BigBendFishing.Net

This post is not intended to be a political one... just a "financial planning" news share.

Nor is it meant to be a "Told you so" message to various board members who bragged several years ago about how the "Affordable Care Act" would reduce costs to our citizenry... nope, it is absolutely shared for financial planning purposes only, so that we might all find ways to skimp now and put aside the additional funds we will be required to pay.

Again, just sharing the news for "financial planning" purposes. If you find the data-driven "financial news" update challenges pro-Affordable care Act comments you spoke to in the past, please refrain from dragging politics into this thread as I share it so we can all take the necessary financial steps that need to be taken, and I don't wish for it to be deemed "political". Let's keep discussion limited to the "financial planning" aspect.

Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For A Typical Family of Four
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca ... y-of-four/

And purely for informational purposes, this old thread did pose the question as to what the future would hold relative to predicted costs. Again, purely share for reference sake as relates to the financial news being reported today that differs quite significantly than what was originally forecast.
http://www.bigbendfishing.net/phpBB3/vi ... =5&t=24991

big bend gyrene wrote:This post is not intended to be a political one... just a "financial planning" news share.

Barhopr wrote:

Awesome, Barhopr! I'm old enough to appreciate the referenced pic. Changing the subject away from the...uhm... purely "financial news" one... learned this weekend how quickly time passes and such references are forgotten. Took fellow board member Ontiltttttt and his girlfriend out fishing and on the way down to the coast we drove by the Wacissa and I made a few joking references to it reminding me of the movie Deliverance (nobody from Wacissa should take offense because living in Lloyd I said I would be on the hillbilly side).

Anyway, I thought to ask Ontiltttttt and his gal if they had seen Deliverance and they hadn't, so I said, "It's an old movie Burt Reynolds was in.", to which Ontilttttttt's young girlfriend said, "Who's Burt Reynolds???"

Fine line bro.. fine line......

But I will allow and see where this goes.

Honestly hope it goes nowhere, Bman, but that those (and there have been a handful) who preached of graduate degrees (when MANY on the other side also have them) see that past experiences themselves can point to the need for healthy skepticism on all things financial that the government touches, and that's a nonpartisan observation from my perspective... need go no further than the local gas tax hike to see that partisan politics doesn't necessarily matter as much as power and self interest do.

In that other linked post I said time would tell. Well, as the financial news shows it didn't take long.

Unfortunately, the government is now so deep into the nation's economy that any financial discussions has to become a political discussion.

I don't know of a single adviser who believed that you transform health care and save premiums at the same time. While I did not predict that the swing would be $10k from what was stated in the roll out, the numbers never added up and they never will.

You simply can not add more than 10 million people to a system and save money, unless you transform how the system delivers services. The affordable care act only transforms the payment system. The ones who are really going to hurt are the young people, whose premiums are going through the roof, even more so than the older population.

muducker your on target

beekeeper wrote:muducker your on target

He usually is.

If you keep just a portion of those 10 million people from using the emergency room for care instead of a primary physician, the savings are appreciable. And those of us lucky enough to have health insurance wouldn't have to pay $14 for a Tylenol at the hospital.

You can't halfway subsidize (socialize) medicine. Either leave it alone or go Canadian. Everybody gets the same level of care paid for with taxes. Anything else is doomed to failure.

The halfway subsidizing is one thing, but for anyone who wants to know how much of a sh*# sandwich we're being fed you need to look no further than who has excused themselves from it.

That would be the President, congress, federal employees, and the biggest corporate supporters of the administration. I'll challenge any single board member to explain to me how you can believe it will be a great product when the very folks that implemented it worked as feverishly as possible to have it not apply to themselves.

Shared this analogy on facebook a while back:

Let's say I told you I was going to make you a cake and PROMISED YOU WILL LOVE ITS SURPRISE FLAVOR! My only condition is you have to pay me for the ingredients up front. Sounds tempting right?

But what if you found out I had to bribe MULTIPLE public officials to allow me to make the cake... you would probably start growing concerned, right... and then you learn that I'm giving out "NOT REQUIRED TO EAT MY CAKE" slips to my VERY CLOSEST friends, but you fail to make that list. That cake is sounding WAY less tempting, right.

Then you learn that my costs for the cake are running WAY higher than I originally predicted, so you have to give me more and more cash... and THEN you learn that I'm changing the ingredients in the cake regularly, and delaying the FORCED consumption of the cake until AFTER me and some of my VERY CLOSEST friends run for public office, and THEN AND ONLY THEN will I allow you to taste my delicious cake.

So how many of you are still jonesing for that cake??? Doesn't sound quite so tempting anymore, now does it?

Ask any military man on this board, the best military leaders are those who don't shy away from leading from the front... showing they'll gladly do what they ask others to do, leading by example and by showing they'll carry MORE than their share of the weight so that no one has room to question their commitment to mission accomplishment. Quite the opposite approach to "I'm going to issue mandates that apply to everyone EXCEPT me and my closest pals."

So who in the emergency room today is going to sign up?

Illegals? Supposedly not allowed.

The healthy working class. Nope, just pay the $100 dollar fine. Its cheaper. Then wait till you have a serious illness to sign up. Pre-existing conditions are covered any way.

Your left with the unhealthy or deadbeats who have theirs paid for by the working folks.

I feel so sorry for our kids as we continue to pass our problems on to them.

Take a look at the estimates and you'll see its the young healthy workers who are paying for the sick and/or lazy.

From everything I've read so far, the whole program relies on young healthy people (who already couldn't afford it at current rates) to sign up at even higher rates to offset the elderly and poor. This won't happen. House of cards.