Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Shrill and Billary are your house guests until you do.

[/ QUOTE ]

like they live/sleep in the same house lol.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure that comparison is at all valid because:

1. The government gets to leverage off of the admin that's already been done in other government filings.

2. Directly comparing the administrative rates assumes administrative services are of equal quality. It's like saying McDonald's delivers beef food more efficiently than Morton's because it costs less.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL fuzzy math FTW!

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
CBO Report (PDF, Page 2)

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>. Annual Admin Cost % Reduction in assets
Social Security: $11/participant 2
TSP (Govt 401k): $25/participant 5
Mutual Funds: 1.09% of assets 23
Private Defined $24-$103 + 0-1% of assets 9-30
Contribution</pre><hr />

The government completely owns the private sector in terms of efficiency for retirement funds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think one thing almost everyone that pays taxes is aware of and that is that government is uber effecient in collecting them. The easier the tax is to collect, the more effeciency the government has. Not to hard for the government to collect taxes from w-2 workers.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
CBO Report (PDF, Page 2)

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>. Annual Admin Cost % Reduction in assets
Social Security: $11/participant 2
TSP (Govt 401k): $25/participant 5
Mutual Funds: 1.09% of assets 23
Private Defined $24-$103 + 0-1% of assets 9-30
Contribution</pre><hr />

The government completely owns the private sector in terms of efficiency for retirement funds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats not apples to apples comparisons. Social Security does individual contribution record keeping, periodic benefit estimates, a final retirement determination, and annual cost of living increases. Other than gathering the contribution information there are maybe a dozen "touches" preretirement, and one a year post retirement, for a total of 30 or so over a persons lifetime, call it 40 years.

The Govt 401(k) costs are in line with but a little cheaper than private Defined Contribution, and while I dont know anything about the govt 401(k) my guess is that it has fewer investment options than the private DC plan, and lower administrative costs in terms of annual compliance. Also included in that private DC cost is investment advice, which may not be included in the govt number.

The mutual fund comparison is totally irrelevant, they are totally different animals.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

you guys realize social security has a negative rate of return, right? that don't seem too efficient to me.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

Another problem with her "plan" is that it states that companies can't charge more for people whose health costs are higher. So you can't get a cheap plan if you're young and healthy. The healthy are forced to pay extra for coverage they don't need, solely to subsidize every fast-food eating fatass out there that doesn't want to exercise.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
what's the penalty if you don't buy health insurance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Under the new Massachusetts individual healthcare mandate, the penalty is loss of your individual deduction on your state income tax, or about $80-90 a month.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
Another problem with her "plan" is that it states that companies can't charge more for people whose health costs are higher. So you can't get a cheap plan if you're young and healthy. The healthy are forced to pay extra for coverage they don't need, solely to subsidize every fast-food eating fatass out there that doesn't want to exercise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hillary's "plan" is obviously a nightmare for a multitude of reasons, but the preceding isn't one of them. The "fast food eating fatasses" actually reduce health care costs, since those people tend to die young and quickly due to cardiovascular disease.

I don't recall the exact statistic, but a large proportion of the average person's health care costs over a lifetime are incurred during the last few years, usually due to various degenerative conditions. Those who engage in an unhealthy lifestyle, on average, don't as often enter that phase of life, and thus they end up costing less. You can't incur health care costs if you are dead.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another problem with her "plan" is that it states that companies can't charge more for people whose health costs are higher. So you can't get a cheap plan if you're young and healthy. The healthy are forced to pay extra for coverage they don't need, solely to subsidize every fast-food eating fatass out there that doesn't want to exercise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hillary's "plan" is obviously a nightmare for a multitude of reasons, but the preceding isn't one of them. The "fast food eating fatasses" actually reduce health care costs, since those people tend to die young and quickly due to cardiovascular disease.

I don't recall the exact statistic, but a large proportion of the average person's health care costs over a lifetime are incurred during the last few years, usually due to various degenerative conditions. Those who engage in an unhealthy lifestyle, on average, don't as often enter that phase of life, and thus they end up costing less. You can't incur health care costs if you are dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I agree with this. It is definitely 100% true that most health care costs occur right at the end of life. I am not sure that:

- When that end of life occurs matters; i.e. I'm not sure there's an "early death discount" for people who voluntarily life an unhealthy lifestyle
- That the cost at death is not related to the lifestyle of the person.

In order for your assertion to be true, unhealthy people have to somehow have "cheaper deaths" than healthy people. It's not at all obvious that that's true.

Re: Hillary Care round 2
 

[ QUOTE ]
you guys realize social security has a negative rate of return, right? that don't seem too efficient to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, ask the family of the guy who dies a week before collecting Soc Sec what his rate of return was.... this fact alone is a great arguement for privatization.