Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everything is not about money though. My dil and her family have a good quality of life in the UK. Neither my husband's son nor his wife have more than two years of education beyond high school but they live in a nice house, have a newer car than we do, the kids have toys, parents have smartphones, etc. They are able to take a vacation every year--people get lots more time off over there than they do here.
They live in a not so great area for jobs because her parents live across the street and that makes for good babysitting. But they could re-locate easily enough if they chose to. No worries about losing their health insurance if they move.
My actual blood relatives in the UK are well off and live in a beautiful house. They are retired, travel to France a lot or just travel to the south of England for a warm weather vacation. Their sons went to Oxford and Cambridge and there are tons of opportunities for them both in England and all over the world.
My husband's old school chum lives in a nice condo type home with a large garden and its own brook. It's just outside of London and he and his lady friend tour the country playing in chess tournaments. The woman friend is extremely wealthy. Not a bad quality of life either.
I know people in the UK from many walks of life but their quality of life is always pretty good. Of course there probably are homeless living on the streets just like we have here--probably the mentally ill, just like here. But their government is good at helping people who are down on their luck. I think it makes for kinder and gentler people. Less cut throat competition.
My husband, coming from the UK, is ready to go back due to the politics here. Politics in the UK are apparently more liberal than what we have here. He totally misses the NHS, as they all do when they come here.
What I'm saying is that a country should serve its people, not the people serving the Very Rich. Government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people. No country is perfect but all we seem to do here is chase money. Work, work, work. Long hours, short vacations, no health insurance. We need to bite the bullet and create a single payer health insurance system. I'm sure there is someone with the brains to figure out how to do it. Just look at what so many other civilized countries have done and do it.
My husband's family, from his sister, all young college graduates and own homes, but one just came to America recently. She owns no car. Her sister can't afford airfare to come visit her father in law in USA despite graduate from top high school, the same one that Richard Branson's daughter graduated from. She is a doctor graduated from top medical school in London.
Yes I've heard of the vacation, but I'm not impressed because I've been there 4 months. Cheap low cost flight to Spain or Italy for less than 50 GBP. They do have more vacation in general but my kid's also got 3 offers from companies that range from 20 days PTO to unlimited PTO.
My husband does not miss NHS because he and his family rarely used them. His mom didn't go to hospital when she first gave birth to his sister even. They have been reasonably healthy, walked most their life, you can't say the same about American people.
I think a major question is: what does a job have to do with health insurance? Why should they be tied together? The only people who need to go to a doctor are people with jobs? No, that doesn't make sense. Unemployed people need medical care too. Disabled people who can't work need medical care. Retired people do not work and they need health insurance. Kids don't work and they need health insurance. Everyone living person needs health insurance so why is it tied to a job?
And why should they not be? Why do we penalize people who are working and contributing to our economy and our Social Security.
Last edited by NewbieHere; 12-17-2016 at 11:32 PM..
LOL.. no.. min wage is NOT intended or was NEVER intended for teenager...
Min wage was established by FDR to be a living wage - it was always intended to BE a living wage regardless of the job or the age or skill level of the person doing it.
Sorry.. the whole"teenage " thing is absolute rubbish.
On May 24, 1937, President Roosevelt sent the bill to Congress with a message that America should be able to give "all our able-bodied working men and women a fair day's pay for a fair day's work." He continued: "A self-supporting and self-respecting democracy can plead no justification for the existence of child labor, no economic reason for chiseling worker's wages or stretching workers' hours."
While the bill was also part of a broader bill curtailing child labor laws.. the min was was established so that no worker working a 40 hour work week need live in poverty.. .and as the first quote says.. fair days work for a fair day's pay.
And again..given the realities that most jobs added to the market are min wage jobs- do you think there are enough teenagers to fill such positions? Considering they have to and should be going to school to further their education.
It's completely ridiculous that min wage is intended only for teenagers.
