Man robs bank to get jail healthcare

[Openmind]

Here is your post.




Now can you please provide a credible source that backs this ridiculous opinion?

I'd like to know what your opinion is of the Republican plan for the future of elderlies, disabled, and anyone who doesn't fit on the upper echelons of the "survival of the fittest" ladder?

 

[dahermit]

I'd like to know what your opinion is of the Republican plan for the future of elderlies, disabled, and anyone who doesn't fit on the upper echelons of the "survival of the fittest" ladder?

The plan is that when those people are old, they will be told: "You should have saved your money".

Does everyone know that Republicans have webbed toes?

 

[Openmind]

The plan is that when those people are old, they will be told: "You should have saved your money".

Does everyone know that Republicans have webbed toes?

And does anyone knows how a person who has made an average salary of $30,000 to $40,000 a year thoughout his 40 year work life, raised 3 kids, and sent 2 to College, supported a spouse through his/her battle with terminal cancer, was let go at the age of 57, and was cut off from unemployment after 6 months of unsuccessful job search ("over qualified" is the typical reason given to people over 55 to not hire them). . .
How is that person supposed to have saved enough money to live for another 20 or 25 years on "savings?"

And we think that it is expecting a lot from our wealthiest 1% to dish out another 3% of their $5 millions annual net income!

 

[BigRob]

I'd like to know what your opinion is of the Republican plan for the future of elderlies, disabled, and anyone who doesn't fit on the upper echelons of the "survival of the fittest" ladder?

The Republican plan leaves an effective safety net in place for those who truly need it.

 

[BigRob]

And does anyone knows how a person who has made an average salary of $30,000 to $40,000 a year thoughout his 40 year work life, raised 3 kids, and sent 2 to College, supported a spouse through his/her battle with terminal cancer, was let go at the age of 57, and was cut off from unemployment after 6 months of unsuccessful job search ("over qualified" is the typical reason given to people over 55 to not hire them). . .
How is that person supposed to have saved enough money to live for another 20 or 25 years on "savings?"

And we think that it is expecting a lot from our wealthiest 1% to dish out another 3% of their $5 millions annual net income!

If people were allowed to save their own money for Social Security etc, they would see a vastly greater return on their investment than Social Security currently gives them.

Additionally, if invested correctly, one can easily set aside quite a large amount of money.

All of that said...how is it the government's job to ensure you have the life you want? The only person responsible for providing you with with the life you want is yourself.

 

[Openmind]

The Republican plan leaves an effective safety net in place for those who truly need it.

I'm sorry. I do not believe that that is the case.
Unfortunately, the GOP has a very skewed view of who really needs assistance, like big oil, and defense industry, and big farming corporations, and obviously the top 2% of America, organized religion, and the unborn.

But not the unemployed, the old, and the disabled. And not the mothrers of those unborn children, or the children, once they are born . . . no healthcare, no child care, mediocre schools, no meals in those school.
Because, after all, they believe in individual respnsibility, in "pulling yourself by your boot straps," even if you have no boot straps, even if you have no shoes. Because, obviously, if you don't have shoes, if your child doesn't have enough to eat, if you don't have insurance, it;s because you haven't worked hard enough!

Sorry, I know I'm being melodramatic. But, trust me, I'm not far from the true. Social work does bring you very close to those realities.

 

[Openmind]

If people were allowed to save their own money for Social Security etc, they would see a vastly greater return on their investment than Social Security currently gives them.

Additionally, if invested correctly, one can easily set aside quite a large amount of money.

All of that said...how is it the government's job to ensure you have the life you want? The only person responsible for providing you with with the life you want is yourself.

Can you still say that after the stock market crash? After Madoff? After AIG?
If all was equal, if the free market was really free, I might be willing to believe that a trash collector with a 95 IQ would be able to gather enough money out of his $400 a week to "invest wisely."

But the "free market" is no longer real. Now we have "Manipulated market."

I would consider agreeing with a means tested social security payment. After all, what does $1,500 0r $1,600 per month more or less means If your wealth amounts to $10 millions, and your pension is a mere $7,000 a month?
But even that suggestion wouldn't seem "fair" to the GOP!

Oh well! We are on our way to becoming a third world country where income distribution is concern.

 

[BigRob]

Can you still say that after the stock market crash? After Madoff? After AIG?
If all was equal, if the free market was really free, I might be willing to believe that a trash collector with a 95 IQ would be able to gather enough money out of his $400 a week to "invest wisely."

But the "free market" is no longer real. Now we have "Manipulated market."

This is a false choice that is often repeated by the Democrats...you could simply put the money (or force them to put the money) in an FDIC insured savings account, CD, etc and still get a far greater return than you would through social security.

I would consider agreeing with a means tested social security payment. After all, what does $1,500 0r $1,600 per month more or less means If your wealth amounts to $10 millions, and your pension is a mere $7,000 a month?
But even that suggestion wouldn't seem "fair" to the GOP!

It would not be fair. What would be fair is allowing those who want no part of the program to opt out and be done with it.

Oh well! We are on our way to becoming a third world country where income distribution is concern.

I maintain that anyone can work hard in this country and get a good life for themselves and their children....such a life comes from hard work though, not government.

 

[Openmind]

This is a false choice that is often repeated by the Democrats...you could simply put the money (or force them to put the money) in an FDIC insured savings account, CD, etc and still get a far greater return than you would through social security.



It would not be fair. What would be fair is allowing those who want no part of the program to opt out and be done with it.



I maintain that anyone can work hard in this country and get a good life for themselves and their children....such a life comes from hard work though, not government.

I admire your confidence. I have worked with people who were extremely motivated to work. Who did work very hard. And still, they could barely make ends meet. There is NO WAY they could ever save enough money to guarantee any living "wage" once they stopped working, sometime 2 or 3 jobs.

If you make $25,000 a year, and your FICA is 6% of that amount, this represents a $1,375 per year of "potential" saving. Now, the average return on CD's is about 3% per year. This means that, by placing that $1,375 "saving" into a 5 year CD, that amount would go up after 5 years by a whole$50 for the first year. After 5 years, that investment would have grown to a maximum of $1,600!.

Please note that that 3% return on CD is about keeping up (if you're lucky) with average inflation!. . .which means that, if your "saving" earns just enough to keep up with inflation, once you retire and begin to withdraw from your saving, and you plan on making your saving last for 20 years (about 1/2 the time of your work career), you may expect to have about twice as much to live on each year as what you put away each year (the "interest on saving," as we already established will be eaten up by inflation!).
So, this man, who made $25,000 the first year, and put $1,375 in a saving, could expect to have $3,750 to live on for his first year after he retires.

Can you live on that? Sorry, I can't.

 

[BigRob]

I admire your confidence. I have worked with people who were extremely motivated to work. Who did work very hard. And still, they could barely make ends meet. There is NO WAY they could ever save enough money to guarantee any living "wage" once they stopped working, sometime 2 or 3 jobs.

I believe that there are some people in this scenario, but I simply cannot believe (based on what I have seen) that this is the norm.

If you make $25,000 a year, and your FICA is 6% of that amount, this represents a $1,375 per year of "potential" saving. Now, the average return on CD's is about 3% per year. This means that, by placing that $1,375 "saving" into a 5 year CD, that amount would go up after 5 years by a whole$50 for the first year. After 5 years, that investment would have grown to a maximum of $1,600!.

Please note that that 3% return on CD is about keeping up (if you're lucky) with average inflation!. . .which means that, if your "saving" earns just enough to keep up with inflation, once you retire and begin to withdraw from your saving, and you plan on making your saving last for 20 years (about 1/2 the time of your work career), you may expect to have about twice as much to live on each year as what you put away each year (the "interest on saving," as we already established will be eaten up by inflation!).
So, this man, who made $25,000 the first year, and put $1,375 in a saving, could expect to have $3,750 to live on for his first year after he retires.

Can you live on that? Sorry, I can't.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly am not advocating that a low yield CD is a good investment right now...but remember, it would be FDIC insured, meaning you won't lose the principle, and additionally, it will beat your return (even at a horrible 3%) that social security gives you by well over 200%.

Which would you rather have? A negative return, 1% or 3%?

Let us look at your example again.

Assume 4% interest (rates will not stay low forever) on a starting balance of $1,600 with compounding interest and a monthly contribution of only $150 a month.

After 30 years, you will have a balance of over $80,000 saved up, and that assumes very low contributions, no pay raises, and low interest rates...in reality, you would have more after 30 years.

How many people would turn that down?

 

[Openmind]

I believe that there are some people in this scenario, but I simply cannot believe (based on what I have seen) that this is the norm.



Don't get me wrong, I certainly am not advocating that a low yield CD is a good investment right now...but remember, it would be FDIC insured, meaning you won't lose the principle, and additionally, it will beat your return (even at a horrible 3%) that social security gives you by well over 200%.

Which would you rather have? A negative return, 1% or 3%?

Let us look at your example again.

Assume 4% interest (rates will not stay low forever) on a starting balance of $1,600 with compounding interest and a monthly contribution of only $150 a month.

After 30 years, you will have a balance of over $80,000 saved up, and that assumes very low contributions, no pay raises, and low interest rates...in reality, you would have more after 30 years.

How many people would turn that down?

I am well aware of compounded interests. And, once again, it may benefit those who are able to invest large amount of money (i.e., interest rates go up fairly signicantly if you can deposit $100,000 instead of $3,000!).

However, think about what you are saying: You are now 65 years old, you are no longer employable (probably even true at a younger age, but let's say 65) and you have NO INCOME at all, but you have $80,000 in the bank, your life time savings.

You should expect to live another 20, maybe even 25 years. This means, you would be able to withdraw an average of about $3,000 a year. That's it.

You MIGHT be able to make it. . . if you own your home outright, if that home doesn't require maintenance, if you don't have utility bills, if you don't have to pay for your own insurance. . .however, medicare no longer exists. Instead, you receive $8,000 from the government, and you BEG a private, for profit insurance to insure you. Your medication are no longer covered (no more medicare part D), and they cost you about $150 per month (you're all together pretty healthy, so you are not spending the $500 that many elderly spent on medication . . .if they choose not to take medicare part D).

That leaves you with about $100.00 per month for food, transportation and anything else you may want.
However, you get sick, and your insurance (that you manage to find and who would accept your $8,000 a month voucher from the government) still requires a co-payment of only 10%. Unfortunately, you have to stay in the hospital for 2 weeks, and get an MRI, and surgery, and your co-payment comes to $2,000 (very low estimate!). You must now take that out of your remaining $77,000. . . .This means, you plan on dying one year earlier, or you cut down on your budget, taking out only $2,700 a year!
Yes, the remaining money in the bank still draws interest. . .not enough to compensate for the cost of living inflation though.

Do you think my picture is too bleak?

Think about it. And tell me how long that $80,000 will last in your opinion.

 

[Dr.Who]

This is just disgustingly sad and shows just how desperate things are getting in the US!

it shows how the author of the article could present the facts that support one position and ignore others.

 

[Dr.Who]

Best health care system in the world...right?

yes it is, despite problems. And this case is not even a good example of problems since his problems are not what they appear to be.

 

[Dr.Who]

Auful quite on this one...I wonder where all the conservatives are with their: "The poor can just walk into any emergency room and get health care. Name one person that has ever been denied health care". Etc., etc.

Nowhere in the article did it ever say that he was denied health care either in the ER or in an application to health care from medicaid.

He was eligible for medicare (we know that because he got food stamps) yet the journalist never bothered to tell us that he did or did not apply.

 

[Dr.Who]

This entire argument has no basis in reality...everything everyone is saying is pure speculation.

Until you fully know the guys personal situation, you cannot really speak honestly about it.

Maybe there was a long combination of factors that got him to this point and he had nowhere else to turn, or maybe not.

He worked for Coca-Coca for 17 years...did he save any money? Was it because he was unable to, or because of poor financial planning?

He was on Food Stamps for awhile it said, did he attempt to get on Medicare and Medicaid? With an income level such as that, he should easily qualify.

What about other job opportunities? Story says he lost his job with Coca-Coca and then another delivery service, did he attempt to do anything else other than work at a convenience store?

I feel for the guy, obviously to do what he has done one must be somewhat desperate...what I question is the reason for such desperation. The fact that he stated (in the story) that he "plans to spend a few years in jail, before getting out in time to collect Social Security and move to the beach" shows a complete disregard for personal responsibility to me.

That said, until other questions, like the ones above can be fully answered, there is no point in a speculative back and forth, because no one knows the actual facts from that story alone.

Yes there is a lot we do not know. But as you said, we do know that he would have qualified for medicaid insurance. There was no need for him to rob a bank to get medical care. The whole premise of the article and the thread is unfounded.