The Sure Fire Failure Republican Health Plan

Someone in practically every thread is from either the John Birch Society on the far right or else from Bernie's Bolsheviks on the far left.

And the people in the middle are surrounded by wacko's.

 

Whose pockets get cleaned out?

Democrats reply saying "not me"
Republicans say, save while young, use your money to create a fund you can get tax credits for having.

When Democrats say we pay taxes, what they actually mean is you pay taxes and they argue over your money and how they get to spend it.

 

You posted a lot of truth.
I see a fundamental difference in that the democratic party believes everyone should have health insurance, regardless of income, the GOP feels that if you're poor, tough luck.

 

You may be right on that. I was surprised that the penalties didn't match the actual cost of insurance. I figured if they were that high, people would have decided it makes more sense to go ahead and get the insurance rather than pay the same amount and get...nothing.

But that was on you guys. That was your plan, and now it's falling apart.

 

Paying our bills



The G.O.P (gross national product) is the amount the people produce. The national debt is the difference between the GOP and what they use. We can not reduce the debt by using less, only by producing more.

The USA is the richest nation on earth because our citizens produce more. It has the highest debt because we use more. Our people our capable of working harder and smarter than all others. They can not do so without the tools they need, but too large a percent of them lack these tools. We our now relying on fuer producers and more users.

To increase our productivity we must see that more people have the tools to produce effectively. Health, Education, and Security our the tools too many of our people lack. Without these they can only be users. But with them the sky's the limit. If we provide them then it is possible that any person can produce world changing results. If we do not provide them than what can we expect from the future?

They cost to much to provide these things, we can not afford it is what many people say. They are measuring the cost in money. Money is the current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes. It does not have any value of itself. A soldier doesn't fight for money but for duty, a farmer does not work for money but for duty. The money we spend, or receive is just a measure by ourselves and others of the value put on the work or product. What is our duty? What value do we place on the future? How much is a life worth? It is our responsibility to make life better for all.

Public service - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service

Public service is a service which is provided by government to people living within its jurisdiction, either directly (through the public sector) or by financing provision of services.

Public service is also the service we provide to each other. People who need Health care, Education, Food, Shelter, and or Help Can pay for it with public service. There our current work programs that provide education for work, almost every business provides training of some kind. Why can't we do the same for our people's other needs? The benefits would be world changing. Not to mention the increase to our GOP

Paying our bills



The G.O.P (gross national product) is the amount the people produce. The national debt is the difference between the GOP and what they use. We can not reduce the debt by using less, only by producing more.

The USA is the richest nation on earth because our citizens produce more. It has the highest debt because we use more. Our people our capable of working harder and smarter than all others. They can not do so without the tools they need, but too large a percent of them lack these tools. We our now relying on fuer producers and more users.

To increase our productivity we must see that more people have the tools to produce effectively. Health, Education, and Security our the tools too many of our people lack. Without these they can only be users. But with them the sky's the limit. If we provide them then it is possible that any person can produce world changing results. If we do not provide them than what can we expect from the future?

They cost to much to provide these things, we can not afford it is what many people say. They are measuring the cost in money. Money is the current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes. It does not have any value of itself. A soldier doesn't fight for money but for duty, a farmer does not work for money but for duty. The money we spend, or receive is just a measure by ourselves and others of the value put on the work or product. What is our duty? What value do we place on the future? How much is a life worth? It is our responsibility to make life better for all.

Public service - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service

Public service is a service which is provided by government to people living within its jurisdiction, either directly (through the public sector) or by financing provision of services.

Public service is also the service we provide to each other. People who need Health care, Education, Food, Shelter, and or Help Can pay for it with public service. There our current work programs that provide education for work, almost every business provides training of some kind. Why can't we do the same for our people's other needs? The benefits would be world changing. Not to mention the increase to our GOP

Paying our bills



The G.O.P (gross national product) is the amount the people produce. The national debt is the difference between the GOP and what they use. We can not reduce the debt by using less, only by producing more.

The USA is the richest nation on earth because our citizens produce more. It has the highest debt because we use more. Our people our capable of working harder and smarter than all others. They can not do so without the tools they need, but too large a percent of them lack these tools. We our now relying on fuer producers and more users.

To increase our productivity we must see that more people have the tools to produce effectively. Health, Education, and Security our the tools too many of our people lack. Without these they can only be users. But with them the sky's the limit. If we provide them then it is possible that any person can produce world changing results. If we do not provide them than what can we expect from the future?

They cost to much to provide these things, we can not afford it is what many people say. They are measuring the cost in money. Money is the current medium of exchange in the form of coins and banknotes. It does not have any value of itself. A soldier doesn't fight for money but for duty, a farmer does not work for money but for duty. The money we spend, or receive is just a measure by ourselves and others of the value put on the work or product. What is our duty? What value do we place on the future? How much is a life worth? It is our responsibility to make life better for all.

Public service - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_service

Public service is a service which is provided by government to people living within its jurisdiction, either directly (through the public sector) or by financing provision of services.

Public service is also the service we provide to each other. People who need Health care, Education, Food, Shelter, and or Help Can pay for it with public service. There our current work programs that provide education for work, almost every business provides training of some kind. Why can't we do the same for our people's other needs? The benefits would be world changing. Not to mention the increase to our GOP

 

The Trumpcare tax credits are refundable also, but considering the amounts are based on age I'm not sure that you can make a direct comparison.

 

Well at least this is a huge improvement over Bohner-care.

 

Or someone with common sense who knew that this was going to be a wreck on a wreck soon enough since it was passed with zero support from the GOP which was openly mocked by the left and Obama. What comes around goes around in politics. Beyond that, my insurance was already better than most of the policies they swindle people into paying outrageous premiums on for garbage insurance just to check the box.

 

More like -- John Birch Society.

Common sense is what most drop outs use as their excuse for not being well educated.

 

The whole issue on this is simply as Adam Smith put it in his book "The Wealth Of Nations" (1775).

He said governments must decide on whether to make expenditures on guns or butter.

The USA has been the world's policeman since 1942.

That's where all our tax money has gone -- down the toilet.

 

You would know better than I what drop outs thinks, so I will take your word for it. In the mean time, I have never gone a significant period of time without health insurance in my entire life. Anyone who has is a fool.

 

Typical John Birch comment.

Sociopathically driven.

 

Well... it is if you think of "Bohner-care" as Obamacare. But doing tax credits based on age, rather than income, is a big step backwards for Republican health proposals.

 

There is nothing sociopathic about not being a leech on society, but the spokespeople for drop outs probably don't even know what the term means to begin with.

 

dems did not want mandates, that was a conservative idea, we will be glad to see those go

 

Haaa Haaa!

 

Well, as I said before, the R's in Washington don't want to pay for anything. It's not that they don't want everyone to have health insurance. It's that they don't want to pay for it. If you could find a way to give everyone health insurance, but we didn't have to pay for it, I'm sure the R's would jump right on board with the idea.

And now the Democrats ... I am cynical about them too. You know, I thought Hillary was going to win the election. I didn't want her to win, but I thought she would. But I thought it would be interesting to see what would be done under her administration about Obamacare because, as we know, it is swirling in the financial toilet bowl. Of course now we won't know what the Dems would do about health care for a while. But as sure as the sun sets in the west, the Dems will have their day again. It may not be terribly far off in the future either. Remember, forty-somethingish percent of voters on either side always vote their party, and swing voters really decide elections. And I think a lot of those swing voters didn't especially like Hillary and they thought, "Why not? Let's give Trump a try." So, in my opinion, he gets four years, but he is not guaranteed 8. Whether or not he (and the R's in Congress) get 8 years will depend on the success or failure of the first 4 years. I digressed.... Anyways, the point is, the Dems are going to take control again sometime, sooner or later, and this hot potato will then be in their lap again.

The thing I notice about Dems is that, yes, they say they want everyone to have health insurance, but they don't like to talk about the cost of it. And Democrats in Congress have a lot of very wealthy donors to their campaigns, just like R's do. And there is no way less affluent and poor people can have good, complete health care insurance unless the more affluent and rich people pay the lion's share of that cost. For Dem's, it is politically convenient to come off as kinder and gentler and advocate for health insurance for all. But the elephant in the room is what it will cost and who will pay for it. Let me give an example:

Let's say that every American could be covered for "free at point of service" health care if all working people paid a payroll tax of 20%. This would mean that if you earned $40,000 in a year, your donation to the cost of health coverage would be $8000. An almost immediate reaction to that would be that people earning that little couldn't afford to pay that much, and we would hear the terrible sob stories of the terrible financial burden that put on low-income Americans.

On the flip side of the coin would be the rich. Let's say you earned $1 million a year. Your donation is $200,000, and that doesn't include regular income taxes. That would be just $200,000 right off the top. Keep in mind that prior to "free care for all" that million dollar earner was paying for his own medical insurance and his family for a whole helluva lot less than $200,000. So this means that for Dems to enact a program like that, they are going to have to turn to all of their rich Hollywood donors and Wall Street donors and tell them that health care is no longer going to cost them $20k/year, it's going to cost them $200k/million/year. Do you think they have the political guts to do that?

I am extremely skeptical that they do. I have a sneaking hunch that all of a sudden a lot of white, well-to-do, liberal, progressive, college educated, gated community, Beamer-driving, campaign donor professionals might mysteriously start talking about "fairness" and they might mysteriously start sounding just like guess who ... the Republicans. "What? You mean I've got to pay for it?"

I did a study of what "Medicare-for-all" would cost based upon the known cost of Medicare for the seniors in our population. You can look at it here.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-healthcare-can-be-accomplished.500686/page-3

The elephant in the room is the cost. Republicans don't want to pay it. And Democrats don't want to talk about it, and they fear it.

My two cents ... Seth

 

The mandate originated with the Heritage Foundation - the GOP idea mill.
It was the core of RomneyCare, which became ObamaCare.
Laugh at yourself.

 

Not my plan. Obamacare was a compromise to try and get some improvement in America healthcare past a Congress controlled by business interests. There is way to much evidence from the rest of the world about single payer and other universal coverage plans that work much better than what America has or will have.

 

We've gone over this multiple times and it sounds more stupid each time you bring it up. Republicans have been opposed to the mandate idea from the beginning. The fact that it flew in Massachusetts says nothing about broader GOP support.

The truth, which you despise since you won't face it, is that the mandate wasn't even in Obama's original proposal, it was in Hillary's, and Obama took it NOT because of Republicans but because of Democrats.

Honestly, you don't acquit yourself well by blaming Republicans for the Obamacare mandate when Republicans had little to no input in Obamacare and didn't vote for it. It's your mess. Deal with it.

 

Payment does seem to be key, even for the far left. Bernie Sanders wanted 18 Trillion in new spending over 10 years, but only 6 Trillion in new taxes. What about the rest of the 12 Trillion?

 

Exactly. I would like to look at a progressive-led health care for all plan that balances the books.

My cynicism says that when push comes to shove, they are Republicans too. "What? I have to pay for it?"

 

Your denial doesn't hold water - the Heritage Foundation came up with the mandate, and it was adopted by Romney in Mass as RomneyCare.
It was intended as a gift for the insurance companies.
It was included in ObamaCare for 2 reasons - several "blue Dog" democrats in states that were home to insurance giants wanted it, and it was an attempt to gain GOP support, since it was their idea.
Deny and insult all you want, it doesn't alter the facts.

 

Could you explain how a Heritage proposal from the 80's (one among many) and RomneyCare, mean that Republicans, who opposed both the mandate and Obamacare, and didn't vote for it, are therefore now responsible for the mandate and Obamacare?

 

They didn't vote for it because they were obstructing ANYTHING Obama put up - even their own idea.
TurtleMan McConnell puts party before country, and in following his lead, the rest of the GOP agrees.