Kansas Crimson

There is nothing “Affordable” about the Affordable Care Act.

If we could fix health care we would have done so by now. It’s been confounding us for decades.

It’s outside our reach.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:52 am There is nothing “Affordable” about the Affordable Care Act.

Well, to be fair, it is more affordable for the uninsurable people.

Bottom line, don’t get sick. Cause if you get sick, real sick, decent chance you’re going bankrupt.

One of the not so charming downsides of living in the greatest country on earth.

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:56 am If we could fix health care we would have done so by now. It’s been confounding us for decades.

It’s outside our reach.

That's the spirit! Providing affordable healthcare for all is impossible, it has never been done, no country on earth has made it happen.

So let's just resolve that healthcare is really for those who can afford to live and move on with more tax cuts for those who can afford to live.

Survival of the fittest to pay.

Nothing more is possible if we want to keep up the standard of living for those who can afford to live.

japhy- you’re being too kind to Mich. He just keeps proving the adage “you can fool some of the people all of the time”.

Nah yall are right. Free everything for everyone. Lets work for those that dont want to. Itll be awesome. Socialistic style ideas are great until your neighbor runs out of money. If I wanted that I'd live in a commune somewhere.

Free huh?

None of it looks free to me. Maybe out of balance, but damn sure not free.

But let's get back on topic......

MICHHAWK watches what he eats and exercises regularly. MICHHAWK knows he has to do what he can. Because MICHHAWK knows that if he gets sick, really sick, there is a chance he goes bankrupt. MICHHAWK does not want to go bankrupt.

I mean, I get your premise..

But that is the douchiest post I've seen on this bored.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 9:39 am The idea of Obamacare I support. But it can't be done thru forcing insurance companies to cover everyone.

When it comes to healthcare reform I like Pete and Amy's ideas. Let insurance companies decide who to cover thru actuarial science like they always have...and then let the government funded Healthcare pick up the people who are uninsurable due to health/pre existing conditions/etc.

Insurance companies exist to make profit. If you try to force them to cover everyone then nobody wins and the system doesn't work.

Also, get the cost of medicines under control. Drug companies exist to make profit also, but there are ways to incentivize them to lower prices to a reasonable amount.

If you weren't paying attention this was the original proposal, based on Romneycare, which in turn was based on proposals by conservative thinktank(s) - the ACA with "public option".

This is not a problem that remains (mostly) unsolved because we cannot solve it. This remains unsolved because "we" don't want to. And yes, the blame lies mostly with Republican governing because the only ones who have even attempted any solution are Clinton and Obama. The Republicans controlled both chambers and presidency several times and the only action was to take away healthcare from those who had it. Not to expand access, not to reduce cost.

If we follow Mich's logic, I lock my front door, I lock my back door. I am in a location where there is zero chance I will get attacked by any foreign powers. Don't spend any of my tax money through the Pentagon.

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:28 am Nah yall are right. Free everything for everyone. Lets work for those that dont want to. Itll be awesome. Socialistic style ideas are great until your neighbor runs out of money. If I wanted that I'd live in a commune somewhere.

"Government-paid healthcare" is as free as aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons are free. Is Pentagon surviving on socialism? According to your definition I think that is what you are saying.

Blah blah blah blah blah. Health care has confounded us for decades. Over the course of those decades we have had multiple republicans in the White House and multiple democrats in the White House. To date, nothing.

So tell us more.

zsn wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 11:23 am

TDub wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:28 am Nah yall are right. Free everything for everyone. Lets work for those that dont want to. Itll be awesome. Socialistic style ideas are great until your neighbor runs out of money. If I wanted that I'd live in a commune somewhere.

"Government-paid healthcare" is as free as aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons are free. Is Pentagon surviving on socialism? According to your definition I think that is what you are saying.

Meaning it isnt free. Where is that money coming from then? Me, you, all of the people with jobs.

Where does it end? Paying for national defense is different than paying for Edwards diabetes problem because he wont put down the 44oz pepsi. Or paying for Freddys apartment because he doesnt feel like going to work that month.

Is Edward a retired White fireman or a Black guy who has worked various jobs as a cashier at 7-11 and has an extensive criminal record?
I ask because there is not a single person in the world who can convince me that those two scenarios wouldn't figure in to how the majority of Americans feel about "socialism".

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 10:57 am I mean, I get your premise..

But that is the douchiest post I've seen on this bored.

Impressive, that list is long and distinguished.

Grandma wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:01 pm Is Edward a retired White fireman or a Black guy who has worked various jobs as a cashier at 7-11 and has an extensive criminal record?
I ask because there is not a single person in the world who can convince me that those two scenarios wouldn't figure in to how the majority of Americans feel about "socialism".

You are right, but it's not the race that matters imo.

Some people go bankrupt, and some people declare bankruptcy. I am not a lawyer or a financial advisor but the following cautionary tale is from a financial advisor’s website and thought it might help. But if you need legal advise; always, always talk to Leawood before you do anything rash.

“Divorce amongst older couples is on the rise in this country due to spiraling medical/long-term care costs. Soaring medical/nursing care expenses are aggravated by longevity and uninsured risk (no long-term care insurance in place). Although unappetizing, divorce – when compared with alternatives — may inflict the least amount of damage. When Medicaid finally steps in to cover an ill spouse, he or she will be guaranteed care to the end of life.

In my financial planning practice, I deal with the emotionally fraught issue of spiraling medical/long-term care costs. Counseling someone to consider divorce to stave off financial ruin is “difficult” — to say the least. For the healthy spouse, this advice can feel profoundly wrong and immoral, despite the best intentions of well-meaning financial advisors and attorneys.

As a reminder, Medicare only covers up to 100 days of nursing care. If you and/or your spouse need nursing/long-term care, you either:
1) Pay out of pocket (until your assets fall below a low threshold) and/or
2) Tap into your long-term care insurance (if you have it).
If you don’t have long-term care insurance, you pay “out of pocket” until most of your assets are spent down and Medicaid steps in as a last resort. If you’re married, all liquid assets must be tapped – regardless of who’s name appears on the account – until most of your combined net worth is spent down. Only then does Medicaid (an aid-based program) step in.

Jahpy and Annie Oakley (names and circumstances are changed) are an example of a couple strained by medical/long-term care expenses:
Japhy is 59 and Annie is 48. This is a 2nd marriage for both. They got married 11 years ago, purchased a three homes and four commercial buildings together ( portfolio value $1.2M ) and have a stock portfolio ( $.75M ) own three vehicles and have amassed a sizeable art collection; but kept their investment assets separate. Life was good until Japhy was diagnosed with Trump Derangement Syndrome a year ago. Since then, Annie has engaged personal caregivers to help Japhy every day and part of each night. Japhy’s assets were depleting at a rate that exceeded his income 6 months ago and Annie is starting to draw down her individual retirement savings to cover his care. Monthly palliative care costs including weed bill, booze bill and ESPN+ now top $5,000/month.

Annie engaged me to review her financial situation. I could see that Japhy was at risk of running down all remaining investment assets within 20 years since Japhy will move shortly to an TDS unit at a local bar. I considered a reverse mortgage, investing some of Japhy’s assets in a Medicaid-compliant annuity, etc. After consulting with an elder care attorney and divorce attorney on Annie’s behalf, we concluded the best way to safeguard Annie’s financial future and guarantee nursing care for Japhy is to divorce. The alternative is Japhy and Annie remain married, she continues to tap her retirement nest egg and she risks having relatively little to cover her own medical and living expenses needs in the future. This is of particular concern since Annie only is 48 and easily could live another 35+ years.

We tell Annie that a “paper divorce” won’t interfere with her wifely responsibilities toward Japhy (e.g. overseeing keeping his stash full and providing him with finger paints so he can drink and dabble in the art studio). Annie understands the cold, dry logic of divorcing Japhy but she can’t shake the feeling she is betraying him and taking undue advantage of the system. But Annie is a pragmatic gal and she does the smart thing.

Japhy, despondent about his true love jettisoning him in his time of need, believes he has nothing to live another 20 years for and allows her and her evil lawyer to take everything. He is destitute, you might say he is bankrupt. His expenses exceed his monthly SS and disability checks.

Japhy after the divorce is living in his truck but he has found himself a wealthy divorced redhead named Annie who allows him to sleep over at her houses and lets him store his fishing equipment at her place and she pays his monthly bar tab. Meanwhile, Medicare picks up the tab for his weed prescription and art therapy at the Annie Oakley Art Therapy Studio and his viagra.

So, in the end it all works out. Of course if you really have no money then you are SOL”

Japhy that was damned eloquent. And there is money for medical care in this country. The rich are all for the socialism from which they benefit. They are against giving back.

Sparko wrote: ↑Wed Feb 26, 2020 1:40 pm Japhy that was damned eloquent. And there is money for medical care in this country. The rich are all for the socialism from which they benefit. They are against giving back.

I guess we shall test this theory in November. There are a great many more non rich than there are rich in this country. Leaving the rich powerless to stop burnie come November.