HEADLINES and the ACA or Why Should A Person Be Sentenced To Work For Insurance
I'm sure that receiving Social Security benefits encourages folks to retire and stop working. It also allows them to continue eating and paying bills after they stop working. It was started in an effort to spread available work around during the depression in the 1930's. The recovery in the housing market has also encouraged folks to move to other places to be nearer their kids or to get better jobs or housing. As I have gotten older I have become more aware of folks that continue working at a job to continue to get health care benefits for themselves or their spouse or to be able to keep their kids covered. I've had a hip replaced and for a lot of insurance companies get that makes me a high risk case that would have been almost uninsurable until I qualify for Medicare except that I get a group rate for individual coverage as a member of a group of retired workers.
The poor job market prospects for the long term unemployed and older workers beyond the age of 45 has encouraged a number of folks to apply for disability coverage from the Social Security Administration or taking benefits once they become 62. It also encourages folks to do odd jobs for cash and move into a different labor market where employment no longer needs to be full time for a single employer.
It's clear that being able to get insurance will have an impact on the labor market, but it might actually be positive Those, the employer needs will continue to work if they so desire. Employers still seem to have a hammer over a lot of their employees and when they don't and real wages rise then they will start complaining about inflation and the business cycle, globalization and the Fed will probably screw over everyone again.
The poor job market prospects for the long term unemployed and older workers beyond the age of 45 has encouraged a number of folks to apply for disability coverage from the Social Security Administration or taking benefits once they become 62. It also encourages folks to do odd jobs for cash and move into a different labor market where employment no longer needs to be full time for a single employer.
It's clear that being able to get insurance will have an impact on the labor market, but it might actually be positive Those, the employer needs will continue to work if they so desire. Employers still seem to have a hammer over a lot of their employees and when they don't and real wages rise then they will start complaining about inflation and the business cycle, globalization and the Fed will probably screw over everyone again.
I missed the positive benefit part. Is it because people will have an option not to work? How does that go. If it's really positive lets see how small we can shrink the workforce! How Obama or his fellow progressives can think the working class will overcome the challenge of income inequality (the defining challenge of the age!) by slacking their way to success remains a mystery.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it would be positive for people to be able to change jobs, do something less stressful or just different more easily. Demographically the older workforce may need to continue to work but may transition to working fewer hours and the concept of retirement may also change and there may be other positive outcomes as well. This is a work in progress and hopefully we have gotten beyond "death panels".
ReplyDeleteThe notable lack of jobs out there make this reasoning almost funny. Changing the definition of something does not change the facts. Call it anything you like but working till you die is just that.
ReplyDeleteAnd as we slack, here are the president's own words discussing the story of his grandmother, who was terminally ill with cancer when she had an expensive hip replacement procedure so that she would not be bed-ridden for the last three to nine months of her life:
THE PRESIDENT: So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right?
I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here.
LEONHARDT: So how do you — how do we deal with it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that there is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place. It is very difficult to imagine the country making those decisions just through the normal political channels. And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance. It’s not determinative, but I think has to be able to give you some guidance. And that’s part of what I suspect you’ll see emerging out of the various health care conversations that are taking place on the Hill right now.
So as of April 2009 Obama himself expected the final legislation to include some sort of group (but NOT a "death panel"!) that would produce voluntary guidelines for end of life care with an eye towards saving money.
This is a very complicated issue. I hope you have discussed end of life issues with your family and that your parents discussed their ideas on the subject with you. It is increasingly difficult to fix everything that fails us as we age. Quality of life should be a factor. The situation is similar on the employment front as well. How a person faces retirement is certainly a series of choices and in more than a few cases luck or a matter of fate. If a person wants/needs to work there should be support as needed. At almost 63 helping with homework, supervision of a teenager, rides to activities, fills in time between a part time job and seasonal work mucking out stalls at the race track. The horse seems to appreciate changing the sheets, I'm not so sure about the teenager. Horse is in for a tag of $3,500 and if somebody steps up we will both benefit. Pictures from standing the horse in the mist early on Friday were both interesting and pretty. Send me a functioning e-mail for pictures. Thanks for your comments.
DeleteMost certainly agree, it is a family and doctor personal issue. The government should have no involvement. Help as needed for retirement is a local county and state issue. I'm over 63, I drew early retirement when I lost my last contract. I found a new job at half of what I made and then paid SS back everything I drew out. I have always had personal health insurance so I know the actual price. I paid 700-900 per month, 5,000 deductable for almost all of my career. Lose your group plan and you will pay the same. Join ACA and you will also pay the same. ACA Bronze level 3 is 625 per month with a 10,000 deductible. Lots to look forward to also since the provider network is miniscule under ACA. Calling a big fubar like ACA a work in progress is a gem. Single payor would have been much better and more honest.
ReplyDeleteandrew.krause@gmx.com