Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, August 06, 2018

A new bill from a key Republican senator would provide paid family leave -- in return for giving up Social Security benefits.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I see both sides but I'm surprised anybody wants to use social security as a way to enhance benefits for anybody.

#1 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-06 12:28 PM | Reply

This is certainly a better option than paying a huge penalty to prematurely take money out of a 401k.

#2 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-06 12:32 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"The cost, Rubio's office calculates, will be a 3-to-6 months delay in receiving Social Security benefits."

That's a back door way to raise the retirement age. The reasonable approach would be to take the early payment out of the first couple years of benefits, or even better, out of the monthly benefits of the average benefit duration.

#3 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-08-06 01:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This will slightly worsen the trajectory of SS. If this becomes a law anyone who draws on benefits early but then dies before reaching the age of eligibility will cost the system more than if this bill doesn't pass.

Granted, we are probably talking about a very low number in relative terms, but it is something to consider nevertheless.

#4 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-06 01:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

" If this becomes a law anyone who draws on benefits early but then dies before reaching the age of eligibility will cost the system more than if this bill doesn't pass."

If somebody takes three months leave from SS and then dies before reaching retirement age that's a bigger hit to SS funding than if they lived into their 90s?

#5 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-08-06 01:19 PM | Reply

2 months family leave? Canada already has 12 paid out of employment insurance. Why does the US hate working families?

#6 | Posted by bored at 2018-08-06 03:04 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Why does the US hate working families?"

We're still pissed that we have to hire women at all. This is a roundabout way of exacting our vengeance.

#7 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-08-06 03:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

How about we provide paid family leave by giving up yuge tax cuts for the GOP donor base of big corps and 1 percenters?

#8 | Posted by Corky at 2018-08-06 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

Why does the US hate working families?

#6 | POSTED BY BORED

Because they keep taking all the good jobs that would magically go to lazy unqualified white welfare abusers otherwise.

#9 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-06 03:16 PM | Reply

How about we provide paid family leave by giving up yuge tax cuts for the GOP donor base of big corps and 1 percenters?
#8 | POSTED BY CORKY

Because Average Joe Redneck perpetually thinks he can escape his mediocrity and become a 1 percenter.

#10 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-08-06 03:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 2

If somebody takes three months leave from SS and then dies before reaching retirement age that's a bigger hit to SS funding than if they lived into their 90s?

#5 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE

That's not what I meant.

If a person is destined to die before they reach the age of eligibility, they receive nothing - no SS funds withdrawn for them. But if that same person withdraws early under this bill they will cost the trust more than they would have in the absence of this bill.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-06 04:03 PM | Reply

You mean if in both scenarios the person dies before reaching eligibility I take it.

#12 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-08-06 04:27 PM | Reply

That is correct, Hag.

#13 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-06 04:31 PM | Reply

-That's a back door way to raise the retirement age

Hell, it's practically a front door way to raise the retirement age.

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2018-08-06 04:35 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Why take the money from the poor? That is not where the money is. Why don't they just get some of the money back they just gave to the richest Americans?

They might bitch about it but they probably won't even miss it.

#15 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-06 07:14 PM | Reply

So, if an average young working mother has an average three children over six years, she will sacrifice the first six to nine months of social security when she retires in exchange for paid family leave when she had the three children?

I really didn't think Social Security was in the savings AND LOAN business.

Because that's what this is. Is there accumulated interest on this loan? If so, at what rate? Is it fixed or variable?

Also, some companies give their male employees paid family leave. How would that work? Can both young working parents get this benefit at the same time?

How would this affect survivor benefits should one or the other die prematurely? Would the survivor have to assume the debt of the deceased?

This idea reminds me of the story about the guy whose blanket was too short to cover his feet. So he cut some off the top and sewed it on the bottom.

Then there's the big question. Rubio is one of those self-serving-bought-and-paid-for senators who will sell out for anybody who has the price. WHO IS HE WORKING FOR THIS TIME?

#16 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-08-06 07:32 PM | Reply

"I really didn't think Social Security was in the savings AND LOAN business."

I see what you are saying. But Social Security has been loaning money to Congress for decades. ;)

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-06 07:42 PM | Reply

Successful nations dont have to pick between helping new parents/babies or helping the elderly.

Only stupid nations that waste a trillion dollars a year on the military.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-08-06 08:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

SNOOFY

"But Social Security has been loaning money to Congress for decades. ;)"

That's true but Congress DOES pay them back on a regular basis. (without interest).

#19 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-08-06 08:14 PM | Reply

Only stupid nations that waste a trillion dollars a year on the military.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Won't it be ironic when we have the best Military in the Known Universe, a Military so powerful no one can touch us!

But, the majority of our peoples will be barely making ends meet and will be sickly and dying because of no access to affordable health care.

And we will have such a Great Beautiful Wall that will keep us from escaping to France where liberty is flourishing and health care is free.

#20 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-08-06 08:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

SNOOFY

"Successful nations dont have to pick between helping new parents/babies or helping the elderly."

Also true. Rubio hasn't had a bright idea since he blamed his wife's bookkeeping for "accidentally" mixing up his government issued credit card with his personal credit card to pay for their luxury resort vacation.

At least that what he said when he got caught. He wasn't even shamefaced over it.

#21 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-08-06 08:22 PM | Reply

Won't it be ironic when we have the best Military in the Known Universe, a Military so powerful no one can touch us!

But, the majority of our peoples will be barely making ends meet and will be sickly and dying because of no access to affordable health care.

And we will have such a Great Beautiful Wall that will keep us from escaping to France where liberty is flourishing and health care is free.

#20 | Posted by donnerboy

Sounds like following the north korean model - sick, hungry, brainwashed population, strong military, big wall.

#22 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-08-06 08:23 PM | Reply

Screw you Marco. No one should ever take anything a Republican or Democrat says about money seriously while they are on record blowing a trillion dollars a year on "defense" against imaginary enemies and $23 trillion in liquidity for criminal Bankers. If you can do that in one breath and worry about Social Security solvency in another you are a pathetic liar. Right now there is a surplus, which these bums are tapping. In 2035 the surplus will expire unless the cap on wages is lifted.

Florida is overloaded with lowlife politicians, the more infamous being Scott, Rubio and Wasserman-Shultz. They want to steal what should be the basic rights of productive workers so that their idle donor class can have it all.

#23 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-08-06 09:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Republicans hate Americans.

It's very cut and dry.

They took a program that was working. Drained it. Blamed it on the poor, and are doing everything they can to destroy it.

It's part of their party platform. To screw over as many Americans as they can.

And their retarded base cheers them on. Because. They're winning my against their imaginary enemies, the progressives.
Who are trying to help them when they want to retire.

#24 | Posted by ClownShack at 2018-08-06 09:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

This is certainly a better option than paying a huge penalty to prematurely take money out of a 401k.

Pathetic that in the wealthiest nation on earth, stealing from your social security or stealing from your 401k are considered to be the only ways to get paid family leave.

#25 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-06 09:43 PM | Reply

"Only stupid nations that waste a trillion dollars a year on the military."

We waste far, far more on health care.

Defense is 3.5% of GDP, health care is about 16%.
In other modern countries, health care is about 10%.
The amount we waste on health care could pay for ALL of our Defense spending with two or three trillion to spare.

And conservatives never, ever address these kinds of fiscal realities.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-06 10:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Defense is 3.5% of GDP....

Most of that is offense. Actual defense is relatively minimal.

#27 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-08-06 11:24 PM | Reply

"This will slightly worsen the trajectory of SS. "

Not if you get two months in return for a six month delay.

Are you using Vernon's calculator again?

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-06 11:28 PM | Reply

SPEAK

"Sounds like following the north korean model - sick, hungry, brainwashed population, strong military, big wall."

I don't think Trump cares which dictator he emulates. He just wants to join the club.

#29 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-08-06 11:41 PM | Reply

Danforth,

See #11

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-07 12:20 AM | Reply

JeffJ I think you're not accounting for the possibility that, just like some people will take the leave payout and die before 65, some people will forgo kids because they cant get leave.

