1. Download our Official Android App: Forums for Android!

free health care

Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by sntaylor, Feb 21, 2013.

  1. JnEricsonx

    JnEricsonx Android Enthusiast
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    38
    Posts:
    470
    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011

    Jun 1, 2011
    470
    15
    38

    Don't try figuring it out, if you try, you'll wind up drinking to the point where even a Scotsman can get alchohol poisoning. I debated figuring out myself, but since I'm American by way of Irish ancestry, I think I'd probably wind up offing myself about 2/3 of the way.
     

    Advertisement

    dynomot and sntaylor like this.
  2. copestag

    copestag Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    143
    Posts:
    1,355
    Joined:
    May 23, 2010

    May 23, 2010
    1,355
    247
    143
    my mistake.... I didnt realize lack of insurance was a medical condition that effects the human body

    which part specifically does it harm? does it cause you to stop breathing? does it destroy your blood cells? does it make body parts fall off?

    what else could potentially kill us then...... lack of a brown tshirt.... lack of a picket fence..... lack of common sense (some of you better hope not)....... lack of roller skates

    do you not see how ridiculous it is to say lack of a piece of paper has killed anyone?

    now an argument could probably be made that SOME without insurance.... who have died for HEALTH reasons.... MAY have been spared if they had insurance...... of course it would still be a losing argument as it could not possibly be proven

    which is why if you say 45K died from lack of insurance....... then the ONLY possibility is that the other 2.4+ million died because they had insurance
     
  3. saptech

    saptech Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    343
    Posts:
    3,761
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2011

    I'll define it as to be without or in need of health insurance. You can choose which one you want it to be!
     
  4. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    213
    Posts:
    7,059
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010

    Jun 7, 2010
    7,059
    967
    213
    How is it a bank or employer's fault if I don't contribute to my retirement? My employer could go under today and I'd still have my retirement money. It's my money, not theirs. My bank could go under tomorrow and I'd still have my money.

    No, I believe I owe the vast majority of my success to myself and my choices I made. My parents, teachers, mentors, etc.... trained me, but I ultimately decided how I was going to use that training. The government provides a stable ecosystem in which I can succeed or fail on my own. That is their purpose. It is not their job to create an environment where I face no consequences if I fail.

    So to you, the ideal society is one in which I can behave as irresponsibly as I want (as long as said behavior is not criminal anyway) and face no consequences at all for my misbehavior. You bust your hump and pay for your own insurance. I work piddly jobs and make no efforts to improve myself but when I get sick you pay for it not me. I make no effort or little effort to save for retirement and plan for the future. You diligently save over the course of your entire career. Your hard work funds my retirement. This is your ideal society? I'm sorry, but I'd rather live somewhere else.

    It's not a fictional character. It's a character every single one of us know or have known. You probably know the guy right now. My dad is misbehaving with money at the moment and his financial world is falling apart because of it. He and my mom are suffering financially and it's taking a physical toll on my dad's health and taking an emotional toll on my mom. Should I give him money? Of course not. It's the worst thing I could do for him. If I give him money he will simply continue his misbehavior.

    I have a co-worker at work who frequently asks me to actually do his job for him. It's not because of a lack of skills and/or knowledge on his part, it's because of a lack of self-confidence. Do I step in and do his job for him whenever he asks because he lacks self-confidence? Of course not. Instead, I give him the knowledge he needs and encourage him to do it himself as it's the only way he'll develop self-confidence. Me doing it for him doesn't help him. It hurts him.

    Think of the kid learning to tie his shoes. We've all seen this kid. Heck, we've all been this kid. The kid struggles to tie his shoes. He spends several minutes (hours in kid time) and fails over and over again. His mom watches him and does nothing. Mom could tie the kids shoes in about 5 seconds. The kid knows this. Why does mom not help? Why does she watch her child struggle with something for so long when she could fix it in a matter of seconds with minimal effort on her part? Does she help the kid if she ties his shoes for him every day of his life?

    Just not true. Not true at all. Is it a factor yes. But you can't tell me that if you build a house of cards and the wind blows it down that it's the winds fault you have no house. Why did you not build the house out of sturdier stuff in the first place? I've fallen flat on my face financially before. When I did it was my fault and my fault alone.
     
    chrlswltrs likes this.
  5. SiempreTuna

    SiempreTuna Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    423
    Posts:
    3,889
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013

    Jan 11, 2013
    3,889
    1,051
    423
    Boy! I really need to explain this?

    The banks destroyed the economy. This either put employers out of business or made them drastically cut pay and benefits. That in turn drastically affected people's ability to save for anything. Many had to dip into retirement savings to pay their way.

    What responsibility did the vast majority of people affected have for all that? Absolutely none at all.

    It's really not that complicated.

    And part of that ecosystem is a health care system that allows people to be ill or involved in an accident - through no fault of their own - without it bankrupting them or just being left to die.

    Which no-one, anywhere, ever has proposed. Really, there's no point at all in raising false arguments to knock down.

    Again. Not anyone's idea ever. Stop making s*** up.

    Nope. I guess there may be one or two. Thing is: you don't make policy based on what an infinitesimally small minority might do, you make policy based on what has happened to millions, people who have financial problems because the company they faithfully worked - very hard - for went bust, often taking their retirement plans down with them.

    Again: stop demonising. It really doesn't help anyone.

    Again (FFS!), not everyone is a waster.

    Again, most of the people who are struggling would be working hard and being sensible if they could.

    Again: projecting the actions of a few exceptions across the entire population is nonsense.

    So you're saying that people should have built their own - sturdier - banking system? They should have created their own - sturdier - system of international trade? They should have saved their employers companies all by themselves?

    Really?

    And millions of other people have fallen flat on their faces through absolutely no fault of their own. What exactly is your point?

    Come on! I really need to spell this out? I know the Republicans are the party of the willfully ignorant, but that's taking it too far ..

    OK! OK! Here we go: what kills them is not being able to afford the medical care they require.

    See how simple that was?
     
    ElasticNinja likes this.
  6. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    213
    Posts:
    7,059
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010

    Jun 7, 2010
    7,059
    967
    213
    The economy does NOT cut into your ability to save. You pay yourself first. You always pay yourself first. ALWAYS. A wise man once told me that if you don't pay yourself, no one else will. So I always pay myself first. You could cut my pay in half and I'd still stash 10% away. Why? Because the future is coming sooner or later. So I pay myself first and stash money away when times are good. Prior to the recession the economy was booming. Yet no one saved. Our savings rate was negative (which it still is sadly) and then when things fell apart (as they were bound to do sooner or later) people had nothing. Who's fault is that? The people who didn't save when times were good and thus suffered when times were bad are not at fault at all? Are we an ant or a grasshopper here?

    It is YOUR responsibility and not anyone else's to plan for hard times. Hard times are going to come. If not today, then tomorrow. If not tomorrow, then somewhere else down the road. So, yes, you do need non-retirement savings that you may need to live on at some point and it is your responsibility to save that up when times are good.

    And the current healthcare system does keep people from having to go bankrupt IF they have health insurance. This is why I say we need to focus on making insurance cheap and driving down the costs. The solution is not to require everyone to buy a product, punish those who can afford to but don't and charge those who have money in order to cover those who don't. The solution is to make insurance affordable. If people choose to not buy at that point it is on them, no one else.
     
  7. SiempreTuna

    SiempreTuna Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    423
    Posts:
    3,889
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013

    Jan 11, 2013
    3,889
    1,051
    423
    That's great, but 10% of nothing is nothing. Millions lost their jobs. Their income was cut entirely, not by 50%.

    True. And once you've spent what you saved, then what?

    Actually, the solution to making health care affordabe IS forcing everyone to buy it. That's why Romney had to do it. That's why Obama had to it. It is the ONLY way to do it.
     
  8. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    213
    Posts:
    7,059
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010

    Jun 7, 2010
    7,059
    967
    213
    But that's a temporary thing, not a permanent state. I have six months of expenses hanging around. I can work fast food, throw papers, push a vacuum somewhere, etc...... to extend that even longer. People are hired and people lose their jobs in booms and in busts. Before the recession I had a job making $30k a year and working 50-60 hrs a week to get there. It sucked. Now I make close to twice that. I'm not the only one in that boat and I know there are people that went the other way. Sticking your head in the sand, not preparing at all and then getting freaked out when bad things happen is not a good plan.

    I have good friends who lost their jobs during the recession. Some of them started their own businesses. Some of them worked piddly jobs while searching for a more permanent one. One of them ended up downsizing and selling their house. None of them sat back and expected someone to bail them out somehow.

    I fail to see how forcing everyone to buy a product that we all agree is too expensive makes said product cheaper. I don't follow the logic there.
     
  9. SiempreTuna

    SiempreTuna Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    423
    Posts:
    3,889
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013

    Jan 11, 2013
    3,889
    1,051
    423
    I've done lots of things, too. Again, no-one is talking about unconditional bail outs - that's exclusively something for the rich, it seems.

    This is about helping people when can't get by anymore. Through no fault of their own: there have been 400 applicants for a single fast food job in some towns in the UK. I imagine it's the same in parts of the US.

    You can be as self-sufficient as you like, sometimes it's just not your fault.

    It's simple math: there is an amount of money that needs to be spent by the insurance companies on people who are ill. If you divide this sum over the entire population it's a lot less per person than it is if you divide over the number of people who volutarily buy insurance.

    The problem is that people who are statistically at lower risk of getting sick - the young and fit - tend not to take out insurance. People at higher risk - the older and unwell - take out insurance but also make claims.

    This model is insanely expensive now because the older, sick people need to take out so much and they're also the ones having to fund it all.

    Eventually, everyone needs health care. By making everyone pay while they're young and not making claims, they subsidise the older people who do. In turn, when they get older, the younger people will subsidise them. Overall, everyone pays their own way.

    No-one is getting a free ride.

    No-one is paying for benefits they don't (eventually) receive - unless they're exceptionally lucky and never get sick. Which is about as likely as them winning the lottery. And about as fortunate.
     
  10. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    233
    Posts:
    4,836
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010

    Sep 24, 2010
    4,836
    806
    233
    You are spot on. I save, too. My parents and their parents saved as well. I actually know someone headed for the unemployment line and he bought a few new toys rather than save the cash.

    We should not help this fool because he had a chance to save for the on-rushing rainy day. Should he end up homeless, he will bitch about the economy, George Bush, and how crappy things are because he cannot find a job. He is unqualified for anything past inserting tab A into slot B.

    People smoke, eat bad food, burn the candle at both ends, fail to exercise and generally forget how fragile the human body is. They get sick and quite often, they want someone to pay for their mistakes.

    We have poor kids with a chance to hit the books and possibly earn a scholarship, but they prefer to play video games or waste their lives on FarceBook or the net. They leave school as stupid as they arrived and it is their fault for not taking advantage of the free education.

    I see it all the time. A company has a hard time making it, so they cut staff. They keep the smart people and find a way to make do with fewer production wonks. Those that are let go often have few skills to speak of so they become unemployable because they simply cannot work in this day and age.

    People need to save a little here and there because the future is uncertain and the economy is down. They need to forget the iPads, Android Tablets and phones; they need to save every dime and cut their lifestyle or they will live to regret it and we will end up paying for his or her mistakes.

    Save those dime, folks . . . you just might need them.
     
  11. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    233
    Posts:
    4,836
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010

    Sep 24, 2010
    4,836
    806
    233
    One can argue the numbers and we can discuss how great the HC plan is, but the government its'self tells us the cost will add $6.2 - $6.5 Trillion dollars to the deficit. We are not talking about pocket change here.

    We know Obama told us his amazing plan will not increase the deficit.

    We will know what we know and many people will need to practice back peddling when those bills arrive. It will not sit well with those that think it is free HC.
     
  12. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    213
    Posts:
    7,059
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010

    Jun 7, 2010
    7,059
    967
    213
    Crap happens to everyone without discrimination. No argument there. You can, however, prepare for it to hit. You know it's going to come. Are you breathing? Yes? Then crap is going to hit you sooner or later. Can you honestly tell me that the vast majority of these people diligently saved their money when times were good and when times were bad they exhausted all of their resources while diligently taking advantage of every money making opportunity they had (including mowing lawns, shoveling snow, cleaning houses, etc.....) and are now at the end where there is nothing at all they can reasonably do to make money? I don't buy that.

    I can't speak for the UK, but here in the US we tend to live in the moment and do 0 planning at all for the future. It's the American way. When crap happens we blame someone other than ourselves and feel that it should be someone else's responsibility (usually those who did plan) to bail us out. Again, are you an ant or a grasshopper? Pick one.

    In theory, this works. In reality it's the same system that we're using for Social Security and that program is broke.
     
  13. copestag

    copestag Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    143
    Posts:
    1,355
    Joined:
    May 23, 2010

    May 23, 2010
    1,355
    247
    143
    OK! OK! Here we go: what kills the other 2,420,000 is being able to afford the care they require.

    See how simple that was?
     
  14. JohnLaird

    JohnLaird Well-Known Member
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    73
    Posts:
    169
    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2011

    Nov 25, 2011
    169
    75
    73
    Software Developer
    Houston, TX
    This is a perfect example of why I hate US politics. When you run out of patience making a logical argument you start blaming the other party (Republicans in this instance). It's not about finding a solution, it is about BLAME. It does not matter if it is Republicans blaming Democrats or Democrats blaming Republicans...it simply degenerates into a lame mud slinging match between adults acting as if they were children. The same thing is happening in Congress right now...just at an elevated level on a much grader, screwed up scale...
     
  15. Gmash

    Gmash Extreme Android User
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    613
    Posts:
    6,912
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011

    Feb 3, 2011
    6,912
    3,197
    613
    Male
    neither Here nor There
    I agree that everyone should save, and I have been fortunate enough to have some money in the bank, but do you really expect people working at or near minimum wage jobs to save for retirement when they can barely pay their bills or feed their families? That shows how out of touch some people are. People who make that argument have probably never been hungry a day in their lives. As for privatizing Social Security, what do you do when the stock market tanks, like it did just a few years ago? Do you just tell those seniors "sorry about your luck, I guess you picked the wrong time to get old"? SS was started because the poverty rate among seniors was astronomical, with many elderly ending up on the street if they didn't have family to take them in. But hey, you've got yours, screw everybody less fortunate than you, right?
     
    dynomot, msndrstood and ElasticNinja like this.
  16. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    213
    Posts:
    7,059
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010

    Jun 7, 2010
    7,059
    967
    213
    As I'm not a Republican or a Democrat I just figure they're talking about someone else.
     
  17. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    213
    Posts:
    7,059
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010

    Jun 7, 2010
    7,059
    967
    213
    I guess I don't consider myself "more fortunate" because I chose to save over the course of my career. Nor do I consider people "less fortunate" because they chose to spend their earnings instead of saving. Are there really that many people who spend their entire lives earning minimum wage? Really? These people work 40-50 years and don't get a single pay raise at all?

    If you started saving 40 years ago and chose to retire when the recession hit, you would still be fine. Your investments over that time period would've averaged 10% or more if they were just invested in a simple index fund. You would've had plenty. It's a silly argument. No downtrend in the market is going to completely obliterate a well diversified portfolio. It's just not. That being said, if you want to stay in Social Security knock yourself. I want to be able to opt out of it and you can keep everything I've contributed so far. That's all I'm asking.
     
  18. chrlswltrs

    chrlswltrs Extreme Android User
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    333
    Posts:
    6,727
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009

    Nov 12, 2009
    6,727
    1,795
    333
    Male
    Private Security
    Seattle
    There really are people that have minimum intelligence, minimum education, minimum skills and minimum work ethic, so all they make is minimum wage.

    I say if they don't want to change a few of those things (education, skills, and work ethic) then I shouldn't feel obligated to care about them when they have no money and no where to live when they get old.
     
  19. saptech

    saptech Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    343
    Posts:
    3,761
    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2011

    If you're making little money then you will save little. I know people who worked very hard all their lives but didn't make alot of money either. Most got married and raised a family. What happens within those 40 years can determine how the savings turn out. Issues which can be their own fault and may not be their fault. What good will the money do 20-40 years later when you may be on your last leg at the moment.

    I'm not making excuses but it is hard to try to walk in other peoples shoes and decide what they should or shouldn't have done over their live time.
     
    msndrstood likes this.
  20. SiempreTuna

    SiempreTuna Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    423
    Posts:
    3,889
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013

    Jan 11, 2013
    3,889
    1,051
    423
    Quite.

    There are a lot of people who are well educated, hard working, sensible and doing jobs that are way, way more worthwhile than anything I've ever done - teachers, nurses, care workers etc - but who make peanuts.

    Across the care industry, wages are always within a hair of minimum wage, no matter how long you work there or how hard you work. It's also very important work that society needs to have done.

