RWs, how do we fix our shitty healthcare system?

[francoHFW]

14/10/2015 - A research team led by Amantha Thathiah (VIB/KU Leuven) has determined that a protein – known as GPR3 – might play an important role in alleviating the cognitive deficits and reducing the generation of ‘amyloid plaques’.

Disruption of brain-blood barrier might influence progression of Alzheimer’s
29/09/2015 - The team of Roosmarijn Vandenbroucke in the Claude Libert Group (VIB/UGent) combined their knowledge and expertise related to inflammation with the expertise in Alzheimer’s disease present in the Bart De Strooper Group (VIB/KU Leuven).

Alzheimer’s-disease-related proteases, BACE1 and APH1B-y-secretase, control axonal guidance by regulating growth cone dynamics
14/09/2015 - BACE1 is the major drug target for Alzheimer’s disease. Soraia Barão and Bart De Strooper (VIB/KU Leuven) now show that this protease is critically involved in axonal guidance processes in thalamic and hippocampal neurons.

European scientists join forces for animal research
26/11/2014 - Scientists across Europe are rising against the proposal of Stop Vivisection to phase out animal experimentation in Europe.

Failed Alzheimer’s test shows in which direction the research should continue
06/11/2014 - Disappointing results in clinical Alzheimer’s studies discourage scientists from continuing their research. Alzheimer’s expert Bart De Strooper argues that these studies are not pointless, but merely indicate what the next steps should be.

Zebrafish help to unravel Alzheimer’s disease
19/08/2014 - A new by VIB/KU Leuven scientists gives new knowledge about the regulation of stem cells in the nerve tissue of zebrafish embryos results in surprising insights into neurodegenerative disease processes in the human brain.

This is an exert of research of Alzheimer disease in belgium. It is amongst the top in the world. This is of course highly selective I just heard about this in the news quite recently. But it illustrates that cutting edge research is perfectly feasable in socialised healthcare.
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is a link that shows that in this category too belgium scores better then th US, sorry.

Despite all the bashing America receives every time someone mentions medical care, it remains the most advanced country in medicine. The sheer number of research papers published every year is higher than the next 5 countries on our list combined. America’s medical scientists are also first in number of researchers that have foreign collaborators, illustrating their willingness for cooperation with their colleagues from around the globe, which is a contributing factor to their overall success.

10 Most Advanced Countries in Medicine - Insider Monkey

youre right. There's only one little problem the next 9 countries and probably the next after that all have socialised medical care.Invalidating youre point that only free enterprise is capable of delivering advanced experimental healthcare. Also in that list the us has the largest population wich naturally makes it easier to deliver more papers. And lastly I already said that US healthcare is very advanced what I was claiming that my healthcare system is more accessible,cheaper and more efficient for the average person.'Now theres one circumstane I'll probably pick US healthcare over Belgian one. If I was a millionaire with some very complex ailment. Because I imagine that the top 1 percent of doctors in the US are better then the top 1 in mine. The difference is of course that the top 1 in mine is within the financiel reach of all citizens.'

I doubt that the top 1% in either country are any better than the other. This is not about the quality of your doctors, this is about the care.
as for your other question.
I pay 25 dollars if I go to the ER and am not admitted. 0 if I am admitted.
my prescriptions (on the spot) are 10 for name brand and 5 for generic.
If I go into the hospital to get my appendix out, my cost out of pocket is 0
I get a private room (that's all they have here) every time without paying out of pocket. ( again, you say you have not heard of this, so I will accept your word on that since you are actually there). I do not have a yearly out of pocket that has to be met. I simply show my insurance card to the hospital when they come around to check you in (after you are already being seen) and I never see any bill at all.
The wait times here have really grown over the last 10 years for the ER, we used to wait maybe an hour, now you need to pack a meal and maybe a change of clothes if you are walking in to the ER. The reason is that in this area all of the illegals use the ER for everything from a common cold to actual emergencies. It is slowing things down when they don't speak English.
I don't have healthcare costs added to my fuel prices, right now I pay 1.70 a gallon for diesel, you pay much more. I don't have a huge amount deducted in taxes from my pay to cover it.
I much prefer it the way the U.S did it before being destroyed by the great divider obama.

First of all thank you, I finally have found someone willing to post honestly on point and is willing to have a real discussion. My first question, if you don't mind answering of course what's your anual health insurrance cost? Just so you know out of pocket means i get a bill. Because i have a feeling I used the idiom wrong or like my wife calls it a 'Ziva'. Anyways you are right when you say I pay alot of extra taxes, both upfront and hidden ones like gas prices. But and here's the thing it doesn't just get me healthcare it gets me all manner of other services, cheap education, high unemployment compentation, decent pensions etc. My point is it is a different way of looking at what the government should provide it's ppl. I know we totaly disagree on what the answer to that question is, but at least we both seem willing to discuss our viewpoints without having to hide behing retoric.

my yearly premium is just under 5,000 for a family of three.
Now, lets look at this. Most likely you entered the work force with these taxes and costs in place, so as you went through your life, your purchases were made with those costs already a factor. Your house, cars, vacations, whatever, all are afforded after the cost of taxes for all the things you want the government to do for people. (another place we differ, the government has no money of its own, therefore the only thing it can do is force a redistribution of wealth)
At any rate, we have not had that cost here, our bills like homes, cars, vacations and whatever have been accrued with a certain income that allows for this. But, now all of a sudden we find ourselves with a bill for insurance, that cost was 5k a year, now if I have to go to one of the ACA plans, because of my income I would pay 10k a year with a 12k out of pocket. That is a big difference.
For some it means they might lose their home, or their cars, or even their retirement that they have worked for.
What if your government suddenly decided that everyone needed a car, and began giving cars for free to anyone that made X amount of dollars or less per year. X being less than you make, and your monthly tax bill was to go up 3 or 4 hundred dollars a month but your pay would stay the same. Would that in any way affect your quality of life? Would you be for it or against it.

You ALREADY were paying for poor worker and indigent care, just in the stupidest, deadliest way. Now poor workers can get insurance and preventive care, no more bankuptcies and losing everything, and people aren't forced onto welfare to get care. But thanks for the stupid "common sense", dupe.

 

[forkup]

anyways think it

Voters are fed talking points about the evils of "socialized" medicine, with its rationing and the fact that it doesn't let crippled poor children die in the streets.

But it becomes a huge problem when those socialized systems rank ahead of ours for efficiency and outcomes.

The people defending the American System don't understand that after decades of concentrating lobbying the American Health Care and Pharmaceutical sectors became virtual state protected monopolies that were able to raise rates and decrease service/coverage without fear of losing customers to a more efficient/innovative competitor.

Our politicians were paid off. They enabled a rentier class to take over our health care delivery system. We made a small class of people rich while at the same time fleecing the middle class, who became unable to afford a system that grew at 5x inflation.

Reagan promised the opposite. He said the market would innovate and offer competitive pricing. Who knew that they would do the opposite? Who knew that they would simply invest in politicians to help them monopolize coverage and distort market incentives, and who knew they would invest in talk radio to convince morons to scream "socialism" at anyone who tried to fix it?

i agree there are problems that need to be addressed.......but socialism is not the answer......we have one foot in it already with Obamacare (which was supposed to solve it all) and the problems just keep on increasing......

correct me if i'm wrong but are more ppl insured because of Obamcare? If so please explain how the situation is getting worse?

Now, as 2015 slowly draws to a close, we see that each and every one of those promises was broken, and the problems with Obamacare seem to be getting worse − although there are almost 10 million more people insured. But at what cost?

Tens of millions of Americans have been forced to change health care plans, change doctors, incur significantly higher premiums, pay much higher deductibles and often skip routine testing because it must be paid out of pocket. All of this, the president tells us, was necessary to provide insurance for an additional 10 million people by 2015.

About 85 percent of the previously uninsured receive a subsidy reducing their premiums by an average of $270 per month. That’s a cost to taxpayers of more than $27 billion annually. This is added to the higher premiums and higher deductibles that the average American now already pays for Obamacare coverage.

There are additional costs that taxpayers incur. The ACA established 23 health co-ops. These are essentially non-profit insurance companies that were supposed to provide health coverage at the lowest possible cost to consumers and keep a lid on prices charged by commercial health insurance companies, thus adding an element of “competition” to the coverage pools.

But one by one, these co-ops have been failing. Recently, Health Republic Insurance of Oregon and Colorado HealthOP said it will cease operations at the end of the year. Just days before, the Kentucky Health Cooperative and the Tennessee Community Health Alliance said they would also shut down.

All told, eight of the original 23 cop-ops that received a whopping $900 million in federal loans and provided service to more than 500,000 Americans have failed. Worse, a recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general said the remaining co-ops are “in deep financial trouble,” with more expected to close.


It gets even worse for Medicare recipients. When the ACA was passed, it included a provision that transferred funds out of Medicare to pay for the exchanges. The result is that about 30 percent of Medicare beneficiaries will see their Part B premiums rise by as much as 52 percent in 2016.
In 2016, the penalty on individuals who choose not to purchase health insurance will increase to at least $625 per year. But that figure could be even higher, based on an individual’s income. This tax − which President Obama refused to call a tax until the Supreme Court said it was a tax − will be paid by every American who freely chooses not to purchase health insurance.

In 2018, the situation will get even worse. Millions of Americans who are able to negotiate a high-quality health care package as part of their benefit package will discover they have incurred an additional tax. If an individual employee negotiates a “Cadillac” plan which costs his employers more than the Obama administration says it should, that individual will pay a 40 percent tax on the amount above Obama’s arbitrary limit. This could cost such individuals another $1,500 to $2,000 per year in taxes.

All this added expense is effectively penalizing several hundred millions of Americans just so that less than 10 million people can receive free or nearly free health insurance. Such a policy seems grossly unfair. But in addition, many Americans are receiving poorer, not better health care as a result of the ACA. Nearly every doctor and hospital administrator that I have spoken to about Obamacare speaks negatively regarding the results. Doctors are working more hours and are receiving less pay, hardly an incentive for providing quality care.

Obamacare problems will only increase in 2016

Yup that sounds like ACA is a complete mess. Only thing i can say its wrong to compare this with socialized medicine. I've done numorous post on how we keep our costs down in my country in this thread. Our insurance companies (yes we have more then 1) are all government run. Wich takes out the for profit part out of it. I'm guessing and it is just a guess that that's where the problem lies. If you give private health isurance companies the ability to get subsidies to provide health care I imaging that since it is like you said' free enterprise' they won't do it on the cheap. They basicly take tax payer money and give it to the shareholders driving up cost.

ACA DID cut insurers non medical spending from 28% to 20%. It's just a framework to be added to over time, it just started and the GOP and their scam insurer pals are still obstructing everywhere they can...

regardless if the article was correct or not. I think that as long as profit is being made of sick ppl said system will remain flawed. In one of my post i described it like this.'We don't have most costs that distracts from the core business of providing health care, creating a cheaper more effecient system'. Profit is one of those unessary costs in my book.Being sick should NOT be for other ppl to profit from.MY opinion as it is.

 

[francoHFW]

Of course in Red states, no expansion of Medicaid paid for by Feds, so you still pay for their ER care. Great job! lol

 

[francoHFW]

anyways think it

i agree there are problems that need to be addressed.......but socialism is not the answer......we have one foot in it already with Obamacare (which was supposed to solve it all) and the problems just keep on increasing......

correct me if i'm wrong but are more ppl insured because of Obamcare? If so please explain how the situation is getting worse?

Now, as 2015 slowly draws to a close, we see that each and every one of those promises was broken, and the problems with Obamacare seem to be getting worse − although there are almost 10 million more people insured. But at what cost?

Tens of millions of Americans have been forced to change health care plans, change doctors, incur significantly higher premiums, pay much higher deductibles and often skip routine testing because it must be paid out of pocket. All of this, the president tells us, was necessary to provide insurance for an additional 10 million people by 2015.

About 85 percent of the previously uninsured receive a subsidy reducing their premiums by an average of $270 per month. That’s a cost to taxpayers of more than $27 billion annually. This is added to the higher premiums and higher deductibles that the average American now already pays for Obamacare coverage.

There are additional costs that taxpayers incur. The ACA established 23 health co-ops. These are essentially non-profit insurance companies that were supposed to provide health coverage at the lowest possible cost to consumers and keep a lid on prices charged by commercial health insurance companies, thus adding an element of “competition” to the coverage pools.

But one by one, these co-ops have been failing. Recently, Health Republic Insurance of Oregon and Colorado HealthOP said it will cease operations at the end of the year. Just days before, the Kentucky Health Cooperative and the Tennessee Community Health Alliance said they would also shut down.

All told, eight of the original 23 cop-ops that received a whopping $900 million in federal loans and provided service to more than 500,000 Americans have failed. Worse, a recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services inspector general said the remaining co-ops are “in deep financial trouble,” with more expected to close.


It gets even worse for Medicare recipients. When the ACA was passed, it included a provision that transferred funds out of Medicare to pay for the exchanges. The result is that about 30 percent of Medicare beneficiaries will see their Part B premiums rise by as much as 52 percent in 2016.
In 2016, the penalty on individuals who choose not to purchase health insurance will increase to at least $625 per year. But that figure could be even higher, based on an individual’s income. This tax − which President Obama refused to call a tax until the Supreme Court said it was a tax − will be paid by every American who freely chooses not to purchase health insurance.

