Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
304
Views

Re: Health Insurance, not health care

304 Views
Message 11 of 28

@s761539r wrote:

Apparently you haven't been near an ER lately.  Still filled with the same people pre Obamacare.

 

Lower income people aren't buying insurance they are being given free healthcare.  That's not bad, but it is my point.  Liberals want the government (you) to turn the country into a VA hospital. 

 

Liberals don't shoot themselves in the foot, they understand you have to shoot 'the rich'.  There is no money in the trust fund.  Every dollar that is paid in FICA goes out immediately.  Which is why SS is in big trouble.

 

Still it is a pleasure to discuss issues without the name calling and swearing.  Respect is everything.


I think you are missing some of the points in this thread.  A lot of us (myself included) don't consider our healthcare good or cost effective.  When you look at the richest countries in the world, we spend the most and have the worst results.  There has to be a better system than the one we are currently using.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
304
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
302
Views

Re: Health Insurance, not health care

302 Views
Message 12 of 28

@s761539r wrote:

Apparently you haven't been near an ER lately.  Still filled with the same people pre Obamacare.

 

 


That depends on what state you live in, in Kentucky that's simply not true. Kentucky put an exchange in place and did the Medicaid expansion. In states where they didn't start an exchange and do the Medicaid expansion, having the same people not insured and in the ER's are the fault of that state's leaders/elected Governors and Congress Critters.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
302
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
298
Views

Re: Health Insurance, not health care

298 Views
Message 13 of 28

Some don't reslize that when people don't have insurance, they wait longer than they should to seek help.  Many then go to the ER, which costs much more. No insurance often means these bills aren't paid.  Costs for unpaid bills are handled in a few ways.  Prices at facilities rise, staff is cut, facilities close. Either way we all pay.

In the meantime, people with no coverage suffer, often getting eorse, some die. So the two are intertwined.

As for me, I'd rather be on the side that helps people, rather than on the side ghat sees only dollar signs.  

Gee, I miss having a real President!!
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
298
Views
Conversationalist
0
Kudos
292
Views

Re: Health Insurance, not health care

292 Views
Message 14 of 28

Apparently you haven't been near an ER lately.  Still filled with the same people pre Obamacare.

 

Lower income people aren't buying insurance they are being given free healthcare.  That's not bad, but it is my point.  Liberals want the government (you) to turn the country into a VA hospital. 

 

Liberals don't shoot themselves in the foot, they understand you have to shoot 'the rich'.  There is no money in the trust fund.  Every dollar that is paid in FICA goes out immediately.  Which is why SS is in big trouble.

 

Still it is a pleasure to discuss issues without the name calling and swearing.  Respect is everything.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
292
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
294
Views

Re: Health Insurance, not health care

294 Views
Message 15 of 28

@s761539r wrote:

I've actually been to 33 countries.  None better than the USA.  But since you seem to know everything about me you must be a teenager!


Wow that's impressive but this thread is about Healthcare

 

1. From Bloomberg 2016 -

The U.S. health-care system remains among the least-efficient in the world.

 

America was 50th out of 55 countries in 2014, according to a Bloomberg index that assesses life expectancy, health-care spending per capita and relative spending as a share of gross domestic product. Expenditures averaged $9,403 per person, about 17.1 percent of GDP, that year — the most recent for which data are available — and life expectancy was 78.9. Only Jordan, Colombia, Azerbaijan, Brazil and Russia ranked lower.

 

The U.S. has lagged near the bottom of the Bloomberg Health-Care Efficiency Index since it was created in 2012. Hong Kong and Singapore — consistently at the top — are smaller countries with less diverse populations. Their governments also play a stronger role in regulating and providing care, with spending per capita averaging $2,386 and longevity averaging about 83 years.

 

2. From the Commonwealth Fund - 2013

 

 

  • U.S. spends more on health care than other high-income countries but has worse outcomes

This analysis draws upon data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and other cross-national analyses to compare health care spending, supply, utilization, prices, and health outcomes across 13 high-income countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

 

These data predate the major insurance provisions of the Affordable Care Act. In 2013, the U.S. spent far more on health care than these other countries. Higher spending appeared to be largely driven by greater use of medical technology and higher health care prices, rather than more frequent doctor visits or hospital admissions. In contrast, U.S. spending on social services made up a relatively small share of the economy relative to other countries.

 

Despite spending more on health care, Americans had poor health outcomes, including shorter life expectancy and greater prevalence of chronic conditions.

 

I could go on but I think most people get the Gist

 

Sources - http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-pers...

 

Sources - https://www.google.com/search?q=where+does+us+rank+in+healthcare+in+the+world&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
294
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
296
Views

Re: Health Insurance, not health care

296 Views
Message 16 of 28

s761539r,

 

Why do you feel we shouldn't be able to use the services that we already paid for?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
296
Views
Conversationalist
0
Kudos
302
Views

Re: Health Insurance, not health care

302 Views
Message 17 of 28

I've actually been to 33 countries.  None better than the USA.  But since you seem to know everything about me you must be a teenager!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
302
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
321
Views

Re: Health Insurance, not health care

321 Views
Message 18 of 28

@mickstuder wrote:

@s761539r wrote:

The liberals at AARP are at it again. Blasting out an email that only showed only one side.  This is about insurance not free health care.  Every other class of insurance is based on risk, health insurance is no different.  It's not up to young people and taxpayers to subsidize your insurance.

 

Young citizens already give you SS and Medicare, now you are demanding another welfare program?  Don't give me that crap about I paid in.  There is no money in the trust fund, just IOUs.

 

Blast away!


Actually this current issue is only about - Health Access - not Healthcare or Health Insurance

 

And the Access is only for the Wealthy

 

But you seem to be selectively choosing which Poison upsets you

 

I'm confused about why you seem to be so concerned about Government Giveaways to the Poor and Elderly

 

But you didn't mention anything at all about the Free Giveaways the US Government gives to those who don;t require it

 

For Example - Investing is also about RISK but it's also about Income  - and just like in your argument about Insurance why should most of us who are - either - Young People or Tax Payers  - be paying more on our Income then a Hedge Fund Manager

 

It's not up to young people and taxpayers to subsidize Investment Income

 

Carried Interest

Many hedge funds are structured to take advantage of carried interest. Under this structure, a fund is treated as a partnership. The founders and fund managers are the general partners, while the investors are the limited partners. The founders also own the management company that runs the hedge fund. The managers earn the 20% performance fee of the carried interest as the general partner of the fund.

 

Hedge fund managers are compensated with this carried interest; their income from the fund is taxed as a return on investments as opposed to a salary or compensation for services rendered.

 

The incentive fee is taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 20% as opposed to ordinary income tax rates, where the top rate is 39.6%. This represents significant tax savings for hedge fund managers.

 

 


    And you sir are the winner for calling out the complainer.    

    An interesting article about how the American Public were scammed:   Some may have very short memories of how exactly Alan Greenspan set up the scam:

 

    

Alan Greenspan’s trick that he pulled in the 1980s as head of the Greenspan Commission. He said that what was needed in America was to traumatize the workers – to squeeze them so much that they won’t have the courage to strike. Not have the courage to ask for better working conditions. He recognized that the best way to really squeeze wage earners is to sharply increase their taxes. He didn’t call FICA wage withholding a tax, but of course it is. His trick was to say that it’s not really a tax, but a contribution to Social Security. And now it siphons off 15.4% of everybody’s pay check, right off the top.

The effect of what Greenspan did was more than just to make wage earners pay this FICA rake-off out of their paycheck every month. The charge was set so high that the Social Security fund lent its surplus to the government. Now, with all this huge surplus that we’re squeezing out of the wage earners, there’s a cut-off point: around $120,000. The richest people don’t have to pay for Social Security funding, only the wage-earner class has to. Their forced savings are lent to the government to enable it to claim that it has so much extra money in the budget pouring in from social security that now it can afford to cut taxes on the rich.

So the sharp increase in Social Security tax for wage earners went hand-in-hand with sharp reductions in taxes on real estate, finance for the top One Percent – the people who live on economic rent, not by working, not by producing goods and services but by making money on their real estate, stocks and bonds “in their sleep.” That’s how the five percent have basically been able to make their money.

The idea that Social Security has to be funded by its beneficiaries has been a setup for the wealthy to claim that the government budget doesn’t have enough money to keep paying. Social Security may begin to run a budget deficit. After having run a surplus since 1933, for 70 years, now we have to begin paying some of this savings out. That’s called a deficit, as if it’s a disaster and we have to begin cutting back Social Security. The implication is that wage earners will have to starve in the street after they retire.

   ...

the Chicago Boys really developed this strategy. University of Chicago economists made it possible, by privatizing and corporatizing the Social Security system. Their ploy was to set aside a pension fund managed by the company, mostly to invest in its own stock. The company would then set up an affiliate that would actually own the company under an umbrella, and then leave the company with its pension fund to go bankrupt – having already emptied out the pension fund by loaning it to the corporate shell.

So it’s become a shell game. There’s really no Social Security problem. Of course the government has enough tax revenue to pay Social Security. That’s what the tax system is all about. Just look at our military spending. But if you do what Donald Trump does, and say that you’re not going to tax the rich; and if you do what Alan Greenspan did and not make higher-income individuals contribute to the Social Security system, then of course it’s going to show a deficit. It’s supposed to show a deficit when more people retire. It was always intended to show a deficit. But now that the government actually isn’t using Social Security surpluses to pretend that it can afford to cut taxes on the rich, they’re baiting and switching. This is basically part of the shell game. Explaining its myth is partly what I try to do in my book.    ( J is for Junk Economics)

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
321
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
329
Views

Re: Health Insurance, not health care

329 Views
Message 19 of 28

@s761539r wrote:

The liberals at AARP are at it again. Blasting out an email that only showed only one side.  This is about insurance not free health care.  Every other class of insurance is based on risk, health insurance is no different.  It's not up to young people and taxpayers to subsidize your insurance.

 

Young citizens already give you SS and Medicare, now you are demanding another welfare program?  Don't give me that crap about I paid in.  There is no money in the trust fund, just IOUs.

 

Blast away!


Actually this current issue is only about - Health Access - not Healthcare or Health Insurance

 

And the Access is only for the Wealthy

 

But you seem to be selectively choosing which Poison upsets you

 

I'm confused about why you seem to be so concerned about Government Giveaways to the Poor and Elderly

 

But you didn't mention anything at all about the Free Giveaways the US Government gives to those who don;t require it

 

For Example - Investing is also about RISK but it's also about Income  - and just like in your argument about Insurance why should most of us who are - either - Young People or Tax Payers  - be paying more on our Income then a Hedge Fund Manager

 

It's not up to young people and taxpayers to subsidize Investment Income

 

Carried Interest

Many hedge funds are structured to take advantage of carried interest. Under this structure, a fund is treated as a partnership. The founders and fund managers are the general partners, while the investors are the limited partners. The founders also own the management company that runs the hedge fund. The managers earn the 20% performance fee of the carried interest as the general partner of the fund.

 

Hedge fund managers are compensated with this carried interest; their income from the fund is taxed as a return on investments as opposed to a salary or compensation for services rendered.

 

The incentive fee is taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 20% as opposed to ordinary income tax rates, where the top rate is 39.6%. This represents significant tax savings for hedge fund managers.

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
329
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
332
Views

Re: Health Insurance, not health care

332 Views
Message 20 of 28

When a picture is the best descripter:

 

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
332
Views