|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 22, 2014 13:15:12 GMT
Whereas I certainly agree with your anti-redistributionist sentiments, I disagree with your preference for a heavy-handed government that instructs employers as to what they must provide. (I believe I mentioned in another post--I don't remember if it was in this thread or another--that I am not even entirely sanguine with the concept of even minimum-wage laws.) Although almost everyone will need, at sometime within his (or her) lifetime, access to medical services, there is an enormous difference between that and merely having healthcare insurance. As I noted--again, in another post--the two are simply not interchangeable concepts. I am not sure what your methodology is in concluding that the healthcare "expenditures" in the US, for 2013, came to $3 trillion. But I am wondering if that is merely the sum total of the Submitted Charges for services rendered. If so, it could be quite misleading. Those of us with managed-care plans (either PPOs or HMOs) usually are subject to a Plan Allowance that is far less than the Submitted Charges, in accordance with contractual agreements between the healthcare-insurance carriers and the healthcare providers. (For instance, when I had a colonoscopy this past January, the Submitted Charges for it came to $4,741.30. But Blue Cross/Blue Shield knocked it down to a Plan Allowance of just $1,680.56--an adjustment in the amount of $3,060.74--and paid the entire amount, thereby leaving no coinsurance.)
I don't personally like "heavy-handed" government and instead prefer "personal responsibility" but when personal responsibility fails sometimes heavy-handed government is necessary to avoid placing a burder upon society and the taxpayers. For example in my proposal to privatize Social Security is based upon a "mandatory private investment program" because historically we know that about 1/2 of the people will not voluntarily invest during their working careers so that they won't become a burden on society (taxpayers) when they're too old to work.
If all owners of enterprise voluntarily ensured that their employees had enough compensation in wages and benefits to meet their basic needs then we wouldn't require a "heavy-handed" government mandate but the problem is that they don't. As I noted based upon a viable business plan that is followed the "owners of enterprise" could provide an adequate compensation package but they don't. The "owners of enterprise" are being irresponsible and that imposes a burden on society (i.e. taxpayers) to pick up costs of healthcare for their employees. That burden imposed on the taxpayers warrants "heavy-handed" government regulation IMHO. I don't like it but it is a problem the "owners of enterprise" create by not voluntarily ensuring adequate compensation in wages and benefits for their employees.
Everyone requries primary medical services annually including the young. I know, I was one of the "Young Invincibles" at least psychologically when I was young and fortunately I wasn't struck by any serious illness that wasn't detected because I didn't go in for annual check-ups. I didn't even go in for annual check-ups when I had group insurance from work but I should have. I could easily have been one of the three anecdotal cases cited previously that "didn't go to the doctor" because I didn't have insurance and died because of it just because I was arrogant and didn't believe I'd ever get sick. I was just lucky and nothing else. So I didn't go even when I had insurance and that was just stupidity on my part.
What we do know, even taking into account stupid people like me, is that the odds of someone going in for an annual checkup is far greater for someone with insurance than for someone without insurance and that check-up would save tens of thousands of lives annually.
As for the $3 trillion I referenced was based upon the cited percentage of GDP "spent" (not billed) on healthcare in the United States. We should note that this number would change if everyone received primary care including annual check-up that would increase primary care costs but reduce serious illness costs. There's a financial trade-off when serious illness is detected early. It should be noted as well that about 50% of all medical expenditures relate to older retirees on Medicare because old people often end up with an expensive illness to deal with.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 23, 2014 0:43:44 GMT
Whereas I certainly agree with your anti-redistributionist sentiments, I disagree with your preference for a heavy-handed government that instructs employers as to what they must provide. (I believe I mentioned in another post--I don't remember if it was in this thread or another--that I am not even entirely sanguine with the concept of even minimum-wage laws.) Although almost everyone will need, at sometime within his (or her) lifetime, access to medical services, there is an enormous difference between that and merely having healthcare insurance. As I noted--again, in another post--the two are simply not interchangeable concepts. I am not sure what your methodology is in concluding that the healthcare "expenditures" in the US, for 2013, came to $3 trillion. But I am wondering if that is merely the sum total of the Submitted Charges for services rendered. If so, it could be quite misleading. Those of us with managed-care plans (either PPOs or HMOs) usually are subject to a Plan Allowance that is far less than the Submitted Charges, in accordance with contractual agreements between the healthcare-insurance carriers and the healthcare providers. (For instance, when I had a colonoscopy this past January, the Submitted Charges for it came to $4,741.30. But Blue Cross/Blue Shield knocked it down to a Plan Allowance of just $1,680.56--an adjustment in the amount of $3,060.74--and paid the entire amount, thereby leaving no coinsurance.)
I don't personally like "heavy-handed" government and instead prefer "personal responsibility" but when personal responsibility fails sometimes heavy-handed government is necessary to avoid placing a burder upon society and the taxpayers. For example in my proposal to privatize Social Security is based upon a "mandatory private investment program" because historically we know that about 1/2 of the people will not voluntarily invest during their working careers so that they won't become a burden on society (taxpayers) when they're too old to work.
If all owners of enterprise voluntarily ensured that their employees had enough compensation in wages and benefits to meet their basic needs then we wouldn't require a "heavy-handed" government mandate but the problem is that they don't. As I noted based upon a viable business plan that is followed the "owners of enterprise" could provide an adequate compensation package but they don't. The "owners of enterprise" are being irresponsible and that imposes a burden on society (i.e. taxpayers) to pick up costs of healthcare for their employees. That burden imposed on the taxpayers warrants "heavy-handed" government regulation IMHO. I don't like it but it is a problem the "owners of enterprise" create by not voluntarily ensuring adequate compensation in wages and benefits for their employees.
Everyone requries primary medical services annually including the young. I know, I was one of the "Young Invincibles" at least psychologically when I was young and fortunately I wasn't struck by any serious illness that wasn't detected because I didn't go in for annual check-ups. I didn't even go in for annual check-ups when I had group insurance from work but I should have. I could easily have been one of the three anecdotal cases cited previously that "didn't go to the doctor" because I didn't have insurance and died because of it just because I was arrogant and didn't believe I'd ever get sick. I was just lucky and nothing else. So I didn't go even when I had insurance and that was just stupidity on my part.
What we do know, even taking into account stupid people like me, is that the odds of someone going in for an annual checkup is far greater for someone with insurance than for someone without insurance and that check-up would save tens of thousands of lives annually.
As for the $3 trillion I referenced was based upon the cited percentage of GDP "spent" (not billed) on healthcare in the United States. We should note that this number would change if everyone received primary care including annual check-up that would increase primary care costs but reduce serious illness costs. There's a financial trade-off when serious illness is detected early. It should be noted as well that about 50% of all medical expenditures relate to older retirees on Medicare because old people often end up with an expensive illness to deal with.
You are certainly correct as concerning the propensity of young people to take risks unnecessarily: When I was a teenager (before I acquired a driver's license) I hitchhiked quite a lot--and, fortunately, nothing bad ever came of it--but this was due to dumb luck, not to any wisdom on my part at the time. Actually, Social Security, as it currently stands, is a "mandatory" retirement program. Whereas one may certainly prefer a different retirement program, there is really no point in one's pretending that Social Security is voluntary; fully 12.4 percent (or about one-eighth) of one's gross income goes into Social Security: half of that from one's paycheck (directly), and the other half from one's employer. Yes, I would certainly agree that the odds are much greater that a person with healthcare insurance will have an annual checkup, vis-a-vis a person with no such insurance. But again, that is a matter of individual responsibility; I would simply not prefer to see the intrusion of The Nanny State into the matter, regardless of the respective outcomes. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 23, 2014 10:30:19 GMT
You are certainly correct as concerning the propensity of young people to take risks unnecessarily: When I was a teenager (before I acquired a driver's license) I hitchhiked quite a lot--and, fortunately, nothing bad ever came of it--but this was due to dumb luck, not to any wisdom on my part at the time. Actually, Social Security, as it currently stands, is a "mandatory" retirement program. Whereas one may certainly prefer a different retirement program, there is really no point in one's pretending that Social Security is voluntary; fully 12.4 percent (or about one-eighth) of one's gross income goes into Social Security: half of that from one's paycheck (directly), and the other half from one's employer. Yes, I would certainly agree that the odds are much greater that a person with healthcare insurance will have an annual checkup, vis-a-vis a person with no such insurance. But again, that is a matter of individual responsibility; I would simply not prefer to see the intrusion of The Nanny State into the matter, regardless of the respective outcomes.
The problem with the "personal irresponsibility" is that those that can afford insurance and/or primary health care services place the taxpayers at a huge financial risk with their irresponsibility. Lacking insurance when they are struck with a catastrophic medical emergency because they don't have insurance the taxpayers have to pick up the cost of their health care services.
When a person puts the taxpayers at financial risk I believe it can warrant government interventionism. As a taxpayer I don't believe I should be held financially accountable for another person being blatantly irresponsible. I don't care if the personal irresponsibility is related to a worker that has enough compensation to purchase insurance or an employer that doesn't provide for enough compensation in wages or benefits that will provide for the workers health insurance.
As the "taxpayer" I shouldn't have to provide the "insurance" because employees or employers are acting irresponsibly so I demand government intervetionism to address the irresponsibility. The lack of "responsibility" that places the taxpayer at risk provides the compelling argument for government interventionism.
Based upon the compelling argument the government has a pragmatic reason to intervene but when it does intervene it should do so in the least intrusive manner possible but it does have to resolve the problem identified by the compelling argument in doing so.
The problem with Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare is that they are tax and spend welfare programs that simply institutionalize the taxpayer liability as opposed to eliminating that taxpayer liability. They are also all unsustainable long term financially based upon current taxation. I've addressesed Social Security and Medicare, both of which address personal irresponsibility, with a responsible privatization plan and I have also addressed health care (insurance) needs with an "Employer Mandate" proposal that addresses individual irresponsibility by either the employee, employer, or both.
All three of my proposals are based upon the labor of the person ensuring that personal irresponsibility is addressed where taxpayer liability is minimized if not completely elimnated. None of my proposals are based upon wealth redistibution by government tax and spend welfare programs.
I believe that my proposals are the least intrusive interventionism by government necessary to meet the compelling arguments based upon personal irresponsibility that places the taxpayer at risk. If you have better proposals that would reduce/eliminate potential taxpayer liability then I'm certainly open to them.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 24, 2014 1:12:48 GMT
You are certainly correct as concerning the propensity of young people to take risks unnecessarily: When I was a teenager (before I acquired a driver's license) I hitchhiked quite a lot--and, fortunately, nothing bad ever came of it--but this was due to dumb luck, not to any wisdom on my part at the time. Actually, Social Security, as it currently stands, is a "mandatory" retirement program. Whereas one may certainly prefer a different retirement program, there is really no point in one's pretending that Social Security is voluntary; fully 12.4 percent (or about one-eighth) of one's gross income goes into Social Security: half of that from one's paycheck (directly), and the other half from one's employer. Yes, I would certainly agree that the odds are much greater that a person with healthcare insurance will have an annual checkup, vis-a-vis a person with no such insurance. But again, that is a matter of individual responsibility; I would simply not prefer to see the intrusion of The Nanny State into the matter, regardless of the respective outcomes.
The problem with the "personal irresponsibility" is that those that can afford insurance and/or primary health care services place the taxpayers at a huge financial risk with their irresponsibility. Lacking insurance when they are struck with a catastrophic medical emergency because they don't have insurance the taxpayers have to pick up the cost of their health care services.
When a person puts the taxpayers at financial risk I believe it can warrant government interventionism. As a taxpayer I don't believe I should be held financially accountable for another person being blatantly irresponsible. I don't care if the personal irresponsibility is related to a worker that has enough compensation to purchase insurance or an employer that doesn't provide for enough compensation in wages or benefits that will provide for the workers health insurance.
As the "taxpayer" I shouldn't have to provide the "insurance" because employees or employers are acting irresponsibly so I demand government intervetionism to address the irresponsibility. The lack of "responsibility" that places the taxpayer at risk provides the compelling argument for government interventionism.
Based upon the compelling argument the government has a pragmatic reason to intervene but when it does intervene it should do so in the least intrusive manner possible but it does have to resolve the problem identified by the compelling argument in doing so.
The problem with Social Security, Medicare, and Obamacare is that they are tax and spend welfare programs that simply institutionalize the taxpayer liability as opposed to eliminating that taxpayer liability. They are also all unsustainable long term financially based upon current taxation. I've addressesed Social Security and Medicare, both of which address personal irresponsibility, with a responsible privatization plan and I have also addressed health care (insurance) needs with an "Employer Mandate" proposal that addresses individual irresponsibility by either the employee, employer, or both.
All three of my proposals are based upon the labor of the person ensuring that personal irresponsibility is addressed where taxpayer liability is minimized if not completely elimnated. None of my proposals are based upon wealth redistibution by government tax and spend welfare programs.
I believe that my proposals are the least intrusive interventionism by government necessary to meet the compelling arguments based upon personal irresponsibility that places the taxpayer at risk. If you have better proposals that would reduce/eliminate potential taxpayer liability then I'm certainly open to them.
Well, I do have one proposal that would be "better," in my opinion, than government interventionism (i.e. heavy-handed government): Whereas very few Americans would favor a policy of turning away the ill or the injured from hospitals, simply because they lack healthcare insurance--and I would certainly not favor any such thing--it would be reasonable enough, I believe, to garnishee the offending individual's wages until all hospital charges and doctors' charges are paid in full. (If the person in question is a deadbeat, this could have a rather limited effect, as concerning the recovery of the money; but it would serve, at least, to attenuate his or her take-home pay for a pretty good while.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 24, 2014 11:41:12 GMT
Well, I do have one proposal that would be "better," in my opinion, than government interventionism (i.e. heavy-handed government): Whereas very few Americans would favor a policy of turning away the ill or the injured from hospitals, simply because they lack healthcare insurance--and I would certainly not favor any such thing--it would be reasonable enough, I believe, to garnishee the offending individual's wages until all hospital charges and doctors' charges are paid in full. (If the person in question is a deadbeat, this could have a rather limited effect, as concerning the recovery of the money; but it would serve, at least, to attenuate his or her take-home pay for a pretty good while.)
The garnishment will reduce their disposable income so what monthly bills do you recommend low income households not pay? Should they not pay their electric bill, the rent, or perhaps part of their food bill that is probably being supplemented with SNAP benefits?
We have 40 million Americans currently receiving SNAP benefits because they don't have enough income to put the food necessary on the table. In an anecdotal case I saw an interview with a married woman that was waiting for her SNAP application to be approved where she and her husband alternated "eating" days so they could feed their baby. Both were working but the mother only part time because she had to care for her infant when the husband was at work. How do you propose they live on less disposable income when they can't even afford the food they need today?
Perhaps they just start hopping from one low-paying job to another to avoid the garnishment. Millions of Americans are already doing that today to avoid IRS and/or court ordered child support wage garnishments.
Or perhaps you propose more welfare to cover the necessary expenditures these households require just to keep a roof over their heads, the utilities on, and put food on the table.
Or perhaps they can file for bankruptcy but they can only do that every 7-years so they will have to space out any medical needs so that they doesn't occur more than once in 7-years.
Yes, in some cases a garnishment can work but in most cases it probably wouldn't.
Please note that this is a very "statist" proposal because the taxpayers are going to have to pay for the medical services.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 24, 2014 17:19:18 GMT
Well, I do have one proposal that would be "better," in my opinion, than government interventionism (i.e. heavy-handed government): Whereas very few Americans would favor a policy of turning away the ill or the injured from hospitals, simply because they lack healthcare insurance--and I would certainly not favor any such thing--it would be reasonable enough, I believe, to garnishee the offending individual's wages until all hospital charges and doctors' charges are paid in full. (If the person in question is a deadbeat, this could have a rather limited effect, as concerning the recovery of the money; but it would serve, at least, to attenuate his or her take-home pay for a pretty good while.)
The garnishment will reduce their disposable income so what monthly bills do you recommend low income households not pay? Should they not pay their electric bill, the rent, or perhaps part of their food bill that is probably being supplemented with SNAP benefits?
We have 40 million Americans currently receiving SNAP benefits because they don't have enough income to put the food necessary on the table. In an anecdotal case I saw an interview with a married woman that was waiting for her SNAP application to be approved where she and her husband alternated "eating" days so they could feed their baby. Both were working but the mother only part time because she had to care for her infant when the husband was at work. How do you propose they live on less disposable income when they can't even afford the food they need today?
Perhaps they just start hopping from one low-paying job to another to avoid the garnishment. Millions of Americans are already doing that today to avoid IRS and/or court ordered child support wage garnishments.
Or perhaps you propose more welfare to cover the necessary expenditures these households require just to keep a roof over their heads, the utilities on, and put food on the table.
Or perhaps they can file for bankruptcy but they can only do that every 7-years so they will have to space out any medical needs so that they doesn't occur more than once in 7-years.
Yes, in some cases a garnishment can work but in most cases it probably wouldn't.
Please note that this is a very "statist" proposal because the taxpayers are going to have to pay for the medical services.
Or, alternatively, one of the marriage partners (if not both) could seek an extra job. And how might this result, ultimately, in "the taxpayers...pay[ing] for the medical services"? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 25, 2014 8:52:15 GMT
Or, alternatively, one of the marriage partners (if not both) could seek an extra job. And how might this result, ultimately, in "the taxpayers...pay[ing] for the medical services"?
Once agian it might look good on paper but it isn't pragmatically possible in the vast majority of cases.
Often there are child care concerns where one parent has to provide the child care because paying for child care is very expensive and generally ends up being a net financial loss for low income households.
A person can only work so many hours a week. While not working multiply jobs (that would be more difficult and time consuming for less money) I've worked "unlimited overtime" and found that about 50hrs/wk over the long term is about the best I could do. I've worked more but my productivity dropped off significantly above that 50hr mark.
There are between 13-18 million Americans looking for work (much higher than the "official" unemployment rate) but there aren't enough jobs for the unemployed much less for those that already have jobs.
The "taxpayers" are still paying for the medical services with perhaps a slight hope that some of those expenditures might be repaid but they won't in the vast majority of cases. Those that can't afford the medical services won't be able to repay the costs of the medical services in the future in the vast majority of cases. If they couldn't afford the insurance in the first place then it's highly unlikely they'll be financially able to repay the costs in the future. The proposals you make, while well intended, really place a financial anchor around the necks of people that are just struggling to survive from paycheck to paycheck.
Even if they could possibly increase their annual income by 10%-20% they would still have higher financial priorities just to meet the daily living expenses because they're living without much, often simple things like socks without holes in them, that we would consider essential.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 25, 2014 18:57:37 GMT
Or, alternatively, one of the marriage partners (if not both) could seek an extra job. And how might this result, ultimately, in "the taxpayers...pay[ing] for the medical services"?
Once agian it might look good on paper but it isn't pragmatically possible in the vast majority of cases.
Often there are child care concerns where one parent has to provide the child care because paying for child care is very expensive and generally ends up being a net financial loss for low income households.
A person can only work so many hours a week. While not working multiply jobs (that would be more difficult and time consuming for less money) I've worked "unlimited overtime" and found that about 50hrs/wk over the long term is about the best I could do. I've worked more but my productivity dropped off significantly above that 50hr mark.
There are between 13-18 million Americans looking for work (much higher than the "official" unemployment rate) but there aren't enough jobs for the unemployed much less for those that already have jobs.
The "taxpayers" are still paying for the medical services with perhaps a slight hope that some of those expenditures might be repaid but they won't in the vast majority of cases. Those that can't afford the medical services won't be able to repay the costs of the medical services in the future in the vast majority of cases. If they couldn't afford the insurance in the first place then it's highly unlikely they'll be financially able to repay the costs in the future. The proposals you make, while well intended, really place a financial anchor around the necks of people that are just struggling to survive from paycheck to paycheck.
Even if they could possibly increase their annual income by 10%-20% they would still have higher financial priorities just to meet the daily living expenses because they're living without much, often simple things like socks without holes in them, that we would consider essential.
How is it that you might imagine that a second job--even if it were for only, say, four hours a day (rather than the standard eight hours for a full-time job) would only result in a net increase of "10%-20%" in income? And I agree that the real unemployment rate is much higher than the "official" unemployment rate is. But that is because so many Americans have simply become discouraged, and therefore stopped looking for a job--not because "between 13-18 million Americans" are "looking for work" presently. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 26, 2014 11:04:42 GMT
How is it that you might imagine that a second job--even if it were for only, say, four hours a day (rather than the standard eight hours for a full-time job) would only result in a net increase of "10%-20%" in income? And I agree that the real unemployment rate is much higher than the "official" unemployment rate is. But that is because so many Americans have simply become discouraged, and therefore stopped looking for a job--not because "between 13-18 million Americans" are "looking for work" presently.
If we assume that a person is already working 40hr/wk they can't work an additional 4/hrs/day. A person's real "work day" begins the moment they leave home (perhaps before when getting ready to go to work) to go to work and then ends when they get home from work. Most people don't do this accounting but I always have. If my travel time is 30 minutes each way, I have a 30 minute lunch break, and work 8 hours then my "workday" is 9.5 hours because that's how much time I'm dedicating to work but I only get paid for 8 hours. If I add another 4 hours and just 15 additional minutes of commuting time each way that increase my work day to 14hrs/day and no one can do that over any extended period of time.
A person might be able to work an additional 16 hours on the weekend but even that is unrealistic. In 1980 I worked without a day off from New Years to Memorial Day and my life was "commute, work, commute, eat, sleep" and a person can't do that for very long. I was always tired, never getting enough sleep, and I lost about 20 pounds because all to often too I was tired to even eat. I was a physical wreck by the end of that long period of over-working.
As I've noted the most a person can probably work is 50 hours per week and that would have to include "off time" between different jobs where additional time is added that is "unpaid for" such as working one job and then having to wait for an hour before starting another job. I would also state that while a person can work up to 50hrs/wk they can't do this indefinately either. They simply "burn-out" over time. "Been There, Done That, Have the Tee-Shirt"
The United States has the highest "productivity per man-hour" in the world from what I've read but at the same time Americans literally work themselves death. We don't have enough time off to recover from our labor. I don't believe demanding that a person "work themself to death" is really a viable solution.
Often the news reports that some of the 18 million long term unemployed have given up looking and that is probably accurate but it isn't a significant percentage. The don't tell us how many and I believe it's far less than many assume. If we assumed that it was 10% of the long-term unemployed, which would be a significant percentage, it only lowers the number to 16 million Americans looking for work. If there are 13 million long term unemployed a 10% reduction based upon "giving up looking" only lowers the number to 12 million looking for work.
Finally remember that I posted a link where the Federal Reserve has an economic policy to ensure unemployment numbers are high enough to suppress wages. Our "government economic policy" as created by the Federal Reserve is to ensure that there aren't enough jobs for those that seek employment. You're proposing something that the Federal Reserve is going to ensure can't happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 26, 2014 23:43:16 GMT
How is it that you might imagine that a second job--even if it were for only, say, four hours a day (rather than the standard eight hours for a full-time job) would only result in a net increase of "10%-20%" in income? And I agree that the real unemployment rate is much higher than the "official" unemployment rate is. But that is because so many Americans have simply become discouraged, and therefore stopped looking for a job--not because "between 13-18 million Americans" are "looking for work" presently.
If we assume that a person is already working 40hr/wk they can't work an additional 4/hrs/day. A person's real "work day" begins the moment they leave home (perhaps before when getting ready to go to work) to go to work and then ends when they get home from work. Most people don't do this accounting but I always have. If my travel time is 30 minutes each way, I have a 30 minute lunch break, and work 8 hours then my "workday" is 9.5 hours because that's how much time I'm dedicating to work but I only get paid for 8 hours. If I add another 4 hours and just 15 additional minutes of commuting time each way that increase my work day to 14hrs/day and no one can do that over any extended period of time.
A person might be able to work an additional 16 hours on the weekend but even that is unrealistic. In 1980 I worked without a day off from New Years to Memorial Day and my life was "commute, work, commute, eat, sleep" and a person can't do that for very long. I was always tired, never getting enough sleep, and I lost about 20 pounds because all to often too I was tired to even eat. I was a physical wreck by the end of that long period of over-working.
As I've noted the most a person can probably work is 50 hours per week and that would have to include "off time" between different jobs where additional time is added that is "unpaid for" such as working one job and then having to wait for an hour before starting another job. I would also state that while a person can work up to 50hrs/wk they can't do this indefinately either. They simply "burn-out" over time. "Been There, Done That, Have the Tee-Shirt"
The United States has the highest "productivity per man-hour" in the world from what I've read but at the same time Americans literally work themselves death. We don't have enough time off to recover from our labor. I don't believe demanding that a person "work themself to death" is really a viable solution.
Often the news reports that some of the 18 million long term unemployed have given up looking and that is probably accurate but it isn't a significant percentage. The don't tell us how many and I believe it's far less than many assume. If we assumed that it was 10% of the long-term unemployed, which would be a significant percentage, it only lowers the number to 16 million Americans looking for work. If there are 13 million long term unemployed a 10% reduction based upon "giving up looking" only lowers the number to 12 million looking for work.
Finally remember that I posted a link where the Federal Reserve has an economic policy to ensure unemployment numbers are high enough to suppress wages. Our "government economic policy" as created by the Federal Reserve is to ensure that there aren't enough jobs for those that seek employment. You're proposing something that the Federal Reserve is going to ensure can't happen.
Well, in the 1970s--when I was a twentysomething--I did work from 9:00 AM until 9:00 PM, with an hour out for lunch. (It was from 9:00 AM until 12:00 noon at one job, and from 1:00 PM until 9:00 PM at the other.) It was for only about a year that I did this--I would not recommend living to work, rather than the other way around--but one has to do what one has to do. And please note that the hours listed--9:00 AM to 9:00 PM, with an hour in between for lunch--do not include commute times. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 27, 2014 12:54:06 GMT
Well, in the 1970s--when I was a twentysomething--I did work from 9:00 AM until 9:00 PM, with an hour out for lunch. (It was from 9:00 AM until 12:00 noon at one job, and from 1:00 PM until 9:00 PM at the other.) It was for only about a year that I did this--I would not recommend living to work, rather than the other way around--but one has to do what one has to do. And please note that the hours listed--9:00 AM to 9:00 PM, with an hour in between for lunch--do not include commute times.
I've also done the same as I've worked 12hr days before but like you that was mostly when I was a lot younger and I didn't work 7-days a week.
Here a fundamental problem. A household may require $2,000/yr or more every year just for fundamental medical services that they can't afford to pay for. The cummulative "medical expenditures" would rise year after year after year always driving the person deeper and deeper into debt. Consider this fact. The average cost of health insurnace for a family is about $6,000/yr and while about 1/2 of that is to cover high cost medical necessities for a small percentage of those insured about 1/2 pays for the routine medical services of the typical family (not including their co-pays). Every year that family would be incurring an additional $3,000 in expenditures that they couldn't afford to pay for.
You're basically proposing that low income households be subjected to a deeper and deeper financial pit that they will never be able to fill because they'll never have the income to repay the debt.
By analogy I was reading an article on a "student loan" that a person used years ago. They only borrowed about $20,000 and have already made about $30,000 in payments to date but now owe over $40,000. They never realized enough income from their college degree to repay the loan and have slipped deeper and deeper into debt because of it. (I know, you and I would have figured out how to repay the loan but they didn't figure that out for whatever reason) The point being that any debt for a low income person/household can easily result in a never-ending increase in debt.
And we know that at least 40 million people don't even have enough income to adequately put food on the table based upon SNAP statistics.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 27, 2014 20:25:05 GMT
Well, in the 1970s--when I was a twentysomething--I did work from 9:00 AM until 9:00 PM, with an hour out for lunch. (It was from 9:00 AM until 12:00 noon at one job, and from 1:00 PM until 9:00 PM at the other.) It was for only about a year that I did this--I would not recommend living to work, rather than the other way around--but one has to do what one has to do. And please note that the hours listed--9:00 AM to 9:00 PM, with an hour in between for lunch--do not include commute times.
I've also done the same as I've worked 12hr days before but like you that was mostly when I was a lot younger and I didn't work 7-days a week.
Here a fundamental problem. A household may require $2,000/yr or more every year just for fundamental medical services that they can't afford to pay for. The cummulative "medical expenditures" would rise year after year after year always driving the person deeper and deeper into debt. Consider this fact. The average cost of health insurnace for a family is about $6,000/yr and while about 1/2 of that is to cover high cost medical necessities for a small percentage of those insured about 1/2 pays for the routine medical services of the typical family (not including their co-pays). Every year that family would be incurring an additional $3,000 in expenditures that they couldn't afford to pay for.
You're basically proposing that low income households be subjected to a deeper and deeper financial pit that they will never be able to fill because they'll never have the income to repay the debt.
By analogy I was reading an article on a "student loan" that a person used years ago. They only borrowed about $20,000 and have already made about $30,000 in payments to date but now owe over $40,000. They never realized enough income from their college degree to repay the loan and have slipped deeper and deeper into debt because of it. (I know, you and I would have figured out how to repay the loan but they didn't figure that out for whatever reason) The point being that any debt for a low income person/household can easily result in a never-ending increase in debt.
And we know that at least 40 million people don't even have enough income to adequately put food on the table based upon SNAP statistics.
The best thing that anyone in such a situation as you have described can do is to contact his (or her) creditor-- immediately. That is because creditors really dislike deadbeats. But a person who makes it clear that he (or she) is not a deadbeat, but sincerely wishes to repay the loan--the terms just need to be worked out, so that it might be possible to do so--is not likely to be rejected. (Most creditors would much prefer slow pay to no pay.) As for the household that pays $6,000 per year in healthcare-insurance premiums, plus copays and co-insurance of another $3,000--totaling $9,000 in out-of-pocket expenses per year--that is still much less than a 20-hour-per-week job would pay, even at minimum wage--and even after taxes are deducted. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 28, 2014 23:06:38 GMT
The best thing that anyone in such a situation as you have described can do is to contact his (or her) creditor-- immediately. That is because creditors really dislike deadbeats. But a person who makes it clear that he (or she) is not a deadbeat, but sincerely wishes to repay the loan--the terms just need to be worked out, so that it might be possible to do so--is not likely to be rejected. (Most creditors would much prefer slow pay to no pay.) As for the household that pays $6,000 per year in healthcare-insurance premiums, plus copays and co-insurance of another $3,000--totaling $9,000 in out-of-pocket expenses per year--that is still much less than a 20-hour-per-week job would pay, even at minimum wage--and even after taxes are deducted.
The woman with the student loan isn't a "deadbeat" and has already paid back 1 1/2 times the amount of the original loan and now, because of continuing interests accrual, owes twice the amount of the original loan. This is a person the finanace company loves until "death do they part" when it comes to the loan. Of course the woman can't continue to make payments on the loan until she dies because she can't collect any government benefits like Social Security so long as the loan exists.
So let's see. A poor person without insurance runs up just a $1000 medical bill this year and starts paying $20/mo on it (and they will never repay the "loan" because of interest on the loan) and then next year they have another $1000 medical bill. Do they continue to just pay $20/mo or does it double to $40/mo.? And the year after that they run up another $1000 medical bill. Are they still paying $20/mo or are they paying $60/mo (forever) on these medical bills? Does it continue to go up every time they need to see a doctor and can't afford it?
If you place this condition on people they simply won't go to the doctor because of the financial obligation they would be responsible for and if they don't go to the doctor then thousands of them are going to die. It's that simple really. Your poposition will basically kill people because people won't go to the doctor if it means that they won't have money for basic necessities. It will only work in rare cases where people have more than enough income to start with.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on May 29, 2014 2:54:56 GMT
The best thing that anyone in such a situation as you have described can do is to contact his (or her) creditor-- immediately. That is because creditors really dislike deadbeats. But a person who makes it clear that he (or she) is not a deadbeat, but sincerely wishes to repay the loan--the terms just need to be worked out, so that it might be possible to do so--is not likely to be rejected. (Most creditors would much prefer slow pay to no pay.) As for the household that pays $6,000 per year in healthcare-insurance premiums, plus copays and co-insurance of another $3,000--totaling $9,000 in out-of-pocket expenses per year--that is still much less than a 20-hour-per-week job would pay, even at minimum wage--and even after taxes are deducted.
The woman with the student loan isn't a "deadbeat" and has already paid back 1 1/2 times the amount of the original loan and now, because of continuing interests accrual, owes twice the amount of the original loan. This is a person the finanace company loves until "death do they part" when it comes to the loan. Of course the woman can't continue to make payments on the loan until she dies because she can't collect any government benefits like Social Security so long as the loan exists.
So let's see. A poor person without insurance runs up just a $1000 medical bill this year and starts paying $20/mo on it (and they will never repay the "loan" because of interest on the loan) and then next year they have another $1000 medical bill. Do they continue to just pay $20/mo or does it double to $40/mo.? And the year after that they run up another $1000 medical bill. Are they still paying $20/mo or are they paying $60/mo (forever) on these medical bills? Does it continue to go up every time they need to see a doctor and can't afford it?
If you place this condition on people they simply won't go to the doctor because of the financial obligation they would be responsible for and if they don't go to the doctor then thousands of them are going to die. It's that simple really. Your poposition will basically kill people because people won't go to the doctor if it means that they won't have money for basic necessities. It will only work in rare cases where people have more than enough income to start with.
Do you really believe that it is only "in rare cases" that people have enough money to be able to afford healthcare insurance? If the (hypothetical) family that owes $1,000 on a medical bill takes out a loan to repay the bill, there will, indeed, be "interest" on the loan. But if the family simply makes arrangements with the healthcare provider to repay the debt, there will probably be no interest. The provider will likely be happy just to recoup the principal. If these (hypothetical) people decide to eschew medical treatment rather than to either (1) purchase healthcare insurance or (2) pay entirely out-of-pocket, that is a personal decision--again, I am a big believer in the principle of individual responsibility--and society is, therefore, not collectively to blame for (ostensibly) "kill[ing]" anyone in this regard. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on May 29, 2014 10:28:32 GMT
Do you really believe that it is only "in rare cases" that people have enough money to be able to afford healthcare insurance? If the (hypothetical) family that owes $1,000 on a medical bill takes out a loan to repay the bill, there will, indeed, be "interest" on the loan. But if the family simply makes arrangements with the healthcare provider to repay the debt, there will probably be no interest. The provider will likely be happy just to recoup the principal. If these (hypothetical) people decide to eschew medical treatment rather than to either (1) purchase healthcare insurance or (2) pay entirely out-of-pocket, that is a personal decision--again, I am a big believer in the principle of individual responsibility--and society is, therefore, not collectively to blame for (ostensibly) "kill[ing]" anyone in this regard.
Well, let's see, there are about 40 million American families that, according to the US government, don't even have enough income to put food on the table receiving SNAP benefits and I'd state that if a family can't afford to eat then it can't afford medical insurnace.
My medical service provider has a sign at the check-in counter that states (paraphrased), "Payment is required when services are provided" and they're not going to accept a "payment plan" from anyone that can't afford to pay for the service. No medical provider I'm aware of will accept a payment plan for an uninsured person seeking routine medical services like an annual check-up (that can be life-saving because of early detection). Not even government subidized hospitals will provide financing plans for routine medical services.
Hospitals and clinics are not in the "finance" business and requiring them to be is a rather absurd proposition. Even today if they have any problem with collection of copayments they simply turn it over to a collection agency and if the person that owes the debt can't pay it the debt can quickly double and triple within a year because the collection agency tacks on attorney fees.
|
|
