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.
Ah - so you WOULD support legislation that would allow insurance companies to sell their products across state lines - as it would increase the pool of potential insureds - lowering the costs.
If that legislation came to pass, would it not mean that many of the insurance companies would move to a state with the most lenient laws pertaining to corporations, in the same way that many of the less reputable credit card companies chose to set up shop in Delaware, for example? Would that not mean that they'd actually be able to get away with far more than they get away with now, in the sense of denying claims and pushing up premiums way above the rate of inflation?
That's great and that is a part of their municipal employment.. not available for a majority of citizens. AND are they not then required to contribute to one or the other.. in otherwords, they can't opt out of SS unless they put money into the Retirement Fund? So at the end of the day it's almost equivelent or the same thing.
It's been a long time since I worked in Ill, so I don't remember all the details. I just know you didn't pay into both. You didn't have a choice. If you worked for a municipal govt that contributed to IMRF instead of SS, that's what was taken out of your check for retirement. I'm not sure if I ever worked for a PERA agency in CO. I'm not sure how all this ties into medicare, either.
I don't know ANYONE who knows how to Opt Out of Social Security...
You claim it's not hard..
What exactly does one have to do to opt-out?
Mr. Bob.. he's is extremely vague on the subject.. bottom line he is a "minister" of some sort although on that thread he wouldn't reveal what church (when pressed, as I was curious what the religious objection was to SS). Keep in mind that he is a lawyer as well (and they are the sneakest bunch.. manage to find the most miniscule little pinholes to get out of things).
That aside, in my research on opting out the only one I could find was relgion based.. particulary if you are clergy, etc. (which is listed on the SS website too).
As someone else pointed out municipal employees in some parts have that option as well,but they then have to contribute to a municipal retirement fund.. so its' basically the same thing, different avenue type thing.
I was mistaken on including medicare in that statement.. Medicaid however, is s different story. I also acknowledged that contribution would have to be higher than currently, but that certainly beats paying 30% of your income for a third party so that you can have access to healthcare.
AND.. in the UK model, seniors are not subject to the copays as well as the poor and I believe college students (I could be mistaken on that last part).
TM.....do you read?
We are ON Medicare....you know....for old folks 65 and over.
How much are you willing to pay ?
I just gave you the potential costs for tax supported health care.....and didn't even give you the rest of the story.
In our case....I have told you this before....our FREE care costs us about $11,000 a year.
Are you listening??
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 22,959,128 times
Reputation: 36026
Quote:
Originally Posted by TristansMommy
I think it's all relative really. WHile I"m on IAmMexican's side of the argument, my contribution to healthcare was MUCH higher than 10%... and for some people it's much higher.
Take , lets say, a hairdresser single mother who works and makes around the $30K mark .. let's even say she makes 40K a year in NY doing hair in the burbs..like LI. She will buy her own insurance and it will cost her around $800/mark (probably more because she doesn't qualify as having a small business unless she owns the salon herself). Of a $30K salary that is approx 32% of her income!!!!!! OUCH! Considering that housing is supposed to take up 35% of your income so that there's room for other things (like food, clothing) etc. .. HOW is she supposed to swing that.(please keep in mind she is also paying a self employment tax.. our double SS that everyone else pays)
10% of income is not quite so bad in that scenario and would probably be a welcomed relief.
Although I'm currently paying 10%, not everyone is paying 10% of their total income in healthcare and I think it's unfair to force everyone to pay that much just to benefit those with high healthcare costs. For some folks, 10% is ALOT of money. To be frankly honest, I seriously doubt that is all we are going to pay in taxes as our tax-hungry government never has enough of our tax dollars. Just look at many of our inner city schools that spends 10,000 per year to educate a child and our schools are STILL short on cash? This makes NO sense to me and it reeks of inefficiency. Yet, we are constantly bombarded with ads for tax increases for our children's education? Prove to me that you can properly manage our existing tax dollars, then I'll be gladly to pay more.
Sorry, got off the topic there... I do strongly feel that there should be some sort of policy that would bring the health care costs for those who either cannot afford health insurance or who were denied coverage. I just don't think the whole system should be turned over to the government just because Susie, the hairdresser, is paying too much for her coverage. I do STRONGLY feel that serious reforms need to take place so that Susie, the hairdressor, and others like her are not shelling out ridiculous amounts of money for healthcare coverage. Our current system is broken BUT I don't think a fully-government ran UHC is the answer.
By the way, I'm one of those people who have a pre-existing condition and would benefit greatly from a UHC. I just don't have this blind trust of our government that many proponents of UHC seem to have. I honestly fear that a UHC would be nothing but a major mess as our government has proven to me time and again how inept they are.
If that legislation came to pass, would it not mean that many of the insurance companies would move to a state with the most lenient laws pertaining to corporations, in the same way that many of the less reputable credit card companies chose to set up shop in Delaware, for example? Would that not mean that they'd actually be able to get away with far more than they get away with now, in the sense of denying claims and pushing up premiums way above the rate of inflation?
I am sorry for the rudeness but anyone who is for government run health care is
d-u-m-b
and you must want to die young because if you hit a certain age get a certain disease....the govt will decide if you get treatment or d-i-e.
even if you would be cured by treatment. You are screwed just because of the 'age'.....think canadian health care.
Have a breast lump? Too bad, you go on a waiting list 4-6 months to get a test to even SEE if it's cancer...by then it has spread and you are dead anway.
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.
