On 6/28/12 7:13 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"Boating All Out" wrote in message
...


With everybody in the system your "hypothetical" premium of $15k won't
hold. It's actuarially unsound, and based on that premium paying for
the uninsured and other inflated U.S. health care costs.
Of course you know by now that the current U.S. health care/insurance
system is the world's least efficient. Right?
Subsidies are pegged now in the AHCA up to 400% of poverty level, which
is $88k for a family of 4. They won't pay more than 9.5% of their
income for insurance premiums.
I haven't seen anything for above 400% of poverty level, but a
reasonable view is your %100k family wouldn't go past 10% of income for
premiums before their squawking about "unfairness" would be heard, and
rightfully so. Still less than they're paying now, but their expense
should be capped. Only fair.
Congress can address this as it comes up. (haha)
Likewise the tax for not carrying insurance. That can easily be raised
to near the cost of what they would pay in premiums, bringing those
deadbeats to heel.
Some will call this overbearing government. Others will call it civic
responsibility. In any case, there will be tweaks to the law.

--------------------------------

Thanks. In theory it makes sense I guess, but certainly the plan will have
to be tweaked and holes plugged. I am not sure I buy the fact that more
people will be in the "system" thereby lowering insurance rates. In fact,
I can envision as many or more exiting the market for health insurance
and just paying the tax. I suspect that having a mandate that "forces"
those who can afford to pay to do so would have changed the
Supreme Court decision. The wording of the plan carefully avoided
that.

It's screwed up. But it's a first step.

Eisboch (a conservative who believes health care for all "is" a federal
government responsibility)



At some point the majority of Americans will realize the health
insurance industry adds nothing but cost to the delivery of medical
services. Perhaps we will evolve to the point that the private health
insurers will be limited to selling "supplemental" insurance.

On 6/28/2012 11:20 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 6/28/12 12:18 PM, amdx wrote:
On 6/28/2012 9:20 AM, X ` Man wrote:
...Constitutional...

It's time for me to join the socialists?
I pay $6,200 for my healthcare premium with a $10,000 deductible, and
then I put $7,150 into my health savings account.
So each year I spend $13,350 for my families healthcare.

So what steps do I need to do to get the taxpayers to take care of
my health needs?

Mikek


You obviously do not understand how insurance works.

Please explain what you think I don't understand.
Mikek

On 6/28/2012 9:20 AM, X ` Man wrote:
...Constitutional...

This will be one more additional government program that is
underfunded and will cause higher taxes and make the United
States economy even worse. 10, 20 or 30 years from now we
will be suffering sever problems with S.S., Medicaid, government
pensions, military pensions, food stamp programs, etc.
The answer is to cut back on benefits, but with such a high
percentage of the population sucking on the government breast
the politicians can't do the right thing.
We are becoming a third rate nation.
Mikek

Why is it a foreigner can come here and in 15 years
have a net worth in the top 15%, but a native finds
food stamps, public housing and medicaid a way of life?

In article ,
says...

On Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:43:31 AM UTC-4, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , dump-on-
says...

...Constitutional...

I wonder what Scotty will go insane about now?

I can give you extreme lefties something to go insane about.

You need to thank President Bush for the survival of the health care plan.

He put Roberts on the Supreme Court.

I'm a middle of the road type, but yes, Roberts indeed does have his
head on straight.

On Friday, June 29, 2012 7:26:40 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 6/28/2012 9:20 AM, X ` Man wrote:
...Constitutional...

This will be one more additional government program that is
underfunded and will cause higher taxes and make the United
States economy even worse. 10, 20 or 30 years from now we
will be suffering sever problems with S.S., Medicaid, government
pensions, military pensions, food stamp programs, etc.
The answer is to cut back on benefits, but with such a high
percentage of the population sucking on the government breast
the politicians can't do the right thing.
We are becoming a third rate nation.
Mikek

Why is it a foreigner can come here and in 15 years
have a net worth in the top 15%, but a native finds
food stamps, public housing and medicaid a way of life?

Because they are hungry for something better, and have a good work ethic.

The vast majority of "natives" grow up wanting for little, and the work ethic has been bred out of them, instead replace by a sense of entitlement. The child rearing revolution of the 80's, and the fact we no longer use red ink in school or keep little league score is also a big factor. Basically, we're raising generations of self-centered, spoiled brats.

As evidenced right here, *some* families actually started that practice 60+ years ago.

On 6/29/12 8:46 AM, wrote:
On Friday, June 29, 2012 7:26:40 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
On 6/28/2012 9:20 AM, X ` Man wrote:
...Constitutional...

This will be one more additional government program that is
underfunded and will cause higher taxes and make the United
States economy even worse. 10, 20 or 30 years from now we
will be suffering sever problems with S.S., Medicaid, government
pensions, military pensions, food stamp programs, etc.
The answer is to cut back on benefits, but with such a high
percentage of the population sucking on the government breast
the politicians can't do the right thing.
We are becoming a third rate nation.
Mikek

Why is it a foreigner can come here and in 15 years
have a net worth in the top 15%, but a native finds
food stamps, public housing and medicaid a way of life?

Because they are hungry for something better, and have a good work ethic.

The vast majority of "natives" grow up wanting for little, and the work ethic has been bred out of them, instead replace by a sense of entitlement. The child rearing revolution of the 80's, and the fact we no longer use red ink in school or keep little league score is also a big factor. Basically, we're raising generations of self-centered, spoiled brats.

As evidenced right here, *some* families actually started that practice 60+ years ago.



What are your kids doing these days? Burning womens' health clinics?

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:31:45 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

The U.S. Constitution was incomplete and needed tweaking.

===

And it still says nothing about providing health care.

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:28:11 -0400, BAR wrote:

If enough people opt out and simply pay the 1% tax, how can this
system possibly work?

What am I missing?

The solution to the money problem is rationing. Welcome to the queue.

===

That's how it is in Canada - 2 and 3 month waits to treat conditions
that are not considered life threatening, things like dislocated
shoulders for example.

On 6/29/12 10:29 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:31:45 -0400, X ` Man
wrote:

The U.S. Constitution was incomplete and needed tweaking.

===

And it still says nothing about providing health care.


So what? There is lots not mentioned in the Constitution that we have...

In article ,
says...


This is the most screwed up, convoluted law ever enacted.
The intent is admirable .... to make health care affordable
for all,

Bull****. You said you're a "conservative."
The "conservatives" in Congress DON'T BELIEVE that health care should be
affordable for all.
If they did, they'd write a bill that did that.
"Conservatives" DON'T BELIEVE THAT HEALTH CARE SHOULD BE AFFORDABLE FOR
ALL!
So be an honest man and lay out your plan.
Nobody with over an ounce of brain matter buys this bull****.
It's really as simple as that. I'm tired of this lying, ostensibly
"reasonable" bull****. Cut to the facts. It's all in the facts.
All other first world countries solved this years or decades ago.
I repeat, lay out your "conservative" plan and don't try jacking honest
people around. Then convince your so-call "conservative" compatriots.
BTW, labeling yourself a "conservative" ties you up with that political
hack crowd, as I hope I've made clear.
To real "reasonable" people, those who label themselves like a dime-
store item as "liberals" and "conservatives" are ****ing idiots.