Welcome to PatsFans.com

Here's my health care plan

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by BelichickFan, Jul 16, 2009.

  1. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,522
    Likes Received:
    174
    Ratings:
    +404 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    End employer provider health care.

    That would :

    - Increase the paychecks of those with insurance by the insurance amount. It would also either increase the paychecks or make companies more profitable (yes, that is a good thing) by the amount the company pays in.

    - Make people be able to change jobs more easily.

    - Make people more responsible for their own insurance so they'd look at the policies they're actually buying. Instead of just being happy they're getting it they would almost certainly shop around more.

    - Yes it would increase taxes because this would now be taxable income. Whatever that amount of additional taxes is, that would go into a pot to help those making less than, pick your number, say $40K.$60K (individual/family) to get insurance. It would NOT pay for the insurance but would subsidize it. The prez said there's no such thing as a free lunch, that goes for health insurance too bud.

    - The amount of increase the government subsidies can increase by is no more than inflation for the year.

    The "public option" and "single payer" is crap. Instead of threatening the viability of the current system we need to make it more competitive and there's no better way than to put the choice even more in the hands of the consumer. Make sure there are no limits to the number of insurance companies in any area and let the real flow of competition take place.

    Please note for those who like to call me selfish, this would result in a tax increase for me whereas the House "tax the rich" plan wouldn't.

    On the macro level I would also be looking into cost cutting that we've talked about including tort reform and re-doing prescription drug agreements with other countries who are getting our drugs cheap.
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2009
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,726
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +154 / 7 / -13

    You should google Steve Forbes Medical Savings Accounts, very similar account much better than the rube goldberg bureauracy being proposed by the dems.
  3. alvinnf

    alvinnf Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Messages:
    3,300
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +2 / 1 / -0

    So the primary focus, is the undoing of managed care. Creating more competition and choices. In addition how about a tax credit for those whom make over 60,000 a year. Let's get some of this dead wait off their couches, how is that for preventitive medicine.
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,522
    Likes Received:
    174
    Ratings:
    +404 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Good for Steve :)

    The point is, to generate money to subsidize (NOT PAY FOR ENTIRELY) the poor while increasing competition (having people pay entirely for their insurance will do that) and making people not feel tied to their jobs. It also frees up a big chunk of money businesses currently have to pay that could be used for either hiring, profits or salary increases as the companies see fit. The only people I would pay for entirely are the disabled.

    Unfortunately the current plan is just about the exact opposite of this.
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,780
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +171 / 4 / -4

    I think your plan would be a huge boon to the large insurance companies, which would be the only ones who would have the ability to leverage their power to force concessions from hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, etc.

    Would people be required to get health insurance?
    Would companies be allowed to discriminate for business reasons?
    Would insurance companies be required to spell out their benefits in clear language?
    Would insurance companies be required to cover those with pre-existing conditions?
    Would middle class individuals with pre-existing conditions be subsidized if there insurance costs were very high?
    Would the government deny unions the right to negotiate this benefit?
    Would the insurance companies be required to educate people about what the benefits are and what they really mean?
    Would people be allowed to choose whatever doctor they wanted or only those assigned by the insurance companies? (Government plans will allow more choice, I think.)
    Would there be a mechanism to prevent insurance companies from driving prices up and discouraging health care by creating complicated routines?

    What you're proposing is really just a variant on what we have now, which has led to us having a health care system that costs 2x as much as other nation's with highly regarded health care systems.
  6. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,522
    Likes Received:
    174
    Ratings:
    +404 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    I like our system now, a better variant works for me.

    Your questions are largely stupid, as expected. Insurance Companies' benefits are already spelled out in clear language - I can't help the stupid. I have never had a problem picking up my brochure and understanding it. All the stuff about profits is irrelevant as there would be enough competition to ensure appropriate business practices. Pre-existing conditions could be a minor issue initially for the few with them that have no current insurance. It would be largely a non issue soon once more people are insured than "pre-existing" would be for the very few.

    LOL at you, I proposed a tax increase on myself but you still hate it because private business might make money.
  7. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,671
    Likes Received:
    378
    Ratings:
    +804 / 6 / -15

    #87 Jersey

    1: End employer funded healthcare.

    2: Have 2 or 3 government plans that anyone can purchase ... discounts available per income all the way to free for the lowest tier of income to no income type people.

