Post New

It's gonna get ugly...

"US health insurers are raising insurance premiums by the most in 15 years, adding to fears that American consumers are struggling under the weight of higher household expenditures."

"Trump administration policies will make health care coverage more expensive for people who purchase plans from health insurance marketplaces —
and rural residents (MAGA) will be hit the hardest."

"In the individual market, millions more Americans face the possibility of losing coverage because the legislation written by
Republicans in Congress doesn’t extend tax credits signed into law by former President Joe Biden beyond this year. As the bill
Trump signed into law takes effect, the reduced spending on these tax credits, or subsidies, means buyers of plans will face higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs."

"Trump administration policies — especially its refusal to ask Congress to extend Biden-era tax credits that are set to expire at the end of this year —
will boost out-of-pocket premiums by 93% in the 32 states."

Hypothetical: If I light a Trump flag on fire, how will the people who can't afford insurance react?


https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2025/07/1...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/health-insuran...

https://www.ft.com/content/9af0c46d-4665-49ae-b153...

Hypothetical: If I light a Trump flag on fire, how will the people who can't afford insurance react?

LOL!

Hypothetical: If I light a Trump flag on fire, how will the people who can't afford insurance react?

I’ve always said that trumpism/cronyism was a dead-end political philosophy and I’m reminded of why on these boards every day - the dead end is misery.

[LOL]

Pete

*FINALLY* they stumble on to an issue that can win elections.

Welcome.

The Leader has been posting about this during the great 'Garcia!" and "Epstein" wars.

This is political gold and as *someone* here predicted the4 GOP is starting to get a clue.

They'll try to get a "temporary" exte3nsion to save their mid term butts.

I hope Dems go for the gold and just simple tell Republicans "we want these things. No? Fine. We'll see you in November, and we aren't gonna do the he/him shit this time. You will lose the house, your chairmanships, etc"

I hope Dems don't roll over and just grant a temporary extension.'

Republicans need to be a taught a painful but needed lesson: Social Sec, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA - imperfect things that WORK..... and you don't have a true turnkey alternative. So get behind it, or tossed on your behind.

I’ve always said that trumpism/cronyism was a dead-end political philosophy and I’m reminded of why on these boards every day - the dead end is misery.


Whose misery? The little MAGA people? Matters not at all to Trump. As long as he can string them along for a while, his purposes are served.

Trump and his oligarch supporters will feel no misery, only the satisfaction of having ever more wealth and power.

Now...much further down the road, probably a great deal of misery for everyone, even the oligarchy.

Whose misery? The little MAGA people?

I don't know, either. That was a direct quote from everybody's favorite poster of Darkness and Density from the flag thread (with a couple 'ism' substitutions, of course).

Pete

"US health insurers are raising insurance premiums by the most in 15 years, adding to fears that American consumers are struggling under the weight of higher household expenditures."

Yup. I'm in NY state. My $600 monthly premium is going up to $700 starting next January. I was informed of this in a letter several months ago, but apparently the increase still has to be approved by NY. I'm retired and luckily I get a $7500 yearly allowance to cover premiums. So, it won't affect me much.

"Trump administration policies — especially its refusal to ask Congress to extend Biden-era tax credits that are set to expire at the end of this year —will boost out-of-pocket premiums by 93% in the 32 states."

And, as the personal mandate was repealed, some years ago, more people have more incentive, to drop their insurance.

Steve

the personal mandate was repealed, some years ago, more people have more incentive, to drop their insurance.

We may see a "significant thinning of the MAGA herd"--by their choice. Happened in the early 2020s, and we all know (paraphrasing here): Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

We may see a "significant thinning of the MAGA herd"--by their choice. Happened in the early 2020s, and we all know (paraphrasing here): Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

And, as we saw in 2020, any reports that MAGAs are suffering from preventable conditions, will be declared "fake news". Regime control of the media seems much tighter now, so don't expect wide reporting of future outbreaks, like we saw of measles outbreaks, some months ago.

How many heard about this, a month ago, in spite of the media's tendency to stoke hysteria?


What to know about rising COVID-19 cases and the surging "stratus" variant

Driving the news: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Friday upgraded national wastewater viral activity for COVID-19 from "low" to "moderate."

