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.
My father-in-law.... the NON millionaire. With our help of course.... But hey..... reach in my pocket again.....
Here it is in a nutshell... I do want what's best for everyone; Some of us were born wealthy (not me). Some were born poor. (Again, not me... squarely lower middle class here). The fact is that life isn't fair. And the fact that you keep using the word free health care, free college, free, free, free is the biggest bold faced lie on the face of the earth. The word should be outlawed from use in politics. When Bernie says free college instead he should look at people and tell the truth. Never uttering that word. Because the lemmings get all jacked up that they are going to get free crap. Instead... tell them the truth. When AOC harps about free health care, instead tell them straight, out-right what it is going to cost them. And tell those of us who ARE paying what it is going to cost us. No "oh, you should do this because it feels good,". No "oh my God you are so uncaring because we need a better society". This society was lost a long time ago. Tell the truth. You can't guarantee reductions in cost. You can't guarantee that five years down the road we won't be paying 50% of our income. You can't guarantee jack squat. And yes, to be quite honest, I don't and won't listen to a word out of their mouths because of it. The pandering needs to STOP!
I haven't used the word free.
Here's the basic fact.
We currently pay X.
This new system is expected to be less than X, even by conservative estimates.
We can have more coverage for less money. Not free. It's just eliminating the health insurance company profits.
Would you support keeping the existing system but reforming health insurance markets to be non-profit? Research, doctors, etc can still turn a profit. But the middle men administrators cannot.
you really think you would get a 1500/month raise???? not happening
Hence "ideally". Yes, it would likely just have to replace an employer side premium with the employer side tax. In reality it comes out of your pocket either way.
Location: Just transplanted to FL from the N GA mountains
3,997 posts, read 4,145,129 times
Reputation: 2677
Quote:
Originally Posted by notnamed
Would you support keeping the existing system but reforming health insurance markets to be non-profit? Research, doctors, etc can still turn a profit. But the middle men administrators cannot.
Interesting proposition. Can I say now I'd support it, going on record no; I'd have the see the specifics but yes I'd be open to it. Is there any doubt that the profits are a part of the problem. With that we agree, but I sometimes think that it is kind of like education costs to be quite honest. Education has always been "free" to our best and brightest. Higher level education I should say. Those who got academic scholarships have always gotten great education. (I use my son as an example... we couldn't afford to send him to his big private school and for him to get the education he did without that academic scholarship *shamless mother plug*) But the reason that colleges have gotten so expensive is because there is no filter for who can or cannot go anymore. And that is good and bad at the same time. Good that others could attend and gain the education; but bad in the fact that colleges could charge any darn thing they wanted because oh heck, those kids qualify for Sallie Mae Loans and if they don't come I'll get some other kid to fill the spot. Look at what is happening to many state schools now; their turning down their own state kids in favor of kids paying out of state tuition rates. Sorry... I digress..... But making the "government" the middle man. No.... because of this same situation. The minute the government becomes the middle man all bets are off. Health care costs would rise because once again they could charge whatever they want. Is it possible to have an impartial middle man who could say either side is off balance and have the ability to effect change?
but now you pay 500/month and your employer contribution is 1500/ month.. then you pay $10 or $20 per visit (when necessary) and maybe even a small deductible (1 or 2k)
so using those numbers you currently pay: 6k, plus a 1k deductible plus 20 per visit(copay) (if 12 visits a year 240) plus 20% (most insurance is 80/20, although some are 75/25 others are 85/15)
so your out of pocket is 7240..... and your employer pays 18k..... total cost 25k ish
under a MfA you pay ALL of that....including a copay, plus are FULLY responsible for 20% PLUS all not covered
and you will not get a raise from the employer savings.... can you afford 25k+ in taxes??? can a Walmart worker afford 25k in taxes when he/she is only making 25k(if they are even making that)
oh and another thought... think about those currently on Medicaid.. that goes away (btw Medicaid is closer to a singlepayer than medicare)...so they lose the 100% coverage from Medicaid and gain a costly 80/20 medicare that is NOT 100% coverage, and has many, many denials of care
I asked earlier..what about nursing homes for the elderly...NOT covered by medicare...so therefore NOT covered by MfA….. is that trillion dollar cost stuck on the backs of the already taxed too much individuals???
but now you pay 500/month and your employer contribution is 1500/ month.. then you pay $10 or $20 per visit (when necessary) and maybe even a small deductible (1 or 2k)
so using those numbers you currently pay: 6k, plus a 1k deductible plus 20 per visit(copay) (if 12 visits a year 240) plus 20% (most insurance is 80/20, although some are 75/25 others are 85/15)
so your out of pocket is 7240..... and your employer pays 18k..... total cost 25k ish
under a MfA you pay ALL of that....including a copay, plus are FULLY responsible for 20% PLUS all not covered
There is NO plan on the table to state anything definitively
This new system is expected to be less than X, even by conservative estimates.
We can have more coverage for less money. Not free. It's just eliminating the health insurance company profits.
Would you support keeping the existing system but reforming health insurance markets to be non-profit? Research, doctors, etc can still turn a profit. But the middle men administrators cannot.
the new system will NOT cost less... might have less overhead, but the cost of care , the actual care will forever be increasing.... you can not lower the cost of the care, unless you are going to nationalize every entity associated with medical care/costs and put a max salary on all individuals.....
the "new" system will still cost the same... the new parameters is that the cost will be on the minority of the individual taxpayers (there are only 80 million actual taxpayers (not tax takers) in the USA, whose population is about 330 million
There is NO plan on the table to state anything definitively
correct, because they don't have a feasible plan.. bernies "plan" will cost an additional 3.2 trillion for MfA ontop of the 800 billion that is already the cost of medicare… and even his plan has nothing definitive, because of the cost and "eyes on the cost"
So in other words when AOC says "healthcare for all" we have to vote yes before we read it? Been there....
No, there is no reason for that. I didn't support it the last time that was tried.
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.
