BoltProspects Community Forums  

Go Back   BoltProspects Community Forums > Miscellaneous > The Room

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #9661  
Old 09-21-2017, 12:57 PM
Flycoon Flycoon is online now
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaiverWire View Post
The country gives you $6 per year of service if you do 25 years. However you only get this coverage from age 55-65. At age 65 you are not eligible for that stipend, so I no longer get it.

The State also gives you $5 per each year of service starting with 25 years.

These are all part of the retirement package that is offered when you are hired.

You as a government employee are also offered something similar. So I guess as you put it you are also "sucking the tit of government".

These stipends do not go very far when you have a $1250 monthly insurance bill.

One captain elected not to take the offer of having the Office Humana coverage when he retired. He didn't want to pay the $1250 and thought the price was too high. He ended up on the exchange and his covered jumped to $1600 per month last year and he now has less coverage and a higher deductible had he stayed on the Office plan.
If you are 65, wouldn't Medicare and a supplemental policy be cheaper?
  #9662  
Old 09-21-2017, 01:46 PM
WaiverWire's Avatar
WaiverWire WaiverWire is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa
Posts: 7,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flycoon View Post
If you are 65, wouldn't Medicare and a supplemental policy be cheaper?
Nope as my wife is not 65 yet.

Medicare only covers 80% of your bills. The plan we have through Humana covers the other 20%. Since being on Medicare and with my Office Humana coverage I have not paid one dollar out of pocket. And our family out of pocket deductible is far less than anything found on the Exchange.


Quote:
You can quickly tell what category Waiver's, "The only plan I have heard on the air is Medicare for All. And with the need for 60 votes in the Senate that bill will not come up for a vote for years as a 60 vote majority is not an easy thing to get." falls into.
Are not you one of those that have been crying that the GOP will not tell you what they are trying to push through?

Is it really so wrong to try and be informed?

Currently Medicare only covers 80% of your office and hospital visits. I have not seen a thing about the other 20%.......or does everyone have to purchase an additional policy to cover the other 20%. Same goes for your prescriptions. Except for a very few scrips, Medicare pays zero. So do you still have to have another policy to cover your scrips or will that now be covered under Medicare?

If the left wants to win over the voters when it comes to Medicare for All they will have to have a very detailed plan as many voters will just think about the shape of the current ACA and turn their backs.

And all the things your link asked are true. How does it get paid for? If I currently pay $1250 a month for my healthcare will a Medicare for All plan save me money, or will my taxes be raised to the point that I have to pay more than the $1250 a month? Or do I just send Medicare $1250 a month instead of that sum going to the Sheriff?

In order for a plan to work, any plan for that matter, the details have to be made public so the public will know what to expect.

And here is an idea. It would be nice if several healthcare plans could be made available for the public to see. Why not let the voters vote on what they want and take this power away from Congress and have majority rule.

Last edited by WaiverWire; 09-21-2017 at 01:48 PM.
  #9663  
Old 09-21-2017, 02:04 PM
ZeykShade's Avatar
ZeykShade ZeykShade is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,025
Default

And still, Medicare is one of the most popular government programs in existence across all political identities.

Quote:
THE PLAN
BETTER COVERAGE
Bernie’s plan would create a federally administered single-payer health care program. Universal single-payer health care means comprehensive coverage for all Americans. Bernie’s plan will cover the entire continuum of health care, from inpatient to outpatient care; preventive to emergency care; primary care to specialty care, including long-term and palliative care; vision, hearing and oral health care; mental health and substance abuse services; as well as prescription medications, medical equipment, supplies, diagnostics and treatments. Patients will be able to choose a health care provider without worrying about whether that provider is in-network and will be able to get the care they need without having to read any fine print or trying to figure out how they can afford the out-of-pocket costs.
https://live-berniesanders-com.panth...icare-for-all/

You are assuming that the Sanders' proposal is Medicare as it currently is. It's not. It improves current medicare, then phases in coverage for lower age groups progressively.

Read the plan. Even if you don't agree with healthcare being a right, it's worth knowing what has been put forward from the left.

Arguments like, "It's too radical and won't work." are not valid. Other nations have done it. Medicare for All would be better than what Canada has. Outpatient prescriptions aren't covered by their system. Wait times for elective procedures are too long due to the wait lists being held by individual specialists instead of shared by a pool of specialists.
  #9664  
Old 09-21-2017, 02:30 PM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,421
Default

The hole in Sanders' plan is he doesn't have a hard proposal for how to pay for the program. Several options exist, probably the most politically viable of which being increasing taxes on the upper brackets to raise the revenue. Therein lies the reason the GOP won't even consider it: they're pushing repeal of ACA so they can conform to the budget rules and give rich people a giant tax cut. That's their objective. This would be the antithesis of that.

The other option is raising payroll taxes, but that's politically stupid even if it probably is somewhat more fair given the system that is being set up benefits everyone.

A fallback position would be to strip out vision and dental in this first iteration of Medicare for All and add those benefits in later on down the line. No other country, and you noted Canada as an example, is as generous with their comprehensive slate of benefits as Bernie's proposal. That's not to say Bernie's is wrong or pie-in-the-sky, but I do think it's reasonable to have pulling things like dental and vision out if that's the only way to make the bill viable from a budgetary and/or political standpoint. I'm actually all for Bernie's bill having all the bells and whistles in it because it moves the Overton window left in the debate after years of it drifting to the right.
__________________
S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2019-2020: 29

Last edited by pete; 09-21-2017 at 03:21 PM.
  #9665  
Old 09-21-2017, 03:08 PM
dannybolt's Avatar
dannybolt dannybolt is offline
Curtis McElhinney's Game Worn Jersey
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Pete
Posts: 2,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
The hole in Sanders' plan is he doesn't have a hard proposal for how to pay for the program. Several options exist, probably the most politically viable of which being increasing taxes on the upper brackets to raise the revenue. Therein lies the reason the GOP won't even consider it: they're pushing repeal of ACA so they can conform to the budget rules and give rich people a giant tax cut. That's their objective. This would be the antithesis of that.

The other option is raising payroll taxes, but that's politically stupid even if it probably is somewhat more fair given the system that is being set up benefits everyone.

A fallback position would be to strip out vision and dental in this first iteration of Medicare for All and add those benefits in later on down the line. No other country, and you noted Canada as an example, is as generous with their comprehensive slate of benefits as Bernie's proposal. That's not to say Bernie's is wrong or pie-in-the-sky, but I do think it's reasonable to have pulling things like dental and vision out of that's the only way to make the bill viable from a budgetary and/or political standpoint. I'm actually all for Bernie's bill having all the bells and whistles in it because it moves the Overton window left in the debate after years of it drifting to the right.
Not having crunched any numbers, but I have a suspicion that stripping the tax advantages that investment income has over "earned" income would likely cover it, and more. Treat L/T Cap Gains the same as earned income and you add a nice fat chunk to the tax rolls to the tune of anywhere from 10-20% on those gains (most likely). Of course, that would disproportionately hit the donor class, so don't hold your breath on it becoming law.

As an aside, the above is why I've never bought the bullshit that we want to be a manufacturing economy again. The incentives are in place to reward moving money around, not making products. Until the tax code reflects it, I'm gonna assume it is hogwash.

I've often wondered that with the Citizens United decision, why no one has argued that corporations and people should be treated the same for tax purposes. Since Corporations don't get the same Cap Gains benefit of a reduced rate on those gains, neither should individual citizens. This wouldn't really affect the small business owner, as they would get the Dividend Received Deduction that Corps get, so it would raise revenues from professional investors, hedge funds, private equity, etc. Also institutional investors, so it would affect mutual and retirement funds as well. There could be code written to adjust, obviously. And honestly, the opposite is more likely to happen, but it is interesting to consider nonetheless.
__________________
Bullshit Centrist and Ondrej Palat fan club member
  #9666  
Old 09-21-2017, 03:52 PM
WaiverWire's Avatar
WaiverWire WaiverWire is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa
Posts: 7,333
Default

And today President Trump signs an order basically stating that if you do business with North Korea you will not be allowed to do business with any business or bank in the United States.

China's Central Bank has responded by telling the banks in that country to stop doing business with NK.
  #9667  
Old 09-21-2017, 03:56 PM
WaiverWire's Avatar
WaiverWire WaiverWire is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa
Posts: 7,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
The hole in Sanders' plan is he doesn't have a hard proposal for how to pay for the program. Several options exist, probably the most politically viable of which being increasing taxes on the upper brackets to raise the revenue. Therein lies the reason the GOP won't even consider it: they're pushing repeal of ACA so they can conform to the budget rules and give rich people a giant tax cut. That's their objective. This would be the antithesis of that.

The other option is raising payroll taxes, but that's politically stupid even if it probably is somewhat more fair given the system that is being set up benefits everyone.

A fallback position would be to strip out vision and dental in this first iteration of Medicare for All and add those benefits in later on down the line. No other country, and you noted Canada as an example, is as generous with their comprehensive slate of benefits as Bernie's proposal. That's not to say Bernie's is wrong or pie-in-the-sky, but I do think it's reasonable to have pulling things like dental and vision out if that's the only way to make the bill viable from a budgetary and/or political standpoint. I'm actually all for Bernie's bill having all the bells and whistles in it because it moves the Overton window left in the debate after years of it drifting to the right.

I would not say the GOP will not look at it as even I am intrigued.

My questions are how do you pay for it and what happens to the thousands in the insurance business? Will you now tell doctors, hospitals and the pharmaceutical companies what they can charge? Will the government have to also take over the research and development of new medicines?
  #9668  
Old 09-21-2017, 04:16 PM
ZeykShade's Avatar
ZeykShade ZeykShade is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 5,025
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pete View Post
The hole in Sanders' plan is he doesn't have a hard proposal for how to pay for the program. Several options exist, probably the most politically viable of which being increasing taxes on the upper brackets to raise the revenue. Therein lies the reason the GOP won't even consider it: they're pushing repeal of ACA so they can conform to the budget rules and give rich people a giant tax cut. That's their objective. This would be the antithesis of that.

The other option is raising payroll taxes, but that's politically stupid even if it probably is somewhat more fair given the system that is being set up benefits everyone.

A fallback position would be to strip out vision and dental in this first iteration of Medicare for All and add those benefits in later on down the line. No other country, and you noted Canada as an example, is as generous with their comprehensive slate of benefits as Bernie's proposal. That's not to say Bernie's is wrong or pie-in-the-sky, but I do think it's reasonable to have pulling things like dental and vision out if that's the only way to make the bill viable from a budgetary and/or political standpoint. I'm actually all for Bernie's bill having all the bells and whistles in it because it moves the Overton window left in the debate after years of it drifting to the right.
The op-ed I linked deals with these critiques. It doesn't matter if it's not fleshed out. It's a maximalist approach. It shifts the moral debate and Medicare is a brand that is loved. "Single-payer" is a shit brand as everyone thinks that they're the single-payer.

The beauty of the plan is that it lays out the ideal and the goal, which is not remotely radical. It doesn't matter if it's not currently feasible. It's essentially a roadmap. You can take out everything but a single change to either the funding side or the benefits side and implement it. We all benefit from it. It moves the football closer to the goal line.

The ACA was supposed to be a step toward UHC. It was sold as such like it was a compromise. The problem is, the corporate left compromised BEFORE even starting the debate due to feasibility. The starting point should have been 100% Universal Healthcare the best the world has ever seen. Then we'd have ended up with the ACA + public option likely.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of the 60 votes for the ACA were compromised by the systemic corruption of money in politics. Joe Lieberman nixed any form of a public option out of hand because he happened to be representing the state that's the insurance capital of the world.
  #9669  
Old 09-21-2017, 04:30 PM
WaiverWire's Avatar
WaiverWire WaiverWire is offline
Steven Stamkos' One Timer
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tampa
Posts: 7,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeykShade View Post
The ACA was supposed to be a step toward UHC. It was sold as such like it was a compromise. The problem is, the corporate left compromised BEFORE even starting the debate due to feasibility. The starting point should have been 100% Universal Healthcare the best the world has ever seen. Then we'd have ended up with the ACA + public option likely.
The main problem was not the corporations it was that our elected officials flat out lied to every single one of us when they claimed "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" or " if you like your plan you can keep your plan".
  #9670  
Old 09-21-2017, 05:07 PM
pete's Avatar
pete pete is offline
BP Staff
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,421
Default

Pretty sure Zeyk just said everything I just said, just in a slightly different way.
__________________
S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-Stammermeter 2019-2020: 29
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2005-2008, BoltProspects.com. All Rights Reserved.