I was glad to have it pointed out that the free public education that I and my children got wasn't really free. Rather, it was paid for or at least subsidized by childless people. Of course, my children have long since graduated and my grandchildren don't live in this school district so now I'm in the same boat. It's like having to continue buying hay for the cow after you've become lactose intolerant.
I tried to think of something that is really free, and I thought of air. But then I realized that's heavily subsidized too. Dozens of manufacturers and electric companies to say nothing of motorists and CAFO operators are required to spend good money to internalize all those negative externalities. "As free as the air?" Hardly!
Oh and the kicker of course is that I don't even WANT kids so the most expensive complications are irrelevant to my entire life, not just to the insurance company's wallet.
I'm done now. I don't think I've ever commented three times on one post!
This is exactly why I'm so happy about the healthcare reform. I'm stuck spinning my wheels in a job I don't really like just because what I *really* want to do would require me going out on a limb by myself - and no insurance company will take me on my own. I have to stay at a job with benefits.
And why? Because I have a medical condition that costs $10/month to treat. $10 I would gladly pay out of my own pocket. The expensive complications that can come from it - fertility problems - are something a lot of insurance companies cover anyway. So basically, even if I'm OK with paying for my (cheap!) Rx out of pocket, and even though the worst thing that could happen wouldn't be the insurance's responsibility anyway, they won't have me. So I stay at a crap job. What a waste of every day of my life.
You have simply shifted the paying of something form you, to someone else. Which means that some other person now can not be a writer or a painter, because they need to pay for your health care.
I work two jobs, and write in between and where i can snatch ten minutes, I get to now work harder to support you, and the rest of the people who think other people owe them something.
It's true that total health care expenses for a sick person are higher than health care expenses for a healthy person. But that's exactly why we buy insurance—so that the huge cost of getting sick doesn't break our finances.
Under the current scheme, health insurance doesn't do the whole job. It will do part of the job—it'll cover the costs of one illness. (Unless you made a mistake on your application and the company rescinds your policy.) But then it leaves you hanging, with no way to protect your finances against a second illness.
I suppose it would be possible to create an insurance product to protect against that—health insurance insurance. That would be a policy that would protect you against future pre-existing conditions. (Maybe we should call those post-existing conditions.) If you got sick and your insurance premiums shot up, this second policy would pay the difference.
As a practical matter, though, having separate policies seems like an unnecessary complication—let's just roll them into one. Yes, the coverage against future pre-existing conditions will increase the cost some, but it will mean that the insurance is actually insurance—it'll protect your family against a medical catastrophe turning into a financial catastrophe as well. And it may not cost a lot, because including sick people in the system means that they'll be able to get their care in the cheapest way possible.
In the medium term, there won't be any pre-existing conditions anymore, because everybody will have coverage their whole lives. Then any conditions will be post-existing conditions.
It is kind of sad that private sector jobs have been decreasing and government is getting bigger. However, government jobs do have good benefits and can be a good part of retirement planning due to the availability of pensions. My mom moved to the public sector after many years in the private sector, and her advice is to get used to the bureaucracy and try not to care too much.
It is definitely good for those who can live frugally and be "poor" enough to receive subsidies. I still think that the "reform" does nothing to curb healthcare costs, but yes, I agree with Philip that there are a lot of us who want to live simply and this plan will help us do that because the cost of health insurance will be more certain.
I have to agree with the first comment. I am adamantly opposed to this health care bill, but your article was logical and well written. The "bet" analogy was an interesting choice. It makes sense. Just another reason that you are one of my favorite authors on Wisebread.
(For what it's worth, I absolutely agree that something must be done, but I don't feel that this is the right solution...)
I have friends whose finances have been devastated because their 9 week-old baby was diagnosed with a rare form of brain cancer (she survived, and is a beautiful, happy child now). They thank God every day for their daughter, but would probably never be able to get insurance again because they're self-employed without this plan. It is terrifying to think of them worrying about their other child, or other possible illnesses knowing that they have no coverage and no way to get covered, for something that they could not have prevented. I hope that the new plan allows them to get decent insurance that they can afford so they can start to rebuild their lives.
Your mileage will vary with a plan like this, but let me try to explain.
If a woman under my plans gets extensive blood work done, or in the case of a friend of mine, an ultrasound for a breast lump, it could cost upwards of $800 in total costs for the tests and the technician fees (plus the cost for the doctor to sign off on the slides.) The insurance in this case was able to negotiate the total cost down to well below $200. That's a savings of $600 for one day at the clinic. Yes, you would have to pay the full $200 because of the $5K deductible and insurance not "paying" until after it's been met, but the $600 savings is yours right away. Assuming that you don't have anything else done for the rest of the year, the amount saved is equivilent to roughly 6-7 months of premiums. Meaning, you're only "out" for the remaining 3 months of premiums this year in a static profit/loss sense.
But the odds are good that you will need to be seen again before the year is out. And even if you just break even for the year, you're still saving over the cost of not being insured as far as a cash flow scheme is concerned. (If you don't have insurance, you often have to pre-pay for services, whereas if you're covered, you can wait the 2 months or so for your claim to be filed, negotiated, and lowered -- giving you an additional 2 months to prepare for a large bill.)
My read is that the reform is more about increasing access to health care than about controlling costs -- it is an experiment that has been endorsed by both the insurance and medical industries in using private industry (the insurance companies) and state government (the insurance pools) to ensure that virtually every citizen of our nation has access to health insurance. There are no price controls on doctors or insurers precisely because it is not a socialist government program. The gamble is that capitalism will work to regulate costs, and if the experiment fails, I suspect it will be because aggregation and collusion by providers prevent competitive forces from moderating price increases.
To return to my straw man now that I'm more awake and perhaps more articulate . . . The argument for not insuring those who can't afford it (historically, the working poor, but in this particular case, also middle class freelancers and entrepreneurs) seems to be: If I increase your access to health care, you won't worry about getting sick anymore and therefore you won't take care of yourself.
An acid test of the proposition might be to ask whether one finds better health among wealthy populations (who presumably have lower financial barriers and therefore better access to health care, and thus, by this logic, should do a relatively poor job of taking care of themselves) or among poorer populations (who presumably have higher financial barriers and therefore less access to health care and thus, by this logic, should do a relatively excellent job of taking care of themselves).
We might also just test the proposition on ourselves and those we know and love -- if my access to health care increased, do I think I would do a better or a worse job of taking care of myself? What do I think that the people that I love would do?
There really isn't any "us" and "them" in this -- all of us are just folks having better or worse days.
Cars and all other consumer goods are completely different than houses, and therefore, the comparison is invalid.
Just a guess, but I'll bet that someone who makes such a thin argument like that has also uttered phrases like: 'Better to fight them over there than fight them over here' or 'people choose to be poor' or 'drill baby, drill' or 'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve'...
"Education is not FREE. I pay property taxes to the tune of paying for 9 weeks of "free" education for SOMEONE ELSE'S CHILD each year and I have no kids of my own. This "I get something, for nothing"..."
Well, I hope you will appreciate the Medicare and Social Security benefits you will be getting when you are old. These benefits will be paid by MY children. Thankfully, they will have a good education because of your "willingness" to pay taxes. Oh, and I bet you are glad your child-free neighbors from your childhood were "willing" to do the same for you.
Who knows. Maybe one of them will go into health care so they may have the privilege of taking care of you when you are too old to do so for yourself.
This is a very reasoned article and I enjoyed reading it. Just wish more "ordinary" people would put their experiences out there so those who are still skeptical or worried might see what the real advantages are and can be to this reform.
As the President says, "it isn't perfect, but it's a start."
It's incomprehensible to me how some people think those who are ill should pay more BECAUSE they are ill. That is so totally illogical, not to mention inhumane, and negates the whole idea behind insurance.
Everyone deserves health care, whether they have money or not.
I used to just clean steam-clean mine by putting a run of water in the still and not cooling it; just let the steam blast thtough it for a few minutes. Haven't got a clue how everybody else has been doing it. A straight condenser is a lot easier to keep clean than a coil or "worm". Just get about 6 foot of plastic pipe (the square profiled 4 inch stuff, like guttering downspout), fit each end with a 4 inch square block of wood, (about an inch thick), drill a half inch hole through the middle of each one and run a staight 7 or 8 foot length of half inch copper pipe through it. Seal it all up with mastic, or on the end that heats up, glazing putty. You now have a king-sized liebig condenser. Of course, before you put the wooden bits in place, you need to fit a hose connecter to each end for the water inlet and outlet. "Hozelock" have fittings that you can just drill a hole for and fit a locking nut on the back of it.Connect it to your still with a hand-tightening re-usable fitting. The beauty of it is that it's simple to clean, you don't need to mess around bending pipes, and you can just leave it lying around your garage or workshop without it obviously being a piece of illegal equipment. Who's going to look twice at a length of guttering?
I am one of those people with a pre-existing condition that returned to work as an employee because I was denied coverage when I sought an individual plan. This lack of ability to purchase coverage at any price derailed my hope of self-employment. I remain at a job that embitters me daily because it provides affordable group health insurance. While I am troubled by the fiscal impact the health care reform bill might have on the future of American prosperity, I do hope that it will at least give me the ability that Philip talks about. I want to return to being a self-employed entrepeneur. If protection against denial of coverage and the cost-savings of pooled buying deliver what they are allegedly intented to deliver in 4 years, I will be freed to do so. For now, I am saving as much as I can to take advantage of the possibility.
Dave may be right, but keep in mind who Dave's main audience is. He's for the people who over spend on credit cards, cars and houses and can't afford a 40 dollar meal.
He also suggest that you pay your house off before you invest into a 401K or Roth IRA.
Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoy Dave and bought his book. But he is for the typical American that don't have 500 dollars in the savings.
For what it's worth, I don't think charging more for insurance based on preexisting conditions is a ridiculous idea because those with preexisting conditions are likely to consume more healthcare. It is like I pay a bit more for my property insurance because I'm in a zone with a high risk of fire. I do think it's ridiculous how some preexisting conditions are defined, and how the whole system has to go through insurance. If there is no layer of insurance and healthcare is just affordable, then it wouldn't matter if you had a preexisting condition because you would be able to pay for the services directly.
The Brasso worked. 040210 I used Toothpaste did not work. A total circle was on my sons game. I used Brasso which made it appear more scratched up. We cleaned it well with dry cloth. He is playing it now with no problems at all. Thank you so much for the advise. Pull him from a burning house not a hero. Save his game, I am the greatest mom in the world...
@Maria: No - in fact you cannot always just get cheaper plans with high deductibles. One of my friends recently tried to shop for insurance as he is now unemployed and cannot afford his plan. He is relatively healthy, but at the age of 50 has a few small blemishes on his history. He cannot find a policy. Period. Not at a high deductible. Not at all. Not even with a $10K deductible. And no one will tell him why.
I consider myself incredibly lucky to have a plan for $400/month with a $5K deductible. It's better than most of my friends who are self-employed have.
It's incredibly risky to buy on the private market. Those with subsidized insurance don't realize that.
Yeah yeah, the bill doesn't do enough, but personally, I have to support it because of the pre-existing condition thing. Pre-existing conditions are a RIDICULOUS idea, about as logical as black people being 5/8 of a person or what have you. Now they will cease to exist.
I hope that it will start to lower health care costs. But in the event that the costs start to rise, I hope that will give us the political will to pass a government NOT-FOR-PROFIT single payer system, which is what we should have done in the first place.
In no scenario is inflation preferable to price stability as a constant inflation rate is impossible due to the intrinsic interests of The Global Banking System. Fluctuating inflation forces the common man to become a speculator, and being "unable to plan for the future," is obviously not a scenario he favors.
In a stable price environment, to guard against job losses and business closure as a result of the "sticky to the downside" nature of wages(a psychological problem, not a REAL problem) workers must SAVE more of their income--it's purchasing power being preserved as a result of no inflation--and entrepreneurs(businesses) must be suitably capitalized and manage their operations and expectations(profit goals) more realistically.
Inflation is merely a breading ground for speculators, middlemen and sloppy, wasteful capitalism.
People need to realize they must put more thought into what the "do for a living in life." They must become more educated about things outside of their specializations and realize that all jobs are not created equal.
Many people are simply lucky to have a job at all and given a stable money supply and a high saving rate, they could certainly plan for the time in which they will likely become obsolete.
These thoughts are changeable and a work in progress, BTW.
If you wouldn't mind, consider this new movement doon't use banks visit the links and familiarize yourselves with all possible angles of reality.
This so-called "reform" does nothing about actual health care costs, it raises taxes essentially on EVERYONE, it cuts health care for those who most need it - senior citizens, it gives the federal government control over your health care, AND gets between you and your doctor. You could already buy cheaper insurance plans with higher deductibles or insurance for catastrophic illnesses. If you're poor enough, you qualify for your state's Medicaid program anyway. Obamacare is NOT the answer to anyone's problems.
I was glad to have it pointed out that the free public education that I and my children got wasn't really free. Rather, it was paid for or at least subsidized by childless people. Of course, my children have long since graduated and my grandchildren don't live in this school district so now I'm in the same boat. It's like having to continue buying hay for the cow after you've become lactose intolerant.
I tried to think of something that is really free, and I thought of air. But then I realized that's heavily subsidized too. Dozens of manufacturers and electric companies to say nothing of motorists and CAFO operators are required to spend good money to internalize all those negative externalities. "As free as the air?" Hardly!
Oh and the kicker of course is that I don't even WANT kids so the most expensive complications are irrelevant to my entire life, not just to the insurance company's wallet.
I'm done now. I don't think I've ever commented three times on one post!
In my above comment I meant "-fertility problems - are something a lot of insurance companies DON'T cover anyway"
Forgot the "don't." I was too impassioned to proofread, apparently.
This is exactly why I'm so happy about the healthcare reform. I'm stuck spinning my wheels in a job I don't really like just because what I *really* want to do would require me going out on a limb by myself - and no insurance company will take me on my own. I have to stay at a job with benefits.
And why? Because I have a medical condition that costs $10/month to treat. $10 I would gladly pay out of my own pocket. The expensive complications that can come from it - fertility problems - are something a lot of insurance companies cover anyway. So basically, even if I'm OK with paying for my (cheap!) Rx out of pocket, and even though the worst thing that could happen wouldn't be the insurance's responsibility anyway, they won't have me. So I stay at a crap job. What a waste of every day of my life.
You have simply shifted the paying of something form you, to someone else. Which means that some other person now can not be a writer or a painter, because they need to pay for your health care.
I work two jobs, and write in between and where i can snatch ten minutes, I get to now work harder to support you, and the rest of the people who think other people owe them something.
Thanks.
@ Xin:
It's true that total health care expenses for a sick person are higher than health care expenses for a healthy person. But that's exactly why we buy insurance—so that the huge cost of getting sick doesn't break our finances.
Under the current scheme, health insurance doesn't do the whole job. It will do part of the job—it'll cover the costs of one illness. (Unless you made a mistake on your application and the company rescinds your policy.) But then it leaves you hanging, with no way to protect your finances against a second illness.
I suppose it would be possible to create an insurance product to protect against that—health insurance insurance. That would be a policy that would protect you against future pre-existing conditions. (Maybe we should call those post-existing conditions.) If you got sick and your insurance premiums shot up, this second policy would pay the difference.
As a practical matter, though, having separate policies seems like an unnecessary complication—let's just roll them into one. Yes, the coverage against future pre-existing conditions will increase the cost some, but it will mean that the insurance is actually insurance—it'll protect your family against a medical catastrophe turning into a financial catastrophe as well. And it may not cost a lot, because including sick people in the system means that they'll be able to get their care in the cheapest way possible.
In the medium term, there won't be any pre-existing conditions anymore, because everybody will have coverage their whole lives. Then any conditions will be post-existing conditions.
I wrote about this recently on my own blog here: http://baglady.dreamhosters.com/2010/03/25/how-the-healthcare-bill-affec...
It is definitely good for those who can live frugally and be "poor" enough to receive subsidies. I still think that the "reform" does nothing to curb healthcare costs, but yes, I agree with Philip that there are a lot of us who want to live simply and this plan will help us do that because the cost of health insurance will be more certain.
I have to agree with the first comment. I am adamantly opposed to this health care bill, but your article was logical and well written. The "bet" analogy was an interesting choice. It makes sense. Just another reason that you are one of my favorite authors on Wisebread.
(For what it's worth, I absolutely agree that something must be done, but I don't feel that this is the right solution...)
I have friends whose finances have been devastated because their 9 week-old baby was diagnosed with a rare form of brain cancer (she survived, and is a beautiful, happy child now). They thank God every day for their daughter, but would probably never be able to get insurance again because they're self-employed without this plan. It is terrifying to think of them worrying about their other child, or other possible illnesses knowing that they have no coverage and no way to get covered, for something that they could not have prevented. I hope that the new plan allows them to get decent insurance that they can afford so they can start to rebuild their lives.
Your mileage will vary with a plan like this, but let me try to explain.
If a woman under my plans gets extensive blood work done, or in the case of a friend of mine, an ultrasound for a breast lump, it could cost upwards of $800 in total costs for the tests and the technician fees (plus the cost for the doctor to sign off on the slides.) The insurance in this case was able to negotiate the total cost down to well below $200. That's a savings of $600 for one day at the clinic. Yes, you would have to pay the full $200 because of the $5K deductible and insurance not "paying" until after it's been met, but the $600 savings is yours right away. Assuming that you don't have anything else done for the rest of the year, the amount saved is equivilent to roughly 6-7 months of premiums. Meaning, you're only "out" for the remaining 3 months of premiums this year in a static profit/loss sense.
But the odds are good that you will need to be seen again before the year is out. And even if you just break even for the year, you're still saving over the cost of not being insured as far as a cash flow scheme is concerned. (If you don't have insurance, you often have to pre-pay for services, whereas if you're covered, you can wait the 2 months or so for your claim to be filed, negotiated, and lowered -- giving you an additional 2 months to prepare for a large bill.)
Hope this helps!
Linsey Knerl
My read is that the reform is more about increasing access to health care than about controlling costs -- it is an experiment that has been endorsed by both the insurance and medical industries in using private industry (the insurance companies) and state government (the insurance pools) to ensure that virtually every citizen of our nation has access to health insurance. There are no price controls on doctors or insurers precisely because it is not a socialist government program. The gamble is that capitalism will work to regulate costs, and if the experiment fails, I suspect it will be because aggregation and collusion by providers prevent competitive forces from moderating price increases.
To return to my straw man now that I'm more awake and perhaps more articulate . . . The argument for not insuring those who can't afford it (historically, the working poor, but in this particular case, also middle class freelancers and entrepreneurs) seems to be: If I increase your access to health care, you won't worry about getting sick anymore and therefore you won't take care of yourself.
An acid test of the proposition might be to ask whether one finds better health among wealthy populations (who presumably have lower financial barriers and therefore better access to health care, and thus, by this logic, should do a relatively poor job of taking care of themselves) or among poorer populations (who presumably have higher financial barriers and therefore less access to health care and thus, by this logic, should do a relatively excellent job of taking care of themselves).
We might also just test the proposition on ourselves and those we know and love -- if my access to health care increased, do I think I would do a better or a worse job of taking care of myself? What do I think that the people that I love would do?
There really isn't any "us" and "them" in this -- all of us are just folks having better or worse days.
Cars and all other consumer goods are completely different than houses, and therefore, the comparison is invalid.
Just a guess, but I'll bet that someone who makes such a thin argument like that has also uttered phrases like: 'Better to fight them over there than fight them over here' or 'people choose to be poor' or 'drill baby, drill' or 'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve'...
@Nokids:
"Education is not FREE. I pay property taxes to the tune of paying for 9 weeks of "free" education for SOMEONE ELSE'S CHILD each year and I have no kids of my own. This "I get something, for nothing"..."
Well, I hope you will appreciate the Medicare and Social Security benefits you will be getting when you are old. These benefits will be paid by MY children. Thankfully, they will have a good education because of your "willingness" to pay taxes. Oh, and I bet you are glad your child-free neighbors from your childhood were "willing" to do the same for you.
Who knows. Maybe one of them will go into health care so they may have the privilege of taking care of you when you are too old to do so for yourself.
This is a very reasoned article and I enjoyed reading it. Just wish more "ordinary" people would put their experiences out there so those who are still skeptical or worried might see what the real advantages are and can be to this reform.
As the President says, "it isn't perfect, but it's a start."
It's incomprehensible to me how some people think those who are ill should pay more BECAUSE they are ill. That is so totally illogical, not to mention inhumane, and negates the whole idea behind insurance.
Everyone deserves health care, whether they have money or not.
I used to just clean steam-clean mine by putting a run of water in the still and not cooling it; just let the steam blast thtough it for a few minutes. Haven't got a clue how everybody else has been doing it. A straight condenser is a lot easier to keep clean than a coil or "worm". Just get about 6 foot of plastic pipe (the square profiled 4 inch stuff, like guttering downspout), fit each end with a 4 inch square block of wood, (about an inch thick), drill a half inch hole through the middle of each one and run a staight 7 or 8 foot length of half inch copper pipe through it. Seal it all up with mastic, or on the end that heats up, glazing putty. You now have a king-sized liebig condenser. Of course, before you put the wooden bits in place, you need to fit a hose connecter to each end for the water inlet and outlet. "Hozelock" have fittings that you can just drill a hole for and fit a locking nut on the back of it.Connect it to your still with a hand-tightening re-usable fitting. The beauty of it is that it's simple to clean, you don't need to mess around bending pipes, and you can just leave it lying around your garage or workshop without it obviously being a piece of illegal equipment. Who's going to look twice at a length of guttering?
I am one of those people with a pre-existing condition that returned to work as an employee because I was denied coverage when I sought an individual plan. This lack of ability to purchase coverage at any price derailed my hope of self-employment. I remain at a job that embitters me daily because it provides affordable group health insurance. While I am troubled by the fiscal impact the health care reform bill might have on the future of American prosperity, I do hope that it will at least give me the ability that Philip talks about. I want to return to being a self-employed entrepeneur. If protection against denial of coverage and the cost-savings of pooled buying deliver what they are allegedly intented to deliver in 4 years, I will be freed to do so. For now, I am saving as much as I can to take advantage of the possibility.
Dave may be right, but keep in mind who Dave's main audience is. He's for the people who over spend on credit cards, cars and houses and can't afford a 40 dollar meal.
He also suggest that you pay your house off before you invest into a 401K or Roth IRA.
Don't get me wrong, I actually enjoy Dave and bought his book. But he is for the typical American that don't have 500 dollars in the savings.
For what it's worth, I don't think charging more for insurance based on preexisting conditions is a ridiculous idea because those with preexisting conditions are likely to consume more healthcare. It is like I pay a bit more for my property insurance because I'm in a zone with a high risk of fire. I do think it's ridiculous how some preexisting conditions are defined, and how the whole system has to go through insurance. If there is no layer of insurance and healthcare is just affordable, then it wouldn't matter if you had a preexisting condition because you would be able to pay for the services directly.
The Brasso worked. 040210 I used Toothpaste did not work. A total circle was on my sons game. I used Brasso which made it appear more scratched up. We cleaned it well with dry cloth. He is playing it now with no problems at all. Thank you so much for the advise. Pull him from a burning house not a hero. Save his game, I am the greatest mom in the world...
@Maria: No - in fact you cannot always just get cheaper plans with high deductibles. One of my friends recently tried to shop for insurance as he is now unemployed and cannot afford his plan. He is relatively healthy, but at the age of 50 has a few small blemishes on his history. He cannot find a policy. Period. Not at a high deductible. Not at all. Not even with a $10K deductible. And no one will tell him why.
I consider myself incredibly lucky to have a plan for $400/month with a $5K deductible. It's better than most of my friends who are self-employed have.
It's incredibly risky to buy on the private market. Those with subsidized insurance don't realize that.
Yeah yeah, the bill doesn't do enough, but personally, I have to support it because of the pre-existing condition thing. Pre-existing conditions are a RIDICULOUS idea, about as logical as black people being 5/8 of a person or what have you. Now they will cease to exist.
I hope that it will start to lower health care costs. But in the event that the costs start to rise, I hope that will give us the political will to pass a government NOT-FOR-PROFIT single payer system, which is what we should have done in the first place.
It's a foot in the door.
It's obviously don't use banks, by the way. Sorry for the typo.
Buy gold as an inflation hedge.
In no scenario is inflation preferable to price stability as a constant inflation rate is impossible due to the intrinsic interests of The Global Banking System. Fluctuating inflation forces the common man to become a speculator, and being "unable to plan for the future," is obviously not a scenario he favors.
In a stable price environment, to guard against job losses and business closure as a result of the "sticky to the downside" nature of wages(a psychological problem, not a REAL problem) workers must SAVE more of their income--it's purchasing power being preserved as a result of no inflation--and entrepreneurs(businesses) must be suitably capitalized and manage their operations and expectations(profit goals) more realistically.
Inflation is merely a breading ground for speculators, middlemen and sloppy, wasteful capitalism.
People need to realize they must put more thought into what the "do for a living in life." They must become more educated about things outside of their specializations and realize that all jobs are not created equal.
Many people are simply lucky to have a job at all and given a stable money supply and a high saving rate, they could certainly plan for the time in which they will likely become obsolete.
These thoughts are changeable and a work in progress, BTW.
If you wouldn't mind, consider this new movement doon't use banks visit the links and familiarize yourselves with all possible angles of reality.
This so-called "reform" does nothing about actual health care costs, it raises taxes essentially on EVERYONE, it cuts health care for those who most need it - senior citizens, it gives the federal government control over your health care, AND gets between you and your doctor. You could already buy cheaper insurance plans with higher deductibles or insurance for catastrophic illnesses. If you're poor enough, you qualify for your state's Medicaid program anyway. Obamacare is NOT the answer to anyone's problems.