|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Oct 31, 2010 17:14:55 GMT -8
You know that ObamaCare is terminally flawed when an arch-conservative such as Michael Medved says that an out-and-out single-payer government controlled health care system would be better than the rats nest of rules and regulations foisted upon the American people by the President and the Democratic controlled Congress Here are some of the reasons to be in favor of an complete repeal. . . www.weeklystandard.com/articles/repeal-now-more-ever_513328.htmlAzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Nov 1, 2010 7:55:36 GMT -8
You know that ObamaCare is terminally flawed when an arch-conservative such as Michael Medved says that an out-and-out single-payer government controlled health care system would be better than the rats nest of rules and regulations foisted upon the American people by the President and the Democratic controlled Congress. I agree. A single payer system would be a much better way to go.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 1, 2010 11:20:02 GMT -8
You know that ObamaCare is terminally flawed when an arch-conservative such as Michael Medved says that an out-and-out single-payer government controlled health care system would be better than the rats nest of rules and regulations foisted upon the American people by the President and the Democratic controlled Congress. I agree. A single payer system would be a much better way to go. I agree, better than ObamaKare, but complete repeal and replacement would be better yet! |
|
|
|
Post by 01aztecgrad on Nov 4, 2010 15:59:47 GMT -8
I agree. A single payer system would be a much better way to go. I agree, better than ObamaKare, but complete repeal and replacement would be better yet! What should it be replaced with? I personally would have liked to see the elimination of employer sponsored health care, and have each citizen given a tax credit towards buying the coverage they want. I have no idea whether that would be more expensive, but it would provide a more competitive market. The worst thing possible, but what I think is likely to happen, is to repeal the mandate to buy insurance, but keep the mandate for insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions. It would be the perfect example of bipartisanship. Both parties get something they want, and the result is something that's unsustainable. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Nov 5, 2010 7:25:25 GMT -8
I agree, better than ObamaKare, but complete repeal and replacement would be better yet! What should it be replaced with? I personally would have liked to see the elimination of employer sponsored health care, and have each citizen given a tax credit towards buying the coverage they want. I have no idea whether that would be more expensive, but it would provide a more competitive market. The worst thing possible, but what I think is likely to happen, is to repeal the mandate to buy insurance, but keep the mandate for insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions. It would be the perfect example of bipartisanship. Both parties get something they want, and the result is something that's unsustainable. I've been very consistent in my views on this subject. We should extend the concept of Medicare to every citizen and legal resident of the United States. Medicare in it's original form is a classic 80 - 20 plan. If you want complete coverage then you can purchase additional insurance to cover the 20%. This puts ALL employers on the same footing. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 5, 2010 10:52:05 GMT -8
What should it be replaced with? I personally would have liked to see the elimination of employer sponsored health care, and have each citizen given a tax credit towards buying the coverage they want. I have no idea whether that would be more expensive, but it would provide a more competitive market. The worst thing possible, but what I think is likely to happen, is to repeal the mandate to buy insurance, but keep the mandate for insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions. It would be the perfect example of bipartisanship. Both parties get something they want, and the result is something that's unsustainable. I've been very consistent in my views on this subject. We should extend the concept of Medicare to every citizen and legal resident of the United States. Medicare in it's original form is a classic 80 - 20 plan. If you want complete coverage then you can purchase additional insurance to cover the 20%. This puts ALL employers on the same footing. Worth considering and costing out. You would need some provisions to keep illegals off it and maybe even raise the age for both Medicare and Social Security, but it is an idea worth exploring. ObamaKare is being revealed as just too costly and with no protections for people against the government. It robs Medicare and forces more unfunded mandates down to the States. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Nov 5, 2010 13:48:24 GMT -8
I've been very consistent in my views on this subject. We should extend the concept of Medicare to every citizen and legal resident of the United States. Medicare in it's original form is a classic 80 - 20 plan. If you want complete coverage then you can purchase additional insurance to cover the 20%. This puts ALL employers on the same footing. Worth considering and costing out. You would need some provisions to keep illegals off it and maybe even raise the age for both Medicare and Social Security, but it is an idea worth exploring. ObamaKare is being revealed as just too costly and with no protections for people against the government. It robs Medicare and forces more unfunded mandates down to the States. Since everyone would be covered then Medicare would go away. Funding should follow the same model as social security. Both employer and employee contribute. Other savings would come from the fact that there would be considerably less overhead and waste. Would have to aggressively go after fraud and punish severely. Reimbursement to doctors must go up to a reasonable level also. It is not fair to de-incentivize physicians with low rates. |
|
|
|
Post by 01aztecgrad on Nov 5, 2010 14:27:06 GMT -8
Since everyone would be covered then Medicare would go away. Funding should follow the same model as social security. Both employer and employee contribute. Other savings would come from the fact that there would be considerably less overhead and waste. Would have to aggressively go after fraud and punish severely. Reimbursement to doctors must go up to a reasonable level also. It is not fair to de-incentivize physicians with low rates. I don't think that funding model would work if expanded to everybody. As is, Medicare is going broke with 5-6 workers for every beneficiary and total taxes of 2.9% on all wages. Expanding the program to everyone would require taxes of easily over 10% on wages. Continuing to fund it through higher payroll taxes would lead to a married couple with no children and a 200,000/year income paying 20k+ a year for insurance, while a family of 4 making 100k pays half as much for more than twice the coverage. At that point it's not insurance, since it has nothing to do with actuarial risk, it is then a pure welfare program. I don't have a problem helping people in need, but most programs are no longer limited to the needy. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 11, 2010 1:05:46 GMT -8
It is not going away. It should really be called the "Health Insurance Company Full Recovery Act". What the bill has really done is give the insurance companies a whole lot of new costumers. Young, healthy ones. If you know anything about insurance pools you know that is great for insurance companys. They get premiums from people with fewer claims than most. The insurance companys will fight to keep coverage for all required by law. Anything in the bill that protects their custumers, that would be us citizens, they will be happy to see retracted.
We should be looking into health insurance companys for investment opportunitys.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 11, 2010 7:52:40 GMT -8
It is not going away. It should really be called the "Health Insurance Company Full Recovery Act". What the bill has really done is give the insurance companies a whole lot of new costumers. Young, healthy ones. If you know anything about insurance pools you know that is great for insurance companys. They get premiums from people with fewer claims than most. The insurance companys will fight to keep coverage for all required by law. Anything in the bill that protects their custumers, that would be us citizens, they will be happy to see retracted. We should be looking into health insurance companys for investment opportunitys. I know for certain that we need something in place to provide medical care for the poor 30% of the population that can not afford it now. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 11, 2010 13:39:58 GMT -8
I agree, better than ObamaKare, but complete repeal and replacement would be better yet! What should it be replaced with? I personally would have liked to see the elimination of employer sponsored health care, and have each citizen given a tax credit towards buying the coverage they want. I have no idea whether that would be more expensive, but it would provide a more competitive market. The worst thing possible, but what I think is likely to happen, is to repeal the mandate to buy insurance, but keep the mandate for insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions. It would be the perfect example of bipartisanship. Both parties get something they want, and the result is something that's unsustainable. It should be replaced with a series of bills that are well thought out and put in place and implemented incrementally so that the cost and effect can be measured. Start with tort reform or the aggressive pursuit of fraud. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Nov 11, 2010 15:52:37 GMT -8
Tort reform has not slowed the rise in the cost of medical insurance. Both Texas and California have limited malpractice awards and I haven't seen any difference. "Tort Reform" is nothing more than a red herring for the right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Nov 18, 2010 18:02:12 GMT -8
I've been very consistent in my views on this subject. We should extend the concept of Medicare to every citizen and legal resident of the United States. Medicare in it's original form is a classic 80 - 20 plan. If you want complete coverage then you can purchase additional insurance to cover the 20%. This puts ALL employers on the same footing. Worth considering and costing out. You would need some provisions to keep illegals off it and maybe even raise the age for both Medicare and Social Security, but it is an idea worth exploring. ObamaKare is being revealed as just too costly and with no protections for people against the government. It robs Medicare and forces more unfunded mandates down to the States. You joined up at age 18. You retired at age 38 and since then you enjoyed free medical for you and all your dependents. And ever since then you've bitched about everyone other than you who would get what you get, simply because you spend a couple of years as a supply officer. Put it where the sun don't shine Pooh. You are everything that's wrong with this country's love of the military. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Nov 18, 2010 18:04:57 GMT -8
What should it be replaced with? I personally would have liked to see the elimination of employer sponsored health care, and have each citizen given a tax credit towards buying the coverage they want. I have no idea whether that would be more expensive, but it would provide a more competitive market. The worst thing possible, but what I think is likely to happen, is to repeal the mandate to buy insurance, but keep the mandate for insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions. It would be the perfect example of bipartisanship. Both parties get something they want, and the result is something that's unsustainable. It should be replaced with a series of bills that are well thought out and put in place and implemented incrementally so that the cost and effect can be measured. Start with tort reform or the aggressive pursuit of fraud. Start with killing military hospitals as they work with giving old farts like you benefits. Of course, that will never happen because anyone who ever floated on boats are so "deserving". =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 19, 2010 11:57:32 GMT -8
Worth considering and costing out. You would need some provisions to keep illegals off it and maybe even raise the age for both Medicare and Social Security, but it is an idea worth exploring. ObamaKare is being revealed as just too costly and with no protections for people against the government. It robs Medicare and forces more unfunded mandates down to the States. You joined up at age 18. You retired at age 38 and since then you enjoyed free medical for you and all your dependents. And ever since then you've bitched about everyone other than you who would get what you get, simply because you spend a couple of years as a supply officer. Put it where the sun don't shine Pooh. You are everything that's wrong with this country's love of the military. =Bob I detect envy once again! |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 19, 2010 11:59:19 GMT -8
It should be replaced with a series of bills that are well thought out and put in place and implemented incrementally so that the cost and effect can be measured. Start with tort reform or the aggressive pursuit of fraud. Start with killing military hospitals as they work with giving old farts like you benefits. Of course, that will never happen because anyone who ever floated on boats are so "deserving". =Bob Once again you show how little you know about the function of Military Hospitals. Maybe I should say how little you know about anything. |
|
