OK, I accept that this is mostly a political group with occasional
boating posts.
I had an idea I'd like to run past people on all sides.
One thing people dislike about Obamacare is that it compels people to
purchase a product. Here is a way around the problem.
Require people to contribute 10% of their income to a "pension
account". We can get away with this because we already do it with
SS. However, this account could be used at any time to pay for
current healthcare including health insurance. Contributions would be
tax free and payments for qualified healthcare taken from the growth
of the accounts (which you would control) would also be tax free.
This would encourage people to shop around for healthcare and to not
go to the emergency room for a cold. At the end of the year, they
could get back part of what htye put in if it was not taken up by
health care. This would allow each person to put in money when they
are young and in good health and then use the money when they are
older.
Poor people would get contributions from the govt to their account and
they could pay for whatever healthcare they wanted.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:56:40 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

OK, I accept that this is mostly a political group with occasional
boating posts.
I had an idea I'd like to run past people on all sides.
One thing people dislike about Obamacare is that it compels people to
purchase a product.

which has been going on for a number of different things for quite
awhile

Here is a way around the problem.
Require people to contribute 10% of their income to a "pension
account". We can get away with this because we already do it with
SS. However, this account could be used at any time to pay for
current healthcare including health insurance. Contributions would be
tax free and payments for qualified healthcare taken from the growth
of the accounts (which you would control) would also be tax free.
This would encourage people to shop around for healthcare and to not
go to the emergency room for a cold. At the end of the year, they
could get back part of what htye put in if it was not taken up by
health care. This would allow each person to put in money when they
are young and in good health and then use the money when they are
older.
Poor people would get contributions from the govt to their account and
they could pay for whatever healthcare they wanted.

of course, we should ALSO require that increases in productivity
should be more equitably distributed rather than having the US
continue down the path of plutocracy

On 4/16/2011 10:56 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
OK, I accept that this is mostly a political group with occasional
boating posts.
I had an idea I'd like to run past people on all sides.
One thing people dislike about Obamacare is that it compels people to
purchase a product. Here is a way around the problem.
Require people to contribute 10% of their income to a "pension
account". We can get away with this because we already do it with
SS. However, this account could be used at any time to pay for
current healthcare including health insurance. Contributions would be
tax free and payments for qualified healthcare taken from the growth
of the accounts (which you would control) would also be tax free.
This would encourage people to shop around for healthcare and to not
go to the emergency room for a cold. At the end of the year, they
could get back part of what htye put in if it was not taken up by
health care. This would allow each person to put in money when they
are young and in good health and then use the money when they are
older.
Poor people would get contributions from the govt to their account and
they could pay for whatever healthcare they wanted.
How about this mandatory boat ownership, in case of floods...one hundred
percent tax credit though.

Frogwatch wrote:
OK, I accept that this is mostly a political group with occasional
boating posts.
I had an idea I'd like to run past people on all sides.
One thing people dislike about Obamacare is that it compels people to
purchase a product. Here is a way around the problem.
Require people to contribute 10% of their income to a "pension
account". We can get away with this because we already do it with
SS. However, this account could be used at any time to pay for
current healthcare including health insurance. Contributions would be
tax free and payments for qualified healthcare taken from the growth
of the accounts (which you would control) would also be tax free.
This would encourage people to shop around for healthcare and to not
go to the emergency room for a cold. At the end of the year, they
could get back part of what htye put in if it was not taken up by
health care. This would allow each person to put in money when they
are young and in good health and then use the money when they are
older.
Poor people would get contributions from the govt to their account and
they could pay for whatever healthcare they wanted.


A better idea would be to get rid of our system of primary private
health care insurance entirely, and replace it with good, basic health
insurance for everyone, with payment for that based upon a sliding scale
based upon income. Such plans would cover just about everything with
some exceptions, such as a fully private hospital room, plastic surgery
for strictly cosmetic purposes, et cetera, and those could be covered to
some degree by separately purchased supplement health insurance. The
basic plans could be offered by private insurers, so long as everything
was closely and properly regulated.

Oh, those really backwards Swiss handle health insurance as I've described.

My Norwegian buddies have a more socialistic based health insurance
program which is far superior to our patchwork quilt here.

All our health insurance system here does is enrich insurance companies.
They add nothing of value to the health care system.

On 16/04/2011 9:11 PM, bob wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 19:56:40 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

OK, I accept that this is mostly a political group with occasional
boating posts.
I had an idea I'd like to run past people on all sides.
One thing people dislike about Obamacare is that it compels people to
purchase a product.

which has been going on for a number of different things for quite
awhile

Here is a way around the problem.
Require people to contribute 10% of their income to a "pension
account". We can get away with this because we already do it with
SS. However, this account could be used at any time to pay for
current healthcare including health insurance. Contributions would be
tax free and payments for qualified healthcare taken from the growth
of the accounts (which you would control) would also be tax free.
This would encourage people to shop around for healthcare and to not
go to the emergency room for a cold. At the end of the year, they
could get back part of what htye put in if it was not taken up by
health care. This would allow each person to put in money when they
are young and in good health and then use the money when they are
older.
Poor people would get contributions from the govt to their account and
they could pay for whatever healthcare they wanted.

of course, we should ALSO require that increases in productivity
should be more equitably distributed rather than having the US
continue down the path of plutocracy

Well, if you don't like plutocracy, how come you vote Obama?

You know this depression will come to an end when the middle class rise,
take back control of government and just say no to the leaches be they
corporate or low life individuals. And tell politicians, less taxes and
live inside your means.

Who knows, maybe even get eDemocracy if we are lucky. Why let a bribed
politician do the voting when people can vote directly? It isn't 1780
when a pony had to go across Arizona in the heat to bring in the results.

But you know why it will never happen? Because real democracy never
existed, you are a well managed herd on a stage show. You leaders are
corrupt hand picked ponies.
--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.

Canuck57 wrote:

Who knows, maybe even get eDemocracy if we are lucky. Why let a bribed
politician do the voting when people can vote directly?

You really don't have a frippin' clue, do you?

On 17/04/2011 10:00 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:

Who knows, maybe even get eDemocracy if we are lucky. Why let a bribed
politician do the voting when people can vote directly?

You really don't have a frippin' clue, do you?

I know they would not even think about empowering the people. Your
point? Does not mean I don't want to see true democracy. I trust the
people, not the greedy government. Problem with the people is they
beave like herd animals and are managed that way.

Yep, you are a well managed herd animal.
--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.

Canuck57 wrote:
On 17/04/2011 10:00 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:

Who knows, maybe even get eDemocracy if we are lucky. Why let a bribed
politician do the voting when people can vote directly?

You really don't have a frippin' clue, do you?

I know they would not even think about empowering the people. Your
point? Does not mean I don't want to see true democracy. I trust the
people, not the greedy government. Problem with the people is they beave
like herd animals and are managed that way.

Yep, you are a well managed herd animal.


For starters, it is obvious you have never need a piece of proposed
legislation in all its glory. Real life is not as simple as you'd like
to think it is.

Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
On 17/04/2011 10:00 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:

Who knows, maybe even get eDemocracy if we are lucky. Why let a bribed
politician do the voting when people can vote directly?

You really don't have a frippin' clue, do you?

I know they would not even think about empowering the people. Your
point? Does not mean I don't want to see true democracy. I trust the
people, not the greedy government. Problem with the people is they beave
like herd animals and are managed that way.

Yep, you are a well managed herd animal.


For starters, it is obvious you have never need a piece of proposed
legislation in all its glory. Real life is not as simple as you'd like
to think it is.


not need, seen. sheesh.

On 17/04/2011 10:29 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:
On 17/04/2011 10:00 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote:

Who knows, maybe even get eDemocracy if we are lucky. Why let a bribed
politician do the voting when people can vote directly?

You really don't have a frippin' clue, do you?

I know they would not even think about empowering the people. Your
point? Does not mean I don't want to see true democracy. I trust the
people, not the greedy government. Problem with the people is they beave
like herd animals and are managed that way.

Yep, you are a well managed herd animal.


For starters, it is obvious you have never need a piece of proposed
legislation in all its glory. Real life is not as simple as you'd like
to think it is.

Been there done that. Bottom line is ass kissing people who don't give
a damn about anything else. Minds too small to see beyond their noses
promoted or elected beyond their level of competence. Appeal to their
need of personal greed and you can sell anything. Very few in politics
operate outside of the envelope of pure unadulterated personal greed.

While I have never been to congress, I can envision it as a bunch of
idiots, too much lobster and booze...all worried about perception and
not the greater good.

That is why you can't get anything decent done. And that is why USA is
destined to fail economically. A revolution as people are taxed too
much, realize the real failure of government and perhaps something
better will come from the ashes. But decay is part of a counties life
cycle, just like getting old. Companies and countries are no different.
They get born, prosper, get old then wither.

It takes on hell of a leadership to avoid the cycle. And I just don't
see this leadership in DC.
--
I can assure you that the road to prosperity is not paved with
fleabagger debt.