U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-12-2017, 05:14 PM
 
Location: next up where ever I go
588 posts, read 345,859 times
Reputation: 2087

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMKSarah View Post
Oh Lord,

Misty,

I've got some very good legal experience as a federal litigation paralegal in the employment litigation field for the defense of the big corps.

Finding counsel that will take your case for no MONEY is next to impossible. I have only seen two, which was a 5 year fight, which our side settled in the end to the detriment of those that fought our side. They paid so much, we, I am ashamed to say had the deep pockets to grind them into the ground and I was right in there making it happen. They took a settlement, it was not enough to my opinion, but there was no way they could continue without a backup. I am sure they mortgaged their homes, borrowed from friends and family, raised their credit card debt to the limit and beyond.

Was it worth it. I will never know. That being said, I left that field after that. I knew they had a case, but their attorney did not ask the right questions. Oh. I knew the answers. But they did not ask the right questions. So I knew. But they did not and we did not have any legal duty to tell them the questions nor the answers.

And yes, Misty, they filed under disparate impact. Did not mean S@it. We won.
Oh, and Misty, after making the mistake that I told an acquaintance, in a bar, that I what I did for a living and the case I was working on I got so much backlash that from then on, for 5 years I told people I sold shoes. An attorney, long before, did the same thing...anyone ask him what he did for a living...he just said...I sell shoes.

People always believed him. He did and still does argue in front of the Supreme Court at the state level.
He's very good.

And he looks like a shoe salesman. I am sure even now, more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-12-2017, 05:59 PM
 
29,830 posts, read 34,918,975 times
Reputation: 11752
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
Partly true for Medicare and Medicaid, not true for ACA. Obamacare insurance is provided by private insurance companies. There is still a huge private insurance industry that is not part of the Obamacare exchanges.

And even then, all we are talking about is the insurer, not the providers of health care. Even with Medicare, all health care is delivered by private industry.
It is regulated with rules and governance by government and financial support especially Medicaid expansion. Insurance companies can't even on their own decide what to or not to include in their policies etc. That's why the call for reform when you are told you have to buy a product that is not a free market. Even with car insurance you don't need any insurance if you don't want to own a car or home owners if you rent or own outright. I am not advocating a health care system all thrown to free markets. But much of the research and technology to help us solve this problem will be found in the creative and financial genius of the technology machine that has overwhelmed us.

Baby Boomers per this thread are going to have to be the ones to bear the burden of transition from what we have now that is rapidly being outdated to hopefully future solutions. Retire now hmmmmm that's a risky call even if Medicare eligible and having employer insurance.

Last edited by TuborgP; 03-12-2017 at 06:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 06:26 PM
 
649 posts, read 555,515 times
Reputation: 1877
Here is my solution, based on a pure free market. Get government out of the subsidy market entirely. If you want insurance, buy it, with zero subsidies. If you don't, don't. No more medicaid, no more medicare, no social security, no welfare, no unemployment, no social programs whatsoever. THAT is a true free market society.

Change the law that requires hospitals to provide care regardless of ability to pay, you can't pay on the spot or don't have insurance, sorry about that, die on the floor for all we care.

You have insurance, never filed a claim, but guess what, your insurance just cancelled you because you were going to cost them money. Because that impacts the bottom line.

Think drug companies and medical providers charge a lot now, wait until it's a purely free market. Only the very rich will be able to afford any sort of care, but again, who cares.

If this is the kind of society that America wants, that is sad, but that is the impression that I get from a great many posters on this board. And from the 60+ million people that voted for this administration. Ann Rand indeed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Haiku
4,188 posts, read 2,607,728 times
Reputation: 6178
One of the hallmarks that divides a developed nation from the 3rd world/undeveloped nation is how its citizens are treated. Third world, is pretty much dog eat dog - don't count on the government for anything. First world, the populace is cared for. And why not - a thriving economy needs a healthy, educated population to grow. It amazes me that so many people think it it's a good idea to make America into a third-world country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 06:41 PM
 
29,830 posts, read 34,918,975 times
Reputation: 11752
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG120 View Post
Here is my solution, based on a pure free market. Get government out of the subsidy market entirely. If you want insurance, buy it, with zero subsidies. If you don't, don't. No more medicaid, no more medicare, no social security, no welfare, no unemployment, no social programs whatsoever. THAT is a true free market society.

Change the law that requires hospitals to provide care regardless of ability to pay, you can't pay on the spot or don't have insurance, sorry about that, die on the floor for all we care.

You have insurance, never filed a claim, but guess what, your insurance just cancelled you because you were going to cost them money. Because that impacts the bottom line.

Think drug companies and medical providers charge a lot now, wait until it's a purely free market. Only the very rich will be able to afford any sort of care, but again, who cares.

If this is the kind of society that America wants, that is sad, but that is the impression that I get from a great many posters on this board. And from the 60+ million people that voted for this administration. Ann Rand indeed.
Not just Ayn Rand but the profit motivation will drive innovation and technology to find solutions and create returns on investment. It may just may bring more private sector capital and innovation to the market. Even with smart phones and the rapid acceleration of technology affordable almost as smart phones are available for the low income folks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 06:42 PM
 
29,830 posts, read 34,918,975 times
Reputation: 11752
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
One of the hallmarks that divides a developed nation from the 3rd world/undeveloped nation is how its citizens are treated. Third world, is pretty much dog eat dog - don't count on the government for anything. First world, the populace is cared for. And why not - a thriving economy needs a healthy, educated population to grow. It amazes me that so many people think it it's a good idea to make America into a third-world country.
That is only the last hundred years or so. Prior to that you had the deserving and undeserving poor. The new deal put the end on much of that thinking however we have now begun to run out of the money to pay for it.

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/hist...tory-essay.php

Quote:
In what ways was 19th century welfare provision shaped by the socially constructed distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor and with what consequences for these different groups in terms of the type of welfare assistance available to them?.
The origins of the Welfare State in the United Kingdom go back to Elizabethan times. The introduction of the Poor Laws was the first legislative attempt to ensure that the poor had the means to live. This method continued until the Industrial Revolution, when provision for the poor changed.
The Welfare State in its modern form began with the introduction of reforms between 1906 and 1914 by the Liberal Government. These reforms included the introduction of National Insurance, Old Age Pensions and Free School Meals.
In the increasingly complex society that emerged in the 19th century industrialised Britain, there was , and has continued t be, a need to support people who are unable to cope without state social welfare provision and bring order to social life.
The Second World War then led to the development of welfare legislation designed to ensure that everybody in the United Kingdom had access to quality healthcare
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 06:53 PM
 
29,830 posts, read 34,918,975 times
Reputation: 11752
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour View Post
One of the hallmarks that divides a developed nation from the 3rd world/undeveloped nation is how its citizens are treated. Third world, is pretty much dog eat dog - don't count on the government for anything. First world, the populace is cared for. And why not - a thriving economy needs a healthy, educated population to grow. It amazes me that so many people think it it's a good idea to make America into a third-world country.
Interestingly there are two pieces of literature that perhaps best define the ideological construct we are now seeing play out. One is the all familiar Ayn Rand and her writings on Objectivism and the other which is the counter balancing story a Traveler from Alrturia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Traveler_from_Altruria

Quote:
Set during the early 1890s in a fashionable summer resort somewhere on the East Coast of the United States, the book is narrated by a Mr Twelvemough, a popular author of light fiction who has been selected to function as host to a visitor from the faraway island of Altruria called Mr Homos. Homos has come all the way to the United States to experience first-hand everyday life in the country which prides itself to represent democracy and equality, to see for himself how the principle that "all men are created equal" is being practiced.
However, due to Altruria's secluded existence very little is known about that state, so Twelvemough and his circle of acquaintances, all of whom are staying at the same hotel, are more eager to learn something about Altruria than to explain American life and institutions. To their dismay, it becomes gradually clear to everyone involved in the conversations with Mr Homos—who in the course of the novel becomes less and less reluctant to talk about his own country—that the United States is greatly lagging behind Altruria in practically every aspect of life, be it political, economical, cultural, or moral. Thus, in the novel the island state of Altruria serves as a foil to America, whose citizens, compared to Altrurians, appear selfish, obsessed with money, and emotionally imbalanced. Mainly, A Traveller from Altruria is a critique of unfettered capitalism and its consequences, and of the Gilded Age in particular.
It is this thinking that shapes much of what we as Boomers will see play out and will define our senior year existence in many ways. It is in some ways the replay of the sixties left vs the sixties right and the John Birch society. It is also the emergence of a new wave of young Libertarians v young progressives each viewing the older Boomers as having failed society in many ways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 06:53 PM
 