Wastewater levels for COVID-19 are highest in the Western U.S., according to a CDC map, with levels peaking in Alaska, California, Colorado, Nevada and Utah.

The Southeast also has higher wastewater activity levels, with Louisiana having the most nationwide, according to CDC data recorded from July 27 to Aug. 2.

https://www.axios.com/2025/08/08/covid-19-stratus-...

Steve

As long as he can string them along for a while, his purposes are served.

And once they don't he will look for ways to disenfranchise them.

Republicans need to be a taught a painful but needed lesson: Social Sec, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA - imperfect things that WORK..... and you don't have a true turnkey alternative. So get behind it, or tossed on your behind.

In my 30's I was onboard withe the following deal:

My employer would continue to pay their portion of my SS tax for the SS account but I would get to keep what was paying, to be directed to a federal account that I could manage. Call it $11k/year for argument's sake. The only SS payout I would get would be from the $11k contribution - the government kept what my employer contributed.

Let's say this plan would have kicked in when I was 35 and I would have worked for 30 more years and stopped at age 65. Let's let the growth compound:

At 2% growth I would have had $580k, at 5% I would have had $1.1M and at 8%...$2.2M. That's a nice retirement at less money outlaid by the feds (as I would have dropped off the retirement rolls as far as they're concerned).

But now, with me nearing my mid-50s? No deal. They can pay me according to the current SS schedule (around $40k).

Which represents a less than 2% return when you consider that they had both what I contributed and what my employer did.

All that goes to show that SS isn't really a retirement system, it's mostly there as a stealth tax on higher earners to help pay for the retirement of others. Which is fine..but as the math shows, it could be done more efficiently albeit with more risk.

At 2% growth I would have had $580k, at 5% I would have had $1.1M and at 8%...$2.2M. That's a nice retirement at less money outlaid by the feds (as I would have dropped off the retirement rolls as far as they're concerned).

But now, with me nearing my mid-50s? No deal. They can pay me according to the current SS schedule (around $40k).

What are you complaining about, then? The NPV of a $40K per year annuity is about $700K, give or take.

It is a retirement system. The reason that it's structured as a pension, rather than as a self-directed fund, is because they don't want to get stuck holding the bag for people who take a lot of risks and end up with too little money. The whole point is to prevent people from not having enough to avoid abject poverty in their old age. That means modest - but certain - returns.

What are you complaining about, then? The NPV of a $40K per year annuity is about $700K, give or take.

Remind me to sell you retirement products, since you seem to be okay with a rate of return that doesn't come close to keeping up with inflation.

It is a retirement system. The reason that it's structured as a pension, rather than as a self-directed fund, is because they don't want to get stuck holding the bag for people who take a lot of risks and end up with too little money. The whole point is to prevent people from not having enough to avoid abject poverty in their old age. That means modest - but certain - returns.

Sure. 1.2% is certainly...certain.

But considering the average yield of 30 year Treasury Notes is a little more than 3.5%...you're paying at least 2 points for your "Certainty". Which means that your 2+ points are going to fund somebody else's retirement, which is what I said.

Remind me to sell you retirement products, since you seem to be okay with a rate of return that doesn't come close to keeping up with inflation.

It's not intended to have high yield. It's intended to be a floor, so that no one - no one - ends up with less than a certain amount based on their investment choices.

But considering the average yield of 30 year Treasury Notes is a little more than 3.5%...you're paying at least 2 points for your "Certainty". Which means that your 2+ points are going to fund somebody else's retirement, which is what I said.

No - you said it wasn't a retirement system. It is. It's like any defined benefit retirement system. The amount of your defined benefit is fixed, not subject to the ups and downs of the market.

Plus, this one comes with perks that don't show up in the IRR. It comes with: i) a lifetime disability benefit (which it sounds like you didn't need to use, but that "premium" was part of your contribution); ii) nonworking spousal benefit of up to 50% (which is enormous); iii) surviving minor benefits; and iv) disabled child benefits.

All that goes to show that SS isn't really a retirement system,

It never was ever represented as a retirement system. When it began it was because a generation had been hit hard, wipe out, and old women were eating out of trash cans. It was to give them food.

It's not intended to have high yield. It's intended to be a floor, so that no one - no one - ends up with less than a certain amount based on their investment choices.

You're the one asking me "Why am [I] complaining?". I'm well aware of how the program works.

No - you said it wasn't a retirement system. It is. It's like any defined benefit retirement system. The amount of your defined benefit is fixed, not subject to the ups and downs of the market.


When you go to your financial planner, Bob, does the conversation go like this:

"Hi, Bob - can you show me investment products that I can leverage that he me and those dudes over there [al points to some guys standing over there]?"

No, you don't.

Plus, this one comes with perks that don't show up in the IRR. It comes with: i) a lifetime disability benefit (which it sounds like you didn't need to use, but that "premium" was part of your contribution); ii) nonworking spousal benefit of up to 50% (which is enormous); iii) surviving minor benefits; and iv) disabled child benefits.

They *do* show up in the rate of return in the form of at least 2 points of cost, don't they? How many private plans have feature adds that cost more than the rate of return of the plan itself?

It never was ever represented as a retirement system. When it began it was because a generation had been hit hard, wipe out, and old women were eating out of trash cans. It was to give them food.

Talk to al, who says that it is :).

Which is fine..but as the math shows, it could be done more efficiently albeit with more risk.~Dope

I agree 100% with the more risk part...
Numerous studies have shown that the average investor significantly underperforms the stock market due to behavioral factors, taxes, fees, and poor timing.
While the stock market returns have been good historically the average investor's return after fees & taxes have been much lower.

DALBAR's analysis suggests that since 1988, the stock market's average return has been about 10% per year.
However, the average stock fund investor has earned only about 4.1% per year after fees and behavioral impacts.

And there is always the possibility that the equities market can go nowhere for extended periods of time:
The Japanese market, took almost 34 years to regain its previous high set in December 1989.
Investors had to wait over three decades to see the market fully recover its losses from that crash, marking one of the longest periods for any major stock market to reclaim old highs.

"Surprise! The returns reported by mutual funds aren't actually earned by mutual fund investors." ~John Bogle

"Wall Street is littered with the bones of those who knew just what to do, but could not bring themselves to do it." ~William Bernstein, Ph.D., M.D.

"The investor's chief problem, and even his worst enemy, is likely to be himself." ~Benjamin Graham

"Wall Street, with its army of brokers, analysts, and advisers funneling trillions of dollars into mutual funds, hedge funds, and private equity funds, is an elaborate fraud." ~Michael Lewis


https://darnallsikeswealth.com/wp-content/uploads/...

https://zacksim.com/financial-professionals-insigh...

When you go to your financial planner, Bob, does the conversation go like this:

"Hi, Bob - can you show me investment products that I can leverage that he me and those dudes over there [al points to some guys standing over there]?"

No, you don't.

Bob says, "what you're describing is a defined benefit pension plan. They're used all over the world." You can't buy one as an individual, but plenty of people use them to fund their retirement.

Complaining that a government-run defined benefit pension plan doesn't work like an individually-directed private investment account is fine, but that doesn't make the former "not a retirement plan."

They *do* show up in the rate of return in the form of at least 2 points of cost, don't they? How many private plans have feature adds that cost more than the rate of return of the plan itself?

It's not a feature ad. The purpose of Social Security isn't limited to making sure that you only have enough money to avoid poverty in your old age. It's not an individually-directed retirement account. It's a program intended to make sure that everyone in your life has protection against poverty in your retirement. So it consists of: i) your retirement benefit; ii) a lifetime disability insurance product; iii) a spousal benefit product; iv) a minor child disability product; and v) a surviving minor child benefit. You don't get to just disaggregate them.

So it's a mistake to look at 100% of your social security payments and treat them as if they are just funding i) on that list above. They're not. Add in the tax advantages (at least 15% of your social security income is always tax free), and you'd have a hard time duplicating that package if all of your funds were in a private investment account with 100% risk-free assets.

Talk to al, who says that it is :)

No need to. Originally, it was supposed to relieve hardship in your old age. That hardship is being destitute, eating out of trash cans, sleeping in cardboard condos. Old ladies living out of trash cans.

