Thank you for paying for my parent's heathcare.

Mr.Huck

Mr.Huck

Active member
My apologies for another NSG politics thread, but in my defense, I think this is my first, and you guys should know this.

The Affordable Care Act(AKA Obamacare) is here. It is finally becoming clear what makes it tick. Younger, healthier people pay more for insurance.

http://americanactionforum.org/research/premium-increases-for-young-invincibles-under-the-aca-and-the-impending

The estimates are roughly 260% more for insurance premiums. This offsets cost for older people and people with lower income. So basically, when you are working your ass off in you 20's, 30's and 40's you will be paying for other people's healthcare. The potential reward is getting lower cost healthcare when you retire.

It's the same thing as Social Security. You pay into it during your working years, and when you retire you are supposed to receive Social Security benefits. My dad always sarcastically thanks me for funding his retirement. That would be fine with me if I was going to get something out of it when I retire.

The problem is that Social Security is projected to run out of money in 2033, which is conveniently about the same time that I would start receiving benefits.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/social-security-and-medicare-could-run-out-sooner-than-expected/

Unless someone figures out a way to salvage the Social Security system, no one on this site is going to see a dime from it. Basically, more people are receiving benefits than are contributing.

The only possible way that the Affordable Care Act works is if the amount of money going in equals or exceeds the amount of money going out. If enough young healthy people don't sign up for this and pay the increased premiums, the ACA is dead on arrival. So PLEASE, all you 20 and 30 year olds sign up for Obamacare so that you can pay for my mom and dad's healthcare now and mine when I retire. Sorry it's going to cost a lot more, but YOLO. I just hope it doesn't go bankrupt down the road like Social Security. Anyway, thanks in advance for your support.

 
That doesn't make any sense. There's more people between the ages of 20 and 60, than there are 60+. Unless people stop making babies it should stay like that.

Mind you, I'm no expert, but isn't that how it should be?
 
Nah, cause the thing is that the population is ageing rapidly and there are about to be a shit ton more old people than there are young. Of those 20-60 year olds, there are considerably more in their fifties than twentes. It's (really simply put) on account of the baby boom after WW2, where birth rates were astronomical. Since then there has been a steady decline in birth rates which means that you and I and a comparatively small populous are going to have to foot the bill for all the retiring baby-boomers. It's the same here in Canada and our government is gearing up for the impending effects (by raising the retirement age among other things - if someone wants to cite that/correct me please do.)
 
American Action Forum is one of the most right biased sources around right now so I'm inclined to question this study...
 
THISGONBGUD.gif
 
it's called the baby boom, bro. post ww2 birth rate explosion. these people are now all entering retirement....and there's A LOT of them.
 
So here is what I am wondering. If Social Security is going bankrupt, which is verifiable fact, how is it possible that the Healthcare system wouldn't go bankrupt?

Let's say someone retires and they are getting $40,000 per year from Social Security. It is pretty easy to rack up a $40,000 medical bill, in addition to normal medical expenses. Obviously, the older you get, the more you have to spend on medical. All the elderly people who sign up for this now will have never contributed anything to it, but will be filing insurance claims. I'd kind of like to know how this thing doesn't go bankrupt on day 1.

People either have to not get sick or just die peacefully at home without accumulating huge medical bills. The whole things is based on the principle of "pay more when you use less, so later you can use more and pay less".

I'd love to know if anyone on NS has signed up on the exchanges. If so, I'm wondering what kind of questionnaires they had to complete. I would think that they are, or eventually will have to charge you extra if you tell them you engage in activities that statistically have higher injury rates: skiing.
 
As soon as all the baby boomer children hit the elderly age Canada's healthcare system is going to be fucked because the working population vs. the elderly/children is going to be damn near the opposite it was when the health care system was introduced in Canada.

I seriously think that if Canada had a system like obamacare would actually be pretty good in the near-ish future.
 
I'm no extreme right wing republican, I consider myself a moderate republican and for the record I think our party is currently represented by morons however, Obamacare should have been found unconstitutional, no doubt about it, most legal analysts even say so. It usurps power and socializes health care in this state.

Why do we need government involved in business, their record is subpar: Post Office, Social Security, DMV. Face it, government cannot run a business and has no rights (unfortunately not what the supreme court said) to intrude on businesses and FORCE people to pay higher premiums and more taxes.

And why are congress' members exempt from ObamaCare?

 
I never think government control is a good thing. but in this case it's at least better than what you had before. the american healthcare system is FUCKED UP.

mr.huck.

what should uninsured people do when they get sick?
 
gov·ern·ment

[guhv-ern-muhnt, ‐er-muhnt] Show IPA

noun1.the political direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitantsof communities, societies, and states; direction of the affairs of a state, community, etc.

