Posted on 10/18/2011 5:31:38 PM PDT by dynachrome
Sergio Hidalgo was in line with his wife and two teenage daughters. All four needed to see a dentist.
One daughter had a hole in one of her teeth, his wife had inflamed gums and all of them had pain.
"We don't have the money to pay for this," said Hidalgo, 36, who lost his job a year and a half ago. Hidalgo and his wife are undocumented immigrants, as are a number of others waiting in line.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
It would be interesting to see how Hidalgo, 36, who lost his job a year and a half ago. Hidalgo and his wife are undocumented immigrants, are making ends meet ?
“Once you are over 50 and out of work, it is practically impossible to get any form of health insurance in this country. “
That’s why you get a job that has health insurance.
Have you tried to get a job once you are 50? *You won’t even get an interview.* Why? Because the health insurance will cost the company too much.
Try reading about “age discrimination.” This one actually exits - because there is an economic reason for it.
Cry me a river.
Actually, I had a head hunter contact me the other day. It seems 53 year-olds are still in demand.
At least you and your specific skill set are. You say opu were contacted by a headhunter - was this at your place of present employment? Because once you are unemployed - by, say, a division closing down - you immediately enter a category of “unemployable.”
Your anecdotal evidence doesn’t overcome the statistical fact that there is very prevalent age discrimination in corporate hiring. My contacts in personnel and “human resources” are very blunt about it. They say that they know that it’s an illegal practice, but since it is so common, no one is worried about getting prosecuted.
Of course, I am discussing hiring practices on a broad scale across America. You are using your own personal experience as an argument that I am mistaken. Your personal experience is great for you, but in no way proves that the hiring of 50+ workers is flourishing.
I’m just telling you. We hired a guy in his 60’s who was laid off. Some of it is skill set and some of it is the reality that loyalty is no longer required so you can hire a 50 year-old knowing he will only work 15 years or so. It’s better than hiring a 25 year-old who will only work a couple of years.
That’s why you save for a rainy day.
How many people are able to save $100,000 or more for cancer treatment? How about managing $75K a year for dialysis? Get real. Hospitals and drug companies can charge what they want, because they believe insurance companies will spring for it. For all we know, the pharmaceutical and the hospital industry are exchanging kickbacks with the insuram=nce companies. What all the constant inflation *does* mean, however, is that any patient that has to pay out of pocket is going to be bankrupt or dead.
While I respect your opinions and have no doubt as to the veracity of your own particular situation, you must see that the anecdotal evidence of one individual has absolutely no bearing to the statistical truth overall.
“According to The Office for National Statistics (ONS), the number of older workers who have been unemployed for 12 months or more is 50 percent higher this year than it was last year and marks the biggest increase across all age groups.” (2010 data) http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/08/17/age-discrimination/ This statistic does not even count the percentage of workers who are not provided with health insurance by their employer (including every independent contractor).
it is an absolute fact that older workers are not being rehired as rapidly by businesses, if at all. Hell, it’s a major problem. I just googled and found this thing, http://www.overfiftyandoutofwork.com/ which I haven’t looked at but it seems to have a fair bit of info, so you might be interested in it since you are over 50. If you were not employed - for whatever reason, say a sudden health episode - if you had no employer-based health insurance, what would you do? Could you afford insurance - if you could even find someone to cover you? *Any* pre-existing condition will get you a “no.”
It’s truly not as simple as you imagine. Why is it so difficult for you just to admit the facts? That facts are that people over 50 *cannot* find insurance as readily as younger people, and by as large margin. If they can find it, it costsprohibitively more (a pricing decision made by the insurance companies on purpose, as to discouragelder people from actually purchasing a policy.). It costs so much more that businesses, who do not want to have to pay that larger percentage in *their* own contributions, prefer younger workers, who will ask for less money, work much longer hours, and statistically have fewer sick days. Not to mention your small businessman, who is often just hanging on these days. These are the *facts.* The truth is not Liberal or Conservative; it just *is*.
You may like the American for-profit medical system, the only one of its kind in the world. Americans spend more money on health care per person than any other nation in the industrialized world, with fewer people covered. Americans over 50 are the fastest growing group of the uninsured in this country. Medical bills are the primary cause of more than 60% of bankruptcies in this country - and that figure is from 2009. http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH These are the facts.
My point is that you have to like and defend the current American system *in spite of* the facts - not by denying the facts.
If you like the current system, for whatever reason, you have to say, “Good! I don’t mind that all that is true - in fact, it’s a *good* outcome, because that is what is supposed to happen. After all, it’s all part of the system I think is best.”
If the system that you advocate for causes suffering in some people, don’t deny it. *Embrace it* Say, “Those people deserved it.” Or “those people don’t really matter because...” or “Who cares? It’s their hard luck!”
After all, what if the facts are really true? What if the present system makes it much more difficult for anyone over 50 to get health insurance, leaving a greater percentage of Americans between 45 and 65 with no access to health insurance? What if that they have to pay cash for treatment or go without?
Just because that is the situation doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. It’s not a bug; it’s a feature. In the grand scheme of things, it may be better if they die off sooner. They won’t burden the Social Security or Medicare rolls, and it should help close the deficit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.