....Constitutional...

In article , dump-on-
says...

...Constitutional...

I wonder what Scotty will go insane about now?

On 6/28/12 11:43 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , dump-on-
says...

...Constitutional...

I wonder what Scotty will go insane about now?



Well, since he raved so often and loudly about it, I suspect he'll next
be whining about being required to buy health insurance or paying the
penalty for not buying it...in a couple of years. His days of sticking
those of us with health care insurance with his medical bills for not
having it are coming to a close.

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

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.

In article ,
says...

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

Vote.

Well what other kind of options are viable for you?

In article ,
says...


Where does the money for the subsidized premiums come from?
Are you suggesting that the person making $100K and paying $15k per
year in family
health insurance premiums is not paying enough? That rate is
pretty much the norm now and people in that category are having
a tough time paying 15% of their income on health insurance.
Why should they pay that if they can just pay $1k per year as a "tax"?

It sounds like a $100k income (today) would qualify for subsidized
premiums. So where do we draw the line .... $150k ... $200K ...
$300K?

If so, then you will end up with a society whereby the upper 5% of
wage
earners are subsidizing everyone else's premiums. I don't think
that is going to fly, even if it can be justified by some.

There's something missing here and I still don't understand what it
is.

I am watching (and listening to) the MSNBC crowd talk as I type.
I keep hearing the phrase, ".... makes health care premiums
affordable
to those who could not afford it before ...." and, ".... will add
millions
of people to the insurance pool".

Huh? How did those who couldn't afford it before now be able to
afford it?
Subsidized? By whom? Not by those who previously paid but now
just go for the $1k tax. Same with those who make over $300k/yr.
Just pay the "tax" instead. It's a lot less expensive. And there
goes your
money for subsidies.

I don't get it. Either I am all screwed up in my understanding of
this plan
or the plan is all screwed up. Or both.

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.

"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)

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.