twa Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 11 minutes ago, DCranon21 said: Well if Heritage, Freedom Works and Club For Growth all says this is crap on a stick, then this is a pretty crappy alternative. They had 7 years to come up with something. 7 whole years. How did they feel about ACA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCranon21 Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 1 minute ago, twa said: How did they feel about ACA? Nope we not going to do this today. While ACA is not perfect, it's better than what Ryan and the rest of the GOP put out there. Let's not spin it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 1 minute ago, DCranon21 said: Nope we not going to do this today. While ACA is not perfect, it's better than what Ryan and the rest of the GOP put out there. Let's not spin it. So what Heritage, Freedom Works and Club For Growth think only matters when you can spin it. seems imbalanced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 11 minutes ago, twa said: How did they feel about ACA? Doesnt matter. Anything short of nationalized health care is going to suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 4 minutes ago, twa said: So what Heritage, Freedom Works and Club For Growth think only matters when you can spin it. seems imbalanced I imagine the point is that pretty much no one except Ryan, Trump and some other politicians thinks it's a good plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 15 minutes ago, twa said: How did they feel about ACA? Given that at its core the ACA was the Heritage foundation's plan...they would have to have liked it, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Senate GOP are hating on it. Trump, House GOP and Ann Coulter are cheering it. This isn't the metaphor where the GOP was DUI, wrecked the car, and complained the route the tow truck took to the shop (Post 2008 economy). This is hating on something so much that even if you have no idea how to do it better. You're going to push anything to claim it's better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 1 minute ago, Riggo-toni said: Given that at its core the ACA was the Heritage foundation's plan...they would have to have liked it, right? Heritage seems to be of a different opinion on it being theirs and the value of it. But we all can believe whatever we want right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Springfield said: Anything short of nationalized health care is going to suck. Again, I am not a fan of that option either. All one has to do is look at the disastrous VA system to be wary of this. Likewise, I am not fond of doubling payroll taxes, establishing a federal sales tax of over 10%, and gas taxes that will drive prices to 5$/gallon. Don't think for a minute the government is going to be able to squeeze enough from income taxes to cover nationalizing 17% of GDP. What we need to end is employer based insurance. Have employers pay a tax exempt benefits wage which employees can then use to pay for health insurance, HSAs, vision, dental, retirement, or college funds. Establish a minimum benefit wage which would be enough for a full time worker to afford catastrophic insurance. Someone works 2 part time jobs - he gets benefit wages from both. Changing jobs has no effect on your insurance, because individuals, not employers, choose their own insurance. 7 minutes ago, twa said: But we all can believe whatever we want right? Your trolling has been living proof of that! Edited March 7, 2017 by Riggo-toni 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: Again, I am not a fan of that option either. All one has to do is look at the disastrous VA system to be wary of this. Likewise, I am not fond of doubling payroll taxes, establishing a federal sales tax of over 10%, and gas taxes that will drive prices to 5$/gallon. What we need to end is employer based insurance. Have employers pay a tax exempt benefits wage which employees can then use to pay for health insurance, HSAs, retirement, or college funds. Establish a minimum benefit wage which would be enough for a full time worker to afford catastrophic insurance. Someone works 2 part time jobs - he gets benefit wages from both. Changing jobs has no effect on your insurance, because individuals, not employers, choose their own insurance. Why is that going to bring down costs? The ACA capped the insurance company profits as a function medical expenses and costs going up only slowed a little. They continued to go up faster than inflation. Insurance premiums are going up by and large because health care costs and usage are going up. Under the ACA, the increase in prices were not going into the pockets of the insurance industry. Focusing on costs at the level of insurance companies is the wrong focus (at least with the ACA in place). (Ending employment based healthcare just puts individuals in a place where they have to negotiate with big companies over a complex topic with lots of legalese over what can be a life and death matter. I might support taking steps to end employer based health insurance if there was a proposal on the table to actually control costs. But I like having a big entity negotiate with insurance companies for me, present me with options, and explain them to me, and then if I have an issue with the insurance company there being somebody that actually works for my company that I can go to and complain to and get something done.) Edited March 7, 2017 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 18 hours ago, visionary said: If people can't afford to pay their premiums for two months, how the hell can they pay a 30% surcharge for a year? I reiterate, Republicans will help insurance companies and not actual humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: Again, I am not a fan of that option either. All one has to do is look at the disastrous VA system to be wary of this. Likewise, I am not fond of doubling payroll taxes, establishing a federal sales tax of over 10%, and gas taxes that will drive prices to 5$/gallon. What we need to end is employer based insurance. Have employers pay a tax exempt benefits wage which employees can then use to pay for health insurance, HSAs, retirement, or college funds. Establish a minimum benefit wage which would be enough for a full time worker to afford catastrophic insurance. Someone works 2 part time jobs - he gets benefit wages from both. Changing jobs has no effect on your insurance, because individuals, not employers, choose their own insurance. You keep making this claim but it's not factual. There would need to be tax reforms sure, but there isn't one way to finance single payer. Another way to look at it would be to look into reforming SS but I don't have time to elaborate that much now. Edited March 7, 2017 by Hersh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) Edited March 7, 2017 by visionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 18 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: Again, I am not a fan of that option either. All one has to do is look at the disastrous VA system to be wary of this. Likewise, I am not fond of doubling payroll taxes, establishing a federal sales tax of over 10%, and gas taxes that will drive prices to 5$/gallon. Don't think for a minute the government is going to be able to squeeze enough from income taxes to cover nationalizing 17% of GDP. What we need to end is employer based insurance. Have employers pay a tax exempt benefits wage which employees can then use to pay for health insurance, HSAs, vision, dental, retirement, or college funds. Establish a minimum benefit wage which would be enough for a full time worker to afford catastrophic insurance. Someone works 2 part time jobs - he gets benefit wages from both. Changing jobs has no effect on your insurance, because individuals, not employers, choose their own insurance. I don't think that health care should be a commodity. I don't think that citizens should have to search around for the best deal and navigate pages of legalese to understand what they're getting themselves into, only to find out that their rare disease isn't covered. I don't think that people should live one major health affect away from a poor life. I think that every citizen should be fixed and they shouldn't have to worry about the other details. The last thing I want is to have to decide whether or not I think I should drive or take a ambulance when I start having massive chest pains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Yanno, I look at this in the same way I tend to view a lot of things, first principles, right? I recall a wise man saying... Quote Hannibal Lecter: First principles, Clarice. Simplicity. Read Marcus Aurelius. Of each particular thing ask: what is it in itself? What is its nature? So what do we have here? What is wanted, and by whom? People want health coverage/medical attention in a fashion they can afford. Corporations want maximum dollars w/ minimum outlay and liability. They are diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive POV. The decisions are made by politicians who are beholden to?......................................................... If you said the people you failed, hard. There essentially is no way to resolve this, a great many people are very invested in blowing smoke up your ass to convince you that there is, but they lie. This is a test of wills, either the corporate entities will pressure the politicians to get their way, or the people will pressure politicians to get theirs. There is no Option C. So if the general populace doesn't want to take it in the ass here, there is only one way to prevent that, and it entails threatening the security of politicians jobs via the ballot box to do what they want. And we all know the chances of that happening 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said: Again, I am not a fan of that option either. All one has to do is look at the disastrous VA system to be wary of this. Likewise, I am not fond of doubling payroll taxes, establishing a federal sales tax of over 10%, and gas taxes that will drive prices to 5$/gallon. Don't think for a minute the government is going to be able to squeeze enough from income taxes to cover nationalizing 17% of GDP. What we need to end is employer based insurance. Have employers pay a tax exempt benefits wage which employees can then use to pay for health insurance, HSAs, vision, dental, retirement, or college funds. Establish a minimum benefit wage which would be enough for a full time worker to afford catastrophic insurance. Someone works 2 part time jobs - he gets benefit wages from both. Changing jobs has no effect on your insurance, because individuals, not employers, choose their own insurance. Your trolling has been living proof of that! I am actually a fan of getting employers out of the insurance business. I'm also a fan of taking the profit out of insurance. The problem here is that probably large number of people will be unemployed, HR people, insurance people whose jobs are to delay/deny coverage. We can do it, but it has to be phased in. The ACA was the first step toward this, with tweaks made in the coming years. So you have plan choices that people can decide on the level of coverage they want, with a basic level mandated by the government. Like Medicare is now, certain things covered and buy insurance plans to supplement. I chose a plan based on my traveling around the U.S., and I don't want to pay any deductible or copay. I know what I am spending every month on my fixed income. The Republicans are instituting Rep. Grayson's take on what Republicans want: 1) Don't get sick, and 2) if you get sick die quickly. That's exactly what this bill is, with an added kicker of extracting as much as possible from people through premiums. Edited March 7, 2017 by LadySkinsFan 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Like it or not. "Health" is a business......and it's for profit. We're not that far from Snake Oil Salesmen with Miracle Cures going from town to town. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskinss Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Riggo-toni said: What we need to end is employer based insurance. Have employers pay a tax exempt benefits wage which employees can then use to pay for health insurance, How does this plan end employer based insurance? Looks to me like it just changes the way the employer based insurance is paid for. Ive always hated the employer based system but i want to get rid of it all together. What happens if i faithfully work and pay all my premiums for 30 years with no illness and then suddenly i get too sick to work? I've always wondered what happens then, do i now qualify for a government based insurance? If not then that's bull**** of the highest magnitude. If so then its just a brilliant scheme perpetrated by the insurance companies to give them a built in excuse to cut loose all dead weight. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Wow, Sean Spicer is a trainwreck press secretary. I know his job isn't easy, but damn he is a bumbling idiot far too often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 3 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said: If people can't afford to pay their premiums for two months, how the hell can they pay a 30% surcharge for a year? I reiterate, Republicans will help insurance companies and not actual humans. Doesn't that make it a "mandate" or "be fined", just like the ACA? I swear, these people are idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, redskinss said: How does this plan end employer based insurance? Looks to me like it just changes the way the employer based insurance is paid for. Ive always hated the employer based system but i want to get rid of it all together. What happens if i faithfully work and pay all my premiums for 30 years with no illness and then suddenly i get too sick to work? I've always wondered what happens then, do i now qualify for a government based insurance? If not then that's bull**** of the highest magnitude. If so then its just a brilliant scheme perpetrated by the insurance companies to give them a built in excuse to cut loose all dead weight. Are these serious questions? Do you really want to get rid of something that you don't understand? If you have employer based insurance, you don't pay premiums. The employer will take part of your salary to cover the costs of the insurance, but it isn't really a premium. The employer also pays part (realistically, this is part of your compensation though.)). Like all of your compensation, if you lose your job it goes away for the most part. There are ways to extend it employer health insurance for some time if you can pay for it (COBRA plans). If you would rather have insurance through some other means, you are welcome to do it. Employers do not force workers to get insurance from them. If you think paying premiums to an insurance company directly is going to have a better result, if you lose your job, you are welcome to do it (but that's not going to happen because if you lose your job and can't pay your premiums, the insurance company is not going to care if you have been paying them for 30 years without getting sick or not. They are going to drop you.) Generally, employer based healthcare is cheaper even factoring in the part the employer is paying because employers have better negotiating power than individuals. Essentially, they get saving based on volume. If you lose your health insurance (no matter why whether you've lost your jobs and so lost your employer based healthcare or lost your job and can no longer afford to pay the premiums on your individual health care), there are eligibility requirements for federal programs. Medicare is tied to your age. Medicaid is tied to income and family size (looking in NJ, for 2 people with an less than $22,411, you essentially get free healthcare). (Why do people want to limit the way workers get their compensation? Especially when given ACA caps on MLR for insurance companies there no reason to believe that the recent increases in insurance are due to the insurance companies and not underlying healthcare costs and usage?) 5 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said: Doesn't that make it a "mandate" or "be fined", just like the ACA? I swear, these people are idiots. Except in this case it is going to private companies (I also guess it gives you the option of doing things like not getting health insurance and then when you do need it, doing something to greatly reduce your income so you can go on Medicaid (and I wonder if once you are on Medicaid, can you then raise your income, and then go back to private insurance without paying the 30% penalty?)) If you are going on free healthcare (Medicaid), they can't really charge you a 30% surchage. It doesn't make sense to charge people that have increased their income enough to come of Medicaid a 30% charge for going on public insurance (you are just encouraging people to stay on Medicaid then). Edited March 7, 2017 by PeterMP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 Thank you, @PeterMP. Yes, these people *lawmakers* are idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 What prevents a uninsured from paying the 30% penalty for a few months simply to have a surgery ect and then dropping it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now