Bipartisan Health Care Effort

[stinkcat_14]

I am not actually shocked by your report on that.

However, the “system” of choice that I prefer is the Catastrophic High Risk Plan, with cash pay for the small stuff. But, however, it was forbidden where I lived.

We have discussed this a bunch of times in the past. There ARE lower cost plans [much lower cost] available, but the lawyers in the various state legislatures would not generally allow them.

So you agree that Medicare should be immediately eliminated?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I am not actually shocked by your report on that.

However, the “system” of choice that I prefer is the Catastrophic High Risk Plan, with cash pay for the small stuff. But, however, it was forbidden where I lived.

Hospitals are apparently not permitted to sell medical insurance.

And I keep saying that poor people should submit a 1040MED form … the hospital or provider fills it out and mails it to the IRS, which will run the data through a computer program and mail back a check. We have a poverty form now which the IRS processes, so indigent people can use a similar form for chronic or major major medical costs.

We have discussed this a bunch of times in the past. There ARE lower cost plans [much lower cost] available, but the lawyers in the various state legislatures would not generally allow them.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

So you agree that Medicare should be immediately eliminated?

No, because we disagree on whether the lifetime of Medicare taxes should be considered an an annuity series of payments … so that each of us have paid in for Medicare … OR if as you suggest, Medicare taxes is just money down the drain … into the general fund with no “entitlement” aspect for a life time of tax payments.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Hospitals are apparently not permitted to sell medical insurance.

And I keep saying that poor people should submit a 1040MED form … the hospital or provider fills it out and mails it to the IRS, which will run the data through a computer program and mail back a check. We have a poverty form now which the IRS processes, so indigent people can use a similar form for chronic or major major medical costs.

Two things: Most medicare recipients are not poor, so there is no reason for the government to provide health insurance for people who have the means to pay their own way (i.e. the principle of subsidiarity).

Second, can you link to the 1040MED form.

 

[stinkcat_14]

No, because we disagree on whether the lifetime of Medicare taxes should be considered an an annuity series of payments … so that each of us have paid in for Medicare … OR if as you suggest, Medicare taxes is just money down the drain … into the general fund with no “entitlement” aspect for a life time of tax payments.

Medicare taxes do not cover parts B and D, should those be eliminated?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Getting rid of occupational licensing and increased immigration would help.

Getting rid of the tort system would help.

[The House of Representatives passed that a few weeks ago.]

 

[stinkcat_14]

Getting rid of the tort system would help.

[The House of Representatives passed that a few weeks ago.]

So would getting rid of Medicare parts B and D which are not covered by the medicare payroll tax and are pure redistribution programs.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

We have already discussed this stuff exhaustively.

Even exceeded 1000 posts in at least one case.

I just now did a search on CAF for HSA and catastrophic with my name as the poster.

Tons and tons of stuff.

Useful for those who have not discussed it before.

 

[stinkcat_14]

We have already discussed this stuff exhaustively.

Even exceeded 1000 posts in at least one case.

I just now did a search on CAF for HSA and catastrophic with my name as the poster.

Tons and tons of stuff.

Useful for those who have not discussed it before.

Actually, I have probably asked you a dozen times whether you think parts B and D, which are not covered by the payroll tax, should be eliminated. You have yet to answer the question, you have always ignored it.

Here is what we agree on:

1. There is a medicare payroll tax.
2. That payroll tax covers only Medicare part A.

None of the payroll tax covers parts B and D. Given our deficits, what is the justification for parts B and D?

 

[gnjsdad]

The interesting thing about this debate is that the republicans don’t have a consistent position. There is no real justification for the current system of “Medicare for some” and then be against medicare for all. What people fail to realize is that currently medicare is a giant redistribution scheme, that is its dirty little secret. It is redistribution of the worst kind, from the have nots to the haves.

Yes, all of those Medicare beneficiaries in their 70s and 80s should just stop taking from the productive segments of society, get out of their hammocks, and GET TO WORK!!

The more I think of this whole debate, the more I realize that the GOP’s biggest problem is a lack of wordsmiths. I mean, they have Frank Luntz. That ought to be enough. But apparently, it isn’t. Social Darwinism, as morally repugnant as it is, nevertheless has a significant following in the GOP. Yet they refuse to own it and resent being called mean when they come up with schemes that throw millions of poor and elderly off of access to affordable healthcare. What they need is someone who can make “I got mine. Bleep you. I ain’t payin’ for you” sound palatable.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Yes, all of those Medicare beneficiaries in their 70s and 80s should just stop taking from the productive segments of society, get out of their hammocks, and GET TO WORK!!

Those that can work, should work. The principle of subsidiarity requires no less. People are healthier than at any other point in history and thus more able to work. Working people should not have to sacrifice for those who have the means to pay their own way.

The more I think of this whole debate, the more I realize that the GOP’s biggest problem is a lack of wordsmiths. I mean, they have Frank Luntz. That ought to be enough. But apparently, it isn’t. Social Darwinism, as morally repugnant as it is, nevertheless has a significant following in the GOP. Yet they refuse to own it and resent being called mean when they come up with schemes that throw millions of poor and elderly off of access to affordable healthcare. What they need is someone who can make “I got mine. Bleep you. I ain’t payin’ for you” sound palatable.

If someone has a net worth of $100k plus, why should working people be subsidizing their healthcare?

 

[ProVobis]

The Democrats are more than willing to ruin healthcare for Americans in order to try and damage President Trump.

It’s selfish and petty.

I suggest some of those repealists and birtherists look into a mirror.

 

[ucfengr]

Yes, all of those Medicare beneficiaries in their 70s and 80s should just stop taking from the productive segments of society, get out of their hammocks, and GET TO WORK!!

The more I think of this whole debate, the more I realize that the GOP’s biggest problem is a lack of wordsmiths. I mean, they have Frank Luntz. That ought to be enough. But apparently, it isn’t. Social Darwinism, as morally repugnant as it is, nevertheless has a significant following in the GOP. Yet they refuse to own it and resent being called mean when they come up with schemes that throw millions of poor and elderly off of access to affordable healthcare. What they need is someone who can make “I got mine. Bleep you. I ain’t payin’ for you” sound palatable.

It’s strange that the culture has become so debased that the mere notion that people who are capable should provide for themselves has become offensive.

 

[ProVobis]

I am not actually shocked by your report on that.

However, the “system” of choice that I prefer is the Catastrophic High Risk Plan, with cash pay for the small stuff. But, however, it was forbidden where I lived.

We have discussed this a bunch of times in the past. There ARE lower cost plans [much lower cost] available, but the lawyers in the various state legislatures would not generally allow them.

Aren’t those the plans which involve high deductibles and copays, the very things the repealists are complaining about?

 

[OraLabora]

Those that can work, should work. The principle of subsidiarity requires no less. People are healthier than at any other point in history and thus more able to work. Working people should not have to sacrifice for those who have the means to pay their own way.

If someone has a net worth of $100k plus, why should working people be subsidizing their healthcare?

$100k is not a lot of money and is an amount that can be wiped out by a single heart attack or cancer operation. There is insurance, but insurance itself is no less than the healthy subsidizing the sick. Moreover in your laissez-faire notion of health care, those getting the short end of the genetic stick may be uninsurable.

Are you suggesting that someone unfortunate enough to get cancer or heart disease should see their modest retirement savings wiped out to pay for their care?

I suggest that such an attitude is hardly in keeping with Catholic social teaching.

 

[ucfengr]

Aren’t those the plans which involve high deductibles and copays, the very things the repealists are complaining about?

They have low premiums. With ACA we have the worst of all words, sky high premiums and sky high deductibles. The notion behind catastrophic care policies is you pay for the routine care yourself and use insurance for the major stuff, like with every other kind of insurance. You don’t use homeowner’s insurance to pay for a clogged toilet, you use it if your toilet explodes and floods your house.

 

[ProVobis]

Those that can work, should work. The principle of subsidiarity requires no less. People are healthier than at any other point in history and thus more able to work. Working people should not have to sacrifice for those who have the means to pay their own way.

If someone has a net worth of $100k plus, why should working people be subsidizing their healthcare?

I think Medicaid kicks in for nursing homes if your net worth is less than $100k, which it may soon become given the costs of nursing homes are $5000 per month.

 

[stinkcat_14]

$100k is not a lot of money and is an amount that can be wiped out by a single heart attack or cancer operation. There is insurance, but insurance itself is no less than the healthy subsidizing the sick. Moreover in your laissez-faire notion of health care, those getting the short end of the genetic stick may be uninsurable.

Are you suggesting that someone unfortunate enough to get cancer or heart disease should see their modest retirement savings wiped out to pay for their care?

I suggest that such an attitude is hardly in keeping with Catholic social teaching.

Before the ACA, if one were to accept the first $20k of medical expenses per year, one could get a catastrophic policy for around $200 a month. So someone with $100k in assets would need at least five years of bad health events to go broke, something that would be rather rare.

 

[ProVobis]

They have low premiums. With ACA we have the worst of all words, sky high premiums and sky high deductibles. The notion behind catastrophic care policies is you pay for the routine care yourself and use insurance for the major stuff, like with every other kind of insurance. You don’t use homeowner’s insurance to pay for a clogged toilet, you use it if your toilet explodes and floods your house.

The CBO scores came back with premiums 2 to 3 times higher for those 50 to 64 if ACA is repealed. Same deductibles.

 

[OraLabora]

Before the ACA, if one were to accept the first $20k of medical expenses per year, one could get a catastrophic policy for around $200 a month. So someone with $100k in assets would need at least five years of bad health events to go broke, something that would be rather rare.

So you think a person with $100k in assets can afford a new car every year and pay cash?

What planet are yo living on?