and have the them blasted with
liquid nitrogen.
This was purely cosmetic........... he didn't charge me one red penny.
Matter of fact, I called back for a re-do because a bit of the larger
marks remained.
I'm scheduled in right after New Years, but they said to keep calling
back in case he has cancellations between now & then.
I realize this may be slow service compared to what y'all are used to in
Florida, but the price is right.

Funny, I had an ingrown hair on my eyelid once. He asked is this cosmetic
for billing purposes. I said no, I don't want eyelid troubles later on --
covered.

Took me 4 months from the time I got the referral to done.



No excuse for that in resource rich Alberta. You can blame Ralph Klien and
his ilk for short funding the medical system