What happens when it's killed? How about social security ?

What happens when it's killed? How about social security ?

"What happens when it's killed?" I'm screwed

How about social security ? I'm screwed

"What happens when it's killed?" I'm screwed

How about social security ? I'm screwed

Listen. I think that there's going to be a chit ton of people who voted for trump thinking he was going to drain the swamp and empower older whites but I have news for everyone. You are about to witness a systematic destruction of many many government agencies.

Just watch. Maybe all the poor whites in Appelachia will loose all of their food stamps and go back to eating squirrel. Time will tell.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's talk of privatizing National Parks.. I sincerely hope that never happens.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Benghazi and email arguments are going to do NOTHING for you when you realize the full magnatude of the stupidity that is aboutvto go down.

Also... 2 YUGE campaign promises have already been broken. No wall. No ban on muslims. :rtfm:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

War in the Middle East ? I'd say by June.

Higher food prices ?? That's coming too.

Bend over because Trump is going to make your anus wide again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't stop now, you're on a roll. :-)

I hope I'm wrong on a lot of this but I do t think I am.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Great only 6 more years till retirement and this guy is going to f it all up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well I guess because Eben says so we should all just panic. Good thing he has a trusted cabinet position of the President Elect who hasn't taken office yet. Thanks for the heads up. Lol..sheesh take it easy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Benghazi and email arguments are going to do NOTHING for you when you realize the full magnatude of the stupidity that is aboutvto go down.

Also... 2 YUGE campaign promises have already been broken. No wall. No ban on muslims. :rtfm:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and trump knew that controversial statements like that sells the news

Well I guess because Eben says so we should all just panic. Good thing he has a trusted cabinet position of the President Elect who hasn't taken office yet. Thanks for the heads up. Lol..sheesh take it easy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Panic? This isn't panic. This is a wake up call.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Panic? This isn't panic. This is a wake up call.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tinfoil hats have moved to the left. I've got a bunch I'll post in the classifieds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just wait and see. This is not all pointed at trump. It's what the entire Republican Party wants to do and could not do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What happens when it's killed? How about social security ?

Look if you are depending on Medicare and SSI you are a Fing idiot. Even at Max it's not enough to live on. You should be building your nest egg during your working years. Not buying Porches.

If they kill SSi and Medicare, my wife and I will be fine. We saved during all the 50 years we each worked. You should be focusing on being self sufficient not depending on Uncle Sam to support you. JMO.

I never post here but it annoys the hell out of me to have people blaming the government because they aren't going to be getting SSI. Yes, I know we all paid into it. Yes, I know it's our money but 25 years ago I decided I wouldn't rely on it when I retire.

We paid off the house we've been in for 43 years. I drive a 2003 Chevy with 138,000 miles on it...paid. I have a 2005 CC paid for. I have a 2009 Suzuki SX4 paid for. I have 2 wood stoves and cut and split 8 to 10 cords of wood to supplement my heat. I don't ask anything of the Feds and, while I accept SSi and medicare, I don't EXPECT it to be there forever.

Paul. You paid into social security. It's not a hand out. ITS YOUR MONEY. If it's cut or canceled, I'd call that theft.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look if you are depending on Medicare and SSI you are a Fing idiot. Even at Max it's not enough to live on. You should be building your nest egg during your working years. Not buying Porches.

If they kill SSi and Medicare, my wife and I will be fine. We saved during all the 50 years we each worked. You should be focusing on being self sufficient not depending on Uncle Sam to support you. JMO.

Just curious, what's the fallback for health insurance. My main concern with the Medicare + no ACA is that insurance companies driven by actuaries and profit hunting (they are businesses after all) are either going to outright deny the aging population any sort of substantial coverage or charge an amount that drains whatever 401k + IRA + savings accounts we all have. All during years where serious illness with long term substantial costs are more likely. That scares me...

Social security I agree... it's money I pretty much have said I'll never see again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i doubt Piemma will or can answer that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Any one want to buy a Porsche. Frugal is my middle name. Not depending on it but that is my fun money and I want my share. I friggin deserve it. I am not worried about it. Nothing I can do anyway. Wait and see.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just curious, what's the fallback for health insurance. My main concern with the Medicare + no ACA is that insurance companies driven by actuaries and profit hunting (they are businesses after all) are either going to outright deny the aging population any sort of substantial coverage or charge an amount that drains whatever 401k + IRA + savings accounts we all have. All during years where serious illness with long term substantial costs are more likely. That scares me...

Social security I agree... it's money I pretty much have said I'll never see again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about letting insurance policies actually be sold by businesses which compete on an open market. Let customers buy what plans they can afford. Let health care providers compete on an open market in which there is no guaranteed top dollar reimbursement for every procedure given to every patient. Prices could be far more reasonable if huge sums of money provided either by insurance companies or government were not automatically guaranteed to be available for any procedure and for every patient regardless of that patient's ability to pay.

This would also create a true competition in the medical supply system. With less money available to health care providers to buy equipment and supplies, businesses which want to compete in that market would have to lower the prices of their products.

Those who choose not to buy insurance can pay out of pocket. Prices would be more affordable because of the above. And for those who are truly needy, there can be government assistance, preferably by individual states.

For rare and vastly expensive care, catastrophic insurance policies can be purchased. Or, if states wished, there could be a small tax to cover such contingencies for their citizens.

As it has become, with mandated regulations and restrictions, we don't really have "insurance" in a private business sense. Especially with the ACA or with the desired government paid universal health care. Huge sums of money automatically available to health care providers guarantee huge prices for their services. The same, BTW, can be said for higher education. Every new investment by government in the education industry always results in higher tuition.

The free market has been becoming less and less free, and the regulated market has become more and more expensive. And when the Federal government finally steps in to fix the problem which mainly it has created, then total regulation will create total mediocrity. And the impression to those not paying attention will be that all is finally fair.

Eben - I think you are incorrect in your assumptions - by a mile. If you want to narrow them down to something digestible then we can discuss.

Yes I think it is going to suck. 20 Trillion in debt kills. And Social Security is not your money. It was your money once, but the politicians SPENT it. When they SPENT it they then BORROWED more against it.

Any one want to buy a Porsche. Frugal is my middle name. Not depending on it but that is my fun money and I want my share. I friggin deserve it. I am not worried about it. Nothing I can do anyway. Wait and see.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How do you think I feel Paul I have been paying both my share and employer's share for the last 31 years and if that money is no longer there, retirement will not come either even though I have some put away in a plan but if they steal SS $, then they can steal that money too. I will continue to be self sufficient and not rely on government since I have little faith in them(the billionaires).:fishslap:

How true B.
. I agree with letting insurance companies compete but the problem is not letting the big ones buy out the little ones and thus out the window goes the competition. Happens all the time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i doubt Piemma will or can answer that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure I can Eben, but I have no intention of doing it in this forum. Call me and I'll explain.

How about letting insurance policies actually be sold by businesses which compete on an open market. Let customers buy what plans they can afford. Let health care providers compete on an open market in which there is no guaranteed top dollar reimbursement for every procedure given to every patient. Prices could be far more reasonable if huge sums of money provided either by insurance companies or government were not automatically guaranteed to be available for any procedure and for every patient regardless of that patient's ability to pay.

This would also create a true competition in the medical supply system. With less money available to health care providers to buy equipment and supplies, businesses which want to compete in that market would have to lower the prices of their products.

Those who choose not to buy insurance can pay out of pocket. Prices would be more affordable because of the above. And for those who are truly needy, there can be government assistance, preferably by individual states.

For rare and vastly expensive care, catastrophic insurance policies can be purchased. Or, if states wished, there could be a small tax to cover such contingencies for their citizens.

As it has become, with mandated regulations and restrictions, we don't really have "insurance" in a private business sense. Especially with the ACA or with the desired government paid universal health care. Huge sums of money automatically available to health care providers guarantee huge prices for their services. The same, BTW, can be said for higher education. Every new investment by government in the education industry always results in higher tuition.

The free market has been becoming less and less free, and the regulated market has become more and more expensive. And when the Federal government finally steps in to fix the problem which mainly it has created, then total regulation will create total mediocrity. And the impression to those not paying attention will be that all is finally fair.

I'll be honest, I didn't read the whole thing... not because I don't care about the point, but because I fundamentally disagree that this problem with rising healthcare costs in this country falling solely on the insurance industry.

This is when things get really really murky, because other problems in our society come into play:

We have an existing system where the health services we all get from hospitals, doctors and clinics are really expensive. A big part of this is because these businesses keep charging more and more for their time and resources (I think part of that is because those providing the service have hundreds of thousands of $$ in student loans.) This is then compounded by a payer system which has historically rubber stamped almost anything that comes by, but in reality while we try to fix the payer side of things, we should also expect to see price correction from the providers as well. I don't think an insurance market with the ability to operate across state lines fixes any of that.

This whole issue aside, it still doesn't fix the problem that (from an actuarial standpoint) its not in the interest of any insurance company to willfully cover aging and sick populations. Each of those enrollees consumes more from the general fund than they contribute, which is what is crippling the ACA as we speak.

If we go to a more deregulated model with no Medicare, I can't help but see more insurance companies dropping the sick and aging because its bad business... thats why Medicare is such an important part of our society. The alternative is that local and federal taxpayers end up paying for the emergency room care given to folks who have no insurance... and that is exponentially more expensive to cover than a properly configured preventative health plan is...

Bottom line is that this is an extremely complex issue and I personally believe not enough honest conversations about the underlying causes have been had. Hopefully that changes when the current administration and congress realize they can't fix it either.

The caps on how much you pay in SS get eliminated and the Cola increases go away.

I'll be honest, I didn't read the whole thing... not because I don't care about the point, but because I fundamentally disagree that this problem with rising healthcare costs in this country falling solely on the insurance industry.

I hope I didn't give the impression that rising costs are solely due to the insurance industry. As you say, it is a complex issue. If insurance or government were not the major payers for health care the cost of health care would have to go down. The cost of health care, like the cost of any product in a market economy, is dependent on the consumer's ability to pay--that old business adage of charging what the market will bare. If health care costs were dependent on the average consumer's personal ability to pay (as they were a long time ago and when health care costs were much lower), the providers could not charge what they can charge insurance companies nor, especially, what they can charge government.

It happens every time. When a rich third party assumes the costs of services, the prices WILL go up. One of the first questions a collision shop will ask you if you want an estimate to repair damage to your car is if it is an insurance claim. If you are paying out of pocket, you will get a lower quote than if your insurance company is going to pay.

I first became aware of the connection between insurance paid and out of pocket paid prices when my employer newly provided dental insurance. Dental insurance was not as widely offered or bought at that time as it is now. I was happy as a lark thinking I was not going to have to pay for dental costs. My first visit to a dentist with the new insurance was an eye opener. I needed a filling. When I got the bill, I was very disturbed that I did not save a penny. The copay (50% of cost) was for the amount that I had paid for fillings before I had insurance. And the insurance was charged the other 50%. So the dental office was making twice as much and I was paying the same as when I was not insured.

Cosmetic surgery, because it is not covered by most insurance policies, is much cheaper than health related surgeries which are covered by insurance.

Imagine what the cost of food would be if everyone had food insurance. Or of anything else that was covered by insurance.

I don't consider that the insurance companies fault. The problem is that when insurance approaches universal status, and well before that when it covers more than 50% of health consumers, health care costs will cease to be based on individuals ability to pay. Costs will then reflect what the insurance companies are able to pay. And that will also affect the price of the insurance itself. So it's an upward spiraling circle.

This is when things get really really murky, because other problems in our society come into play:

We have an existing system where the health services we all get from hospitals, doctors and clinics are really expensive. A big part of this is because these businesses keep charging more and more for their time and resources

They are really expensive because they can charge an insurance pool, or government where applicable, far more than they can charge individuals. It was doctors and hospitals who advocated for and helped create Blue Cross and Blue Shield in the first place. They thought they deserved way more than what they were able to charge their average customers. Country doctors, way back when, actually did some old fashioned barter with their farming patients. Produce for service.

(I think part of that is because those providing the service have hundreds of thousands of $$ in student loans.)

Again, the reason for the cost of college and university education is high and keeps rising is because they don't operate like your mom and pop stores. They are heavily subsidized by government. As are student loans. The universities and colleges no longer make (and haven't for a long time) reasonable tuition charges to students--charges they could reasonably afford to pay. The more government "invests" in higher education, the more expensive it gets. And the continuing PR college education gets from society and government, touting it as the way for everybody to achieve a better life, even promising by some politicians to have government totally subsidize tuition, that kind of press and recommendation if not necessity creates an artificially high demand for the education. If the demand is higher than the supply, costs go up.

This is then compounded by a payer system which has historically rubber stamped almost anything that comes by, but in reality while we try to fix the payer side of things, we should also expect to see price correction from the providers as well.

If we "fix" either one of those, the other will be fixed. They are symbiotically connected. But the "fix" requires either reverting to a free market or to total government control. Capitalism or Socialism. The greater the mix of those two, the more impossible the fix.

I don't think an insurance market with the ability to operate across state lines fixes any of that.

As we like to say, it's "a step in the right direction." A step toward market pricing and paying. If you prefer government controlled pricing, that's a different matter.

This whole issue aside, it still doesn't fix the problem that (from an actuarial standpoint) its not in the interest of any insurance company to willfully cover aging and sick populations. Each of those enrollees consumes more from the general fund than they contribute, which is what is crippling the ACA as we speak.

Asking insurance companies to insure everyone against the inevitable or against what already exists--old age or pre-existing conditions--ensures the final destruction of the notion of insurance as a private, market based, business. Which may well be the goal. The ACA was a huge step in that direction. It was the preparatory step into universal government paid health care.

And if that happens, and government pares down the price it pays, the health care industry will have to greatly pare down costs and will be far less attractive as a vocation to many who might otherwise contribute the exceptional abilities that have created an exceptional health care industry. On the other hand, government can maintain the high costs and prices and either raise our taxes considerably or just keep going into further debt. Which is not really a "fix" to the problem.

If we go to a more deregulated model with no Medicare, I can't help but see more insurance companies dropping the sick and aging because its bad business... thats why Medicare is such an important part of our society. The alternative is that local and federal taxpayers end up paying for the emergency room care given to folks who have no insurance... and that is exponentially more expensive to cover than a properly configured preventative health plan is...

It's that unfixable mix of government mandates raising costs, ergo prices. Either government should take over and just eliminate private health insurance (and privately run health care while it's at it), or just get out of the way. Certainly it should not require insurance companies to insure against old age or pre-existing conditions. If government insists on those being insured, it can take on that responsibility and let the insurance companies compete for the rest. That is, compete without massive federal government regulations.

Bottom line is that this is an extremely complex issue and I personally believe not enough honest conversations about the underlying causes have been had. Hopefully that changes when the current administration and congress realize they can't fix it either.

So then, you admit that it can't be fixed. Maybe it can, if we have honest conversations outside of the box. We are trapped in the box of quasi-responsibilities now. Choose between free market or government controlled market. We are inevitably drifting into the latter. Give it a little more time and another administration or two, and the problem will be "fixed."

The Sky. It's falling. Not . . .

:tooth: