Preliminary Read on Medical Plans

[Guitarman01]

I’d love to look into that.

That sounds even more extreme than LASIK.

 

[UnionStrong]

I’d love to look into that.

I don’t think it’s covered by insurance. You don’t need glasses and you will never get cataracts.

 

[Fred's Myth]

RLE, refractive lens exchange

I don’t think it’s covered by insurance. You don’t need glasses and you will never get cataracts.

Here are some of the risks of RLE:

• Glaucoma
• Infection
• Retinal detachment
• Over-correction
• Under-correction
• Bleeding
• IOL dislocation
• Posterior capsular occlusion (i.e., a new cataract forms)
• 

  Refractive Lens Exchange (RLE) | A Guide to Lens Replacement Surgery

  If you’re suffering from presbyopia or suffer from severe farsightedness (hyperopia) but are not a good candidate for corrective procedures like LASIK or PRK, refractive lens exchange (RLE) could be exactly what the doctor ordered. Evaluate the benefits, risks and cost of RLE to determine if...

  www.bettervisionguide.com

 

[MassWineGuy]

Ok. But aside from those it’s worry free.

 

[UnionStrong]

Ok. But aside from those it’s worry free.

Everything has risks.

LASIK eye surgery - Mayo Clinic

www.mayoclinic.org

 

[59 Dano]

Tap dance much? You said most people weren't living long enough to claim Social Security.

No, I didn't. Why don't you actually quote my post instead of lying about it?

Again, because I know this is hard for you to grasp, life expectancy of 62 doesn't mean dying by 62 for most people.

Again, I never said it did.

It means the average of all deaths works out to 62. It was that low not because people were living to 62 and dying. It means a lot of younger people died back then due to diseases and that brought the overall average down. Plenty of people, millions, lived to a ripe old age. By the way when they said in 1940 life expectancy was 62 they meant for those born in 1940. My dad was born in 1939. He and millions of seniors have lived into their 70's, 80's, and beyond here in Florida. So why didn't they all croak around the turn of the century? Because healthcare got better. A lot of disease eliminated. So we aren't having young adults and children dying in the numbers they had in 1940. That brings the average up higher. Which actually dipped a bit in recent years because of the opioid crisis and criminal violence.

I'll type this slowly for you.

More people died younger back then as opposed to now. We both agree on that, so why are you trying to refute what you know to be true? Fewer people lived longer.

To reiterate what you said:

Because healthcare got better. A lot of disease eliminated.

And more and more people lived longer as a result! GLORY BE!

 

[Fred's Myth]

No, I didn't. Why don't you actually quote my post instead of lying about it?


Again, I never said it did.


I'll type this slowly for you.

More people died younger back then as opposed to now. We both agree on that, so why are you trying to refute what you know to be true? Fewer people lived longer.

To reiterate what you said:

And more and more people lived longer as a result! GLORY BE!

Van’s been picking some strange hills to die on lately…….Just saying.

 

[vantexan]

No, I didn't. Why don't you actually quote my post instead of lying about it?


Again, I never said it did.


I'll type this slowly for you.

More people died younger back then as opposed to now. We both agree on that, so why are you trying to refute what you know to be true? Fewer people lived longer.

To reiterate what you said:

And more and more people lived longer as a result! GLORY BE!

Still trying to CYA. People weren't dying by 62 in 1940 thus getting Social Security by 65 was just futile. Millions lived past 65 which you denied. Life expectancy is the average of all deaths, not 62 being the lifespan of humans in 1940. You call me a liar? Unless you've deleted your posts anyone can see that you argued against Social Security saying most people were dead before 65. And this started because I pointed out that many businessmen would eliminate Social Security and keep the match for themselves. I pointed out if pay is held down during their working lives so that business owners can do better then the least they can do is contribute to their employees retirement. You then came in to denigrate the work of the rank and file and said that when SS was established the employees would mostly not live long enough to collect it because most would be dead by 62. According to the CDC the current U.S. life expectancy is 76.4 years. 73.something for men. Do most men you know die around 73? The opioid epidemic and violent crime contribute to that stat. Most men if they stay healthy will live late 70's to at least mid 80's. Some will reach 100+. Life expectancy is the average of all deaths, not lifespan.

 

[vantexan]

Van’s been picking some strange hills to die on lately…….Just saying.

How dare I insist that people do the right thing! For the millionth time Social Security is the best idea Democrats ever came up with. And if people hold down your pay while working for them then the least they can do is assist with their employees retirement. If anyone thinks that working someone hard for 30-40 years where they live paycheck to paycheck while the business owner builds a huge home, a lot of money in the bank, living the good life because they kept every penny for themselves and their employees live impoverished in retirement, is acceptable as a Christian then they need to revisit what Jesus said about how difficult it is for a rich man to enter into heaven.

 

[bacha29]

When Medicare was passed into law the average life expectancy was 66. Today it's a decade longer thanks to advances in medical science.
Now for what to do going forward there are two things that will not happen because the political will just isn't there.
1. Means testing 2. Raising the full retirement age to 70.

Right now for Medicare/Medicaid enrolled individuals the best thing they can do for themselves and the system is to try to stay as healthy as they can for as long as they can in an effort to reduce their demand for publicly funded social services.

 

[MassWineGuy]

Let’s all just voluntarily jump on to a highway after we turn 70.

 

[Fred's Myth]

How dare I insist that people do the right thing! For the millionth time Social Security is the best idea Democrats ever came up with. And if people hold down your pay while working for them then the least they can do is assist with their employees retirement. If anyone thinks that working someone hard for 30-40 years where they live paycheck to paycheck while the business owner builds a huge home, a lot of money in the bank, living the good life because they kept every penny for themselves and their employees live impoverished in retirement, is acceptable as a Christian then they need to revisit what Jesus said about how difficult it is for a rich man to enter into heaven.

Your 'insistence' isn't worth a bucket of spit, Van. There are no morality grounds in existence to force an employer to 'do the right thing'. The only resource to forcing your will upon an employer is collective bargaining, as distasteful as that may seem to you. Taking ownership of your problem is the least you can do. The wealth of the business owner is none of your business. And your argument regarding Christian morality being imposed on a business is WAY off the mark. I've lived both sides of the argument, and what I'm saying is the reality of the situation.

 

[Fred's Myth]

When Medicare was passed into law the average life expectancy was 66. Today it's a decade longer thanks to advances in medical science.
Now for what to do going forward there are two things that will not happen because the political will just isn't there.
1. Means testing 2. Raising the full retirement age to 70.

Right now for Medicare/Medicaid enrolled individuals the best thing they can do for themselves and the system is to try to stay as healthy as they can for as long as they can in an effort to reduce their demand for publicly funded social services.

It's now part of general revenues which allows whatever surpluses exist to be applied to other areas.

"The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
"The government has borrowed the total value of the Trust Fund to pay for other government spending." And must repay the amount borrowed, with interest.

But that requires delaying new, unfunded programs designed to cultivate votes. Liberals will never accede to that.

 

[oldngray]

"The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
"The government has borrowed the total value of the Trust Fund to pay for other government spending." And must repay the amount borrowed, with interest.

But that requires delaying new, unfunded programs designed to cultivate votes. Liberals will never accede to that.

What really bankrupts social security is it pays out a lot to disabled people who paid little or nothing into the system instead of just to retirees. Maybe they should have set up a different plan for disabilities.

 

[bacha29]

"The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government."
"The government has borrowed the total value of the Trust Fund to pay for other government spending." And must repay the amount borrowed, with interest.

But that requires delaying new, unfunded programs designed to cultivate votes. Liberals will never accede to that.

It is called the "Broader Budget Perspective" which then allows the government at large to borrow surplus reserves from the SS Trust Fund as well as put money back into the fund when the instrument of indebtedness primarily a Treasury bill repayment comes due. So from the standpoint of how the fund is managed and operated it for for all intents and purposes is general revenues and in some ways like home equity loan where you can borrow and pay back against the value of your home.

 

[bacha29]

How dare I insist that people do the right thing! For the millionth time Social Security is the best idea Democrats ever came up with. And if people hold down your pay while working for them then the least they can do is assist with their employees retirement. If anyone thinks that working someone hard for 30-40 years where they live paycheck to paycheck while the business owner builds a huge home, a lot of money in the bank, living the good life because they kept every penny for themselves and their employees live impoverished in retirement, is acceptable as a Christian then they need to revisit what Jesus said about how difficult it is for a rich man to enter into heaven.

What I found so amazing is how Christians for so long despised labor unions and anything they perceived as socialism whether it was or not are now taking whatever legally obtained cash they can get regardless of political ideology just to get by .
They along with many conservatives have always railed and railed against any new program legislation being introduced in Congress claiming that it was everything other than what it actually was and did in an effort to keep it from becoming law only to see sometime later on that it was actually a pretty good deal.

At least good enough to sign up for it including the Obamacare.

In fact who did I see on TV pitching an Obamacare backed health insurance plan?.....Sarah Palin.
Saying...."It's now the law of the land".

 

[bacha29]

What really bankrupts social security is it pays out a lot to disabled people who paid little or nothing into the system instead of just to retirees. Maybe they should have set up a different plan for disabilities.

The reason they are retired is because they have become disabled . In addition their case is reviewed periodically to see if they still meet the tests that are used to define disability.

 

[oldngray]

The reason they are retired is because they have become disabled . In addition their case is reviewed periodically to see if they still meet the tests that are used to define disability.

The reason they are retired is they are 65+. Not the same as disabled.

 

[vantexan]

What I found so amazing is how Christians for so long despised labor unions and anything they perceived as socialism whether it was or not are now taking whatever legally obtained cash they can get regardless of political ideology just to get by .
They along with many conservatives have always railed and railed against any new program legislation being introduced in Congress claiming that it was everything other than what it actually was and did in an effort to keep it from becoming law only to see sometime later on that it was actually a pretty good deal.

At least good enough to sign up for it including the Obamacare.

In fact who did I see on TV pitching an Obamacare backed health insurance plan?.....Sarah Palin.
Saying...."It's now the law of the land".

That's a broad sweeping statement to say Christians in general despise unions. So unions are made up of atheists? Here's the difference imo. Unions pushing for more and more to the point of breaking a company aren't acting like Christians. Companies who push employees to accept less and less in spite of good profits aren't acting like Christians either and deserve a union to protect employees. Unions have their place but it isn't union members aren't Christians and Christians don't all hate unions.

 

[oldngray]

That's a broad sweeping statement to say Christians in general despise unions. So unions are made up of atheists? Here's the difference imo. Unions pushing for more and more to the point of breaking a company aren't acting like Christians. Companies who push employees to accept less and less in spite of good profits aren't acting like Christians either and deserve a union to protect employees. Unions have their place but it isn't union members aren't Christians and Christians don't all hate unions.

No reason to bring Christians into this argument unless you don't like Christians.