F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:47:34 -0600, Ignoramus27518
wrote:
snip
I thought that he could continue his insurance for 18 months based on
the COBRA law? For cancer, though, 18 months usually does not amount
to much.
snip
===========
It is one thing to have the opportunity to continue medical
coverage mandated by law. It is quite another to pay for it if
you are out of work.


Sadly, most people have forgot that you save for eventualities and not depend on someone
else to get you through.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 12:41:16 -0500, Wes wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:47:34 -0600, Ignoramus27518
wrote:
snip
I thought that he could continue his insurance for 18 months based on
the COBRA law? For cancer, though, 18 months usually does not amount
to much.
snip
===========
It is one thing to have the opportunity to continue medical
coverage mandated by law. It is quite another to pay for it if
you are out of work.


Sadly, most people have forgot that you save for eventualities and not depend on someone
else to get you through.

Wes


Insurance is like going to the casino..its gambling. If you have a few
bucks not going any place else..you spend it.

When you are out of work..and job offers are few and far between...going
to the casino with the last of your cash, is not a good idea.

Many of us have had to make that choice. Some win, some lose.

"am I going to get sick before I get a new job?" "Can I afford
insurance when I dont have any income..and its a constant outgo with no
immediate benefits, unlike lights, power, gas and food"


Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On 2010-01-24, Wes wrote:
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:47:34 -0600, Ignoramus27518
wrote:
snip
I thought that he could continue his insurance for 18 months based on
the COBRA law? For cancer, though, 18 months usually does not amount
to much.
snip
===========
It is one thing to have the opportunity to continue medical
coverage mandated by law. It is quite another to pay for it if
you are out of work.

Sadly, most people have forgot that you save for eventualities and not depend on someone
else to get you through.


Wes, I agree that saving money is essential for anyone, and people who
do not save, fully deserve a fair amount of trouble. I do personally
save a fair amount of my income.

So, a hypothetical guy who loses a job and does not even have money to
pay very reasonable COBRA rates, does not get too much of my sympathy,
personally.

Now what happens if someone has cancer, loses a job, pays for COBRA
for 18 months, and then his COBRA coverage ends? I do not think that
we can expect people to save enough to cover their cancer treatments
(which amount to big bucks).

I think that when such people, who worked, saved, and did their duty
otherwise, cannot afford to treat their cancer, and cannot get medical
coverage, it is an atrocity.

i

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:27:13 -0600, Ignoramus12856
wrote:
snip
Wes, I agree that saving money is essential for anyone, and people who
do not save, fully deserve a fair amount of trouble. I do personally
save a fair amount of my income.
snip
=======
This appears to be a correct statement.

It is also an area where I think the FRB has some sort of hidden
agenda. [see other thread on this] By setting the interest rates
so low, the interest rates paid on most forms of liquid savings
[gold not included] are now and have been *NEGATIVE* for several
years, when inflation and tax effect are considered.

What is rational about saving so the banks and or government can
use your money and charge you for the "service?"

The other problem is how much savings are "enough?"

Consider that the median U.S. family income is now about 50k$/yr.
When inflation, and especially loss of benefits such as defined
benefit pension plans, fully paid employer medical and job
security are considered, the median income has been *FALLING* [at
an increasing rate] for the last 30 years. Some of the less
perceptive insurance companies were publishing studies showing
that to be on the safe side, the typical couple should have about
1,000,000$ in savings when they retired. Just how is it possible
that the typical couple could accumulate 20 years of pre tax
income over even a 50 year working life? [20-70] especially with
*NEGATIVE* savings interest?


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

Ignoramus12856 wrote:

Sadly, most people have forgot that you save for eventualities and not depend on someone
else to get you through.


Wes, I agree that saving money is essential for anyone, and people who
do not save, fully deserve a fair amount of trouble. I do personally
save a fair amount of my income.

So, a hypothetical guy who loses a job and does not even have money to
pay very reasonable COBRA rates, does not get too much of my sympathy,
personally.

Nor I. I paid for my health insurace for the 8 months I was between jobs.

Now what happens if someone has cancer, loses a job, pays for COBRA
for 18 months, and then his COBRA coverage ends? I do not think that
we can expect people to save enough to cover their cancer treatments
(which amount to big bucks).

I think that when such people, who worked, saved, and did their duty
otherwise, cannot afford to treat their cancer, and cannot get medical
coverage, it is an atrocity.

I honestly don't know what to tell you. Some sort of pooled risk across the insured for
coverage for these events might be a solution.

Michigan has unlimited caps on medical when it comes to auto insurance. Every insured
motorist pays for it and if you are the unlucky person to get seriously injured, we (
meaning Michigan drivers) all pay for that injury.


Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:27:13 -0600, Ignoramus12856
wrote:




Now what happens if someone has cancer, loses a job, pays for COBRA
for 18 months, and then his COBRA coverage ends? I do not think that
we can expect people to save enough to cover their cancer treatments
(which amount to big bucks).

I think that when such people, who worked, saved, and did their duty
otherwise, cannot afford to treat their cancer, and cannot get medical
coverage, it is an atrocity.

i


Needn't be cancer. I've had type 1 diabetes since the age of 7 and had a bit
of angina at 48 four years ago. Wouldn't like to be "resting" for very long if
I was in the US:-|


Mark Rand
RTFM

.On 2010-01-24, F George McDuffee wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:27:13 -0600, Ignoramus12856
wrote:
snip
Wes, I agree that saving money is essential for anyone, and people who
do not save, fully deserve a fair amount of trouble. I do personally
save a fair amount of my income.
snip
=======
This appears to be a correct statement.

It is also an area where I think the FRB has some sort of hidden
agenda. [see other thread on this] By setting the interest rates
so low, the interest rates paid on most forms of liquid savings
[gold not included] are now and have been *NEGATIVE* for several
years, when inflation and tax effect are considered.

There are two reasons to save:

1) To create investment income
and
2) To provide for a rainy day.

Item 2 is important even if the saver is not paid for deposits.

What is rational about saving so the banks and or government can
use your money and charge you for the "service?"

So that you have money when you need it?

The other problem is how much savings are "enough?"

Consider that the median U.S. family income is now about 50k$/yr.
When inflation, and especially loss of benefits such as defined
benefit pension plans, fully paid employer medical and job
security are considered, the median income has been *FALLING* [at
an increasing rate] for the last 30 years. Some of the less
perceptive insurance companies were publishing studies showing
that to be on the safe side, the typical couple should have about
1,000,000$ in savings when they retired. Just how is it possible
that the typical couple could accumulate 20 years of pre tax
income over even a 50 year working life? [20-70] especially with
*NEGATIVE* savings interest?

It is not possible for everyone to be above average.

For retired people, a million goes a long way, in addition to Social
Security income and with the residence paid off.

For a working person, a million dollars is no longer a way to live an
extravagant lifestyle.

i

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:17:15 -0500, Wes wrote:


So, a hypothetical guy who loses a job and does not even have money to
pay very reasonable COBRA rates, does not get too much of my sympathy,
personally.

Nor I. I paid for my health insurace for the 8 months I was between jobs.


How did you do this?

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

Gunner Asch wrote:

So, a hypothetical guy who loses a job and does not even have money to
pay very reasonable COBRA rates, does not get too much of my sympathy,
personally.

Nor I. I paid for my health insurace for the 8 months I was between jobs.


How did you do this?

I saved money in good times against bad times. I have modest needs and wants.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Mark Rand wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:27:13 -0600, Ignoramus12856
wrote:




Now what happens if someone has cancer, loses a job, pays for COBRA
for 18 months, and then his COBRA coverage ends? I do not think that
we can expect people to save enough to cover their cancer treatments
(which amount to big bucks).

I think that when such people, who worked, saved, and did their duty
otherwise, cannot afford to treat their cancer, and cannot get medical
coverage, it is an atrocity.

i


Needn't be cancer. I've had type 1 diabetes since the age of 7 and had a bit
of angina at 48 four years ago. Wouldn't like to be "resting" for very long if
I was in the US:-|


The last 16 or so months of my dogs life, he had diabetes. Novalin N by injection twice a
day, special food and checking his urine sugar levels. It was worth it.

As to keeping insurance, I have heart issues also. I will never drop continuous group
coverage until I hit Medicare if I can avoid it. Oh yes, if Medicare advantage is around,
I'll likely pay for that also. I know a big part of my fun money needs to be directed at
future health care. Can't have fun if you are dead.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Ignoramus12856 wrote:

For retired people, a million goes a long way, in addition to Social
Security income and with the residence paid off.

And not having payments for an expensive SUV or some other luxury car. We have to live
inside our means.

I have no sympathy for someone with his and hers snowmobiles, a custom trailer, the suv
that bitch that they can't save for the future. It seems we are being groomed to be a
nation of consumers.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:27:13 -0600, Ignoramus12856
wrote:

I agree that saving money is essential for anyone, and people who
do not save, fully deserve a fair amount of trouble.

Some people really *can't* save. That excludes those who can't save
mostly because they waste their money on crap, and especially those
who whine about how crap is essential.

I think that when such people, who worked, saved, and did their duty
otherwise, cannot afford to treat their cancer, and cannot get medical
coverage, it is an atrocity.

It's also an atrocity that the poor have to do without even the most
basic treatment. That's a false economy, and other countries do
better. This is a great outfit http://www.freeclinics.us/ and worthy
of donations. It's a national embarrassment that it needs to exist
though. A whole lot of the patients are employed, but doing without
basic healthcare.

Wayne

Wes wrote:

Ignoramus12856 wrote:

For retired people, a million goes a long way, in addition to Social
Security income and with the residence paid off.

And not having payments for an expensive SUV or some other luxury car. We have to live
inside our means.

I have no sympathy for someone with his and hers snowmobiles, a custom trailer, the suv
that bitch that they can't save for the future. It seems we are being groomed to be a
nation of consumers.


One thing that really bugs me are the snowbirds who constantly bitch
about how hard it is to pay their bills, when they have two homes.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:27:13 -0600, Ignoramus12856
wrote:

I agree that saving money is essential for anyone, and people who
do not save, fully deserve a fair amount of trouble.

Some people really *can't* save. That excludes those who can't save
mostly because they waste their money on crap, and especially those
who whine about how crap is essential.

I think that when such people, who worked, saved, and did their duty
otherwise, cannot afford to treat their cancer, and cannot get
medical coverage, it is an atrocity.

It's also an atrocity that the poor have to do without even the most
basic treatment. That's a false economy, and other countries do
better. This is a great outfit http://www.freeclinics.us/ and worthy
of donations. It's a national embarrassment that it needs to exist
though. A whole lot of the patients are employed, but doing without
basic healthcare.

91 million Americans live on less than 200 percent of the federal
governments definition of poverty for a family of four.
IOW, less than $24,000.00 per yerr.
America's problem isn't taxes.
It's idiots like Gunner that aren't worth paying what an illegal makes.
They don't pay taxes. They need decent jobs.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

91 million Americans live on less than 200 percent of the federal
governments definition of poverty for a family of four.
IOW, less than $24,000.00 per yerr.
America's problem isn't taxes.

Does that 24G include what they get from the (un) earned income tax credit?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:09:32 -0500, Wes wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

So, a hypothetical guy who loses a job and does not even have money to
pay very reasonable COBRA rates, does not get too much of my sympathy,
personally.

Nor I. I paid for my health insurace for the 8 months I was between jobs.


How did you do this?

I saved money in good times against bad times. I have modest needs and wants.

Wes


And you didnt have an uninsured wife with serious medical issues?

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

91 million Americans live on less than 200 percent of the federal
governments definition of poverty for a family of four.
IOW, less than $24,000.00 per yerr.
America's problem isn't taxes.

Does that 24G include what they get from the (un) earned income tax
credit?

It includes anything reported as income so the answer is yes.

You seem to be deliberately missing the point.
You can't cut federal income taxes meaningfully for someone not earning
enough to pay federal income tax. They are at zero now.
91 million Americdans fall into this category.
Absent federally and state funded health insurance programs, not one of them
would have insured medical coverage. They would be treated and the hospitals
would just have to eat it Wes, so you would end up paying their way in any
event. The difference, which you seem totally oblivious to, is the cost of
treatment under this scenario is astronomically high because they don't seek
treatment before a near death health crisis.

I watched John Boehner deliver a prepared statement on Sunday. He seems to
think everything will be just fine if we cut taxes and spending
dramatically. He's either simple or he thinks everyone else is.

The ONLY way the American economy is going to realy get back on it's feet is
for American's to EARN MORE.
America is rapidly becoming a country of eight dollar an hour indigents and
John Boehner and has followers see a prosperous future in America as more of
that?

Give me a break.
Carly Fiorina is just as bad and she's running for the US Senate seat Boxer
occupies.
I watched her say that she's very pleased to run on her record of
acomplishments in business.
When she took the helm at HP they were a specialty, high value added
manufacturer of the best electronic equipment in the world.
Their margins were excellent except for thier printer products unit. There
had been a real downturn there but that was sales related.
Her prescription for success, which nearly ruined HP, was to get them OUT of
the high value added stuff that was making them a fortune and buy Compaq - a
commodities maker whose profit margins wouldn't feed a family of field mice.

The board at HP got rid of her ass just in time. She would now like to go to
the Senate and visit her vision of prosperity on America.
She, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell would have you riding a bicycle to
and from work Wes. You'd have to because you would be making what Chinese
workers are paid. There is an upside, however. Your taxes would be very low
and you wouldn't have to worry about health insurance once you couldn't pay
your COBRA from whatever you have saved over the years.
LOL

--
John R. Carroll

On 2010-01-24, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus12856 wrote:

Sadly, most people have forgot that you save for eventualities and not depend on someone
else to get you through.


Wes, I agree that saving money is essential for anyone, and people who
do not save, fully deserve a fair amount of trouble. I do personally
save a fair amount of my income.

So, a hypothetical guy who loses a job and does not even have money to
pay very reasonable COBRA rates, does not get too much of my sympathy,
personally.

Nor I. I paid for my health insurace for the 8 months I was between jobs.

Very good.

Now what happens if someone has cancer, loses a job, pays for COBRA
for 18 months, and then his COBRA coverage ends? I do not think that
we can expect people to save enough to cover their cancer treatments
(which amount to big bucks).

I think that when such people, who worked, saved, and did their duty
otherwise, cannot afford to treat their cancer, and cannot get medical
coverage, it is an atrocity.

I honestly don't know what to tell you. Some sort of pooled risk
across the insured for coverage for these events might be a
solution.

That's what the health reform attempted to accomplish.


Michigan has unlimited caps on medical when it comes to auto
insurance. Every insured motorist pays for it and if you are the
unlucky person to get seriously injured, we ( meaning Michigan
drivers) all pay for that injury.

Very good. The risk is taken by the party that is able to pay
(insurance co). The drivers pay a bit extra for the peace of mind.

On 2010-01-25, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:09:32 -0500, Wes wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

So, a hypothetical guy who loses a job and does not even have money to
pay very reasonable COBRA rates, does not get too much of my sympathy,
personally.

Nor I. I paid for my health insurace for the 8 months I was between jobs.


How did you do this?

I saved money in good times against bad times. I have modest needs and wants.

Wes


And you didnt have an uninsured wife with serious medical issues?


In your case, you are divorced, right?

And if he had a wife, and had medical coverage, she would be insured
as well?

i

On 2010-01-25, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus12856 wrote:

For retired people, a million goes a long way, in addition to Social
Security income and with the residence paid off.

And not having payments for an expensive SUV or some other luxury car. We have to live
inside our means.

I have no sympathy for someone with his and hers snowmobiles, a custom trailer, the suv
that bitch that they can't save for the future. It seems we are being groomed to be a
nation of consumers.

I have a custom trailer too.

http://igor.chudov.com/projects/Home...th-M105A2-Bed/

Otherwise I agree with you.

i

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:18:52 -0600, Ignoramus29432
wrote:

On 2010-01-25, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:09:32 -0500, Wes wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

So, a hypothetical guy who loses a job and does not even have money to
pay very reasonable COBRA rates, does not get too much of my sympathy,
personally.

Nor I. I paid for my health insurace for the 8 months I was between jobs.


How did you do this?

I saved money in good times against bad times. I have modest needs and wants.

Wes


And you didnt have an uninsured wife with serious medical issues?


In your case, you are divorced, right?

No, Im not. And I have my (ex-)wife living with me in the same house.
She is unable to work and has no income sources. We have been Seperated
for a number of years, but she has no ability to work due to her medical
issues. And of course..the closest medical aid is the county hospital,
which is a 92 mile round trip at least..at least once a week. So I had
to move her in to take care of her. I have to take care of ALL of her
financial issues...plus mine. And the animals we rescue.

And if he had a wife, and had medical coverage, she would be insured
as well?

If one could afford the $1200-1800 per month that 55yr olds would have
to pay. Ive been self employed since 1996. 12 yrs.

Gunner


i

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On 2010-01-25, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:18:52 -0600, Ignoramus29432
wrote:

On 2010-01-25, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:09:32 -0500, Wes wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

So, a hypothetical guy who loses a job and does not even have money to
pay very reasonable COBRA rates, does not get too much of my sympathy,
personally.

Nor I. I paid for my health insurace for the 8 months I was between jobs.


How did you do this?

I saved money in good times against bad times. I have modest needs and wants.

Wes


And you didnt have an uninsured wife with serious medical issues?


In your case, you are divorced, right?

No, Im not. And I have my (ex-)wife living with me in the same house.

Then she is your wife, not ex-wife. You are living with your wife.

She is unable to work and has no income sources. We have been
Seperated for a number of years, but she has no ability to work due
to her medical issues. And of course..the closest medical aid is
the county hospital, which is a 92 mile round trip at least..at
least once a week. So I had to move her in to take care of her. I
have to take care of ALL of her financial issues...plus mine. And
the animals we rescue.

Then you would not be one of the people who could have a COBRA option.

And if he had a wife, and had medical coverage, she would be insured
as well?

If one could afford the $1200-1800 per month that 55yr olds would have
to pay. Ive been self employed since 1996. 12 yrs.

It would seem then the "public option" health insurance would have
provided you with affordable coverage (affordable means that if you
get serious about making money you could afford it).

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

i

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:12:26 -0600, Ignoramus29432
wrote:

On 2010-01-25, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:18:52 -0600, Ignoramus29432
wrote:

On 2010-01-25, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:09:32 -0500, Wes wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:

So, a hypothetical guy who loses a job and does not even have money to
pay very reasonable COBRA rates, does not get too much of my sympathy,
personally.

Nor I. I paid for my health insurace for the 8 months I was between jobs.


How did you do this?

I saved money in good times against bad times. I have modest needs and wants.

Wes


And you didnt have an uninsured wife with serious medical issues?


In your case, you are divorced, right?

No, Im not. And I have my (ex-)wife living with me in the same house.

Then she is your wife, not ex-wife. You are living with your wife.

Technically, yes. Am I sleeping with her? No.

She is unable to work and has no income sources. We have been
Seperated for a number of years, but she has no ability to work due
to her medical issues. And of course..the closest medical aid is
the county hospital, which is a 92 mile round trip at least..at
least once a week. So I had to move her in to take care of her. I
have to take care of ALL of her financial issues...plus mine. And
the animals we rescue.

Then you would not be one of the people who could have a COBRA option.

No ****?

And if he had a wife, and had medical coverage, she would be insured
as well?

If one could afford the $1200-1800 per month that 55yr olds would have
to pay. Ive been self employed since 1996. 12 yrs.

It would seem then the "public option" health insurance would have
provided you with affordable coverage (affordable means that if you
get serious about making money you could afford it).

Get serious? Which planet do you live on, Iggy?

And I strongly suggest you review the details of that Public Option you
are so strongly for.

Gunner



Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It would seem then the "public option" health insurance would have
provided you with affordable coverage (affordable means that if you
get serious about making money you could afford it).

Ah, the public option. An concept bandied around with few details. I time shift Cspan
Washington Journal using my DVR. Part of the show takes calls from the viewers. From
their questions and statements I think many really belive they are going to get
'affordable insurance' for 100-200 dollars a month.

So what do you think the monthly premiums for a) Single, b) family will be? I've really
wanted a number but never seem to hear those magic details from the politicians.

Will this public option cover organ transplants? Pace makers, perscription drugs?
Experimental procedures?


Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On 2010-01-25, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It would seem then the "public option" health insurance would have
provided you with affordable coverage (affordable means that if you
get serious about making money you could afford it).

Ah, the public option. An concept bandied around with few details. I time shift Cspan
Washington Journal using my DVR. Part of the show takes calls from the viewers. From
their questions and statements I think many really belive they are going to get
'affordable insurance' for 100-200 dollars a month.

So what do you think the monthly premiums for a) Single, b) family will be? I've really
wanted a number but never seem to hear those magic details from the politicians.

Will this public option cover organ transplants? Pace makers, perscription drugs?
Experimental procedures?

If we as a nation spend 9% of our GDP on health care, then it would be
natural to think that the average cost of health care should be around
9% of the average income. If average income is $40,000, I figure the
cost is now $360 per person per month. This is what it is now. Most
employed people's health care is covered by employers now. If you have
access to better numbers, you can arrive at a better estimate and
tweak this result a little bit.

i

Wes wrote:
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:47:34 -0600, Ignoramus27518
wrote:
snip
I thought that he could continue his insurance for 18 months based on
the COBRA law? For cancer, though, 18 months usually does not amount
to much.
snip
===========
It is one thing to have the opportunity to continue medical
coverage mandated by law. It is quite another to pay for it if
you are out of work.


Sadly, most people have forgot that you save for eventualities and not depend on someone
else to get you through.

Wes

Yep, and as long as you are able to save 500,000 dollars or more that
you can afford to spend on medical bills you are just fine. If you're
like most folks your life savings is a few thousand dollars and buys
virtually nothing as far as medical bills go. The question is how do you
suggest people can save half a million dollars when they make 50K a
year or less? The point is if people could save enough to pay for major
health care bills we wouldn't be in this mess. Obviously only a lucky
few can. So what about everybody else? Got any suggestions?

Hawke

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:27:13 -0600, Ignoramus12856
wrote:
snip
Wes, I agree that saving money is essential for anyone, and people who
do not save, fully deserve a fair amount of trouble. I do personally
save a fair amount of my income.
snip
=======
This appears to be a correct statement.

It is also an area where I think the FRB has some sort of hidden
agenda. [see other thread on this] By setting the interest rates
so low, the interest rates paid on most forms of liquid savings
[gold not included] are now and have been *NEGATIVE* for several
years, when inflation and tax effect are considered.

What is rational about saving so the banks and or government can
use your money and charge you for the "service?"

The other problem is how much savings are "enough?"

Consider that the median U.S. family income is now about 50k$/yr.
When inflation, and especially loss of benefits such as defined
benefit pension plans, fully paid employer medical and job
security are considered, the median income has been *FALLING* [at
an increasing rate] for the last 30 years. Some of the less
perceptive insurance companies were publishing studies showing
that to be on the safe side, the typical couple should have about
1,000,000$ in savings when they retired. Just how is it possible
that the typical couple could accumulate 20 years of pre tax
income over even a 50 year working life? [20-70] especially with
*NEGATIVE* savings interest?



In that situation you have to do what they guy in the TV show Breaking
Bad does. You go into the meth business in your spare time. Other than
that there is no way to save yourself into financial security on 50K a year.

Hawke

Wes wrote:
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It would seem then the "public option" health insurance would have
provided you with affordable coverage (affordable means that if you
get serious about making money you could afford it).

Ah, the public option. An concept bandied around with few details.
I time shift Cspan Washington Journal using my DVR. Part of the show
takes calls from the viewers. From their questions and statements I
think many really belive they are going to get 'affordable insurance'
for 100-200 dollars a month.

So what do you think the monthly premiums for a) Single, b) family
will be? I've really wanted a number but never seem to hear those
magic details from the politicians.

You aren't listening then Wes.
McAllen Texas treats it's Medicare population - the most expensive group
known to man - for $7,500.00 a year.
Everyone involved makes a good buck.
Your coverage is crap compared to theirs and I'll bet ot costs your employer
30% more.
Are you 30% sicked than a 70 year old Texan Wes?



--
John R. Carroll

On 2010-01-26, Hawke wrote:
Wes wrote:
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 00:47:34 -0600, Ignoramus27518
wrote:
snip
I thought that he could continue his insurance for 18 months based on
the COBRA law? For cancer, though, 18 months usually does not amount
to much.
snip
===========
It is one thing to have the opportunity to continue medical
coverage mandated by law. It is quite another to pay for it if
you are out of work.


Sadly, most people have forgot that you save for eventualities and not depend on someone
else to get you through.

Wes

Yep, and as long as you are able to save 500,000 dollars or more that
you can afford to spend on medical bills you are just fine.

We were talking about continuing COBRA mandated medical coverage, not
about paying for medical expenses out of pocket.

If you're like most folks your life savings is a few thousand
dollars and buys virtually nothing as far as medical bills go. The
question is how do you suggest people can save half a million
dollars when they make 50K a year or less?


The point is if people could save enough to pay for major health
care bills we wouldn't be in this mess. Obviously only a lucky few
can. So what about everybody else? Got any suggestions?

You completely misunderstood what we were talking about, which is
continuing employer provided medical coverage.

On 1/25/2010 8:35 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:

McAllen Texas treats it's Medicare population - the most expensive group
known to man - for $7,500.00 a year.
Everyone involved makes a good buck.
Your coverage is crap compared to theirs and I'll bet ot costs your employer
30% more.
Are you 30% sicked than a 70 year old Texan Wes?

On 1/25/2010 8:35 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Wes wrote:
wrote:

It would seem then the "public option" health insurance would have
provided you with affordable coverage (affordable means that if you
get serious about making money you could afford it).

Ah, the public option. An concept bandied around with few details.
I time shift Cspan Washington Journal using my DVR. Part of the show
takes calls from the viewers. From their questions and statements I
think many really belive they are going to get 'affordable insurance'
for 100-200 dollars a month.

So what do you think the monthly premiums for a) Single, b) family
will be? I've really wanted a number but never seem to hear those
magic details from the politicians.

You aren't listening then Wes.
McAllen Texas treats it's Medicare population - the most expensive group
known to man - for $7,500.00 a year.
Everyone involved makes a good buck.
Your coverage is crap compared to theirs and I'll bet ot costs your employer
30% more.
Are you 30% sicked than a 70 year old Texan Wes?

"Ignoramus29432" wrote in message
...
On 2010-01-25, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

It would seem then the "public option" health insurance would have
provided you with affordable coverage (affordable means that if you
get serious about making money you could afford it).

Ah, the public option. An concept bandied around with few details. I
time shift Cspan
Washington Journal using my DVR. Part of the show takes calls from the
viewers. From
their questions and statements I think many really belive they are going
to get
'affordable insurance' for 100-200 dollars a month.

So what do you think the monthly premiums for a) Single, b) family will
be? I've really
wanted a number but never seem to hear those magic details from the
politicians.

Will this public option cover organ transplants? Pace makers,
perscription drugs?
Experimental procedures?

If we as a nation spend 9% of our GDP on health care, then it would be
natural to think that the average cost of health care should be around
9% of the average income. If average income is $40,000, I figure the
cost is now $360 per person per month. This is what it is now. Most
employed people's health care is covered by employers now. If you have
access to better numbers, you can arrive at a better estimate and
tweak this result a little bit.

i

I hate to throw this in, but A BIG CHUNK of all money collected will be
eaten up by the people administrating the plan. And a lot of that will go
for THEIR Cadillac health plans.

Steve

On 1/25/2010 8:35 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:

McAllen Texas treats it's Medicare population - the most expensive group
known to man - for $7,500.00 a year.
Everyone involved makes a good buck.
Your coverage is crap compared to theirs and I'll bet ot costs your employer
30% more.

John,

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. According to the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_gawande

The cost in McAllen is 15 grand- twice the cost in nearby El Paso.
Are you saying the most expensive Medicare cost is still a fraction of
what most people have to pay for health insurance? The article above
highlights some of the methods used to improve the cash flow while
providing average care.

Kevin Gallimore

axolotl wrote:
On 1/25/2010 8:35 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:

McAllen Texas treats it's Medicare population - the most expensive
group known to man - for $7,500.00 a year.
Everyone involved makes a good buck.
Your coverage is crap compared to theirs and I'll bet ot costs your
employer 30% more.

John,

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. According to the New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_gawande

The cost in McAllen is 15 grand- twice the cost in nearby El Paso.
Are you saying the most expensive Medicare cost is still a fraction of
what most people have to pay for health insurance? The article above
highlights some of the methods used to improve the cash flow while
providing average care.

Sorry Kevin, I got it backwards.
LOL
I was remembering exactly that article and couldn't find it here to quote
from.
I've just bookmarked it for the future.
What I've always wondered is whether our elected officials have read it.
You couldn't say that tort reform is a key to health care cost reductions
after reading it and yet that is the first thing out of many mouths when
rapidly increasing costs come up.

Karen Ignani and three health care CEO's were interviewed as part of a
Frontline (IIRC) show. I'll see if I can find a link and post it.
What they said is exactly what Gawande wrote.

--
John R. Carroll

Ignoramus29432 wrote:

On 2010-01-25, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus12856 wrote:

For retired people, a million goes a long way, in addition to Social
Security income and with the residence paid off.

And not having payments for an expensive SUV or some other luxury car. We have to live
inside our means.

I have no sympathy for someone with his and hers snowmobiles, a custom trailer, the suv
that bitch that they can't save for the future. It seems we are being groomed to be a
nation of consumers.

I have a custom trailer too.

http://igor.chudov.com/projects/Home...th-M105A2-Bed/

Otherwise I agree with you.

i

You got that with a bit of money, using your wits, and sweat equity.

Mine is store bought be it avoids my having to have a truck.

http://wess.freeshell.org/usenet/rec...railerload.jpg

Wes

On 2010-01-26, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

On 2010-01-25, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus12856 wrote:

For retired people, a million goes a long way, in addition to Social
Security income and with the residence paid off.

And not having payments for an expensive SUV or some other luxury car. We have to live
inside our means.

I have no sympathy for someone with his and hers snowmobiles, a custom trailer, the suv
that bitch that they can't save for the future. It seems we are being groomed to be a
nation of consumers.

I have a custom trailer too.

http://igor.chudov.com/projects/Home...th-M105A2-Bed/

Otherwise I agree with you.

i

You got that with a bit of money, using your wits, and sweat equity.

Mine is store bought be it avoids my having to have a truck.

http://wess.freeshell.org/usenet/rec...railerload.jpg


Wes, did you tow your bridgeport with a car??????

i

On Jan 26, 1:24*am, Hawke wrote:
*Some of the less
perceptive insurance companies were publishing studies showing
that to be on the safe side, the typical couple should have about
1,000,000$ in savings when they retired. *Just how is it possible
that the typical couple could accumulate 20 years of pre tax
income over even a 50 year working life? [20-70] especially with
*NEGATIVE* savings interest?

In that situation you have to do what they guy in the TV show Breaking
Bad does. You go into the meth business in your spare time. Other than
that there is no way to save yourself into financial security on 50K a year.

Hawke

Actually you can save enough to have financial security on 50K$ a
year. It just requires that you start saving and investing early in
life. I don't think you can do it putting your money in a savings
account. But you can do it by having some money put in a savings
account every week. And then when you have a chunk of money, looking
for a good place to invest it. Right now I would be looking at buying
rental property and investing some sweat equity in managing the rental
property. Might be a bad idea in some parts of the country. But there
are lots of places to invest.

Dan

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 17:44:27 -0600, Ignoramus29432
wrote:

On 2010-01-25, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus29432 wrote:



So what do you think the monthly premiums for a) Single, b) family will be? I've really
wanted a number but never seem to hear those magic details from the politicians.

Will this public option cover organ transplants? Pace makers, perscription drugs?
Experimental procedures?

If we as a nation spend 9% of our GDP on health care, then it would be
natural to think that the average cost of health care should be around
9% of the average income. If average income is $40,000, I figure the
cost is now $360 per person per month. This is what it is now. Most
employed people's health care is covered by employers now. If you have
access to better numbers, you can arrive at a better estimate and
tweak this result a little bit.

i


But you don't. If you include the employer's bit and the government's bit. you
are paying in the order of 15% of your GDP on health care. This compares with
about 7.5% in the UK for a broadly similar outcome and 10-11% in France and
Germany for a slightly better outcome.

An awful lot of your money seems to be going to things that are nothing to do
with medicine and care.


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 05:19:59 -0500, Wes wrote:

Ignoramus29432 wrote:

On 2010-01-25, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus12856 wrote:

For retired people, a million goes a long way, in addition to Social
Security income and with the residence paid off.

And not having payments for an expensive SUV or some other luxury car. We have to live
inside our means.

I have no sympathy for someone with his and hers snowmobiles, a custom trailer, the suv
that bitch that they can't save for the future. It seems we are being groomed to be a
nation of consumers.

I have a custom trailer too.

http://igor.chudov.com/projects/Home...th-M105A2-Bed/

Otherwise I agree with you.

i

You got that with a bit of money, using your wits, and sweat equity.

Mine is store bought be it avoids my having to have a truck.

http://wess.freeshell.org/usenet/rec...railerload.jpg

Wes


Whats the weight rating on that garden trailer Wes? I see some of the
local landscapers using these, and have repair welded a number of them.
Any problems with yours?

Gunner

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:06:50 -0600, Ignoramus22882
wrote:

On 2010-01-26, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus29432 wrote:

On 2010-01-25, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus12856 wrote:

For retired people, a million goes a long way, in addition to Social
Security income and with the residence paid off.

And not having payments for an expensive SUV or some other luxury car. We have to live
inside our means.

I have no sympathy for someone with his and hers snowmobiles, a custom trailer, the suv
that bitch that they can't save for the future. It seems we are being groomed to be a
nation of consumers.

I have a custom trailer too.

http://igor.chudov.com/projects/Home...th-M105A2-Bed/

Otherwise I agree with you.

i

You got that with a bit of money, using your wits, and sweat equity.

Mine is store bought be it avoids my having to have a truck.

http://wess.freeshell.org/usenet/rec...railerload.jpg


Wes, did you tow your bridgeport with a car??????

Some cars can do it very well. Though to be fair..few made in the last
10 yrs.

Gunner


i

Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.