Wow....

[ducklite]

So to answer the question then you will be sending your check back, right?

What check? I don't expect I'll get a check, because I'll be "worth too much" to qualify. In four years the baby boomers will begin to retire. In 22 years there will be three times as many retirees as there are right now. There's no way that the system will possibly be able to support them all in the current manner.

And as to the subsided daycare. My sister in law spend 600 a week on day care (so that the children are watched after school) and she receives 125 a week in subsidy.

Subsidized daycare is based on income. If your SIL made less her subsidy would be higher.

Anne

 

[Tyler's Dad]

You beat me to it. Clinton's new plan fixed the flaw in her first one-those of us that have good insurance will be able to go on just as we are-only our companies will reap a benefit! I'm not naive enough to think that we will see any of that tax cut in our salaries-after all the CEO has to gas up that Mercedes-but I'm happy just to keep what I have.

Even if you don't see it in your salary, you should see it in the cost of your premiums going down as well as deductibles and copays.

 

[kinntj]

Its posts like these that prompted the selfish remark. "My service will decrease and I'm more important that you." Wouldn't you be willing to wait a week or two longer for an appointment if it meant that the formerly uninsured woman down the street got preventative care and her cancer was caught/treated early?

OP, I agree with you on this one. I really don't have more to say on this then I can't believe American's have gotten this bad. All people who are uninsured are evil and bad and did it to themselves!!!! Period!!! No more discussion, right?

 

[ducklite]

Yes it was available to us at a cost to us per MONTH of $617 *we had to pay both our "share" and the share the company paid to keep our "sub par" insurance we had from the previous job. It had a $5000 deductible or $10,000 per family unit until they paid and then it was 50/50 coverage. The prescription benefit didn't kick in until $250 deductible or $500 family was reached and that was 60/40.

We only paid 1/2 of that when DH was employed with them so it didn't hurt as bad but take 617 x 12 = 7404 per year. Then add in the $5000 I'd have to pay before they kicked in any extra cost and my health insurance went to $12404 per year to get 50/50 medical coverage through the insurance company.

Something needs to be done in this country for the working poor as well as the poor poor! If you see our salary on paper we look pretty great.....add stuff like this in and................

Not arguing with you, but when DS "aged out" of our policy he picked up his coverage via COBRA until his coverage at his job kicked in, and the coverage he was now paying OOP for (his and the companies share which was $470/mo) continued on with the same deductibles and coverage he had under DH's policy. I've had twice that I've left jobs and picked up my insurance under COBRA and there was no change to the coverage, I just had to pay the entire premium. I've never heard of an actual coverage change under a COBRA policy--and actually thought that legally the coverage had to be maintained status quo, including deductibles.

Anne

 

[crcormier]

I do not believe that I will ever get back the money I've paid into social security. I'm planning my retirement as if I was not getting social security. Even if I do get it, I am pretty confident that the payments will be miniscule and not ever begin to match what I've paid in over the years--let alone any interest I could have collected on my money.

In fact what I think is going to happen is means testing, so that those who have saved and scrimped and funded retirement accounts will be deemed as not needing social security, and those who have lived frivolously and/or paid very little into the system and have no savings will ultimately receive far more than they paid in.

Anne

This is quite possible.

You're lucky. Making over 350K per year you must not need to work that hard to save/scrimp.

 

[hydster]

For many of us there will be a decrease in services. Will the government system cover vision? Dental? Prescriptions? My guess is that in the long run I will pay more in taxes, have to wait longer to get an appointment, and see the level of service I currently receive decrease. That's not something I want to live with.

Why can't the government offer an "opt-in" plan where anyone can buy basic health insurance through the government in a manner that would not cost taxpayers anything more but would still offer affordable premiums. If they tossed all of the current medicare/medicaid recipients into the pot it might work. I think that they could offer two or three levels--kind of like medicare currently does--and it might be able to work to give at least some level of insurance to anyone who wanted it--without forcing those who currently have policies they are happy with to lose that coverage.

Anne

You obviously didn't understand her plan

The $110-billion US plan would expand existing federally funded health programs but also preserve the existing system of private insurance for those who want nothing of her proposed reforms, Clinton said Monday

It is not a government takeover of health care," she said. "Don't let them fool us again, this is not government-run, there will be no new bureaucracy."

Clinton stressed her new plan would allow Americans to maintain their existing insurance if they are "happy" with the coverage they receive.

During a 45-minute speech at a Des Moines hospital, Clinton repeatedly said Americans would have the right to choose between a beefed-up government program and private insurance.

"If you have private insurance you like, nothing changes ... You can keep that insurance."

But Clinton's plan would also trigger some dramatic changes to the existing health-care system.

It wouldn't "do" anything to your level of health care it would just give others a chance to have some! It isn't that hard to understand.

 

[becka]

For many of us there will be a decrease in services. Will the government system cover vision? Dental? Prescriptions? My guess is that in the long run I will pay more in taxes, have to wait longer to get an appointment, and see the level of service I currently receive decrease. That's not something I want to live with.

Why can't the government offer an "opt-in" plan where anyone can buy basic health insurance through the government in a manner that would not cost taxpayers anything more but would still offer affordable premiums. If they tossed all of the current medicare/medicaid recipients into the pot it might work. I think that they could offer two or three levels--kind of like medicare currently does--and it might be able to work to give at least some level of insurance to anyone who wanted it--without forcing those who currently have policies they are happy with to lose that coverage.

Anne

I think you will still be able to supplement the basic UHC coverage with additional policies (luxury policies for lack of a better term). That is an individual choice that you get to make if you feel you need additional coverage for prescriptions, dental, etc. and can afford it.

Like I said before everyone is not going to be happy with any healthcare system but something has to be done. If I have to wait an extra week to get into the doctor because someone who was previously uninsured is now getting some basic care then so be it. There are trade offs to everything in life. If having to wait longer is what you are really worried about then it is not the money that is the true issue but that you feel like you deserve better care than someone else. How is that for entitlement?

 

[ducklite]

Do you know how expensive COBRA is?

My son paid $470/mo for his a couple years ago.

Twelve years ago when DH changed jobs we carried COBRA for three months and it ran us $300+ per month. (Remeber, that was 12 years ago.)

I'm very well aware of what the costs are.

Anne

 

[ducklite]

Its posts like these that prompted the selfish remark. "My service will decrease and I'm more important that you." Wouldn't you be willing to wait a week or two longer for an appointment if it meant that the formerly uninsured woman down the street got preventative care and her cancer was caught/treated early?

What if it meant that my cancer was caught later as a result?

Anne

 

[hydster]

My son paid $470/mo for his a couple years ago.

Twelve years ago when DH changed jobs we carried COBRA for three months and it ran us $300+ per month. (Remeber, that was 12 years ago.)

I'm very well aware of what the costs are.

Anne

For a family of 5 right now it's a lot higher than those rates and that doesn't include dental or vision either. When we tacked those on our rate was upwards of $800 a month. Rates change so yes it's much more expensive especially when you have 3 children and 2 parents.

 

[crcormier]

My son paid $470/mo for his a couple years ago.

Twelve years ago when DH changed jobs we carried COBRA for three months and it ran us $300+ per month. (Remeber, that was 12 years ago.)

I'm very well aware of what the costs are.

Anne

When my then fiancee left her job a three months ago before we got married, she looked at COBRA for the two months before she could get onto my coverage, and it was $900/month to cover her and her son.

 

[brerrabbit]

I tend to be fiscally conservative and socially a little more liberal. I don't fit well anywhere.

My take on the whole situation is this, we are being taxed to the poor house. I do not begrudge aid to those who need aid and our healthcare system certainly needs fixing. My frustration is simply that governments, be they local, state or federal do not live in the same world the rest of us do. Here in Texas a large portion of our taxes are in the form of property taxes which are based on a percentage of the accessed value of your home. My taxes go up every year, government spending goes up every year. But on the flip side of that equation my families income does not increase at nearly the same rate. The end result is that I have less net income each and every year. Governments do not need to look at spending wisely or making programs more effcient because the when they need more money they have it through increased taxes. With that attitude where does it end?

Also when talking about taxes don't just look at your income taxes and property taxes. Look at every bill you pay, surcharges and government mandated fees for cell phones, home phones, cable bills, utility bills, disposal fees for tires and batteries, toll roads, car inspection, car registration, lisence fees, drivers lisences fees, and get a speeding ticket or parking ticket and in Texas there are additive fees that go to the state even if you town issued the ticket. Add it all up and its a lot of money. Every person on this board lives within the reality of a budget and you are limited by the salaries your family makes. Want to spend more? You have to borrow it and pay it back at some point. If the government needs more they just increase a tax, or add a fee and viola they have more money.

Waht really needs to happen is for governments everywhere to reassess how and what they spend money on. Look at the budgets for local governments in your area and drill down and see what they really spend money on. A lot of it will truly shock you. Until governments are willing to play by some of the same rules that we as individuals are subject to things will never change.

 

[ducklite]

You obviously didn't understand her plan

The $110-billion US plan would expand existing federally funded health programs but also preserve the existing system of private insurance for those who want nothing of her proposed reforms, Clinton said Monday

It is not a government takeover of health care," she said. "Don't let them fool us again, this is not government-run, there will be no new bureaucracy."

Clinton stressed her new plan would allow Americans to maintain their existing insurance if they are "happy" with the coverage they receive.

During a 45-minute speech at a Des Moines hospital, Clinton repeatedly said Americans would have the right to choose between a beefed-up government program and private insurance.

"If you have private insurance you like, nothing changes ... You can keep that insurance."

But Clinton's plan would also trigger some dramatic changes to the existing health-care system.

It wouldn't "do" anything to your level of health care it would just give others a chance to have some! It isn't that hard to understand.

I understand that--but taxes will go up, and I'm not buying it that my insurance premiums will go down. That's the part I ahve a problem with.

Anne

 

[ducklite]

This is quite possible.

You're lucky. Making over 350K per year you must not need to work that hard to save/scrimp.

Who said I make that? I wish! You must have me VERY confused with another poster.

Anne

 

[Tyler's Dad]

What if it meant that my cancer was caught later as a result?

Anne

Why would it be? Again, you are assuming things that aren't true. Nothing will change for you, but it will change for the millions of people that it needs to change for. How is that bad and how will it negatively effect you?

 

[PghLybrt]

Subsidized daycare is based on income. If your SIL made less her subsidy would be higher.

Anne

If she made less she would not be able to clothe, feed and house her children in near squalor. As it is she can't afford her own healthcare or schooling for her children. She lives every month paycheck to paycheck juggling what she can pay that month.

She in no way makes enough to pay her bills. No fancy cars, no cable TV or internet, no vacations.

 

[crcormier]

Who said I make that? I wish! You must have me VERY confused with another poster.

Anne

I do my civic duty by already paying taxes in the highest tax bracket, and frankly I'm not willing to pay out another dime.
Anne

You said you were in the top tax bracket. Which married, filing jointly, is 35 percent, with a min income of 349,400 and above. Or married filing separately would be a min income of 174,850 and above.

 

[Tyler's Dad]

Who said I make that? I wish! You must have me VERY confused with another poster.

Anne

3 or 4 pages ago you said you were in the top tax bracket?

 

[ducklite]

If having to wait longer is what you are really worried about then it is not the money that is the true issue but that you feel like you deserve better care than someone else. How is that for entitlement?

I don't see it as entitlement, I see it as knowing what your priorities are in life. There are posters on the DIS boards who have publicly stated they have no health insurance, yet they plan $2000+ trips to WDW. We took a $210 trip to Vero Beach this year, because our priority is to make sure we have the best health care possible. DH's company offers six or seven different plans, we chose the best--and most expensive by far--plan. That's our priority.

Anne

 

[boomhauer]

No problem with taxes going up - If they go up for everybody. I think the fact that Americans that make more money pay a higher percent than those who make less is wrong.