posted November 19, 2012 08:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
So it's kinder to allow them to work 40 hours at minimum wage with no healthcare?

---

^ How do you not see this?

Yes, it is kinder to allow them to work 40 hours a week with no healthcare and no ObamaCare penalty to pay, then to force them to work those same hours at two places, without health care, and with the ObamaCare penalty.

It's doubtful that many current minimum wage earners will be getting insurance, thanks to ObamaCare.

I think a person can live on their own, on a minimum wage, if they are frugal enough. Especially if they already own a place to live.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I think people will work to the standard of living they desire to have.

---

Since when? Why aren't they doing it now?

So...

Is Singapore your choice for best healthcare, then? Are you being equivocal or do you just have no preference? I'd like to know what aspects of universal coverage are *best* in your opinion.

Everything I'm reading here makes Singapore sound very similar to the U.S., so I think the key difference is just that people in Singapore don't trash their bodies the way we do in the U.S.

quote:

---

The reason the system works so well is that it puts decisions in the hands of patients and doctors rather than of government bureaucrats and insurers. The state’s role is to provide a safety net for the few people unable to save enough to pay their way, to subsidize public hospitals, and to fund preventative health campaigns.

---

^ Sounds very similar to here.

posted November 19, 2012 08:28 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
(We're 37th, though there is some critique of how this ranking was put together. France was number one. The year was 2000.)

---

No wonder there was a critique, as France teetered on the verge of bankruptcy for the next decade and now some are saying that its debt crisis could doom the European Union.

Didn't WHO see that coming??

Without transparency from the Fed, we can only guess about how much it is bailing out struggling, broke, health-care happy Europe.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/23/bernanke_bails_out_europe/

posted November 19, 2012 11:41 AM            

quote:

---

^ How do you not see this?

---

How do I not see this?

quote:

---

Yes, it is kinder to allow them to work 40 hours a week with no healthcare and no ObamaCare penalty to pay, then to force them to work those same hours at two places, without health care, and with the ObamaCare penalty.

It's doubtful that many current minimum wage earners will be getting insurance, thanks to ObamaCare.

---

In my view these ideas are wrong. You assume that these low wage earners will opt to pay versus opting to be subsidized to have healthcare. When people have the option of paying or not paying, I think they'll choose not paying. Similarly, I think that given the opportunity to have healthcare or not have healthcare, the preference will be to have healthcare.

quote:

---

I think a person can live on their own, on a minimum wage, if they are frugal enough. Especially if they already own a place to live.

---

They can only possibly do so if they own their place to live. I linked to the map.

quote:

---

Since when? Why aren't they doing it now?

---

Why is this laughable? They are already doing this.

quote:

---

Is Singapore your choice for best healthcare, then?

---

I do like Singapore's model, yes. It's only semi-similar to the U.S. Here in the U.S. you are not mandated to save 20% of your money for retirement (from which you can pull money for medical expenses if need be). It's another mandate that forces personal responsibility.

quote:

---

No wonder there was a critique, as France teetered on the verge of bankruptcy for the next decade and now some are saying that its debt crisis could doom the European Union.

---

posted November 19, 2012 12:28 PM            

quote:

---

How do I not see this?

---

Yes, you, AG.

quote:

---

You assume that these low wage earners will opt to pay versus opting to be subsidized to have healthcare.

---

I assume there will be a scarcity of employment offering subsidized health care, therefore they will not "opt" so much as be forced to deal with the new circumstances however they can.

quote:

---

When people have the option of paying or not paying, I think they'll choose not paying.

---

Yeah....it's that easy. Just choose the good job that provides health care, everyone. Problem magically solved.

quote:

---

They can only possibly do so if they own their place to live. I linked to the map.

---

Who knows what criteria the map-maker used. Statistics are insufficient here, because there is such a huge range of quality and price of apartments, and a huge range of budgeting ability with the people. You can take the average apartment price and the average prospective tenant, and it tells you nothing about what a thrifty, resourceful person can do.

I know a guy who happily supported himself on minimum wage by having an efficiency apartment in a semi-ramshackle building, eating dried beans and growing herbs in his windowbox. That's not for everyone, but it worked for him.

quote:

---

Why is this laughable? They are already doing this.

---

You had said, "I think people will work to the standard of living they desire to have." I laughed because if that were true, more people would have already done that. We wouldn't have SO many people desperately trying to make a living, struggling to pay their bills, stressing about their huge debts. In other words, they would be "living the standard of life they wish for." But they aren't, because it requires hard work, smart planning, and sacrifice. Oh and the government taking huge chunks of our money presents an extra challenge.

quote:

---

However, we can't really make blanket statements, because obviously some countries are having some good results elsewhere.

---

posted November 19, 2012 01:49 PM            

You want to know my opinion on the healthcare in Singapore? I think you already know it anyway, so I won't reiterate lol

Hey, the other Singaporean should also speak up, but she avoids GU2 like the plague

posted November 19, 2012 01:50 PM            

I can't go line by line here, because overall it seems like you're disjointing related thoughts.

Low wage payers employing part time people likely won't offer healthcare.

The option is whether to pay a penalty or go with the system and get healthcare. Between the two options, I think healthcare wins...particularly if it's subsidized by the government, so it's not about choosing the good job if these people feel as if they can't secure one. That wasn't what I was suggesting.

quote:

---

Who knows what criteria the map-maker used. Statistics are insufficient here, because there is such a huge range of quality and price of apartments, and a huge range of budgeting ability with the people. You can take the average apartment price and the average prospective tenant, and it tells you nothing about what a thrifty, resourceful person can do.

I know a guy who happily supported himself on minimum wage by having an efficiency apartment in a semi-ramshackle building, eating dried beans and growing herbs in his windowbox. That's not for everyone, but it worked for him.

---

I think we can reasonably rest assured that most people won't try this route, and take the more practical path of living with others.

quote:

---

We wouldn't have SO many people desperately trying to make a living, struggling to pay their bills, stressing about their huge debts.

---

You're talking about people following a meltdown of the economy? You doubt that these people would be working to the level of the standard of living that they want? You know there's only one way to get debt: to show that you're worthy of it (and before you think otherwise, yes, I know some people will game the system in some way). If we're talking about unemployed people that have given up, they've had to lower what their acceptable standard of living is, haven't they? Otherwise, they'd be doing something to gain the employment they desire to maintain their lifestyle.

quote:

---

Oh and the government taking huge chunks of our money presents an extra challenge.

---

The government doesn't take "huge chunks" of poor people's money.

quote:

---

I guess it all boils down to your subjective notion of what "good" means. To me, Singapore's mandates are too strict. I prefer freedom, wherever I can find it.

---

posted November 19, 2012 06:55 PM            

The deficit grew radically under Obama. Some believe the USA has been bailing out Europe, and that's why we are in SO MUCH debt now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/nat ional-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

posted November 19, 2012 07:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I don't get your reasoning.

I can't go line by line here, because overall it seems like you're disjointing related thoughts.

---

Ditto, ditto.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
I think healthcare wins...particularly if it's subsidized by the government

---

Will it be subsidized?

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
The government doesn't take "huge chunks" of poor people's money.

---

Oh, it stopped? To me, confiscating a third or more of one's paycheck, and taking sales and property and school taxes on top of that, is "taking huge chunks." But we differ on what "huge" is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
Freedom is also subjective.

---

posted November 19, 2012 10:38 PM            

Do you have any current links to support your assertions here?

Last I heard,

quote:

---

Medicaid is the only area where the Supreme Court did not give Obama Care carte blanche. Now the states have the freedom to accept Medicaid expansion or reject it.

---

posted November 20, 2012 02:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
I'm not saying that US health care is ideal in its present state. Far from it! I just don't think ObamaCare is the solution.

The deficit grew radically under Obama. Some believe the USA has been bailing out Europe, and that's why we are in SO MUCH debt now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/nat ional-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

So who's paying for what?

