Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Health Care Reform???


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
31 replies to this topic

#13 Fireball77

Fireball77

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,398
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 13 June 2009 - 12:06 PM

$1500/year and it's good coverage? That is a great deal fuzz!

If they are really cutting that much yet still increasing taxes by that much to pay for it, it sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

#14 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • posts: 9,343
  • Reputation: 1,519
SUPPORTER

Posted 13 June 2009 - 12:22 PM

$1500/year and it's good coverage? That is a great deal fuzz!

If they are really cutting that much yet still increasing taxes by that much to pay for it, it sounds pretty ridiculous to me.


I know, very happy with it right now. As I get older, I am sure it will go up, but it's been pretty gradual so far. But I am in pretty good health.

IMO, if this thing starts rolling, and I think that it will, taxes will go up, and service will suffer.

Now the hybrid system that they are speaking of sounds cool, but if you don't use the gov. side, will you have to pay taxes to cover everyone's usage? Yes you will.

I hear it all the time, especially from folks from NY and NJ. They always complain about paying the high taxes, even if they don't have kids in school, or don't have kids period. It will be the same with the health care, medicare, and medicaid, SS, etc...

#15 Fireball77

Fireball77

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,398
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 13 June 2009 - 12:37 PM

So are we but we pay almost 5 grand for basically what amounts to emergencies only coverage due to the deductible being high.

I think they need to have some incentives in there that will fiscally reward those who don't use it as much. The system needs to be revamped, no doubt but it's common sense that when you make things cheaper or free for people, they will use it more.

Taxes in OH are ruinous as well. Everyone who moves here from most other states comments on that

#16 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,027
  • Reputation: 442
HUDDLER

Posted 13 June 2009 - 12:51 PM

I pay 250 a month for high deductible insurance with no cap. Meaning if I go to the hospital I have a 2500 deductible then a 15% coinsurance with no cap. Oh yea, and they don't cover prescriptions or lab work. I'm effectively uninsured.

#17 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • posts: 9,343
  • Reputation: 1,519
SUPPORTER

Posted 13 June 2009 - 01:20 PM

So are we but we pay almost 5 grand for basically what amounts to emergencies only coverage due to the deductible being high.

I think they need to have some incentives in there that will fiscally reward those who don't use it as much. The system needs to be revamped, no doubt but it's common sense that when you make things cheaper or free for people, they will use it more.

Taxes in OH are ruinous as well. Everyone who moves here from most other states comments on that


Oh I am not saying that the system that we have in place is good, or fair, or what I would like for it to be. I just don't think that the government installing "free" health care is the way that we should go.

If they wanted to reform it, they could start with making the money you pay to health care and insurance non taxed. That would be a start.

I am not saying, deductible, I mean non taxed.

Say you make 35,000 and pay 20% in taxes....$7,000 in FICA, and pay 3,000 in insurance costs, you would only owe them 4,000 in FICA after that.

That would make sense....huh?

#18 Fireball77

Fireball77

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,398
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 13 June 2009 - 01:56 PM

I think it makes sense for businesses under a certain amount of employees to get that as an incentive to provide coverage for their employees too.

I also think that if you never worked you shouldn't get SS that long or if you didn't work that long you should get SS only for the amount of years you paid in, but I digress. My mom who hasn't worked for money since 1967 only had a FT job for about 10 years total of her life will probably get far more SS money than I ever will. Not fair.

#19 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,599
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 13 June 2009 - 02:36 PM

I think it makes sense for businesses under a certain amount of employees to get that as an incentive to provide coverage for their employees too.

I also think that if you never worked you shouldn't get SS that long or if you didn't work that long you should get SS only for the amount of years you paid in, but I digress. My mom who hasn't worked for money since 1967 only had a FT job for about 10 years total of her life will probably get far more SS money than I ever will. Not fair.


Messed up, aint it? And what gets the red off my candy is the fact that all the FICA I'm paying in, I'll never collect one cent of it.

#20 Fireball77

Fireball77

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,398
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 13 June 2009 - 02:47 PM

I know I'm not counting on a dime of it myself. If it is even there when we retire, the retirement age for full bennies will probably have been pushed up to 80+ anyway.
Back when SS was implemented, I would bet they didn't expect people to be living so long either.

#21 88 Bronco

88 Bronco

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,908
  • Reputation: 1,302
HUDDLER

Posted 13 June 2009 - 03:07 PM

I know I'm not counting on a dime of it myself. If it is even there when we retire, the retirement age for full bennies will probably have been pushed up to 80+ anyway.
Back when SS was implemented, I would bet they didn't expect people to be living so long either.


They also didn't plan on politicians borrowing from it either.

#22 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 14,027
  • Reputation: 442
HUDDLER

Posted 13 June 2009 - 03:08 PM

Posted Image

#23 Fireball77

Fireball77

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,398
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 13 June 2009 - 03:18 PM

They also didn't plan on politicians borrowing from it either.

Like a crack addict from a family member!
Gotta support that "habit" (spending).

#24 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 01-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,599
  • Reputation: 0
HUDDLER

Posted 13 June 2009 - 03:59 PM

^ if government got 99.9 % of your earnings, it would still be nowhere near enough.