[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]Brutus, I’m with you on most everything, but let’s remember that the Social Security System was a bit of a Ponzi scheme from day one, and is a good example of short-termism.
It always relied upon large bunch of contributors to support an initially-small but growing group of recipients. When initiated in the 1930s, it had nothing but contributors for several years until the first qualified recipient took their first SS check in 1940. Of course, contributions were tiny at first, but had to inevitably grow to current confiscatory levels in order to support our growing population of recipients. If you look back at one of your paycheck stubs from 40 years ago, I’ll bet your Social Security tax was under 2%. Accordingly you (and I) got a terrific bargain from Social Security. Today’s workers, especially the youngest, get a horrible deal. I would not be surprised if they could opt out of SS and instead stuff their SS contribution and the equal amount their employer makes on their behalf into a mattress, interest free, and take it out upon retirement to live off of.[/quote]

Social Security was never a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi scheme, with absolute opaqueness, primary investors are paid off by secondary investors. The only reason they can temporarily flourish is that lack of transparency. Nobody would knowingly invest. Social Security is transparent. And as a result of that transparency, both contribution rates and benefit rates have been adjusted over the years in order to maintain its integrity.

If you look back 40 years, you won’t find a social security tax of under 2%. You’ll actually have to look back almost 60 years for that. The contribution rate, (which was raised during the Reagan adminstration from 5.05% to 5.7%), along with the wage base, rose steadily for the first 40 years. The contribution rate has remained unchanged now since 1990.

I’m curious, what exactly is “confiscatory levels”? It seems that for many who now support a shrinking government and oppose all tax increases, “confiscatory levels” is whatever current levels are, without regards to any historical context. 6.2% is confiscatory, but 5.7% signed into law by Ronald Reagan wasn’t. 50% top marginal income tax rates were not confiscatory in 1982, but now 39% is. 35% is acceptable, but 39% is socialism and redistribution of wealth, without regards to any historical context, without regards to the current budget crisis (which, by the way, is not adversely affected by Social Security, nor would it be fixed by the very minor adjustments needed to extend the solvency of Social Security indefinitely.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]Brutus, I’m with you on most everything, but let’s remember that the Social Security System was a bit of a Ponzi scheme from day one, and is a good example of short-termism.
It always relied upon large bunch of contributors to support an initially-small but growing group of recipients. When initiated in the 1930s, it had nothing but contributors for several years until the first qualified recipient took their first SS check in 1940. Of course, contributions were tiny at first, but had to inevitably grow to current confiscatory levels in order to support our growing population of recipients. If you look back at one of your paycheck stubs from 40 years ago, I’ll bet your Social Security tax was under 2%. Accordingly you (and I) got a terrific bargain from Social Security. Today’s workers, especially the youngest, get a horrible deal. I would not be surprised if they could opt out of SS and instead stuff their SS contribution and the equal amount their employer makes on their behalf into a mattress, interest free, and take it out upon retirement to live off of.[/quote]

Social Security was never a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi scheme, with absolute opaqueness, primary investors are paid off by secondary investors. The only reason they can temporarily flourish is that lack of transparency. Nobody would knowingly invest. Social Security is transparent. And as a result of that transparency, both contribution rates and benefit rates have been adjusted over the years in order to maintain its integrity.

If you look back 40 years, you won’t find a social security tax of under 2%. You’ll actually have to look back almost 60 years for that. The contribution rate, (which was raised during the Reagan adminstration from 5.05% to 5.7%), along with the wage base, rose steadily for the first 40 years. The contribution rate has remained unchanged now since 1990.

I’m curious, what exactly is “confiscatory levels”? It seems that for many who now support a shrinking government and oppose all tax increases, “confiscatory levels” is whatever current levels are, without regards to any historical context. 6.2% is confiscatory, but 5.7% signed into law by Ronald Reagan wasn’t. 50% top marginal income tax rates were not confiscatory in 1982, but now 39% is. 35% is acceptable, but 39% is socialism and redistribution of wealth, without regards to any historical context, without regards to the current budget crisis (which, by the way, is not adversely affected by Social Security, nor would it be fixed by the very minor adjustments needed to extend the solvency of Social Security indefinitely.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]Brutus, I’m with you on most everything, but let’s remember that the Social Security System was a bit of a Ponzi scheme from day one, and is a good example of short-termism.
It always relied upon large bunch of contributors to support an initially-small but growing group of recipients. When initiated in the 1930s, it had nothing but contributors for several years until the first qualified recipient took their first SS check in 1940. Of course, contributions were tiny at first, but had to inevitably grow to current confiscatory levels in order to support our growing population of recipients. If you look back at one of your paycheck stubs from 40 years ago, I’ll bet your Social Security tax was under 2%. Accordingly you (and I) got a terrific bargain from Social Security. Today’s workers, especially the youngest, get a horrible deal. I would not be surprised if they could opt out of SS and instead stuff their SS contribution and the equal amount their employer makes on their behalf into a mattress, interest free, and take it out upon retirement to live off of.[/quote]

Social Security was never a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi scheme, with absolute opaqueness, primary investors are paid off by secondary investors. The only reason they can temporarily flourish is that lack of transparency. Nobody would knowingly invest. Social Security is transparent. And as a result of that transparency, both contribution rates and benefit rates have been adjusted over the years in order to maintain its integrity.

If you look back 40 years, you won’t find a social security tax of under 2%. You’ll actually have to look back almost 60 years for that. The contribution rate, (which was raised during the Reagan adminstration from 5.05% to 5.7%), along with the wage base, rose steadily for the first 40 years. The contribution rate has remained unchanged now since 1990.

I’m curious, what exactly is “confiscatory levels”? It seems that for many who now support a shrinking government and oppose all tax increases, “confiscatory levels” is whatever current levels are, without regards to any historical context. 6.2% is confiscatory, but 5.7% signed into law by Ronald Reagan wasn’t. 50% top marginal income tax rates were not confiscatory in 1982, but now 39% is. 35% is acceptable, but 39% is socialism and redistribution of wealth, without regards to any historical context, without regards to the current budget crisis (which, by the way, is not adversely affected by Social Security, nor would it be fixed by the very minor adjustments needed to extend the solvency of Social Security indefinitely.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=EconProf]Brutus, I’m with you on most everything, but let’s remember that the Social Security System was a bit of a Ponzi scheme from day one, and is a good example of short-termism.
It always relied upon large bunch of contributors to support an initially-small but growing group of recipients. When initiated in the 1930s, it had nothing but contributors for several years until the first qualified recipient took their first SS check in 1940. Of course, contributions were tiny at first, but had to inevitably grow to current confiscatory levels in order to support our growing population of recipients. If you look back at one of your paycheck stubs from 40 years ago, I’ll bet your Social Security tax was under 2%. Accordingly you (and I) got a terrific bargain from Social Security. Today’s workers, especially the youngest, get a horrible deal. I would not be surprised if they could opt out of SS and instead stuff their SS contribution and the equal amount their employer makes on their behalf into a mattress, interest free, and take it out upon retirement to live off of.[/quote]

Social Security was never a ponzi scheme. In a ponzi scheme, with absolute opaqueness, primary investors are paid off by secondary investors. The only reason they can temporarily flourish is that lack of transparency. Nobody would knowingly invest. Social Security is transparent. And as a result of that transparency, both contribution rates and benefit rates have been adjusted over the years in order to maintain its integrity.

If you look back 40 years, you won’t find a social security tax of under 2%. You’ll actually have to look back almost 60 years for that. The contribution rate, (which was raised during the Reagan adminstration from 5.05% to 5.7%), along with the wage base, rose steadily for the first 40 years. The contribution rate has remained unchanged now since 1990.

I’m curious, what exactly is “confiscatory levels”? It seems that for many who now support a shrinking government and oppose all tax increases, “confiscatory levels” is whatever current levels are, without regards to any historical context. 6.2% is confiscatory, but 5.7% signed into law by Ronald Reagan wasn’t. 50% top marginal income tax rates were not confiscatory in 1982, but now 39% is. 35% is acceptable, but 39% is socialism and redistribution of wealth, without regards to any historical context, without regards to the current budget crisis (which, by the way, is not adversely affected by Social Security, nor would it be fixed by the very minor adjustments needed to extend the solvency of Social Security indefinitely.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=Djshakes]
Buddy, I’m a SFA for Scripps and handle all the capital acquisitions for two large entities in the system. This isn’t a debate in which I have any skin in proving what line item is a greater expense. Why would I care? However, when someone states something with no facts and I know the truth, I will prove them wrong.

I pulled all the data from a live pivot regarding PSA expenses. I emailed the system capital manager to get a yearly spend.

I have provided facts. You have provided guesstimates…..extremely wrong ones. Anyone that reads these posts will clearly see I know what I am talking about.[/quote]

Thanks for all this info. I have a question for you.

First, some background. The most recent data I’ve seen for the breakdown of health care dollars (goes back i think to about 2007 or 2008), shows that roughly 30% is for hospital care, roughly 20% for physicians and other clinical care, and 10% for prescription drugs. The next biggest is insurance company administration and profit at about 7%. (Given the decreases in insurance company medical loss ratios, i suspect that number has gone up over the last few years.) The rest is split among about 15 other categories the single largest of the remaining is nursing home care at about 6%, which I suspect will continue to go up as the population ages.

While I don’t believe there is any factual basis for bubbas assertion that infrastructure and financing costs are the single item driving the sharp increases over the last few years, do you think they’ve been significant within the segment that you’re associated with? Additionally, can you identify any particular category of costs that have increased sharply over the last 15 years?

I suspect there is no single cause for the increases. As I think I’ve said, some of it is related to cost of ever improving technologies, including pharma technologies. Some of it is increased consumption, partly due to an aging population. Part of it is insurance companies keeping an ever growing piece of health care dollars. And there are probably another 1/2 a dozen reasons for increases within particular segments.

Any insight?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Djshakes]
Buddy, I’m a SFA for Scripps and handle all the capital acquisitions for two large entities in the system. This isn’t a debate in which I have any skin in proving what line item is a greater expense. Why would I care? However, when someone states something with no facts and I know the truth, I will prove them wrong.

I pulled all the data from a live pivot regarding PSA expenses. I emailed the system capital manager to get a yearly spend.

I have provided facts. You have provided guesstimates…..extremely wrong ones. Anyone that reads these posts will clearly see I know what I am talking about.[/quote]

Thanks for all this info. I have a question for you.

First, some background. The most recent data I’ve seen for the breakdown of health care dollars (goes back i think to about 2007 or 2008), shows that roughly 30% is for hospital care, roughly 20% for physicians and other clinical care, and 10% for prescription drugs. The next biggest is insurance company administration and profit at about 7%. (Given the decreases in insurance company medical loss ratios, i suspect that number has gone up over the last few years.) The rest is split among about 15 other categories the single largest of the remaining is nursing home care at about 6%, which I suspect will continue to go up as the population ages.

While I don’t believe there is any factual basis for bubbas assertion that infrastructure and financing costs are the single item driving the sharp increases over the last few years, do you think they’ve been significant within the segment that you’re associated with? Additionally, can you identify any particular category of costs that have increased sharply over the last 15 years?

I suspect there is no single cause for the increases. As I think I’ve said, some of it is related to cost of ever improving technologies, including pharma technologies. Some of it is increased consumption, partly due to an aging population. Part of it is insurance companies keeping an ever growing piece of health care dollars. And there are probably another 1/2 a dozen reasons for increases within particular segments.

Any insight?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Djshakes]
Buddy, I’m a SFA for Scripps and handle all the capital acquisitions for two large entities in the system. This isn’t a debate in which I have any skin in proving what line item is a greater expense. Why would I care? However, when someone states something with no facts and I know the truth, I will prove them wrong.

I pulled all the data from a live pivot regarding PSA expenses. I emailed the system capital manager to get a yearly spend.

I have provided facts. You have provided guesstimates…..extremely wrong ones. Anyone that reads these posts will clearly see I know what I am talking about.[/quote]

Thanks for all this info. I have a question for you.

First, some background. The most recent data I’ve seen for the breakdown of health care dollars (goes back i think to about 2007 or 2008), shows that roughly 30% is for hospital care, roughly 20% for physicians and other clinical care, and 10% for prescription drugs. The next biggest is insurance company administration and profit at about 7%. (Given the decreases in insurance company medical loss ratios, i suspect that number has gone up over the last few years.) The rest is split among about 15 other categories the single largest of the remaining is nursing home care at about 6%, which I suspect will continue to go up as the population ages.

While I don’t believe there is any factual basis for bubbas assertion that infrastructure and financing costs are the single item driving the sharp increases over the last few years, do you think they’ve been significant within the segment that you’re associated with? Additionally, can you identify any particular category of costs that have increased sharply over the last 15 years?

I suspect there is no single cause for the increases. As I think I’ve said, some of it is related to cost of ever improving technologies, including pharma technologies. Some of it is increased consumption, partly due to an aging population. Part of it is insurance companies keeping an ever growing piece of health care dollars. And there are probably another 1/2 a dozen reasons for increases within particular segments.

Any insight?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Djshakes]
Buddy, I’m a SFA for Scripps and handle all the capital acquisitions for two large entities in the system. This isn’t a debate in which I have any skin in proving what line item is a greater expense. Why would I care? However, when someone states something with no facts and I know the truth, I will prove them wrong.

I pulled all the data from a live pivot regarding PSA expenses. I emailed the system capital manager to get a yearly spend.

I have provided facts. You have provided guesstimates…..extremely wrong ones. Anyone that reads these posts will clearly see I know what I am talking about.[/quote]

Thanks for all this info. I have a question for you.

First, some background. The most recent data I’ve seen for the breakdown of health care dollars (goes back i think to about 2007 or 2008), shows that roughly 30% is for hospital care, roughly 20% for physicians and other clinical care, and 10% for prescription drugs. The next biggest is insurance company administration and profit at about 7%. (Given the decreases in insurance company medical loss ratios, i suspect that number has gone up over the last few years.) The rest is split among about 15 other categories the single largest of the remaining is nursing home care at about 6%, which I suspect will continue to go up as the population ages.

While I don’t believe there is any factual basis for bubbas assertion that infrastructure and financing costs are the single item driving the sharp increases over the last few years, do you think they’ve been significant within the segment that you’re associated with? Additionally, can you identify any particular category of costs that have increased sharply over the last 15 years?

I suspect there is no single cause for the increases. As I think I’ve said, some of it is related to cost of ever improving technologies, including pharma technologies. Some of it is increased consumption, partly due to an aging population. Part of it is insurance companies keeping an ever growing piece of health care dollars. And there are probably another 1/2 a dozen reasons for increases within particular segments.

Any insight?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Djshakes]
Buddy, I’m a SFA for Scripps and handle all the capital acquisitions for two large entities in the system. This isn’t a debate in which I have any skin in proving what line item is a greater expense. Why would I care? However, when someone states something with no facts and I know the truth, I will prove them wrong.

I pulled all the data from a live pivot regarding PSA expenses. I emailed the system capital manager to get a yearly spend.

I have provided facts. You have provided guesstimates…..extremely wrong ones. Anyone that reads these posts will clearly see I know what I am talking about.[/quote]

Thanks for all this info. I have a question for you.

First, some background. The most recent data I’ve seen for the breakdown of health care dollars (goes back i think to about 2007 or 2008), shows that roughly 30% is for hospital care, roughly 20% for physicians and other clinical care, and 10% for prescription drugs. The next biggest is insurance company administration and profit at about 7%. (Given the decreases in insurance company medical loss ratios, i suspect that number has gone up over the last few years.) The rest is split among about 15 other categories the single largest of the remaining is nursing home care at about 6%, which I suspect will continue to go up as the population ages.

While I don’t believe there is any factual basis for bubbas assertion that infrastructure and financing costs are the single item driving the sharp increases over the last few years, do you think they’ve been significant within the segment that you’re associated with? Additionally, can you identify any particular category of costs that have increased sharply over the last 15 years?

I suspect there is no single cause for the increases. As I think I’ve said, some of it is related to cost of ever improving technologies, including pharma technologies. Some of it is increased consumption, partly due to an aging population. Part of it is insurance companies keeping an ever growing piece of health care dollars. And there are probably another 1/2 a dozen reasons for increases within particular segments.

Any insight?

[SK in CV]

Craigslist has some banking jobs. Probably better is indeed.com. Not sure exactly how they do it, but they seem to have jobs posted, with links, from just about all the other executive job boards like monster. One stop shop for all the boards.

Some industries use recruiters heavily. Just guessing, but I suspect banking is currently not one of them. If I’m correct, recruiters will have access to the same jobs that the executive boards have.

[SK in CV]

Craigslist has some banking jobs. Probably better is indeed.com. Not sure exactly how they do it, but they seem to have jobs posted, with links, from just about all the other executive job boards like monster. One stop shop for all the boards.

Some industries use recruiters heavily. Just guessing, but I suspect banking is currently not one of them. If I’m correct, recruiters will have access to the same jobs that the executive boards have.

[SK in CV]

Craigslist has some banking jobs. Probably better is indeed.com. Not sure exactly how they do it, but they seem to have jobs posted, with links, from just about all the other executive job boards like monster. One stop shop for all the boards.

Some industries use recruiters heavily. Just guessing, but I suspect banking is currently not one of them. If I’m correct, recruiters will have access to the same jobs that the executive boards have.

[SK in CV]

Craigslist has some banking jobs. Probably better is indeed.com. Not sure exactly how they do it, but they seem to have jobs posted, with links, from just about all the other executive job boards like monster. One stop shop for all the boards.

Some industries use recruiters heavily. Just guessing, but I suspect banking is currently not one of them. If I’m correct, recruiters will have access to the same jobs that the executive boards have.

[SK in CV]

Craigslist has some banking jobs. Probably better is indeed.com. Not sure exactly how they do it, but they seem to have jobs posted, with links, from just about all the other executive job boards like monster. One stop shop for all the boards.

Some industries use recruiters heavily. Just guessing, but I suspect banking is currently not one of them. If I’m correct, recruiters will have access to the same jobs that the executive boards have.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]Conservative conveniently fail to mention the Necessary And Proper clause of the Constitution.

Let’s see what the Supreme Court rules. I’m confident that it will side with Obama Administration (like the Supreme Court sided with FDR).

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/22/133141262/can-congress-mandate-health-insurance

http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/%5B/quote%5D

I hope so, but with activist judges Scalia, Roberts and Thomas, I wouldn’t be so sure.

[Author]

Posts