Neocon poiticos defecting to Dem Ticket over Trump

[pgardn]

Here is the GOP ACA replacement plan:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/....pdf?tid=a_inl

IMO, single, able-bodied people without children should not be on Medicaid but the plan allows for continuation for those states who expanded Medicaid through Obamacare and stops expansion for the other states. Other than that, I'd like to see people on health sharing ministries be allowed to use the tax credit, HSAs and counted as continuous coverage (meaning everybody has access to a "tax credit" either through employer or individual). This plan will hopefully foster compe ion, posting of prices/shopping, remove burdensome regulations, reduce the financial incentive to NOT work/earn more (to get subsidies) and hopefully doctor/patient relationships (less between doc and patient). I love the HSA so people are encouraged to save for future medical expenses and those who are relatively healthy will be able to a get catastrophic insurance and bank the rest in HSA for the future instead of burning it up in premiums for ACA's mandated essential benefits. It retains the pre-existing and kids under 26 parts.

Here's Forbes' review of the plan:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypip.../#6580a10b5341

The Republicans finally actually made a plan?

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/28/th...lan-shows-that

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a3c_story.html

oh good, Obamacare without numbers...

[rmt]

The Republicans finally actually made a plan?

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/28/th...lan-shows-that

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a3c_story.html

oh good, Obamacare without numbers...

True, there are no specific numbers, but you can use the ones suggested in the Forbes' article. However, it is not Obamacare. The vast majority of millenniums are healthy - they would not be penalized and forced to subsidize older, sicker people. If they choose, they can sock away the difference from their catastrophic plan into an HSA for the future. The tax credits would be based on age, not income thereby discouraging not working or reducing hours to fall under the cutoff subsidy level. Everyone would get some form of tax credit - not some get huge subsidies and others get stiffed - that's helps against the current feeling of the workers paying for those who are free loading. The continuous coverage helps prevent the current gaming of the system where people wait until they get sick before signing up or signing up only for January, get all your healthcare taken care of, and then cancel policy.

It gets the government and the myriad of regulations out of the way - no more website, no more advertisement, no more employees to help you signup every year and man help lines - govt total involvement would be one tax credit line on tax return. There won't be ACA's mandated essential benefits which most people don't need and drives up costs. There will be comparison shopping and REAL incentive to get healthier and save the money in your HSA. You would know what things cost and not be left to the mercy of some insurance company and whatever they choose to inflate/cover/reimburse.

And for those of you who would delight in stiffing the insurance companies, this would severely limit their power and reduce them to outdoing each other. I think there'll be mostly catastrophic policies for the young and healthy of all ages - that would greatly reduce costs. I do wish they would extend the HSA to allow sharing funds outside of the immediate family unit (say to uncles, cousins, etc) - that would bring in extended family, relatives, friends to help in case of serious health problem but baby steps... Imagine real compe ion in blood tests (see the above Directlabs), mammograms, x-rays, catastrophic plans, etc like lasik or cell phone plans. It puts the control where it should be - in the consumer's hands - not in the government or insurance company's hands - cut out the middle man and layers of administration but with compe ion resulting in high quality healthcare and lower costs.

Please, I urge you all to look beyond partisan differences and evaluate this plan on its merits, philosophy and possible control of costs - we can't continue in the direction we're going where healthcare is concerned.

[rmt]

I envision more of these popping up:

Free market-loving, price-displaying, state-of-the-art, AAAHC accredited, doctor owned, multispecialty surgical facility in central OK.

http://surgerycenterok.com

How do I embed a video?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's well do ented that what has been promised/projected for Obamacare has not happened - Obama ($2500, keep your doctor/plan, cut costs), CBO (enrollment projections - 13 million instead of 21 million in 2016), Gruber (see the many videos). Are these the "experts" we should believe in? I guess it all depends on whether you believe that the money they plan on collecting is gonna cover universal health care. Color me doubtful - there's not a single government program that's not fraught with waste, over-spending, inefficiency - this is not counting when they divert funds from one area to whatever area they feel fit or just putting it on the tab for future generations.

It was supposed to reduce the rate of increase and it did. The enrollment figures were not reduced because state legislators did not adopt the medicaid expansion. I don't get my news from youtubes thank you very much.

I'll color you more than doubtful. WE have to divert funds because of a generation that voted themselves a free ride and reduced taxes on top of it for the past 40 years. Should we just let you all die horribly Logan's Run style? The solution is not more of the same.

[CosmicCowboy]

It was supposed to reduce the rate of increase and it did.

That statement is absolutely impossible to prove. You sound just like Boutons regurgitating talking points.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That statement is absolutely impossible to prove. You sound just like Boutons regurgitating talking points.

The rate of increase is measurable; it's a simple derivation. Health care costs which had been increasing at a steady pace did not increase at that same rate. That is provable. For example:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news.../12/388800.htm

You can whinge on cause and distribution of cost but it is what it is. Regardless she is arguing the opposite; are you going to concede she is wrong in that?

[rmt]

It was supposed to reduce the rate of increase and it did. The enrollment figures were not reduced because state legislators did not adopt the medicaid expansion. I don't get my news from youtubes thank you very much.

I'll color you more than doubtful. WE have to divert funds because of a generation that voted themselves a free ride and reduced taxes on top of it for the past 40 years. Should we just let you all die horribly Logan's Run style? The solution is not more of the same.

Those enrollment projections are for the marketplace - not Medicaid which has far exceeded projections (this is gonna be a problem for the states which chose to expand Medicaid through ACA). Please don't knock the messenger - I'm all for reducing the debt and all this spending. I don't see Bernie or Hillary's policies reducing but expanding the debt.

My solution is to stop all this influx of immigrants into the country who are further staining our educational, social, welfare systems - integrate all those who are here (probably takes a couple of decades), slowly raise the age for SS to 70 and keep raising accordingly as life expectancy rises, match Medicare age to SS age (this is in the GOP's plan), offer an amnesty period at low tax rate for corporations to bring back the trillions parked abroad with the understanding that it'll be spent on creating jobs, lower the tax rate for corporations so that it's lower than Canada/Ireland/wherever the companies are running to, no more H1-B visas - hire or retrain American workers, try to renegotiate NAFTA, stop TPP (see Trump's speech today), send education back to the states (which hopefully will try school choice so that kids aren't stuck in bad schools), loosen the rules and regulations on businesses (there are now more small business closing than starting), repeal and replace ACA with the GOP plan and keep refining it.

What are your solutions?

[SnakeBoy]

It was supposed to reduce the rate of increase and it did.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Those enrollment projections are for the marketplace - not Medicaid which has far exceeded projections (this is gonna be a problem for the states which chose to expand Medicaid through ACA). Please don't knock the messenger - I'm all for reducing the debt and all this spending. I don't see Bernie or Hillary's policies reducing but expanding the debt.

My solution is to stop all this influx of immigrants into the country who are further staining our educational, social, welfare systems - integrate all those who are here (probably takes a couple of decades), slowly raise the age for SS to 70 and keep raising accordingly as life expectancy rises, match Medicare age to SS age (this is in the GOP's plan), offer an amnesty period at low tax rate for corporations to bring back the trillions parked abroad with the understanding that it'll be spent on creating jobs, lower the tax rate for corporations so that it's lower than Canada/Ireland/wherever the companies are running to, no more H1-B visas - hire or retrain American workers, try to renegotiate NAFTA, stop TPP (see Trump's speech today), send education back to the states (which hopefully will try school choice so that kids aren't stuck in bad schools), loosen the rules and regulations on businesses (there are now more small business closing than starting), repeal and replace ACA with the GOP plan and keep refining it.

What are your solutions?

Have the immigrants pay taxes and expand medicare so not only you get it. Use a payroll tax and speculation tax. Increase the corporate income tax and tax on executive bonuses to encourage reinvestment and payroll expenditure. Tariff the out of companies that leave and tax their US holding anyway.

Cons utional amendment stating that corporate en ies are not "persons or people." Cons utional amendment eliminating the single member house district and making the federal funding of parties egalitarian.

[CosmicCowboy]

The rate of increase is measurable; it's a simple derivation. Health care costs which had been increasing at a steady pace did not increase at that same rate. That is provable. For example:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news.../12/388800.htm

You can whinge on cause and distribution of cost but it is what it is. Regardless she is arguing the opposite; are you going to concede she is wrong in that?

Boutons Junior...

Stating as fact a future that didn't happen.

[CosmicCowboy]

The rate of increase is measurable; it's a simple derivation. Health care costs which had been increasing at a steady pace did not increase at that same rate. That is provable. For example:

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news.../12/388800.htm

You can whinge on cause and distribution of cost but it is what it is. Regardless she is arguing the opposite; are you going to concede she is wrong in that?

That is total bull . you can't predict a future that didn't happen.

Read your own article. The same factors that kept cost down with Ocare would have been in play without Ocare.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When the rate of increase is steady and then changes it what it is. You can spam post and smilie to your heart's content.

[CosmicCowboy]

When the rate of increase is steady and then changes it what it is. You can spam post and smilie to your heart's content.

Read your own article baby boo.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Read your own article baby boo.

Pedobear, I did. You cannot articulate for .

[pgardn]

I envision more of these popping up:

Free market-loving, price-displaying, state-of-the-art, AAAHC accredited, doctor owned, multispecialty surgical facility in central OK.

http://surgerycenterok.com

How do I embed a video?

Player 1: I'm going to have heart surgery preformed by Doctor Dead because his prices are cheaper.
Player 2: I heard Doctor Live is more expensive but better quality.
Player 1: I'm going with Dead.
Player 2: Player 1, are you Live?

silence...

And the marketplace has again reigned supreme. The inferior product or service is gonna literally lose customers.

So, I was pricing replacement kidneys the other day and...

With Denistry I can see the market place getting rich people with great smiles, no biggie I guess. Poor people got bad teeth. With LASIX I can see (pun) the marketplace work as it has become less burdensome via technology. But with some procedures... Oh well, the rich guys get the good life doctors anyway. Is there anything in health care plans that say kids must be taken care of as a priority, starting with prevention regimens. Vaccines, check... What else?

The reason health care is very difficult, is because it's very difficult. Which is why Republicans avoided the problem all together on the federal level. Some would say because good health care was less of a problem for Republicans. Yes indeed, some would say this.

[TeyshaBlue]

It was supposed to reduce the rate of increase and it did. The enrollment figures were not reduced because state legislators did not adopt the medicaid expansion. I don't get my news from youtubes thank you very much.

I'll color you more than doubtful. WE have to divert funds because of a generation that voted themselves a free ride and reduced taxes on top of it for the past 40 years. Should we just let you all die horribly Logan's Run style? The solution is not more of the same.

Im in for Logans Run.

The reduction, such as it is, is the result of a large number of factors...most of which are not a net positive....higher deductible plans, which have seen a significant increase, virtually guarantees less usage and more direct cost shifted to consumers. Sure, you see a paper decrease on rates but not on cost.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Im in for Logans Run.

The reduction, such as it is, is the result of a large number of factors...most of which are not a net positive....higher deductible plans, which have seen a significant increase, virtually guarantees less usage and more direct cost shifted to consumers. Sure, you see a paper decrease on rates but not on cost.

Hey, I think prima facie that having for profit companies run a vertical demand market is a bad idea.

[TeyshaBlue]

Hey, we agree.

[rmt]

Have the immigrants pay taxes and expand medicare so not only you get it. Use a payroll tax and speculation tax. Increase the corporate income tax and tax on executive bonuses to encourage reinvestment and payroll expenditure. Tariff the out of companies that leave and tax their US holding anyway.

Cons utional amendment stating that corporate en ies are not "persons or people." Cons utional amendment eliminating the single member house district and making the federal funding of parties egalitarian.

How do you define speculation? Is that like my 3x leveraged ETF funds? I don't think I should pay extra on that - I'm taking extra risk with my money - shouldn't I get extra return for that extra risk?

I don't agree with the increase in corporate tax - I'd want to incentivize staying and encourage companies from other countries to come here. I don't like ramming things down people/corporations' throats. The important thing is to create more jobs - not punish people/corps.

I'm fine with integrating those immigrants already here - but no more new ones for now. HEAVY fines for those who hire illegals - use e-verify.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How do you define speculation? Is that like my 3x leveraged ETF funds? I don't think I should pay extra on that - I'm taking extra risk with my money - shouldn't I get extra return for that extra risk?

I don't agree with the increase in corporate tax - I'd want to incentivize staying and encourage companies from other countries to come here. I don't like ramming things down people/corporations' throats. The important thing is to create more jobs - not punish people/corps.

I'm fine with integrating those immigrants already here - but no more new ones for now. HEAVY fines for those who hire illegals - use e-verify.

Stocks, derivatives, all of it.

Taxing corporations causes them to reinvest. It's a well understood phenomenon as they simply reinvest to avoid taxes. Currently the extra profits are going to executive bonuses and similar tripe.

[rmt]

Stocks, derivatives, all of it.

Taxing corporations causes them to reinvest. It's a well understood phenomenon as they simply reinvest to avoid taxes. Currently the extra profits are going to executive bonuses and similar tripe.

We already have capital gains tax on stocks - ordinary income rate for less than a year and lower rate for long-term. Do you mean more tax than that? On individual investors? As far as executives, they can make a law to count whatever they get as ordinary income.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We already have capital gains tax on stocks - ordinary income rate for less than a year and lower rate for long-term. Do you mean more tax than that? On individual investors? As far as executives, they can make a law to count whatever they get as ordinary income.

Like this

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466465...s-what-is-that

[rmt]

Like this

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466465...s-what-is-that

Nope, don't agree with that. As the article says, the big firms will find a way around it that us small investors can't (and the middle class is the one who will get hurt paying this). IMO, no new taxes - the government needs to live well within its means and at the same time work down the debt. It collects enough tax - cut spending and reduce waste.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Nope, don't agree with that. As the article says, the big firms will find a way around it that us small investors can't (and the middle class is the one who will get hurt paying this). IMO, no new taxes - the government needs to live well within its means and at the same time work down the debt. It collects enough tax - cut spending and reduce waste.

There is someone that says that in the article that said they will figure a way around it. It's wishcasting but there are ways around that as well like setting up an oversight board or just using the one already in place. It's also the sole negative in the article which of course you latched onto like a good little sophist.

It's a small surcharge per trade and as the article states it's not the little guy that is trading a single stock 1000 times. The broker fees would eat you alive. They already give the average consumer such an impediment that they themselves dodge.

[rmt]

Amazing how .5% is such a small tax on stocks when it's the same .5% that retirees get on their savings accounts :-(