So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

Discussion in 'The Observation Bar' started by GHT, Mar 21, 2015.

  1. sheeplady

    sheeplady I'll Lock Up Bartender

    I pay about 15% of my paycheck, my employer pays an equivalent amount as well. I hold my own insurance through my employer, my husband has his own employer insurance that he covers the children under. His plan covers more items, but is more expensive in both cost and copays than mine.

    Having me under my own insurance saves about 3k a year.

    With our "good" insurance we had while I was treatment, we incurred debt. Some of this was health expenses, but the rest was because in the US you can't get loan deferments for cancer treatment. I was suddenly out of work, with no pay, no unemployment, and no disability with a young child for 3 years. Thankfully we owned a home at the time that we took out a home equity line of credit against. We cleared the loan when we sold the house, before the payback period.

    We don't own a home now, and not having an asset to borrow against worries me. We did add insurance under my husband that will pay out a lump sum if one of us gets seriously ill, and that makes it easier to swallow that we aren't sitting on a bunch of equity.

    But I'll have to say that it hurt when we got the check from the sale of the house and it was half what it should have been just because I got cancer. I'm lucky to have the best husband in the world; so he'd never think this way, but I still sometimes get angry thinking about how much money I cost my family. It would've paid for a chunk of a college education.
     
    Zombie_61, tonyb and LizzieMaine like this.
  2. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

    I'm reading Sheeplady's post with a simmering rage which is exacerbated by the offensive "It's Time To Start Saving For Retirement" E-Trade ad that appears under it.
     
    vitanola, ChrisB, Zombie_61 and 2 others like this.
  3. sheeplady

    sheeplady I'll Lock Up Bartender

    For most of my adult years I've worked as a "graduate assistant." One of the consequences was that I never paid into Social Security during those years. I tried; but graduate assistants were made exempt from Social Security taxes in the 1980s. (I went to HR and escalated it to see if my contract could be written otherwise or if I could just voluntarily GIVE the money out of my pay check; it was a no go.)

    As a consequence, I don't qualify for Social Security death benefits. If I keeled over, my kids would get $0 from Social Security. If I had social security taxes collected out of my check for those years, they'd get about $300 a month until they turned 18.

    It's the same for anyone who stays home with children, or goes to graduate school, or takes time out to care for an aging or sick family member. (And if you don't think a stay at home parent or a family caregiver adds value to a family of at least $300 a month, your head isn't on straight.)

    I'll be fine when I retire (I've been married 10 years, so I can qualify for an amount up to half my husband's when the time comes). But I really wish the feds had just *taken my money like I asked.*
     
    vitanola and Zombie_61 like this.
  4. tonyb

    tonyb Vendor

    Messages:
    7,887
    Location:
    My mother's basement
    A few days ago I mentioned how there was a fatal car wreck about half a mile from here and how a couple three or four weeks prior to that there was a double fatality a couple miles away in the other direction.

    That more-recent wreck has since claimed another life. An injured person later succumbed.

    The cops report that excessive speed was a contributing factor in both incidents. Street racing, they say.

    This afternoon our district’s city councilman reported that the police caught wind of a street racing meetup of sorts last night and clamped down hard. More than 100 citations issued.

    Apparently our district had turned into prime territory for this sort of activity. There is a mostly straight limited-access highway (aka “freeway”) nearby and several arterials with long stretches of uninterrupted right-of-way. So if you’re given to driving way too fast, the roads here offer many opportunities.

    I’m confident the people cited last night for anything the cops could cite them for (no slack was given, from the sounds of it) are quite displeased by this effort. And I’m equally confident they have no appreciation for how that effort may have saved their lives.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2019
    Zombie_61 likes this.
  5. GHT

    GHT I'll Lock Up

    Messages:
    6,483
    Location:
    New Forest
    You are not wrong, social media has given a public metaphoric soap box on which they can stand and show their stupidity to all and sundry. Of course that also means that they can hide in anonymity behind a pseudonym. Their modus operandi being one of: "light blue touch paper, stand well clear."
     
    Zombie_61 likes this.
  6. tonyb

    tonyb Vendor

    Messages:
    7,887
    Location:
    My mother's basement
    Alas, I’ve heard this account, with minor variations, so many times it has become almost normal.

    In a culture that regards poverty as a moral failing, many people in such circumstances (men especially) suffer, along with depleted resources, diminished self-esteem.
     
    vitanola and Zombie_61 like this.
  7. LizzieMaine

    LizzieMaine Bartender

    The legacy of the perverted pseudo-Christianity of our Puritan forebearers. This country would be a better place if that boat had sunk.
     