It's a supplement to retirement for most now. But I talked to people in the states who wanted to know if they could live on social security in the Philippines. People who were talking about $800 a month - that's all they were going to get. So I gave them the FB account of a fellow who lived on $600 a month over there. You can rent a bedsitter in places for $40 to $60 a month. (That's a small room with a bunk bed and an electrical outlet, with a bathroom down the hall). None of us could figure out how to live on $600 a month, but he did, because that was all he had.

Then we started adding things to social security - SSDI, etc. There is nothing wrong or bad about social security. I've met people who've been wiped out through no fault of their own, and saw that I was lucky. So far no one in the family has shown up at my doorstep, but if they did, I'd take care of them. Medical bills are high, so Medicare is welcome because we screwed up on our medical system. And if they have SS, that would help.

Believe you me Dope there are lots of people who are dependent on SS, they would live a very hard and harsh life without it.

I think of SS as a supplement to retirement, because it's very hard to live on just SS. Even if you own a home, you have to pay property taxes.

Bob says, "what you're describing is a defined benefit pension plan. They're used all over the world." You can't buy one as an individual, but plenty of people use them to fund their retirement.

And Bob also says, "I can offer you a way higher return than Social Security with these products [Bob hands you 50lbs of documents and binders]".

It's not a feature ad. The purpose of Social Security isn't limited to making sure that you only have enough money to avoid poverty in your old age. It's not an individually-directed retirement account. It's a program intended to make sure that everyone in your life has protection against poverty in your retirement. So it consists of: i) your retirement benefit; ii) a lifetime disability insurance product; iii) a spousal benefit product; iv) a minor child disability product; and v) a surviving minor child benefit. You don't get to just disaggregate them.

And that's typical. Offer me something I don't necessarily need at a rate that's more expensive than if I had just bought it myself, which was the point of my original hypothetical from my 30's. Let me keep HALF my money and not only will I drop off this particular grid, I'll be much better off.

The delta between the T-bill average yield and the SS return nets out to be about $25k/year. I'm pretty sure you can find all three of the products you mentioned for less than $25 grand a year. Especially if you had taken the money you were putting away and diverted some of it into a variable life annuity. In which case 100% of the money you'd extract via a loan against the policy would have been tax free.

Add in the tax advantages (at least 15% of your social security income is always tax free), and you'd have a hard time duplicating that package if all of your funds were in a private investment account with 100% risk-free assets.

And this is the rub. Most people accept that some amount of risk in life is acceptable and...a part of life.

At any rate. The deal I offered in my 30s is off the table so this discussion is somewhat moot.

Believe you me Dope there are lots of people who are dependent on SS, they would live a very hard and harsh life without it.

I'm aware of that. And, if you go back and read the thread, my original proposal was:

-I keep my share of what I contribute to SS
-The government keeps what my employer(s) contribute
-I get nothing out of the entire Social Security program

Meaning, I would have been fine with not receiving any benefits from SS while still having my employer pay in on my behalf.

The government would have gotten half of the contributions meant for my retirement with *zero* payout to me later on. Win/win.

Alas.

Dope1....

I agree with you in philosophy on this one AND in real life but.....

Take the people of sitesl ike this or TMF out of the picture - these are smart, saavy people.


Liberals have won - we now have a populace that is more and more clue impaired every day. Personal finance is one of their biggest weaknesses.

They need babysitting for retirement.

Social Security is just that.

And it's out of the hands of Woke Goldman Sachs and it's worked so far.

This is like ACA and Medicare - we can lose our asses electorally over it AND lose on policy - or we can get behind a solution and move on. BTW older folks vote for us.

We pay taxes.

We got into deficit for all sorts of defense shit. For wars not ours.

It's time for a a payroll tax increase.

AND - start with upper incomes first -- as in wherever FICA stops now i think it's around 180L - see the Greedy 401K liberals squeal like stuck pigs.

We save Social Security - THEY protect "the rich".

either way, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA - i know it's imperfect but it's one of those things that keeps us First World.

United Health and Goldman own waaaay too much of my ass and yours.

It's not a feature ad. The purpose of Social Security isn't limited to making sure that you only have enough money to avoid poverty in your old age. It's not an individually-directed retirement account. It's a program intended to make sure that everyone in your life has protection against poverty in your retirement. So it consists of: i) your retirement benefit; ii) a lifetime disability insurance product; iii) a spousal benefit product; iv) a minor child disability product; and v) a surviving minor child benefit. You don't get to just disaggregate them.

