Seriously? The Republicans Have No Health Plan?

dude sex change operations don't happen every day in the whole of the US. It is a very rare procedure. Hell there was a case where a state was required to provide sexual reassignment surgery to an inmate who was undergoing life without parole. And it doesn't matter a damn if it happens every day or if you get hit for these relative rare but very expensive surgeries it will cause a rise in the rates the rest of us have to pay. By the way did you read the article I C&P'd

 

What about just a tax deduction?

Personally, I do not think the government should encourage people to get anything other than a catastrophic high-deductible insurance.

Just because all the government workers get comprehensive insurance does not mean it is good for everyone else.

 

Yes I did...don't see quite what you think it means.

 

As odd as youR grammar?

It's surely creating premium increases, unsettling the job market, and creating chaos, it couldn't even 'create' a website that worked, who are you kidding?

I use the company's dental plan, pay for my own private insurance. I'll assume you're a liberal?

You want to wager?

 

Your wife I assume....took this job with this small firm knowing full well they didn't have medical coverage, correct?

 

Yes, most employers in southern DE do not offer health care. You need to either work for the State, one of the hospitals or full time for one of the Chicken processors to have employer provided health care. My step daughter works as a Doctors assistant and her employer does not offer health care. Fortunately I work for a large University, and I have excellent coverage for myself and my wife, and will retain that coverage even when I retire.

 

Imagine should you have lost that 'excellent' plan or your doctor of choice like so many did under Obamacare....and we haven't even mandated employer coverages yet. Tell me, did your 'excellent' plans see increases in the last few years much like your student's tuitions?

 

I always love the "health savings accounts" idea....

which means if you're a 22 year old fresh out of college at an entry level job who gets cancer, you might have as much as $500 saved up to pay for your chemo.

 

That's not what health savings accounts are for.........

They don't carry over year to year...........

 

Health savings accounts would be voluntary. Another option. And amusing you think the government has saved up for this chemo treatment you speak to. Think outside your box and consider a parent or grandparent that was permitted to engage a health savings account...that they can now lean on to help their grandchild or child through expensive chemo therapy? Amazing when eyes get opened huh?

- - - Updated - - -

There are proposals for such.

 

People do every day, but voluntary traffic laws and social security/medicare are two completely different things and not even completely similar in nature. Stop they hyperbolic scare treatment... Oh no! people don't want to use social security, if we allow that all the old people will be poor beggars because people are too stupid to save for themselves!

Social security can still do that if voluntary. Those who want the government to poorly plan for their retirement can allow them to take the money from their paychecks and spend it. Those who don't can keep their money and invest for themselves. Also I would not accredit the rise of less poor old people to social security alone. I think technological advancements and increases in production for that. These have allowed the more efficient use of resources and expanded peoples access to them. Thus enabling them to make a better life for themselves.

I have seen old people begging in the street and homeless people in every city I have ever been to, hell I knew homeless people in a town of 10,000 who squatted in abandoned homes, even broke into homes when people were away. Social security has not gotten rid of the problem and never will. There are other ways to address it, but you like the status quo and won't hear anything else. Anyone who suggests anything else wants homeless people everywhere begging for scraps. Thats fine, you have the right to your own opinion, back an outdated and stupid fix for a problem that is slowly becoming its own problem.

No I care about others, I help others out all the time. And if some elderly person in my family couldn't make ends meet I would do what I could to help. I wouldn't want to force everyone else to do it for me. Also for those not in my family, especially those who truly are mentally ill or severely handicapped to the point of not working, I gladly accept being taxed to fund programs to help them. Just Social security which is supposed to be benefits for me... well no thanks. I rather keep my money now and invest it in something safer with a better return. Don't want to have to hope Government decides to raise COLA payments.

You don't really understand how a working person should invest for their retirement do you? Its not like winning the lotto its slow and steady growth, compounding of interest. Its ok, I understand why you are so afraid of my position now, ignorance. Thats ok though I blame the public schools who don't teach people the importance as well as intelligent ways to invest.

Seems to me you have done that regarding Social security, you hear its stated goal and believe thats what its doing, and its doing it effectively. Sad really.
For instance did you know that the average monthly payment for social security is around $530-$540. Is that something you could live comfortably on?

You are right, I am a worker. I don't plan to be that forever though, and even if I am I will invest intelligently so I don't have to rely solely on government payments of around $500 a month to get by. I am not on a high and mighty horse, it just appears that I understand investing better than you and that is why I myself would rather invest than rely on government. Why do you have to get on your mighty high horse and demand that I use a system that essentially guarantees that my own money will give me a worse return. I am not demanding anyone else be forced to do what I want to do. If you feel safer staying with social security do so. Thats the greatness of voluntary action.

And you were the one giving me lectures about not caring for others... hahah apparently you only care for people who do what you think is best. Well lets do a little math, imagine you made $25,000 a year. Payroll social security tax is 6.2% (ignoring the 6.2% your employer pays for you). $25,000 x .062 = $1,550 a year or $129 a month. Now we are going to use this site to calculate how much money you will earn if you put that $129 a month into investments as opposed to social security.
http://www.interestcalc.org

First we need to set some basic rules.
You start work at 20 and plan to retire at 63. So in the calculator you will put 43 years in the Years category.
We are assuming you make $25,000 a year during your whole life, a horrible assumption which equates to around $12 an hour during your whole life.
Your initial investment is $129 and your regular investment is $129/monthly... your would be social security tax (again this is ignoring the other 6.2% your employer pays for you).
Finally all we need is the rate, if you start with the 5% thats auto filled you find out that after your 43 years of investing you have $228K on 66.5k out of pocket.
If we assume you take that 228k out right at the age of 63 so no more interest is earned and take payments the same as the average social security payment $540 you have enough money for 422 months or 35 years. Enough money till you are 98.

Now if one increases their wages during their life and continues to put the same 6.2% in they will have a much larger nest egg. If they get a rate better than 5% over their 43 years it will be much larger. Hell just put in 8%, you have 536k. If you had that much your interest earned each year is larger than your social security payments so you could essentially live on interest in perpetuity.

 

We've seen relatively small increases in my coverage. But we are a very large group. The basic plan covers 80% and I pay extra for a higher end plan, I've carried the top end employer sponsored coverage since I started work 42 years ago.

 

I would hope someone else has pointed the following out but I'm not going to read through the whole thread to find out.

The tort reform language in Enzi's bill was lifted wholesale and included in the ACA. His idea of offering people income-based tax subsidies to buy insurance was, obviously, also included. As was the conversion to community rating so that the sick aren't charged higher premiums. As were his health care workforce development provisions.

His idea of merging individual and small group insurance markets in states is an option created by the ACA (left to state discretion).

His health information technology provisions became law through the HITECH Act (a component of the 2009 stimulus package).

Refundable, advanceable tax credits to help people afford insurance are now law.

State health insurance exchanges are as well.

Most of that bill can be found in just Title I of the ACA.

Once again, insurance exchanges providing premium subsidies to help folks afford coverage with consumer protection is now law (as is the individual mandate to have insurance coverage contained in that particular law).

Insurance exchanges and refundable premium tax credits again! And the same tort reform language in Enzi's bill that became law under the ACA.

And the creation of accountable care organizations in Medicare, which became law under the ACA. And prevention and transparency requirements that also became law under the ACA, as well as anti-fraud requirements that have since been put in place. More of the health information technology pieces established under HITECH, as well as a new organization to evaluate the effectiveness of health care services--also a thing that now exists.


The GOP's problem isn't so much that they've never had or embraced ideas, it's that they've disowned almost all of them now that they're law. Most of their ideas are now the policy of the U.S. government.