And that's a milion dollars of earnings that SSI won't ever get to tax because it never happened.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-07 12:51 AM | Reply

#30

In your example, SS still has a net gain, since the person has paid in more than they've gotten out.

Ultimately, look at the main equation: 2 months of pay, for 6 months of delay.

#32 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-07 12:53 AM | Reply

Rubio proposes this just as a new report comes out that shows how more and more s retirees are being forced into bankruptcy. We need to be strengthening protections for retirement savings, not robbing from them.

www.latimes.com

#33 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2018-08-07 12:54 AM | Reply

But, the majority of our peoples will be barely making ends meet and will be sickly and dying because of no access to affordable health care.
And we will have such a Great Beautiful Wall that will keep us from escaping to France where liberty is flourishing and health care is free.

#20 | POSTED BY DONNERBOY

I know you're being snarky but I've posed this question in a completely serious manner and have yet to get a response.

What exactly are we protecting if we gut every and all social benefit? What's the point of defending a country that reduces everyone down to a dollar amount and only values sociopathy and greed?

#34 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-07 01:00 AM | Reply

"What exactly are we protecting if we gut every and all social benefit?"

The white race, whom is believed to rely less on these benefits by those in favor of gutting.

"What's the point of defending a country that reduces everyone down to a dollar amount and only values sociopathy and greed?"

It will be a boon for the rich and grow generational poverty upward through the bottom 80% of the economy. Which is believed to contain fewer whites than the top 20%, which I'd wager is true.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-07 01:08 AM | Reply

Ultimately, look at the main equation: 2 months of pay, for 6 months of delay.

#32 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Yeah. That makes sense.

What exactly are we protecting if we gut every and all social benefit?

#34 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2018-08-07 01:00 AM

Is that how you view this bill? I see it as taking an existing social benefit and making it more versatile and valuable. Yes, it creates a bit of a delay down the road but a majority of people are in their peak earning years as they approach retirement - postponing retirement by 3 - 6 months at that point is much less of a hardship than being able to draw a benefit during the tough, new-family period.

I see a lot of talk on this thread about how things should be. What I am seeing very little of is how does the changes that this bill would create stack up with how things actually are?

I see it as mostly positive.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-07 01:15 AM | Reply

Sorry for the poor grammar in #36. I initially had 'changes' as 'change' and I didn't keep up with the verb conjugations when making the switch.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-07 01:16 AM | Reply

This bill means nothing if your employer isn't required to let you take leave and then come back to your same job months later.

Fun fact, people with top tier jobs alreay have this benefit, so they don't need it. People in bottom tier jobs will just get laughed at and replaced if the boss isn't forbidden to fire them. And even then, it will be used as an excuse to withhold raises and promotions or even demote people. Make it clear to other workers, if you use this benefit it will cost you.

In short, I think I smell a rat. And didn't I see the name Rubio associated with this Bill? Now I definitely smell a rat.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-07 01:23 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

This bill means nothing if your employer isn't required to let you take leave and then come back to your same job months later.

Fun fact, people with top tier jobs alreay have this benefit, so they don't need it. People in bottom tier jobs will just get laughed at and replaced if the boss isn't forbidden to fire them. And even then, it will be used as an excuse to withhold raises and promotions or even demote people. Make it clear to other workers, if you use this benefit it will cost you.

In short, I think I smell a rat. And didn't I see the name Rubio associated with this Bill? Now I definitely smell a rat.

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-07 01:24 AM | Reply

Is that how you view this bill?

The quote you chose is strictly regarding the quote it was written in response to.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2018-08-07 01:37 AM | Reply

Is that how you view this bill? I see it as taking an existing social benefit and making it more versatile and valuable. Yes, it creates a bit of a delay down the road but a majority of people are in their peak earning years as they approach retirement - postponing retirement by 3 - 6 months at that point is much less of a hardship than being able to draw a benefit during the tough, new-family period.
I see a lot of talk on this thread about how things should be. What I am seeing very little of is how does the changes that this bill would create stack up with how things actually are?
I see it as mostly positive.

POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-08-07 01:15 AM | REPLY

Says the young whippersnapper. Betcha won't say that when you get that old.

#41 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2018-08-07 02:24 AM | Reply

JeffJ if you can acknowledge it's tough to start a family why not just provide that benefit, why does something have to be bargained away?

Why are you trying to make this a zero-sum game?

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-07 04:07 AM | Reply

Leave SS alone.

Create a new, optional, Family Leave Insurance Fund that employees can buy into. As a benefit, employers, if they so choose, could pay the premium for their employees that chose to participate in the fund. The amount of money that the employee could get out of the fund would be limited to the amount of money they put in (plus dividends and less administrative costs). The money in the fund would belong to the worker. The worker could take money out of their account at any point as a withdrawal or as a loan.

Employers could setup this fund like a 401K. There would also be a public option for employees of companies that don't have the ability to set up such a program i.e. mom and pop shops, small businesses, etc.

Workers could chose how much they contribute to the fund, when they contribute and how they want their money invested.

In addition to writing the rules for how these funds would work, the feds could incentivize contributions by making them tax deductible. Workers would pay tax when money is withdrawn from the fund.

#43 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2018-08-07 04:41 AM | Reply

JEFF

"postponing retirement by 3 - 6 months at that point is much less of a hardship than being able to draw a benefit during the tough, new-family period."

I think you meant to say postponing benefits by 3 - 6 months.

Nonetheless, Rubio's proposal is designed to penalize less fortunate women at a time when a fixed income is all they have. For that matter, as I see it, its ONLY women who pay the penalty since statistically women live longer than men.

SNOOFY's point in #39 is well taken. Rubio doesn't have an altruistic cell in his body. He's a grifter. I would advise anybody to check the fine print that he thinks nobody will notice. You'll probably find a poison pill in all that pablum he's selling.

#44 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-08-07 06:03 AM | Reply

its ONLY women who pay the penalty since statistically women live longer than men.

That equates to a couple more months in the workforce. Originally I erred to the side of being against this, but you made a convincing point there to support this legislation.

#45 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2018-08-07 06:14 AM | Reply

GONOLES92

Perhaps you'd like to propose an amendment that erases the debt for women who are widowed by specific circumstances, such as military casualties, police officers, firemen or more specifically, the most dangerous job of all . . . widows of men who served at least one full term in Congress during their lifetime.

No Republican would ever propose a bill like this without cutouts for their brethren who wouldn't vote for the bill without the exclusions.

Let's also consider how Rubio's magic solution would affect the women who lose the family income because, not of death of the breadwinner but by a permanent disability or an illness that requires expensive long term medical care on top of the 20% Medicare requires.

Of course, being anti-women, (spare us the details of your life), you'd prefer to seek your revenge in ways that give you a wicked smile of self-satisfaction. (It's a sickness)

#46 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-08-07 07:14 AM | Reply

Is that how you view this bill? I see it as taking an existing social benefit and making it more versatile and valuable.

We should not even be quibbling about this in the wealthiest nation on earth.

The U.S. is the only country among 41 nations that does not mandate any paid leave for new parents. The smallest amount of paid leave required in any of the other 40 nations is about two months.

In comparison, Estonia offers more than a year and a half of paid leave to new parents – by far the highest benefit mandated by any of the countries represented. A number of other countries – Bulgaria, Hungary, Japan, Lithuania, Austria, Czech Republic, Latvia, Norway and Slovakia – offer over a year's worth of paid leave, as well.

www.pewresearch.org

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-07 08:01 AM | Reply

Rubio is either a charlatan or an idiot. Social Security is predicated on the fact that many people who pay their 7 1/2 percent into it will die before they collect a dime.

#48 | Posted by john47 at 2018-08-07 09:34 AM | Reply

Social Security is predicated on the fact that many people who pay their 7 1/2 percent into it will die before they collect a dime.

#48 | POSTED BY JOHN47

It's a point I raised, but Danforth countered with this:

Ultimately, look at the main equation: 2 months of pay, for 6 months of delay.

