Who are you talking to, & what stunt?
Just a shot in the dark, but the stunt where his site was good enough for you to claim that there were two definitions of “flood”, but not good enough to use when it’s pointed out that the site doesn’t support the claim.
Don’t want to speak for RNATB, though.
Cheers! 
Sigh. This has nothing to do with whether or not the cite is “good enough” - I have no idea whether it is or not, tho the presence of Google ads make me wonder. RNATB linked to that site to (apparently) prove that he/she had a flood as defined by his/her State Farm policy. I pointed out that site had two definitions of flood - “is defined as” has nothing to do with anything State Farm may write since that site doesn’t appear to have anything to do with them. What is important is what State Farm defines a flood as, not what some random site on the internet says.
Now, notice that “doesn’t appear to”. You all on this board have a tendency to link to sites as “proof” without bothering to state what part of it you think is proof, nor anything at all about the site itself. Unlike you, I am not wasting time at work stealing time on my employers T line; I have minimal time and am on dial up, so I am not going to spend a bunch of time searching around a cite, nor trying to figure out if it is even legit. Hence, the only thing I did was point out that it showed two definitions of flood and that’s it. I still have zero idea what RNATB’s policy says on the matter.
Either that or you don’t understand the difference between water coming in thru a hole in the roof, and water flooding across land. Those two guesses are as far as I am going to go on this subject without some real information instead of snide snippets. I had house guests over the weekend, I have a house to clean up.
You can’t be serious! Both SSDI and Medicaid are entitlement programs paid in by a lot of people to be distributed to fewer people. You sit back and collect government monies and moan about other people who collect government monies? Who’s paying for your healthcare? What makes you more special than people who need Medicaid?
SS was created to be a social welfare and social insurance program. SSDI is a social insurance program and to be qualified you only have to have worked for 5 of the past 10 years. Do you really believe anyone who paid in 5 years worth of FICA only gets out what he’s put in? Hah. It’s the many paying for the few.
I don’t begrudge you your SSDI. I am sorry you have to collect it. But your attitude toward others who also need help is just mind-boggling!
You have a merry Christmas now, y’hear.
I don’t think her position is that she’s collecting it because she needs it as help qua “help”, particularly. Rather, she’s collecting it because she is entitled to it, and that she earned her entitlement.
You can call it cold-blooded, calculated, selfish, and grasping if you wish, but I don’t think you can call it inconsistent.
SSDI is simply Social Security payments made to people who are not yet 62 (or whatever minimum retirement age each person is assigned). No matter what your physical or financial state is, when you reach retirement age you get all that SS that you paid in back. And more if you live long enough. Now, maybe you aren’t aware, but when someone takes their SS early as SSDI, they don’t get the same monthly benefit that they would have received had they been able to wait until retirement age. In my case, I’m getting a little bit more than half. Math is not my strong suit - how long will I have to live before I take out more than I paid in over 36 years, plus interest?
Medicaid on the other hand is government charity. I had a look at it and it’s hard to tell, but apparently I never qualified for Medicaid for two reasons - it appears that the state I was living in when I was poor (Washington) didn’t have Medicaid at that time, and it also appears that since I never had children I wouldn’t have qualified anyway. So, depending on when Medicaid started in WA, I may have been paying taxes for something I should have qualified for but didn’t because I was smart enough to not have children when I couldn’t afford them, and I am still paying taxes here in CA for health care for people who can’t afford it for themselves and their children. You know, charity. The same thing as when I donate to Goodwill and our local home for mentally retarded adults. Money/goods given to people who haven’t done anything to earn it, other than be poor.
United Healthcare. We have a group policy thru my husband’s job. If we didn’t have that, I qualify for MediCARE. Not that I’d ever want to be dependent on them…
Not a thing, tho I’d like to think that people who pay into society are more special than those that only take. I am merely one of a vanishing portion of society that worked and paid my SS tax as well as the taxes that support all of the charity programs, including Medicaid. I’d really like to be able to find a cite that would tell me what percentage of folks in CA that are on MediCal have paid little or nothing into the system. I would not be surprised to find it to be a majority.
Oh please. How many people on SSDI only worked five years? Not that it has anything to do with me, since I worked for over 35 years. Besides, it is rarely the fault of the SSDI recipient that they cannot work, yet no one here has ever come up with a legit example of someone who has to spend their life on Medicaid.
I don’t have any problem with people who need a helping hand. I do have a problem with the ever increasing number of people who see no problem with living off of the government, with little or no history or plan to do much if anything to earn their way.
Huh. Being financially responsible by taking my hard earned social security early (which means I end up getting less of it) is cold blooded, calculating, selfish and grasping? Or is it that I have the intelligence to see what handing people things for free has done to them and the country as a whole over the last few decades that makes me cold blooded, calculation, selfish and grasping? God knows it seems that I am in the minority here in understanding the difference between handing a non-taxpayer freebies, and giving a long term taxpayer something back. Why you all insist on treating an ever growing section of our society like children is beyond me; how you cannot see how damaging that has been is mind boggling.
Sorry, you batshit insane bitch, you’re not having the last word.
SSDI is “a long-term disability income program that provides benefits to disabled workers who are under age 65 and who have paid a specified amount of Social Security tax for a prescribed number of quarter-year periods.” Cite.
It means you cannot work and need help. Not everyone who pays into SS will ever receive any SSDI. It’s a safety net for people are unable to work. If you were disabled and unable to work for 10 years before you even applied for it, per your post, and you paid into the system for 35 years and you are currently 52 years old, even if you’ve only just now begun receiving SSDI, you’d have been paying into the SS system through your income taxes since you were 7 years old. Okay, obviously that is incorrect. So you were probably not eligible to receive SSDI ten years ago and you continued to work and pay in, right?
Also, say you are currently receiving only 1/2 of the benefits you’d have received if you could have worked until you were 66.5 (cite), the fact is that you will probably live as long as you would have if you’d continue to work, right? If you’ve just now started receiving your benefits, and your average life expectancy is 82, (cite) you’ll be receiving benefits for 30 years, at 1/2 the rate, rather than at the full rate for 15.5 years. That’s pretty darned close.
Consider that you paid in from 4.95% (in 1974) to 6.2% (after 1990) of your then-income toward the benefits you currently receive, and you state that you were “poor” for at least a while, so how much SS taxes did you pay then? Therefore, I must be paying for your SSDI with my current taxes. Sounds like an entitlement to me. One that I may never get.
Is that right? So you’ve actually been receiving SSDI for over two years already, have you? Cite.
Well, that puts you over the amount you’d have received if you’d retired at 66.5 at 100%, doesn’t it?
So you begrudge providing for people who cannot provide for themselves (your “charity” argument). If people actually cared enough about other people, Medicaid would not be necessary. Neither would SSDI. But that isn’t happening, is it? So, your attitude is what? Let the poor, the blind, the elderly, the disabled die from lack of healthcare? Nice.
Yeah, I’d really like to see some statistics on this stuff as well. I think your prejudices are showing.
:rolleyes:
Do you really not understand or are you just being obtuse? I am well aware of the definition of SSDI - are you not aware that it is the same fund that my regular Social Security payments would have come out of?
No, it means you cannot work and have worked long enough to have SS money available. It has nothing to do with “needing help”. Social Security overall has nothing to do with “needing help”. Are you so used to government programs being charity that you think they all are?
No, I was disabled enough to qualify for SSDI for 10 years before I did, but I stuck it out working. There is not some magical time when one day a person can work and the next they cannot.
No, I was eligible under the law, but since I was still able to work, I did so.
I have no idea. One of the realities of being disabled is that there is a greater likelihood that one will not live as long as average.
And? What is your complaint then?
No idea.
Where in the world did you get that idea? Even if I only worked for five years (I think that is the minimum time?), I’ve only been on SSDI for two years. I certainly have not used up 36 years of tax paid, as well as interest yet.
No. You aren’t making sense - do you really think that 36 years of paying in can be used up in two years?
People do care about other people, heck even I do no matter what you want to believe - we had a homeless man living with us for a year for free for example. But after awhile, those who care get tired of being used by those who cannot be bothered to be responsible for themselves. And, we simply cannot afford to keep doing it; at some point, there will be too many people taking from society without ever putting anything in and the whole thing will collapse.
No, my attitude is that people are going to have to learn to be responsible. Instead of having a couple-three kids right away, wait until they can actually afford to raise them themselves. Instead of dropping out of high school, get an education that will give them a decent paycheck. Instead of buying a SUV they don’t need, use that $400 a month to get insurance. Instead of handing people yet another taxpayer funded program, work towards health care reform. Because you know what? There will always be people who will die because they cannot afford to get all of the care they would need to stay alive another month, year, five years. That sort of health care is freakishly expensive - no matter what handout you want to see, we simply don’t have the money to cover all of that.
My prejudices against people who are born, live their whole lives and die on MediCal? That sort of lifestyle is OK with you?
Seriously, Idle Thoughts that’s a pretty weak-sauce excuse for a post. And I say this as someone who realizes that curlcoat’s opposition to a single-payer is an objectively wrong position.
Well, I said what I did as someone who realizes Curlcoat is a troll.
A troll?
Is "opposition to a single-payer … an objectively wrong position. " in all cases?
Not at all.
Basically, anyone who doesn’t agree with the popular stance in here is labeled a troll. Which is suppose sort of makes sense, since in their narrow viewpoint anyone who posts an opposing opinion must be doing it to stir up a shit storm. That’s how they think they are fighting ignorance.
Make sense? No, I didn’t think so… 
I don’t understand why the suggestion of trolling is considered derogatory—it’s essentially a compliment. It’s a brave effort to give someone the benefit of the doubt one last time, and conclude that their shtick *must *be a put-on, that nobody could actually say things like they do and be serious. When the realization comes that it’s not a joke, it’s very disheartening.
Yeah, no. Anyone that thinks a different opinion must be a put-on or a joke is hardly complimenting someone who offers that different opinion. Nor is it a “brave effort” when some scream troll rather than try to understand what someone with that different opinion is trying to say.
curlcoat, do you get visited by three ghosts every Christmas Eve?
I’ve never known of anyone being determined to be qualified for SSDI before they had actually stopped working. If you are unable to work, then you are considered for disability. If you are able to work, you are not disabled – especially if you continue to work ten years!
If that is what it takes, that is what I’m willing to do because I’ve seen how well it works. Aren’t you aware that the costs of long term medical treatment and the costs of medicine are artificially high?
Are you aware that the costs of good and services drop when an employer doesn’t have to pay for an employee’s insurance?
Are you aware that if you go to the hospital or the ER you are paying for those who go but have no insurance?
I see that you continue to labor under the false impression that your opinions are challenged here only because they are “different.”
Oh yeah, that’s right - not only are those who are different called trolls, they also get accused of things that require wild jumps to conclusion.
Perhaps you should research this before you so smugly make false statements. For one thing, I didn’t say I’d been determined to be qualified. For another, disabled doesn’t mean that one is totally unable to work. Oh, and I’ll give you a bonus one - for many disabled people, there isn’t a sudden time that - bing - they are fine one day and disabled the next.
You wouldn’t be paying for it, and where have you seen how well it worked in the US? Medicaid? California? Massachusetts or whatever that state was that tried a UHC?
Yes, that’s why I’ve been advocating reform of the system instead of adding yet another multi-billion dollar handout to the taxpayers burden.
Cite?
Not here I’m not, other than the money I’m already paying to support MediCal.
If that isn’t why, you all haven’t done a very good job of creating the correct impression.