- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 6,639
- Reaction score
- 1,487
- Location
- Pennsylvania, USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Lololol. Nice rates on savings accounts. Interest compounding difficult?
I don't recall saying that I would put that money into stocks but rather mentioned a simple savings account FDIC secured, Over time I would have a few of them. You don't make foolish investments with your retirement income
You seem to judge everyone else by your own standards and beliefs giving people very little credit for making better choices than the govt. So tell me do you have any idea how much money you are going to get in an annuity or lump sum when you retire? Compare that to a simple interest savings account compounded annually for 35 years but then it would be your families money if you died prior to collecting. Do you have a problem with that?
How do you feel about the Federal Govt. using your retirement contribution to pay daily operating expenses of the govt?
That quote was misleading. Easiest request I'll get all day!
That is a decent point, because effectively the SS system then and now is a transfer of sorts from the unhealthy to the healthy, and given the correlation between longevity/health and wealth, therefore from the poor to the wealthy. Black writers note this all the time - and also that SS was explicitly racist in the early days - carving out predominantly black occupations and excluding them from benefits. We've fixed the latter issues over time, but not the fact that blacks on average die early and so are far more often net contributors to SS.
But the observation about those who die before receiving benefits is just a reflection of SS functioning as old age insurance, and not a pension, especially not a defined contribution pension. Furthermore, the survivor benefits are substantial if the person who died before claiming benefits paid a great deal into the system. My mother in law collects a nice amount from SS and only worked a few very part time jobs in her life, but her deceased husband paid for a lifetime and she's living in part off his benefits. If you had died first, I assume your payment history would have qualified her for substantial SS benefits for the rest of her life.
I contact my representatives all the time. Usually I get a fundraising letter back - sometimes a canned letter written by an intern. I still do it.
As to why the Feds? Why not? The states didn't get it done, and there are structural reasons why it's difficult for states to solve this big a problem on their own. I'd go into them if I thought we'd have a conversation about it, but I'm thinking that's unlikely.
There is nothing government does that doesn't help some, hurt others.
And I can't believe you pulled out the "if you truly cared" card. LMAO. So if I truly cared I must agree with you?!!?? No, people who truly care often have disagreements about how to do things that all sides truly care about. No need to question my motives, and no need for me to question yours. We disagree, that's all, and neither has a crystal ball.
But for the record, the reason why I support a Federal solution is decades of history tells me states (and especially my state) won't solve the problem, no matter how many letters I write or calls I make. So because I truly care, I support options with an actual chance of succeeding in my lifetime, instead of relying on wishful thinking.
.
That simply isn't true, local charities in my community do it all the time and I am involved so should know. Why don't charities pay for the military? Because the military is the responsibility of the govt. as defined in the Constitution
Europe is a continent of nations, not one nation. Individual nations, individual responsibilities, nice diversion or distortion. MA did it in this country so did Hawaii as have others. We don't need a national program to handle state and local responsibility issues. We have been over this
.
That is your opinion. Any idea how much money is require to generate a drug in this country and how much time it takes to get that drug approved? I have not heard that other countries have as sue happy society like we have but I have heard other countries having their citizens come here for healthcare.
Now there is a wonderful thought, single payer. Then what is next? A liberal dream world just like the EU that is bankrupt
Lololol. Nice rates on savings accounts. Interest compounding difficult?
More like the EU that pays about half as much as we do for health care.
You can't make Charlie pay. He doesn't have any money. What are you going to do, send him to debtor's prison?
Probably has a lot to do with Europeans coming here for healthcare and the high costs there
The Ugly Realities Of Socialized Medicine Are Not Going Away - Forbes
As for healthcare costs the grass is always greener on the other side until you get there
https://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/usversuseurope/
The Medical Tourism Index, which measures the attractiveness of a country for medical travel along three key dimensions and 34 underlying criteria, concluded that Canada topped the lists for "Country Environment" and "Medical Tourism Costs"; Costa Rica and Jamaica for "Destination Attractiveness"; and Israel and Singapore for "Medical Facility and Service."
True, it's not much of a success story.
Neither is it the disaster that its detractors would like to claim it is.
It was a baby step forward, that's all it was. There is a lot of work to do yet.
europeans coming here, to the USA for medical care? Really?
Medical tourism destinations:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 23, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Healthcare seekers contemplating an affordable treatment overseas and looking for just the right destination should know that Canada, the United Kingdom, Israel, Singapore and Costa Rica have been ranked as the most attractive destinations for medical tourism in 2014, the International Healthcare Research Center announced today.
They seem to have left off the USA as a top destination. Maybe they just forgot.
Unless Charlie is blatantly destitute you certainly can make Charlie pay. The hospital would make every effort to work with Charlie....however if he just refuses to pay, they will turn it over to a collection agency. If you want to come off as credible on this issue, you need to work out that not everyone who walks into the ER without insurance gets a free ride. The vast majority of uninsured patients going to the ER end up paying their medical bills. They are not all dead beats.
Last year, about 80,000 emergency-room patients at hospitals owned by HCA, the nation’s largest for-profit hospital chain, left without treatment after being told they would have to first pay $150 because they did not have a true emergency.
Reducing Bad Debt
Hospital officials say the upfront payments are a response to mounting bad debt caused by the surge in uninsured and underinsured patients and to reduced reimbursements by some private and government insurers for patients who use the ER for routine care.
Probably has a lot to do with Europeans coming here for healthcare and the high costs there
The Ugly Realities Of Socialized Medicine Are Not Going Away - Forbes
As for healthcare costs the grass is always greener on the other side until you get there
https://epianalysis.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/usversuseurope/
It does appear that you forgot the costs of healthcare and how they really aren't that much lower in Europe than here when you factor in all costs including wait time for services. Not sure they are lower at all there. Seems that you want to select what parts of the European System and what country in Europe you want to compare to the U.S. As we both have agreed the Federal Govt. is bloated and will not do a thing to lower costs because voters can be bought with access.
U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries
1. United Kingdom
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Australia
5. Germany & Netherlands (tied)
7. New Zealand & Norway (tied)
9. France
10. Canada
11. United States
It’s fairly well accepted that the U.S. is the most expensive healthcare system in the world, but many continue to falsely assume that we pay more for healthcare because we get better health (or better health outcomes). The evidence, however, clearly doesn’t support that view.
I have to say I've rarely seen two article cited in the same place that are so different. Sally Pipe's article in Forbes is typical rw drivel.
But the second is a very nice look at the differences. Basically, we cover fewer, spend far more, visit the doctor less, spend less time in hospital, but die more frequently of treatable diseases. On the plus side, doctors are paid FAR more, which is great if you're a doctor. It's hard to find a more comprehensive indictment of our system versus those in the OECD.
Interesting I read it differently than you and don't find the European model one that I support.
You obviously benefit from ACA but won't tell us how.
One thing at a time. I was addressing your assertion that Europeans were coming to the US for medical care, which, we now know, is absurd.
As for the costs, let's see....
and for that, we're getting:
I guess we have different priorities. FAR cheaper, universal access, more doctors, better results - all that sounds pretty good to me!
I told you how, you just didn't hear what you wanted to hear I guess.
Far cheaper? You have no idea what healthcare costs in Europe and all the taxes that fund it. Guess that is what you want here. Still waiting for how you benefit from ACA and please stop with the bleeding heart liberal BS, I don't buy it. If you truly cared you would focus on ways to lower healthcare costs rather than create another entitlement program. That isn't going to happen is it?
First of all, if you're going to make a claim like that it would be nice to see something that supports it. I don't know whether it's true or not, but it's a very expansive claim backed by nothing at this point.
And I'm not sure, but I think you'll point out that the government baseline plan - what is covered by taxes - is somewhat limited and individuals only get the good care if they come out of pocket. That's OK, because the amount out of pocket in those countries is FAR less than we spend. And they spend less on the government side. At any rate, it's impossible to evaluate systems without data, and you haven't provided any.
Again, I'm not sure how to respond with no data to back that claim up, especially because you're lumping in dozens of different healthcare systems. I'm sure their results vary dramatically, but you're giving us only a one sentence summary. But the bigger issue is you're pointing out a downside of these unnamed systems, but compared to what? It would be nice to compare, say, Germany to some actual alternative proposal, not "those other countries" to "alternative to be named later."
Yes, the world is a big place, there are dozens of different healthcare systems, and they vary in how they pay for care, deliver care, number of doctors, etc. And I don't know what the point is about the U.S. government and the VA. What is our option except the government we have? You said on another thread you were considering running for office - how would you change the system to be more effective/efficient if not through elected officials?
It's why it's so disappointing that when conservatives talk about healthcare, you can almost bet that the UK comes up, the VA comes up, and Canada. Why not Singapore. The system relies heavily on MSAs, with every procedure requiring an out of pocket expenditure. It might not work here because a key feature is sharing across an extended family and we have dispersed families in the U.S., but the idea of MSAs with those accounts 'filled' by taxpayers for the poor is incredibly market based. Why have no serious conservatives put that kind of proposal together, in serious form, and scored it, etc.? The answer is i don't think the GOP actually cares about solving the problem, unfortunately
Empowering families with tax-free Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are popular savings accounts that provide cost effective health insurance to those who might otherwise go uninsured. Letting families save more for health care expenses will encourage financial stability. House conservatives support improving HSAs by making it easier for patients with high-deductible health plans to use them to obtain access to quality care. We also support repealing the Affordable Care Act, which prevents the use of these savings accounts to purchase over-the-counter medicine.
You miss the point, I wouldn't have purchased the insurance policy as a retired elderly person, would have taken personal responsibility a long time prior. So rather than take my money, put it into a Medicare fund, have my employer do the same thing matching it, give the money to me and let me buy my own healthcare insurance or pay for my employer's private plan after I retired. How many years could I purchase with the Medicare dollars I and my employer have spent, all after I retired?
Where does personal responsibility rest in your world? States have a large number of plans available but you simply ignored those.
So tell me Sangha, was I forced to contribute to Medicare and SS?? Was my employer forced to contribute on my behalf?
And you don't understand... NO YOU WOULD NOT HAVE GONE OUT AND BOUGHT YOUR OWN PLAN... and the reason is because it either didn't exist or because it would cost WAY WAY too much for you to afford. Go try to find a private primary policy now... certainly if it was financially viable their should be a plethora of plans out their that you could decide to put you money into NOW..
But you will find that their aren;t those plans because elderly people are not financially viable to insure with healthcare. Medicare only makes it because you pay your whole working life. Private insurance cannot do that.
You know how many years you could have purchased? Probably not more than two. because men at your age cost too dang much for an insurance company to insure.
I believe strongly in personal responsibility.. but personal responsibility doesn't create make elderly people fiscally viable to insure. States don't have a large number of plans for elderly people to buy as a primary plan.
No one forced you to purchase and use Medicare. Your attempts to distract from your dishonest claim are destined for failure.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?