Medicare Facts

Originally posted by FMF
You clearly want someone to pay for your health care.

Who?

from the looks of things, it appears my children will get stuck for it now doesn't it?

I made adjustments with our finances right away upon the diagnosis, house is no problem, oldest just graduated from college, next one is two years out..
No, I make it sound worse than it really is I suppose.. perspective changes.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
from the looks of things, it appears my children will get stuck for it now doesn't it?

I made adjustments with our finances right away upon the diagnosis, house is no problem, oldest just graduated from college, next one is two years out..
No, I make it sound worse than it really is I suppose.. perspective changes.

You are dodging my question. Who is it you want to be paying for your health care now? And by extension, what should the system be so that people in your situation are assisted?

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
B-I-N-G-O

Kind of off topic, if you had 200K to invest, who would you trust to invest it, Obama, or Romney?

I'd buy a house and rent it out. Why trust someone else to invest my money?

Originally posted by FMF
You are dodging my question. Who is it you want to be paying for your health care now? And by extension, what should the system be so that people in your situation are assisted?

You would be my first choice,, maybe I could just move in and do little things around the house to help you out? Certainly don't want the kids stuck paying out the nose for my medical bills.... and it sounds like you are pretty well off.. if you're still in Indonesia, the climate would work for me... if not, I understand.... Churches seem to do a fair job with the sick...... more charity work...
:-)

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I'd buy a house and rent it out. Why trust someone else to invest my money?

good point,
Mom does just that. There are a few tax advantages there.. you can also make fare money buying delinquent property taxes.... they either pay you back with interest, or you get the property.... now that sounds mean?
I'd choose Romney..... I was living in salt lake City when he came in and bailed them out,, it was a mess.... he's pretty smart.

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
You would be my first choice,, maybe I could just move in and do little things around the house to help you out? Certainly don't want the kids stuck paying out the nose for my medical bills.... and it sounds like you are pretty well off.. if you're still in Indonesia, the climate would work for me... if not, I understand.... Churches seem to do a fair job with the sick...... more charity work..

You're missing the point. You say Medicare doesn't give you enough. You also say you don't really want the government involved. You've said a couple of years ago that Obama had not done enough to help people with your condition. But you also seem to oppose Obama's policies to extend health services to people who cannot afford them. You seem to be saying you yourself haven't saved enough money for you to be able to take care of yourself adequately [without help]. You say someone gave you a grant but you don't even know who gave you it. You say you don't really want to burden your kids. So, we're discussing health provision: who do you think should be paying for the health care needed by a person in your situation?

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
Why would anyone who values their health, assign their health care over to a government that's $16 trillion in debt with no end in sight?

Because it would give superior care for a lower price, presumably. The US would simply have to emulate one of the successful schemes that have been implemented in the western world. I have no reason to believe the US government would be incapable of such a thing, although the political will for it seems to be lacking.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LMAO! You think by making a bunch of baseless assertions you are "ripping anything to shreds"? The article gives SPECIFIC figures which refute your religion based claims (the religion of laissez faire naturally).

Health care costs are certainly insurable and are insured the world over. According to your "analysis", life insurance shouldn't work either because death is a predictable event.

You addressed none of my factual statements of insurance. Your logical fallacy is an appeal to authority.

Originally posted by FMF
You clearly want someone to pay for your health care.

Who?

I can't answer for Hugh, but he seems upset that cost keep increasing, which is the natural result of attempts to dictate prices in a nation which still has a market economy.

In the long run, and sometimes in the short, control of costs can only be done by total socialist controls of all the means of production and distribution, in short by dictatorship. Distortions ripple through a market, and often effect totally different products, as in health care costs being built into the price of cars built by union workers.

The democratic way of setting prices is by voting which each of us does when we making a purchase, or refrain from doing so. This process involves no force, or police power, or beaurocratic decision makers. It happens by virtue of producers seeking consumers for their services.

Originally posted by normbenign
I can't answer for Hugh, but he seems upset that cost keep increasing, which is the natural result of attempts to dictate prices in a nation which still has a market economy.

In the long run, and sometimes in the short, control of costs can only be done by total socialist controls of all the means of production and distribution, in short by dictatorshi ...[text shortened]... ratic decision makers. It happens by virtue of producers seeking consumers for their services.

It's rather bizarre that you keep insisting that market forces will drive down prices when you very well know that there are plenty of nations with a "market economy", strongly regulated health care service fees, and vastly cheaper health care services. Cognitive dissonance at work, I suppose.

Originally posted by normbenign
You addressed none of my factual statements of insurance. Your logical fallacy is an appeal to authority.

You made no factual statements. You made a bunch of baseless claims based on how your religion thinks things should work. But in reality they don't; the article gave specific facts and figures that you simply claimed couldn't possibly be true because you say so. Your claim about only things that aren't predictable being insured against was rather easily refuted by using the example of life insurance. What's left of your argument? Nothing of any substantive merit.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I'd buy a house and rent it out. Why trust someone else to invest my money?

You obviously have no idea what a pain in the neck it is to be a landlord.

Originally posted by sh76
You obviously have no idea what a pain in the neck it is to be a landlord.

Don't be silly.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Don't be silly.

Because you have a lot of experience being a landlord, right?

Originally posted by sh76
Because you have a lot of experience being a landlord, right?

My landlord is a middle-aged woman in a wheelchair. To find a tenant she hired a real estate agent, and to handle the maintanance of the apartment she hires a maintenance company. Other than that, she does very little (which is fortunate, because she is incapable of doing regular work).