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.
^^I disagree somewhat with #3. The reason there are more expenses in the last (insert number here) months/years of life is because people tend to be sicker their last (insert number) months/years of life. Most of the SS money is going to pay the non-covered expenses. I agree with more palliative care, but that's not free either.
My argument is simple. Healthcare should not be mandated by federal government. If someone doesn't want to pay into it, they shouldn't be required to do so. If they get injured/sick/etc..., then they should have to face the music when that happens - but no one should be forced by the federal government to buy anything.
That includes:
-Social Security
-FICA
- any other program that tax dollars "goes" to but usually winds up being misappropriated by the federal government.
People are suffering and dying that have it. People are not entitled to anything. Voluntary charity and state programs can address access, individuals wants and needs are not a federal duty.
It's pretty shameful that we have so many in this country who are uninsured yet we boast how great America is. You are so worried about who is going to pay for it instead of worrying about those who are suffering and dying without it.
America's greatness isn't a function of the number of people with health insurance.
And if you aren't worried about who pays for it then you must not be paying anything in federal income taxes.
We have the problem of 1/3 of medicare expenses going to people in their last three months of life. Why? Because relatives want to keep the family member alive to collect thier social security. If someone has a greater than 90% chance of dying, they need to be cut off- plain and simple.
"1/3 of medicare expenses going to people in their last three months of life" applies across the board as a simple truism including both premature babies and emergency room patients. The most expensive treatments will nearly always be for people who are so seriously ill or injured that the majority of them will die anyway within the following three months.
That does not mean their deaths were predictable to a 90% degree of probability three months before they died. They may well have been or appeared perfectly healthy three months earlier.
And social security is hardly the major reason even to keep the elderly alive--most of them are eating their own social security.
Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 04-20-2016 at 09:08 AM..
So much for the "Affordable" part of ACA - This could potentially be the beginning of other health insurance co's following suit, if they are taking losses well into the red as well.
My argument is simple. Healthcare should not be mandated by federal government. If someone doesn't want to pay into it, they shouldn't be required to do so. If they get injured/sick/etc..., then they should have to face the music when that happens - but no one should be forced by the federal government to buy anything.
That includes:
-Social Security
-FICA
- any other program that tax dollars "goes" to but usually winds up being misappropriated by the federal government.
Then what should we do with you in your time of need? And believe it or not that time will come.
Then what should we do with you in your time of need? And believe it or not that time will come.
I have insurance. I had insurance prior to the federal government making it mandatory and imposing a tax if you fail to do so. For those who don't have insurance, the burden is on them and their families. It's their choice not to have insurance (well, it was their choice...now the nanny state says you no longer have a choice).
Having family members, who had insurance before ACA - watched their premiums go up by a few hundred per month - which doesn't seem fit the moniker of affordable any more. Countless stories of people losing their PCMs due to the ACA implementation, and knowing friends who were in a similar situation as family members, with their premiums increasing...opted to drop their insurance, because it was cheaper to pay the yearly tax for not having it. That's pretty ridiculous - universal health care is good in theory and it works in specific situations...but ACA was horribly implemented (as it was rushed) and the American individuals are paying the cost for the horrible roll out. Now United HealthCare is opting out of most of it's state exchanges due to the huge losses they are taking, by 2017. How much longer before other insurance companies follow suit? Think healthcare premiums will go down then?
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.
