Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,

Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.

If you have questions about this, please email [email protected]

Thank you.

Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.

Because we talk too much about Trump - Hilary

2»

Re: Because we talk too much about Trump - Hilary

  • I wish our medical bills were only $400 per month.
  • You'd think the government would have realized that all the surplus was coming from a generation that would one day be wanting their money back.

    As a millennial, I've been told my whole life that I will never get my SS money back. It's just another tax out of my paycheck.

    Bahahaha!  This is the ultimate issue with government.  It's stupid because there is no competition to make people THINK before they act or for punishment.  The ultimate monopoly.
  • smerka said:
    I wish our medical bills were only $400 per month.

    I absolutely hear ya!!!  But that's just for me only.  We don't have kids, so none of that.  Unless something happens, my H never goes to the doctor and doesn't have prescriptions.  In fact, he doesn't even go for his annual check-up (which irritates me), which is the only thing we get free on our super high deductible plan.

    You're going to get me on my soapbox again, lol.  It's one of the reasons I feel we as a community...and by that I mean the government...should help our citizens with healthcare.  I'm 42.  I guarantee you $400/month for prescriptions/dr. visits is vastly above average for the average 42-year-old.  But then I was also paying the same thing (adjusted for inflation) even when I was much younger.  And there are certainly so many people much worse off than me...especially when you start talking about senior citizens on a fixed income.  I know life isn't fair, I get it.  But I've spent half my adult life going without some of the medical care I needed because I couldn't afford it.  Usually because I had group insurance...but my pre-existing condition wasn't covered for the first year.  That's the one part of the ACA that most people seem to agree on.

    Some people, a lot of people, spend their life healthy.  Or don't develop health problems until their into old age.  But some people get very sick once or twice in their life.  Some people develop devastating medical conditions.  And, quite frankly, most of that is luck of the draw.  I know its an UO, but healthcare is too precious and we need to make sure our citizens who get the short end of the health stick have the help they need.

    Hardworking parents shouldn't have to file for bankruptcy because their 5-year-old child developed leukemia.  A 24-year-old just a couple years out of college, living paycheck to paycheck...except she was laid off two weeks ago...shouldn't be crying in the Rite Aid parking lot because she just had to spend her last $70 buying life saving medication instead of groceries.  At least I had canned veggies and soup in my pantry.

  • ^^^ I hear you. At the same time, I think we need to be careful to not give the government too much power over medical care. If the government is in charge, quality of healthcare will go down. Competition is essential to keep quality up, and quality isn't something I'm willing to sacrifice when it comes to healthcare. We need to have some type of ACA, but we also can't let healthcare be a completely socialist program.
    short+sassy
  • ^^^ I hear you. At the same time, I think we need to be careful to not give the government too much power over medical care. If the government is in charge, quality of healthcare will go down. Competition is essential to keep quality up, and quality isn't something I'm willing to sacrifice when it comes to healthcare. We need to have some type of ACA, but we also can't let healthcare be a completely socialist program.

    I don't think it should be a completely socialist program either, just more safeguards.  But I feel that way because of high income tax rates, not because of quality of healthcare.  Many countries with largely subsidized healthcare programs have healthcare as good as ours.  And I don't think ours so great anyway.  There is a lot of incompetence out there.

    I definitely hear what you're saying, and agree, that the government is not an efficient machine.  But the privatized healthcare we have now is a complete clusterf**k and absolutely atrocious.  It is already a grossly inefficient trainwreck.  80% of hospital bills have errors according to the Medical Billing Advocates of America.  Probably a biased group, but that sounds about right.  It seems like every time someone I know is in the hospital, they complain about an error(s) on their bill.  I know I find errors on my doctor bills about 1/3 of the time.

    It has also prompted hospitals, doctors offices, and pharmaceutical companies to charge outrageous sums of money.  Like $50-$100 for a dose of aspirin.  I know from experience I typically get charged $30 when my blood sugar is checked in a doctor's office.  The strip they use is probably all of 30 cents and it is one minute of a nurse's time.  Sure, throw in some change for overhead, but you're still talking about at least a 10x profit.

    I buy one of my medications from an online Canadian pharmacy.  Because it is half the price than what I can buy it for in the U.S.  Exact same medication.  Not all medications are that drastic, but most are cheaper.  Which makes me ponder why and leads me again to the dysfunction of the way insurance, pharmaceuticals, and medical services are handled in our country.

    I certainly don't pretend to know the answer.  But what we have now is pretty broken. 

  • OK jumping in thanks to some invitations over on the MM board.

    Bernie's plan to "tax the wealthy" is a lot less of that than people realize.  I mentioned this a little in a post on the other board, but his biggest source of revenue would come from raising the employer-paid employment tax.  So you know how you pay into social security?  Well your employer does too, and they pick up half of your tax bill by law.  If they don't pay it, bad news - and even the possibility of criminal sanctions.

    Bernie wants to increase employer-paid employment taxes by another 6%.  That would be on all employers, not just Wall Street and not just wealthy companies.  Your mom and pop shops would have to pay into it. Your minimum wage employers would have to pay into it.  Where do you think they're going to get that extra 6% per year from their budgets?  By cutting wages and/or jobs.

    And then there's the proposal he floated about transaction taxes on investments.  The idea being that if you buy stock, you pay a tax for the privilege of buying that stock.  Here's the problem with that.  It results in every single investment starting in the hole.  So say you pay a 1% transaction tax on every investment.  That means your investment now has to perform better than 1% to be cash positive.  If the 1% transaction tax hits you on the sell side too, then your investment has to do better than 2% to have a cash-positive investment

    Here's the kicker: Bernie's initial proposal was a 10% transaction tax.  Imagine starting 10% in the hole for every single investment you make.  And what if you have to pay an additional 10% on the sell side?  And let's not forget that he wants to tax capital gains at ordinary income rates on top of it.  

    Also contemplate that SS is in huge financial trouble, so Americans really need access to the market to self-fund retirement.  A system like what I described would pose such a huge barrier to market entry that very few people could afford to retire.

    Thankfully he's scaled back his transaction tax proposal so that it's less than 1%, and I don't think the dems in Congress would ever go for it even at that rate.  But he started at 10%, and just floating it as a proposal kind of terrifies me, because it reflects a basic misunderstanding of how capital transactions work.  

    Trump is also pretty scary, but the one saving grace I see is that I don't think he believes 99% of the stuff that comes out of his mouth. At the end of the day Trump is a deal guy, and he's not stupid.  He would never have gotten as far as he has in life if he couldn't broker deals.  Right now he's just reading his crowd and saying what they want to hear.  Of course the counter to this is you don't really know what you're getting with him, other than a deal guy.

    Bernie, on the other hand, actually believes in what he's saying.  And he thinks his tax math is good.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
    BlueBirdMBMommyLiberty5013short+sassy
  • @hoffse I couldn't agree more about Bernie.  It all sounds just so great when he says it, but the practicalities aren't there.


    MommyLiberty5013
  • @hoffse I couldn't agree more about Bernie.  It all sounds just so great when he says it, but the practicalities aren't there.


    Yep. Also, why can't the politicians and leaders and then the U.S. population just look over the Atlantic Ocean to see how versions of socialism haven't worked out very well? Greece? The other nations with heavy tax burdens on their citizens aren't doing all that great. Why does the U.S. have to join that party when the party isn't so hot? We already know that. Why do we have to check it out for ourselves? Where I'd like the USA to emulate Europe more is in transportation - trains, etc., but leave the economics alone and go for the free market with the necessary checks and balances to limit and/or eliminate dire abuses of the work force and environment. It can be done!

    Separately, we watched The Iron Lady the other night - a movie with Meryl Streep about PM Margaret Thatcher. WOW! 

  • BlueBirdMBBlueBirdMB member
    500 Love Its 1000 Comments Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited January 2016
    @hoffse I couldn't agree more about Bernie.  It all sounds just so great when he says it, but the practicalities aren't there.


    Yep. Also, why can't the politicians and leaders and then the U.S. population just look over the Atlantic Ocean to see how versions of socialism haven't worked out very well? Greece? The other nations with heavy tax burdens on their citizens aren't doing all that great. Why does the U.S. have to join that party when the party isn't so hot? We already know that. Why do we have to check it out for ourselves? Where I'd like the USA to emulate Europe more is in transportation - trains, etc., but leave the economics alone and go for the free market with the necessary checks and balances to limit and/or eliminate dire abuses of the work force and environment. It can be done!

    Separately, we watched The Iron Lady the other night - a movie with Meryl Streep about PM Margaret Thatcher. WOW! 

    Love that movie!  Meryl Streep is fantastic as always.

    The principles of free enterprise and democracy is what lifted Europe out of feudalism.  They are success because of those principles and despite their more recent socialist tendencies.  I only know a little about modern British history, but it seemed that at the time that Margaret Thatcher became PM was at a time when England was at a crossroads between moving completely towards socialism or more towards free market principles and she kept them from moving too far down the socialist road.  They've achieved a good balance it seems.

    I traveled around Norway and was horrified by their lack of freedom.  There's a country that has moved to socialism without holding anything  back.  Because the government pays for almost everything from birth to death, you can't even pick your child's first name.  Let that sink in.  Something that seems so basic like naming your child- you can't freely choose their name.  It's the golden rule- those with the gold (in the case of socialism, it's the government) rules.  I had many people whispering (yes whispering out of fear) to me about how nobody works anymore in the country.  How they can't do anything in their day to day life without the government controlling it.  How there are so many laws that nobody can keep track anymore.  It was very unsettling.  I didn't expect that at all since we hear these fantastic statistics about the country.  Now I think all those statistics are altered by their government. 
  • BlueBirdMBBlueBirdMB member
    500 Love Its 1000 Comments Second Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited January 2016
    I'm not trying to bash any country, btw.  Everyone has pride about their home country and I completely understand that.  That's how I feel about the US.
  • als1982als1982 member
    500 Love Its 1000 Comments Third Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited January 2016
    @hoffse I couldn't agree more about Bernie.  It all sounds just so great when he says it, but the practicalities aren't there.