So it's a mistake to look at 100% of your social security payments and treat them as if they are just funding i) on that list above. They're not. Add in the tax advantages (at least 15% of your social security income is always tax free), and you'd have a hard time duplicating that package if all of your funds were in a private investment account with 100% risk-free assets.

Thank you for saying more completely and coherently what I have said a number of times over on the old place. If an insurance company were to put all those benefits into one product, can you imagine how much it would charge?

albeit with more risk.

And there’s the rub, especially for those whose retirement depends exclusively or almost entirely upon Social Security- which explains why it was set up that way.

And there’s the rub, especially for those whose retirement depends exclusively or almost entirely upon Social Security- which explains why it was set up that way.

And a plan where

-I keep my share of what I contribute to SS
-The government keeps what my employer(s) contribute
-I get nothing out of the entire Social Security program

...would have helped fund those who are less fortunate.

But that's not what happened, so there we are.

It's a program intended to make sure that everyone in your life has protection against poverty in your retirement.

Gosh! That might even be the reason they named the program Social Security

Let me keep HALF my money and not only will I drop off this particular grid, I'll be much better off.

But you won’t drop off this particular grid. You can’t. That’s the issue.

If you don’t save enough for your retirement, you’re still going to be in the country. If you don’t have enough money to pay for your own food, your own housing, your own clothing, then someone is going to have to pay for it. There’s no way for you to “drop off that grid“ without you leaving the country and renouncing your citizenship.

I know that you don’t think you would be that irresponsible, and maybe you personally wouldn’t. But because we as a society can’t determine in advance who will be responsible and who will not, we make everyone set aside enough money as a requirement of law in order to make sure that their needs later in life are paid for. We don’t let them choose to run high risks, because other people will have to pay the consequences if those risks don’t pan out.

We don’t let people make terrible decisions, like not saving anything for their retirement, if the consequences of those terrible decisions will be filled by somebody other than themselves alone. As much as conservatives would like this to be the case, we do not live in an atomized individualistic society, where everyone is completely insulated from the consequences and impacts of the choices of others. We all live in a society. We all live in a community. We all live in a world where your failure to plan has consequences for other people.

That’s why you don’t get to smoke heroin, why you have to wear a seatbelt when you ride in a car, and why you have to pay into a retirement program that is 100% risk free and covers the non-earning members of your family. Because if you mess yourself up, other people will have to contribute resources to help you out.

If you run out of money at age 76, you’re not going to quietly go into the forest and let yourself starve to death - you’re going to want food, clothing, and shelter. And if you can’t provide those things for yourselves, you will be a drain on the resources of either your family, your community, or your local government. Because of that, we are going to require everyone to set aside money to cover the costs we know will exist when they’re too old to work. That is just part of what you have to do because you are a citizen of a country, not an isolated individual completely on your own in the world.

As MAGA voters can no longer afford groceries, healthcare or their pick-up trucks...

Trump's Murder Bill is full of tax breaks & goodies for wealthy folks like me!

Thank you MAGAS! So thoughtful!

If an insurance company were to put all those benefits into one product, can you imagine how much it would charge?

That experiment was done back in the 1960s (?). For-profit insurers were allowed to offer policies to the public that replicated Social Security benefits. The companies that tried ended the experiment after a VERY short time. NOT PROFITABLE and no way to make them worthwhile under any circumstances.

Trump's Murder Bill is full of tax breaks & goodies for wealthy folks like me!

Bill Clinton, speaking at the convention, a few cycles ago, noted that, since leaving office, he has become wealthy. He said, of the Bush junta's policies "I have never been so well cared for in my life". He then went on to explain why the policies were wrong.

Steve

Bill Clinton, speaking at the convention, a few cycles ago, noted that, since leaving office, he has become wealthy. He said, of the Bush junta's policies "I have never been so well cared for in my life". He then went on to explain why the policies were wrong.

Absolutely, republicans have treated me like an endangered spotted owl! Continually giving me more and more (hoping I'll trickle some down?) all while making their RW base pay the price.
Just nuts!

Post New

Atheist Shrewds FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.