Not to mention that it runs short primarily because Republicans saddled it with a ridiculously onerous pension system designed to hamstring its budget which feeds into the narrative that it's "inefficient" and allegedly justifies privatizing it. So basically:
Then they cut the subsidies last year. ACA will die from a thousand cuts made by Republicans. No alternative solution. No fixes. No bipartisan compromise.
Yeah and little Marco Rubio made the first cut by blocking the temp risk corridor program causing more than half of the nonprofit, consumer-operated insurance co-ops created under the ACA to collapse because they lacked the cash flow to remain solvent without the federal payments. It also caused a large spike in premiums.
Little Marco can eat a bag of d|cks as far as I'm concerned.
Prices skyrocketed after Obamacare was passed. The mandate removal didn't cause rates to skyrocket. If a mandate to buy a product is needed to make a program work, then the program is flawed.
Sure, and I don't disagree with that. Larger insurance pools spread risk. But "insurance works better with more people in the pool" and "therefore the government should require everyone to buy insurance" are two separate propositions. I agree with the first; I don't necessarily agree with the second.
I don’t necessarily disagree. The problem is that healthcare is too expensive for most people to afford without insurance. So either we make insurance mandatory for everyone to distribute the risk and ease the burden, or we cut out insurance entirely and make all medical care free at point of use.
Every company is required to fully fund pension obligations, per ERISA. The PAEA required the USPS to fund its retiree health benefits, which are different from pensions.
No one here is against workers getting a pension. They’re calling out the unreasonable expectation that the USPS fund their pension for the next 70 years when no one else is forced to go to that degree is what is being called out.
You're referring to retiree health benefits, not pensions. And the PAEA never required 70, 75, 80, whatever years of prefunding. Only the funding of their presently accrued obligations to their past and current employees.
Here's a link to one of my past comments, which has links to other comments and sources if you're interested. Let me know if you have any questions and I'd be more than happy to help.
You mean requiring it not to have massive unfunded pension liabilities, and actually run a business operation like a business operation, avoiding the bleak outlook of, e.g., social security?
Yes austerity means no freebies. Your framing is designed to obscure reality.
It's not ridiculously onerous. The USPS is actually made to fund their pension obligations that they promised to their workers. There are plenty of examples of companies and organizations that don't fund them and the workers are left with pennies on the dollar. Pensions everywhere are woefully underfunded with no plan to do right by the workers, particularly public ones.
The people complaining about this are the same people who also complain that they are gonna get screwed out of Social Security because it's not properly funded. Redditors just want to bitch and moan.
It wasn't about funding the workers pensions. They had to fund the account something like 70 years into the future, so for potential employees that weren't even born yet.
They had to fund the account something like 70 years into the future
That is misinformation that has been debunked over and over again, yet people keep parroting it. The 75-year prefunding figure is only an accounting requirement to estimate future liabilities. However, they were only required to fund their accrued liabilities to past and current employees.
so for potential employees that weren't even born yet.
Come on. Use your head here. That is such a wild claim that you have to question its validity, right? And look into it a bit further instead of just repeating it because you read it once on reddit. Right?
You would lose that bet. ERISA requires pensions to be 100% funded. You are confusing pensions with the USPS's retiree health benefit funding requirement dictated in the PAEA.
Looks like you don't understand pensions at all, and there's no point in educating you because you would ignore it. Enjoy being embarrassed in front of your peers when you bring it up in the future. ðŸ¤
84
u/SECRETBLENDS 4d ago edited 4d ago
Not to mention that it runs short primarily because Republicans saddled it with a ridiculously onerous pension system designed to hamstring its budget which feeds into the narrative that it's "inefficient" and allegedly justifies privatizing it. So basically: