So, Thinking About Old Folks And Young Folks

[Razors Edge ★]

...I have come to the conclusion that we have things ass-backwards.  Consider healthcare. WTF are we subsidizing OLD PEOPLE's healthcare (uber expensive) and not solely YOUNG people's healthcare (uber cheap)?  Considering the under-30 crowd is relatively new to life, have not had time to save a big "cushion", and are still a while away from their prime earning years. THEY need the support 30 years of free healthcare would provide, and, since they are the cheap to insure demographic, the drain on the taxpayer would be minimal. Additionally, we might get them into their later years with all the early issues sorted out and none of the "lingering" types. 

On the flip, oldsters in the 65+ range are by far the MOST expensive to cover, have had SIXTY FIVE years to prepare for covering their own healthcare, and really are on the wrong side of the bell curve in several key areas. 

Have I solved the nation's healthcare problem? Probably.  Give everybody a good start on the road to health, but cut them off (or wean them) starting at thirty, and let them prepare for their golden years.

Tom

[petitepedal ★]

Why don't  we provide healthcare for everyone...and forget about funding the insurance industry.

[Razors Edge ★]

Just now, petitepedal said:

Why don't  we provide healthcare for everyone...and forget about funding the insurance industry.

Baby steps. First we ought to actually insure the folks who 1) haven't had a chance to get started yet, and 2) cost the least to insure.

That frees up massive - and I mean MASSIVE - amounts of tax dollars that are currently going to folks who HAD SIXTY FIVE YEARS to save for retirement.

Tom

[maddmaxx ★]

Why don't we just put the oldies out on the ice sooner.  That's where folks with these ideas usually end up.

[Longjohn ★]

1 hour ago, Razors Edge said:

That frees up massive - and I mean MASSIVE - amounts of tax dollars that are currently going to folks who HAD SIXTY FIVE YEARS to save for retirement.

Tom

Umm, not exactly tax dollars. They have been taking the payments for medicare out of every paycheck I have gotten for many many years that I was not on Medicare. I mean it is a tax but it is a tax that is supposed to pay for your health insurance when you retire.

[Razors Edge ★]

Just now, Longjohn said:

Umm, not exactly tax dollars. They have been taking the payments for medicare out of every paycheck I have gotten for many many years that I was not on Medicare. I mean it is a tax but it is a tax that is supposed to pay for your health insurance when you retire.

Yeah, the tax that's not a tax trickeroo. 

Regardless, it still makes sense to spend that tax money up-front on the younger crowd & get them up to speed (and healthy), so that they can focus on their career growth, families, and making the big bucks in preparation for their retirement years. Common sense tells us that folks who aren't or didn't "save" for retirement in the 30-65 window of life are the ones who are now stalling out all of our welfare systems.  Flip the script, spend the money where it is both more needed and less costly, and let folks feel their new found freedom to be free of the man in their retirement years.

Tom

[maddmaxx ★]

This sounds typically millennial.

[Longjohn ★]

1 minute ago, Razors Edge said:

save" for retirement in the 30-65 window of life are the ones who are now stalling out all of our welfare systems

Social Security and Medicare are not welfare. Every paycheck has a tax designated for Social Security and one for Medicare. Welfare is the leaches that have never worked or paid in and are drawing money and health care. I think you know this.

[Razors Edge ★]

Just now, maddmaxx said:

This sounds typically millennial.

Right! Those folks are truly disrupting markets ALL the time. 

We ALL know that teaching good habits early, tackling disease before it takes root or in the earliest stages, and preventative medicine are the BEST approach to healthcare. Yet, for some reason, we have a system that rewards calcified thinking, treats diseases late in life, and encourages many things (pills, procedures, etc) before prevention.

Let's fix this problem!

Tom 

[maddmaxx ★]

1 minute ago, Razors Edge said:

Right! Those folks are truly disrupting markets ALL the time. 

We ALL know that teaching good habits early, tackling disease before it takes root or in the earliest stages, and preventative medicine are the BEST approach to healthcare. Yet, for some reason, we have a system that rewards calcified thinking, treats diseases late in life, and encourages many things (pills, procedures, etc) before prevention.

Let's fix this problem!

Tom 

Me firsters.

[Razors Edge ★]

3 minutes ago, Longjohn said:

Social Security and Medicare are not welfare. Every paycheck has a tax designated for Social Security and one for Medicare. Welfare is the leaches that have never worked or paid in and are drawing money and health care. I think you know this.

Slice it and dice it how you like, but the second you put "leeches" and "welfare" in the same sentence, I think you went south.

Tom 

[maddmaxx ★]

Just now, Razors Edge said:

Slice it and dice it how you like, but the second you put "leeches" and "welfare" in the same sentence, I think you went south.

Tom 

May you be forced to live to the age of 120 and under the care of your grandson from 75 on.

[Razors Edge ★]

1 minute ago, maddmaxx said:

Me firsters.

Exactly - get them healthy FIRST. That's the point. Get them healthy and settled into a steady career producing and consuming and inventing and making things better.  Let the older folks (eventually those same Millenials) use their most productive time - 30 to 65 - to really crank up their contributions to society AND to the bank accounts. Then, they have their chance to do whatever they please a retired folks - unfettered by worry about social security or Medicare or any other nonsense that seems to be so up in the craws currently.

A home is only as strong as its FOUNDATION. That's those first 30 years of life. Build it well, and Bob's your uncle.

Tom

[12string]

2 hours ago, petitepedal said:

Why don't  we provide healthcare for everyone...and forget about funding the insurance industry.

Exactly.

For years I had been opposed to Government Health care, on the basis of how the government manages to make everything cost more.  But the more I see the issues with the private/employer model, the more I see the best way to fix them is Government Health care.

I am not a fan of Obamacare, because it addresses how to pay for insurance, not how to provide health care.

But by adopting Government Health care, the middleman Insurance industry is cut out and - oh, wait a sec - now I see why we can't get there..........

We really could make up the added cost of the government by getting rid of the insurance boondoggle and profits.

It really is stupid to take something that everyone needs but is really expensive and only give it to the people who have jobs to pay for it.

[maddmaxx ★]

2 minutes ago, 12string said:

Exactly.

For years I had been opposed to Government Health care, on the basis of how the government manages to make everything cost more.  But the more I see the issues with the private/employer model, the more I see the best way to fix them is Government Health care.

I am not a fan of Obamacare, because it addresses how to pay for insurance, not how to provide health care.

But by adopting Government Health care, the middleman Insurance industry is cut out and - oh, wait a sec - now I see why we can't get there..........

We really could make up the added cost of the government by getting rid of the insurance boondoggle and profits.

It really is stupid to take something that everyone needs but is really expensive and only give it to the people who have jobs to pay for it.

Glad to hear this.  Now I don't have to put all the newbies on ignore.

[Razors Edge ★]

1 minute ago, maddmaxx said:

Glad to hear this.  Now I don't have to put all the newbies on ignore.

You approve of his me firster attitude, but not a Millenials' me firster attitude? It makes no sense. Maybe you are just more a fan of everybody firsters?  Does that including leeching firsters? 

I'm with 12string on this topic, but I just didn't think folks were ready for the full Monty. I guess some folks are coming around (or were already around). Yay!

Tom

[12string]

Don't worry, I have plenty of conservative views, too, depends on the topic.  You may need to ignore me until you notice me leaning back left.

[Razors Edge ★]

3 minutes ago, 12string said:

Don't worry, I have plenty of conservative views, too, depends on the topic.  You may need to ignore me until you notice me leaning back left.

Toss a bone to Don as well. He's done nothing (rarely ever does!) to deserve an "ignore" banishment.

Tom

[maddmaxx ★]

3 minutes ago, 12string said:

Don't worry, I have plenty of conservative views, too, depends on the topic.  You may need to ignore me until you notice me leaning back left.

There's nothing wrong with conservative views or even liberal views.  It's the asshats you have to watch out for.

[12string]

whew.  I only wear fedoras.  guess I'm good.

[donkpow]

All this is fine and well, if you ignore "the survival of the fittest" rule. You are making a cuntry of mamby-pampies.

[Further]

The issue that I see is that health care has improved to the point where they can keep a corpse alive indefinitely.

But it's very expensive.

As you age the care you need becomes more expensive, it's the rule of diminishing returns. Spend 100k on a twenty year old and he might live another 60 years. 100k on a 70 year old might buy 10.

Deciding where the money goes is kind of a moral dilemma.

Right now it's kind of all or nothing. If you have the insurance, or the money, you get miraculous health care. No insurance, no money, you could die from an infected paper cut.

I sure don't know the answer.  

[shootingstar]

4 hours ago, Razors Edge said:

You approve of his me firster attitude, but not a Millenials' me firster attitude? It makes no sense. Maybe you are just more a fan of everybody firsters?  Does that including leeching firsters? 

I'm with 12string on this topic, but I just didn't think folks were ready for the full Monty. I guess some folks are coming around (or were already around). Yay!

Tom

Many of us in this forum who make our presence known, already are in a demographic that consciously tries to be healthy somehow in different ways. The common ground was cycling (right?) awhile ago and still is for some folks here.

So sure, most of us will need more medical care after 70, 75, 80 etc. We make this seem so unnatural, as if aging is our fault. Aging is natural, getting frailer is natural. Should we be penalized/punished health-care wise for aging naturally?  It's whether or not any decades of really bad health habits or a major injury would have been preventable.

Then on the other youngster extreme, people who haven't quite faced their own mortality and weaknesses.

I think I'm a very good example:

1. With my annual personal income taxe, I paid into the government health care system for care.  In my teens to 40's, I barely scraped /used the health care system.  I had bad flu 1-2 times, dental care (not covered by public health care) when I was unemployed, mammograms, blood test work, colonoscopy (only once), dizzy spell (once to Ear, Nose specialist then to Audiologist) and regular annual physical checkups.

Then I used health care a lot for my cycling collision..for concussion. I was 56 yrs. at the time.

2. My partner the guy who has clocked in 200,000 km. on bike, in total over the past 24 yrs.,  cycle-toured twice across Canada to Toronto from Vancouver and in U.S. 3rd trip, same distance to Michigan or something like that, has had a terrific healthy heart until 2 yrs. ago he had to take a low-impact "water" pill so his chest wouldn't hurt.  He also has nacroplesy, sleep disorder where they've tested him, tried drugs (there's no charge for this except for part cost of drug) all during the time of being very fit to cycle 100 km. every day in 45 days from Vancouver to Toronto.  That's over 4,300 km.

Methinks older folks deserve equal attention even if they have practiced good habits for decades. We've already paid into the health care system for others while underutilizing the sytem, now it is our turn.    Ah, the arrogance of youth. We're all guilty of that at some point in time.

 

[shootingstar]

Incident:

A few months ago I went to a large information session for employees about our employee health care benefits plan.  One woman probably in her 30's, suggested that the young employees pay less into the employee health care plan.  Seriously, it sounded offensive if you sit down and really think about it.   How do I stack against ie. a young woman who has allergies (and needs a puffer), sprained/broke  her leg from skiing/snowboarding, or fell off their bike, may have diabetes 1 or who decided to get pregnant/has endometriosis (for women on their fallopian tubes)/needs surgery for large fibroid growing in her abdomen?  

I've never been pregnant, nor have required surgery involving reproductive area or any surgery at all. Nor do I have any allergies that I know.  I think I'm only allergic to cottonwood trees when they bloom in spring. Oh yea, I maybe allergic to wine....I turn red very fast after 5-6 sips.

The respondent to her suggestion, gently steered away from her idea.  

How does this square with medical epidemiological evidence that there are more children with diabetes 2 or more children who are obese in the 21st century because they aren't allowed to free-play outside the home, overly absorbed on their iphpones/Ipads, etc.?  

 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, Razors Edge said:

30 years of free healthcare

Nothing is free. 

[petitepedal ★]

Until last year when our small company adopted ADP a nation benefits company...we did pay more by age for health insurance...now everyone pays the same price...it has allowed me to double what I am putting into savings for retirement...so I can afford to take care of my health later because Medicare has limited coverage...

I will repeat we should be funding health care and not insurance coverage...oh well..politicians on both sides are against that!

[shootingstar]

2 hours ago, Zackny said:

Nothing is free. 

Public health care  is what one pays through taxes, in a lifetime. 