  8. Harp

    Harp I'll Lock Up

    Messages:
    5,582
    Location:
    Chicago, IL US
    Yu Darvish started Saturday nite against his ol' team, Tex Rangers, punched out the first two bats
    with good stuff, then completely lost sight of the strike zone. Joe pulled him after 2 2/3 rounds.
    Too-soon-to-tell-time, but it ain't lookin too good from the bleacher bum perspective.
    Bummer.
     
  9. My standard reply to everything from politics to the pitch clock is "you don't really want to know what I think".
     
    Zombie_61 likes this.
  10. We have socialized medicine here in the US...it's called insurance. Few people can afford to pay for their own healthcare out of pocket, so we pool our resources and draw out of the global fund as necessary. What you object to, I assume, is being forced to join said pool, government run through taxes, or otherwise. This is fine in concept, except we Americans, as a general rule, don't have the stomach for the necessary consequences of opting out of the pool. You get hit by a bus and are bleeding in the streets, we're going to pick you up and take you to a hospital, not push you to the side to die and say "well, that's what he wanted..."
     
    Bamaboots and tonyb like this.
  11. Trenchfriend

    Trenchfriend I'll Lock Up

    Messages:
    8,000
    Location:
    Germany
    Yesterday evening, I wanted to go to bed. But damn, Stellan Skarsgard on TV-screen! :D

    "River", the first episode and I watched it until the end. Not a crime movie, but a fine psychothriller and I liked it very. And Nicola Walker was so charming!
     
  12. Lean'n'mean

    Lean'n'mean My Mail is Forwarded Here

    Messages:
    3,362
    Location:
    Cloud-cuckoo-land
    All six episodes are on Youtube but in English. ;)
     
  13. Fading Fast

    Fading Fast

    Messages:
    13,229
    Location:
    New York City
    Respectfully, that is not what I object to. To wit, I've argued that if we won't let people die in the streets - as, overall, we don't (at least in NYC where hospitals have to treat everyone who shows up regardless of if he or she can pay or not) - then we should require everyone to get insurance and we should subsidize those who can't afford it. I'm willing to live in a die-in-the-street world, but since that is not politically acceptable, I think Obama was correct in requiring everyone to get insurance, since, otherwise, the rest of us who do get insurance subsidize those who don't. Unfortunately, Obama didn't make the argument that way.

    What I object to (to your implied question) - which is only one of the reasons why I oppose socialized medicine - is that it all starts out sounding nice, but one of the next potential steps is - as was implied in the post I was replying to - to start controlling everyone's "healthcare" decisions. So, for example, of course you have to wear a seatbelt / stop smoking / eat healthier because these are no longer just individual risk / life decisions, they effect "all of us," as, if you get sick now, everyone pays. So, socialize medicine becomes an infringement on personal freedom and choice and takes away our rights to make risk decisions for ourselves. I think that freedom is worth more than the (putative) benefits of socialized medicine - which, I don't believe is truly a benefit.

    One, if the bartenders think this post is too political - please delete. I only posted in response (and tried to stay consistent with many other posts in this thread re their amount of political comments), but that's not an excuse - if it's over the line - kill it. Second, I am not trying to change anyone's mind, just responding to the post. I don't think FL is the forum to debate these things, so if you don't agree with me, please say and post anything you wish against my ideas, but I do not plan to respond because that would just turn into a political debate.
     
    Zombie_61 likes this.
  14. Trenchfriend

    Trenchfriend I'll Lock Up

    Messages:
    8,000
    Location:
    Germany
    I know, but in this case, the original tone doesn't work for me. The german synchro gives more atmosphere.
     
  15. GHT

    GHT I'll Lock Up

    Messages:
    6,483
    Location:
    New Forest
    That is so true, but in pre-NHS UK you might not have been pushed aside, but you certainly wouldn't get the medical care that we get now. The downside to a National health Service is the way it gets abused, that can cause a serious waste of funds and time. I've explained it in a previous post. HudsonHawk, your language might be blunt but your argument is succinct, right on the button, well said.

    Here in the UK, and I'm sure it's the same across the English speaking countries, as well as many others, if you are charged with a crime, no matter how heinous, you will be given, free of charge, a qualified barrister, (lawyer) and legal team who will submit your defence in a court of law. Legal representation isn't cheap, the cost of it comes out central taxation. You can of course appoint and pay for your own defence, just as you can appoint and pay for your own healthcare.

    Milton Freidman famously said: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." meaning that there's always a cost, hidden or otherwise. After reading some of the posts about Loungers and their health insurers, I'm glad not to have that to worry about. My motoring insurance is an annual bun fight about how much the insurer wants to increase my premium and how much I am/am not prepared to go to. British insurers would love to have our healthcare insurance, they salivate at the thought.
     
    Zombie_61 likes this.
  16. GHT

    GHT I'll Lock Up

    Messages:
    6,483
    Location:
    New Forest
    You do make for a very valid point in your freedom of choice argument. the only thing political about healthcare being available to all is if one argues for it, or against it. Discussing it's pro's and cons is sensible, it allows readers to make their own mind up. As I have said previously, there's a trade off, I don't smoke, but feel much better since I quit fifty years ago. I begrudge buckling up in the car, but do so and I drink alcohol well within the safety limits that my nanny state insists upon.

    I am not sure if this is myth or fact, but I do remember watching a political argument on TV many years ago where an American journalist was banging the drum for free healthcare in the US. Someone mentioned that Uncle Sam has something called The Catastrophe Fund. The implication is that such a fund was for those who have a medical catastrophe that they can't and their insurers won't, fund. Although it might have been something about treating people who were injured in a catastrophe, it's lost in the mists of time.
     
    Zombie_61 likes this.
  17. I think that *was* one of the underlying arguments for the ACA...that everyone should put at least *something* in the kitty.

    So If I understand your position, you don't oppose the "socialized" nature of healthcare so much as "government-run" healthcare? Do you think that insurance companies run less risk of controlling individual healthcare decisions than does the government? As a person with a background in economics, do you think that for-profit healthcare companies can walk that line, or is that something you think is an issue, albeit to a lesser degree?

    I'm not trying to change anyone's mind either, just having a discussion. I think we can discuss social issues without it getting into the "politics" category. At least you and I can, we are reasonable men.
     
    Zombie_61 likes this.
  18. Freeloaders have always been, and will always be, and issue in society, be it healthcare or otherwise. Some people are simply going to take without contributing back. So how do we deal with them? In the US, we've traditionally decided not to...that it's simply the "cost of doing business". We accept and move on. I don't know if that's the right way or not.
     
    Zombie_61 likes this.
  19. Fading Fast

    Fading Fast

    Messages:
    13,229
    Location:
    New York City
    Yes, but it's really more than that. It is explicitly explaining the binary decision. Either we let people die in the street or the gov't or "the system" pays for their healthcare (to some degree, in some situations, etc.). Hence, if we won't let people die in the street, then forcing (that's the right word - call it a tax or rule - but it's force if the gov't can, ultimately, fine or jail you if you don't) people to buy health insurance is a fairer way to do it. Otherwise, those who don't, effectively, sponge off those who do. Obama was squishy on this point - but, at least to me, it is THE reason to "require" everyone to have health insurance. Again, I, personally, am okay with a die-in-the-streets approach, but since that isn't politically acceptable, then requiring insurance is the (almost oddly) libertarian approach as it at least tries to make individuals more responsible for themselves.

    Here the terms get grey. Insurance is a form of socialism (in the sense of pooling risk), but when it's in the private sector, an individual can chose to take it or not; hence, private insurance (with "mutualized" or, if you like, "socialized" risk) is fine IMHO as it doesn't infringe on individual choice. When it's done at the gov't level, my main issues are (1) it is forced on you as it is not a choice you can make of your own free will, (2) in many add on ways, it also infringes on individual freedom and (3) overall, I believe capitalism (not crony capitalism) - free markets - is immensely more efficient at providing services than the gov't.

    More specific to your question, I absolutely believe a regulated free-market system w/ subsidies for those who need it can deliver quality healthcare that will offer many options on personal risk management. The private insurance biz already does that with, for example, car insurance - you pay more or less based on your risk decisions such as buying a sports car versus a sedan - or in life insurance - you pay more if you smoke (we pay less for our homeowners insurance for not smoking, too, I think), etc.

    Thank you, I feel the same about you.
     
    Zombie_61 likes this.
  20. tonyb

    tonyb Vendor

    Messages:
    7,887
    Location:
    My mother's basement
    Does it get any more mealy-mouthed than this?

    There’s so many qualifiers here that the gist of the argument, such as it is, is so diluted as to disappear.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.