---

posted November 20, 2012 09:53 AM            

As I wrote above...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Faith:
Without transparency from the Fed, we can only guess about how much it is bailing out struggling, broke, health-care happy Europe.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/23/bernanke_bails_out_europe/

---

Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1y0EchAz8P0

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke won't tell Senator Sanders where the bailout money went: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX2qvbznGKM

Ben Bernanke talks about lending money to European central banks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0NYBTkE1yQ

posted November 20, 2012 12:14 PM            

There's a problem in the logic of this theory: the working poor will receive tax breaks for their health insurance.

Starting in 2014, people with family incomes up to 138% of the poverty level ($31,809 for a family of four and $15,415 for a single person in 2012) will generally be eligible for the Medicaid program. And, people buying coverage on their own in new state-based health insurance exchanges will be eligible for federal tax credits to subsidize the cost of insurance. Tax credits will be calculated on a sliding scale basis for people with family income up to four times the poverty level ($92,200 for a family of four and $44,680 for a single person in 2012). (A calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation illustrates the assistance people would be eligible for at different income levels and ages.) http://healthreform.kff.org/coverage-expansion-map.aspx

It's incredibly frustrating to have gone over this right in front of you, and to either have you play dumb, or otherwise disregard it, because you weren't ready to talk healthcare yet.

quote:

---

As for the gov't taking too much money, I was also talking about Social Security and the other taxes (sales, property, school) which do add up.

---

Yes, the calculator I used included Social Security. School taxes, I believe, are already included in other taxes, perhaps it's the property tax they're included in. Property tax is reserved for property owners, and amongst poor property owners, I'm sure that if they have any sense they collect enough from their tenants to cover the property tax. The vast majority of poor people aren't going to be property owners, though, so whatever the share of property taxes they pay will just be part of what they pay in rent.

posted November 20, 2012 06:40 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:
You responded to the post where I had posted:

There's a problem in the logic of this theory: the working poor will receive tax breaks for their health insurance.

---

I said nothing in response to you about health care.

quote:

---

Originally posted by AcousticGod:

It's incredibly frustrating to have gone over this right in front of you, and to either have you play dumb, or otherwise disregard it, because you weren't ready to talk healthcare yet.

---

So? Don't sweat the small stuff.

Currently, it looks like a good number of states have decided NOT to expand Medicaid:
http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/2012/11/09/MedicaidMap

Tax cuts for those who decide to buy insurance are a nice idea, depending on the amount of money saved, but the problem I have is with the penalty served on those who do not want insurance.

As things stand, it looks like there will be significant numbers of people who cannot get Medicaid and will be forced to pay the penalty, because they cannot afford insurance, either.

posted November 21, 2012 09:28 AM            

quote:

---

As things stand, it looks like there will be significant numbers of people who cannot get Medicaid and will be forced to pay the penalty, because they cannot afford insurance, either.

Time will tell.

---

Therein lies the rub. Those who fall between the cracks are already suffering. Obamacare has the dangerous potential to increase the cracks and amount of people who fall into them.

Indeed, time will tell.

posted November 21, 2012 11:23 AM            

quote:

---

I said nothing in response to you about health care.

---

But you did respond to me with regard to that post. One would think that you'd read it.

quote:

---

So? Don't sweat the small stuff.

---

Like the fact that you don't seem to know or care about that which you're commenting on? I'm sitting here debating someone that's not interested in knowing how the thing she's against even works. That doesn't really inspire me to go on.

quote:

---

Currently, it looks like a good number of states have decided NOT to expand Medicaid: http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/2012/11/09/MedicaidMap

---

The alternative will likely be that they get their healthcare subsidized then.

quote:

---

Tax cuts for those who decide to buy insurance are a nice idea, depending on the amount of money saved, but the problem I have is with the penalty served on those who do not want insurance.

---

There's no debate for that. Either everyone gets insured, or WE ALL continue paying for the uninsured, because everyone regardless of funds is going to need healthcare.