649 posts, read 555,515 times
Reputation: 1877
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Not just Ayn Rand but the profit motivation will drive innovation and technology to find solutions and create returns on investment. It may just may bring more private sector capital and innovation to the market. Even with smart phones and the rapid acceleration of technology affordable almost as smart phones are available for the low income folks.
Unfortunately, I work in public health, and I don't see either the health care industry or the insurers stepping up to bring the costs down on anything. It's the exact opposite and I lack the faith in either industry to police themselves.

It's the American way to want the best and be the best. That requires money, lot's of money, and it's also the American way to make as much as we can, regardless of the impact on others or the environment. The health care industry is no different than the big banks or the auto companies. Privatize profit, socialize risk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 07:06 PM
 
29,830 posts, read 34,918,975 times
Reputation: 11752
Quote:
Originally Posted by MG120 View Post
Unfortunately, I work in public health, and I don't see either the health care industry or the insurers stepping up to bring the costs down on anything. It's the exact opposite and I lack the faith in either industry to police themselves.

It's the American way to want the best and be the best. That requires money, lot's of money, and it's also the American way to make as much as we can, regardless of the impact on others or the environment. The health care industry is no different than the big banks or the auto companies. Privatize profit, socialize risk.
True and both the big banks and auto companies had to evolve as the acceleration of technology caught them behind the rapidly changing curve. We can't regulate what has already become obsolete and by the time we figure what is new out and try to regulate it things have changed. What we don't know is how much innovation in health care has been stalled by the hand of government during the Obama years? Yes there was innovation but could there have been more?
By picking winners in the energy industry we backed renewables that were not yet ready and didn't allow market innovation and technology to fully go where it could have. Free markets and Wall street allow capital to flow where it has the best chance of being productive and producing change. Silicon Valley is a perfect example.
There will be set backs and decisions that are ill advised but there will probably also be greater progress and ultimately greater gains.

It is profit that provides the motivation for capital to flow there. Isn't that why you invest? Profit! Biotechs are horrible risk investments but because of greater than average profit potential, capital flows and start ups are born and innovative cures are created. Without capital markets would that happen? That is the magic of the profit motive in driving innovation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-12-2017, 08:01 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,547 posts, read 44,105,067 times
Reputation: 15160
Quote:
By picking winners in the energy industry we backed renewables that were not yet ready and didn't allow market innovation and technology to fully go where it could have. Free markets and Wall street allow capital to flow where it has the best chance of being productive and producing change. Silicon Valley is a perfect example.

It is profit that provides the motivation for capital to flow there. Isn't that why you invest? Profit!
Yes, my investments are doing swimmingly. But, not everyone has a portfolio. Not by a long shot.

So, unfettered, unregulated capitalism trumps (no pun intended) ALL??

No, sorry, in my view the world is too heavily populated and there is too much imbalance in all areas of life in the US and elsewhere - there need to be controls via regulation - "innovation" needs to slow down - and redistribution via taxation within the bounds of common sense needs acceleration - starting with a rollback of the unnecessary and unfunded tax cuts - so that people are assured of at least the basics.

We've gone way too far to go back 100 years.

My ancestors arrived in the US from Europe in 1910. Right now, given the Congressional extreme r-wing nutjobs and our know-nothing, bi-polar puppet president who appoints government enemies like Pruitt, De Vos and the failed Puzder, and who will do whatever Ryan/Price/Bannon/Pence recommend, it's beginning to look like 100 years may very well be the sell-by date.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top