Tired of the rat race....
- Thread starter grainger12002
- Start date
- Views: 3481
- Status
EastTexFrank
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 1,422
- Location
- East Texas, USA
- Tractor
- Kubota Grand L4740, B2400 and F2680
OkeeDon,
Unfortunately you hit on the one kicker in the whole "drop out of the ratrace" plan ... the cost of private health insurance.
When we retired both my wife and I qualified for the company's Retiree Medical Plan. We were extremely fortunate in that regard. I don't know what we would have done otherwise.
That's a pretty tough decision you two have to make. I wish you well and more importantly ... continued GOOD HEALTH.
Unfortunately you hit on the one kicker in the whole "drop out of the ratrace" plan ... the cost of private health insurance.
When we retired both my wife and I qualified for the company's Retiree Medical Plan. We were extremely fortunate in that regard. I don't know what we would have done otherwise.
That's a pretty tough decision you two have to make. I wish you well and more importantly ... continued GOOD HEALTH.
All I can say is that universal health insurance, in the form of Medicare for senior citizens, will eventually be my salvation from a different kind of rat race -- the rat race of private insurance companies, who change the rules in midstream, who come into and then leave our state, who have a mish-mash of differing rules and qualifications, who cherry-pick by excluding some people and raise the rates for others for the thinnest of excuses, and who have caused me more anguish that any other single industry.
It seems kind of a shame to waste universal health insurance only for the one class of citizens who will use it the most and cost the highest amount in the relatively short number of years (compared to the general population) they have left, and let the private companies profit enormously on the younger and generally more healthy individuals.
There are certain things that are just more logical to cover with a Federal system. This is not political, because various of these laws have been passed or supported by both parties. Cases in point:
* The feds pay 90% of highway improvement costs, so everyone, regardless of where they live, has decent roads to travel. It probably started with "Pinchot roads"; read more about Governor Pinchot, here.
* The feds supplement rural electrical cooperatives so everyone, regardless of their local economy, can have equal access to electrical power.
* The feds are currently collecting a surtax on everyone's communications bills to begin to fund universal Internet coverage for everyone, especially those in rural areas who would not be served by private companies.
* The US Postal Service has universal mail delivery to everyone, everywhere, for the same price, because private companies would either refuse to serve, or drastically increase the costs for, delivery to rural areas.
* Our national defense is a universal federal policy, covering all citizens, equally.
It seems logical to me that universal health care is more important to the well-being of American citizens than roads, electric power, internet access and the postal service combined, and at least as important to all citizens as national defense, perhaps even more important, since our daily lives are more directly influenced by it than by the occasional attack on our liberty. (And, I understand that it is our successful national defense that renders those attacks "occasional"; my point is that poor health care could be as occasional under a universal plan.)
Now, I'm a centrist who occasionally wanders into the conservative arena, but probably spends a little more time on the progressive side of the fence. However, I didn't get there by accident -- I tend to spend more time thinking about what is good for every citizen of the U.S. rather than just what is good just for me or people like me. But, this issue does not have to be political. The economics of adding younger, healthier people to our existing pool of senior medical health care should be a slam dunk for the most fiscally conservative leader. The problem is that most of those leaders receive humongous support from the private insurance companies.
It seems kind of a shame to waste universal health insurance only for the one class of citizens who will use it the most and cost the highest amount in the relatively short number of years (compared to the general population) they have left, and let the private companies profit enormously on the younger and generally more healthy individuals.
There are certain things that are just more logical to cover with a Federal system. This is not political, because various of these laws have been passed or supported by both parties. Cases in point:
* The feds pay 90% of highway improvement costs, so everyone, regardless of where they live, has decent roads to travel. It probably started with "Pinchot roads"; read more about Governor Pinchot, here.
* The feds supplement rural electrical cooperatives so everyone, regardless of their local economy, can have equal access to electrical power.
* The feds are currently collecting a surtax on everyone's communications bills to begin to fund universal Internet coverage for everyone, especially those in rural areas who would not be served by private companies.
* The US Postal Service has universal mail delivery to everyone, everywhere, for the same price, because private companies would either refuse to serve, or drastically increase the costs for, delivery to rural areas.
* Our national defense is a universal federal policy, covering all citizens, equally.
It seems logical to me that universal health care is more important to the well-being of American citizens than roads, electric power, internet access and the postal service combined, and at least as important to all citizens as national defense, perhaps even more important, since our daily lives are more directly influenced by it than by the occasional attack on our liberty. (And, I understand that it is our successful national defense that renders those attacks "occasional"; my point is that poor health care could be as occasional under a universal plan.)
