Average where? With what deductible/coinsurance?
We're two adults and the absolute cheapest we can get is $879.60/mo, which only covers 70%/50% and $2,500 deductible for in-network... That's basically upwards of $12K...
Anything in the HMO department is basically $2K+ per month...
Here's the list
If people think it's unsustainable, then they should get rid of it now. Instead the Ryan plan leaves people in their 20s-40s paying for the Baby Boomers' benefits while getting ed out of their own. Ryan just bribed his base at the expense of young people who don't vote Republican. Just more of the standard Republican mantra of sacrifice and market discipline for you, nanny state for me.
Except they weren't energized by Palin. GOP turnout was down in '08. Even though the polling shows very poor ennthusiasm for Obama this year the GOP primaries turnout was pretty bad too. So I guess we'll see what happens in the general. I think independents will split fairly evenly and it will come down to turnout.
One of the interesting things on Dems initial attack on the Ryan pick is that it has them talking about the very fiscal issues they have been trying to avoid talking about. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. If their attacks backfire on them the Ryan pick will be the Romney Rope A Dope.
Its undenaible the base was energized by the Palin selection. That turnout was down doesn't mean that wasn't the case. Look at the poll numbers that followed the selection. Palin polled horribly with everyone else, but with the base she was great. Turnout would likely have been even worse if not for that selection.
That's true of her selection but that enthusiam had faded by the election. Partly because she clearly wasn't ready for the national stage but more so by McCain's completely inept response to the financial meltdown.
This is why I thought he'd pick Ryan all along. Yes he's controversial on his handling of Medicare, which might alienate some seniors, but the Democratic counterpoint is what? Exactly.
By picking Ryan, the focus stays on the consistent Romney message; private-led stimulus and smaller government. The selection of Rubio might have diluted the message by bringing the Immigration question or social issues. Sure both Romney and Ryan have their positions on those issues, but neither will be the focus of the campaign.
It's a risky pick for sure, but I'm also interested to see how it plays out.
"Consistent" and "Romney" don't belong in the same sentence, tbh...
...unless it's defense spending or religious pandering, then it's all about the biggest government possible, tbh....private-led stimulus and smaller government.
Individual insurance is of course much higher than group insurance, and is paid for after tax.
"A new study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit research group that tracks employer-sponsored health insurance on a yearly basis, shows that the average annual premium for family coverage through an employer reached $15,073 in 2011, an increase of 9 percent over the previous year."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/bu...pagewanted=all
So buy catastrophic insurance. Pay your other medical needs out of pocket.
Weak, tbh.
Repugs and conservatives have already distancing Gecko from Ryan's safety net destruction.
Gecko even said he would preserve Medicare (at least for the seniors voting in November).
So now Gecko and Repugs are distancing themselves, certainly dishonestly, from the Ryan's "destroy-the-1930s/1960s-safety-net" (along with the remaining unions).
The extreme Repugs and conservative have targeted Roosevelt's and Johnson's govt safety net for 35 years, I'm sure they will, if elected with both chambers, complete the destruction, and then cut taxes dramatically for the 1% and corps, and probably reduce or cancel the federal minimum wage.
The 99% Americans have to be pretty ing stupid and/or ideological to think the Repugs will improve the lot of the 99%, which is exactly how the Repugs are lying.
Note how the Repugs are embracing Clinton, while dubya won't even be at the R convention. The Repugs are mentioning NOTHING about their last fiasco 2001 - 2008, counting on American's famous amnesia.
It's always blows my mind to hear what people are paying for insurance in other states. My wife and I have our own policy through BCBS and it's $320 a month. It was $335/month but they lowered it a year or so ago. Plus 2 months ago the sent me a $400 check rebate or something, I didn't question it.
My employer insurance runs me just a few pennies under $177/month for me and my daughter. They pay the bulk of it. It's something like a $1200 monthly policy. I could have had a cheaper policy, but choose this plan because her doctor we had before I went to work at this current job took this insurance company. I was paying this doctor out of pocket.
I have never bough health insurance by myself when I didn't have an employer option. Always paid out of pocket. Now, that I'm older, I would pay for catastrophic insurance with like a $10k deductible.
Well the employer plans always are higher than individual policies like we have. I suppose because under group plans the insurance company is covering people at a set rate regardless of their health.
I can get less expensive insurance. Like I said, this is the insurance that the doctor my daughter was already seeing would take among my employer options. She has hypothyroidism, so she has regular blood tests. Five years ago, the lab work was about $100 a visit, plus the doctor visit, I forget what he charged for the visit, but it wasn't bad. Paid the bill when checking in and they had no insurance paperwork to spend time on. The medication is cheap. Not really a problem to pay out of pocket.
Nah... truth bombs actually...
Well, when you talk insurance for seniors, you're talking individual insurance... they don't have a job for obvious reasons, not to mention that, again, they're the highest risk pool possible...
We can't afford it. That's the reality of it right now.
Meet Paul Ryan: Climate Denier, Conspiracy Theorist, Koch Acolyte
A favorite of the Koch brothers, Ryan has accused scientists of engaging in conspiracy to “intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.”
Paul Ryan Promoted Unfounded Conspiracy Theories About Climate Scientists. In a December 2009 op-ed during international climate talks, Ryan made reference to the hacked University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit emails. He accused climatologists of a “perversion of the scientific method, where data were manipulated to support a predetermined conclusion,” in order to “intentionally mislead the public on the issue of climate change.” Because of spurious claims of conspiracy like these, several governmental and academic inquiries were launched, all of which found the accusations to be without merit. [Paul Ryan, 12/11/09]
Paul Ryan Argued Snow Invalidates Global Warming Policy. In the same anti-science, anti-scientist December 2009 op-ed, Ryan argued, “Unilateral economic restraint in the name of fighting global warming has been a tough sell in our communities, where much of the state is buried under snow.” Ryan’s line is especially disingenuous because he hasn’t been trying to sell climate action, he’s been spreading disinformation. [Paul Ryan, 12/11/09]
Paul Ryan Voted To Eliminate EPA Limits On Greenhouse Pollution. Ryan voted in favor of H.R. 910, introduced in 2011 by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) to block the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas pollution. [Roll Call 249, 4/7/11]
Paul Ryan Voted To Block The USDA From Preparing For Climate Change. In 2011, Ryan voted in favor of the Scalise (R-LA) Amendment to the FY12 Agriculture Appropriations bill, to bar the U.S. Department of Agriculture from implementing its Climate Protection Plan. [Roll Call 448, 6/16/11]
Paul Ryan Voted To Eliminate White House Climate Advisers. Ryan voted in favor of Scalise (R-LA) Amendment 204 to the 2011 Continuing Resolution, to eliminate the assistant to the president for energy and climate change, the special envoy for climate change (Todd Stern), and the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation. [Roll Call 87, 2/17/11]
Paul Ryan Voted To Eliminate ARPA-E. Ryan voted in favor of Biggert (R-IL) Amendment 192 to the 2011 Continuing Resolution, to eliminate the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA-E). [Roll Call 55, 2/17/11]
Paul Ryan Voted To Eliminate Light Bulb Efficiency Standards. In 2011, Ryan voted to roll back light-bulb efficiency standards that had reinvigorated the domestic lighting industry and that significantly reduce energy waste and carbon pollution. [Roll Call 563, 7/12/11]
Paul Ryan Voted For Keystone XL. In 2011, Ryan voted to expedite the consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. [Roll Call 650, 7/26/11]
Paul Ryan Budget Kept Big Oil Subsidies And Slashed Clean Energy Investment. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposed FY 2013 budget resolution retained a decade’s worth of oil tax breaks worth $40 billion, while slashing funding for investments in clean energy research, development, deployment, and commercialization, along with other energy programs. The plan called for a $3 billion cut in energy programs in FY 2013 alone. [CAP, 3/20/12]
http://truth-out.org/news/item/10855...t-koch-acolyte
The hits keep comin
Flashback: Paul Ryan’s Big Oil Budget Halts Clean Energy Innovation
It retains $40 billion in Big Oil tax loopholes while completely eliminating investments in the clean energy technologies of the future
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...gy-innovation/
Romney Campaign Doubles Down: He ‘Would Have Signed’ The Ryan Budget
TOP ROMNEY ADVISER ED GILLESPIE: Well, as Governor Romney has made clear, if the Romney, sorry, if the Ryan budget had come to his desk as a budget, he would have signed it, of course, and one of the reasons that he chose Congressman Ryan is his willingness to put forward innovative solutions in the budget.
RNC CHAIRMAN REINCE PREIBUS: First of all, he did embrace the Ryan budget. He embraced it.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...d-ryan-budget/
derp
He's been running an economy-focused general election campaign almost from the moment Obama took office. I get your dig, but it just doesn't apply to his campaign.
Also, I'll accept that defense spending will increase in a Romney administration. But I guarantee the budget and the size of government (people and programs) will be smaller than an Obama-led government. So, my statement if a smaller government holds true.
Turns out your truth bombs were duds.
LOL small government only means gutting the safety net.
Are you saying you couldn't afford $320 per month?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote