It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


This is Good! So true...

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:42 AM
Though we just don't call it that. You people ask where the poor go for medical treatment? They go to doctors, ERs, specialist and just about everywhere the middle class go. In fact, its a federal law that no one in a hospital can be refused medical service on the basis of their inability to pay. Just read the sign in the lobby the next time you're in there. And, as long as some payment on the bill whether its only 5 bucks a month is made, they cannot attempt collection. But why is this an issue when we have medicare and medicaid? These programs take care of the poor and the elderly to the point where they are raising stink over paying a 5 dollar co-pay on prescriptions. Friends, I think I have good private insurance. My wife carries us at her work and she's a nurse. Even she has co-pays on prescriptions.

So, who are we talking about here that need healthcare, really? I'll tell ya who. I have a family member who demands free healthcare and they make close to 50 grand a year. Why can't they afford a private package? They have bigger and better toys to buy. If the US ever did inact nationalized healthcare, those of you who think it would be free are off the mark by more than a little. In fact, most would pay more than they do now because all we'd have is our whole system under the same wasteful admin as medicare and medicaid. More than half the funds for each program go to this wasteful administration. The committee that oversees it and its entanglement of buerocrats.

I think Skadi is right on when she says stop the waste at the govt level and more goes to help the poor. The poor are being held down by the same people who profess to have their best interest at heart. The rich elite in this county are not those who make moderate income and strive for a better life. The rich elite are those very people who push these kinds of social ideologies because their wealth is sheltered far away from taxes and they could care less how much working people pay because they own the govt. and they take their cut before the money gets to its intended purpose. Thats whats wrong with nationalize health care. Its not that we don't want people to have health care, its that we don't want to pay 6 times what it should cost to get it inacted. The poor and elderly in the US have better health care than most who have it through their employment.

Look, I live in an area that has throughout US history been one of the most poverty stricken areas in the US next to WVA. Recently I did a county wide needs assessment that involved a door to door survey of residents randomly chosen from the address database. It opened my eyes. Of all the seniors I interviewed, most had their home paid for. Most had access to transportation, and the only beef most had with healthcare was the minimal amount they had to pay for prescriptions though most said they didn't have a problem affording them. In the income range most were pulling in over 45 thousand a year form retirement and social security and had discounts on their power and water bill. They were mostly living comfortably and non were in poverty.

The poorest people I interviewed were between 18 and 30 years old and were on either public assistance or working making less than the poverty rate for the number in their family. When asked about health care, most were on medicaid and really had no beef with it. They get it all free.

In fact just about the only people I talked with were my contemporarys who had a problem with the cost of healthcare and couldn't afford to go for treatment unless it was serious. Most of us tough out a cold or flu that seniors and welfare people go to the doctor for. The rich can pay for treatment along with whatever elective surgery they want and the poor and elderly get their medical needs met for free. The only people who need better healthcare are those who are being asked to pay more for the system to help the two previous classes who are already having their needs met. This system isn't for the people who have trouble paying the bills and can't afford coverage. This system is for those who already have enough.

The storys of seniors who have to chose pills over food are greatly exagerrated. I know. I just spent my spring in poor appalachia knocking on doors to find out. If you all are interested, when the people who funded the study release the data, I will post it. I wasn't the only person doing the surveys. This was a massive effort which did nearly a thousand interviews.

To wrap it up, my question is simple. Why are we to asked the only people with healthcare issues and needs to pay more for a service that will not benefit them? No matter how we argue around it, thats what it would be. Nothing in life is free. Sooner or later someone has to pay for it.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:17 AM

Originally posted by mwm1331
Romeo - If I had been talking about a static 10% annualy you would hve been correct. However I was discussing putting the money into tx free IRA through a direct dividend reinvestment program into blue chips such as coca cola. With a DDRP you can invest into the companies stock without going through a Broker (thus avoding commissions) and set up a drip account whereby you invest a given amount per week, month year etc, and have the dividends automatically used to purchse more stock. between the captol appreciation and the reinvestments it is a quite simple matter for even the most low income of people to afford a nice retirement.
Btw even at 333,000 invested into municipal bonds, (which are exempt from federal income taxes) the income would be 26,640 per year which is the same or greater income as when the person used in my example was working 40 hours per week. Being able to retire at the same level of income you had when you were working is the definition of a successful retirement.

I accept that its your business mwm but you are assuming the continuation of the same economic conditions which have blessed us for the past many decades. I think we ARE seeing the end of the gravey train with a generational decline ahead. Even if this is NOT the case one must accept that it IS a possibilty. The risk inherent in you ddrp model is clearly that it relies on a tide of ascending portfolio value longterm and not the reverse.
Business Week in July ran a cover story in which it talked about US Corporations having built up almost a trillion dollars in unfunded pension liabilities. This is "killing" many of the older companies, who have built huge pension and medical liabilities.
Corporate unfunded liabilities are a drop in the bucket compared with US government's unfunded liabilities, which add up to around $45 trillion.
Will the Fed continue to attempt to print its way out of this mess and in sodoing kill the USD? Perhaps a global conflagration will recalibrate the whole monetary system back to zero and we'll start again. PErhaps technology WILL save us....nanotech, quantum comp, energy revolution etc. Chances are though your model is flawed. I don't think you are going to find the ddrp works in the coming 30y. Cheers and good luck.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 08:26 AM
I disagree, regardless of economic conditions some thngs will always be true. People will eat, drink, buy medicine etc. Companies like cocacola, anheiser busche, etc. will continue to gain long term. The fact is f you take a long term view of the market none of the so called depressions make a difference. When you are investing on a 25-30 year time frame it doesn't matter what happens.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:04 PM

Originally posted by drfunk
ahh the "american dream" once again shows through. Playing the stock market is very dangerous and there are numerous companies out there that have lost many good people their chance to retire.
I keep telling you my friend that the money comes from doing work which goes to taxation which in turn pays for such things.

Your taxation idea if flawed, how is one supposed to have a comfortable living if they are getting half of their paycheck deducted every time? By law the goverrnment already collects social security taxes at 12.4% from every person and pours it into a system that is headed for economic collapse. the social security board of trustees is admitting this.
Higher taxes didn't do the johnson era any good... We've spent 5.4 trillion dollars on programs to help the poor, despite this, the official poverty rate has been stuck at 14% for the last 40 years.

Americans' needs to move toward a private, non government retirement system like what Britain is doing, Australia is doing, mexico, ect, it would solve the problem of sputtering social security and also help create a nation of millionaires. This is alot more secure then depending on bureaucrats promises for a secure retirement. in 2016 this promise is going to be null and void, social security even says they are going to be running a deficit, and by 2032 the trust fund will be depleted, and the system will be insolvent.

A single wage earner with an income of 36,000 could accumulate 1.2 million in A stock invested pension fund by retirement, that would pay an annual retirement income of 124,000 dollars. Under social security, such a wage earner would only get one fifth as much: 24,000/yr... source:catoinstitute...
Secure individual account are more secure then social security. Social security pays an average family a measly 1.2% annual return.

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in