Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Unaffordable Health Care Act (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=769112)

  • Oct 28, 2013, 10:42 AM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Who pays for the balance of the cost of the medical expenses for those who are going to be fined... oops I mean taxed (by the IRS ,which doesn't have the authority to collect the fine except through income tax refunds .) Who pays for your so called single payer alternative ? The same ones evidently who pay for it in the system we had before Obamacare. So how did your incompetent screwing up of a system that most people liked change that equation ?

    That's a good question Tom, but we both know that insurance companies pass the losses onto the insured through higher cost. They are so good they still profit in the billions of dollars a year. But lets be real. Did you like the old system, or did you just tolerate it because the alternatives were unimaginable?

    We as a nation have been talking of making changes for decades, why? Because of rising costs. As a nation why are we NOT outraged about the price of an aspirin when we are in the hospital?
  • Oct 28, 2013, 10:58 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    That's a good question Tom, but we both know that insurance companies pass the losses onto the insured through higher cost. They are so good they still profit in the billions of dollars a year. But lets be real. Did you like the old system, or did you just tolerate it because the alternatives were unimaginable?

    We as a nation have been talking of making changes for decades, why? Because of rising costs. As a nation why are we NOT outraged about the price of an aspirin when we are in the hospital?

    I would've been happier with greater choice. Yeah I subsidized a lot of people's health for many years buying full coverage that I did not need or desire. I have for years paid for NY mandates that most other states did not require. I would've been happier with the option of just paying out of pocket for the few times I went to the doctor with just paying for catastrophic insurance . My tax money has always paid for the needs of the truly needy as throughout my entire adult life there have been provisions . So that is not the pressing need .
    All you are really doing is just creating another wealth transfer from the young to the old ;often from the poor worker or middle class worker to the more affluent elderly... So while the young are struggling with poor paying jobs in the ObamaEconomy ,trying to start families ,save for homes.. begin their lives... they are subsidizing the insurance of the elderly... MANY of which are living the good life in retirement communities ,making decision about which restaurant to dine at ;where to take their next vacation ,when to trade in their 2 year old car .
  • Oct 28, 2013, 11:17 AM
    talaniman
    I have run into a lot of not so affluent elderly people whose only investment is in pill cutters, and walkers. They were hardly rich back in the day, even less so now.
  • Oct 28, 2013, 11:25 AM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    MANY of which are living the good life in retirement communities ,making decision about which restaurant to dine at ;where to take their next vacation ,when to trade in their 2 year old car .

    Wow! I'd sure like to know some of these people. I'm guessing it's a pretty small percentage of us elderly. I haven't seen any around Chicagoland. The wealthier suburbs around here contain young families who are often Asian. In area retirement communities, residents hope they can make it to the dining room without falling over -- otherwise, they will get shuffled off to the extended care section.
  • Oct 28, 2013, 11:48 AM
    tomder55
    Suggest you look up the generational breakdown of disposable incomes . According to Georgia State University's Center for Mature Consumer Studies,the elderly controls 75 percent of America's wealth and 70 percent of its disposable income . What is being set up here is that the coming retirement of the baby boomers (the most affluent generation in our history ) will get their health care subsidized until the death panel deems them a burden.. Then they will be denied.
  • Oct 28, 2013, 11:52 AM
    smoothy
    Problem is few ot the "truly Needy" are really truly needy... most of them are lazy bums scamming the system. Same with a lot of the people lining up for handouts from the Catholic Church... some of the charity ends up being given to friends and even family at the expense of others more deserving of it.

    And yes I say that because I actually know someone show does exactly that... and I know the person on the mooching end as well.

    Something I find truely disgusting.....not to mention the fact its so overt because everyone at the church know both of the people because they are both longtime members of the church ( over 40 years in fact) and they all know the recipient is the son of someone that works in the group doleing out the handouts.....and that he actually has a pretty good job for the area.
  • Oct 28, 2013, 12:08 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    the elderly controls 75 percent of America's wealth and 70 percent of its disposable income .

    How many elderly are there (over what age is considered elderly?), and what percentage of those have this wealth?

    i.e., total elderly = ? wealthy elderly = ?
  • Oct 28, 2013, 01:28 PM
    paraclete
    So this comes down to saying the 1% in american are elderly, so when they shuffle off we can expect a more generous attitude?
  • Oct 28, 2013, 01:32 PM
    talaniman
    Greed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote:

    Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. It is applied to a markedly high desire for and pursuit of wealth, status, and power.

    As a secular psychological concept, greed is, similarly, an inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs. The degree of inordinance is related to the inability to control the reformulation of "wants" once desired "needs" are eliminated. Erich Fromm described greed as "a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction." It is typically used to criticize those who seek excessive material wealth, although it may apply to the need to feel more excessively moral, social, or otherwise better than someone else.
    The purpose for greed, and any actions associated with it, is possibly to deprive others of potential means (perhaps, of basic survival and comfort) or future opportunities accordingly, or to obstruct them therefrom, as a measure of enhanced discretion via majority belongings-having and majority competitive advantage, thus insidious and tyrannical or otherwise having negative connotation. Alternately, the purpose could be defense or counteraction from such dangerous, potential leverage in matters of questionable agreeability. A consequence of greedy activity may be inability to sustain any of the costs or burdens associated with that which has been or is being accumulated, leading to a backfire or destruction, whether of self or more generally. So, the level of "inordinance" of greed pertains to the amount of vanity, malice or burden associated with it.
    Trickle down economics.
  • Oct 28, 2013, 01:35 PM
    smoothy
    However it doesn't apply to Democrat politians, Hollywood or other lefties of means... like the Kennedies... because its not greed when THEY do it.
  • Oct 28, 2013, 03:10 PM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    How many elderly are there (over what age is considered elderly?), and what percentage of those have this wealth?

    i.e., total elderly = ? wealthy elderly = ?

    As a percentage, a lot more than the youth who are trying to survive the ObamaEconomy.. the ones the Dems think will pay for this whole Ponzi scheme . Not only that... since the Baby boomers decided to off their babies ,there are fewer of these unemployed and underemployed millennials to support them .
  • Oct 28, 2013, 03:14 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    since the Baby boomers decided to off their babies ,there are fewer of these unemployed and underemployed millennials to support them .

    That's not why. Family size has gotten smaller and not because of abortion. Many women my age wanted more kids, but the husbands claimed they couldn't afford more, so we women read books at night instead of...you know.
  • Oct 28, 2013, 03:18 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    As a percentage, a lot more than the youth who are trying to survive the ObamaEconomy.

    We old people are trying to dig out of the Bush Economy. Here are your elderly income stats (gee, where should I jet to this weekend?) --

    Profile of Older Americans: 2012
  • Oct 28, 2013, 04:08 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    We old people are trying to dig out of the Bush Economy. Here are your elderly income stats (gee, where should I jet to this weekend?) --

    Profile of Older Americans: 2012

    Those are interesting, but still there are some with little income, which with availability of SS, etc, begs the question, why?
  • Oct 28, 2013, 04:09 PM
    tomder55
    Since most are retired ,there would be a skewed stat about income. Even the Compost recognizes that when measuring wealth ,the elderly over all are doing better than the population at large.
    Senior citizens? financial woes are exaggerated - Washington Post
    Pew confirms what I'm saying .
    The Rising Age Gap in Economic Well-Being | Pew Social & Demographic Trends

    The typical U.S. household headed by a person 65 years of age or older is 47 times wealthier than that of a household headed by someone under 35.
  • Oct 28, 2013, 04:13 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Since most are retired ,there would be a skewed stat about income. Even the Compost recognizes that when measuring wealth ,the elderly over all are doing better than the population at large.
    Senior citizens? financial woes are exaggerated - Washington Post
    Pew confirms what I'm saying .
    The Rising Age Gap in Economic Well-Being | Pew Social & Demographic Trends

    The typical U.S. household headed by a person 65 years of age or older is 47 times wealthier than that of a household headed by someone under 35.

    Ok so the stats show 3% with income less than $5,000. Under your theory then as these are better off than the average community there must be vast numbers with income below $5000. Not much of a utopia is it, if the old people hog all the wealth. Just think having an income of $5,000, the luxury

    While we are discussing old people stats consider these

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-2...ension/5051082

    We have lots of old people who would like just a basic pension
  • Oct 28, 2013, 04:18 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Those are interesting, but still there are some with little income, which with availability of SS, etc, begs the question, why?

    Some people never had SS taken out of their income (part-time or because of the occupation), some never worked for pay (housewives/mothers), etc. For instance, my mom has no SS and is dependent on a portion of my deceased father's very small pension.
  • Oct 28, 2013, 04:21 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    Some people never had SS taken out of their income (part-time or because of the occupation), some never worked for pay (housewives/mothers), etc. For instance, my mom has no SS and is dependent on a portion of my deceased father's very small pension.

    Right, no universal right to a pension then?
  • Oct 28, 2013, 04:23 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Right, no universal right to a pension then?

    Pension depends on the company you worked for. She never worked outside the home (except for a few months of picking peaches and apples at local orchards), and no, no universal pension.
  • Oct 28, 2013, 06:00 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    Pension depends on the company you worked for. She never worked outside the home (except for a few months of picking peaches and apples at local orchards), and no, no universal pension.

    Yes I think I understand the peculiarities of scrap heap thinking. We take a different view, having removed basic entitlement from the prerogative of the employer. Terminology plays a part here in gaining a meeting of the minds. Social Security here gives rise to an aged pension, the qualification is associated with citizenship not employment, the contributions were long ago rolled into the taxation system. Employment based schemes are termed superannuation and give rise to what are termed allocated pensions. There is a mandatory superannuation contribution required of an employer, which gives rise to a personal account held in trust by the government through nominated organisations.(in your world 401k, I think)

    This approach carries through into our thinking about health care
  • Oct 28, 2013, 06:08 PM
    smoothy
    Social Security used to be held in trust by our government... at least until the Johnson administration... now they spend it all on everything but SSI.

    Proof you can't trust politicians with your money.
  • Oct 28, 2013, 06:12 PM
    Wondergirl
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by smoothy View Post
    Social Security used to be held in trust by our government... at least until the Johnson administration... now they spend it all on everything but SSI.

    We'll just call in the IOUs. :)
  • Oct 28, 2013, 06:28 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by smoothy View Post
    Social Security used to be held in trust by our government... at least until the Johnson administration... now they spend it all on everything but SSI.

    Proof you can't trust politicians with your money.

    Yes some politicians are spendthrifts but raiding grandma's pantry is unnecessary when you can print all the money you want
  • Oct 28, 2013, 06:48 PM
    smoothy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    We'll just call in the IOUs. :)

    They aren't worth the paper they are written on...
  • Oct 28, 2013, 06:49 PM
    smoothy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Yes some politicians are spendthrifts but raiding grandma's pantry is unnecessary when you can print all the money you want

    Exactly...
  • Oct 29, 2013, 03:33 AM
    tomder55
    Even NBC News now admits that the emperor is a F~n liar!

    Obama admin. knew millions could not keep their health insurance - Investigations

    It's not a big stretch to surmise that if the truth was known when the law was being passed ,the level of popular support (which was always a questionable stat ) would not have been near where the Obots claim it is /was .
  • Oct 29, 2013, 03:56 AM
    paraclete
    So you have a bad case of polispeak, get over it
  • Oct 29, 2013, 04:10 AM
    tomder55
    More than that... more like 'the big lie '.. the MAIN selling point of this monstrosity .

    "The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one"
    (Hitler )
  • Oct 29, 2013, 06:54 AM
    speechlesstx
    1 Attachment(s)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    More than that... more like 'the big lie '.. the MAIN selling point of this monstrosity .

    "The great masses will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one"
    (Hitler )

    And yet after the big lie is exposed the admin is blaming insurance companies. Obviously the left thinks we're stupid.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:06 AM
    talaniman
    The insurance companies knew of this too and knew they had millions of junk bare bones insurance policies out there.

    Many small insurance companies have been going out of business the last few years because of the new law, and people weren't happy that those small premium policies had few or inadequate coverages. You know as well as I do that most people liked their insurance until they had to use it. Then they didn't like it after they were denied services, or had to pay out of pocket for the services they needed, or kicked out altogether.

    One of the biggest flaws in this roll out as I see it is failure to articulate the need to examine what you have been paying for and what you have been getting from your insurance policies because in the past the government wasn't around to tell consumers they were and would be screwed by what they like so much.

    My whole problem with the ACA is it still has a for profit private company between you and your doctor, and that's the incentive for higher profits driving higher costs. it's a small step in the right direction. I never saw this as a final solution, nor a quick fix. But the best feature is the oversight and regulations on the insurance industry that's been sorely needed to reign in the gouging and egregious past practices that's been going on for decades and sets a minimum standard for the quality of a service consumers NEED to protect them and their families.

    We all want lower prices, but it's unrealistic in face of the price of everything is going up, NOT down.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:12 AM
    tomder55
    Junk bare bone plans ? That's what you think millions of Americans purchased ? Maybe some of them were.. maybe some of the changes were as obscure as deductible changes. But let's assume you are right. That means millions of Americans wanted those so called bare bone plans. But that's not good enough for the masters of the universe who can dictate the level of coverage as they micromanage every aspect of our lives.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:24 AM
    speechlesstx
    Give it up, Tal, we were fed a big lie and we're aren't buying this shifting the blame BS.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:25 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Junk bare bone plans ? That's what you think millions of Americans purchased ? Maybe some of them were.. maybe some of the changes were as obscure as deductible changes. But let's assume you are right. That means millions of Americans wanted those so called bare bone plans. But that's not good enough for the masters of the universe who can dictate the level of coverage as they micromanage every aspect of our lives.

    No, no, no tom, they don't want ANY aspect of abortion managed.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:28 AM
    excon
    Hello again, tom:
    Quote:

    That means millions of Americans wanted those so called bare bone plans.
    What those plans DON'T cover, you and I DO, and we DO it the ER - the MOST expensive way we know how. Look. If it didn't cost ME anything, I'd agree. Buyer beware..

    But, it DOES... And, it costs me BIG.

    excon
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:32 AM
    talaniman
    You liked those greasy tacos until you find out you are eating stray cat meat.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:33 AM
    speechlesstx
    And you think people responsible enough to buy health insurance don't pay their bills, that the taxpayer picks up the tab? Get real, ex.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:35 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by talaniman View Post
    You liked those greasy tacos until you find out you are eating stray cat meat.

    So force us to buy $300 tacos next.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 07:40 AM
    excon
    Hello again, Steve:
    Quote:

    And you think people responsible enough to buy health insurance don't pay their bills, that the taxpayer picks up the tab? Get real, ex.
    Sure they will, if they can. But, you gotta ask yourself, if those plans PAY for MOST things, then they wouldn't be bare bones, would they? But, they DON'T. It's MY bet that the bare bones policies'll PAY for the cheap stuff, but NOT the big ticket items. That's how they make their money... But, they don't pay for the REAL expensive stuff, like cancer.

    You and I do. Get real, speech.

    excon
  • Oct 29, 2013, 08:00 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, Steve:
    Sure they will, if they can. But, you gotta ask yourself, if those plans PAY for MOST things, then they wouldn't be bare bones, would they? But, they DON'T. It's MY bet that the bare bones policies'll PAY for the cheap stuff, but NOT the big ticket items. That's how they make their money... But, they don't pay for the REAL expensive stuff, like cancer.

    You and I do. Get real, speech.

    excon

    Sorry, you're punishing responsible people and that's wrong. You're forcing people to buy something they don't want and can't afford and that's wrong. We were fed a huge lie over and over again and that's wrong. The government tried to hide the costs which added to their disastrous rollout and have lied to us over and over about it and that's wrong.
  • Oct 29, 2013, 08:06 AM
    talaniman
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    So force us to buy $300 tacos next.

    That's kind of silly since your choice is to eat cat tacos or pig tacos, or beef tacos.

    Since YOU have insurance YOU like and have made the choice to keep it. Why don't you let everybody weigh their own options and see what works best for them. Glitches and roll out deficiencies aside, and politics, you cannot deny people need health care choices.

    But you would deny others having a choice that YOU have already made for yourself. Looking for a name for that.

    Hey if you like cat tacos keep eating them, just please don't invite me for lunch!

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:12 AM.