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.
throw everyone on medicare , better link income/assets to premiums , and call it a day . remove disability from social security , make it part of welfare which it is and stop the rampant disability fraud . you can fund medicare and ss with that money saved by controlling disability better . .
just watch a few episodes of judge judy to see how bad disability abuse is .
problem solved .
Last edited by mathjak107; 01-20-2017 at 04:16 AM..
So submariner, what exactly are you suggesting? I am all ears. Hell the whole US is all ears. It is a huge problem as to how we provide healthcare for everyone yet maintain low costs and high quality. It seems that whatever system is implemented one of those things suffers. I don't pretend to know the answer but I feel strongly that we cannot abandon the most needy people.
You say: "I feel strongly that we cannot abandon the most needy people". We have too many people today who can not afford coverage. We have already abandoned them with the ACA. Fixing the ACA is not 'abandoning' those who have already been abandoned by the ACA. We need healthcare coverage for everyone. People touting the ACA do not seem to understand that abandoning our citizens is wrong.
Because we do have litigation, we do not have sawdust on operating room floors, doctors wearing bodily fluid stained aprons and smoking over patients. So some litigation is good.
Our doctors are NOT on a government pay-scale. There is an incentive to become a doctor. This allows there to be a rigorous process they must go through and many prospective doctors do not complete the process. All of this keeps our minimum standard high. Our over-all doctor to patient ratio in the USA is not a bad one. This is a good thing.
There is an incentive for doctors to become specialists, therefore we have lots of specialists. With lots of specialists, our waiting lines are short. This is also good.
There are many metrics where our medical system beats those of other nations.
Our problems are that we have too much litigation and not enough oversight in pharmaceutical industry and medical implements industry. Our healthcare industry costs too much. Litigation and out-of-control profits in the pharmaceutical and medical implements industries, seem to be the root cause of these issues.
throw everyone on medicare , better link income/assets to premiums , and call it a day . remove disability from social security , make it part of welfare which it is and stop the rampant disability fraud . you can fund medicare and ss with that money saved by controlling disability better . .
just watch a few episodes of judge judy to see how bad disability abuse is .
problem solved .
I saw TV ads from lawyers solicitations people for disability insurance. They know how to help people claim for disability. So it's possible.
So you have a million dollars. Your retired and need to make that money last for over thirty years. Assuming a 4% annual withdrawal that is only $40K a year. If you have to spend tons of money on health care premiums that have gone way up due to Obama Care rules, don't you deserve some help from the taxpayers?
Ahhhh.... now it comes out... the 'entitlement' argument that taxpayers owe you something... You aren't owed ANYTHING that isn't constitutional/Bill of Rights. Everyone's (well OC's subscribers get the brunt of it, but it was a matter of choice) premiums went way up. Deal with it.
First of all, the withdrawal rate of 4% is dwarfed by the return any investor can easily generate (even after you pay a top-notch advisor)... I retired at 46, and if I only had $1M in (tax-exempt/deferred) investments, the calculations demonstrated (assuming nothing utterly decimating affected our society, which would affect us all) would last me until 86. Not a safe enough margin for me, but for this is based on your scenario statements. Rule of thumb I was taught was to take your last-year's salary, multiply by 20 (I use 30), and that is the minimum amount you need to have saved at retirement age to maintain a basic lifestyle. Do you stuff your money in a mattress?
I evaluated the OC rates (BTW, the subsidies provided are considered income, and so they are taxed), but more importantly, the true coverage that it provided. I found, in my specific scenario, it was far cheaper to buy a private policy (as I am in the high-risk pool), than to have massive co-pays and denial of services under OC. The OC plan, IMHO, is an utter failure, and having competition among insurers provides an advantage to consumers. I would rather pay $1200/mo for private insurance that covers almost all of my typical $85K/year medical bills, than have OC for $85/mo, and I have to dish out over $45K a year on non-reimbursed bills.
That's not always the best strategy. Sometimes it is better to be poor than have just a little. My SO's cousin has Medicare and Medicaid is his secondary. Medicaid pays his Medicare premiums and ALL his healthcare is free. No co pays and all his prescriptions are free too. This is because he is low income. He worked all his life but lived in a very high COL area and barely scraped by.
Perhaps free, but then there is free healthcare, and then there is good healthcare. Sort of like how much of Europe and socialized-medicine countries work. You have stated a sample size of one (SO's cousin). That demonstrates existence of free healthcare. States nothing about good healthcare. In my 20 years experience in the healthcare environment, as well as the spouse and literally almost all my relatives, pray that the cousin does not have anything medically really bad happen to him/her. Youse gets whats youse pays for....
Your argument is that it is all free... so be it... but most would never, ever trade places when it comes to medical care. The docs/hospitals we go to in the US don't take Medicare/Medicaid, because the reimbursement is so poor, and thus the quality of care is suspect.
I saw TV ads from lawyers solicitations people for disability insurance. They know how to help people claim for disability. So it's possible.
Oh Geez... ambulance chasers.... First of all, federally-funded disability is taxable income, private is not. Anyone who does not take out private term disability insurance plan when they are young, are true risk-takers with their livelihood as they age. At 25 years old the plans are really cheap, and will pay to 65 yo or beyond, and income-level changes are available. I argue that this is as important as life insurance (unless you have no kids, and then you don't need life insurance if you chose a self-sufficient spouse), but protecting your income is #1.
Oh Geez... ambulance chasers.... First of all, federally-funded disability is taxable income, private is not. Anyone who does not take out private term disability insurance plan when they are young, are true risk-takers with their livelihood as they age. At 25 years old the plans are really cheap, and will pay to 65 yo or beyond, and income-level changes are available. I argue that this is as important as life insurance (unless you have no kids, and then you don't need life insurance if you chose a self-sufficient spouse), but protecting your income is #1.
I got the feeling it was federal government disability.
Self employed and retired at 61. Even though we were promised that I could keep my insurance we lost it and was also promised that I could keep my doctor and lost him too.
So we were forced to go on the exchange and did not want to take the subsidies at all. I looked back and realized that no one read the plan before they voted on it, we were told that we have to pass the bill before we know what is in the bill. We were told that our premiums would go down. We were lied to just to get this bill passed.
So as everyone takes their mortgage deduction, their deduction if they have children etc. I took the subsidy because that is the way they wrote the bill. If they didn't want me to take it because of my net worth than don't offer it to me and certainly don't write it into the bill.
I want the ACA repelled and replace with insurance that I choose to have. If I want a bare bones plan with a high deductible or the plan our Senators and Congressmen have that should be my right. And please no exclusions like if you belong to a union, are a member of Congress, if you are a public employee. Why should a certain segment of our society be exempt from having insurance like they are with the current ACA plan, if it was great wouldn't everyone want it?
What plan does Congress have that you do not have access to? My understanding is that Congress must get their coverage on the same ACA exchanges as everyone pursuing individual coverage. The difference, and special treatment, is that they get to keep the employer subsidy that they got before the ACA. They are employed by a large organization that provides health insurance (US Government), so technically, they should not even have to use the exchanges. A special provision was passed to force them on the exchanges, but it let them keep their employer subsidies.
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.
Congress
