The OT thread V1

[pbjosh]

"Its actually an upside down ponzi scheme with the young that dont need health care paying for the old." Or is it the young paying for something that they will need when they are old and can't pay....

That is kinda how we view Social Security here in the US. There isn't any actual investment. It just goes from the work of the young to the old, which is how a ponzi investment works.

The problem is before it meant 12-16 people supported 1 person who turned 65 when the average lifespan was 65.

Now it is 4-5 people supporting 1 person who turns 65 who will live to 88 on average.

I suspect that NHS is dealing with some of the same. Fewer supporting it, with higher costs now?

That being said, this popped up in a quick google:

https://www.theguardian.com/business...rge-health-nhs

The number of people in Britain taking out private medical insurance has risen significantly for the first time since 2008, amid fears about the ongoing crisis gripping the NHS...

...Philip Blackburn, an economist at LaingBuisson, said: “There has been a clear rise in interest in private healthcare recently as more and more people are dissatisfied with higher waiting on the NHS and increased restrictions on NHS treatment. Private medical cover will benefit from this, and there is a wide choice of policy options at different prices to attract customers.”

“A sharp increase in IPT from 6% to 9.5% effective from November 2015, and further rise to 10% from November 2016 has loaded significant additional cost for all medical insurance customers. A further hike to 12% in June 2017 will tighten this ‘taxation straitjacket’, and in an industry where affordability has been identified as the primary reason for a lack of growth in demand, this hefty additional burden is likely to mean demand for PMI is vulnerable going forward,” said Blackburn, adding that “the medical cover sector faces further uncertainty from the UK’s impending exit from the European Union.”

Any insight into this? I have heard, almost continuously, that the NHS is failing, reducing care options, and going up in price, so it seems like it has been failing for 20 some odd years. Kind of like the going out of business sale at the carpet place that has been happening for 20 years, a lightly manufactured emergency to draw more money in.

And it was joked more than one time when I was over that the pair of pliers were also call "A Dentist" in the UK.

_____________________

Personally I am a fan of a variant of the Singapore system. Singapore take 7.5% to 9% per person out mandatory.

They already take about 12.4% out of our checks here in the US for payroll (SS), plus 2.9% for medicare and another .9% for the ACA, for a bit over 16% total taken out. I see a setup where we can direct that into a HSA/HDHC program (where we pick our insurer, first payer) and the excess goes into our retirement accounts we get to manage. This will give us a bit more control of our insurance provider, cover all catastrophic emergencies, and give us a far higher return retirement that we could use as a payout buffer for medical and other expenses as we get older.

That 16% is more than Switzerland does (10%) or Singapore does (9%) and it is mandatory money taken out, same as Singapore. While Singapore does keep prices down through some other regulation (large number of government hospitals, control on the drug market) are are effectively spending nearly twice that in a mandatory manner, in addition to spending a very large amount through our employer (total for my family is about $17k). If the HDHP was covered, then supplemental insurance for dental or otherwise could be covered for less out of pocket.

[emisnug]

Any insight into this? I have heard, almost continuously, that the NHS is failing, reducing care options, and going up in price, so it seems like it has been failing for 20 some odd years. Kind of like the going out of business sale at the carpet place that has been happening for 20 years, a lightly manufactured emergency to draw more money in.

Bluntly, the NHS is failing slowly, but that doesn't stop it being a brilliant service for those who need it. However, as with many public sector services, it is horrifically inefficient in terms of day to day running. It does need more money, but could save a huge amount of operating cost by rearranging the internal systems and getting them to run quicker.

[pbjosh]

So, in that, it is like our Social Security system also.

[cockerpunk]

Bluntly, the NHS is failing slowly, but that doesn't stop it being a brilliant service for those who need it. However, as with many public sector services, it is horrifically inefficient in terms of day to day running. It does need more money, but could save a huge amount of operating cost by rearranging the internal systems and getting them to run quicker.

public run healthcare systems are actually MASSIVELY more efficient than the system we have in the USA.

there is very few unknowns, and a simple system, so the number of humans needed for overhead is very low, which makes it far far more efficient at giving out care.

[Lurker27]

Please stop using the "Ponzi Scheme" analogy for Social Security, or indeed any form of social insurance. Ponzi schemes are by definition fraudulent. There is no deception involved with Social Security. While you may disagree with some of the pay in/ pay out parameters, it is simply another pooled form of social insurance. Might there be a better solution for ensuring elderly Americans are able to function in society? Maybe. Attacks on what we've got aren't very helpful, though. I'm skeptical that "personal responsibility" is a valid solution - we could slowly move in that direction over the course of a generation. However, America's social security benefits are actually below the OECD averages.

Furthermore, the money is invested in treasury bonds. There is some bookkeeping sleight of hand here, I'll agree (Govt debt is Govt debt at some point, whether it's explicitly taken from the Social Security Trust Fund or not.)

Personally, I'm in favor of eliminating the cap + raising the eligibility age. Raising the cap and reducing the absolute rate in a revenue-neutral fashion is a more favored solution for me. (Yes, this increases the transfer of wealth from haves to have-nots). If you want to stimulate economic growth, perhaps disproportionally decrease the employer rate. Keeping money re-invested in corporations and discouraging accumulation of outrageous individual wealth is my philosophical basis. You'd prefer that this incentivizes employment.

[new ion?]

Just found out one of my ex-girlfriends is pregnant. It was a surprise to her apparently, though she tells me she'll be ready and fine.

As we're on good terms now, I'm excited for her, but at the same time, I don't know how to feel as the relationship didn't end well and I still sometimes convince myself I'm not entirely over it... ~6 years later.

[Laku]

I am probably wrong, but it was a stepped pin on the bolt, which allowed the initial release to move at a smaller pressure, up to or passed the point of the diameter of a ball. After that, it sped up to full pressure, allowing proper release of the dump chamber and firing pressure. The key was that in the powertube, you had a new set of spacers that used a a smaller oring to seal, and the spacers set the distance of the bolt.

Technically, i probably got it all wrong. Physically, it was a set of parts that were swapped in, that gave you reliable, mechanical anti-chop capabilities at a slight sacrifice of efficiency. It doesn't matter how fast you shoot, because the L10 is in the bolt, only extreme cases of brittle paint do you get any kind of chop. Have the gun RT at 30+ bos and throw a revy on it, and no chops.

You got it at least partially wrong. Spacers(carriers) don't adjust the distance to the bolt like they do in lvl-7 (unless you meant shims?). They adjust the o-ring fit in the bolt stem to achieve as little friction as possible without making it leak.

[PBSteve]

That's a creative solution to tolerances on oring glands.

[pbjosh]

Please stop using the "Ponzi Scheme" analogy for Social Security, or indeed any form of social insurance.

The structure is exactly the same though. While you make a point of one being open about it, and the other not, the "a rose is a rose is a rose" logic still applies.

A Ponzi Scheme involves one group, the initial investors getting payments from the next level of investors, and then those investors getting paid by the next group. The ratio of 1:2 for old:new investors meant a larger return on 'investment' but there was no investment - just a transfer of wealth directly. At a point you run out of people willing to invest. It is a Virtual Investment. There is no real money there.

The SS system, a Pay-as-you-go system, initial contributors (once young people) get paid by the new contributors directly, with a 1:14 ratio, and a low return on...well, not investment. It is a direct transfer of wealth. Backed up by the treasuries and some bonds were taken out extra to account for baby boomers, but in the end, since it isn't an investment program when your investors run low in numbers, I mean, Gen X, you run out of money. The ratio is 1:4 now also. It will be getting worse soon. Also a Virtual Investment.

It is a different label, but the structure works in SS because it is both up-front and mandatory. Except is isn't working, since Baby Boomers didn't have enough kids. So it is top heavy. Too many investors needing payment, not enough tax sheep. I mean sheeple. I mean....us. You and I.

Social Security remains strong, and will be able to pay full benefits for many years to come - until 2034. Thereafter, there will still be enough payroll tax revenue coming into the program to pay 79 percent of all benefits owed. Congress has adjusted and revised the program many times since its inception over eighty years ago and there is every reason to believe it will do so again before trust fund reserves are depleted in 18 years.

80% less then paid in. Depleted by the time you or I or Steve retires.

Might there be a better solution for ensuring elderly Americans are able to function in society? Maybe.

YES. Come on. This is bad.

The direct investment structure, as Chile, Denmark or others used resulted in a return that was higher per input.

This isn't a maybe. The market return for investing in a private pension system the same amount that comes out in payroll taxes would exceed what SS pays. Even for those who are on the bottom of the income curve, choosing the safest option:

https://www.cato.org/publications/po...ocial-security

Opponents of allowing younger workers to privately invest a portion of their Social Security taxes through personal accounts have long pointed to the supposed riskiness of private investment. The volatility of private capital markets over the past several years, and especially recent declines in the stock market, have seemed to bolster their argument.

However, private capital investment remains remarkably safe over the long term. Despite recent declines in the stock market, a worker who had invested privately over the past 40 years would have still earned an average yearly return of 6.85 percent investing in the S&P 500, 3.46 percent from corporate bonds, and 2.44 percent from government bonds.

If workers who retired in 2011 had been allowed to invest the employee half of the Social Security payroll tax over their working lifetime, they would retire with more income than if they relied on Social Security. Indeed, even in the worst-case scenario—a low-wage worker who invested entirely in bonds—the benefits from private investment would equal those from traditional Social Security.

Table 1
Monthly Retirement Benefit: Private Investment vs. Social Security

Investment Package Wealthy Average Poor
Stocks $4,586.00 $2,621.00 $1,287.00
50/50 $3,562.00 $2,067.00 $1,096.00
Bond $2,539.00 $1,565.00 $896.00
Current Social Security $2,033.00 $1,358.00 $891.00

Potentially twice as much. Even at the lowest rate, they still would result in more income. But lets look at this some more.

If you look at Table 4 the average worker, using SS vs private investment, would result in $450k in retirement benefits in the private account vs about $100k for the payout from SS.

I'm skeptical that "personal responsibility" is a valid solution - we could slowly move in that direction over the course of a generation. However, America's social security benefits are actually below the OECD averages.

Chile allowed people to choose to do direct investment, to a private pension fund. The capital in their fund is about 53% of the GDP total, which for the US would be $8T in size. All workers and employees must pay into the system. Mandatory contributions amount to 10% of the monthly income up to $2800. Similar to our 12.4% Payroll tax. They invested in the market so the return was far higher than the average 2% 'return' that we pretended to have here.

Now, there are some problems with that - something most conservatives haven't been to quick to say up front. Due to the structure people are not paying as much in as they should have - nearly 50% are not paying in, and due to that the Chile program is failing. So they are putting in closer to 5%, and that is causing some problems. So, yes, personal responsibility is a factor, and if it is not mandatory, there are problems.

________________________________________

In that though, we are already mandated the 12.6% - forcing us to take it out is already done. HOW we use that money is the proper discussion. The Pay-As-You-Go system, which sounds great, is both: 1) structurally is a virtual investment, there is only a promise of future payouts, no actual items, like stocks. 2) pays out far less than private investment.

Using the Singapore Model you can stack up the medical payments, allowing you the 16% out already to both do private investment (which gives you a higher return) and cover catastrophic health care.

Even if you skipped that, the 12.4% taken out, or even as suggested 50% taken out, would give you far higher returns, especially for our generation who will be getting a 80% return on our 'investment.'

I just looked up a retirement calculator. Forbes has 8% on average return right now, down a bit.

At $50k average for your life, you are looking at 12.4%, or 6,200 a year in payroll tax. That is $279k into the retirement pot. The return on that will be about $1,650,000. So, that is about a 6 times return. 600%.

vs. about $223,000 in the virtual SS payout system.

One results in a hard return of about 600% for your money invested, and one results in a virtual return of about 80% -

Your money. Which one would you prefer?

Trick question!

Doesn't matter. For that money we are paying it, we, you and I, are most likely getting nothing.

[cockerpunk]

That's a creative solution to tolerances on oring glands.

i believe it was the tolerance on the orings themselves, not the glands that is the problem. much easier to control the dimension of a metal spacer, than a rubber oring.

i believe the level 10, and then ULT were the first two things that took mags from bullet proof, to finicky. although the AO apologists hate me when i say that.