On Sunday, June 20, 2021 at 3:29:40 PM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
> On 6/19/2021 4:22 PM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 2:10:26 PM UTC-4, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Saturday, June 19, 2021 at 1:11:20 PM UTC-4, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >>> On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 8:23:40 PM UTC-4, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 7:42:21 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/18/2021 4:24 PM, Rick C wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, June 18, 2021 at 11:37:26 AM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 6/18/2021 10:16 AM, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-4, amdx wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I frequent early retirement groups. Most of the posters have one or more
> >>>>>>>>> millions and are living of of the growth and dividends.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> All fine and good, but they are also very keen to control their incomes
> >>>>>>>>> to stay at a level to get a nice subsidy on their healthcare insurance.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The thread today had at least 20 of those happy millionaires responding
> >>>>>>>>> with glee that the ACA is still with us.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> My response,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> "Just to be contrarian, this is great! A bunch of millionaires happy
> >>>>>>>>> that people making $50k are paying part of their healthcare premium.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> And, the poor have coverage, but can't afford the deductible."
> >>>>>>>> The poor squander their incomes and have no concept of saving
> >>>>>>>> that's why they can't afford the deductible.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I agree with that, depending on what poor means.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Savings is a concept that many middle income and high income
> >>>>>>>> individuals have a problem with.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Some poor, just plain don't have any money left after housing and food.
> >>>>>>>> Sounds like you've bought into the everyone-is-a-victim fiction.
> >>>>>>> Ah, not really. My main point was that people with a net worth in the
> >>>>>>> top 10% are structuring
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> their income to take advantage of subsidies on their healthcare
> >>>>>>> insurance. Paid for by people that
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> have much less and earn a middle class income.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'll freely admit, I'm probably the dumb one, I have probably paid
> >>>>>>> over $70k in extra insurance premiums,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> since 2012, because I avoided the ACA and kept a private plan the whole
> >>>>>>> time. I could have got a large subsidy.
> >>>>>> It's always easy peasy to point out problems. It's also easy peasy to come up with lame, knee jerk solutions like Larkin tends to do. But you don't even try.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My solution is universal health care like they have in most civilized countries. Then everyone gets all the treatment they need and it is back to paying according to your ability... well, as much as the tax system is structured for that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It would not require much extra taxes, at least beyond what is paid out today. Those who are currently covered under employers' plans would essentially be covered by the employer paying into funding universal health care just as they today pay for insurance. Those who are covered by Medicare or Medicaid would not change. That covers the lion's share of medical costs. The remainder of uninsured would need to be covered by some extra taxes collected. Or, maybe the savings of eliminating the medical insurance industry would cover that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> There are many details to figure out for sure, but it's not an intractable problem. That would completely remove the minimum income goal for the retired, well, from the medical insurance aspect at least. They still want to minimize their taxes in general.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> This is like college loans, the government gets involved and all the
> >>>>> easy money drives up costs.
> >>>> You did not understand a single word I wrote. Universal healthcare would do the opposite because it would be paid for by the government, not the patients and like Medicare, the payments would be controlled. Most likely a workable system would result in most healthcare professionals working for a universal healthcare system like the NHS in Britain.
> >>> Public insurance is not working very well in US right now, as measured by treatment outcomes. It's significantly worse, as in way worse. Going universal is the fastest way to destroy health care in America.
> >> Sorry, I don't follow that. You say insurance is terrible, but universal health care would be worse? Then what's plan C that would be better that either of these? Outlawing insurance and making everyone pay their own way?
> >>> All these stories you hear about wonderful public health care in more socialist countries is total fantasy. Public employment and regulation of the work environment turns people into apathetic and incompetent loiterers. Everyone raves about Sweden, but if you're over 70 and become seriously ill with COVID there, they put you on the drug induced euthanasia program- whether you want it or not. You and your family have no say in the matter. Most Americans wouldn't put up with these other national systems for 5 minutes.
> >> What treatment is provided in the US that is withheld in Sweden? How is that driven by the fact of universal healthcare? Are they doing the same thing in Canada, the UK and all the many countries that have universal health care or is it just Sweden? Can you separate facts from your emotions?
> >>> Universally available public insurance works, but Americans better avoid universal health care if they know what's good for them.
> >> What is universal insurance??? The problem is paying for insurance. Are you saying we need to keep the ACA? What about the huge cost of insurance in the healthcare system? I don't mean the payments, I mean the cost of administrating insurance which provides zero benefit and actually limits health care in exactly the way you describe above. A dear friend of mine was denied coverage for a leukemia treatment that was working. The insurance company paid at first, then declined. She died. Others go bankrupt when the insurance stops paying for various reasons. Insurance is great until you get sick. Then look out.
> >>>>> Same with healthcare. Subsides are not the fix, lower costs and the rate
> >>>>> of increases is.
> >>>> I'm not talking about subsidies. I'm talking about drop kicking the existing system, getting rid of insurance (which IS subsidized) replacing it with a single payer system. Most politicians say "Medicare for all", but I think Medicare is a mess. WAY TOO COMPLICATED. In most countries you might want to live in health care is just paid for. No fuss, no muss. Can't get much more simple.
> >> So what's wrong with universal health care? Do you have any real arguments against it that aren't about the death panels?
> >
> > ACA is a half measure, originally a compromise with the insurance industry to get it passed. The legislation was written by a Wellpoint insurance executive, and full of a bunch of other political CRAP- like that phony Medicaid gap or whatever the idiots called it..
> >
> > Universal insurance is Medicare, everyone qualifies, no exceptions, also known as Medicare For All, M4A.. The catch is it will cost 2x the estimates. Sanders' estimate, which the Stalinist bastard just scarfed up from other advocacy groups working on the issue for a long time, was $35T per 10 years, better plan on $70T minimum. You can double the Medicare tax, actually quadruple it, and no will notice because of the money they have left over from not having to pay for a private insurance plan. Right now Medicare is paying 50 cents on the dollar private insurance pays for the same service. This a joke and a ripoff. Every single hospital that tries to survive on majority patients on public insurance goes bankrupt, always, unless they're part of a bigger hospital system with lots of patients on private insurance that can absorb the loss. So if you don't want to lose health care availability, Medicare must double its payouts minimum.
> >
> > Absolutely no way, shape or form, do you want health care provided for by public employees or their supervised contractors. Look at the VA to see how well that works- a scandalous cesspool from hell, always has been going back 100 years. It's absolutely essential that health care remain in the private sector with all the resulting competition, initiative, innovation and constant improvement. Handing that over to government control will destroy it.
> >
> Strangely though military services are provided by public employees and
> their supervised contractors and all the government seems to do is give
> them more money
That's all the more reason to avoid that scenario like the plague. Government is a mismanaged cesspool, the only oversight comes from trash fictions like IGs and Congressional oversight committees- a totally jack-asinine methodology with a solid 250 year track record of failure and waste.