    That's it ... add some money to the gasoline tax and a few percentage points higher for income tax across the board ... all income levels.
  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,522
    Likes Received:
    174
    Ratings:
    +404 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Government plans muddy the water because they are not on an equal playing field with private plans. You can accomplish the same thing by subsidizing the poor to buy private insurance.
  9. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    38,671
    Likes Received:
    378
    Ratings:
    +804 / 6 / -15

    #87 Jersey


    sounds too simple for the government to put into action.
  10. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,522
    Likes Received:
    174
    Ratings:
    +404 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    This government would never do it because it takes any power away from Washington other than subsides for the poor. I'm also not sure how popular it would be as my proposal does include a tax increase by removing the health insurance benefit and turning it into taxable salary.
  11. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +308 / 3 / -13

    Not a bad plan BF. But we need to force every single American to have health insurance. Otherwise those without it will still be cared for on everyone else's dime and that will continue to drive up costs.

    Also, by increasing salaries and giving people a choice, many younger citizens may opt not to carry health insurance and pocket the raise. We can't allow that to happen.
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,726
    Likes Received:
    73
    Ratings:
    +154 / 7 / -13

  13. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +308 / 3 / -13

    In 99% of the cases, the gov't should not force people to do anything. But if I'm paying for health insurance and you're not, I'll be paying for your visit to the emergency room. You or anyone else doesn't have the right to free health care if you make enough to purchase it.

    Do you actually believe a hospital should take care of you if you have no health insurance? In Massachusetts, every citizen MUST have health care...that's the law.
  14. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,395
    Likes Received:
    125
    Ratings:
    +308 / 3 / -13

    Good point. It's almost surreal the way our federal tax system works. We have dozens of tax credits for those making less than "X"...which is typically singles making less than $75K and families making less than $150K. Often times, we'd be better off granting these people tax credits because they are the ones who would actually take that savings and SPEND it. Remember, increased spending results in increased tax revenues for everyone.

    Another MAJOR point is that demographics are never considered. Why does someone in Boston making $50K pay the same taxes as a person making the same amount living is Alabama? Hello? Can you spell cost of living?
  15. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,780
    Likes Received:
    132
    Ratings:
    +171 / 4 / -4

    Your plan is truly ludicrous. All your plan says is that individuals should buy their own insurance, not employers. It's great for employers, but that's about it. In fact, the employer doesn't even have to give you money that he's paying into insurance. Not only that, it doesn't address the health care issue, namely providing affordable health care to those who currently can't afford it and developing a system to address costs. Your plan simply costs and inconveniences workers.

    Also, I think it's ignorant to assume that poor people know as much as you do about insurance, let alone investing and taking out mortgages. The arrogance of your assumption is the same sort of arrogance that a very wealthy person might have if they assumed you knew about trust planning with regard to estate taxes. Anyone who's read insurance documents knows they are not generally easy to read.
  16. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Don't you think the red/blue divide is bad enough already? Start granting 'favorite' status to some states based on cost of living and you'll end up with 50 individual states that all hate each other. Sure its true that 50k in Alabama is worth more than here, but that's just something those of us in the higher paying areas have to eat.
  17. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,516
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0 / -0

    #70 Jersey

    Excellent, patsfan13. Your comments show you to be highly intelligent and resourceful.
  18. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,522
    Likes Received:
    174
    Ratings:
    +404 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    I know for a fact you have suggested that employer based health insurance is bad because it limits job mobility. You are the ultimate partisan, you change your mind based on the party suggesting it.

    Yes, I want to unburden employers from this. Some will pay higher salaries. Some will stay in business. Some will hire more people. And some will pocket the money.

    By having people pay for their own insurance, with subsides for the poor, they can, and will, be more picky about what insurance they get. It would make the market more competitive because people wouldn't just take what their employers offer they would spend their own money and buy what they really want/need. It would also unburden employers and allow them to compete better internationally.

    My plan isn't ludicrous - you are ludicrous for railing one day on employer based health care then railing on non employer based health care.
  19. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,522
    Likes Received:
    174
    Ratings:
    +404 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Which is one of many reasons that federal taxes should be way lower with less payments from the feds to the states - that would cause state taxes to go up but the states could do what they need and want and stop this crazy political favoritism/earmarking from the feds to the states. It's insane, the feds need to fund ONLY what they need to, the rest should go to the states or further down to the locals.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>