This is not CVX specific (so no doubt some sad twat will chastise me for that...), however in a number of posts I detect a resentment towards those who have not achieved the stereotypical success admired by many - namely accumulation of material wealth.
Why the desire not to help those who may not have had the good fortune, breaks, luck, etc?
It's a sad soul who cannot give - if they can - to help others.
@KbYmEZi-Ieqd, wow you are certainly very resentful of generations other than your own. I don't know anyone with the characteristics that you describe, and although I am not a baby boomer, I do know many and not one with "shortcomings" indeed many are much better off, and more generous, caring and giving than the young greedy take-take-take generations. S-e-x? Recreational Drugs? generational music ? That sounds as much like millennials as any other generation I have ever known. Do you think those vices are exclusive to one generation? Do you also think that each generation is only made up of one type of person? Do you think that someone working hard and believing in being independent and having strong ethical values and moral integrity is a bad thing? Do you think that respecting your elders is a horrible suggestion? Working hard, saving and making the right decisions in life so that you don't need to be a parasitic leech on society is not considered a "shortcoming" unless you are a greedy hypocrite liberal democrat, like you @-Ieqd. Try focusing on bettering YOURSELF and not what others have achieved whom have already succeeded that you can take and steal from and you will be much better off. Being envious of the success of previous generations is burying you with hatred, resentment and disrespect. Follow the conservative advice of the Late JFK jr, which is the opposite of what you liberals believe today. "ask not what your...... etc."
-Hilk: well my previous post got garbled as a chunk was cut out of the middle, but I am fairly sure you would not have liked the whole much better. It said, in effect, that the baby boomers were all about s-x, drugs, rock and roll when they were young, "just say no" when they had kids, "don't you dare tax me" when they hit peak earning, and "shut up and respect you elders" now that they are getting old. A very self centered generation. Now with Trump it becomes "I got mine, you should get your own"....except the government should keep their hands off my social security and Medicare payments. The gist of the rest was it is not going to work that way. Either we are in this together and have each other's back to some extent (e.g., health care) or it is everyone alone (I got mine, so f*** off). It is not likely to be one generation getting all the benefits and the next paying all the bills. Unless there is a rebalance, at some point the baby boomers will need to face their own shortcomings.
-Fqpx , you posted: "The baby boomers started out with s-x, drugs and rock and particularly as these same old folks continue to preach now how the already highly taxed workers should not expect any benefits themselves."
I am a baby boomer and so are all of my family members and an enormous amount of peers/colleagues and I know NOT ONE person with this belief. I respect your opinion and do not wish to offend but when a post is started off with such a false and unfounded comment it is difficult to take any of the rest of it as anything but falsely concocted heavily biased political rhetoric.
-Fpxe: I do not disagree with you that those who "advocate[] so strongly for the socialist type structure" typically see others as takers and themselves as entitled. The baby boomers started out with s-x, drugs and rock and particularly as these same old folks continue to preach now how the already highly taxed workers should not expect any benefits themselves. If you think medicare is safe, even as universal coverage for the working aged disappears, then I suspect your wish will not be granted. I am all for fiscal responsibility, for me personally and for my nation, but I see little of that expressed by Trump (he is now proposing the single most irresponsible spending plan I have ever seem...with yet again huge tax breaks for the 1%ers). The last decades of repeated trickle down promises should have made people realize by now that is a fable used by the 1%ers...give me the money and it will rain jobs with gold. How can this be considered conservative? To continue to spend beyond cash flows in good times and bad, even when there is no reasonable hope that spending will yield higher returns. Indeed I have been constantly disappointed by the Republicans since Bush the father, decrying the national budget deficient when out of power but spending like drunken solders when they get in (e.g., deficits don't matter" D--k Chaney). So have your little celebration and rejoice your savior, I expect your going to find that in the morning the rich just got richer (again), the middle class is still stuck in slow decline, and there is a big new bill from the most recent party (again), but perhaps that now the next generation are the ones questioning if they can spare you any bread.
@Ehhr, Typically when someone advocates so strongly for the socialist type structure that you are presenting, it is because they or someone that they are close to needs it. Personally. Unfortunately for you, those of us who have made the right decisions in life and prepared for our future, unlike you, do not. And, in general, the working class of America do not wish to carry the load of the bulk of those who simply did not make the correct decisions and prepared for their future and as a result, need to be dependent for health care costs. That was made clear in the last election. We only should be taking care of the extremely poor, elderly and disabled. That does not include parasitic leeches on society. Avenues have always been available to them for healthcare. Please join the Peace Core, or volunteer for your favorite charity if you are inclined to give. Just don't impose your dependency or socialist dreams on anyone else. Have a nice day.
Yes, @Dhaj, I do believe the US has finally come to the point in which some form of universal healthcare is required. Unfortunately, greed and fraud which are pervasive vices in capitalism, gets out of hand, thus requiring a drastic change to correct the problem. The importance of having adequate healthcare by everyone will create the need for a universal medical insurance. The cost of private medical insurance and healthcare has spiralled out of control to the point that our country now needs a system that is controlled not by the free market (that failed), but by the government.
-Dtwp: "in the Humanitarian sense, the strong protect the weak" ... yup ok, but that rather brings us full circle to the question in the OP. If the working age poor get sick it might be the right thing to do to try to get them back on their feet and back to work (when possible), reflecting "there but for the grace of God go I". Hence the need for universal health care of one sort or another.
@Dvmc, in the Humanitarian sense, the strong protect the weak and the younger working generation defend their older folks, who brought them up. So it is your responsibility to help pay my way now that I'm retired. One day, it will be your turn and the younger generation will step up to defend you, whether you want it or not. Case closed
-Dgyv. True, but in the same Darwinian sense implied why should I be willing to pay the costs of a bunch of old folks who are very expensive and are done working to contribute to the bottom line GDP. Before you go off on "I paid for end of life care" with my hard earned payroll taxes, I would just note that as a generation the baby boomers did not pay anything forward ... they rather left a mountain of debt for the remaining workers to pay off. More to the point, when you get really sick it would seem that I am going to get your bills anyway .... it might in the end be cheaper to pay upfront for an ounce of prevention.
Hey Clwg, you're working and I'm not. Translation: You can afford to pay for my healthcare.
@-zsdj , I don't consider shifting the cost around for the free-loading bums who do not want to pay for health care to the ones who work hard for a living any kind of solution other than the typical democrat solution to everything - Take money from those who earn it and give it to those who do not. Is that what you call making progress? Why is that the dems' solution to everything? How long will it take for you to figure out that socialism does not work and sooner or later you run out of other people's money?
Yes Indeed,@Binx, You can lie until you are blue in the face but the facts remain. Prices skyrocketed under the ACA if you consider all costs including OOP(out of pocket) and prescriptions. The entire program was a sham from the get-go. Obama promised the false $2500 during his campaign speeches but he also continued to endorsed that promise after in office, per your very own liberal Politifact website. In addition, it was determined after the ACA went into effect, the average INCREASE in premiums was $2200 per family, not a decrease at all. http://amac.us/president-obamas-promise-2500-medical-savings-turn-2200-increase/
And that figure does not even include the substantial increases since then, including the recent massive one.
So you are also flat out wrong on your "OPINION" puff piece, typical liberal hogwash that the ACA subsidy wealth redistribution amounts to an average of lower costs. That is so completely far from the truth that you are embarrassing yourself. Seriously? There are college graduates and highly skilled professionals reading this, not children. You can't just make up things like those whoppers and expect to get away with it. You should have quit while you were just behind a little bit.
From the heavily left-wing (proven) Politifact, in 2012, as delicately and liberally "Fluffy" as they could put it, and trying to divert blame from the blameless irresponsible BO, they had no option:
"In assessing this promise, we consider the following: An author of the $2,500 figure has disavowed its use as it relates to premiums alone. An independent health care analyst projects that premiums will go up for the typical family. The federal agency implementing the Affordable Care Act did not provide evidence that premiums will go down for the typical family. We rate this as a promise broken"
@Aoez - Another straw man argument trying to twist my words. Nowhere did I imply that only conservatives dislike Obamacare. All I said was that AMAC was a conservative organization that opposes the ACA. That doesn't imply anything about what others think of the ACA. Many liberals dislike ACA because they feel it did not go far enough, viz. that it should have been a single-payer system or at least included a public option. That's what typically happens when you have a compromise piece of legislation, everyone ends up somewhat disappointed. I won't address the rest of your post because it's just confused ramblings about liberals and claims that I'm repeating lies, even though you haven't pointed out one single lie that I've made. I'm beginning to think that you realize you've lost this debate and are trying to move the discussion to something else and cover your tracks with insults.
@Aibx - I don't see anywhere in the Politifact piece that Obama's promise was anything but a broken campaign promise, something that happens to every politician. Where do you see that he was saying this even after ACA had taken shape? The AMAC piece was written by a conservative organization that doesn't like Obamacare. It that tries to use anecdotal evidence from one or two people or one or two states to make broad claims. Cherry-picking a few extreme cases is just propaganda and not way good way to find the truth. While it is true that a Brookings study 2 years ago concluded that ACA increase rates in certain markets, more recent studies by the same group show that it has decreased premiums on average (https://www.brookings.edu/research/affordable-care-act-premiums-are-lower-than-you-think/).
At this point, it's pretty clear that you're not interested in having a real discussion, you just want to shout at other posters and tell them how stupid you think they are because for some reason you think they care about your opinion. If you can find the self-control to fashion a coherent response without questioning the intelligence of those who present opposing facts and claiming every source you disagree with is biased, I might respond. Otherwise, I see no point.
No, you are wrong. @zifo. Indeed Obama promised the false $2500 during his campaign speeches but he also continued to endorsed that promise after in office, per your very own liberal Politifact website. In addition, it was determined after the ACA went into effect, the average INCREASE in premiums was $2200 per family, not a decrease at all. http://amac.us/president-obamas-promise-2500-medical-savings-turn-2200-increase/
And that figure does not even include the substantial increases since then, including the recent massive one.
So you are also d-ead wrong on your "OPINION" puff piece, typical liberal hogwash that the ACA subsidy wealth redistribution amounts to an average of lower costs. That is so completely far from the truth that you are embarrassing yourself. Seriously? There are college graduates and highly skilled professionals reading this, not children. You can't just make up things like those whoppers and expect to get away with it. You should have quit while you were just behind a little bit.
From the heavily left-wing (proven) Politifact, in 2012, as delicately and liberally "Fluffy" as they could put it, and trying to divert blame from the blameless irresponsible BO, they had no option:
"In assessing this promise, we consider the following: An author of the $2,500 figure has disavowed its use as it relates to premiums alone. An independent health care analyst projects that premiums will go up for the typical family. The federal agency implementing the Affordable Care Act did not provide evidence that premiums will go down for the typical family. We rate this as a promise broken"
Hey zifo, Actually even with recent increases, prices are still TOO DAMN HIGH!!!!!!!
@zgaj - Actually even with recent increases, prices are still below the original CBOs projections. See https://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/2016/07/29/health-premiums-after-obamacare-theyre-lower The claim that prices would go down by $2500 a year was made by Obama when he was a candidate for President (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/us/23health.html), and based on the information he had available then. Like many campaign promises it was optimistic and assumed he could get the law passed exactly as he wanted it, and of course, any predictions of this type are only best guesses. Hopefully, you know that you need to take campaign promises with a grain of salt, otherwise, I think you're going to be a bit disappointed in the size of Trump's wall (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/26/so-how-high-will-donald-trumps-wall-be-an-investigation/) Finally, many people have saved that amount and even much more thanks to the government subsidies, so on average he may have been correct.
@zgaj, Thanks for reminding us all, especially the left wing nut jobs who are blind and suffer with short memories. Obama directly lied to the nation about the ACA. The Democrat majority in Congress at the time that passed the law, didn't even read the bill. They blindly followed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, two vermin demagogues that will live in infamy, that we need to pass the bill ti find out what was in the bill. Obama has gone on to lie to the American people on many other things. He has taken politics and the Democrat Party to to lowest of lows. His legacy will go down as being the absolute worst President in American history. Jimmy Carter just took down the plaque he had on his wall and is dusting it off to hand it over to Barry Hussain Obama on January 20. Good Riddance to Obama.
Was the claim that the cost of health insurance premiums would go down by $2500 for the typical family annually, which was made directly and in no uncertain terms, by your president(not mine) while in office, a strawman argument, a talking point, a false narrative, or what? Which one was that?
I'll give you a clue: It was an outright boldfaced lie and he knew that when he told it.
Mr. Gruber is the only one who said anything truthful about the ACA.
@zcao - You are correct that the numbers I provided were from the point of view of the health insurer. I provided them to correct the mistaken belief of posters that physicians' salaries or fraud were the cause of our high health care costs. If you include all the processing and paperwork costs from all parties involved, the percentage would be quite a bit higher. Not to mention the amount of time individuals spend comparing and buying insurance and following up on claims and even the amount of administrative time companies like Chevron spend on their medical benefits. The obvious solution is a single-payer system, but I'm afraid that fear-mongering tactics by those who profit from the insurance system and ideological objections by conservatives make that all but impossible to sell to the general public. I wish I were wrong about that.
Me too! What has happened?
Damn! I thought I was a conservative Republican type for so many years. But, after all this ACA discussion, I'm beginning to realize I'm a really a liberal Democrat type. WTF???
@zodg - "The concept that the rapid increase in healthcare costs were somehow magically decreased because of Obamacare is a farce propagated by left-wing media and is one of their favorite talking points, part of their false narrative." That's a strawman argument if I've ever heard one. It's the rightwingers on this site who have been making the claim that ACA caused healthcare costs to skyrocket. The response was that the facts show that costs moderated after ACA, and the sources were given to back it up. No one said that this was magically due to ACA, it might even be just coincidence. But it's so funny that if you mistakenly believe that rate increases have accelerated, then you just assume it must be because of ACA, but when it's shown that they didn't then you claim it has nothing to do with ACA. You can't have it both ways. Look, we get it, you don't like Obama, so you want to hate the ACA and believe it is (was) a disaster, just like some people who don't like Trump are going to hate everything he does. Just try to realize that for thinking nonpartisan people, that's just not an actual argument.
@zybp - As the person who posted the 1/3 figure for physicians fraction of healthcare costs, you are wrong about the other 2/3. Here is the breakdown of where your healthcare premiums go.
35% hospitals, 33 physicians, 14% drugs, 5% other health care costs, 6% taxes and claim processing, 4% consumer support and marketing, 3% insurance company profits. (http://blog.bcbsnc.com/2014/04/where-does-my-health-insurance-premium-really-go)
Of course, it's hard to say how much is fraud, since if people get away with it, we have no way of finding out. And though it's not an insignificant amount, I doubt that it accounts for more than a 5 to 10 percent of health care expenditures. Certainly something worth trying to curtail, but not a solution to rising healthcare costs. And remember that no system is fraud-proof, even if the government is not involved at all. Just look at auto repair or plumbers, for instance.
The concept that the rapid increase in healthcare costs were somehow magically decreased because of Obamacare is a farce propagated by left-wing media and is one of their favorite talking points, part of their false narrative. In fact, Obamacare did absolutely Nothing to control costs of healthcare other than for specific consumers who receive subsidies paid for by others. Any perceived "slowdown" was purely coincidental at best. In any event those numbers do not include the latest 30 to 40% increase which blows that superficial average. As usual, liberals and math never have gotten along well. What ever happened to the average decrease in costs of $2500 a family? It seems that the left-wing false narrative shifted to how much it has gone up relatively. Whatever. Only 6% of the people polled even believe the liberal media anymore. It's nice to know at least some people have some common sense.
In addition to helping the poor, which is quite a pleasure for me and many, You people living in the states also have to help the people who can well afford to pay for their insurance, but do not because your system is so botched up. An example is the fellow below with the snide remark that another person's taxes pays his healthcare insurance subsidy. He is obviously a capable and well compensated Oil patch employee being on this site No wonder your system is broken and going bankrupt. Apparently whoever made the rules had no sense, part of Obama's administration, no doubt? Is that the law that no one read until after it was passed? Good luck. At least you guys elected a game changer this go 'round. He might not be popular with the fringe populace but your country is crying for change and it seems no one else has the balls or scruples to do anything.
"The proof is there, healthcare costs have skyrocketed since the enactment of the ACA, and a lot of cost went up beforehand, when the new requirements were anticipated, and not included even in the effects, hence the liberal lies."
As usual, you're the one who is lying. Health care costs have been going up for years, and actually moderated a bit under the ACA. US cost increases have been outpacing the rest of the world's since about 1980. Please try actually researching things instead of repeating right-wing talking points. Here are a few places you might want to read before you display your ignorance again. You can Google to find others. But of course that would be a lot more work than just repeating falsehoods that feel good, so I don't hold out much hope.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2015/06/29/u-s-health-care-costs-rise-faster-than-inflation
http://www.factcheck.org/2014/02/aca-impact-on-per-capita-cost-of-health-care/
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/HistoricalNHEPaper.pdf
@zmxv, the main problem here in the US started way before Obamacare. Healthcare premiums even before the ACA was obscenely high. Another poster said that doctors' salary or pay amounts to about 1/3 of the premiums we currently pay and the rest are other costs. Maybe that is close to the approximate breakdown of costs. If so, the most of the other 2/3 of high premiums is comprised of fraud, waste, legal costs and frivolous lawsuit settlements. Let's complain about and fix the problem with that 2/3 of the premiums. Then maybe we all won't have to bash the doctors for earning their pay.
@zyhp , What surprises me is why people like you continue to live in the US and just continuously whine and complain about healthcare costs. I have lived and worked overseas and know many people who still do, and also in Central, South America and Canada. There are many beautiful and wonderful places in the world to live. It couldn't be that the quality and availability of healthcare is better here is it?- LOL! It sure seems so according to my Canadian friends who come to visit quite frequently. But I prefer to just pay my costs and not complain. The main problem here in the US started when the government decided to bump up the percentage of people getting healthcare on the government dole, ala Obamacare. There's nothing wrong with the healthcare itself., indeed it is quite superior to that which I have received in any other country, so I do not mind paying more for it.
@ykis, I agree with much of what you said. But, I'd be remiss if I didn't also thank you for your taxes and contribution to my $1,235 ACA monthly subsidy starting in January 2017.
Good work OP.
US healthcare spend is 17% of GDP -- compare that to countries with universal healthcare, and you'll find they spend half that. To say that privatization delivers better outcomes... Hahahaha, you're dreaming.
To those that despise helping your fellow American via taxation -- what if it was your child that had learning difficulties? Or a crippling disability? Or just fell on hard times being sacked? At the heart of this mindset, fundamentally there is a lack of empathy.
@ymdb , Yes indeed, the government forces me to pay taxes for someone else's kids to go to school. I have no kids and did not attend public school. Most citizens do not mind paying taxes for better roads and bridges. Who mentioned that? However, those dollars are less than 25% effective vs the private sector, have you seen the progress of highway workers in most states lately, not to mention the people, government paid (very well BTW) behind the scenes doing nothing? I have witnessed that first hand. "Since the ACA enactment 20 millions have gained health coverage. That will help the hospitals pay for their costs." Lies, Lies. Lies. Lies. Take your own advice ; "Stop spreading lies" A large majority , if not all of the ACA sign up either pay nothing (Medicaid) or are heavily subsidized. How in God's name does subsidizing people and enrolling more on Medicaid save anyone money except for the free-loaders themselves? The proof is there, healthcare costs have skyrocketed since the enactment of the ACA, and a lot of cost went up beforehand, when the new requirements were anticipated, and not included even in the effects, hence the liberal lies. "There are many more poor citizens that don't have health insurance than there are illegals." What sort of vague factless comment is that? That's the equivalent of the more white people are on welfare than blacks argument( blacks only make up ~13% of the population - DUHHH!!) Aren't illegals included in the poor people? 62% of illegal immigrant headed households receive entitlements compared to 30% of native headed households. That is a FACT, not an opinion. Many illegals come here BECAUSE they are poor and end up needing benefits and are rarely refused. Get your FACTS straight and quit spreading lies yourself before you accuse OTHERS of spreading lies.
@KbYmEZi-zcp Did the government force you pay taxes for someone else's kids to go to school? How about your money helping build and maintain the highways and roads? Where is the outrage on these issues? We live in a society and not on our own island. Tax money pay for common goods for all of us. Giving to charities on your own is great. No issue with that.
Please get your facts straight about illegal immigrants bankrupting the hospitals and health care system. Stop spreading bias and ignorance. There are many more poor citizens that don't have health insurance than there are illegals. Since the ACA enactment 20 millions have gained health coverage. That will help the hospitals pay for their costs.
I do not support illegal immigration into the country. I support reforming the laws and better border protections. I support treating people humanely once there are here.
I agree with the OP's sentiment.
@2uhk - this is so true
It feels good to give. You guys should always remember that. I feel good, in fact I feel great when I can give to my favorite charity, etc. I love doing it.
@KbYmEZi - this is some heavy stuff...
It's one thing to help someone of your own free will. It's another to help someone because it's been forced upon you by the government. Illegal immigrants have been bankrupting our hospitals and health care system. This is what brought about the ACA. Our country is trillions of dollars in debt. We cannot afford to be the charity to the world anymore, when we can't even pay our own bills.
I believe it is human nature to help people and we all do it in one form or fashion. Some only help friends or family. Others help only those who really need help. Some will only help with labor and time; some will only give money. Some do get bitter after finding out that someone they helped took advantage of their generous nature and from that point on only help after verifying true need. You get my drift. There are many, many issues to be considered. You never really know for sure who is doing what. Some choose to do it ananamously while others like to brag about it. Darned humans are funny that way sometimes.
OP, it's human nature. There are some on this site who genuinely do try to help others and there are some who don't care to help at all. Every person is different and have their motives. Typically, those who denigrate others are themselves people who hate their own station in life and would rather bring others in the gutter with them. Their attitude is in fact a reflection of themselves.
We do give and help others, we just don't believe the government should be enforcing confiscation and deciding who and how we help. My wife and I have helped a number of people and causes over the years, but the best help you can give someone is the ability to help themselves.
There appears to be too much entitlement to others labors in this country today.
Friggin' troll. No one said they wouldn't help those needing help.