Obamacare Just Declared Unconstitutional By A Federal Judge!

[S.A. Boggs]

"Nursing homes" is no longer the politically correct title for these centers. They are now called Continuing Care Communities. This is a euphemism for describing an entity which is designed to legally steal all of your life savings. In our area of suburban Philadelphia the costs are out of this world. I know because my wife and I will be moving into one in March. The non-refundable entrance fee is $200,000 and you also have to pay an additional $7500 for the Health Care Center and another $1000 for them to process your application. We have selected an 1100 square foot apartment with 2 bedrooms and 2 baths. This is completely redone to our own specification but we have to furnish it. The monthly rent for this is an astounding $1,100! This fee is increased 4-5 % every year. For this you get 1 meal. If you are not able to provide the other 2 meals for yourself the charges are extra. There are many additional charges which are too numerous to mention. You have to provide full documentation of all of your assets and finances as they have to determine if you can afford this place.

On the positive side the facilities are outstanding. The dinners are what you would find in a 5 star restaurant. Your apartment is cleaned and supplied with fresh linen every week. They have their own golf course, bank, barbershop, beauty salon, gymnasiums, etc. There are an endless number of cultural and entertainment options, free trips to concerts, theaters and in-house lectures. My plan is to start either a Civil War Roundtable or a History Forum there. The place is heavily populated with retired physicians and college professors. This is not as wonderful as it sounds. We psychologists often refer to groups such as these as "sexual intellectuals," meaning "F@#$%*g know-it-alls". As you can tell, I am not looking forward to this move. I was forced to go here because of specific health problems that my wife and I now have. Wish us luck.

Sid, $ is what you need not luck!
Sam

[clintonhater]

"Nursing homes" is no longer the politically correct title for these centers. They are now called Continuing Care Communities. This is a euphemism for describing an entity which is designed to legally steal all of your life savings...

VAST difference between the two types of facilities, whatever the terminology. "Old fashioned" nursing homes are the only choice of all those--the majority--who require nursing care but who don't have the money to buy into a Continuing Care Community.

[togor]

We are told that baby boomers did not save nearly enough for their own care. I suppose that puts them in facilities paid for by public funds if their independence falters. In some cases what money there is goes to the kids first so that they do qualify for public assistance.

[clintonhater]

In some cases what money there is goes to the kids first so that they do qualify for public assistance.

Illegal, as is transferring property to others to make yourself "poor enough" to qualify; not that a smart enough lawyer can't find a way to "hide" assets. Of course, if you're inline to inherent money or property, this property limitation is an outrage; but is it fair to expect taxpayers to pick up the tab?

[Vern Humphrey]

Illegal, as is transferring property to others to make yourself "poor enough" to qualify; not that a smart enough lawyer can't find a way to "hide" assets. Of course, if you're inline to inherent money or property, this property limitation is an outrage; but is it fair to expect taxpayers to pick up the tab?

Is it fair to expect taxpayers to pick up the tab for anyone? Smith and Jones are the same age, same intelligence, etc. Smith has saved and invested all his life. Jones has spent every penny he made. Is it fair that Smith receive no support, and that it all go to Jones?

[togor]

Illegal, as is transferring property to others to make yourself "poor enough" to qualify; not that a smart enough lawyer can't find a way to "hide" assets. Of course, if you're inline to inherent money or property, this property limitation is an outrage; but is it fair to expect taxpayers to pick up the tab?

Fair? As a taxpayer, clearly no. Do people do it? Absolutely, yes.

[dogtag]

Politicians couldn't run a poker game successfully let alone a health care program.
The only thing politicians are good at is graft.

[JB White]

Fair? As a taxpayer, clearly no. Do people do it? Absolutely, yes.

Must ask. In the interests of fairness and equality, can you justify Smith being excluded from needed 'help' due to past earnings?

[togor]

Must ask. In the interests of fairness and equality, can you justify Smith being excluded from needed 'help' due to past earnings?

Devil in the details of the program. Entitlements are one thing, insurance is another. The tax levies are higher on entitlements because the payout is higher.

In the world of insurance it is known that loss is invited by some to facilitate payout. If Smith gives all of the money to the kids and then bills the taxpayers for his upkeep in the county nursing home, on the logic that his life savings would have paid for maybe a year or two at most in the nursing home anyways, then I would describe that as business-as-usual in most of the country. Most people hate the idea of some small inheritance being eaten up by the exorbitant fees charged by nursing homes, so they'll game the system if at all possible.

[Vern Humphrey]

Must ask. In the interests of fairness and equality, can you justify Smith being excluded from needed 'help' due to past earnings?

Well, that's the point. We should base the amount of "help" on the fact they are humans and citizens, not on how lazy or zealous they have been.

[JB White]

Devil in the details of the program. Entitlements are one thing, insurance is another.

That part makes sense. You haven't answered the question in regard to justification.

The entire insurance industry has morphed into a monster but the mindset of premiums and payouts has not adjusted accordingly. It has in terms of profit but not in terms of fairness on the user end.

I am fully aware that insurance is something we buy only to hope we never need to use it. Those who paid in can use it when needed. Now we must buy it so freeloaders can use it.

[JB White]

Well, that's the point. We should base the amount of "help" on the fact they are humans and citizens, not on how lazy or zealous they have been.

Yes, but that is only a fraction of the current problem. This Obamacare crap only insures the lopsided problems keep getting worse. It has caused lower wages due to reductions in hours to avoid paying in. Thus previously insured employees are being forced into ObamaCare. Which in turn increases the premiums we pay making insurance unaffordable to those who used to be able to afford it.
It's a snowballing problem with a proverbial dead horse at the core.

[Vern Humphrey]

Yes, but that is only a fraction of the current problem. This Obamacare crap only insures the lopsided problems keep getting worse. It has caused lower wages due to reductions in hours to avoid paying in. Thus previously insured employees are being forced into ObamaCare. Which in turn increases the premiums we pay making insurance unaffordable to those who used to be able to afford it.
It's a snowballing problem with a proverbial dead horse at the core.

It is indeed a disaster.

I long ago proposed a true medical savings system:

1. You buy a cheap, high-deductible catastrophic health insurance policy.
2. You save, pre-tax, an amount equal to the deductible every year.
3. You are issued a swipe card by the institute holding your savings -- and you pay for health care with the card.
4. If you exceed the deductible, your catastrophic health policy kicks in.
5. At the end of the year, any unused savings rolls over into your IRA.
6. If you need help, you submit your income tax return, and the amount of help you receive is based on that -- but each time you go to the doctor, you still pay some of your OWN money.

This system:

1. Eliminates most of the insurance paperwork -- which amounts to 1/3 up to 1/2 of the total health costs!
2. Gives you an incentive not to over consume -- which is one of the major cost drivers in medical care.
3. Also allows you to save for your old age.
4. Provides that cheaters can be severely prosecuted -- for insurance fraud and tax fraud.

[togor]

How, I wonder, does that work for someone earning $12/hr with no health insurance through their employer. Most new jobs don't pay the big bucks, and health costs keeps going up because ultimately: how much will someone pay to get better? Answer: all of it! Competition doesn't work, because the companies compete for the healthy, and try to push the sick out if at all possible. And in rural areas, there is often only one network active anyways. National single payer is the solution. It's the only way to get a handle on costs so the money can go to better purposes than paying for doctors, tests, and drugs.

[S.A. Boggs]

How, I wonder, does that work for someone earning $12/hr with no health insurance through their employer. Most new jobs don't pay the big bucks, and health costs keeps going up because ultimately: how much will someone pay to get better? Answer: all of it! Competition doesn't work, because the companies compete for the healthy, and try to push the sick out if at all possible. And in rural areas, there is often only one network active anyways. National single payer is the solution. It's the only way to get a handle on costs so the money can go to better purposes than paying for doctors, tests, and drugs.

Much simpler solution for ALL. Regardless of who one is bum or Senator your healthcare is FREE and the SAME. Government pays ALL the cost from the taxes collected and the healthcare is one for all.
Sam