In 2018, the situation will get even worse. Millions of Americans who are able to negotiate a high-quality health care package as part of their benefit package will discover they have incurred an additional tax. If an individual employee negotiates a “Cadillac” plan which costs his employers more than the Obama administration says it should, that individual will pay a 40 percent tax on the amount above Obama’s arbitrary limit. This could cost such individuals another $1,500 to $2,000 per year in taxes.

All this added expense is effectively penalizing several hundred millions of Americans just so that less than 10 million people can receive free or nearly free health insurance. Such a policy seems grossly unfair. But in addition, many Americans are receiving poorer, not better health care as a result of the ACA. Nearly every doctor and hospital administrator that I have spoken to about Obamacare speaks negatively regarding the results. Doctors are working more hours and are receiving less pay, hardly an incentive for providing quality care.

Obamacare problems will only increase in 2016

Yup that sounds like ACA is a complete mess. Only thing i can say its wrong to compare this with socialized medicine. I've done numorous post on how we keep our costs down in my country in this thread. Our insurance companies (yes we have more then 1) are all government run. Wich takes out the for profit part out of it. I'm guessing and it is just a guess that that's where the problem lies. If you give private health isurance companies the ability to get subsidies to provide health care I imaging that since it is like you said' free enterprise' they won't do it on the cheap. They basicly take tax payer money and give it to the shareholders driving up cost.

ACA DID cut insurers non medical spending from 28% to 20%. It's just a framework to be added to over time, it just started and the GOP and their scam insurer pals are still obstructing everywhere they can...

regardless if the article was correct or not. I think that as long as profit is being made of sick ppl said system will remain flawed. In one of my post i described it like this.'We don't have most costs that distracts from the core business of providing health care, creating a cheaper more effecient system'. Profit is one of those unessary costs in my book.Being sick should NOT be for other ppl to profit from.MY opinion as it is.

Article is bs, and ACA DID cut Big Health's waste and profit. More to come in the future...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I thought Obama fixed it?

 

[francoHFW]

I thought Obama fixed it?

RW idiocy, just like that 2500 saving would happen magically and immediately. Competition and more regulation take time...

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Despite all the bashing America receives every time someone mentions medical care, it remains the most advanced country in medicine. The sheer number of research papers published every year is higher than the next 5 countries on our list combined. America’s medical scientists are also first in number of researchers that have foreign collaborators, illustrating their willingness for cooperation with their colleagues from around the globe, which is a contributing factor to their overall success.

10 Most Advanced Countries in Medicine - Insider Monkey

youre right. There's only one little problem the next 9 countries and probably the next after that all have socialised medical care.Invalidating youre point that only free enterprise is capable of delivering advanced experimental healthcare. Also in that list the us has the largest population wich naturally makes it easier to deliver more papers. And lastly I already said that US healthcare is very advanced what I was claiming that my healthcare system is more accessible,cheaper and more efficient for the average person.'Now theres one circumstane I'll probably pick US healthcare over Belgian one. If I was a millionaire with some very complex ailment. Because I imagine that the top 1 percent of doctors in the US are better then the top 1 in mine. The difference is of course that the top 1 in mine is within the financiel reach of all citizens.'

I doubt that the top 1% in either country are any better than the other. This is not about the quality of your doctors, this is about the care.
as for your other question.
I pay 25 dollars if I go to the ER and am not admitted. 0 if I am admitted.
my prescriptions (on the spot) are 10 for name brand and 5 for generic.
If I go into the hospital to get my appendix out, my cost out of pocket is 0
I get a private room (that's all they have here) every time without paying out of pocket. ( again, you say you have not heard of this, so I will accept your word on that since you are actually there). I do not have a yearly out of pocket that has to be met. I simply show my insurance card to the hospital when they come around to check you in (after you are already being seen) and I never see any bill at all.
The wait times here have really grown over the last 10 years for the ER, we used to wait maybe an hour, now you need to pack a meal and maybe a change of clothes if you are walking in to the ER. The reason is that in this area all of the illegals use the ER for everything from a common cold to actual emergencies. It is slowing things down when they don't speak English.
I don't have healthcare costs added to my fuel prices, right now I pay 1.70 a gallon for diesel, you pay much more. I don't have a huge amount deducted in taxes from my pay to cover it.
I much prefer it the way the U.S did it before being destroyed by the great divider obama.

First of all thank you, I finally have found someone willing to post honestly on point and is willing to have a real discussion. My first question, if you don't mind answering of course what's your anual health insurrance cost? Just so you know out of pocket means i get a bill. Because i have a feeling I used the idiom wrong or like my wife calls it a 'Ziva'. Anyways you are right when you say I pay alot of extra taxes, both upfront and hidden ones like gas prices. But and here's the thing it doesn't just get me healthcare it gets me all manner of other services, cheap education, high unemployment compentation, decent pensions etc. My point is it is a different way of looking at what the government should provide it's ppl. I know we totaly disagree on what the answer to that question is, but at least we both seem willing to discuss our viewpoints without having to hide behing retoric.

my yearly premium is just under 5,000 for a family of three.
Now, lets look at this. Most likely you entered the work force with these taxes and costs in place, so as you went through your life, your purchases were made with those costs already a factor. Your house, cars, vacations, whatever, all are afforded after the cost of taxes for all the things you want the government to do for people. (another place we differ, the government has no money of its own, therefore the only thing it can do is force a redistribution of wealth)
At any rate, we have not had that cost here, our bills like homes, cars, vacations and whatever have been accrued with a certain income that allows for this. But, now all of a sudden we find ourselves with a bill for insurance, that cost was 5k a year, now if I have to go to one of the ACA plans, because of my income I would pay 10k a year with a 12k out of pocket. That is a big difference.
For some it means they might lose their home, or their cars, or even their retirement that they have worked for.
What if your government suddenly decided that everyone needed a car, and began giving cars for free to anyone that made X amount of dollars or less per year. X being less than you make, and your monthly tax bill was to go up 3 or 4 hundred dollars a month but your pay would stay the same. Would that in any way affect your quality of life? Would you be for it or against it.

You ALREADY were paying for poor worker and indigent care, just in the stupidest, deadliest way. Now poor workers can get insurance and preventive care, no more bankuptcies and losing everything, and people aren't forced onto welfare to get care. But thanks for the stupid "common sense", dupe.

if they were already getting it, then there is no need to fix it.
thanks for playing.

 

[forkup]

Despite all the bashing America receives every time someone mentions medical care, it remains the most advanced country in medicine. The sheer number of research papers published every year is higher than the next 5 countries on our list combined. America’s medical scientists are also first in number of researchers that have foreign collaborators, illustrating their willingness for cooperation with their colleagues from around the globe, which is a contributing factor to their overall success.

10 Most Advanced Countries in Medicine - Insider Monkey

youre right. There's only one little problem the next 9 countries and probably the next after that all have socialised medical care.Invalidating youre point that only free enterprise is capable of delivering advanced experimental healthcare. Also in that list the us has the largest population wich naturally makes it easier to deliver more papers. And lastly I already said that US healthcare is very advanced what I was claiming that my healthcare system is more accessible,cheaper and more efficient for the average person.'Now theres one circumstane I'll probably pick US healthcare over Belgian one. If I was a millionaire with some very complex ailment. Because I imagine that the top 1 percent of doctors in the US are better then the top 1 in mine. The difference is of course that the top 1 in mine is within the financiel reach of all citizens.'

I doubt that the top 1% in either country are any better than the other. This is not about the quality of your doctors, this is about the care.
as for your other question.
I pay 25 dollars if I go to the ER and am not admitted. 0 if I am admitted.
my prescriptions (on the spot) are 10 for name brand and 5 for generic.
If I go into the hospital to get my appendix out, my cost out of pocket is 0
I get a private room (that's all they have here) every time without paying out of pocket. ( again, you say you have not heard of this, so I will accept your word on that since you are actually there). I do not have a yearly out of pocket that has to be met. I simply show my insurance card to the hospital when they come around to check you in (after you are already being seen) and I never see any bill at all.
The wait times here have really grown over the last 10 years for the ER, we used to wait maybe an hour, now you need to pack a meal and maybe a change of clothes if you are walking in to the ER. The reason is that in this area all of the illegals use the ER for everything from a common cold to actual emergencies. It is slowing things down when they don't speak English.
I don't have healthcare costs added to my fuel prices, right now I pay 1.70 a gallon for diesel, you pay much more. I don't have a huge amount deducted in taxes from my pay to cover it.
I much prefer it the way the U.S did it before being destroyed by the great divider obama.

First of all thank you, I finally have found someone willing to post honestly on point and is willing to have a real discussion. My first question, if you don't mind answering of course what's your anual health insurrance cost? Just so you know out of pocket means i get a bill. Because i have a feeling I used the idiom wrong or like my wife calls it a 'Ziva'. Anyways you are right when you say I pay alot of extra taxes, both upfront and hidden ones like gas prices. But and here's the thing it doesn't just get me healthcare it gets me all manner of other services, cheap education, high unemployment compentation, decent pensions etc. My point is it is a different way of looking at what the government should provide it's ppl. I know we totaly disagree on what the answer to that question is, but at least we both seem willing to discuss our viewpoints without having to hide behing retoric.

my yearly premium is just under 5,000 for a family of three.
Now, lets look at this. Most likely you entered the work force with these taxes and costs in place, so as you went through your life, your purchases were made with those costs already a factor. Your house, cars, vacations, whatever, all are afforded after the cost of taxes for all the things you want the government to do for people. (another place we differ, the government has no money of its own, therefore the only thing it can do is force a redistribution of wealth)
At any rate, we have not had that cost here, our bills like homes, cars, vacations and whatever have been accrued with a certain income that allows for this. But, now all of a sudden we find ourselves with a bill for insurance, that cost was 5k a year, now if I have to go to one of the ACA plans, because of my income I would pay 10k a year with a 12k out of pocket. That is a big difference.
For some it means they might lose their home, or their cars, or even their retirement that they have worked for.
What if your government suddenly decided that everyone needed a car, and began giving cars for free to anyone that made X amount of dollars or less per year. X being less than you make, and your monthly tax bill was to go up 3 or 4 hundred dollars a month but your pay would stay the same. Would that in any way affect your quality of life? Would you be for it or against it.

You ALREADY were paying for poor worker and indigent care, just in the stupidest, deadliest way. Now poor workers can get insurance and preventive care, no more bankuptcies and losing everything, and people aren't forced onto welfare to get care. But thanks for the stupid "common sense", dupe.

So as I read this, youre problem with a socialised system is that you do quite well for yourself and resent the fact that all of a sudden the government sais ,sorry the rules have changed from now on your wealth has to be shared more extensively with ppl less fortunate. It's not so much that you feel it wouldn't work but more that you simply feel it's unfair towarths you?Wich is a perfectly understandable reason.

 

[forkup]

youre right. There's only one little problem the next 9 countries and probably the next after that all have socialised medical care.Invalidating youre point that only free enterprise is capable of delivering advanced experimental healthcare. Also in that list the us has the largest population wich naturally makes it easier to deliver more papers. And lastly I already said that US healthcare is very advanced what I was claiming that my healthcare system is more accessible,cheaper and more efficient for the average person.'Now theres one circumstane I'll probably pick US healthcare over Belgian one. If I was a millionaire with some very complex ailment. Because I imagine that the top 1 percent of doctors in the US are better then the top 1 in mine. The difference is of course that the top 1 in mine is within the financiel reach of all citizens.'

I doubt that the top 1% in either country are any better than the other. This is not about the quality of your doctors, this is about the care.
as for your other question.
I pay 25 dollars if I go to the ER and am not admitted. 0 if I am admitted.
my prescriptions (on the spot) are 10 for name brand and 5 for generic.
If I go into the hospital to get my appendix out, my cost out of pocket is 0
I get a private room (that's all they have here) every time without paying out of pocket. ( again, you say you have not heard of this, so I will accept your word on that since you are actually there). I do not have a yearly out of pocket that has to be met. I simply show my insurance card to the hospital when they come around to check you in (after you are already being seen) and I never see any bill at all.
The wait times here have really grown over the last 10 years for the ER, we used to wait maybe an hour, now you need to pack a meal and maybe a change of clothes if you are walking in to the ER. The reason is that in this area all of the illegals use the ER for everything from a common cold to actual emergencies. It is slowing things down when they don't speak English.
I don't have healthcare costs added to my fuel prices, right now I pay 1.70 a gallon for diesel, you pay much more. I don't have a huge amount deducted in taxes from my pay to cover it.
I much prefer it the way the U.S did it before being destroyed by the great divider obama.

First of all thank you, I finally have found someone willing to post honestly on point and is willing to have a real discussion. My first question, if you don't mind answering of course what's your anual health insurrance cost? Just so you know out of pocket means i get a bill. Because i have a feeling I used the idiom wrong or like my wife calls it a 'Ziva'. Anyways you are right when you say I pay alot of extra taxes, both upfront and hidden ones like gas prices. But and here's the thing it doesn't just get me healthcare it gets me all manner of other services, cheap education, high unemployment compentation, decent pensions etc. My point is it is a different way of looking at what the government should provide it's ppl. I know we totaly disagree on what the answer to that question is, but at least we both seem willing to discuss our viewpoints without having to hide behing retoric.

my yearly premium is just under 5,000 for a family of three.
Now, lets look at this. Most likely you entered the work force with these taxes and costs in place, so as you went through your life, your purchases were made with those costs already a factor. Your house, cars, vacations, whatever, all are afforded after the cost of taxes for all the things you want the government to do for people. (another place we differ, the government has no money of its own, therefore the only thing it can do is force a redistribution of wealth)
At any rate, we have not had that cost here, our bills like homes, cars, vacations and whatever have been accrued with a certain income that allows for this. But, now all of a sudden we find ourselves with a bill for insurance, that cost was 5k a year, now if I have to go to one of the ACA plans, because of my income I would pay 10k a year with a 12k out of pocket. That is a big difference.
For some it means they might lose their home, or their cars, or even their retirement that they have worked for.
What if your government suddenly decided that everyone needed a car, and began giving cars for free to anyone that made X amount of dollars or less per year. X being less than you make, and your monthly tax bill was to go up 3 or 4 hundred dollars a month but your pay would stay the same. Would that in any way affect your quality of life? Would you be for it or against it.

You ALREADY were paying for poor worker and indigent care, just in the stupidest, deadliest way. Now poor workers can get insurance and preventive care, no more bankuptcies and losing everything, and people aren't forced onto welfare to get care. But thanks for the stupid "common sense", dupe.

So as I read this, youre problem with a socialised system is that you do quite well for yourself and resent the fact that all of a sudden the government sais ,sorry the rules have changed from now on your wealth has to be shared more extensively with ppl less fortunate. It's not so much that you feel it wouldn't work but more that you simply feel it's unfair towarths you?Wich is a perfectly understandable reason.

I just reread fortunate isn't exactly the best term here i think

 

[forkup]

Anyways, bedtime for me ppl. I have to say this was an informative evening for me.Maryland sorry for the namecalling, that wasn't correct of me. I don't like it when ppl do it to me so you deserve an appoligy.

 

[francoHFW]

youre right. There's only one little problem the next 9 countries and probably the next after that all have socialised medical care.Invalidating youre point that only free enterprise is capable of delivering advanced experimental healthcare. Also in that list the us has the largest population wich naturally makes it easier to deliver more papers. And lastly I already said that US healthcare is very advanced what I was claiming that my healthcare system is more accessible,cheaper and more efficient for the average person.'Now theres one circumstane I'll probably pick US healthcare over Belgian one. If I was a millionaire with some very complex ailment. Because I imagine that the top 1 percent of doctors in the US are better then the top 1 in mine. The difference is of course that the top 1 in mine is within the financiel reach of all citizens.'

I doubt that the top 1% in either country are any better than the other. This is not about the quality of your doctors, this is about the care.
as for your other question.
I pay 25 dollars if I go to the ER and am not admitted. 0 if I am admitted.
my prescriptions (on the spot) are 10 for name brand and 5 for generic.
If I go into the hospital to get my appendix out, my cost out of pocket is 0
I get a private room (that's all they have here) every time without paying out of pocket. ( again, you say you have not heard of this, so I will accept your word on that since you are actually there). I do not have a yearly out of pocket that has to be met. I simply show my insurance card to the hospital when they come around to check you in (after you are already being seen) and I never see any bill at all.
The wait times here have really grown over the last 10 years for the ER, we used to wait maybe an hour, now you need to pack a meal and maybe a change of clothes if you are walking in to the ER. The reason is that in this area all of the illegals use the ER for everything from a common cold to actual emergencies. It is slowing things down when they don't speak English.
I don't have healthcare costs added to my fuel prices, right now I pay 1.70 a gallon for diesel, you pay much more. I don't have a huge amount deducted in taxes from my pay to cover it.
I much prefer it the way the U.S did it before being destroyed by the great divider obama.

First of all thank you, I finally have found someone willing to post honestly on point and is willing to have a real discussion. My first question, if you don't mind answering of course what's your anual health insurrance cost? Just so you know out of pocket means i get a bill. Because i have a feeling I used the idiom wrong or like my wife calls it a 'Ziva'. Anyways you are right when you say I pay alot of extra taxes, both upfront and hidden ones like gas prices. But and here's the thing it doesn't just get me healthcare it gets me all manner of other services, cheap education, high unemployment compentation, decent pensions etc. My point is it is a different way of looking at what the government should provide it's ppl. I know we totaly disagree on what the answer to that question is, but at least we both seem willing to discuss our viewpoints without having to hide behing retoric.

my yearly premium is just under 5,000 for a family of three.
Now, lets look at this. Most likely you entered the work force with these taxes and costs in place, so as you went through your life, your purchases were made with those costs already a factor. Your house, cars, vacations, whatever, all are afforded after the cost of taxes for all the things you want the government to do for people. (another place we differ, the government has no money of its own, therefore the only thing it can do is force a redistribution of wealth)
At any rate, we have not had that cost here, our bills like homes, cars, vacations and whatever have been accrued with a certain income that allows for this. But, now all of a sudden we find ourselves with a bill for insurance, that cost was 5k a year, now if I have to go to one of the ACA plans, because of my income I would pay 10k a year with a 12k out of pocket. That is a big difference.
For some it means they might lose their home, or their cars, or even their retirement that they have worked for.
What if your government suddenly decided that everyone needed a car, and began giving cars for free to anyone that made X amount of dollars or less per year. X being less than you make, and your monthly tax bill was to go up 3 or 4 hundred dollars a month but your pay would stay the same. Would that in any way affect your quality of life? Would you be for it or against it.

You ALREADY were paying for poor worker and indigent care, just in the stupidest, deadliest way. Now poor workers can get insurance and preventive care, no more bankuptcies and losing everything, and people aren't forced onto welfare to get care. But thanks for the stupid "common sense", dupe.

So as I read this, youre problem with a socialised system is that you do quite well for yourself and resent the fact that all of a sudden the government sais ,sorry the rules have changed from now on your wealth has to be shared more extensively with ppl less fortunate. It's not so much that you feel it wouldn't work but more that you simply feel it's unfair towarths you?Wich is a perfectly understandable reason.

No, I'm all for ACA, socialized medicine. Think of me as Bernie Sanders who speaks French lol...These GOP people are totally misinformed by a huge propaganda machine- Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Savage, Levin, etc. THAT is our mess.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

youre right. There's only one little problem the next 9 countries and probably the next after that all have socialised medical care.Invalidating youre point that only free enterprise is capable of delivering advanced experimental healthcare. Also in that list the us has the largest population wich naturally makes it easier to deliver more papers. And lastly I already said that US healthcare is very advanced what I was claiming that my healthcare system is more accessible,cheaper and more efficient for the average person.'Now theres one circumstane I'll probably pick US healthcare over Belgian one. If I was a millionaire with some very complex ailment. Because I imagine that the top 1 percent of doctors in the US are better then the top 1 in mine. The difference is of course that the top 1 in mine is within the financiel reach of all citizens.'

I doubt that the top 1% in either country are any better than the other. This is not about the quality of your doctors, this is about the care.
as for your other question.
I pay 25 dollars if I go to the ER and am not admitted. 0 if I am admitted.
my prescriptions (on the spot) are 10 for name brand and 5 for generic.
If I go into the hospital to get my appendix out, my cost out of pocket is 0
I get a private room (that's all they have here) every time without paying out of pocket. ( again, you say you have not heard of this, so I will accept your word on that since you are actually there). I do not have a yearly out of pocket that has to be met. I simply show my insurance card to the hospital when they come around to check you in (after you are already being seen) and I never see any bill at all.
The wait times here have really grown over the last 10 years for the ER, we used to wait maybe an hour, now you need to pack a meal and maybe a change of clothes if you are walking in to the ER. The reason is that in this area all of the illegals use the ER for everything from a common cold to actual emergencies. It is slowing things down when they don't speak English.
I don't have healthcare costs added to my fuel prices, right now I pay 1.70 a gallon for diesel, you pay much more. I don't have a huge amount deducted in taxes from my pay to cover it.
I much prefer it the way the U.S did it before being destroyed by the great divider obama.

First of all thank you, I finally have found someone willing to post honestly on point and is willing to have a real discussion. My first question, if you don't mind answering of course what's your anual health insurrance cost? Just so you know out of pocket means i get a bill. Because i have a feeling I used the idiom wrong or like my wife calls it a 'Ziva'. Anyways you are right when you say I pay alot of extra taxes, both upfront and hidden ones like gas prices. But and here's the thing it doesn't just get me healthcare it gets me all manner of other services, cheap education, high unemployment compentation, decent pensions etc. My point is it is a different way of looking at what the government should provide it's ppl. I know we totaly disagree on what the answer to that question is, but at least we both seem willing to discuss our viewpoints without having to hide behing retoric.

my yearly premium is just under 5,000 for a family of three.
Now, lets look at this. Most likely you entered the work force with these taxes and costs in place, so as you went through your life, your purchases were made with those costs already a factor. Your house, cars, vacations, whatever, all are afforded after the cost of taxes for all the things you want the government to do for people. (another place we differ, the government has no money of its own, therefore the only thing it can do is force a redistribution of wealth)
At any rate, we have not had that cost here, our bills like homes, cars, vacations and whatever have been accrued with a certain income that allows for this. But, now all of a sudden we find ourselves with a bill for insurance, that cost was 5k a year, now if I have to go to one of the ACA plans, because of my income I would pay 10k a year with a 12k out of pocket. That is a big difference.
For some it means they might lose their home, or their cars, or even their retirement that they have worked for.
What if your government suddenly decided that everyone needed a car, and began giving cars for free to anyone that made X amount of dollars or less per year. X being less than you make, and your monthly tax bill was to go up 3 or 4 hundred dollars a month but your pay would stay the same. Would that in any way affect your quality of life? Would you be for it or against it.

You ALREADY were paying for poor worker and indigent care, just in the stupidest, deadliest way. Now poor workers can get insurance and preventive care, no more bankuptcies and losing everything, and people aren't forced onto welfare to get care. But thanks for the stupid "common sense", dupe.

So as I read this, youre problem with a socialised system is that you do quite well for yourself and resent the fact that all of a sudden the government sais ,sorry the rules have changed from now on your wealth has to be shared more extensively with ppl less fortunate. It's not so much that you feel it wouldn't work but more that you simply feel it's unfair towarths you?Wich is a perfectly understandable reason.

Its not going to work. People are going to lose their homes and jobs over this. The U.S was not built this way. You cant just all of a sudden demand people pay thousands a year more and expect that they can all afford it.
Many people in this country, even upper middle class, live payday to payday. Its something we refer to as House poor, after making the 4500 a month mortgage on their house and the 1200 a month payment on their car, they are basically stuck at home with little left to do anything with.
These people are not doing anything wrong, they pay their bills, work etc.. but as soon as you tell them they owe, X dollars more next month, they lose their home or their cars, or the company has to downsize because of the new regulations and they lose their job.
This is going to send the country into a depression like never seen before.

Fair or not, (and its not) it wont work.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Anyways, bedtime for me ppl. I have to say this was an informative evening for me.Maryland sorry for the namecalling, that wasn't correct of me. I don't like it when ppl do it to me so you deserve an appoligy.

No problem.
Its part of this forum. LOL

 

[francoHFW]

I doubt that the top 1% in either country are any better than the other. This is not about the quality of your doctors, this is about the care.
as for your other question.
I pay 25 dollars if I go to the ER and am not admitted. 0 if I am admitted.
my prescriptions (on the spot) are 10 for name brand and 5 for generic.
If I go into the hospital to get my appendix out, my cost out of pocket is 0
I get a private room (that's all they have here) every time without paying out of pocket. ( again, you say you have not heard of this, so I will accept your word on that since you are actually there). I do not have a yearly out of pocket that has to be met. I simply show my insurance card to the hospital when they come around to check you in (after you are already being seen) and I never see any bill at all.
The wait times here have really grown over the last 10 years for the ER, we used to wait maybe an hour, now you need to pack a meal and maybe a change of clothes if you are walking in to the ER. The reason is that in this area all of the illegals use the ER for everything from a common cold to actual emergencies. It is slowing things down when they don't speak English.
I don't have healthcare costs added to my fuel prices, right now I pay 1.70 a gallon for diesel, you pay much more. I don't have a huge amount deducted in taxes from my pay to cover it.
I much prefer it the way the U.S did it before being destroyed by the great divider obama.

First of all thank you, I finally have found someone willing to post honestly on point and is willing to have a real discussion. My first question, if you don't mind answering of course what's your anual health insurrance cost? Just so you know out of pocket means i get a bill. Because i have a feeling I used the idiom wrong or like my wife calls it a 'Ziva'. Anyways you are right when you say I pay alot of extra taxes, both upfront and hidden ones like gas prices. But and here's the thing it doesn't just get me healthcare it gets me all manner of other services, cheap education, high unemployment compentation, decent pensions etc. My point is it is a different way of looking at what the government should provide it's ppl. I know we totaly disagree on what the answer to that question is, but at least we both seem willing to discuss our viewpoints without having to hide behing retoric.

my yearly premium is just under 5,000 for a family of three.
Now, lets look at this. Most likely you entered the work force with these taxes and costs in place, so as you went through your life, your purchases were made with those costs already a factor. Your house, cars, vacations, whatever, all are afforded after the cost of taxes for all the things you want the government to do for people. (another place we differ, the government has no money of its own, therefore the only thing it can do is force a redistribution of wealth)
At any rate, we have not had that cost here, our bills like homes, cars, vacations and whatever have been accrued with a certain income that allows for this. But, now all of a sudden we find ourselves with a bill for insurance, that cost was 5k a year, now if I have to go to one of the ACA plans, because of my income I would pay 10k a year with a 12k out of pocket. That is a big difference.
For some it means they might lose their home, or their cars, or even their retirement that they have worked for.
What if your government suddenly decided that everyone needed a car, and began giving cars for free to anyone that made X amount of dollars or less per year. X being less than you make, and your monthly tax bill was to go up 3 or 4 hundred dollars a month but your pay would stay the same. Would that in any way affect your quality of life? Would you be for it or against it.

You ALREADY were paying for poor worker and indigent care, just in the stupidest, deadliest way. Now poor workers can get insurance and preventive care, no more bankuptcies and losing everything, and people aren't forced onto welfare to get care. But thanks for the stupid "common sense", dupe.

So as I read this, youre problem with a socialised system is that you do quite well for yourself and resent the fact that all of a sudden the government sais ,sorry the rules have changed from now on your wealth has to be shared more extensively with ppl less fortunate. It's not so much that you feel it wouldn't work but more that you simply feel it's unfair towarths you?Wich is a perfectly understandable reason.

Its not going to work. People are going to lose their homes and jobs over this. The U.S was not built this way. You cant just all of a sudden demand people pay thousands a year more and expect that they can all afford it.
Many people in this country, even upper middle class, live payday to payday. Its something we refer to as House poor, after making the 4500 a month mortgage on their house and the 1200 a month payment on their car, they are basically stuck at home with little left to do anything with.
These people are not doing anything wrong, they pay their bills, work etc.. but as soon as you tell them they owe, X dollars more next month, they lose their home or their cars, or the company has to downsize because of the new regulations and they lose their job.
This is going to send the country into a depression like never seen before.

Fair or not, (and its not) it wont work.

Look at #2 and 3- REAGANISM is killing us, only the rich are doing well. A lot of it is the old Pub scam health system. 18% of GDP. NOW something is being done.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[Maryland Patriot]

First of all thank you, I finally have found someone willing to post honestly on point and is willing to have a real discussion. My first question, if you don't mind answering of course what's your anual health insurrance cost? Just so you know out of pocket means i get a bill. Because i have a feeling I used the idiom wrong or like my wife calls it a 'Ziva'. Anyways you are right when you say I pay alot of extra taxes, both upfront and hidden ones like gas prices. But and here's the thing it doesn't just get me healthcare it gets me all manner of other services, cheap education, high unemployment compentation, decent pensions etc. My point is it is a different way of looking at what the government should provide it's ppl. I know we totaly disagree on what the answer to that question is, but at least we both seem willing to discuss our viewpoints without having to hide behing retoric.

my yearly premium is just under 5,000 for a family of three.
Now, lets look at this. Most likely you entered the work force with these taxes and costs in place, so as you went through your life, your purchases were made with those costs already a factor. Your house, cars, vacations, whatever, all are afforded after the cost of taxes for all the things you want the government to do for people. (another place we differ, the government has no money of its own, therefore the only thing it can do is force a redistribution of wealth)
At any rate, we have not had that cost here, our bills like homes, cars, vacations and whatever have been accrued with a certain income that allows for this. But, now all of a sudden we find ourselves with a bill for insurance, that cost was 5k a year, now if I have to go to one of the ACA plans, because of my income I would pay 10k a year with a 12k out of pocket. That is a big difference.
For some it means they might lose their home, or their cars, or even their retirement that they have worked for.
What if your government suddenly decided that everyone needed a car, and began giving cars for free to anyone that made X amount of dollars or less per year. X being less than you make, and your monthly tax bill was to go up 3 or 4 hundred dollars a month but your pay would stay the same. Would that in any way affect your quality of life? Would you be for it or against it.

You ALREADY were paying for poor worker and indigent care, just in the stupidest, deadliest way. Now poor workers can get insurance and preventive care, no more bankuptcies and losing everything, and people aren't forced onto welfare to get care. But thanks for the stupid "common sense", dupe.

So as I read this, youre problem with a socialised system is that you do quite well for yourself and resent the fact that all of a sudden the government sais ,sorry the rules have changed from now on your wealth has to be shared more extensively with ppl less fortunate. It's not so much that you feel it wouldn't work but more that you simply feel it's unfair towarths you?Wich is a perfectly understandable reason.

Its not going to work. People are going to lose their homes and jobs over this. The U.S was not built this way. You cant just all of a sudden demand people pay thousands a year more and expect that they can all afford it.
Many people in this country, even upper middle class, live payday to payday. Its something we refer to as House poor, after making the 4500 a month mortgage on their house and the 1200 a month payment on their car, they are basically stuck at home with little left to do anything with.
These people are not doing anything wrong, they pay their bills, work etc.. but as soon as you tell them they owe, X dollars more next month, they lose their home or their cars, or the company has to downsize because of the new regulations and they lose their job.
This is going to send the country into a depression like never seen before.

Fair or not, (and its not) it wont work.

Look at #2 and 3- REAGANISM is killing us, only the rich are doing well. A lot of it is the old Pub scam health system. 18% of GDP. NOW something is being done.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

we get it, you want your free shit.
Now let the people that have to pay your share discuss this issue.
we'll get back to you soon, I promise.

 

[francoHFW]

my yearly premium is just under 5,000 for a family of three.
Now, lets look at this. Most likely you entered the work force with these taxes and costs in place, so as you went through your life, your purchases were made with those costs already a factor. Your house, cars, vacations, whatever, all are afforded after the cost of taxes for all the things you want the government to do for people. (another place we differ, the government has no money of its own, therefore the only thing it can do is force a redistribution of wealth)
At any rate, we have not had that cost here, our bills like homes, cars, vacations and whatever have been accrued with a certain income that allows for this. But, now all of a sudden we find ourselves with a bill for insurance, that cost was 5k a year, now if I have to go to one of the ACA plans, because of my income I would pay 10k a year with a 12k out of pocket. That is a big difference.
For some it means they might lose their home, or their cars, or even their retirement that they have worked for.
What if your government suddenly decided that everyone needed a car, and began giving cars for free to anyone that made X amount of dollars or less per year. X being less than you make, and your monthly tax bill was to go up 3 or 4 hundred dollars a month but your pay would stay the same. Would that in any way affect your quality of life? Would you be for it or against it.

You ALREADY were paying for poor worker and indigent care, just in the stupidest, deadliest way. Now poor workers can get insurance and preventive care, no more bankuptcies and losing everything, and people aren't forced onto welfare to get care. But thanks for the stupid "common sense", dupe.

So as I read this, youre problem with a socialised system is that you do quite well for yourself and resent the fact that all of a sudden the government sais ,sorry the rules have changed from now on your wealth has to be shared more extensively with ppl less fortunate. It's not so much that you feel it wouldn't work but more that you simply feel it's unfair towarths you?Wich is a perfectly understandable reason.

Its not going to work. People are going to lose their homes and jobs over this. The U.S was not built this way. You cant just all of a sudden demand people pay thousands a year more and expect that they can all afford it.
Many people in this country, even upper middle class, live payday to payday. Its something we refer to as House poor, after making the 4500 a month mortgage on their house and the 1200 a month payment on their car, they are basically stuck at home with little left to do anything with.
These people are not doing anything wrong, they pay their bills, work etc.. but as soon as you tell them they owe, X dollars more next month, they lose their home or their cars, or the company has to downsize because of the new regulations and they lose their job.
This is going to send the country into a depression like never seen before.

Fair or not, (and its not) it wont work.

Look at #2 and 3- REAGANISM is killing us, only the rich are doing well. A lot of it is the old Pub scam health system. 18% of GDP. NOW something is being done.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

we get it, you want your free shit.
Now let the people that have to pay your share discuss this issue.
we'll get back to you soon, I promise.

I'm a retired teacher and businessman, hater dupe. Try and follow the discussion. Reaganism has killed the middle class. See #2 and 3.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

You ALREADY were paying for poor worker and indigent care, just in the stupidest, deadliest way. Now poor workers can get insurance and preventive care, no more bankuptcies and losing everything, and people aren't forced onto welfare to get care. But thanks for the stupid "common sense", dupe.

So as I read this, youre problem with a socialised system is that you do quite well for yourself and resent the fact that all of a sudden the government sais ,sorry the rules have changed from now on your wealth has to be shared more extensively with ppl less fortunate. It's not so much that you feel it wouldn't work but more that you simply feel it's unfair towarths you?Wich is a perfectly understandable reason.

Its not going to work. People are going to lose their homes and jobs over this. The U.S was not built this way. You cant just all of a sudden demand people pay thousands a year more and expect that they can all afford it.
Many people in this country, even upper middle class, live payday to payday. Its something we refer to as House poor, after making the 4500 a month mortgage on their house and the 1200 a month payment on their car, they are basically stuck at home with little left to do anything with.
These people are not doing anything wrong, they pay their bills, work etc.. but as soon as you tell them they owe, X dollars more next month, they lose their home or their cars, or the company has to downsize because of the new regulations and they lose their job.
This is going to send the country into a depression like never seen before.

Fair or not, (and its not) it wont work.

Look at #2 and 3- REAGANISM is killing us, only the rich are doing well. A lot of it is the old Pub scam health system. 18% of GDP. NOW something is being done.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

we get it, you want your free shit.
Now let the people that have to pay your share discuss this issue.
we'll get back to you soon, I promise.

I'm a retired teacher and businessman, hater dupe. Try and follow the discussion. Reaganism has killed the middle class. See #2 and 3.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

what did you teach?
idionomics 101? or, how to milk the system for everything you need for dummys

 

[francoHFW]

So as I read this, youre problem with a socialised system is that you do quite well for yourself and resent the fact that all of a sudden the government sais ,sorry the rules have changed from now on your wealth has to be shared more extensively with ppl less fortunate. It's not so much that you feel it wouldn't work but more that you simply feel it's unfair towarths you?Wich is a perfectly understandable reason.

Its not going to work. People are going to lose their homes and jobs over this. The U.S was not built this way. You cant just all of a sudden demand people pay thousands a year more and expect that they can all afford it.
Many people in this country, even upper middle class, live payday to payday. Its something we refer to as House poor, after making the 4500 a month mortgage on their house and the 1200 a month payment on their car, they are basically stuck at home with little left to do anything with.
These people are not doing anything wrong, they pay their bills, work etc.. but as soon as you tell them they owe, X dollars more next month, they lose their home or their cars, or the company has to downsize because of the new regulations and they lose their job.
This is going to send the country into a depression like never seen before.

Fair or not, (and its not) it wont work.

Look at #2 and 3- REAGANISM is killing us, only the rich are doing well. A lot of it is the old Pub scam health system. 18% of GDP. NOW something is being done.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

we get it, you want your free shit.
Now let the people that have to pay your share discuss this issue.
we'll get back to you soon, I promise.

I'm a retired teacher and businessman, hater dupe. Try and follow the discussion. Reaganism has killed the middle class. See #2 and 3.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

what did you teach?
idionomics 101? or, how to milk the system for everything you need for dummys

French, Spanish, and History, total dupe of the greedy idiot billionaire New BS GOP.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Its not going to work. People are going to lose their homes and jobs over this. The U.S was not built this way. You cant just all of a sudden demand people pay thousands a year more and expect that they can all afford it.
Many people in this country, even upper middle class, live payday to payday. Its something we refer to as House poor, after making the 4500 a month mortgage on their house and the 1200 a month payment on their car, they are basically stuck at home with little left to do anything with.
These people are not doing anything wrong, they pay their bills, work etc.. but as soon as you tell them they owe, X dollars more next month, they lose their home or their cars, or the company has to downsize because of the new regulations and they lose their job.
This is going to send the country into a depression like never seen before.

Fair or not, (and its not) it wont work.

Look at #2 and 3- REAGANISM is killing us, only the rich are doing well. A lot of it is the old Pub scam health system. 18% of GDP. NOW something is being done.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

we get it, you want your free shit.
Now let the people that have to pay your share discuss this issue.
we'll get back to you soon, I promise.

I'm a retired teacher and businessman, hater dupe. Try and follow the discussion. Reaganism has killed the middle class. See #2 and 3.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

what did you teach?
idionomics 101? or, how to milk the system for everything you need for dummys

French, Spanish, and History, total dupe of the greedy idiot billionaire New BS GOP.

did you get let go for being a total ass or is this something new for you.

 

[francoHFW]

Look at #2 and 3- REAGANISM is killing us, only the rich are doing well. A lot of it is the old Pub scam health system. 18% of GDP. NOW something is being done.

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 30 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--March 10, 2016
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

we get it, you want your free shit.
Now let the people that have to pay your share discuss this issue.
we'll get back to you soon, I promise.

I'm a retired teacher and businessman, hater dupe. Try and follow the discussion. Reaganism has killed the middle class. See #2 and 3.

After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!! And you complain about the victims? Are you an idiot or an A-hole?

what did you teach?
idionomics 101? or, how to milk the system for everything you need for dummys

French, Spanish, and History, total dupe of the greedy idiot billionaire New BS GOP.

did you get let go for being a total ass or is this something new for you.

WTH is wrong with you? Go to school. Don't make sense.