As for telling me I should move to China or Russia - that's also absolutely ridiculous. So I can't work to make my country a better place for all people to live - not just the 1%. I should just hobble away from my birth place and accept sub standard conditions for me and everyone else? Why?
Besides.. France,Italy Germany.. those are democratic industrialized nations that enjoy freedoms with some of the elements I speak of and wish to have here. Ironically , many of them were originally adapted from US policy PRIOR to the Reagan era.
Our nation was at it's strongest when the min wage was a liveable sustainable wage, when unions were strong.. when the rich paid their fair share in taxes (and still remained rich) .. and so on.
I won't just hobble away and watch my country lose it'sgreatness out of selfishness and greed of the elite few who seems to currently be controling government, including our now President elect who spends his life and career enticing politicians to bend the rules to suite him and the expense of the rest of us.. and who is now loading his cabinet with millionaires and billionaires who basically wrote and created the laws that gave them the advantage. As if they are suddenly going to change the rules back for the rest of us.. pfft..
No. I will stay in the country I love and make it great again.. by returning to economic principle that works for everyone.. not just the few.
It's in my area and has been for 40 years. I didn't get pay minimum wage either, I got paid more than minimum wage when I was teenager.
You keep repeat the rhetoric about the top 1% and the same rhetoric that the Democrats relying on for years, hence they lost big this election. Keep vilifying the rich. The whole country, almost 33 states have GOP governor. The people of America have rejected these theme. They want jobs.
And again.. the numbers I shared with you are AVERAGES in California. .. so while there may be companies in California that offer full health benefits at 100% - that probably pulls down the average contribution to the employee while raising the average for employer.. but it doesn't erase the fact that the average contribution costs are what they are.. and that many plans have a deductible at the averages I mentioned.
and in california.. their largest employer is the University of California.. and they are NOT on the list as providing 100% coverage.
I'm not exagerating.. YOU are overstating (and actually making general comments) to try and make it fit your argument.
Once again.. the facts are informing my opinion.
BTW.. here are the top 5 employers in Cali
University of California, Davis (20,295 employees) ...
Disneyland (26,001) ...
University of California, Los Angeles (27,489) ...
UCLA Health System (35,543) ...
Naval Base San Diego (42,951)
I think from what I've read my kid will pay $20 per month for all three insurance, health, dental,vision.
I think from what I've read my kid will pay $20 per month for all three insurance, health, dental,vision.
You need to clarify more on your posts.
Most likely, if it's a plan purchased on the markeplace, it's a catastrophic plan. Which is a llowed for healthy people under a certain age. Doesn't come with the same coverage as just about everything else.. it's simply catastrophic.
Either that or he is very heavily subsidized.
My questions for you:
What state?
What level plan (catastrophic, bronze, silver, gold or platinum).
What is deductible?
What is copayments.
If catastrophic what does it cover.. what doesn't it cover...
If you're trying to make a point, you need to be more specific so the rest of us can understand where you're coming from.
Or is your kid getting htis from his high tech job.. which .. congrats.. great.. he's got one of those! But again.. it ignores what everyone else faces - if the circumstance i just said is true, it's the exception NOT the norm.
NewbieHere
My husband does not miss NHS because he and his family rarely used them. His mom didn't go to hospital when she first gave birth to his sister even. They have been reasonably healthy, walked most their life, you can't say the same about American people.
Whether your husband uses the NHS has nothing to do with it. My husband rarely used it either. He had a better lifestyle over there with time to walk and exercise. His only health problems were a bike accident when he was a kid and one car accident much later. That's why it's senseless to say that you don't need health insurance because you are healthy. You can be one step away from getting run over by a bus!
Originally Posted by in_newengland
I think a major question is: what does a job have to do with health insurance? Why should they be tied together? The only people who need to go to a doctor are people with jobs? No, that doesn't make sense. Unemployed people need medical care too. Disabled people who can't work need medical care. Retired people do not work and they need health insurance. Kids don't work and they need health insurance. Everyone living person needs health insurance so why is it tied to a job?
NewbieHere
And why should they not be? Why do we penalize people who are working and contributing to our economy and our Social Security.
Simple. Because of the law of averages. Sooner or later, no matter what you may think, you will need medical help. It's like a teenager saying they don't need health insurance because they are so young and they never get sick. Then one day they're in a car crash. No health insurance. Great. Or they come into contact with someone who is carrying some weird disease or they have an allergic reaction to a bug bite or a food. Maybe they have a seizure. So do they just die?
As for penalizing people who are working, everyone has worked and contributed. Do you think the retired people were born at age 65? They were young once and they worked and paid into the system so that the older people could retire. They probably didn't use the health care very much when they were working, not unless they were in an accident or maybe if they needed antibiotics for an infection. But it was there when they needed it and they paid into it anyway. It has to be there when they retire and can't work and pay into it anymore.
Tying health care to a job only benefits a few. For most people it holds them back because they always have to consider the health benefits before they can accept a better job. I've been there so I know. There isn't that much flexibility in terms of advancement for most people.
We just need single payer system and get it over with. We do not need the superfluous materialistic objects that many Americans have been duped into thinking they "need". We don't need a luxurious standard of living; we need peace of mind. We need good health.
If Congress kills the ACA, it will kill Medicare as well.
There is no getting around the fact that the ACA has provisions that extended the predicted date of the Medicare's Trust Fund insolvency from 2017 to 2028.
Coincidentally, Rep. Ryan and Sec. Price are ready to step up to the plate and "save" Medicare.
If Congress kills the ACA, it will kill Medicare as well.
There is no getting around the fact that the ACA has provisions that extended the predicted date of the Medicare's Trust Fund insolvency from 2017 to 2028.
Coincidentally, Rep. Ryan and Sec. Price are ready to step up to the plate and "save" Medicare.
Divide and conquer. All in a day's work.
Along that line:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
Trump promised he wouldn't touch Social Security or Medicare, after reading this it seems that maybe he was just 'joking' when he said that...
Quote:
"Bloomberg reported that when Trump met with House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) on May 12, he said privately that he favors cutting Social Security on moral grounds but knew that declaring it would seriously hurt his chances in November.
"The following day, Trump’s senior policy adviser Sam Clovis said during a conference in Washington that Trump would consider changes in Social Security and Medicare “after the administration’s been in place.”
Now, in view of that look at the two pertinent cabinet picks:
Quote:
Mick Mulvaney OMB"A review of the bills Mulvaney has introduced reveals a strong appetite to cutting government spending, especially Medicare and Social Security. He has repeatedly pointed out that both entitlement programs are headed for bankruptcy and must be reformed".
Tom Price HHS"Just a day after President-elect Donald Trump picked Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, Price proposed budget process changes that would enable automatic across-the-board cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
A new column today from the Center for American Progress outlines how Rep. Price's proposal for long-term debt limits enforced by automatic cuts would harm low- and middle-income people."
If Congress kills the ACA, it will kill Medicare as well.
There is no getting around the fact that the ACA has provisions that extended the predicted date of the Medicare's Trust Fund insolvency from 2017 to 2028.
Coincidentally, Rep. Ryan and Sec. Price are ready to step up to the plate and "save" Medicare.
Divide and conquer. All in a day's work.
They very well could try to kill both.
OTOH, it would destroy the health insurance companies and decimate the hospitals as well as putting many healthcare providers out of work/business. In short, the healthcare industry itself would very likely go under. But that's not going to happen, the industry has very powerful lobyists plus they have a LOT of money and wouldn't hesitate to totally slime both Price and Ryan if it came to that. The TV commercials would almost write themselves, they would be brutal.
It will be interesting to watch though.
Last edited by Weichert; 12-19-2016 at 11:07 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