Now, I'm a centrist who occasionally wanders into the conservative arena, but probably spends a little more time on the progressive side of the fence. However, I didn't get there by accident -- I tend to spend more time thinking about what is good for every citizen of the U.S. rather than just what is good just for me or people like me. But, this issue does not have to be political. The economics of adding younger, healthier people to our existing pool of senior medical health care should be a slam dunk for the most fiscally conservative leader. The problem is that most of those leaders receive humongous support from the private insurance companies.
reb
Platinum Member
I left the rat race about three years ago and find that approximately 40% of my annual expenditures go for health insurance premiums, and my wife and I do not have any serious health problems. I look at the Canadian and British health care systems and fear that socialized medicine here would result in poorer quality of care than we now have available. What we need is something to reduce the cost of medical care.
tracdoc
Platinum Member
IMHO, the thought and the carry-through of leaving the “rat race” in the good ol’ U.S. of A. comes as an enlightenment to only a small fraction of us. I never really thought much about our work ethic here until I was living in Europe. There, a colleague observed that we (Americans) “live to work, and they (Europeans) “work to live.” Simple, yet profound as I gave it more thought. In Europe, family is still #1. Work never takes the top priority, regardless of the career pathway. Butcher, bakers, candlestick makers, mechanics, dentists, lawyers all follow the basic principle that it is family that matters most. This means things like going home for lunch during the work week. How many of us do this? Very few, if any of the folks I know! It’s work, work, work, and lunch on the run. From my observations over the course of more than a year in Europe, their work product did not suffer a bit, and they got just as much, if not more accomplished. I took to heart the “work to live” philosophy, and it has helped me achieve a much better balance between work and family life. The pendulum had to swing way over to the family side for me, and I now appreciate better why I work, and life in general. No, I have not become a philosopher, but “work to live” approach has been good for me.
BTW, many of you probably know that Canada and the UK aren’t the only places with national healthcare. Both Italy and France (maybe other EU countries, as well) have it, and it appears to work quite well. I don’t want to get on the soapbox on this issue, but a good national healthcare system would go a long way to facilitating a more worry-free retirement when the time comes. The key is to have it run in a transparent, not-for-profit manner (truly NFP, not the bogus NFP which pervades the healthcare industry currently). One approach would be to structure national healthcare as a cooperative. Everyone opting in has a responsibility to do something for the co-op, just as in any other co-op. The responsibility factor would go a long way to self-police and prevent abuses, and thereby keep costs down. Quality of care would also be high and even-handed, since each of us would have a stake it the success o failure of the co-op. If one looks at the history of co-ops of all types in the U.S., the failure rate is exceedingly low as compared with corporations and other business models. Just some thoughts…
BTW, many of you probably know that Canada and the UK aren’t the only places with national healthcare. Both Italy and France (maybe other EU countries, as well) have it, and it appears to work quite well. I don’t want to get on the soapbox on this issue, but a good national healthcare system would go a long way to facilitating a more worry-free retirement when the time comes. The key is to have it run in a transparent, not-for-profit manner (truly NFP, not the bogus NFP which pervades the healthcare industry currently). One approach would be to structure national healthcare as a cooperative. Everyone opting in has a responsibility to do something for the co-op, just as in any other co-op. The responsibility factor would go a long way to self-police and prevent abuses, and thereby keep costs down. Quality of care would also be high and even-handed, since each of us would have a stake it the success o failure of the co-op. If one looks at the history of co-ops of all types in the U.S., the failure rate is exceedingly low as compared with corporations and other business models. Just some thoughts…
It should be noted that Canadians cross the border regularly to escape the nightmare that is their sociallized healthcare system. Thanks, but no thanks.
If only there were a way to get good healthcare without putting government in charge of it... Hmmm... Oh yeah! I guess I'll just keep working. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
No such thing as a free ride, someone somewhere is gonna foot the bill. Government waste would surely add enough inefficiency to overcome any benifits it might have.
If only there were a way to get good healthcare without putting government in charge of it... Hmmm... Oh yeah! I guess I'll just keep working. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
No such thing as a free ride, someone somewhere is gonna foot the bill. Government waste would surely add enough inefficiency to overcome any benifits it might have.
I guess I don't know what socialized medical care is. Is Medicare socialized medical care? If so, it seems to work pretty well. I don't know anyone who wants to opt out of it, and it's part of the same medical care system that Canadians and others admire.
On the other hand, private insurance has brought us, among other things, HMO's. How many horror stories have you heard about them?
On the other hand, private insurance has brought us, among other things, HMO's. How many horror stories have you heard about them?
nobull1
Gold Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2004
- Messages
- 430
- Location
- Halifax, Nova Scotia
- Tractor
- '02 Kubota L4300/'04 Kubota KX91-3 '54 International Cub
Well our "Canadian health care " has it's share of problems.Going to the emergency can mean 10-12 hours and still maybe not see a doctor.A hernia could be a wait of 3 months than 6 weeks recovery so if you work you better have good disabiity insurance.Where I am self employed if I needed a hernia operation I would drive to the US pay the money and come back the same day.I could not afford to wait and not get paid for months.Heart attacks hope you get lucky and they do a bypass right away or you could wait for many months and die waiting.<This is one of the ways to save money.Universal health care sounds like a good idea but as was said before once the goverment and "unions" get involved the costs go crazy.The problem that I see is they are so stuck on public health care that they do not want to have anybody pay even if you want to.If you would let some private Healthcare in a lot of the people with money would go there keep the money in Canada and free up some beds in the public system.The problem is some people think that regardles of your income you should have to get the same service as the people who pay nothing.Not trying to say anything other than just because it is public does not mean it is the answer.A lot of seniors are not real happy in Canada with the quality of the public system and the long waits.Also we have a shortage of family doctors due to the low wages in Canada,they all head south /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif.If you don't have a family doctor you have very little chance of getting one in our area,there just isn't any, which means go to emergency when you have a problem.
Okeedon, I'm pretty sure there is nothing in the political spectrum that we will ever agree on, but I rest my case on nobull1s comments. I really feel bad for those trapped in that system. As I have heard before they have even made it against the law to pay to get prompt service. They all must recieve equally bad service (but hey, its free, so they can all get out of the rat race anytime they want).
As for medicare, I assure you there are thousands of people who have earned the means and have chosen to use those means to obtain a higher standard of healthcare than medicare provides. Most don't however, because it isn't too bad (translation - horrifically expensive program used to bribe seniors to vote for xyz candidate). If anyone ever trys to tweek or tune a"program" to make it less wastefull, more modern, they are shown as evil mongers trying to kill off the old.
What we really need is socialized tractors. I'd like to stop working at 45, but if I do, I'll never get my L series I've always dreamed of. If the government bought L series tractors, surely they could negotiate a good deal and therefore bring L series tractors to the masses at a good cost.
1 Protect the borders
2. Print money
3. gaurantee free interstate commerce
That's it. Thats what the founding fathers had in mind. They did not have in mind to take by force federal income tax and redistribute it to those who would like to get out of the rat race. This sounds more arguemenative than I'd like it to. But this is the point I would like to make.
I guess everything can turn in to politics eventually.. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
As for medicare, I assure you there are thousands of people who have earned the means and have chosen to use those means to obtain a higher standard of healthcare than medicare provides. Most don't however, because it isn't too bad (translation - horrifically expensive program used to bribe seniors to vote for xyz candidate). If anyone ever trys to tweek or tune a"program" to make it less wastefull, more modern, they are shown as evil mongers trying to kill off the old.
What we really need is socialized tractors. I'd like to stop working at 45, but if I do, I'll never get my L series I've always dreamed of. If the government bought L series tractors, surely they could negotiate a good deal and therefore bring L series tractors to the masses at a good cost.
1 Protect the borders
2. Print money
3. gaurantee free interstate commerce
That's it. Thats what the founding fathers had in mind. They did not have in mind to take by force federal income tax and redistribute it to those who would like to get out of the rat race. This sounds more arguemenative than I'd like it to. But this is the point I would like to make.
I guess everything can turn in to politics eventually.. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
EastTexFrank
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2003
- Messages
- 1,422
- Location
- East Texas, USA
- Tractor
- Kubota Grand L4740, B2400 and F2680
I agree that something needs to be done about the cost of our present health care system and the insurance companies that "run" it but please keep the government out of it as far as a nation health system is concerned.
I have a great deal of experience with the British National Health System and some with the Canadian and European. They work well for coughs, sneezes and colds but for anything more complicated than that, they all fail miseably. They all fail for the same reason ... they are all grossly underfunded by the governments. I could go into some of the underlying reasons but let's just say that conceptually it is a wonderful idea, everyone receiving good, low cost health care but unfortunately it just doesn't work that way.
I don't know what the answer is but there has to be one. It'll take someone a lot smarter than me to come up with it. All I know is that it has to be morally wrong for someone to work hard all their lives in order to provide their families with a reasonable level of comfort and standard of living only to see it all disappear due to some unforseen illness. It's also morally wrong for a person to pay into a system all their lives and be refused timely care and treatment because the system is overloaded, understaffed and underfinaced. So, what is the answer????
Back to tractoring.
I have a great deal of experience with the British National Health System and some with the Canadian and European. They work well for coughs, sneezes and colds but for anything more complicated than that, they all fail miseably. They all fail for the same reason ... they are all grossly underfunded by the governments. I could go into some of the underlying reasons but let's just say that conceptually it is a wonderful idea, everyone receiving good, low cost health care but unfortunately it just doesn't work that way.
I don't know what the answer is but there has to be one. It'll take someone a lot smarter than me to come up with it. All I know is that it has to be morally wrong for someone to work hard all their lives in order to provide their families with a reasonable level of comfort and standard of living only to see it all disappear due to some unforseen illness. It's also morally wrong for a person to pay into a system all their lives and be refused timely care and treatment because the system is overloaded, understaffed and underfinaced. So, what is the answer????
Back to tractoring.
- Status