Originally Posted by groverat
No, it hasn't.
Strident declarations aside, the statistics on national savings rate show different.
No, we don't. if we did then we wouldn't have tens of millions uninsured and thousands going bankrupt because of illnesses.
We have tens of million insured for a multitude of reasons including the choice of being willing to pocket the money and accept the risk. I provided the statistics. Denials don't refute that. Thousands go bankrupt for a multitude of reasons. They don't just discharge medical bills when they file for it. They discharge almost all debts.
How, then, do you explain the simple fact that millions and millions of people all over the world and all throughout time die because they do not receive necessary help?
Amazing isn't it? It is almost like death is the default state for us all eventually or something like that. It is Utopian thought to believe otherwise. There was no garden where we were all living for 900 years until bad Republicans or Bush came along.
Of course it's right. It's the right thing to do to help people who need help.
There is nothing to take a man's freedom away from him, save other men. To be free, a man must be free of his brothers.
I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon my being. I am the warrant and the sanction.
Those are statements that are right.
This is an argument for Social Security reform, not the removal of all social safety nets.
It isn't a safety net when "quality of life" issues cause it to pay for and supply things that are about much more than falling and needing a net.
Didn't you just say that the elderly have a lower poverty rate than the general population? Sounds like the government is doing a pretty good job for them.
It has done a good job but not within a cost containment model. Rather they have run up huge debts and the projections for the continuation of those debts in the future show that the current model is not sustainable. It is ludicrous to suggest that an unsustainable model be moved from a segment of the population to a larger percentage. It is ludicrous to suggest doing this will make the unsustainable into the sustainable.
The mechanism is only inefficient because the people in the system (the elderly and the poor) are not the ones paying for it. Once you have everyone in the same system you have those paying for it paying more careful attention to how the funds are used.
Obama has not suggested a solution where a person pays for their own insurance now. If that were the case the only reform we would need would be an insurance mandate. Obama has declared that savings from electronic records, fraud removal and another tax on the rich will pay for this.
By that reasoning many, many more people will be drawing services they do not pay for and the costs, like the government programs, will explode well beyond their initial projections which are already 1.6 trillion dollars.
Beyond that, if everyone is given a basic level of insurance by a public system that then frees the private insurance world to be even more selective in their clientele than they are now.
Selective = everyone eats the government burger and those who want steak better be rich. This is a prime example of why people prefer what they have now. This video hits on the point you suggest precisely and shows why people resist that choice.
No, it's not. I've never had apartment insurance in my life and I'm not moving into my first home until the end of the month.
My own rental agreements demand rental insurance because the insurance of the owner covers up to the paint on the walls. In the event of fire, flood, theft, etc. the building insurance replaces nothing for the tenant. Perhaps you've never bought it but it just means that you've done what most young(er) people do and that is use youth and lack of income as an excuse to take on the risk since you aren't risking much.
Congrats on the home. It's a lot harder to ponder forgoing insurance when all the crap you had in your dorm room won't be worth what you probably spend to furnish one room in that house. Hope you and the wife have fun filling it with stuff and kids too (if that's the desire.)
They would be more expensive if everyone needed them, yes. Apples and oranges.
I think what you fail to see here is that they are a requirement. The question is only one of who pays it. I can assure you that if you rented an apartment, the building was insured and part of your rent went to pay that insurance. However that insurance covers catastrophic concerns and not painting the trim. Your public transportation carries insurance. As you get higher up the ladder it is increasingly often about being able to risk less because the returns are lower and the costs are higher.