I don't see anything in there that says the government should be involved in fucking healthcare

 
two words: single payer. if republicans would let it happen it would be so much better than the system now and under obamacare.
 
I would say I hate republicans but hatred isn't the right word. I think sympathy is a better one. I feel sorry that you are doomed for a life of closed minded, medieval ideas and beliefs. I'm sorry that you won't be able to think for yourself and make logical decisions that benefit the world around you. I'm sorry that you are stuck with a 20th century view of the world no matter how much it changes...turn off FOX and you may be able to learn something.
 
Right now, uninsured people go the the ER when they are sick. They aren't turned away. That is why it costs so much to go to the ER.

There is no question that insurance is too expensive right now for some people. There have to be ways of bringing the costs down, but it should be done at the state or local level. Maybe it should be something like a co op.

If health insurance cost $10 per year, there would still be people who chose not to buy it. Stupid, yes, but that is their right.

Whatever. I have never worked for an insurance company. I'm sure there is plenty of waste, and high salaries that contribute to higher costs for consumers. Still, single payer would be a cluster fuck. Giving anyone, including the government, a monopoly is a really bad idea. Many of the same people who work for insurance companies now will move over to run the government healthcare system, except now they will have no competition.

If you ski Armadas and they start to make shitty skis, you can start buying ON3P. Single payer would be like eliminating every ski company and creating a government ski company. What happens if you don't like their skis? If a bunch of people started making their own skis in their garage, the cost of government skis would most likely go up for those who couldn't make their own skis. What's stopping them from arbitrarily raising prices.

This guy who worked at the EPA, never showed up for work for 3 years and nobody noticed.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/27/ex-epa-official-guilty-of-theft/2884783/

It is way to easy in a big bureaucracies, for crap like this to happen which will ultimately lead to prices going up or benefits being reduced. At least in a corporation it is tougher for someone to get paid for not showing up for work.
 
this "pension funds will be out of money by [INSERT YEAR]" shit is so annoying. like i cant tell you how often something like this is in the news.

it depends on the payment structure and demographic variables, but the system is working, can be working and works in a lot of countries for fucking long so please anybody just calm the fuck down.
 
Fuck these programs. Markets need to be freed. It's obscene that anyone should to buy promises from the only dealer in town.
 
If you define "bankrupt" as not being able to pay your obligations in full, then you might argue Social Security will be bankrupt come 2042, using projections from the Social Security trustees, or 2052, using estimates from the Congressional Budget Office.

That's when they project the system will have exhausted its surplus, which it will begin tapping in 2018 when there is less revenue than needed to cover promised benefits.

By that logic, though, you also might argue that the U.S. government - with its roughly half-trillion-dollar deficit - is or will be bankrupt.

Some people have the impression that "bankrupt" means penniless. A full 50 percent of non-retired respondents in a recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll said they didn't think Social Security would be able to pay them a benefit when they retire.

Not true, according to government estimates.

The system still will be taking in enough revenue to cover 75 percent to 80 percent of what is currently promised.

What's more, even if benefits were reduced to that level, they still would be higher in today's dollars than what current retirees are getting, according to CBO estimates.
 
The system is working you say? I wish I could disagree by pointing at DC, but it's closed right now. If you want to make something highly expensive, inefficient, and irreversible then I suggest you pass it to the government to take care of. This has been proven thousands of times, and is extremely apparent today.

This isn't something we can just try out for a few years and reverse if it doesn't work out.
 
I don't really mind paying for your parents healthcare. I believe we are all one family of humans and helping out your parents seems alright to me....

But I'm not living in the states and the job I work when I am in the states pays under the table...and I don't have health insurance so I'm not sure if you should be thanking me.

And it isn't like one day social security will fail, even if S.S runs out of money people will still get their checks, the government will just take the money out of some other part of the budget.
 
Screw that. Support yourself. I shouldnt be responsible to pay for your damn healthcare just because im working my ass off in college for a degree that makes a lot of money. I earned it myself.
 
I honestly don't know. I'm not a sociologist or human geographer, but I don't think that it will shrink, rather it just won't grow. Because people aren't just going to up and die once they hit 60, y'know? Maybe someone in here understands demographics and wants to set me straight, but I think that's generally how it would work.
 
so if you've done any research lately which I'm sure you haven't. You were wrong this is working and it's working very well, (yes two percent of people did have to change their health plans) I'm curious as what you have to say for yourself now?
 
