On the other hand, I don't think it fair that the rest of us who do have insurance are forced to pay for all of those who don't, especially if they are able and choose not to. Obama care might not be (and probably isn't) the proper solution, but something has to be done about this. The uninsured are costing the rest of us $50 billion a year, according to the medical industry.Quote:
I sure as hell don't think I should be forced to buy it
Of course that is another topic.
I know how it works, Scott. I have a catastrophic policy through United, I've had it for years...it's the most expensive monthly bill I have...$240. For now, that is. Four years ago it was $150.
If someone that is poor, or otherwise has no money or assets gets hurt, they roll into an emergency room to get stitches or broken bones set...and the hospital sends the bill to the state. Fine, and at 50 billion a year across the country is a smoking deal, compared to what Obamacare is going to cost. I think the hospitals should do this work "Pro bono", if they want to be truly compassionate...but, they're not. For those that need advance medical care, like cancer treatments, organ transplants, knees, hips, etc...and they don't have insurance for it? Sucks to be them.
I think the difference between you and I is that you want everyone to be able to get everything they need in these regards, and you're willing to pay for it. I'm not.
But then again, you work for the state, right? I'm self employed and super healthy. I've got the big target on my back...shaped like this: $. Walk a mile in my shoes, dude.
No, not for almost a couple of years now.Quote:
But then again, you work for the state, right?
I left because our medical insurance wasn't very good with the state (contrary to what some may believe, though if you live along the Front Range or San Luis Valley you can get on the good plan, but not out here). When my wife started having heart problems (she is actually in very good shape; it's not related to being out of shape and was nothing she had control over) we had to fork out $30,000 every year in medical expenses (which was our max out of pocket). After two years in a row, I couldn't do it anymore so left. A quick peek online says I still owe $22,767.81. If I didn't have a pretty good paying job (~$62K/year) and didn't have savings/equity/low debt ratio, we would have been in trouble. On paper I make less now than I did with the state, but with the good medical insurance, we come out way ahead now that one of us needs medical test and procedures.
I pay and am paying my bills and wonder how much of my bill is offset for the uninsured (I bet it's a lot), so no, I do not think I should be paying for them if they were able to afford insurance.
Because I pay my bills and have insurance I also have a big target on my back shaped like and $.
Quote:
I think the difference between you and I is that you want everyone to be able to get everything they need in these regards, and you're willing to pay for it.
What I think should happen and what will happen are not the same.
What I want is for more people to be accountable. If someone was born with a disease or if it was beyond his/her control, then he/she has my sympathy. If they do things like smoke, take drugs, or are overweight they should pay for it and be punished monetarily. If people can really afford insurance, but choose not to in order to get a free ride, they don't get my sympathy either.
Although offensive to many and not PC, I don't think people who can't afford to take care of children (including both monetarily, emotionally, etc.) should be having them either, which is a huge factor in medical cost. I know this from personal experience with family members, though I probably shouldn't talk about specifics on a public forum.
Great post, Scott. You're a trip, dude. Sometimes you come in seemingly angled in a particular direction only to elaborate to another...but, you always explain things well.
Like you, I have compassion. I also agree that those that are born or become jacked up in some way should get help from society...but the system is packed to the gills with leeches, and that bothers me greatly. They (the all powerful government) comes to me with one hand out and the other holding a big stick yet they do virtually nothing about the parasites that abuse the system. In fact, they encourage it...and I'm talking about the Democrats here. If they were able to actually do it fairly, perhaps I wouldn't bitch about it so much.
I hear this a lot. Some call it propaganda, some call it gospel truth. Stats are scarce. Do you know of any reputable statistics on this issue?Quote:
Originally Posted by Byron
oxymoron :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by hank moon
So, the Feds can afford to staff NPS law enforcement to patrol and kick out anyone trying to go hiking in an NP, but can't staff people to protect against a terrorist attack. :eek7:Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
Who's the one that drew that line between what's necessary and not during the gov shutdown?
Since it wouldn't be PC, I doubt anyone high profile would dare/gather publish official statistics on this.Quote:
I hear this a lot. Some call it propaganda, some call it gospel truth. Stats are scarce. Do you know of any reputable statistics on this issue?
I do know however from much experience, be it by family, work (I worked briefly for 1.5 years in the medical industry), and having had climbing friends that are doctors and family that have been or still are nurses that there is much abuse.
Since it would be gossip, I won't be specific with names et al, but I have family that severely abuses the system. I have also had coworkers that have as well.
Here are some examples of how to abuse the system that people I know use:
Medicaid doesn't cover pregnancy test. It does cover emergency room visits. So, you go into the emergency room for "abdominal pain" and get a free pregnancy test whenever you feel you need one.
Further a family member has had five children and four of them were while being unemployed or only working part time.
One former coworker who is an engineer got his girlfriend pregnant. He made a lot of money and she didn't. They intentionally postponed the marriage until after the baby was born because she would be considered a single mother and would have the pregnancy and birth paid for.
Just a few examples I know of.
So, I do try and help others and have sympathy for many, but on the other hand there are a lot of abuses in the system.
Even though we had and have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for Kim's heart problems, obviously it is worth it. As mentioned though, I don't like paying for other people who can afford insurance, but choose not to be insured or paying for people who abuse the system.
I try to be sympathetic and help others (formerly ~17% of our income went to charity), but on the other hand I feel that people who are responsible are punished for being responsible.
For example, as mentioned we were billed $30,000 out of pocket two years in a row, and that was actually a majority of my takehome pay for those years (I had to leave for a different job and now we have much better insurance and it's not as worrisome financially). Still, on paper we had a lot of money because we were responsible. In 2004 when we bought our house, we only got a 15 year loan because we felt it more responsible. So after several years we have a lot of home equity. I also have been investing money for retirement since I got married as a teenager. We also didn't have any other debts other than the house and a small amount car that was almost paid off (the other car was). So on paper, we were worth a lot of money even though the medical bills were a majority of my income for those two years.
I really do like to help people, but I do often feel that people who try to be responsible are punished.
granted, but oxymorons are inherent in the system!Quote:
Originally Posted by rockgremlin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
I agree. However, much is made of the "leeches" in the health care system, but very little of the leeches in the tax system. Lots of people, corporations, etc. cheat on taxes and use every dodge possible to avoid paying their due. That leaves the non-leeching taxpayers to shoulder the burden. I wonder why our collective rage is so often aimed at the leeches in the (implied) "lower classes"?
I don't want to get in a pissing match, but the system is broken. The financial incentives are to "abuse" the system or take advantage of that. People are not altruistic. They will do whats best for their bottom line. People will take the incentives offered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott P
You're friend that got his girlfriend pregnant and waited to get married. What was his incentive to hurry and get married? Because he wants to be a good citizen? ha!
I know a lot of people that have had lots of kids on medicaid. Go to any of our university campuses. How do you think those newly weds are paying for their kids?
Until the situation is fixed (I'm not saying obamacare is the solution) and the incentives drive the right behavior this behavior will be perpetuated.
When it comes to employees, I heard that your Congressman decides what's "essential" and what's "non-essential". Some representatives have 20 people on their staff and they are all deemed "essential". Some other representatives had 15 and downsized to 4 or 5 "essential". It's too bad, we the people, can't decide what's essential and non-essential...:fitz:Quote:
Originally Posted by BasinCruiser
Quote:
However, much is made of the "leeches" in the health care system, but very little of the leeches in the tax system. Lots of people, corporations, etc. cheat on taxes and use every dodge possible to avoid paying their due. That leaves the non-leeching taxpayers to shoulder the burden.
Agree.
Quote:
I wonder why our collective rage is so often aimed at the leeches in the (implied) "lower classes"?
To me at least, who the finger is most often pointed at depends on political affiliation. It seems to me that the Republicans are more likely to point the finger at the lower class "leeches" while the Democrats are more likely to point it at the upper class "leeches". I know that this is a huge generalization and not always the case, but it does seem to be often the case to me. The specific example I used about the pregnancy wasn't pointed at the lower class (also the person I was speaking of didn't seem to think he was doing anything wrong).
In truth there are leeches and cheats, as well as honest folk across all the economic classes.
Also, you don't have to be poor to be irresponsible with money or to be rewarded for being irresponsible.
Above I said that on paper I had a lot of money because I got a 15 year loan on my house and had a lot of equity, plus invested in retirement accounts since I was a teenager. People may look at the paper and the fact that I've gone on trips (even though most of the time I fly for free) and see $ signs, but on the other hand we've never used our home equity as a blank check, we haven't had TV for many years, I've never been to a concert, a pro sporting event (other than when I was a cub scout and we went to one), I've never spent money on alcohol, beer, pets (before recently), haven't maxed out credit cards, etc. Other than using your home equity and even worse using unsecured debt, I don't have a problem with people choosing to do buy those things, but those who save and are responsible really shouldn't be punished for it or be forced to pay for everyone else doing it.
As far as income classes go and blame, in my opinion, most of the economic problems of today can be traced to the general public living beyond their means by doing things such as maxing out credit cards and using unsecured loans and home equity as blank checks to buy "stuff". It may have even been good for the economy for a while, but eventually the bubble was bound to burst.
People love to blame whatever politicians or political party that they didn't vote for as causing everything, and they do share some of the blame, but more people should be looking in the mirror and pointing the finger there as well.
As far as all the subsidies, I'm torn and my opinion depends whether you are an adult or a child.
On one hand, in one example I've mentioned that I don't think people who can't afford to take care of children (including both monetarily, emotionally, etc.) should be having them at all (though I can't think of an ethical way that you could stop them). This viewpoint may label me as cruel and insensitive and having an extremist conservative opinion.
On the other hand, I don't think children should be punished for being born. It wasn't their fault that they were born, so I think that children are entitled to any needed medical care and education, etc.
I'd even go as far as to saying that school uniforms should always be required. I remember how much school kids would make fun of our clothes, along with the other "have not kids" whose parents either couldn't or wouldn't buy them the clothes "normal" kids wear, even to the point of bullying and physical violence. Social and economic classes have no place in schools, at least in my opinion. Perhaps that viewpoing might label me as a flaming extremist liberal or something.
To clear up two misunderstandings:
1. Each individual agency decides who is "essential" and "non-essential." No congressman has anything to do with it. These categories have recently been changed to "excepted" and "non-excepted." The excepted (formerly known as essential) employees are kept on to continue activities that directly provide for the protection of life and property.
No one has "found" any money to pay these people. Every excepted employee is technically in furlough status and is working without pay. There is an expectation that they will be paid retroactively, but this is not guaranteed and their hours have been cut back. These excepted employees (that everyone seems to enjoy making great sport of) are basically given the choice to work for free or to quit their jobs. These people are doing their jobs for free out of dedication to their careers and believe or not, their country. For the NPS, excepted employees count for about 4% of the workforce. Everyone else is "non-excepted" and is furloughed (locked out) with even less assurance of any back pay.
2. NPS closed the parks because they were told to do so. Period. To think that anyone in the NPS wanted to do it or "gets off" on it in any way is childish and insulting.
From the following article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...amid-slimdown/Quote:
Originally Posted by canyoncaver
The National Park Service has received offers from states, localities and businesses to pay for or provide support to reopen parks, said Jennifer Mummart, a spokeswoman for the agency's National Capital Region.
"We have declined all of these offers because we are a national system operated by the National Park Service, which now, of course, lacks funds for daily operations," Mummart said. "So, while we truly appreciate the offers of support, they are not offers we can accept."
That's a bit of a disturbing statement. It does make me wonder if someone isn't getting off on this mess.
But perhaps what is more disturbing is reports of the forced closure of private parks, those not federally funded, but sitting on government land. Why?
CNN reported that in the last three years the parks have lost $315 million, or roughly 13%of their funding. Again I wonder what the break down is of income to national parks. I heard on the radio yesterday that Zions is loosing $50,000 a day on entrance fees alone. It's probably a bit of a stretch to assume it makes that much each day, year around, but if they did, they'd be bringing in over 18 million each year just in entrance fees. Broken down that would pay roughly $60,000 to 300 workers annually assuming it were distributed evenly with no regard to materials for maintenance or outside worker contracts. No doubt other parks don't do as well so perhaps some of that is distributed to other projects.
Sorry for the long, boring bit of calculations which are probably not even accurate, but my point is, I've always considered the national parks passes, campgrounds, entrance fees, even the lottery canyon fees to be a steal. I wonder what it would take to get the national parks to break even...
My understanding is that parks keep 80% of their fee monies and send 20% into a general fund. In this way, the more popular parks like Zion help to fund the some of the less fluid parks and the ones that just don't charge fees.
Scott P for President!!!!:2thumbs::2thumbs::2thumbs:
Like you Scott, I grew up in similar circumstances...dirt poor, ratty clothes that drew teasing, "Scrape the bowl" lifestyle, hardcore. Also like you, I broke out of that and made smart moves, worked hard and lived within my means. Now I'm nice an comfortable.
I think it's reinforces the notion...for those like us, that most people are much more capable that they think they are. Think smart and don't make stupid moves and good things come along naturally.
It's hard for me to understand why anyone that is capable of work would be satisfied living the low budget lifestyle...milking the system for all it's worth, which really isn't that much.
It's also a shame that the ones of means...with some money and/or assets, abuse the system just because they can. Pure selfishness, really. I've know for a long time that there are two types of people in the world...givers and takers. Our system has no real way of keeping the takers out. Man, I really despise those people...as soon as I see or sniff them out, I ditch them as fast as I can. The politicians however, are fully aware that the takers are a voting block...bummer, eh?
Just to clarify, we were never really dirt poor. My dad was unemployed for several years (but my mom worked at a gas station and then at Walmart as soon as it came to Utah), so there were some tough times since ours was a family of 7, and my parents were and still are frugal/cheap, but we were never homeless or anything like that.Quote:
Like you Scott, I grew up in similar circumstances...dirt poor, ratty clothes that drew teasing, "Scrape the bowl"
We didn't have things like a VCR, cable TV, and we would only go to movies or go out to eat extremely rarely and would get teased in school for the clothes we would wear, but we always had a home (the same one that they still live in) and even a vehicle, even if it was an AMC Pacer (and later a station wagon).
So, we lived in a lower income neighborhood (which my parents still live in), my parents were and are very frugal/cheap (but always live within their means and even though they make more now they are still frugal), and we didn't have some of the luxuries that others had, and there were some trials, but it probably wouldn't be fair to say that we were dirt poor. We even got to go on a lot of hikes and stuff.
When my wife and I were first married, I was a janitor and made $4.85 an hour, which is equivalent to $7.85 in 2013 dollars (my wife made $5 an hour), but I've never felt poor. My wife's parents thought we were poor, but I never did.
Just to clarify.
You do make some good points.