alprova said...The fact that you don't want to face up to, is that there is more than enough resources to make this thing work. This is one time when America is being forced to think about their fellow Americans, whether they want to or not.
Well, so much for freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and your claim the government has not interfered with the lives of anyone. Those that give little to nothing, like the VP, don't trust the American people to be benevolent and avoid the greed and overhead of the government although they have never failed to respond to any real need in the world. I should have invited you to go to New Orleans with my habitat for humanity friends so you could contribute and see what real caring for your fellow man is.
alprova said...Some subsidies are already being absorbed by the insurers. My Part-D plan is a perfect example. I am on one drug that retails for $635.00 a month. My co-pay is $17.00 a month. I pay a higher premium for that plan than most of them cost, but I will never pay more than that per month for that drug and I will never hit a donut hole.
Hello world...there is no guarantee your co-pay won't increase and you can bet your premium will go up. The insurer has absorbed nothing however, those with the same plan and less expense have absorbed some of your cost.
I think you hit the do-nut hole based on the combined cost of what you pay and what the insurer pays on your behalf. With other cost for drugs under that plan you can expect to reach the do-nut hole soon, If that is the only cost you may not. I am sure, should you hit the hole, you would post a correction here.
alprova said....Everyone will eventually be paying more for their personal costs, if they didn't pay previously. Subsidies will eventually be absorbed by the insurers.
That may be the most ridiculous statement you have made regarding healthcare. Insurers won't and shouldn't be expected to absorb anything they can't recover from someone.
alprova said...You're one of those people who feel that no one should have any benefits, aren't you?
No I am not. An employer should provide anything they can legally provide for employees but not other than the employee. Those cost for benefits for anyone other than the employee are a business cost with no taxes due to the business as though they were also employees. At the very least any non-employee cost of benefits should not be a business deduction and reported as ordinary taxable income to the employee.
alprova said...You're the only person I have ever encountered who worries day and night about someone getting something you cannot have, because you CHOOSE to remain single.
I never worry about it and have no problem with someone having something I don't but I resent them having it at my expense.
My neighbors have a big new Mercedes and I don't. I don't mind them having one and I was not ask to help pay for it. You are the greedy one that worries about someone having more than you without sharing it until everyone is equally impoverished and dependent.
"Because many people recognize the current programs are not all sustainable in the future."
If Peter had not been robbed to pay Paul, both Social Security and Medicare would have remained solvent for decades to come
alprova...all funds are accounted for. It is an accounting process and all revenue to social security is accounted for and is in the general fund, thanks to LBJ. Currently there is a surplus but as the differential between the number drawing and the number contributing narrows the fiscal health of the program will be threatened. That is estimated to be several years in the future.
No worries, it is healthy beyond your life time so your dead ass won't be affected.
It is not mathematically possible to insure millions more and subsidize some earning up to $85,000 yearly and not increase the cost for essentially everyone and more for those most successful.
It is not possible to add millions to the Medicare roles without affecting the fiscal health of Medicare/Medicaid and those that participate.
Liberals deny the reality of the math while arm in arm saying we are all in this together now give me some of yours without asking me to work for it, we are all equal you know. Their attitude is you take the risk, make good decisions and do the work but I want to participate in the rewards.
Maximus..this has nothing to do with gay marriage or domestic partners. The school board voted to reduce the expense of the department of education paying for a teachers spouse regardless of sexual orientation.
alprova as could be expected reacted with the typical political fear tactic stating there would be a mass exodus of good teachers and the crumbling of the Hamilton county department of education implying the children and community would experience irreparable harm. His solution must be to increase the property tax for those in Hamilton county sufficient to fund healthcare for the teachers
alprova said..Dropping benefits for spouses is a sure-fired way to insure that the best teachers and other staff are going to seek life elsewhere.
I'll bet Fairmon has been celebrating about all this...
No celebration but it is the right thing to do and your predicted attrition of teachers will not occur with teachers compensation still being a good package including pensions disability etc. There is no reason why tax payers or any employer for that matter should provide healthcare for anyone other than the employee. Pay all employees more and those with the need to insure others pay for it.
Tax payer funded institutions should model those in the private sector that use defined benefits to have a predictable cost of benefits. Provide a set dollar amount and a menu of benefits that each employee can select a la carte. Employees pay out of pocket if all selections exceed the dollar amount provided for benefits. This is fair to all employees without showing favor to those choosing to have dependents. Do you have any idea what the Hamilton county government and department of education future unfunded liabilities are? The school board treated cancer with an aspirin.
alprova said....I understand people with money voting for Republicans, but what I don't understand are people who receive their income from Social Security, who are on Medicare, who hear most Republican politicians state that if it were up to them, they would do away with all "entitlements," voting for the SOB's.
Because you misrepresent the facts. No one has proposed affecting those already receiving social security or Medicare. Because many people recognize the current programs are not all sustainable in the future. Because the average life expectancy has increased by a substantial amount since the Ponzi scheme was founded. Because over the next approximately 20 years there will only be three in the donating category for each in the takers group. Why do you not include the Medicare changes included in the AHCA? Who voted for the SOB's that did that?