free health care

[sntaylor]

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.

Wouldn't it be great if it always worked like that for everyone, but sadly it doesn't.

Its all very well saying that you just move up and get a better job etc, it took me several years to get a ft job, and I wasn't just limiting myself to the field in which I had qualified (sports coaching, rugby specifically, but qualified in many others too!)

In the mean time I was doing bank work and low paid"voluntary" work, sadly the bank work required me to travel lots for short term shifts, it started ok for a few years but as the recession hit, money became very tight, I missed a few car insurance payments (paid late) and the company cut my insurance, so I had no way of getting to work! Public transport here is poor to say the least, my current job is 4 pm-10 pm weekdays, 9am-5 pm weekends, on a Sunday the first train for me is 2.30 pm best bus is a 5 mile walk and it leaves at 9.15am! I work in the biggest town in the region.

During my time before getting my ft job, I ended up getting into lots of debt having spent my savings, this took several months after getting a steady pay just to stop having to use pay day loans, I'm now still trying to pay off debts..... I'm 26 and am fortunate enough to live in the UK as I have asthma which I've had all my life, got a mate who has moved to Indianapolis it something, and he is the same having asthma, told me he pays $56 a month just for medication, that's with insurance! in England he was on

 

[A.Nonymous]

How old were you at this point?

 

[saptech]

A.Nonymous, what happens when you get laid off/fired or whatever, lose your job? What if it takes alot longer to find another one then it did in the past? Lets say you were making a modest income, $20,000-30,000 per year and you were saving. Also you have a wife and 2.5 kids, a house, a car payment, the usual household expenses. Let's say you have around $10,000 in 401k or whatever.

Depending on your state, determines how much UI you may receive, which is definately not going to pay all bills. Let's assume the wife/husband had worked off & on but not now (in case one is single with kids). As time move on, you will more then likely have to start dipping in that Saving to help pay these bills. Also you don't have any family/friends to help you financially.

I do agree everyone should pay themselves first but now days especially, it may not be a viable option all the time. Do you take this into account? I've seen some of your post and of course you're doing very well, alot more then alot of people.

How many young people, 18-30 yrs old do you know who save religiously for retirement. I believe they may start doing it if they happen to get married and/or have kids at this young age.

 

[A.Nonymous]

A.Nonymous, what happens when you get laid off/fired or whatever, lose your job? What if it takes alot longer to find another one then it did in the past? Lets say you were making a modest income, $20,000-30,000 per year and you were saving. Also you have a wife and 2.5 kids, a house, a car payment, the usual household expenses. Let's say you have around $10,000 in 401k or whatever.

Depending on your state, determines how much UI you may receive, which is definately not going to pay all bills. Let's assume the wife/husband had worked off & on but not now (in case one is single with kids). As time move on, you will more then likely have to start dipping in that Saving to help pay these bills. Also you don't have any family/friends to help you financially.

I do agree everyone should pay themselves first but now days especially, it may not be a viable option all the time. Do you take this into account? I've seen some of your post and of course you're doing very well, alot more then alot of people.

I failed to make my point earlier I guess. You save when times are good so you have money to fall back on when times are bad. So, no, unemployment won't pay all the bills, but it doesn't have to. It supplements your savings for a short period of time.

How many young people, 18-30 yrs old do you know who save religiously for retirement. I believe they may start doing it if they happen to get married and/or have kids at this young age.

Truly and honestly? Not very many. And that's a problem. But it's their problem, not mine.

 

[lightsleeper23]

There are all kinds of things that can happen in this life which are out of a persons control that can totally wipe out their savings. I don't think it's fair to automatically assume someone is lazy, or has spent unwisely, or whatever just because they have no savings.

I know, you still couldn't care less about them, just saying. And I think this brings us to the fundamental difference between the right and the left. Most people on the right not only think they should have no obligation to help those in bad situations, but that the mere suggestion is offensive. It's every person for themselves, take what you can get and screw you, you deserve whatever happens if you can't do the same. The rest of us, do not feel that way.

 

[chrlswltrs]

All I can say is I am going to thoroughly enjoy it when the people can't afford health insurance and they get hit with a big fine/tax/whatever it's called at the time because they don't have health insurance because they can't afford it. Especially since everyone's income just went down due to higher taxes and the cost of insurance is going up at the same time due to Obamacare. Then they will all start complaining because the fairy tale of getting something for nothing will come crashing down. I will just sit back and say "Told you so. How is that hope and change working for you now?"

 

[A.Nonymous]

There are all kinds of things that can happen in this life which are out of a persons control that can totally wipe out their savings. I don't think it's fair to automatically assume someone is lazy, or has spent unwisely, or whatever just because they have no savings.

I know, you still couldn't care less about them, just saying. And I think this brings us to the fundamental difference between the right and the left. Most people on the right not only think they should have no obligation to help those in bad situations, but that the mere suggestion is offensive. It's every person for themselves, take what you can get and screw you, you deserve whatever happens if you can't do the same. The rest of us, do not feel that way.

Please tell me why someone who works their whole life and diligently saves has a responsibility to bail out someone who saved nothing. How is a society where the responsible people carry the burden for the irresponsible ones a good society?

 

[Gmash]

All I can say is I am going to thoroughly enjoy it when the people can't afford health insurance and they get hit with a big fine/tax/whatever it's called at the time because they don't have health insurance because they can't afford it. Especially since everyone's income just went down due to higher taxes and the cost of insurance is going up at the same time due to Obamacare. Then they will all start complaining because the fairy tale of getting something for nothing will come crashing down. I will just sit back and say "Told you so. How is that hope and change working for you now?"

Nice attitude. Hope for failure so you can sit back and gloat. You would think the situation with your daughter's medication costs would give you some compassion for the people who have been struggling with health care expenses all along. I don't think people are expecting to get something for nothing, but yes, there will be much complaining no matter what. That is just human nature.

 

[chrlswltrs]

Nice attitude. Hope for failure so you can sit back and gloat. You would think the situation with your daughter's medication costs would give you some compassion for the people who have been struggling with health care expenses all along. I don't think people are expecting to get something for nothing, but yes, there will be much complaining no matter what. That is just human nature.

I'm not hoping for failure. The failure, fines, and increased costs are already written into law. I just know that until people experience those things first hand they won't realize what is really going on. They had 4 years of miserable failure and ignored all evidence and logic and chose to punish the entire country more. People will continue to believe all of the lies until it hurts them personally, after that maybe they will listen to the truth next time. Things are going to have to get worse and hurt a lot more people before enough people wake up out of their fantasy world. Only then will America get back on track and return to prosperity.

 

[lightsleeper23]

Please tell me why someone who works their whole life and diligently saves has a responsibility to bail out someone who saved nothing. How is a society where the responsible people carry the burden for the irresponsible ones a good society?

I never said any person has a responsibility to bail out another random person. I PERSONALLY think we as a modern society have a responsibility to help those who can't help themselves. But there's no law saying you have to bail someone out. There's just taxes and social programs.

But people on the right imply that anyone who can't get by and do everything perfectly fine on their own are irresponsible, and it's their own fault. This is simply not the case. But to be honest even if someone did get themselves into debt with irresponsible spending, I for one would have a hard time standing by and watching them die from an illness because they didn't have health insurance. And I damn sure wouldn't gloat and feel smug about it. But that's just me.

 

[saptech]

Please tell me why someone who works their whole life and diligently saves has a responsibility to bail out someone who saved nothing. How is a society where the responsible people carry the burden for the irresponsible ones a good society?

Now just about everyone who responded to you mention people may save but some special event comes along and wipe out their savings. Remember, I stated about middle/low income people saving, not the 1% like you!

Yet, you continue to mention as if we're saying they do not save nothing, ever!

I give, you win.

 

[saptech]

I'm not hoping for failure. The failure, fines, and increased costs are already written into law. I just know that until people experience those things first hand they won't realize what is really going on. They had 4 years of miserable failure and ignored all evidence and logic and chose to punish the entire country more. People will continue to believe all of the lies until it hurts them personally, after that maybe they will listen to the truth next time. Things are going to have to get worse and hurt a lot more people before enough people wake up out of their fantasy world. Only then will America get back on track and return to prosperity.

The point is, the health care system is already like that. Too expensive for the average person/family. Major illnesses or accidents can wipe out people's saving, if they have any. Yes, you can goto the ER for treatments but if you need to see a specialist or primary care doctor and no insurance, you can't be seen.

Since Obama fought to have changes to the current system, yes, insurance companies, corporations have raised the cost to the clients/employees. It gave them an opportunity to raise the cost without the blame being totally put on them.

 

[chrlswltrs]

The point is, the health care system is already like that. Too expensive for the average person/family. Major illnesses or accidents can wipe out people's saving, if they have any. Yes, you can goto the ER for treatments but if you need to see a specialist or primary care doctor and no insurance, you can't be seen.

Since Obama fought to have changes to the current system, yes, insurance companies, corporations have raised the cost to the clients/employees. It gave them an opportunity to raise the cost without the blame being totally put on them.

The point really is, costs have gone up. If you couldn't afford health insurance before, you really can't now. At the same time take home pay has gone down for everyone due to the tax increase that was effective 1/1/13 for EVERYONE who earns a paycheck, that makes it even harder to afford the insurance you couldn't before. Oh, wait, that's right. Starting next year people that still can't afford health insurance are going to face a massive fine because they can't afford a more expensive item while making less money when they couldn't afford it to begin with.

 

[Gmash]

Costs have always been going up. There are going to be subsidies and health care exchanges to help lower the costs when the law takes effect. More people will be covered under Medicaid. They're not expecting people at the poverty line to pay full price for insurance. And the penalties are not massive, especially in the first years. Bottom line is, it's far from a perfect system, but this is all he could get passed. Of course there will be growing pains along the way, and we all know there will be tweaks and changes as we go along. The better options (public option or single payer) were even more vehemently opposed by the right. Hell, this is a republican idea. It's basically a giveaway to the insurance companies. If the republicans had pushed this through, it would be heralded as a triumph of the private sector. When the democrats get it passed, it's socialism. That's the problem with our politics today, you get massive opposition from the other side even when you're stealing their ideas. (and that goes for both sides)

 

[chrlswltrs]

Costs have always been going up. There are going to be subsidies and health care exchanges to help lower the costs when the law takes effect. More people will be covered under Medicaid. They're not expecting people at the poverty line to pay full price for insurance. And the penalties are not massive, especially in the first years. Bottom line is, it's far from a perfect system, but this is all he could get passed. Of course there will be growing pains along the way, and we all know there will be tweaks and changes as we go along. The better options (public option or single payer) were even more vehemently opposed by the right. Hell, this is a republican idea. It's basically a giveaway to the insurance companies. If the republicans had pushed this through, it would be heralded as a triumph of the private sector. When the democrats get it passed, it's socialism. That's the problem with our politics today, you get massive opposition from the other side even when you're stealing their ideas. (and that goes for both sides)

I agree that Republican vs Democrat is a huge problem. I don't consider myself either. I think Clinton was a great president, I think Bush Jr did some very good, and some very bad things, and I think Obama is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country (at least in my lifetime).

I know that Obamacare is bad for America. It punishes many people to help a select few that have pre-existing conditions. It does nothing to help those that can't afford health insurance, it raises medical costs on those that can (in my family's case by several thousand dollars a month), it hurts job growth in a struggling economy (employers have to cut back on full time employees because they can't afford the added required costs), and it adds to our already out of control deficit that will eventually lead to the US government defaulting.

How is any of this worth it to help the select few? Sure it sucks to be them, but other than those with pre-existing conditions Obamacare helps no one and hurts millions of Americans.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I never said any person has a responsibility to bail out another random person. I PERSONALLY think we as a modern society have a responsibility to help those who can't help themselves. But there's no law saying you have to bail someone out. There's just taxes and social programs.

Here I both agree and disagree with you. Yes we do have a responsibility to help those who can't help themselves. I'm defining those people as those who are mentally or physically incompetent. They literally do not have the ability to help themselves. Yes we have a responsibility to take of them. No argument there. And yes, when you take my taxes to fund social programs that bail people out then you are indeed making a law that forces me to bail people out. That alone is a huge problem IMO regardless of whether those people are deserving of said bailout or not.

But people on the right imply that anyone who can't get by and do everything perfectly fine on their own are irresponsible, and it's their own fault. This is simply not the case. But to be honest even if someone did get themselves into debt with irresponsible spending, I for one would have a hard time standing by and watching them die from an illness because they didn't have health insurance. And I damn sure wouldn't gloat and feel smug about it. But that's just me.

This is the problem with the left. If people succeed wildly it's not on their own. They did so because they just got lucky and happened to be in the right place at the right time. If people fall flat on their face, it's also not their fault. So at the end of the day we're all just at the whims of lady luck I suppose.

Now just about everyone who responded to you mention people may save but some special event comes along and wipe out their savings. Remember, I stated about middle/low income people saving, not the 1% like you!

Yet, you continue to mention as if we're saying they do not save nothing, ever!

I give, you win.

Nice. Now I'm a 1 percenter. I wish. I'm sorry, but if you are living so perilously close to the edge that one negative event (and they happen to everyone) pushes you to the point where you don't have two dimes to rub together, then you are living way too close to the edge. How do you think it is that two people can both lose their jobs yet one of them makes it through just fine and the other one goes deeply into debt and ends up bankrupt? What's the difference? Failure to plan or just bad luck?

But let's compromise here. If you think that paying into Social Security where you get $400k back for $300k of tax dollars is a good deal, then fine. It's your money. Just let me opt out of it. And if you think Obamacare is an awesome plan, then fine. Just let me opt out of it.

The point is, the health care system is already like that. Too expensive for the average person/family. Major illnesses or accidents can wipe out people's saving, if they have any. Yes, you can goto the ER for treatments but if you need to see a specialist or primary care doctor and no insurance, you can't be seen.

Yes, the current system is broken. No arguments there. But the fix isn't to force everyone to buy into a system that's broken and is already too expensive. IMO the fix is to drive the costs down. Make it so healthcare is affordable to everyone. Once that happens if you choose to not buy insurance that's on you and you alone.

 

[chrlswltrs]

And if you think Obamacare is an awesome plan, then fine. Just let me opt out of it.

The people who voted it into law opted out of it... What does that tell you :afraid:

 

[lightsleeper23]

Here I both agree and disagree with you. Yes we do have a responsibility to help those who can't help themselves. I'm defining those people as those who are mentally or physically incompetent. They literally do not have the ability to help themselves. Yes we have a responsibility to take of them. No argument there. And yes, when you take my taxes to fund social programs that bail people out then you are indeed making a law that forces me to bail people out. That alone is a huge problem IMO regardless of whether those people are deserving of said bailout or not.



This is the problem with the left. If people succeed wildly it's not on their own. They did so because they just got lucky and happened to be in the right place at the right time. If people fall flat on their face, it's also not their fault. So at the end of the day we're all just at the whims of lady luck I suppose.

Well what I meant was there's no laws making you personally bail out another specific person. And I think there absolutely needs to be taxes funding social programs. If it were all left up to private charities most people would never get help. Some things only the government can do right. In a society this large... Most charities are based in a church, and funded by people voluntarily, and they can not help that many people. It only makes sense to have one large, central program reaching everyone across the nation. On for housing, one for food, etc. I think it's safe to say we'd have far more homeless and hungry if it were all up to the private sector.

As far as people succeeding wildly, it depends. There are those that came from nothing, worked hard and struggled (got a small business loan, whatever) and built a good business, and actually are competent and run their business well. And even then, there is still luck involved. To go on for years without anything catastrophic happening out of their control to ruin it. On one hand, they've worked hard and did everything right...on the other hand, nothing happened that they couldn't recover from, which does happen to many others.

Then there are people born with a silver spoon in their mouths. Right family, right connections, money from parents...and they have 10X more opportunities and resources than most people. They basically get placed right into whatever they want, and then get to either work hard and do it right, or screw it up and try something else, with no real consequence.

Then there are the people who fall flat on their face. Sometimes it's from making the wrong choices, sometimes it's from taking big risks that could've paid off but didn't. Or sometimes, they did everything right, didn't take huge risks, but something terrible happened and they lost everything. It happens every day.

You can't just say it's one or the other, all or nothing. It's not black and white. And that's the problem with many on the right. Everyone who has money or a position of power is a genius, and everyone who isn't is a moron who doesn't know how to do it right.

 

[chrlswltrs]

Well what I meant was there's no laws making you personally bail out another specific person. And I think there absolutely needs to be taxes funding social programs. If it were all left up to private charities most people would never get help. Some things only the government can do right. In a society this large... Most charities are based in a church, and funded by people voluntarily, and they can not help that many people. It only makes sense to have one large, central program reaching everyone across the nation. On for housing, one for food, etc. I think it's safe to say we'd have far more homeless and hungry if it were all up to the private sector.

But the government does it HORRIBLY wrong!! Perfect example... There are more homeless VETERANS than ILLEGAL ALIENS. What is wrong with that picture??? It wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue if the right people that needed help got it, not those that can't even legally live here anyways. Or what about the BILLIONS every year that is sent to help others in other countries before our government helps our own citizens.

The government is far too corrupt to be trusted with helping those who really need it.

 

[lightsleeper23]

But the government does it HORRIBLY wrong!! Perfect example... There are more homeless VETERANS than ILLEGAL ALIENS. What is wrong with that picture??? It wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue if the right people that needed help got it, not those that can't even legally live here anyways. Or what about the BILLIONS every year that is sent to help others in other countries before our government helps our own citizens.

The government is far too corrupt to be trusted with helping those who really need it.

Well by your own standards, the private sector is also failing miserably at this. Private charity isn't providing anybody a home. You've got people donating time building houses, but are they paying for the people to live afterwards, month by month? No. You've got the Mormon church, giving food orders to people every month, but that's ONLY to other mormons or people they are trying to convert to Mormonism. And if they don't join the church and start following all the churchs ridiculous rules, they get cut off. Hell even if they do follow the rules they get cut off, because you're supposed to get on your feet and start feeding yourself. Which is fine, unless you're physically or mentally disabled. They can't afford to permanently feed, and pay the rent of a disabled person.

Only government can do this. You say government does it wrong, but you also say they give to too many people. Is that how they do it wrong? Giving to too many moochers that don't need it, while people that do are on the streets? Once again, private sector can't do anything about them either. We need government. Do we need it to work better? Absolutely.

 

[Bob Maxey]

All I can say is I am going to thoroughly enjoy it when the people can't afford health insurance and they get hit with a big fine/tax/whatever it's called at the time because they don't have health insurance because they can't afford it. Especially since everyone's income just went down due to higher taxes and the cost of insurance is going up at the same time due to Obamacare. Then they will all start complaining because the fairy tale of getting something for nothing will come crashing down. I will just sit back and say "Told you so. How is that hope and change working for you now?"

I am waiting for the same thing and I hope it is a long wait. You can BS the public to some extent and get them to support your agenda by adjusting the version of the truth you think they should see.

But when the bills arrive and they hold them in their hot little hands, that is different. It is now very real.

 

[Bob Maxey]

You've got the Mormon church, giving food orders to people every month, but that's ONLY to other mormons or people they are trying to convert to Mormonism. And if they don't join the church and start following all the churchs ridiculous rules, they get cut off. Hell even if they do follow the rules they get cut off, because you're supposed to get on your feet and start feeding yourself. Which is fine, unless you're physically or mentally disabled. They can't afford to permanently feed, and pay the rent of a disabled person.

How can someone who lives here be so very wrong about the Church.

 

[ElasticNinja]

A lot of people seem to not get that health costs increase every year. Europe is undergoing quite heavy austerity yet most governments are having to spend more on health, as are private individuals.

Why? Ageing populations, more treatments and medication, etc.

I know health spending where I live has barely fallen at all (two digit sum per head iirc), and the austerity here is very sharp.

Please tell me why someone who works their whole life and diligently saves has a responsibility to bail out someone who saved nothing. How is a society where the responsible people carry the burden for the irresponsible ones a good society?

I find it ironic that you are a man of religion who speaks appears to be quite involved in your church, yet you spurn religious teaching. I might not like religious leaders but at least they tend to protest at this kind of attitude.

No, I demand responsibility from their parents.

So if their parents are poor, inept, or whatever, they should die, or be stunted, or whatever? How cold... I don't see how one can not empathise within the constraints of reason.

 

[lightsleeper23]

How can someone who lives here be so very wrong about the Church.

That's right I do live here. I was born and raised in salt lake city. I know first hand. Exactly what am I wrong about?

Edit: Actually another thing I left out, not only do you have to go to their church to get help, if its more than just a one time thing they make you work off hours cleaning or working at their warehouse or something.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I find it ironic that you are a man of religion who speaks appears to be quite involved in your church, yet you spurn religious teaching. I might not like religious leaders but at least they tend to protest at this kind of attitude.

Well, the religion I belong to teaches that we all must face the consequences for our actions one day whether they be good or bad. Again, the concept of the responsible members of society enabling the irresponsible members of society doesn't seem very moral to me. That's just me though.

So if their parents are poor, inept, or whatever, they should die, or be stunted, or whatever? How cold... I don't see how one can not empathise within the constraints of reason.

Life is not fair. I'm sorry, but it's not. Chelsea Clinton graduated from Stanford and her first job was with a NYC law firm where she earned over $100k a year. Now, by all accounts she is a very smart young lady. But how many graduates make that kind of money straight out of college and how much of that is because of who her dad is? You know as well as I do that it was largely because of who her dad is. Do I begrudge her for that? No. That's life. The President's kids will have more opportunities because of who their parents are. That principle trickles down throughout society. Children have always suffered/benefitted from their parents actions. That is life. I can empathize, but I feel no obligation to try to take care of every single child who is in a bad situation because of their parents mistakes. That is tilting a windmills IMO.