Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are a real babe in the woods when it comes to the cost of insurance. I bet your employer pays your and you have no idea what it really costs. I am a couple years too young for Medicare. So I have a group plan from my previous employer. I pay all the costs. It costs me 1500 dollars a month, $18,000 per year! I still have copays and coinsurance twice what Medicare people have. You can't buy squat for 6k in today's market and no amount of "competition" is going to change that. Ryan ties increases in voucher value to GDP growth. We all know that medical costs are rising several times faster than GDP. Of course, that is the problem. Ryan's solution is to stick YOU with the risk and the higher costs and take the savings in tax cuts for millionaires.
Sounds like the Dem talking points. Actually sugar, I am no babe in the woods. I don't believe your $6k is accurate, as I think it is closer to $15K, and more would go to the elderly or those with prior health conditions. Competion + an increase with cost of living should make it reasonably close yearly. Again, why do you care if I choose that for myself? If you don't want the plan stay on Medicare? I just want a choice...and what do Millionares have to do with this?
I think right to choose is worth exploring. But what Ryan is proposing is not right to choose. What he wants is to have the goverment move from paying the full ride to paying about 1/3 of it and letting you "choose" among plans that cost several times what you can afford to pay (for most people). That is not a choice, it is a burden. If Ryan wants to increase the value of his vouchers to what his "congressional" plan costs us taxpayers and have us go shopping, I say fine, go for it. But that is not what he wants to do. He wants us to shop with an empty wallet.
Not accurate, the plan is closer to 15K, with more for those whoa re elderly or more sick. Premiums would be higher for the wealthy. Why should the Govt continue to apy the full ride, are you telling me people actually pay equally into Medicare to what they spend?
Sounds like the Dem talking points. Actually sugar, I am no babe in the woods. I don't believe your $6k is accurate, as I think it is closer to $15K, and more would go to the elderly or those with prior health conditions. Competion + an increase with cost of living should make it reasonably close yearly. Again, why do you care if I choose that for myself? If you don't want the plan stay on Medicare? I just want a choice...and what do Millionares have to do with this?
I read $6K when Ryan first introduced this plan. He doesn't know himself how much insurance costs, since he has spent most of his working life as a congressman, and gets most of his HI paid for by his employer, the federal govt! I never heard about this "more to the elderly or those with prior health conditions". Medicare IS health insurance for the elderly, with a VERY few exceptions. And virtually EVERYONE over 65 has some prior health condition, even seemingly healthy people.
Not accurate, the plan is closer to 15K, with more for those whoa re elderly or more sick. Premiums would be higher for the wealthy. Why should the Govt continue to apy the full ride, are you telling me people actually pay equally into Medicare to what they spend?
All things being equal wealthier people (those who earn the money not make it on investments) pay more than poor ones do. In fairness, they should get better care (more on the vouchers). But Ryan goes the other way. Is that just?
BTW, have you noticed how similar RyanCare is to ObamaCare? It is no accident as both the plans are outgrowths of the conservative alternative to HillaryCare put forth by the Heritage Foundation years ago. People get to choose among insurance options on an exchange and pay for that based on a sliding scale inversely to income. Obamacare purports to hold down costs by the same mechanism you claim RyanCare would - insurance industry competition- while promoting choice. So why do you oppose ObamaCare while defending Ryan's very similar approach? Do we even need Ryans program? Why not just let retirees go/stay on ObamaCare and pay more for the choice of plan they take?
It seems to me (I'm 31) and a lot of people I know, that people under about 35 have no expectation of social security and Medicare being around when they reach retirement age. Because of this, we seem to have much less of an issue with people touching them and aren't really as concerned about Paul Ryan's plan as people a bit older than ourselves. This seems to apply even to those who don't otherwise support the Republicans. Is it me just being weird or does anybody else notice this too?
Believe it or not, your way of thinking makes good sense and someone on TV brought this up last night. Hopefully you young people are wrong and you will have both when you reach retirement age (which will be 70 plus by the time you get even close) but the only chance you have at all, is with a revamped program which is what Ryan is trying to tell the world.
I read $6K when Ryan first introduced this plan. He doesn't know himself how much insurance costs, since he has spent most of his working life as a congressman, and gets most of his HI paid for by his employer, the federal govt! I never heard about this "more to the elderly or those with prior health conditions". Medicare IS health insurance for the elderly, with a VERY few exceptions. And virtually EVERYONE over 65 has some prior health condition, even seemingly healthy people.
That wasn't my "claim". My claim was that Ryan proposed to give seniors a voucher worth $6000, which wouldn't cover squat for an insurance policy for someone >65.
No it doesn't. What it says is that the 6K increase was based on the previous plan. It does not say what the increase in health care costs to future senions would be in the current revision. CBO did not score it. It could be 6, 8, 10, or 20K for all we know. It's your future, your risk, your gamble. That is for sure.
That wasn't my "claim". My claim was that Ryan proposed to give seniors a voucher worth $6000, which wouldn't cover squat for an insurance policy for someone >65.
Yes, that has been the theme throughout the thread. No one said anything about the out of pocket cost increases. We can only imagine what those might be in Ryan's latest iteration. But the focus was on how little the plan subsidizes the cost of insurance for future seniors.
No it doesn't. What it says is that the 6K increase was based on the previous plan. It does not say what the increase in health care costs to future senions would be in the current revision. CBO did not score it. It could be 6, 8, 10, or 20K for all we know. It's your future, your risk, your gamble. That is for sure.
ANd it is my risk, who are you to tell me I shouldn't be allowed too?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
