Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Let Lower Income "Pay Their Fair Share"!"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]A little history/background---and a call for detractors to come up with an actual plan rather than merely throwing rocks. Frankly, GOP disunity on health care is what led to Obamacare in the first place. After the failure of Hillary Clinton’s health plan in 1994, Republicans declined to unite around a free-market approach to reforming the system. Instead they mostly breathed a sigh of relief and moved on. Republicans mostly voted down Democratic health care policies or approved watered-down versions of the same. That’s why we got Kennedy-Kassebaum, SCHIP and Medicare Part D, as just a few examples. Then there were ideas floating around to compete with Hillarycare that never got much conservative support, with the exception of medical savings accounts. One of those ideas, emanating from the Heritage Foundation’s domestic policy shop, was the individual mandate. While it was never a consensus conservative policy, it found its way into the Massachusetts health care law known as Romneycare. Obamacare wasn’t far behind. Liberals are wrong to say Republicans don’t have any health care plans today. But they haven’t coalesced around a single one. Part of this has been by design: once you have settled on a specific plan, it is easier to attack. Part of this has also been the product of legitimate policy differences. Republicans remain divided on how completely Obamacare must be torn up and on how competitive any alternative must be with Obamacare in terms of the number of Americans covered. Conservatives remain confident that there can be better markets for health insurance than the exchanges as presently constructed and certainly higher quality coverage than rickety Medicaid, which is currently driving most of the coverage gains under Obamacare. But at this point, voters won’t believe them until they see it.[/quote] You actually sound reasonable! I have seen some of the proposals by various Republicans - maybe 15 of them - and some seem viable. (None are perfect, but what is?) They really do need to coalesce around one of them, but when Hillary becomes president, I suspect she'll veto it in favor of Medicare-for-all, which has a host of problems of ots own. In the interim, I am one of the millions of middle-class people really struggling financially under the law. [/quote] I am not a huge HRC supporter, not a liberal... but I actually think HRC would try to work with Repubs to fix ACA *if* they were also willing to work with her - as she stated in the last debate (or was it 2nd one). I truly don't think she's as left as Sanders. Now *he* would probably want medicare for all.[/quote] Expanding Medicare for all who want it just doesnt strike me as the worst idea ever. The government, for as much as conservatives love to hate on it, has extraordinary bargaining power, and having that many more customers? [/quote] Medicare for all? Part A-no premium charged if contributed is financed primarily by payroll taxes and income from the taxation of social security benefits. Married with 250K pay .9% more as do single over 200k. Parts B and D are NOT funded by FICA. Funding 2015: So 37.58% came from payroll taxes and that is only applied to Part A which charges a measly $411 /month for those who did not contribute via payroll taxes. A whopping 42.25% is from general revenue [income tax] and goes to Parts B/D. You can get B for as low as 121/month and anybody with maghi over 85k pays double that in premium. How much do retired cops and teachers get in retirement? In higher cola areas they are also getting whacked on Part B. Many items in the tax codes were generated via legislation and there is no logical match-up. The whole thing needs a sync. Casualty losses etc. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics