I sympathize with that, but couldn’t we have some need-based safety net that incorporates age in such a way that we don’t give objectively wealthy people money?
is social security really a fund where wealthy people are making bank?
1 Like
One issue with this approach is that many old not-poor people would immediately become poor people if they developed a serious medical condition. My MIL got cancer in her early 60s while the inlaws were buying medical coverage on their own dime. The monthly premiums they had to pay until she hit medicare age due to her preexisting condition were pretty staggering. They could cover it, but a huge percentage of Americans on medicare could not.
How are you going to define wealthy? And does that definition change between NYC and Montana?
Yeah a simpler solution is a single payer medical system which is my preference, but at the moment we just provide universal health coverage to old people. We should either cut out the wealthy old people or do it for everyone.
Well defining wealthy would definitely be something to be hashed out, and likely driven by how much money we have for benefits. And I don’t think I’d vary the definition by geography. Montana being cheaper than NYC is a result of market forces. People can have less in a real sense and live in NYC if they really like NYC, or they can have more in Montana.
So… the amount you’d save by not paying for health care for elderly people who can readily afford it (a decent working definition of “wealthy” in this context) would be pretty small, since that’s a fairly small fraction of the retired population.
And asking old people to move to Montana… away from their family, and everyone they know, and their emotional and practical support… Are you aware that people live longer and are less prone to dementia when they are in familiar environments and have social support?
Asking young people looking for a job to move away from everyone they know is dicey enough, since it means that they are less likely to have a safe couch to crash on if they run out of funds. But it’s not crazy. Asking old people to do so it crazy.
1 Like
Does “objectively wealthy” means per capita financial assets over $3 million? I’ll agree they don’t need gov’t support. And, also, there are so few of them that we won’t notice the impact on total spending.
The conventional wisdom says that means testing SS and Medicare, based on post retirement means, results in a large chunk of middle Americans deciding that traditional personal saving is for the foolish. Spend it now and qualify for needs based banefits when you’re old.
Also, look for nontraditional ways to save so you can fool the gov’t. Give the money to your kids with the understanding that they will supplement your gov’t benefits when you’re old. Buy gold coins, sell them on a black market.
I don’t like those results.
(OTOH, if all you’re talking about is converting our increasing SS benefit into a flat benefit, I can get on board. There are serious proposals on how to transition to that.)
1 Like
I’m guessing that Ohio voters, who went for Trump by 8 points, will vote to belong to the red states. If you split PA with a north-south line just west of the few blue coastal counties on this map, https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/pennsylvania/
the western side of that line would also be majority red.
I don’t have a way of measuring your idea about differences in Republicans. I agree that if a lot of Rs decided to go with the blue country, that would simplify things. I live in the midwest, I think “east coast liberals are a bunch of socialists” carries weight here.
I’m not sure who “you” is here. I see this immediately below one of my posts, but it doesn’t seem to relate to what I was saying. I think I asked Ranger the same thing much earlier in this thread.
I think we’re talking past each other. The point isn’t “red states vs blue states”.
The OP was about red/blue, so I’ve been stuck on that.
If you’re looking for different groupings, this view is interesting https://www.amazon.com/American-Nations-History-Regional-Cultures/dp/0143122029
I don’t think Ohio has much in common with NYC, but then, NYC may be unique in the US.
Probably a fair number. Those who do think it’s a hoax probably aren’t anxious to visit NYC.
Wondering why the USA has been circumcised so severely on that cover.
I put a hold on it at my local library.
This was an interesting read.
Weren’t you arguing to reduce the federal government? If not, i misunderstood you.
I’m in the middle. I have this response to P_Utonium. Why doesn't the United States just break up?
who wanted to leave Social Security to the states. I replied with a “race to the bottom” argument. But, I also said that abortion and local transportation shouldn’t be federal issues.
Then, I asked AO_fan how she was harmed by being in the same country as the red states. She mentioned sending more money to the feds than they get back (tax dollars held hostage) and specifically mentioned transit.
So I got going on that topic. I would like to see some things pushed down to the states, but “looking at the federal gov’t overall, the stuff that can be pushed down to states is a small portion of the total. I think we are stuck with a “big” federal gov’t.”
I’m still not sure how ao_fan’s life would be better if the US split up.
Okay. I guess we mostly agree. I think education could be left to the states, too.
Local transit can certainly be handled locally, but I do see a lot of benefit to the federal government supporting long-distance transit. Every successful large political entity has invested in transit. The romans built roads. The Islamic empire built a network of rest stops for riders. The British empire built a massive fleet. Interstate highways and air traffic control seem like reasonable things for the feds to get involved in. Fast trains would have made sense, too.
Especially in the desert states imo where weather conditions are perfect year round.
It’s harder with tornadoes and snow storms.
But if Japan can have a train system in a region with 500000 earthquakes a year, we can do it.
While I think those conditions would be useful, I think it probably makes most economic sense for linking big cities. Especially when you can help make the labor force more efficient, like if it became realistic for people in NJ to commute to DC, or people inbetween SF and LA to commute to the other.