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.
That is completely untrue. I have known several people who were approved for disability and it sure did not take 2 years and many hoops to get it. It took the report of two doctors attesting to the disability and they were approved from between 3-6 months. On the other hand, I have known a woman who lost her insurance when the company for which she worked closed down and went bankrupt. At the time she was under treatment for breast cancer. When her insurance ended so did her treatment....and her life. I've known another woman in her 60s who had worked hard all of her life, lost her job and insurance, got sick, had to spend what she had saved for retirement just to survive. I know people WITH insurance who can not get the treatment the doctors say they need because the insurance company refuses to pay. It drives me nuts when people try to use the scare tactic of "the government will keep you from getting health care and you'll have to wait in line, etc. etc." I'm retired and have to tell you that Medicare is just as good if not better than any insurance I ever had. It's been working just fine for us old folks for decades now....and it beats some HMO accountant deciding that because I'm not 20 I don't deserve treatment.
Well, I will let you wander on over to MS World - Patients Helping Patients!, and post in the employment and SSDI forum on how you know only several people to the hundreds posting in there for help because they are desperate, cannot work, and cannot get approval for a disease where the government still thinks is made up. They have to pay hundreds of dollars on a lawyer, and spend 2 years trying to build enough of a case to receive just a scrap of money so they can stay fed. But thats not all, many who are disabled with MS, also have Medicare, where they are charged 30% copay for the treatment they choose. So of that 600+ dollars they have to pay for there meds, there is maybe 100.00 per month left to live on. Where in hell is the justice and good government only out to help the poor in this mess of a system?
Government workers have great health coverage and much cheaper than what's available in small business. So, right there - Id much rather pay their rates.
Ahem... who is paying into the kitty that the 'public servants' take their salary and benefits from?
Look in the mirror.
Democracy (Socialist) ends, when the voters start voting themselves benefits paid for by "other people" - - - which invariably turns out to be themselves.
Put it this way - there is a finite supply of hours that physicians, nurses and technicians can work. There is a finite supply of hospital beds. There is a finite supply of medication, and resources.
Right now, "money" is used as the means to ration it all.
If you're rich, or can tap into a pool of money, you can enjoy a lot of medical care.
If you're not, and cannot tap into a pool of money, you won't enjoy a lot of medical care.
But if suddenly EVERYONE is told they can access all the medical care they want / need, guess what will happen?
Rationing, delays, triage, suffering and more... all the while, the administrative overhead increases, draining more resources to deal with it.
The only way to overcome those limitations is to INCREASE the number of trained medical care givers, the number of hospital beds (or cheaper alternatives), and reduce the overhead expense associated with bureaucracy. Nothing in "Socialized" health insurance will deal with those issues.
Ahem... who is paying into the kitty that the 'public servants' take their salary and benefits from?
Look in the mirror.
Democracy (Socialist) ends, when the voters start voting themselves benefits paid for by "other people" - - - which invariably turns out to be themselves.
Put it this way - there is a finite supply of hours that physicians, nurses and technicians can work. There is a finite supply of hospital beds. There is a finite supply of medication, and resources.
Right now, "money" is used as the means to ration it all.
If you're rich, or can tap into a pool of money, you can enjoy a lot of medical care.
If you're not, and cannot tap into a pool of money, you won't enjoy a lot of medical care.
But if suddenly EVERYONE is told they can access all the medical care they want / need, guess what will happen?
Rationing, delays, triage, suffering and more... all the while, the administrative overhead increases, draining more resources to deal with it.
The only way to overcome those limitations is to INCREASE the number of trained medical care givers, the number of hospital beds (or cheaper alternatives), and reduce the overhead expense associated with bureaucracy. Nothing in "Socialized" health insurance will deal with those issues.
again, I think of our founding fathers warnings when they founded this great nation.
"if we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy"
-Thomas Jefferson
And Medicare is bleeding money, and is fiscally insolvent as it is. Premiums will have to be tripled plus additional taxes raised to offset its cost to make it solvent.
Right now you are the recipient of an extremely subsidized health plan. Of course you like it, you're not paying your fair share for it. The big question becomes when we find put the total cost for the proposed health plan and find out how much it affect every person: is it significantly cheaper and better than the system we have now for the majority of people and not just the ones getting subsidies?
Until we get the financial facts, everything is just heresay skewed by peoples' political leanings.
#1. I worked for 50 years and paid into the system every day in which it was operational....paid my income tax, paid my ss tax, paid my medicare tax after medicare came into being, paid my property tax, paid my sales tax, paid tax on my savings, and paid all of my "user fees." After 50 years of paying "my share" I don't feel the least bit of regret for getting what I was promised.
#2. A large, large reason for the financial problems of ss and medicare right now is that administration after administration has taken the money "invested" by those of us paying into the system and using it for other purposes. It is the same as if you are paying your mortgage every month and yet when your 30 years of paying your mortgage ends and you ask for clear title to your property they tell you that they haven't applied your payments to your mortgage but instead have used it to build a new office building.
#1. I worked for 50 years and paid into the system every day in which it was operational....paid my income tax, paid my ss tax, paid my medicare tax after medicare came into being, paid my property tax, paid my sales tax, paid tax on my savings, and paid all of my "user fees." After 50 years of paying "my share" I don't feel the least bit of regret for getting what I was promised.
#2. A large, large reason for the financial problems of ss and medicare right now is that administration after administration has taken the money "invested" by those of us paying into the system and using it for other purposes. It is the same as if you are paying your mortgage every month and yet when your 30 years of paying your mortgage ends and you ask for clear title to your property they tell you that they haven't applied your payments to your mortgage but instead have used it to build a new office building.
If you've been paying taxes for 50 years you paid far less into the SS system and federal system in general than current taxpayers. You got a sweet deal. Current FICA tax is 15.3%. What was it when you started 1%?
The fact is even though you have been faithful in paying your taxes for 50 years and Medicare since its inception, what you paid isn't coming remotely close to what it costs for your care. Medical inflation, longer life expectancy, expensive treatments like chemotherapy and joint replacements have made costs far outweigh reserves hence medicare's insolvency.
So now lets extrapolate this data from medicare to the whole population. We have to make sure that we charge enough in taxes and premiums to cover 300 million people's health care,of which 40% don't pay taxes. Will 15.3% FICA be enough? Apparently not, it wasn't enough to just cover the seniors, nevermind the entire population.
This is why we need an independent souce to review the financial aspect of the plans. The CBO looked at Kennedy's plan and the results were pretty bad. It was severely underfunded and left a lot of people uninsured, atrait which I feel will describe most of the plans being brought forth. People need to realize that the combination of taxes/fees/ premiums to pay for a system with such outstanding benefits as currently proposed will be astronomical, and no politician has the guts to say so.
Poor baby. I realize these truths are very inconvenient for you. You probably don't believe smoking increases your risk of cancer, either. Not that I should have to, but:
And Medicare is bleeding money, and is fiscally insolvent as it is. Premiums will have to be tripled plus additional taxes raised to offset its cost to make it solvent.
Right now you are the recipient of an extremely subsidized health plan. Of course you like it, you're not paying your fair share for it. The big question becomes when we find put the total cost for the proposed health plan and find out how much it affect every person: is it significantly cheaper and better than the system we have now for the majority of people and not just the ones getting subsidies?
Until we get the financial facts, everything is just heresay skewed by peoples' political leanings.
Did you just say that I will need to pay nearly $400 of my $1000 SS check each month for Medicare. I think I would rather take my chances with some insurance company, if one would insure a 76 year old man. I guess we old people will just have to lie on our beds until we finally die from whatever cause since you are proclaiming that we will have to starve to death sooner or later anyway.
And Medicare is bleeding money, and is fiscally insolvent as it is. Premiums will have to be tripled plus additional taxes raised to offset its cost to make it solvent.
Right now you are the recipient of an extremely subsidized health plan. Of course you like it, you're not paying your fair share for it. The big question becomes when we find put the total cost for the proposed health plan and find out how much it affect every person: is it significantly cheaper and better than the system we have now for the majority of people and not just the ones getting subsidies?
Until we get the financial facts, everything is just heresay skewed by peoples' political leanings.
I have never taken a trip into outerspace but I paid a share of that. I did not want the Viet Nam War or the Iraq War but I paid my share for that (in more ways than money too.), I am not an investment banker or wall street broker but I paid a share for their bailouts. I don't go on the fancy trips that our politicians take on a regular basis but I pay a share for that. I have paid my share for all the pork barrel boondoggles around the country for which I have received no benefit. I have contributed thousands of hours in volunteer work for my community. I have paid my share in many ways buddy...including the money that came out of my paycheck for 50 years. We all do. It's call citizenship. And don't forget that some folks pay private health insurance for years and never use it while others pay for 3 months and end up with a serious illness that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. The same is true of medicare.
The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, primarily because of rapidly rising spending on health care.Federal outlays for Medicare and Medicaid have increased from 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 1970 to more than 5 percent in 2009; and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that under current policy, they will exceed 6 percent of GDP in 2019 and about 8 percent in
2029.
Many proposals to significantly expand insurance coverage would add to federal costs by providing large subsidies to help lower-income individuals and families purchase insurance. Those proposals would take several years to implement, but it is useful to consider the budgetary implications if they were up and running now so as to compare those costs to existing obligations. Depending on the specific policies selected, the added cost could be on the order of $100 billion. In the absence of specific constraints on growth, the new spending (or revenue losses, if tax credits were used to provide subsidies) would probably increase over time roughly with the underlying costs of health care and, thus, would grow about as
fast as spending on other federal health care programs.
From that perspective, a large-scale expansion of insurance coverage would represent a permanent increase of roughly 10 percent in the federal budgetary commitment to health care. Improving the budget outlook therefore would require that other aspects of an initiative on health care reduce the federal resources devoted to it by more than that amount (or that other federal spending or revenues be adjusted to accomplish the same end).
Rationing:
1: to supply with or put on rations2 a: to distribute as rations —often used with out b: to distribute equitably c: to use sparingly
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.