As far as the cost of these programs goes, there is a huge problem right now, and younger people are forced to pay for their parents and grand parents. However, the US -and global- population is aging, meaning this won't be as much of a problem in 20 years, which will hopefully lower the costs of these programs.

This paper from Harvard (hell, maybe Yoski wrote it) explains the European Welfare State, which was condemned by US conservatives in the 80's, but is now working really well.
 
13063184:integralmgmt said:
As far as the cost of these programs goes, there is a huge problem right now, and younger people are forced to pay for their parents and grand parents. However, the US -and global- population is aging, meaning this won't be as much of a problem in 20 years, which will hopefully lower the costs of these programs.

This paper from Harvard (hell, maybe Yoski wrote it) explains the European Welfare State, which was condemned by US conservatives in the 80's, but is now working really well.
Click to expand...

I would just like for people to learn from this experience, and maybe try something before they try 40 times to stop it, and shut down the government. It was insane how much op was against this. I can't find the post, but I remember I asked him you really think nothing positive will come from this, and he said no there are no benefits to this plan. 0 good things will come from this.
 
1) Hospitals have set up whole departments based solely on not having patients return within 30 days. This is because the hospital gets fined if the patient does return. It doesn't matter if you have a heart attack, get released, and are in a car accident that sends you back to the hospital. They still get fined for "not doing a good job".

2) It reformed the medicaid program to work under total income. The wording is so bad that it created a loophole where it takes a business owners "total" income into account. If you buy a ferrari it goes against your net income. Therefore you can own a mansion and still qualify for medicaid as a business owner. I know several business owners who have done this.

3) ER visits. Have you been to the ER recently? I have. I was there for eight hours. I work, I pay my taxes, i pay for my healthcare coverage, but i had to sit there for eight hours.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/obamacare-emergency-room_n_5352987.html

On a side note why the hell did you bump this thread? Was it to get a reaction out of people who work for a living. Who put in 50 + hours a week to create what some consume all to easily? I'm sick of being enslaved by a faceless evil that willingly walks into chains. The worst part of it, is that the same people yell that government is evil and that america is the worse, yet they are the first to look for that free handout. You cannot speak out against what is giving you sustenance. It is the same as speaking out against you're own survival. I do not get it, and maybe I never will.
 
13063190:zzzskizzz said:
I would just like for people to learn from this experience, and maybe try something before they try 40 times to stop it, and shut down the government. It was insane how much op was against this. I can't find the post, but I remember I asked him you really think nothing positive will come from this, and he said no there are no benefits to this plan. 0 good things will come from this.
Click to expand...

Americans don't have a choice in trying out the programs, and, without reform, the critics are correct in predicting failure. Congress just has to get their heads out of their asses and try to figure something out. There has been a lot of crack down on people who abuse the system, and I think crackdown combined with moderate cutbacks (67 for Social Security, higher co pays to reduce unnecessary medical care) would sustain these programs which really do benefit Americans. I guess if you just look at most blue collar, retired Americans, hardly any would be financially sound through retirement without Social Security - regardless of their political beliefs.

On a different topic, two party politics suck so much its unbelievable, and yet so many Americans are stoked to go vote "Republican" or "Democrat" every election like puppets. I feel like it would just take one new politician that wants to run independently and honestly to make a huge difference, and change people's opinion.
 
13063204:integralmgmt said:
Americans don't have a choice in trying out the programs, and, without reform, the critics are correct in predicting failure. Congress just has to get their heads out of their asses and try to figure something out. There has been a lot of crack down on people who abuse the system, and I think crackdown combined with moderate cutbacks (67 for Social Security, higher co pays to reduce unnecessary medical care) would sustain these programs which really do benefit Americans. I guess if you just look at most blue collar, retired Americans, hardly any would be financially sound through retirement without Social Security - regardless of their political beliefs.

On a different topic, two party politics suck so much its unbelievable, and yet so many Americans are stoked to go vote "Republican" or "Democrat" every election like puppets. I feel like it would just take one new politician that wants to run independently and honestly to make a huge difference, and change people's opinion.
Click to expand...

Gary Johnson 2012
 
WY subsidizes obama care because they have too much money. All of us ski bums can get the top tier obama care insurance for next to nothing. Thank you gas/oil/coal money! Yet I still havnt signed up.
 
What people don't seem to comprehend is the massive cost of health care compared to social security. A old geezer's surgery might cost them $30,000....yet young people are only putting in such a small amount. Its simple math. 10 going in ....20 going out. Not sustainable. Kinda similar to how social security is panning out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top