#32 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I'll say it again:

I see it as taking an existing social benefit and making it more versatile and valuable. Yes, it creates a bit of a delay down the road but a majority of people are in their peak earning years as they approach retirement - postponing retirement by 3 - 6 months at that point is much less of a hardship than being able to draw a benefit during the tough, new-family period.
I see a lot of talk on this thread about how things should be. What I am seeing very little of is how does the changes that this bill would create stack up with how things actually are?
I see it as mostly positive.
POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-08-07 01:15 AM | REPLY

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-08-07 09:52 AM | Reply

#49 I agree, this seems like a good way to use the system in place. I definitely would have tried to take advantage if this was available when my children were born. I have 2 kids, so taking 4 months when they were born to have to postponing retirement potentially up to a year would be worth it. However, I'm in a position where I can retire without having to rely on SS so for me it is definitely a benefit.

#50 | Posted by TheRef65 at 2018-08-07 10:38 AM | Reply

How about instead of horse trading we join the rest of the modern world and raise taxes A LITTLE and provide education, Healthcare, AND income security to our people?

#51 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-08-07 10:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

#51 exactly. This entire discussion is a joke. Only a Republican could pretend that it's a good thing to dismantle an existing benefit to give you something that most of the world already has.

#52 | Posted by JOE at 2018-08-07 11:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jeffyj is promoting this just like he did the laffer curve

In other words he is once again blowing his fart bugle about something he knows little about

Denials to follow

#53 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-08-07 11:41 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#49 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

I both want family leave and an increase in the age of social security benefits.

That said, I don't like the idea of tying the two programs together. Social Security isn't meant to be something you can take a loan out against. That takes away its purpose to be a retirement safety net.

#54 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-08-07 11:46 AM | Reply

"2 months family leave? Canada already has 12 paid out of employment insurance. Why does the US hate working families?"

Probably because the US doesn't want to turn into a very mediocre country with no clout in the world, like Canada. Any country can give their citizens everything they ever want but all of that cost means reduced growth and expansion. While that may not be important to many people (and shouldn't be because expansion sucks), the fact remains that every country who mandates workers get more and more luxuries is a country that is way behind the US in power. Again, that's not a good thing, but it answers the question logically and America's purpose for a very long time has been expansion and power. The only way to get there is to have workers who work.

If they work less, they get less. Why is that such an incredibly hard concept for Liberals to understand? I mean, I know Liberals have no idea how basic trade works and think everything they want just appears out of thin air, but in reality it doesn't. Other people make things that you consume. Why don't you want other people to reap the benefits of actually WORKING?

#55 | Posted by humtake at 2018-08-07 12:04 PM | Reply

Jeff,

I'm not disagreeing with your belief it would be a helpful option.

Where we disagree is your claim it would be a net loss to SS. You've admitted their better earning years are later, so the parental benefit would be based on a MUCH lesser number, in exchange for 3 times the months of a much LARGER number.

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-07 12:28 PM | Reply

"If they work less, they get less."

Nonsense.

The folks who open dividend checks for a living pay half the federal taxes as the guy who runs a ditch-digging business.

#57 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-07 12:30 PM | Reply

If they work less, they get less.

#55 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE AT 2018-08-07 12:04 PM | REPLY

If that were remotely true Donald Trump would be a pauper.

The harder you work the less you get paid. The highest paid people in the country never do any actual labor.

I used to work in a foundry. Now I am a Network Engineer. I work much less than I used to. I worked 72 hours a week in the busy season at the foundry. I now work bankers hours most days with a few exceptions when we are implementing changes off business hours

#58 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2018-08-07 01:02 PM | Reply

or more specifically, the most dangerous job of all ... widows of men who served at least one full term in Congress during their lifetime.

Not sure why you hate women, twinpac. Besides, everyone knows that the hardest job in the US is to be a dependa (and they are well compensated and have many resources for what you described).

#59 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2018-08-07 02:18 PM | Reply

snoofy,

Its a given our health care costs are out of control, just like the military. But its debatable which activity is the biggest waste. About half of what we spend on health care is worthwhile. I'd be surprised if the military reached 10% worthwhileness. Besides being the most wasteful institution on earth, the US Miltary is the largest polluter on the planet earth, poisoning everything with oil wastes, radiation poisoning from nuclear bomb manufacturing and testing, spent uranium dust waste, agent orange, napalm, and the eight nuclear bombs that they LOST.

#60 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-08-07 04:14 PM | Reply

"About half of what we spend on health care is worthwhile." - #60 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-08-07 04:14 PM

I seem to remember reading somewhere that Americans generally spend about half of their life time's spending on health care in the last year of their life.

So the worthwhile part seems to be all that spending before the last year of your life.

While the unworthwhile part is just a transfer of what's left of your money to the healthcare industry.

#61 | Posted by Hans at 2018-08-07 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The thing my Father's Mother was most worried about was that the hospitals or the State of California would liquidate her assets and steal them. She kept telling me, "I save that money for you kids!" "Don't let them take it!" So I found her a nice assisted living facility that only took her Social Security and Pension. They didn't touch her stocks for some reason.

She wasn't a dummy. She realized that unscrupulous doctors and hospitals simply wanted to keep her alive well past the age where she would normally die. I was too young to understand her reasoning at the time and was more concerned with her trying to commit suicide in various ingenious ways. The last straw was when she asked me to draw a bath for her. And when she got in, a couple minutes later the lights in her trailer coach went out. She'd dunked an electric space heater into the bathtub with her. I lifted her out (she still had a night dress on) and put her on her bed and covered her with a towel and called 911. Which if you do in California, they send out everything but the kitchen sink. Articulated firetrucks, paramedic trucks, cop cars, and an ambulance. Luckily, a San Bernardino Sheriff's Deputy lived behind her coach park and jumped the cinder block wall and helped me stabilizer her. They took her to the San Bernardino psych ward for two weeks. Let her out, and she'd pull another stunt a couple days later. This behaviour was beyond my pay grade and I asked her PCP what to do. He said electroshock treatment since she would take her SSRIs or SNRIs.

So the living facility option was the route I took. It's hard seeing a family member change like that.

The thing that rattles around in my brain almost daily is when she asked, "Dick-Dick, why wouldn't it shock me?" (Her pet name for me was Dick-Dick from my real Christian name of "Richard."

So, you never know what horror shows are playing in peoples' psyches.

#62 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-08-07 05:19 PM | Reply

Oh yeah, the most important part of that tl;dr story was she was trying to commit suicide so my sister and I would have a decent inheritance.

#63 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-08-07 05:21 PM | Reply

Oh yeah, the most important part of that tl;dr story was she was trying to commit suicide so my sister and I would have a decent inheritance.

#64 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-08-07 05:21 PM | Reply

If we'd've had universal health care back then, even though she was on Medicare and Medical or whatever Medicaid is called in California, she would't've been led to believe that suicide was the only answer.

I expect to see more of this as the years roll on until some political party finally has the balls to implement single payer. Until then, the politicians can go ---- themselves for keeping the status quo.

#65 | Posted by madscientist at 2018-08-07 05:25 PM | Reply

"Americans generally spend about half of their life time's spending on health care in the last year of their life."

In my years serving on health care committees I was taught it was the last two years, although I wouldn't be surprised if you're more correct these days.

#66 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-08-07 08:04 PM | Reply

Last year is what I've been hearing lately.

It doesn't really matter the timeframe, what matters is the spending isn't adding years to life, more like weeks.

Quality Adjusted Life Years are not being maximized by these expenditures, but profit is. Volume over value. Which is the problem with the health care system in a nutshell.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-07 08:54 PM | Reply

Trump Republican Crime syndicat to the Middle Class:

Take a cut to social security or else

Now excuse us while we register our 70' yachts in the Cayman Islands so We can skip out on paying use fees for police and coast guard services/protection. And you pay for it all

-- -- the DR "conservative"

#68 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2018-08-07 11:04 PM | Reply

#68 "And you pay the bill."

www.youtube.com

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-08-07 11:19 PM | Reply

MAD

I had a similar experience with my own mother who insisted that we let her die in her own home. She was 101 when she passed away (naturally) a year ago last May. Her reasoning was the same, she wanted to leave an inheritance for her children.

She had a live-in nurse/companion the last three years of her life. The Executor of her Will had since passed away himself and I became the court appointed Administrator of her estate. It was only then that I realized how serious she was about saving for her children. Unbeknown to anybody, she amassed thousands of dollars (mostly annuities) so her children would have a better life than hers. It was all about being a good mother right to the end.

She owned a beautiful brick ranch house which she loved. It suffered from neglect those last three years but in her honor I spent about $30,000 of her estate remodeling and restoring the house to it's former glory before I put it on the market in accordance to the terms of her Will. I know I'm going to catch hell from her 4 grandchildren (per-stirpes, my sister died a year before my mother) when the estate is settled but I don't much give a damn. I felt compelled to show my respect for all my mother's hard work.

Incidentally, the 4 greedy grandchildren, who only showed up to get their presents on birthdays and Christmas, will get no mercy from me. I know how that sounds but as the Administrator of the Estate, I have uncovered how often they took advantage of my mother's age and dementia.

#70 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-08-08 04:26 AM | Reply

www.realtor.com

Here's the listing for the house if anybody wants to look at the pictures.

#71 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-08-08 05:05 AM | Reply

Nice house Twin. Looks like a bunch in my neighborhood and surrounding. Shame you aren't in this area you would be asking 350 for it and would have already sold it.

Something similar to your and mad's mom happened with my dad. First of all he turned down a 1900 a month medication because it might prolong his life but not his health. Then at the end he OD'd on morphine. He took one then about 45 min later the hospice nurse asked if he needed more and he gave a thumbs up (all he could do ALS) I almost said something but the look in his eyes ... He knew darn well what was going on. I suspect he planed it because the last couple months there were several times I drove down thinking this was it but it wasn't so after a day or two I would drive back only to be called back down a few days later. The morphine thing happened the third trip, he may have had a couple more weeks left had it not happened but at that point he was immobile had to be on a breathing device couldn't eat etc. He didn't want me or my mom to have to deal with that any more.

I never said anything to my mom, I don't know that she would have understood.

#72 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2018-08-08 07:04 AM | Reply

"I'd be surprised if the military reached 10% worthwhileness."

When we unnecessarily invade countries like Iraq and now perhaps Iran, the military is just waste. We talk to NATO allies about the percentage of GDP they spend on their military but don't bother to take into consideration they are not choosing to invade other countries. Of course we pay more into our military because our leaders are irresponsible, power hungry crazies.
And then those same crazies want us to cut SS, Medicare & Medicaid to pay for their crazy wars.
Americans should never let any politician take anything away from us, raise any age for qualifying for SS, nothing. This is a class war and the rich are winning because so many of us fall for their dishonest arguments about taxes.

#73 | Posted by danni at 2018-08-08 08:12 AM | Reply

TAO

There's no telling what any one of us would if or when we ever get to that stage. Your Dad was a brave man and I feel fairly certain that he knew exactly what he was doing. At least I hope he did because it was the ultimate act of love a father can give to his family.

I live in Florida but I spent every summer for the past 20 years with my mother in West Virginia. I knew how much she loved her house. I wasn't there when she died but she woudn't have known me anyway. Her dementia was pretty well advanced.

My last trip to the house was last May. I spent a month there going over the house with a fine tooth comb making sure that no detail had been overlooked during the remodeling. There was never any structrual problem, only cosmetic and upgrading. I bought only the best that money could buy so the house is in perfect no maintenance condition.

The list price you saw has some built-in wiggle room. It's not carved in stone. I'm well set myself so I'm in no hurry to sell. I want it sold, of course, but on my terms and to people who will repect the property and the neighborhood. I told the realtor I have no patience for tire kickers and low ballers.

Thanks for looking at the link. I don't think the pictures do it as much justice as it deserves, especially the grounds. Wildlife come in from the nearby State Park to nibble on the apple trees, along with wild turkeys, does with their fawns, bunnies, squirrels and assorted other woodland creature. It's very tranquil there.

#74 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-08-08 08:56 AM | Reply

To this idea.

Fts hell no they will not take or reduce ss.

#75 | Posted by Tor at 2018-08-08 05:23 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort