patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,194,260 comments by 13,889 users - just_passing_through, zzyzzx online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 41 - 57 of 57 Search these comments
Tenpoundbass
2015 Jan 19, 10:15am
If you read the OP, it states the engineer makes somewhere between 60K and 125K
That describes me, it's not always peaches and creme. There's plenty of 60K and when it's 125K you've got a lot of paying back Peter for borrowing to pay Paul. The other thing that hurts is when you are making 60K and you need any help, most all financial aid or any kind of benificial help at all goes by your last years tax return. It can be and maybe that I haven't earned one penny all year, but because my tax returns says you made too much money the year before, you wont qualify for shit.
That is why you have to float your self in may other various ways, that when you do make decent money again. The bulk of it goes back to paying it all back.
You Social leaches never see a bill for what you TAKE, we earners, no matter how big or small. Pay and work for every dime we get.
You'll see Kids, you'll see. You wont be working McDonald's for ever.
We can only hope... HAR! There's that "Hope" word!
Tenpoundbass
2015 Jan 19, 10:16am
Somehow I've never pictured a girlfriend being 61.
Dr please refrain from highdiving you're way to shallow for that.
Nonsense. The $60k/yr engineer is far from rich.
If you think 60K is some high paying job, then you must collect stamps and live in your moms basement and is a professional student and have never worked a day in your life.
If you read the OP, it states the engineer makes somewhere between 60K and 125K. I think 125K is pretty well off in most of the US. And I obviously agree that 60K/year isn't rich. But that wasn't my point, anyway.
The point is that the current Republican system already redistributes wealth. To imply otherwise is silly. Look at the wealth concentration trend over the last 40 years--that should say it all.
60-125k is not rich, only middle class, perhaps in the lower half as far as dollar weighted income taxpayers are concerned. Only half the population pay income tax.
Wealth concentration in the past 40 years was largely the result of progressive policies destroying middle class: both the welfare programs and the money printing benefit the ultra rich at the expense of the middle class. Obamacare is a classic example of this: the fast rising medical cost due to bank financing (of medical degrees, buildings and equipment) can no longer be afforded by income tax, so they devised this new tax in the name of mandatory insurance to sock the middle class in order to pay the bankers to whom the medical wages and mortgages go via loan payments!
Rin
2015 Jan 19, 12:56pm
60-125k is not rich, only middle class, perhaps in the lower half as far as dollar weighted income taxpayers are concerned.
It's only middle class for those who don't have kids.
As soon as the kids come by, it's the working poor.
indigenous
2015 Jan 19, 1:27pm
you'd better have jobs for them that offer a living wage.
The jobs come from investment and savings, the problem comes from the stat meddling because they believe the driver of the economy is consumption, therefore printing money is good? Not
indigenous
2015 Jan 19, 1:28pm
I expect more from IBM engineers, what few are left.
No I'm talking about real engineers.
Obamacare is a classic example of this: the fast rising medical cost due to bank financing (of medical degrees, buildings and equipment) can no longer be afforded by income tax, so they devised this new tax in the name of mandatory insurance to sock the middle class in order to pay the bankers to whom the medical wages and mortgages go via loan payments!
You don' t have the vaguest clue where the costs of health care are do you?
Obamacare is a classic example of this: the fast rising medical cost due to bank financing (of medical degrees, buildings and equipment) can no longer be afforded by income tax, so they devised this new tax in the name of mandatory insurance to sock the middle class in order to pay the bankers to whom the medical wages and mortgages go via loan payments!
You don' t have the vaguest clue where the costs of health care are do you?
The prices to consumers are high due to government sanctioned monopoly. Much of what hospitals and doctors receive in payments actually go into debt payment for securing the monopolistic positions that they have. The situation is rather akin to taxi medallions that cost nearly a million dollars, grossly outweigh the cost of the car or the gas.
The prices to consumers are high due to government sanctioned monopoly. Much of what hospitals and doctors receive in payments actually go into debt payment for securing the monopolistic positions that they have. The situation is rather akin to taxi medallions that cost nearly a million dollars, grossly outweigh the cost of the car or the gas.
Prove it. Show the numbers.
tatupu70
2015 Jan 19, 5:55pm
Wealth concentration in the past 40 years was largely the result of progressive policies destroying middle class: both the welfare programs and the money printing benefit the ultra rich at the expense of the middle class
So why did it start wealth disparity decrease strongly under progressive policies (1940s - early 70s), but suddenly increase as Republican policies took over??(1980s onward)
The prices to consumers are high due to government sanctioned monopoly. Much of what hospitals and doctors receive in payments actually go into debt payment for securing the monopolistic positions that they have. The situation is rather akin to taxi medallions that cost nearly a million dollars, grossly outweigh the cost of the car or the gas.
Prove it. Show the numbers.
Medical price and expense far out-pacing inflation.
Educational debt for medical graduates running to half a million, making it nearly impossible for charity hospitals to hire new graduates.
Wealth concentration in the past 40 years was largely the result of progressive policies destroying middle class: both the welfare programs and the money printing benefit the ultra rich at the expense of the middle class
So why did it start wealth disparity decrease strongly under progressive policies (1940s - early 70s), but suddenly increase as Republican policies took over??(1980s onward)
You have LBJ's Great Society program at the end of thr 60's and the consequent currency default ("closing of gold window") in the early 70's to thank for that.
Medical price and expense far out-pacing inflation.
Educational debt for medical graduates running to half a million, making it nearly impossible for charity hospitals to hire new graduates.
That's proof of what? Show what percentage of medical spending goes to debt service historically and today. What charity hospitals, charity hospitals are almost extinct.
Wealth concentration in the past 40 years was largely the result of progressive policies destroying middle class: both the welfare programs and the money printing benefit the ultra rich at the expense of the middle class
So why did it start wealth disparity decrease strongly under progressive policies (1940s - early 70s), but suddenly increase as Republican policies took over??(1980s onward)
You have LBJ's Great Society program at the end of thr 60's and the consequent currency default ("closing of gold window") in the early 70's to thank for that.
Was lbj's great society also responsible for the huge wealth disparity in the 1920's also?
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Jan 20, 9:49am
Not sure why the lefties in this thread are heroing for the "working poor" and not the working lower middle class.
I'm sorry, what was she paying in rent vs. covered CA health care?
Tell me again what was eating up her income every month?
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Jan 20, 9:58am
That's proof of what? Show what percentage of medical spending goes to debt service historically and today. What charity hospitals, charity hospitals are almost extinct.
Here's your proof that Medical Malpractice Expenses Rising is a Bullshit Excuse:
Whenever I ask anyone "how much do you think I pay for my malpractice insurance?" the answer never fails to amuse me. People usually guess anywhere from $30,000 to $150,000 per year (as if I could afford that). When I tell them, they're usually shocked and some people have even gone so far as to tell me I must be wrong. I write the check each quarter. I think I know how much it is. Well, seeing is believing, so here is my malpractice bill for all of 2012.
Here is his bill for 2012:
http://www.truecostofhealthcare.org/malpractice
Thats right, $2,947.48 for the WHOLE YEAR! (It says $3046.48 because there is a $99.00 yearly PAC contribution, which is optional, though they dont make that obvious on the bill.)...
I asked the nephrologist, who has an office one floor below me, to open her bill in front of me. She pays $2,953 a year. Six dollars a year more than I pay and she runs a dialysis unit.
There are two cardiologists who share an office one floor below her. One does angioplasties; which are a very invasive and sometimes dangerous procedure. He pays $5,500 a year. The other one doesnt do that procedure so he only pays $3,800.
A pulmonologist, whose office is around the corner from them, pays $4,200 a year and he oversees an ICU and does bronchoscopies (another invasive and potentially dangerous procedure). Before getting him to look at his bill, he assured me several times that it was twice that amount.
An ophthalmologist I know pays $3,800 a year and does eye surgery, though he told me that his premiums were cut in half when he stopped doing complicated eye surgeries.
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Jan 20, 10:06am
Cost of Hospital Malpractice in California was 1% or less of almost 400 surveyed hospitals. Charity cases were also a few percent.
Hospitals are like Colleges. All the extra expense is going to Senior Admins and/or Profit.
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 57 of 57 Search these comments
I'm a 54 year old consulting engineer and make between $60,000 and $125,000 per year, depending on how hard I work and whether or not there are work projects out there for me.
My girlfriend is 61 and makes about $18,000 per year, working as a part-time mail clerk.
For me, making $60,000 a year, under ObamaCare, the cheapest, lowest grade policy I can buy, which also happens to impose a $5,000 deductible, costs $482 per month.
For my girlfriend, the same exact policy, same deductible, costs $1 per month. That's right, $1 per month. I'm not making this up.
Don't believe me? Just go to www.coveredca.gov , the ObamaCare website for California and enter the parameters I've mentioned above and see for yourself. By the way, my zip code is 93940. You'll need to enter that.
So OK, clearly ObamaCare is a scheme that involves putting the cost burden of healthcare onto the middle and upper-income wage earners. But there's a lot more to it. Stick with me.
And before I make my next points, I'd like you to think about something:
I live in Monterey County, in Central California. We have a large land mass but just 426,000 residents - about the population of Colorado Springs or the city of Omaha.
But we do have a large Hispanic population, including a large number of illegal aliens, and to serve this group we have Natividad Medical Center, a massive, Federally subsidized county medical complex that takes up an area about one-third the size of the Chrysler Corporation automobile assembly plant in Belvedere, Illinois (see Google Earth View). Natividad has state-of-the-art operating rooms, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging, fully equipped, 24 hour emergency room, and much more. If you have no insurance, if you've been in a drive-by shooting or have overdosed on crack cocaine, this is where you go. And it's essentially free, because almost everyone who ends up in the ER is uninsured.
Last year, 2,735 babies were born at Natividad. 32% of these were born to out-of-wedlock teenage mothers, 93% of which were Hispanic. Less than 20% could demonstrate proof of citizenship, and 71% listed their native language as Spanish. Of these 876 births, only 40 were covered under [any kind of] private health insurance. The taxpayers paid for the other 836. And in case you were wondering about the entire population - all 2,735 births - less than 24% involved insured coverage or even partial payment on behalf of the patient to the hospital in exchange for services. Keep this in mind as we move forward.
Now consider this:
If I want to upgrade my policy to a low-deductible premium policy, such as what I had with my last employer, my cost is $886 per month. But my girlfriend can upgrade her policy to the very same level, for just $4 per month. That's right, $4 per month. $48 per year for a zero-deductible, premium healthcare policy - the kind of thing you get when you work at IBM (except of course, IBM employees pay an average of $170 per month out of pocket for their coverage).
I mean, it's bad enough that I will be forced to subsidize the ObamaCare scheme in the first place. But even if I agreed with the basic scheme, which of course I do not, I wouldnever agree to subsidize premium policies. If I have to pay $482 a month for a budget policy, I sure as hell do not want the guy I'm subsidizing to get a better policy, for less that 1% of what I have to fork out each month for a low-end policy.
Why must I pay $482 per month for something the other guy gets for a dollar? And why should the other guy get to buy an $886 policy for $4 a month? Think about this: I have to pay $10,632 a year for the same thing that the other guy can get for $48. $10,000 of net income is 60 days of full time work as an engineer . $48 is something I could could pay for collecting aluminum cans and plastic bottles, one day a month.
Are you with me on this? Are you starting to get an idea what ObamaCare is really about?
ObamaCare is not about dealing with inequities in the healthcare system. That's just the cover story. The real story is that it is a massive, political power grab. Do you think anyone who can insure himself with a premium policy for $4 a month will vote for anyone but the political party that provides him such a deal? ObamaCare is about enabling, subsizdizing, and expanding the Left's political power base, at taxpayer expense. Why would I vote for anyone but a Democrat if I can have babies for $4 a month? For that matter, why would I go to college or strive for a better job or income if it means I have to pay real money for healthcare coverage? Heck, why study engineering when I can be a schlub for $20K per year and buy a new F-150 with all the money I'm saving?
And think about those $4-a-month babies - think in terms of propagation models. Think of just how many babies will be born to irresponsible, under-educated mothers. Will we get a new crop of brain surgeons and particle physicists from the dollar baby club, or will we need more cops, criminal courts and prisons? One thing you can be certain of: At $4 a month, they'll multiply, and multiply, and multiply.
ObamaCare: It's all about political power.
#politics