Shopsmith Forums

fredsheldon wrote:I suspect those 30 million Americans who have no insurance coverage at all would welcome a lifeboat of any kind no matter how long they may have to wait for a major operation.

Interesting idea but... I know several of the uninsured who are in favor of nationalized healthcare. They are also uninsured by choice having selected to not take coverage through work so they could spend that money on newer/better cars or bigger homes because they are young and healthy.

So far that is working for them. They have more ready cash and can be counted as the uninsured, thereby making the problem appear bigger than it is through their own choice. I know this is not the case in all of the uninsured but I am left wondering how much of the numbers are by choices made rather than opportunities lost.

mikelst wrote:Interesting idea but... I know several of the uninsured who are in favor of nationalized healthcare. They are also uninsured by choice having selected to not take coverage through work so they could spend that money on newer/better cars or bigger homes because they are young and healthy.

So far that is working for them. They have more ready cash and can be counted as the uninsured, thereby making the problem appear bigger than it is through their own choice. I know this is not the case in all of the uninsured but I am left wondering how much of the numbers are by choices made rather than opportunities lost.

FWIW the original premise of 'insurance' was to spread the large cost of a 'problem'(sickness, fire . . .) across a large base so those who do experience those unfortunate events are minimally impacted financially. That is the reason for the term 'mutual' associated with earlier insurance firms. Along with that 'benefit' came a responsibility to cover all incidences as appropriate. Other than administrative costs, they were a 'non-profit' operation. In order to be able to cover future needs, a considerable 'slush fund' needed to be maintained. That introduced the 'we cannot just let it lie there and become less due to 'inflation' so we will 'invest' it(gamble) philosophy. What followed was the realization that profits could be made if gambling was done correctly. Now they are no longer 'non-profit' and must become 'de-mutualized'. Next it became apparent that more 'winnings' will occur if we solicit $$ from other folks and now we have 'mutual investment schemes'.


So we are now far removed from the initial premise of 'insurance' and have now become a gross profit generating entity(pun intended). Sadly the 'we' are considered by some to be 'too big to let fail'. Add to that the gross compensation(same pun) to the ones guiding the 'correct' 'investments'.

And we be considering letting Washington add to the mix(healthcare wise)?

IMHO lets go back to direct Patient/Provider interaction re payment and let the insurance go back to reimbursing the patient. If the patient has not paid the provider, no 'reimbursement' should occur. That places the responsibility back where it belongs(patient pays provider, and provider pursues payment) and provider needs to justify fees to the patient. All care decisions are removed from third parties.

If providers can claim that their regular fees are justifiable and accept medicare payment for a fraction of that amount, I have to question the justification for the 'regular' amount.

I realize this is simplistic, but reverting to something closer to from where we came must occur. We cannot extend the ludicrous path we have been on.

Now as for those who are 'uniunsured' by 'choice'. Since they are using their disposable income on toys etc.(gambling that their good health will continue) they should be required to make up for 'missed' payments when they 'chose' to 'join'. Sorta like a late join fee/higher rate as already practiced with existing medicare/supplement plans.

JPG40504 wrote:Now as for those who are 'uniunsured' by 'choice'. Since they are using their disposable income on toys etc.(gambling that their good health will continue) they should be required to make up for 'missed' payments when they 'chose' to 'join'. Sorta like a late join fee/higher rate as already practiced with existing medicare/supplement plans.

Not a bad idea in theory. The problem comes when the person has spent the money and doesn't have it to make up all those premiums when they want their arm/leg/kidney/etc. fixed, ergo the need to make everyone get into the insurance pool before they decide they need it. Putting the politics of it aside, it's the only way to deal with the situation short of going to a single payer system.

Read a commentary in today's paper that pointed out the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) has been appointed to check on the non-payments of any individual in the U.S. to receive the health plan known as Obama care.
Of course, this checking won't begin until 2014, but will check on all individuals/families making less than 4 times the poverty level. At this time 4 times is $44,100 per individual or over $88,000 for a family. Each tax payer must prove he has adequate health insurance or pay a penalty tax to the IRS. Since the IRS is not allowed to take payroll deductions for health care, the penalty will be paid at the yearly reporting. Fun, Huh? Could be upwards of $1200 fine.

When a person changes jobs, income, or travel to a different State - they must report this to the IRS.

Some plan isn't it?

So it's a right or entitlement to have health care? Which? Curious why anyone should be responsible for someone else's lack of planning. Maybe that same person will want a shopsmith someday and we should all help them get it when they realize they need it. Then again, I will still maintain that you should have a parental license if you plan to have kids. Hell, we have one for cars. Im partially kidding but not really. But this goes back to my issue with the government being involved with too much. Back in the day your irresponsibilities led to you being tossed from your tribe or clan. Something quite nice about that approach.

holsgo wrote:Deflation is far from OK. Nothing good comes of it. The money supply shrinks and with it does jobs, spending cuts and a cycle of reduction. The whole of the economy contracts. Inflation is not bad. Deflation is bad. Yes, a money problem. But considering the indebtedness of the govt, there would be no economic tools they would have to combat it.

You are right - I am wrong. This hidden tax on seniors is much better than otherwise - If you are lucky enough to not be a senior.

I expect things have changed, but used to be holding inflation to the 2 - 3% range was a Fed. Reserve objective. So, some inflation may be a good thing. Inflation rates in the 1970s and early 80s caused saving money for the future to look like a really unwise thing to do. Is that what you want??

I'm not sure what hidden tax you mean but mostly fixed incomes are safer during deflation. I believe we should all want mild inflation. This keeps people borrowing, lubricating the money supply and empowering purchases. Deflation upturns the apple cart and we have few fed tools to combat it. True deflation occurs about once a lifetime and I can hope we don't go that route.

algale wrote:Not a bad idea in theory. The problem comes when the person has spent the money and doesn't have it to make up all those premiums when they want their arm/leg/kidney/etc. fixed, ergo the need to make everyone get into the insurance pool before they decide they need it. Putting the politics of it aside, it's the only way to deal with the situation short of going to a single payer system.

A subtle point was that the added expense of 'joining' late was to encourage joining early!

I fail to understand why inflation of any magnitude is desirable to John Q Public.

If money lenders expect any inflation, they have to add to the interest rate charged.

Inflation reduces the advantage of 'saving'.

Less saving reduces the supply of funds for the bank to lend.

So lenders must get funds to lend from other sources.

Those other sources need to account for decreasing value because of inflation and therefore increase the cost to the lenders.

IMHO the only ones who 'gain' from inflation are those who borrow to the hilt(and beyond) and therefore pay back with $$ worth less.







Can you think of who/what fits that last sentence?






Also how does 'deflation' affect those over borrowing idiots.


























If you hadn't figgered it out, I be referring to the 'national debt'.