    Here's the thing: if you make peanuts, not only is it really tough to save anything, but even if you manage to save your 10%, after 40 years savng 10% of f*** all you end up with f*** all.
     
  21. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Extreme Android User
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    213
    Posts:
    7,059
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010

    Jun 7, 2010
    7,059
    967
    213
    At the moment yes. But to spend an entire career at that level of expertise and pay? That I don't understand. I've worked crappy jobs where I made $4 an hour before. It wasn't my long term game plan to work a crappy job where I made $4 an hour though. That was not in my diabolical plan to take over the world.

    It's a complete and total myth that you have to "make a lot of money" in order to save. Completely bogus. Look at it this way. Let's say you have a terminal disease of some kind. Fortunately as long as you take your meds, there's no risk to you and no lifestyle impact. However, these meds aren't covered by your insurance. Instead they cost 5-10% of your paycheck. Don't take your meds for a month or so and you start having a health impact that can end with you dieing. How many people are going to have a hard time finding that 5-10%? Not very many. They will put it on the top of their list and do it before they do anything else.

    This is how retirement savings is supposed to work. You MUST pay yourself first. Before you pay Uncle Sam. Before you pay for groceries. Before you pay utilities. Before you pay anything else, pay yourself. If you don't, no one else will. The problem is people put savings in general (and often retirement in particular) at the very, very bottom of their list of things to do. It's beneath Hawaiian vacation on the list of where to spend the money. So they never ever get to it and never save anything. Who's fault is that? Why should I pay for someone's retirement when they never saved?

    Also, it's a myth that if you make nothing whatever you save will end up being nothing. Compound interest is one of those things that works in your favor no matter what you put away. $100 a month (and if you're only making $1k a month you're at the poverty level) and it gets compounded just once annually at 10% (market's average rate of return) you'd end up with $588,748.10 over a 40 yr working life (age 20 to age 60). Now, what is the average Social Security benefit? For a white woman (the highest demographic) it's $464,000. So you would end up way better off than Social Security and that's off just $100 a month and that's tax free if it's a Roth. Also, over the course of that time period your social security contributions would add up to $345,000 in taxes over your working lifetime. How much did you contribute to your privately held retirement account? ($1200 a year x 40 years)? Just $48,000 total. So not only did you get a larger sum of money at the end of your life, but you paid less to get it. How is that not a better deal? Whether you went the traditional or Roth way you get a tax break on your contributions as well. How do you not end up better off? Also, if you invest in some aggressive growth stuff which can average 12% or more you can end up with over a million dollars on just $100 a month. You can't afford not to save.
     
  22. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    233
    Posts:
    4,836
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010

    Sep 24, 2010
    4,836
    806
    233
    Waiting in long lines to buy the iPhone is what kills most people. Exposure to the elements and Apple stores do not provide free coffee.

    Everyone knows that.
     
  23. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    233
    Posts:
    4,836
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010

    Sep 24, 2010
    4,836
    806
    233
    Yup. I see it all the time. I can pretty much tell who will be fired when times get tough and I can tell (usually) who will not be hired.

    These days, people need to save for the future and take care of themselves. Stop wasting cash and put it away. Stop smoking, eat right, etc.
     
  24. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    233
    Posts:
    4,836
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010

    Sep 24, 2010
    4,836
    806
    233
    And . . . when the low information voter votes for someone because of the campaign speeches and the liberal press that fails to report the facts and give us both sides in a balanced way, you get an obama and he gives us a bloody expensive HC plan.
     
    chrlswltrs likes this.
  25. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Android Expert
    Rank:
    None
    Points:
    233
    Posts:
    4,836
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2010

    Sep 24, 2010
    4,836
    806
    233
    Not sure I completely agree. As long as I can remember, SS has been sold to us as money we can rely upon in the future when we retire. It is certainly not a classic retirement plan, but millions of people have viewed it that way for a long time.

    Not a welfare plan, exactly.

    Welfare is "free" money some people can get from the government--either local or the feds. Sure, they (many/most/none) pay for it via their taxes, but for the most part, it is a free for all. Some homeless man living on the street gets food stamps and chances are, he stopped paying taxes long ago. That said, the bottom 50% or so pay no federal taxes.

    SS is something we pay for all of our working life.
     

Share This Page

Loading...