It is possible that Canada's personal income tax in some provinces is higher than in some states.  Here is PricewaterhouseCoopers' auto-calculator:  https://secure.ca.pwc.com/8525770E0077F8AB/ProdCalculators?Readform&year=2017 Take a ball park US annual salary and convert it into Canadian dollars.  Then you can put the figure into this automatic calculator.  PwC is a long time big accounting firm worldwide.

It's a very different way of thinking....your payment of taxes IS the form of  "public health insurance" in Canada.

Should I be bitching about how my national health care system and my tax payment to the govn't, has helped all the people who I care of which some are poor and have tried to live healthy but still are struck down?

 

 

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, shootingstar said:

Public health care  is what one pays through taxes, in a lifetime. 

It is possible that Canada's personal income tax in some provinces is higher than in some states.  Here is PricewaterhouseCoopers' auto-calculator:  https://secure.ca.pwc.com/8525770E0077F8AB/ProdCalculators?Readform&year=2017 Take a ball park US annual salary and convert it into Canadian dollars.  Then you can put the figure into this automatic calculator.  PwC is a long time big accounting firm worldwide.

It's a very different way of thinking....your payment of taxes IS the form of  "public health insurance" in Canada.

Should I be bitching about how my national health care system and my tax payment to the govn't, has helped all the people who I care of which some are poor and have tried to live healthy but still are struck down?

 

 

i have no issue paying more to have a decent universal healthcare for all. It just seems people think because it's from the government it's free. Well that's not true. All the government can do is take from one hand and give to the other. Unfortunately many consider that free. Here in NY they just started "free" tuition for state college. Even our Governor calls it "free" but there is a line in the budget to pay for it. So it's not "free" it's paid for by the taxpayers.

 

[Razors Edge ★]

12 hours ago, shootingstar said:

Incident:

A few months ago I went to a large information session for employees about our employee health care benefits plan.  One woman probably in her 30's, suggested that the young employees pay less into the employee health care plan.  Seriously, it sounded offensive if you sit down and really think about it.   How do I stack against ie. a young woman who has allergies (and needs a puffer), sprained/broke  her leg from skiing/snowboarding, or fell off their bike, may have diabetes 1 or who decided to get pregnant/has endometriosis (for women on their fallopian tubes)/needs surgery for large fibroid growing in her abdomen?  

I've never been pregnant, nor have required surgery involving reproductive area or any surgery at all. Nor do I have any allergies that I know.  I think I'm only allergic to cottonwood trees when they bloom in spring. Oh yea, I maybe allergic to wine....I turn red very fast after 5-6 sips.

The respondent to her suggestion, gently steered away from her idea.  

How does this square with medical epidemiological evidence that there are more children with diabetes 2 or more children who are obese in the 21st century because they aren't allowed to free-play outside the home, overly absorbed on their iphpones/Ipads, etc.?  

 

The insurance rep should have THANKED her profusely for propping up the old folks and their way higher than average costs

My point, again, is that it is 1) cheaper to insure the younger age groups (WAY cheaper), 2) creating 30+ years of "free" (no cost to them) coverage frees them to focus on becoming healthy & productive, and 3) by 65+, folks should have been able to plan & save for retirement. 

Older folks (like most/all of us here) are 1000x more able to plan, save, analyze, and prepare for the out-years of life than almost any person under 30 (or even 45).

The system is flipped and we're just perpetuating it.

Of course, I am fine with universal coverage, but since many aren't, I think I would rather reallocate and replan a better use of limited funds.

Tom

[Jon KITguy]

54 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

The insurance rep should have THANKED her profusely for propping up the old folks and their way higher than average costs

My point, again, is that it is 1) cheaper to insure the younger age groups (WAY cheaper), 2) creating 30+ years of "free" (no cost to them) coverage frees them to focus on becoming healthy & productive, and 3) by 65+, folks should have been able to plan & save for retirement. 

Older folks (like most/all of us here) are 1000x more able to plan, save, analyze, and prepare for the out-years of life than almost any person under 30 (or even 45).

The system is flipped and we're just perpetuating it.

Of course, I am fine with universal coverage, but since many aren't, I think I would rather reallocate and replan a better use of limited funds.

Tom

Where would you relocate?

[Razors Edge ★]

Just now, Trailrider said:

Where would you relocate?

Why would I relocate? Or would anyone relocate?

Tom

[Kzoo]

1 hour ago, Razors Edge said:

My point, again, is that it is 1) cheaper to insure the younger age groups (WAY cheaper),

Which is the reason for Obama's personal mandate.  Insurance companies are running from the plan. Many forced to buy something they don't want hate the plan.  And the costs continue to skyrocket.

We're from the government.  We're here to help.

[Razors Edge ★]

7 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

Which is the reason for Obama's personal mandate.  Insurance companies are running from the plan. Many forced to buy something they don't want hate the plan.  And the costs continue to skyrocket.

We're from the government.  We're here to help.

Yet know one is willing to actually fix the issue? Like my plan or the better universal plan?

What is wrong with people? Not enough coverage for mental health issues?

Tom

[Jon KITguy]

53 minutes ago, Kzoo said:

Which is the reason for Obama's personal mandate.  Insurance companies are running from the plan. Many forced to buy something they don't want hate the plan.  And the costs continue to skyrocket.

We're from the government.  We're here to help.

I don't think that most people understand the insurance concept.  Insurance consists of pooling the risks and it works where the downside is so bad that usually the victim cannot cover the expenses by themselves.  Most people given those circumstances would be willing to pay a little every year if they can be safe when something really bad happens.  The pay outs however are large enough that it requires a significant pay in to keep the business afloat.  In former decades there were clauses written into insurance that required you to carry the policy for x years before a claim could be made for specific things.  In addition, no insurance company could afford to write a policy for a new policy holder who had, for example, cancer as an existing condition.  How could insurance companies survive if someone was allowed to join suddenly just as something bad was happening after not joining when the good times rolled.

Along came Obamacare where everyone was covered by law.  Well, under those conditions a trade off was made in that everyone had to take part during the good times as well.  The failure of that mandate would be the death of any possibility that the insurance plan would work otherwise.  It is fantastically expensive to pay for a cancer patient and doing so requires that the costs be shared by many people who do not have cancer.  It doesn't matter if that cancer strikes someone old or young.

As this thread implies, you can reduce the overall costs by removing older people from the insurance plan.  It seems to be a very popular idea with the young who view themselves as immortal.  What do you think will happen when they turn 65, find themselves suddenly sick and without insurance.  I guess we could call that the establishment of death camps.  You get to a certain age and you lose all your protection.

If you think you can save enough to pay your own way after a certain age............you can't.  The tables show that people who pay into insurance companies, a plan akin to a mandatory savings plan, on average do not get back what they pay in.  Some do however and that's why people join insurance pools.  It's a lot like buying a warranty.

For a disclaimer, I work in the Insurance industry for a company that I will not name on the internet.

[12string]

And That's all the more reason to advocate for Universal Health care.  Makes it so much easier to pool healthy and unhealthy, makes it easier to force the poor to pay more than they can afford.  Not to mention eliminates the massive redundancies in information gathering/sharing.  

Think the government in inefficient?

My employer has to track all of my health benefit information.  My insurance companies (medical, dental, vison, pharma) all duplicate the effort.  The doctors all duplicate it.  The government already has all of it

My employer pays people to make sure I get the right amount deducted and paid to the insurance company.  The insurance company pays people to collect it. The doctor pays people to figure out how to get money from the insurance company.  The insurance company pays people to pay the doctors.  The government pays people to figure out my taxes after HSAs, FSAs, pre tax deduction, post tax deductions, line item deductions....

OR, The government can add my health info to the rest of my data, one database.  The government just collect more of the taxes they already collect, and gives some of it to the doctors.

Employer based coverage paid to for-profit insurance companies before we even include the providers is really not efficient.

[Razors Edge ★]

14 minutes ago, 12string said:

And That's all the more reason to advocate for Universal Health care.  Makes it so much easier to pool healthy and unhealthy, makes it easier to force the poor to pay more than they can afford.  Not to mention eliminates the massive redundancies in information gathering/sharing.  

Think the government in inefficient?

My employer has to track all of my health benefit information.  My insurance companies (medical, dental, vison, pharma) all duplicate the effort.  The doctors all duplicate it.  The government already has all of it

My employer pays people to make sure I get the right amount deducted and paid to the insurance company.  The insurance company pays people to collect it. The doctor pays people to figure out how to get money from the insurance company.  The insurance company pays people to pay the doctors.  The government pays people to figure out my taxes after HSAs, FSAs, pre tax deduction, post tax deductions, line item deductions....

OR, The government can add my health info to the rest of my data, one database.  The government just collect more of the taxes they already collect, and gives some of it to the doctors.

Employer based coverage paid to for-profit insurance companies before we even include the providers is really not efficient.

Pretty straightforward too. Everybody is covered. Everybody pays (something ).

But assuming no one is willing to go the practical and realistic and moral and humane route, I like my "give folks 30 years to get situated. 35 years to plan and save, and then, from retirement on, they can pay their own way. "

Tom

[Jon KITguy]

Health care and health insurance are two different things.  At the moment the only thing being argued over in the halls of Washington is health insurance.

[Jon KITguy]

41 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

Pretty straightforward too. Everybody is covered. Everybody pays (something ).

But assuming no one is willing to go the practical and realistic and moral and humane route, I like my "give folks 30 years to get situated. 35 years to plan and save, and then, from retirement on, they can pay their own way. "

Tom

I'll repeat my previous post.  Nobody can.  The cost of a catastrophic but curable disease is astronomical and well beyond the ability of almost anyone to pay for themselves.  Are you thinking that most people would have in excess of, for arguments sake, $750,000 dollars to spend on a health problem over and above their other living expenses.  Again, this is the concept of risk pooling that the insurance industry is built on.

[Razors Edge ★]

1 hour ago, Trailrider said:

I'll repeat my previous post.  Nobody can.  The cost of a catastrophic but curable disease is astronomical and well beyond the ability of almost anyone to pay for themselves.  Are you thinking that most people would have in excess of, for arguments sake, $750,000 dollars to spend on a health problem over and above their other living expenses.  Again, this is the concept of risk pooling that the insurance industry is built on.

Are you saying our current system somehow can do it, but a "normal" person couldn't? Why would an older person not buy insurance - from age 30 and on - to cover those costs? Seems odd.  I never advocated "no insurance", just free (to them) coverage until age 30 or so. After that, folks will be 1) established in a career and can take advantage of the 35+ years in a job with "normal" insurance, and 2) at 65, 67, 70, whenever they retire, they can use their own resources to buy insurance or self-insure or just say "screw it".  Their prerogative, but at least they had 65 years to get set up and prepped.

Or, adopt universal coverage and remove the x-factor of for-profit insurance.

Tom

[Jon KITguy]

8 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

Are you saying our current system somehow can do it, but a "normal" person couldn't? Why would an older person not buy insurance - from age 30 and on - to cover those costs? Seems odd.  I never advocated "no insurance", just free (to them) coverage until age 30 or so. After that, folks will be 1) established in a career and can take advantage of the 35+ years in a job with "normal" insurance, and 2) at 65, 67, 70, whenever they retire, they can use their own resources to buy insurance or self-insure or just say "screw it".  Their prerogative, but at least they had 65 years to get set up and prepped.

Or, adopt universal coverage and remove the x-factor of for-profit insurance.

Tom

The cost of a policy started at an older age will be much higher.  Remember the risk pooling concept.  You can't be free when young and expect to get in later at the same price as others.  The insurance industry is based on that concept of risk pooling.  They are not in the business of giving money away to people who have not paid in till they need it.  In addition unless you are willing to leave out a large segment of the population this "established career" thing is a bit vague.  Yes, that means that you fund the poor as well as yourself if you have a good job. 

You can adopt universal "insurance" if you wish but you will be paying the same moneys into a tax coffer instead of to an insurance company.  We are still discussing the insurance factor, not the health care factor.

[Kzoo]

17 minutes ago, Trailrider said:

They are not in the business of giving money away to people who have not paid in till they need it.

That right there is just plain mean.

[shootingstar]

So folks, if anyone has tried the autocalculator if you stick in your annual salary (lst convert into Canadian dollars or after you get the figures), do any of personal income tax % end up more or less than your state?  I'm just wondering...because aside from private insurance is collecting tax by govn't.