Most of the government "stuff" I would qualify for are 30 years down the road. It's not that I don't care if Social Security will be there for me someday, clearly I do. It's just that .... a lot can happen in 30 years. In a 3 decade timespan there's a heck of a lot of things I should be worried about, and only some of them having anything to do with "stuff". That seems plainly obvious to me.
Trees don't grow on money
According to the OECD rankings, NZ has the 4th best educational system in the world (link). The US comes in beyond the 34th in this article. So the standard of education here is high overall.Originally Posted by peggy
Most people are happy with the system overall, but as ever, concerned about the needs of Maori and poor populations (poor populations being diverse in ethnicity and background).
Iris Lily,
In terms of the "free" physicals and mammograms, I think that this is people not understanding some basics of how insurance works and why we utilize it as a system. I think there is definite ignorance.
It's not 'free' -- it's simply that it's going to be covered under the insurance without a co-pay. This is effectively "getting what you pay for" and the insurance company can move funds into different directions. It won't necessarily increase costs.
In our case, our original insurance through DH's work was a normal plan with a small deductable and then a lot of co-pays for everything. Ok, fine. It's what we had (no choice in the matter). Then, the insurance changed to another company, wherein there weren't copays for preventative care, and there was a long list around that. The insurance costs didn't go up, it was literally just switching plans.
the next year, we had an option between a high deductable or the full coverage plan. We would still get "free" preventative coverage, and catastrophic coverage after the deductible, which was no greater than $10k for the both of us (which was about what we had in savings at the time). So, being young and healthy, we went with this option. It cost the same as the prior plan, and anyone choosing "full coverage" would pay slightly more. At the time, we were told that if we wanted to go back to full coverage at any time, we could. When I got pregnant, I wanted that insurance in case anything was wrong with DS (since the high deductable meant that NICU stays would not be 100% covered and we'd have our up-to $15k deductable because the kid adds a $5k to it), and when we went to switch at the normal time of year when they go over this, they said that we couldn't -- that you could only go form full to high deductable, but not the other way around.
So, we were on the high deductible plan, and htank goodness DS was healthy as could be!
What we were getting in those "free" physicals, well babies, etc was what we were paying for -- under that insurance plan.
All this Obamacare statement says (similar to the birth control one) is that this will be covered under your health care insurance plan without a co-pay. It doesn't necessarily mean that the cost of the health care goes up per se.
Yes, ours went up every second year anyway (I believe due to inflation, etc -- not to mention, in my observation, the nation getting sicker and sicker and sicker, and since insurance is meant to cover us all or off set the sick and the well so to speak -- more people were needing insurance and therefore the overall burden on everyone was greater).
The real problem that I have with these mandates is that they mandate and dictate choice/options for people. I don't believe in having a gyn exam every year (there are studies that pap smears cause cervical damage that can lead to unusual cell growth), and believe that everyth 5th year for low-risk women is more appropriate. I act accordingly, but because I get a 'free' gyn exam each year (or did), I'm effectively "throwing away that money."
If insurance companies could offer a range of products that an individual can choose and, the programs and options would be more financially competitive, then peopel would understand that none of this is "free" -- that you are getting what you pay for.
For low income people, the opportunity to have good health care, particularly good preventative care, is important, too. To have an option where a single-payer, low income person can get "free" physicals are part of their care would take off a huge emotional load. For a poor person, a $25 copay could mean the difference between seeing the doctor or feeding their kids for the rest of the week. ANd most will choose to feed their kids, and this means that things "sneak by." They know they need to visit the doctor, but honestly can't find the co-pay to do it.
For them, "free" (or rahter, it's already covered in the insurance that you pay which you receive through your employment) makes a huge difference in terms of being able -- emotionally and financially -- to take care of their health early without worrying if they are going to "blow" their budget.
To be sure, when DH and I first started out, he was earning $35k (take home). This was 1999. His parents would chastize us for "not saving enough" and comparing DH's $35k in 1999 to FIL's $35k in 1968 (when he started teaching). It was actually a lot less money in 1999 than 1968, is it not?
After our housing, transportation, power, student loans and groceries -- and trust me, we were frugal! -- we didn't have any money to bank. This is why -- against my parents wishes -- I worked during law school. It was part time, but it brought in a little extra money to help defray educational costs on my end, as well as fill in the gaps of our food budget.
We did go for our physicals and dental cleanings every year because we were paying for it in our insurance premiums. They didn't have a co-pay. If they had, we may nto have been able to afford it. Or, we would have had to borrow from friends/family or credit to do so. And that's not a really nice road, to be honest.
It's not for people who want to be financially independent of their family ("silver has strings" -- a line from the film Looper) and not get into credit card/consumer debt.
5 years later, we were doing *much* better, to be honest. . . able to bank a lot, pay off a lot of debt, etc. Paying a copay at that point would not have been a big issue. But at that time, in 1999, the copay meant the difference between staying afloat and independence or debt.
And that's just an average, two-person middle class family.
ANM:
As far as I can tell, internationally, economists are asserting that there's really no way to save these programs. They'll likely all be gone in 30 years (bankrupt), and we'll have to discover along the way another method of reaching to the philosophical underpinnings (social need) of these programs.
And, as you say, a lot can happen in 30 years.
The Social Security administration itself says payouts can continue more than 30 years into the future, just they will be 75% of what they were promised to be. That sounds ok to me.
Trees don't grow on money
Sounds good to me! I have often thought the same thing, IL...
By the way, I don't believe I've thanked everyone here, recently, for your passion, insights, willingness to jump in with an opinion, and for keeping it civil and respectful. I know we can flare with each other every so often, but by & large, we don't. I really appreciate everyone's contributions. So, thank you!
ANM:
I am probably reading far more doomsday predictions than I should. A recent criticism of the Australian system was realy interesting.My friend (south african immigrant to Oz) says she isn't counting on it at all. Both of us work like crazy. LOL And complain about other yoga teachers who refuse to. Anyway. . . it's al ong story. LOL
Letter to a future Republican strategist...
http://www.ericgarland.co/2012/11/09...-white-people/
Republicans and Corporate American GET A TON OF STUFF!!!!!!!!
They get a highly educated work force for one!
We all do better when we all do better. Why a us versus them all the time?
They get an infastructure allowing them to move goods and services.
They get a country protected by a huge military.
Tax breaks and incentives. Don't they get corporate jets deducted as well as SUVs for pete sake.
We are all in this together. Obama wants a "balanced" approach that includes government cuts and tax increases for the very wealthy.
The republicans only want themselves to benefit. Democrats want EVERYONE to benefit and EVERYONE to lose something. We all need to make adjustments - but not just some of us (like the republicans want).
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you don't spend much time with any actual people who are republicans. Do you really believe half the population of the US is that caricature who is short sighted, greedy and unconcerned with anything in life beyond their own bank balance? I don't. I also don't think promoting stereotypes is particularly helpful, but YMMV.
"Back when I was a young boy all my aunts and uncles would poke me in the ribs at weddings saying your next! Your next! They stopped doing all that crap when I started doing it to them... at funerals!"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote