Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-10-2013, 05:59 PM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
(23-10-2013 04:55 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:Please do generate the math on that one. That figure of $1 million is absurd. Unless you are absurdly rich, you will never pay that much money in health care costs for the ACA.

Gladly. I did the math and have attached an Excel sheet as well as the .pdf printout. All I ask is that, since I invested the time to prove this to you, don't just do the typical liberal thing and run away and ignore the facts. Address them. If there's a flaw in my data, be SPECIFIC and point out the flaw.

Obamacare costs the average American earning a typical wage $3.5 million, but more importantly, it means the difference between being free to make your own decisions and get any cutting edge care you may need no matter how costly, vs. being dependent on a private, for-profit corporation that holds you life in their life hands and rewards their employees for killing you off if you get sick. You don't need to be rich or born into privilege to use this system; just have some basic math skills and an open mind.

Here are the assumptions. First, although health care costs are outrageous in the US, when you go to medical tourism facilities, like in India and Mexico, you get care that is, in my experience, much better, and costs less than 10% of what it does in the US. You can go to India and get a hip replacement for $8k at a top-rated hospital that ranks better than most US hospitals which charge $80k for the same thing. Ditto for chemotherapy, organ transplants, etc.. I can give you the studies if you question any of this.

The 'PreObamacare' sheet starts calculating at age 20, and goes until death at age 80. It takes the cost of a gold plan under Obamacare, cell E1, and assumes that you set it aside in a tax-free health savings account (IRS LINK---------) which you invest, and that you pay for your routine medical expenses yourself (which is now illegal thanks to Obamacare). It also assumes that you buy 'catastrophic insurance' which covers just the major unexpected items (cancer, accident, etc.), and cost about $50/month pre-Obamacare (E7). Thus neither you or society is at risk if you get a sudden, unexpected medical problem, and nobody will pick up the tab for you. These plans are illegal now except for the very poor.

It factors in inflation at 2%/year (E6) and that you can get a 7%/year return on investments. It assumes that each year when you go for a routine checkup, you do it while you're away on vacation at a medical tourism facility and are spending $500/checkup (cell E1). Remember, this is like spending $5,000 at a US facility, and it assumes that by age 40 your costs go up 5x to the equivalent of $25,000/year in today's dollars, and that they go up again 5x at the age of 60, to $125,000/year in today's dollars. These numbers are VERY high. I actually don't know any 20 year olds that spend $5,000/year on medical expenses, or 60 year olds who spend $125,000/year, and at age 40, my checkups cost $90 and I don't think I've ever spent $500/year on medical in my life, and my grandmother is 90 and has never even been in a hospital except for child birth. But to be sure you weren't dismissing my case because I'm healthy, I put in very high medical costs, and I added in catastrophic insurance and in column G, I even added in 'major events', like heart attacks and cancer at $50k and $100k at 10 year intervals, starting at age 49 (again a worst case scenario), since I drop the 'catastrophic insurance' coverage once the HSA hits $250k. Column H shows the balance in your HSA, which is almost $4 million at age 80, the average life expectency. For someone like myself who eats well and exercises regularly and is in good health, I hope to live to 100, and if I stay healthy like my grandma, I would have had over $30 million.

But most important, why my system YOU are in charge of your own life. If when you hit 80 you want to live in a nursing home that costs $500,000/year and includes daily massages from super models, it is YOUR perogative. If you want some cutting edge, super expensive treatment, you can have it. With Obamacare, your shit out of luck. If you need some procedure offered in Germany that's non-FDA approved, with my system you'll get it. With Obamacare, you'll die.

With my system the average person can be a financially independent multi-millionaire at retirement and choose to either leave their kids a big inheritance, or enjoy their golden years in luxury with peace of mind. With your Obamacare system, by contrast, they hand all this over to the health insurance companies that are more interested in their profit margin than your quality of life, and you're totally dependent on them.

To make it fair, I also did a postObamacare sheet which assumes you buy the cheapest bronze plan allowed under Obamacare, but still set the cost of a gold plan into the HSA. You only end up with $450k, meaning it costs you the ability to have $3.5 million in savings when you die. And if you do buy the gold plan, you end up with ZERO because that whole $3.5 million goes to the insurance company.

Do you dispute this? If so, be specific.

Yeah, this assumes a number of things. This is NOT money in the bank or that you are paying out of pocket!

In order for this to work:

1) This HSA only covers you. It does not take into account the health care costs of dependents.

2) You ALWAYS have a consistent ROI - best of luck with that in a volatile stock market

3) You ALWAYS have a perfect economy, no interruptions to contributions such as unemployment, downsizing, paycuts, misc expenses of life, etc.

4) You have EXACTLY the catastrophic costs you planned on to begin with at age 20. In particular you NEVER suffer any catastrophic injury or illness when you are young.

5) There are no interruptions in the increase of monthly contributions as you age.

6) The scheme you proposed, casually ignoring all of the above hypotheticals, is also illegal. The IRS caps annual HSA contributions to $3300 annually, so, I'm sorry, you wont be seeing the $6000-$15,000 annually that you banked on in your plan.

As such it perverse of you to suggest that you can make such a scheme work rationally or that it even compares with having a health insurance policy. In conclusion you do NOT have to pay the govt that $3 million and in fact that $3 million is a fantasy. I've cooked up hundreds of these investment schemes on an excel workbook, one suggesting that I'd retire with $30 million at 67 on a low six figure income. These schemes are fools gold. You don't have that money, and, using that scheme, you never will - with or without ObamaCare.

Best of luck in you investment endeavors.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
23-10-2013, 06:00 PM
Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
(23-10-2013 04:48 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(23-10-2013 09:43 AM)I and I Wrote:  I would really like to see evidence how a US president made executive board decisions for certain private insurance companies to raise their rates.

That's simple. The same way the club-wielding Neanderthals always get people to do things against their will: violence. Tell the board that if they don't comply you will send agents with guns and shoot them if they continue to resist. It works every time.

What you're forgetting is that Obamacare actually made health insurance illegal, and any companies that continue to offer health insurance WILL be dealt with violently. Remember insurance, by its definition, is there to cover large, catastrophic, unplanned events--it's a managed risk pool where everybody knows that, on average, they will pay more with insurance, but it mitigates the risk that they're unlucky and face costs they cannot handle. Car insurance, for example, covers accidents. Obviously we all know the car insurance companies make a profit, collecting more in premiums than they pay in claims, so, on average everybody would pay less to cover any claims themselves. But it mitigates the risk that you are not average, but that you have an unpredictable event. Car insurance doesn't cover your car's scheduled maintenance--if it did, it wouldn't be insurance, it's a maintenance plan. Similarly, homeowners insurance covers fire, flood, earthquake, etc.. It doesn't cover mowing your lawn--if it did, it wouldn't be insurance, it's a maintenance plan.

In the US you used to be able to get health insurance, meaning it only covers the big unexpected things, like an accident, cancer, heart attack, etc., and you take care of routine maintenance (checkups, etc.) yourself. It was very affordable, btw, less than $50/month. These companies also offered plans that they called 'health insurance', but is misleading because they were actually outsourced health management because the company takes over everything, including your 'scheduled and routine maintenance'. The health management plans cost 5-10x higher than the health insurance plans.

Obamacare makes health insurance (which they call 'catastrophic insurance') illegal, except under specific circumstances, and has a mandate that everyone must buy a health management plan.

What would happen if Blue Cross's board said "Fuck you, Obama. We're going to keep offering everyone the $50/month 'catastrophic insurance' plans like we used to?"

Serious question, I and I. If you were a Blue Cross board member and you refused to give in and cancel all the 'catastrophic' plans per Obamacare, and you kept doing this despite court orders, contempt of court notices, etc., what would ultimately happen? Would the Obama administration give in and say "Ok, we'll let you get away with it", or would violence be used to force compliance? Please answer that.

So insurance companies according to you raise prices not because of looking to increase profit but for some abstract reason ties to the president who never sat on the board of directors meeting of those companies that decided on raising the rates?

Wow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 08:34 PM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
(23-10-2013 06:00 PM)I and I Wrote:  So insurance companies according to you raise prices not because of looking to increase profit but for some abstract reason ties to the president who never sat on the board of dire@Ictors meeting of those companies that decided on raising the rates?

Wow.

@I and I, how can you be bashing capitalism when you don't even understand the basic mechanisms of it! Of course EVERY company WANTS to raise their prices. What holds them back is something it seems you've never heard of: COMPETITION.

Obviously the insurance companies would love to drop the low cost 'catastrophic' insurance plans and switch everyone over to the high-profit health management plans. In the past what stopped, say Blue Cross, from eliminating the low-cost plans is that if they did, their customers would NOT just switch to Blue Cross's high priced plan--they'd switch from Blue Cross to a competitor that still offered the low cost plans. So competition forced them to offer low-cost plans.

Obamacare was a godsend because it makes all the low-cost plans illegal, so that EVERY insurance company, all at the same time, must stop offering low-cost plans and only offer the high-profit expensive plans. So, YES, the government CAN force prices to go up. Just like if the government banned the sale of any car that cost less than $50,000, the price of cars would go up. Duh. Same thing before the airlines were deregulated. The government used to set the prices of all airfare, and they were 10x higher back then because there was no competition--all airlines were forced to offer only high price fares, and low cost airlines were not allowed. Same thing with Obamacare. It says low-cost catastrophic health insurance is no longer allowed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-10-2013, 09:03 PM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
Quote:In order for this to work:
So, at least you admit that it CAN work given some assumptions. So let's look at your arguments:
Quote:1) This HSA only covers you. It does not take into account the health care costs of dependents.
This only helps my point. Not yours. Yes, the $3.5 million was for ONE person. If you and your wife both do it, Obamacare will cost you $7 million combined. And if you setup HSA's for two of your children and do it for them, it will cost you $14 million combined. I don't see how that in any way discredits my plan.
Quote:2) You ALWAYS have a consistent ROI - best of luck with that in a volatile stock market
Of course when doing a 60 year plan I include average ROI. 7%/annum is a reasonable average over 60 years--ask any good investment banker. It doesn't matter if some years it's 5% and other years it's 9%. If the average is 7%, Obamacare WILL cost you $3.5 million. A 60 year plan is long term enough that averages are totally acceptable. It's a sign of total desparation if you're arguing that unless I know the precise ROI in the year 2051 you won't consider it. Do you dispute that over a 60 year period 7% is a reasonable average? Do you want me to give you links?

Quote:3) You ALWAYS have a perfect economy, no interruptions to contributions such as unemployment, downsizing, paycuts, misc expenses of life, etc.
Again, this only helps my case, not yours. Yes, my spreadsheet assumes that for your whole life you will be able to afford to set aside what it costs for a health plan. BUT, let's assume that at 40 you did lose your job, you had no income and could no longer afford the cost of a health plan. With my plan, you'll have almost $300,000 set aside your investment account as a cushion to help you in your time of need, so you won't ever be hungry. With Obamacare you won't have any savings at all and will be totally dependent on government handouts just to avoid starvation. So, your worst case scenario only proves the superiority of my plan. True, if you lose your income and have to dip into your investment account to live off you won't have $4 million in it when you die. BUT, at least you'll have it to live off.
Quote:4) You have EXACTLY the catastrophic costs you planned on to begin with at age 20. In particular you NEVER suffer any catastrophic injury or illness when you are young.
Again, why are you making a point that only strengthens my case? Yes, it's true, chances are at age 20 you won't need the catastrophic insurance. But if you don't have it, you're savings will grow much faster and you'll have MORE than $4 million when you die. The reason I put this (probably) unnecessary insurance in at the age of 20 was just to make the numbers more conservative and to prevent you from saying 'but what if the 20 year old got hit by a bus, society would pick up the tab'. If you want to remove the catastrophic plan because the average young, healthy person won't need it, please do so. It only makes my case stronger.
Quote:5) There are no interruptions in the increase of monthly contributions as you age.
Please study what 'inflation' means, because AGAIN, this point only strengthens my case. I was NOT "increasing" the monthly contributions at all. The contribution remains fixed at $500 in 2013 dollars. The nominal increases are simply due to 2% inflation, but the contribution remains fixed at $500 2013 dollars. Again, this STRENGTHENS my position because in the real world the reality is that health plan costs increase MUCH faster than the rate of inflation as you get older and have more risk. So if, to make it more accurate, you want to factor in an increase, not just a steady contribution with inflation, please do so. Again, it only makes my case stronger because I was choosing conservative numbers.
Quote:6) The scheme you proposed, casually ignoring all of the above hypotheticals, is also illegal. The IRS caps annual HSA contributions to $3300 annually, so, I'm sorry, you wont be seeing the $6000-$15,000 annually that you banked on in your plan.
Again, if we factor in the tax ramifications it only makes my stronger still. The $3300 annual cap is not a limit on how much you can invest. There's no limit to that, and there is nothing illegal about $15,000 annually, or even $15 million annually. The $3300 limit is how much you can deduct from your income. Meaning not only is the HSA tax free, BUT on top of that, you get to deduct $3,300 from your gross income, reducing your federal income tax on top of it. So, if you want to factor in the tax savings, be my guest. It only makes the numbers more in my favor because, based on my $6k/year savings, the first $3300 you invest will be deducted from your income and you'll save about 30% of that in tax reduction, and the remaining $2700, while it won't be tax free, will be taxed at the LTCG rate which is only 15%. So these adjustments just make my numbers even better.
Quote:I've cooked up hundreds of these investment schemes on an excel workbook, one suggesting that I'd retire with $30 million at 67 on a low six figure income. These schemes are fools gold. You don't have that money, and, using that scheme, you never will.
Now THAT is spoken like a true liberal. When the numbers don't add up the way you like, dismiss the entire field of mathematics! Just say numbers don't matter. Sorry, man. But numbers are real, and they're indisputable. IF you have the self-discipline to set aside $500/month, adjusted by inflation each year, and IF you are careful in your investments to get an average 7% annual yield over 60 years, then ABSOLUTELY you will have millions at the end of the period. The numbers don't lie. IF you tried to follow such a "scheme" and failed, it either means (a) you didn't set the money aside, or (b) you didn't invest it well.

Bottom line is I don't see anything in your post that in any way discredits my numbers. But if you think my numbers are bad, just open that spreadsheet and change the numbers & formulas to reflect what you think is an accurate scenario, and then answer this question:

IF someone does what I recommend, and from age 20 every month sets aside what the health plan would cost, and instead covers their medical expenses themselves in offshore medical tourism facilities like I described, then what do YOU feel is the amount he will have saved up when he hits 80? If you don't like my $3.5 million number, tell me what YOU think is a more accurate number and send me your revised spreadsheet to substantiate it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 03:17 AM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
There is ssooo much wrong with OP.
"The Libertarians at Wikipedia", ugh.

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 06:16 AM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
(24-10-2013 03:17 AM)Caveman Wrote:  There is ssooo much wrong with OP.
"The Libertarians at Wikipedia", ugh.

Well presumably you started with what you considered the most egregious and obviously false claim, namely that Wikipedia was founded by libertarians. Do you guys do ANY fact checking at all? Or you just refuse to believe everything you don't like no matter how blatantly obvious? Look up 'Jimmy Wales' on Wikipedia. Go down to political views. Yes, he is an avowed libertarian and based Wikipedia's operating model on Austrian economics. These facts are SOOO indisputable, but you guys just don't like to hear them, so facts be damned.

My OP similarly makes a point that even Obamacare defenders have conceded. An insurance exchange is something that Silicon Valley startups have done many times for a tiny fraction of the $300m the government spent on healthcare.gov, and no private sector company would ever spend that kind of money on any web site, let alone one that has performed so poorly. But the big government defenders just hate to face the cold, harsh reality so they bury their head in the sand.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 06:17 AM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
(23-10-2013 09:03 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:In order for this to work:
So, at least you admit that it CAN work given some assumptions. So let's look at your arguments:
Quote:1) This HSA only covers you. It does not take into account the health care costs of dependents.
This only helps my point. Not yours. Yes, the $3.5 million was for ONE person. If you and your wife both do it, Obamacare will cost you $7 million combined. And if you setup HSA's for two of your children and do it for them, it will cost you $14 million combined. I don't see how that in any way discredits my plan.
Quote:2) You ALWAYS have a consistent ROI - best of luck with that in a volatile stock market
Of course when doing a 60 year plan I include average ROI. 7%/annum is a reasonable average over 60 years--ask any good investment banker. It doesn't matter if some years it's 5% and other years it's 9%. If the average is 7%, Obamacare WILL cost you $3.5 million. A 60 year plan is long term enough that averages are totally acceptable. It's a sign of total desparation if you're arguing that unless I know the precise ROI in the year 2051 you won't consider it. Do you dispute that over a 60 year period 7% is a reasonable average? Do you want me to give you links?

Quote:3) You ALWAYS have a perfect economy, no interruptions to contributions such as unemployment, downsizing, paycuts, misc expenses of life, etc.
Again, this only helps my case, not yours. Yes, my spreadsheet assumes that for your whole life you will be able to afford to set aside what it costs for a health plan. BUT, let's assume that at 40 you did lose your job, you had no income and could no longer afford the cost of a health plan. With my plan, you'll have almost $300,000 set aside your investment account as a cushion to help you in your time of need, so you won't ever be hungry. With Obamacare you won't have any savings at all and will be totally dependent on government handouts just to avoid starvation. So, your worst case scenario only proves the superiority of my plan. True, if you lose your income and have to dip into your investment account to live off you won't have $4 million in it when you die. BUT, at least you'll have it to live off.
Quote:4) You have EXACTLY the catastrophic costs you planned on to begin with at age 20. In particular you NEVER suffer any catastrophic injury or illness when you are young.
Again, why are you making a point that only strengthens my case? Yes, it's true, chances are at age 20 you won't need the catastrophic insurance. But if you don't have it, you're savings will grow much faster and you'll have MORE than $4 million when you die. The reason I put this (probably) unnecessary insurance in at the age of 20 was just to make the numbers more conservative and to prevent you from saying 'but what if the 20 year old got hit by a bus, society would pick up the tab'. If you want to remove the catastrophic plan because the average young, healthy person won't need it, please do so. It only makes my case stronger.
Quote:5) There are no interruptions in the increase of monthly contributions as you age.
Please study what 'inflation' means, because AGAIN, this point only strengthens my case. I was NOT "increasing" the monthly contributions at all. The contribution remains fixed at $500 in 2013 dollars. The nominal increases are simply due to 2% inflation, but the contribution remains fixed at $500 2013 dollars. Again, this STRENGTHENS my position because in the real world the reality is that health plan costs increase MUCH faster than the rate of inflation as you get older and have more risk. So if, to make it more accurate, you want to factor in an increase, not just a steady contribution with inflation, please do so. Again, it only makes my case stronger because I was choosing conservative numbers.
Quote:6) The scheme you proposed, casually ignoring all of the above hypotheticals, is also illegal. The IRS caps annual HSA contributions to $3300 annually, so, I'm sorry, you wont be seeing the $6000-$15,000 annually that you banked on in your plan.
Again, if we factor in the tax ramifications it only makes my stronger still. The $3300 annual cap is not a limit on how much you can invest. There's no limit to that, and there is nothing illegal about $15,000 annually, or even $15 million annually. The $3300 limit is how much you can deduct from your income. Meaning not only is the HSA tax free, BUT on top of that, you get to deduct $3,300 from your gross income, reducing your federal income tax on top of it. So, if you want to factor in the tax savings, be my guest. It only makes the numbers more in my favor because, based on my $6k/year savings, the first $3300 you invest will be deducted from your income and you'll save about 30% of that in tax reduction, and the remaining $2700, while it won't be tax free, will be taxed at the LTCG rate which is only 15%. So these adjustments just make my numbers even better.
Quote:I've cooked up hundreds of these investment schemes on an excel workbook, one suggesting that I'd retire with $30 million at 67 on a low six figure income. These schemes are fools gold. You don't have that money, and, using that scheme, you never will.
Now THAT is spoken like a true liberal. When the numbers don't add up the way you like, dismiss the entire field of mathematics! Just say numbers don't matter. Sorry, man. But numbers are real, and they're indisputable. IF you have the self-discipline to set aside $500/month, adjusted by inflation each year, and IF you are careful in your investments to get an average 7% annual yield over 60 years, then ABSOLUTELY you will have millions at the end of the period. The numbers don't lie. IF you tried to follow such a "scheme" and failed, it either means (a) you didn't set the money aside, or (b) you didn't invest it well.

Bottom line is I don't see anything in your post that in any way discredits my numbers. But if you think my numbers are bad, just open that spreadsheet and change the numbers & formulas to reflect what you think is an accurate scenario, and then answer this question:

IF someone does what I recommend, and from age 20 every month sets aside what the health plan would cost, and instead covers their medical expenses themselves in offshore medical tourism facilities like I described, then what do YOU feel is the amount he will have saved up when he hits 80? If you don't like my $3.5 million number, tell me what YOU think is a more accurate number and send me your revised spreadsheet to substantiate it.

Well, I'll tell you what. you generate that $3.5 mil with that scheme, and hat's off to you. I do however think this is a fantasy which is not achievable. Incidentally, even with ObamaCare in place, there's no reason you can save $500 for youself each month.

Bottom line is you are not forced to pay that $3.5 mil over the course of you life under ObamaCare as you originally suggested. You have a hypothetical here and I'm sure the moneyed interests in this country who don't want a single payer system are perfectly happy to have you try to run with that delusion as they know perfectly well you are too naive to understand that life is not that simple.

It's a dry well, my friend. Feel free to learn that the hard way.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-10-2013, 08:26 PM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
Quote:Well, I'll tell you what. you generate that $3.5 mil with that scheme, and hat's off to you.

I already have. Like I said, I'm 40. I've been following it for 20 years. Since I've averaged more than 7% roi and never had any medical expenses, I am way ahead of the $274,000 that my chart predicts at my age, well on track to hit the $3.5m long before the age of 80. But, this is not about me because my case could be dismissed as being lucky. That's why I put a spreadsheet with such conservative numbers which assume higher-than-average medical costs, several catastrophic events, and a very modest return. Even still, the net result is $3.5 mil, and our bet was simply if it would exceed $1 mil. Even if one was totally risk averse and inept at investing you could put the money in nothing but 30 year bonds and STILL you would exceed $1 million by age 80. As I said, if it's not working for you, it's because you either lack the self-discipline to set the money aside, or you're investing it so foolishly that you're getting a lower return than buying bonds. The numbers and math don't lie.

We placed a bet. Will you concede that the math and logic are sound and solid and that by refusing to participate in one of those 'health management plans' that Obamacare mandates, and instead investing the premiums in a tax-deductible HSA, and going to medical tourism facilities abroad if you need medical care, the average person earning an average wage with average health CAN have over $1 million by age 80? It's not fair to just drop the issue and run like liberals always do. Please either concede the point, or edit the spreadsheet to show me what YOU think the average man will have when he dies by following my plan.

BTW, I don't buy car insurance (comp & collision) either and invest that savings as well, and it's saved me enough to buy a new Ferrari today if I wanted to. And if I did and you saw me on the street, you'd probably think I must be super rich, unaware that the average man could obtain the same thing just by passing on car insurance. Plus, you drive much more cautiously when you don't have insurance, so I've never had an accident either in 24 years of driving.

Now ask yourself, who has REAL, practical compassion for the average working man? The libertarian like me who shares all his secrets showing everyone how they too can achieve financial independence and get the best health care in the world for a very low price (as well as buy their dream car) just by avoiding the racket that is insurance? Or the liberal who takes away the average man's free will, denying him the chance to achieve this, and passing mandates that will make him dependent on evil insurance companies his whole life?

I've said many times before, the only time I will ever disagree with a policy issue is when you're denying people the right to exercise free will. This is no different.

Quote:Bottom line is you are not forced to pay that $3.5 mil over the course of you life under ObamaCare as you originally suggested.

Being forced to give up $3.5 mil _IS_ the same thing as being forced to pay it.

Quote:you are too naive to understand that life is not that simple. It's a dry well, my friend. Feel free to learn that the hard way.

If I'm so naive, why is it working so well for me?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 10:31 AM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
Quote:I already have. Like I said, I'm 40. I've been following it for 20 years. Since I've averaged more than 7% roi and never had any medical expenses, I am way ahead of the $274,000 that my chart predicts at my age, well on track to hit the $3.5m long before the age of 80. But, this is not about me because my case could be dismissed as being lucky. That's why I put a spreadsheet with such conservative numbers which assume higher-than-average medical costs, several catastrophic events, and a very modest return. Even still, the net result is $3.5 mil, and our bet was simply if it would exceed $1 mil. Even if one was totally risk averse and inept at investing you could put the money in nothing but 30 year bonds and STILL you would exceed $1 million by age 80. As I said, if it's not working for you, it's because you either lack the self-discipline to set the money aside, or you're investing it so foolishly that you're getting a lower return than buying bonds. The numbers and math don't lie.

Ah yes, IF that all works out like that. Keep in mind tomorrow, you could be T-boned by a drunk driver and end up with $200,000 in medical and physical therapy expenses, be laid off work, not to mention state fines plus possible imprisonment for driving without insurance (if the last part's true and I think youre full of crap). And let's not forget that you can't plan on zero medical costs as some people are prone to cancer, type I diabetes, and a host of other medical maladies which are very expensive to treat and may not earn a income large enough to cover costs with an HSA or private savings. Or casually spending $3000 annually to fly to Thailand or some other place for medical tourism, etc. Could you do it? Possibly. But it's a big gamble which doesn't exist with traditional health insurance and everything has to work out correctly.

Quote:We placed a bet. Will you concede that the math and logic are sound and solid and that by refusing to participate in one of those 'health management plans' that Obamacare mandates, and instead investing the premiums in a tax-deductible HSA, and going to medical tourism facilities abroad if you need medical care, the average person earning an average wage with average health CAN have over $1 million by age 80? It's not fair to just drop the issue and run like liberals always do. Please either concede the point, or edit the spreadsheet to show me what YOU think the average man will have when he dies by following my plan.

No. We placed a bet that ObamaCare would cost you this money. You don't have any of this cash yet, and until you do, these hypothetical profits don't mean jack.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-10-2013, 11:03 AM
RE: Private sector 150,000 times more efficient than the government?
Quote:Ah yes, IF that all works out like that.

As I said, I'm 40, I've been doing it for 20 years already, and it HAS been working out EVEN BETTER than that.

Quote:not to mention state fines plus possible imprisonment for driving without insurance (if the last part's true and I think youre full of crap).

Want to place another bet? I wrote “I don't buy car insurance (comp & collision)”. You are somehow totally ignorant of how the driving code works. NO state requires you to insurance your car (comp & collision). They do require the DRIVER accept responsibility for damage he might cause to others, either with PL & PD (property loss & property damage) insurance, OR by posting a bond, usually $25k, which is allocated to cover possible liability. I do this, of course, since it's a condition to getting a driver's license.

I stand by statement completely. If your insurance company told you that you have to insure your car (ie buy comp & collision), it's just that they saw you as an uninformed sucker that they could dupe. Thus it's your fault for not educating yourself about how the system works. I have a nice, new luxury car and NO car insurance, and I am in full compliance with the law. And even if the car was totaled tomorrow, I would still be WAY ahead since I can show I've saved about $300,000 so far by NOT buying car insurance the past 24 years.

Quote:No. We placed a bet that ObamaCare would cost you this money. You don't have any of this cash yet, and until you do, these hypothetical profits don't mean jack.

Do you realize how pathetic that bizarre, twisted logic is? Obamacare hasn't even taken effect yet. So, obviously, when we talk about the cost of Obamacare we are talking about predicted FUTURE cost. Duh. We don't have a time machine to retroactively apply Obamacare 40 years ago. So now your defense is that you didn't lose the bet because I cannot show today what Obamacare has already cost me, even though hasn't even taken effect yet. Dumb, dumb, dumb act of desperation. I showed you the PROJECTED FUTURE costs based on conservative, real-world assumptions and numbers. I've challenged you to edit the spreadsheet and tell me what you think the PROJECTED FUTURE COST will be if you disagree. You've run from that challenge. You obviously cannot dispute the air-tight logic and math. So, instead, in your prior post you simply argued that the whole field of mathematics doesn't work (ie that given an ROI and contribution it's impossible to calculate future value of money), and then in this post, you're stuck in a time-warp game that you won't accept defeat unless I can show you PAST damage caused by a FUTURE law.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: