Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[Lamplighter]

Sorry, I should not have posted ("adult children" vs " ") as a joke, so I'm editing it out.

I used "adult children" mainly to avoid the idea that at 21 yrs they were excluded from the parent's plan

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Sorry, I should not have posted ("adult children" vs " ") as a joke, so I'm editing it out.

I used "adult children" mainly to avoid the idea that at 21 yrs they were excluded from the parent's plan

No worries. I was just pointing out the contradiction in the terms. I find it interesting that we strive as parents to get our children to grow up and go forward to be on their own but often continue to have to support them long after any of our parents would have ever considered supporting us in the same manner. The new law allows this and in many cases this will be helpful to struggling young adults as they enter the work world. But how long should it take? It would be under very rare conditions that I would consider supporting my adult children to the age of 26. Even then I would limit such support.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Bullshit, if your kids came home needing shelter/care/support, you'd take them in.


Is specifying "adult children" meant to specifically exclude other young adults living in the house?
Ralf, go live Uncle Frank so you'll be covered under his insurance.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Bullshit, if your kids came home needing shelter/care/support, you'd take them in.


Is specifying "adult children" meant to specifically exclude other young adults living in the house?
Ralf, go live Uncle Frank so you'll be covered under his insurance.

I think any person who is technically an adult who lives at home should pay rent, even if they work at McDonalds. Needing shelter/care/support should be graduated based on the situation. I don't think any young adult should live in your house for free.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Bullshit, if your kids came home needing shelter/care/support, you'd take them in.


Is specifying "adult children" meant to specifically exclude other young adults living in the house?
Ralf, go live Uncle Frank so you'll be covered under his insurance.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I think any person who is technically an adult who lives at home should pay rent, even if they work at McDonalds. Needing shelter/care/support should be graduated based on the situation. I don't think any young adult should live in your house for free.

These define exactly our current situation. We have taken in our "adult" grandson because he was unemployed and destined to be homeless.

Since we are not his legal guardians, he could not be on our health insurance, tax return, etc. even though he was (at first) completely dependent on us.

He will be added to his Mom's (company-paid) health plan in Sept. He's now working a minimum wage job and has been accepted into an ODFW (fisheries) training program. So, he has started paying only his electric bill, gas for the car, and his meals away from our house. He would never be able to afford rent, utilities, and a health care plan in his current situation.

So you do what you have to do.

[TheMercenary]

And why aren't his parents supporting him? So many grandparents have to continue to raise kids full time into their retirement years. I will avoid that at all costs. But you are right, you do what you have to do. But there is no free ride, anywhere.

[Happy Monkey]

"Adult children" sounds funny, like "jumbo shrimp", but "jumbo shrimp" are indeed big for shrimp, and children will always be the children of their parents, no matter their age.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Again. The poor are not dying in the streets.

You are indeed saying that again, but why? I've been saying the same thing. And the reason they aren't is because we subsidize their care in our emergency rooms. Which is less efficient than bringing them into the system. Either way, people who can pay will subsidize people who can't, but now in a better way. Do you want the people who can afford it to not subsidize those who can't? That is the "poor dying in the streets" situation. And just to make it clear: no, that is not the current situation. The poor are not dying in the streets.

My only point was, as you championed the healthcare of the "poor", is that they do not now seek preventive care, and would still not do so even if it was "free".

Some would, some wouldn't, just like rich people. The ones that don't will be where they are now. The ones that do will be utilizing the system more efficiently.

[xoxoxoBruce]

No matter what, some poor will always die in the streets... Wolf knows them.

[Happy Monkey]

Indeed. But given the trouble I was having getting him to notice that I wasn't disagreeing with that statement, adding a caveat seemed risky.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You are indeed saying that again, but why? I've been saying the same thing. And the reason they aren't is because we subsidize their care in our emergency rooms. Which is less efficient than bringing them into the system. Either way, people who can pay will subsidize people who can't, but now in a better way. Do you want the people who can afford it to not subsidize those who can't?

No, what I want is everyone who has income to subsidize care, including those who make any amount. I do not support income redistribution as the current powers that be want to push a socialistic solution onto those who already pay the majority of the federal bills. All I want is to have every single person who makes any form of income at any level have an investment as the same proportion of their income. But to put it all on those who already have insurance or who make 2x or 3x or 4x more than x is completely a socialistic system of income redistribution. It is sort of like my kids and college. I make every one of them take out a personal loan for school so that they are invested in their education. Otherwise it is just a free ride and there is no incentive to do well or do better. Same goes for our current idea that at x income you pay little or nothing, but breech the threshold by one dollar and you suddenly pay a HUGE increase in the percentage of your income to people who pay nothing.

The current healthcare bill is a total fucking sham. It was continually sold as Deficit Neutral. I, among many others told you it was bullshit. But no it was sold as something completely different, deficit neutral. And now it turns out I was right. This Administration will bankrupt this country with it's spending practices and the healthcare bill is but one example of how we are going to become more divided and polarized as more and more spending bills are passed with not a single plan to pay for them. This Congress must be stopped at all costs.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No matter what, some poor will always die in the streets... Wolf knows them.

I know them as well, because they don't die at her place of work but at mine.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Same goes for our current idea that at x income you pay little or nothing, but breech the threshold by one dollar and you suddenly pay a HUGE increase in the percentage of your income to people who pay nothing.

No you don't. The standard deduction and personal exemption add to $9350. If you make $9350, you pay nothing. If you make $9351, you pay... nothing still, because of rounding. If you make $9355, you pay 10% of $5, 50 cents rounds to a dollar. One dollar out of $9355 is 0.01%. So, when you go from $9354 to $9355, your percentage goes up by 0.01%. The horror!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Chances are if you only make $9355, they'll be giving you money.

[Happy Monkey]

There are plenty of additional factors; I was describing the way progressive taxation works in general, using the simplest set of circumstances (single, no kids, no other complications). Wherever your set of circumstances places the point at which you start paying taxes, you only pay those taxes on the amount past that point.

You don't suddenly start paying 10% on all your income once you make it past some breakpoint. Everyone pays 0% on the amount of their income counted as deductions and exemptions. Wealthy people pay 0% on many many more dollars of their income than poor people do.

They get more benefit, too, though it's not always in the form of straight up cash, as with many programs that help the poor.

[TheMercenary]

My point exactly.