January 11, 2032.
6:00am – The alarm in my microchip brain implant goes off, awakening me to the tune of the new Pan American national anthem, Yes We Can. The song is a reworking of an old hit from the 1960's, Hooked On A Feeling, by B. J. Thomas. As I open the lid of my GE Sleep Maximization Bed, the last of the bed's nighttime submlinal messaging echos through my mind – "Service, Acceptance, Duty…" I arise and make myself a cup of Government approved tea, an organic Ginseng-Noni blend. "This is putrid," I think to myself. The brain chip delivers a mild electrical shock for my IT (Inconvenient Thought).
6:20am – The 84" GE Television/Scanner that dominates an entire wall of my one room apartment here at the Social Security Serenity Complex switches on automatically. The super fit looking Exercise Czar, who is the favored Pan American blend of 1/3rd Caucasian, 1/3rd African American, and 1/3rd Mexican heritage, instructs me to do 25 jumping jacks, 50 situps, and 20 push ups. This time, the IT escapes my lips. "I'm 78 years old, you flippin' Nazi. I don't feel like exercising today." The Television/Scanner instructs me to stand 12 inches in front of it for an auto-health checkup scan. I comply. Following the checkup, a pleasant female voice informs me, "Patient 212-54-3268, you have signs of potential prostate cancer. Please report to Room 4209 of the Serenity Complex at 9:15am on June 15th, 2032 for further examination. At this time, resume your exercise program. A healthy body is a happy body. Thank you for your cooperation. Have a nice day."
"June 15th is over 5 months from now," I yell at the Television/Scanner. "I could be dead by then, you moron." The implant chip delivers another mild electric shock, a dose of Tranquilinium is released into my body, and the implant chip begins softly playing Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata inside my head. The Television/Scanner informs me that because I'm close to the mandatory termination age of 80, my cancer concern is only a Department of Health Priority Level 4, thus the wait.
7:00am – The Television/Scanner announces that my breakfast has arrived. I walk to the Meal Delivery Chute to find the Government approved organic juice and oatmeal, along with a Proto-powder drink to supply my daily essential vitamins and minerals. The drink tastes like a mixture of chalk and decaying leaves. I long for the days when I had actual money I could use to buy my own food, like bacon, scrambled eggs with cheese, and buttered toast (ah!), but I try hard to suppress the thought. I don't need any more shocks. Old folks like me are often classified as RRI (Reconditioning Resistant Individuals) by the Deparment of Internal Affairs. We lived so many years in the old USA that we are difficult to rehabilitate.
8:00am – President For Life Obama appears on the Television/Scanner to deliver his daily inspirational message. The President is flanked on his left by the Vice President, Michelle Obama. Sitting behind him are the National Legislative Overseer, Malia Obama, and the National Judicial Overseer, Sasha Obama. During the Great Awakening of 2016, it was found that one or a few persons could decide matters of national importance much more effectively than many (known as the old Tower Of Babel way), so Congress and the Supreme Court were eliminated in order to produce a more cost-efficient and responsive government for the citizenry. That's when the National Overseers appointed Obama President For Life, to avoid what they called a "discontinuity of planned government services." I guess it makes sense. My GE Sleep Maximization Bed certainly thinks so. Back when we had political parties and elections, the government was changing every 2-4 years, and we had to start things all over from scratch. This way, we don't have to worry about that. The Tower of Babel has been silenced, and now the government can do what's good for us, in perpetuity and without resistance. How can that not be good ? Still, I frequently miss the ability to choose what I want to do, when I want to do it. We used to call that "liberty." Owww! That shock was a big one. The Television/Scanner has ordered me to sing the National Anthem. Aw, crap. Owww ! Alright, already !
"I-I-I-I-I, I'm hooked on a feelin',
High on believin',
That's your in love with me,
Pan America, Yes We Cannnnn !"
{ 71 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
let's think about what roybot's saying…….he pays $150 from his SS. His medigap costs another $150. Another $50 makes it $400.
roybot is 78 yo. He's had a by-pass and cancer. I don't think any private insurer would touch roybot let alone for $400/mo.
the reason roybot is able to have insurance now is because he has paid for it his entire life.
I wouldn't be complaining
Lemmings never complain about anything, walt. It's what makes them lemmings.
roybot…….if medicare paid the full amount of what the doctor asked for, would you be happy with medicare?
Walter, I was very happy with Medicare when they paid more than $25,000 to the surgeons and the hospital when I had my 6 bypass surgery. However, it makes me unhappy that they pay for all of that thing and won't pay for more than 60% of tests that I must have to catch the cancer when it gets loose, if it does.
I don't think you got the point I was trying to make when I said that they don't pay any more than they do for the endoscopy but a woman with no insurance gets to pay the whole thing and insurance companies are billed for the whole thing, also.
I want people to understand that Medicare, since it is like the Dems keep saying Socialized medicine will be like, isn't all hearts and flowers. Doctors agree to take whatever they pay for all procedures and this drives some doctors away from accepting new Medicare patients. If the uninsured and insurance companies have to pay the whole thing then Medicare should.
frank says, "What I will say if defense of Obama, is that he has inherited a different set of economic circumstances than the others. However, as I see it, he is just trying to reinflate the bubble. It is all that is left. We are in the downward economic spiral that Ross Perot predicted "free" trade would bring."
Obama did not inherit a different set of circumstances than Reagan recession-wise, but I never hear you qualify your opinion of Reagan's policies through the lens of historical circumstances. Even Bush Jr. inherited a recession, and then had 9/11 fall on top of it. Few, if any, Presidents inherit a perfect world. Granted, Obama inherited more problems than most. Still, the debt Obama is piling up is mainly Obama's choice. Going from a $3 trillion budget to nearly a $4 trillion budget in his first year is Obama's choice, and if he gets his way, it will go much, much higher. If Bush Jr. was wrong on fiscal policy (and he was), then Obama is much more wrong.
I also don't remember Obama running as a centrist. He ran mainly on ending the Iraq war, universal health care, global warming, and green energy. All liberal policy.
I'm going to assume your comment about "free" trade means you would support "fair" trade as the alternative. I think the alternative of isolationism would be counterproductive.
Your comment about Obama reinflating the bubble is spot on. That's exactly what our government is trying to do. Pretty ironic when Obama goes on and on about the failed policies of the past, as he tries to repeat them. That's politics, I guess.
Roy, where would you be if you were not old enough for Medicare and you didn't have any health insurance? Would you be dead by now or just deeply in debt/bankrupt?
A few years back I got dropped by my doctor because he stopped taking United Health Care. I was talking to someone on his staff and he said they paid worse then Medicare.
roybot….the reason that medicare pays 60% is simply because of the economics of scale. Think Wal-Mart here…..Wal-Mart's medicare and the doctor is the supplier. Sure, the supplier is going to get less per box……but he's going to make it up with volume and operating efficiencies.
the lady that pays 100%….maybe she needs to shop around
Yes, most professionals would prefer to do twice as much work for the same pay, and are more effective that way, walt. Especially doctors. Why would they complain?
because healthcare is a business
shorter larry…..I want healthcare run like a business but I don't want healthcare run like a business
Mr. King,
Reagan's circumstances differed from Obama's in that he didn't face the implosion of the finance industry, and we still had a viable manufacturing sector. Reagan cut the top income tax rate by 60%, which caused asset inflation on Wall Street and huge national debt, but did result in lower interest rates. It created a bubble which burst in 1987. Where I differ with Obama is that I think that the bailout of the financial sector should have gone through the homeowner. I would have rather seen the feds issue mortgage/rent vouchers. It would have been cheaper and assured that the people would share in any recovery. The cash for clunkers program is the only program that puts the money in the hands of the people and has been the biggest success.
I'll admit that Obama was a tad to the left of Clinton, but the progressives had been eliminated (as they always are) through the scorn of the MSM. We ended up as we always do with a choice of right of center vs. centrist.
Here's what I would consider "fair" trade. We should be inspecting products coming into this country (if for other reason but national security). If we, for example ban DDT, we should ensure that we are not importing produce grown with DDT from a foreign source. Inasmuch as we prohibit child labor, we should ban products made with child labor. If, for example, a country's manufacturers evade production costs due to lax pollution controls, then we should charge a tariff, a percentage of the difference of production costs attributable to the lax pollution controls. Same thing for wages or any of the superior standards that the American worker has fought for. We should have a system of tariffs that encourages other countries to meet our standards. As it is, we are being encouraged to lessen our standards to compete in the world market. Thus the downward spiral where lower wages seek lower prices, causing producers to further lower wages (the most malleable of costs) to achieve lower prices, ad infinitum. I think that these tariffs are doable and would avoid the debacle of the Smoot-Hawley tariffs.
Yes, Obama is reinflating the bubble of the financial industry, like Reagan did, like Greenspan did several times. The reason—not only is our level of government debt unsustainable, but so is our entire economic model of "free" trade.
The essential problem is – government growth has been unchecked. I don't understand why liberals never seem to recognize that aspect of the problem (except when it happened under Bush). What is truly unsustainable is for federal spending to keep doubling and tripling. We can't keep increasing taxes to meet that burden without impoverishing the nation. If you add all the federal, state, and local taxes together, the average American worker is already paying at least 40% of his income in taxes. Then we wonder why people are going into debt to maintain their standard of living.
Instead of clamoring for tax increases, we should be clamoring for spending cuts, unless we're suicidal.
I could agree to some of the trade measures you offered, but tariffs right now would be the Smoot-Hawley mistake all over again.
Say what you will about Reagan, but he turned the Carter disaster economy around and made it the most prosperous era of my lifetime. And he won the Cold War. I'll take that anytime. And about that alleged Reagan bubble that burst in 1987 – color me skeptical, because between 1986 and 1989, GDP increased 15.9%. No President has matched that 4-year record since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Mr. King,
As I see it, the major problem is stagnant wages. In 1982, my wages were twice what they were in 1972. They were frozen, then the company I worked for was relocated 2500 miles away. My next job's wages did not reach the 1982 level until 2005. My memory of the Reagan years is that it was a good time to have investment capital.
As far as increased taxes, I don't see any proposal that would raise taxes to anywhere near their historic levels. As far as winning the Cold War, let's just say that Reagan had lots of help. Inasmuch as we've received no relief financially or from our foreign military commitments, "winning" the Cold War hasn't helped much.
Walter, several days ago you asked me a question that I forgot to answer. I think you don't know as much about Medicare as you think you do and, therefore, I want to help you out.
Walter said, "what did they tell you when you tried to pay the other 40% out of your own pocket?"
So you will know about how this works out let me tell you that my Medigap company, BC/BS, sends me a monthly statement that shows what they paid and what I may have to pay and the tell me that Medicare either paid the remainder or will explain it. Well, every quarter I get my Medicare report about what they have been asked for and what they have paid. THE END.
I think I told you that physicians have to agree to take whatever Medicare thinks is fair for any treatment and they can collect nothing more. Me offering to pay that remaining share would be illegal for the doctor and the hospital to take and they would be in trouble.
Since you have been unable to understand what I have been trying to say I will try one more time and stop. I am giving you an example of bureaucrats determining what is fair to charge. No doctors or hospital administrator on the board that decides, just politicians. Do you fail to see what will happen with socialized medicine from our best example of it going today? Surely you can see that there would have to be federal groups, state groups and so on involved in these decisions. The bureaucracy we have from Medicare and Medicaid is a perfect example on a much smaller scale to what we will have.
Walter, have you bothered to watch the Gleen Beck segment with Daniel Hannan, yet? If not let me give you the link with the suggestion that if you scroll down to segment #3 you can see it with a minimum of exposure to Beck. I wonder if Beck brought Hannan in to lie for Republicans. He has been around many times and keeps up the same story. Actually I don't wonder that at all.
BTW, all you of the left persuasion, Beck is also a Libertarian, like da King.
Frank, it appears to me that you don't understand where the money for single payer health care comes from. Do you really fail to see that it has to come from taxes, probably of the income type, since all the money the government spends comes from that source?
I would say that if we are to not have rationing they will have to have a very high tax on every taxpayer, but then I am looking a bit further down the road than 2011 or is it 2013 when this new law is to go into effect? Rationing has to accompany the inability of the people to keep up with increased taxation.
A good number of the folks who can't afford healthcare now don't pay income taxes and won't be able to in a couple years, either. The pool will be bigger but it will be feeding on the same spring.
from webMD…….http://blogs.webmd.com/mad-about-medicine/2007/08/ceo-compensation-who-said-healthcare-is.html
Mr. roysoldboy,
I don't recall writing about single payer. But, if every other industrialized nation can do it, I don't see why we can't. It's about what we as a nation set as our priorities. Do we spend billions providing the defense of other countries (even when they face no threat), or do we take care of our own people? Do we continue to borrow money so that we can spend billions on foreign aid, or do we take care of our own people? Do we continue to tax investors at a lesser rate than wages, or do we take care of our own people?
frank,
Taxes have been at all-time highs for a long time now, and thanks to all our unfunded entitlements, they will be forced to rise much higher. The only reason it hasn't fully hit your pocketbook yet is because the government is deferring a lot of those taxes (running deficits and accumulating debt). We are on an unsustainable fiscal path, and liberals believe more spending and taxing is the way out. It's like telling an obese man that he can lose weight by going on a 10,000 calorie per day diet. It's insane.
I made a lot more money in 1982 than I did in 1972. I made a lot more money in 1992 than I did in 1982. I made a lot more money in 2002 than I did in 1992.
Mr. King,
I apologize for not making myself clearer. I was writing about the top income tax rate and the unearned income tax rate. You say that taxes are at an all time high. I'll have to guess that you are including all state, county, and city taxes which indeed have increased dramatically due to the housing bubble which also inflated property taxes, and increased cost of government services for the victims of our economy. I have all of my income tax returns from the early 60's on. My tax rate has changed very little. The only time since the Depression the top income and unearned income tax rate has been lower was at the beginning of the Reagan years, when we began running deficits and accumulating debt at a truly unsustainable rate. We are on an unsustainable fiscal path for precisely this reason, and yet, all conservatives have to offer is more tax cuts skewed towards the rich. That is truly like telling the obese man to eat more.
Congratulations on your economic progression. But based on the ever increasing disparity in income, I would guess that more people trod my economic path than yours.
This sounds like something I heard a homeless crazy man mumbling about the other day!! Thanks for spreading ignorant right wing propaganda! Way to get the sheep all riled up!! So stupid.
whew. It wasn't meant to be taken literally, elizabeth.
← Previous Comments