    Yep. Also, why can't the politicians and leaders and then the U.S. population just look over the Atlantic Ocean to see how versions of socialism haven't worked out very well? Greece? The other nations with heavy tax burdens on their citizens aren't doing all that great. Why does the U.S. have to join that party when the party isn't so hot? We already know that. Why do we have to check it out for ourselves? Where I'd like the USA to emulate Europe more is in transportation - trains, etc., but leave the economics alone and go for the free market with the necessary checks and balances to limit and/or eliminate dire abuses of the work force and environment. It can be done!

    Separately, we watched The Iron Lady the other night - a movie with Meryl Streep about PM Margaret Thatcher. WOW! 

    Love that movie!  Meryl Streep is fantastic as always.

    The principles of free enterprise and democracy is what lifted Europe out of feudalism.  They are success because of those principles and despite their more recent socialist tendencies.  I only know a little about modern British history, but it seemed that at the time that Margaret Thatcher became PM was at a time when England was at a crossroads between moving completely towards socialism or more towards free market principles and she kept them from moving too far down the socialist road.  They've achieved a good balance it seems.

    I traveled around Norway and was horrified by their lack of freedom.  There's a country that has moved to socialism without holding anything  back.  Because the government pays for almost everything from birth to death, you can't even pick your child's first name.  Let that sink in.  Something that seems so basic like naming your child- you can't freely choose their name.  It's the golden rule- those with the gold (in the case of socialism, it's the government) rules.  I had many people whispering (yes whispering out of fear) to me about how nobody works anymore in the country.  How they can't do anything in their day to day life without the government controlling it.  How there are so many laws that nobody can keep track anymore.  It was very unsettling.  I didn't expect that at all since we hear these fantastic statistics about the country.  Now I think all those statistics are altered by their government. 
    It's so interesting that this was your experience, as I had the exact opposite experience when we visited Norway in 2014.  Statistically, Norway (and other Scandinavian countries) have a happier populace than the United States as well as less public corruption.  The divorce rate is lower, as is violent crime (very significantly).

    A little unrelated side fact that might interest @MommyLiberty5013:  We were actually in Norway during Pentecost, which is celebrated as a national holiday.  Literally everything was closed.  I'm guessing a majority of Americans likely don't even know what Pentecost is, let alone celebrate the day.
    HeartlandHustle | Personal Finance and Betterment Blog  
  • I understand what you mean. My family hails from Norway (at least a part of the family ancestry). I don't thing you're nation bashing. What good are we if we cannot look to other examples of failure but also of success for nations' policies and economics?

    The naming thing, is frankly quite scary to me. Why does the government do that, I wonder.

    One of the poignant books that has always stuck with me from high school was Upton Sinclair's, The Jungle and the abuse of the working class. We do need government oversight to prevent abuses of workers, employees, and the environment, but people and businesses do thrive more with freedom from government oppression.

    I view socialism as very oppressive - a form of bondage to something. That's why I cannot in good conscience vote for any Democrat. The current state of the Democratic party has moved away from what it once was, even a few decades ago, to a socialistic-leaning, freebee-giving group. Freedom does not arise from "gifts" from the federal government.

    short+sassy
  • I'm afraid sometimes that both parties have moved towards extremes.  Balance is key.  

    I think of The Jungle often.  I certainly believe that unions were created for a real reason, but I feel that their influence has moved to the opposite extreme.  
  • I'm afraid sometimes that both parties have moved towards extremes.  Balance is key.  

    I think of The Jungle often.  I certainly believe that unions were created for a real reason, but I feel that their influence has moved to the opposite extreme.  

    Interesting you all brought up unions.  There is a push right now in NOLA for hotel workers to be unionized.  There are currently demonstrations going on...this will sound familiar to you @BlueBirdMB ;)...at the Hilton Riverside.  Though, right now its Mardi Gras season, and I suspect the demonstrators will be gone after the festivities are over.

    Overall, I agree with you.  Unions were very necessary in our earlier history, not as much now.  But then, at the same time, I am more on the side of the unions in this particular struggle.  Generally speaking, a tourism industry=crappy, low paying jobs.  Its not unusual for hotel workers (in NOLA) to have worked for the same company for years, but barely make above minimum wage.

    The hotels here also do a lot of shadiness like hiring "heavy part-time" workers and then keep their hours JUST 2-3 hours/week under what would entitle them to the company benefits.

    Overall, most of the big name hotels here treat their employees abysmally.  So guess what?  Now there is a push for unionization.  Companies who treat their employees well don't need to worry about unions. 

    BlueBirdMB
Sign In or Register to comment.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards