Trumpcare premiums set to skyrocket, just in time for midterms… page 4 swamp gas forums hair electricity dance moms

#

Click to expand…The problem is your non-solution seems to get us nowhere. I’m actually not even sure what you are proposing here. Giving people $2K a year? Am I reading that right? Why would anybody be for that? People contribute up to $8700 a year now through medicare contributions, you want to take away their ability to contribute $8700 but instead give them $2K which will be wholly insufficient in an HSA??? The issue with medicare is people outlive the money they put away. So how is lowering the amount or even straight up giving them $2,000/yr going to fix the issue?

You are saying there should be a safety net for those that need it, I"m pretty sure the vast majority of 70+ year olds would argue they "need it", and probably quite a few in the 65-70 year old range – essentially anybody that develops a chronic illness and then lives for awhile is very likely pulling out more than they put in. Hence medicare spending is $670+ Billion annually, out of a $3.2 Trillion health care market. It is not a problem that can be solved with "a few hundred million leftover" from whatever figures you have invented. It’s a 12 figure problem, not a 9 figure problem.

The problem is your non-solution seems to get us nowhere. I’m actually not even sure what you are proposing here. Giving people $2K a year? Am I reading that right? Why would anybody be for that? People contribute up to $8700 a year now through medicare contributions, you want to take away their ability to contribute $8700 but instead give them $2K which will be wholly insufficient in an HSA??? The issue with medicare is people outlive the money they put away. So how is lowering the amount or even straight up giving them $2,000/yr going to fix the issue?

You are saying there should be a safety net for those that need it, I"m pretty sure the vast majority of 70+ year olds would argue they "need it", and probably quite a few in the 65-70 year old range – essentially anybody that develops a chronic illness and then lives for awhile is very likely pulling out more than they put in. Hence medicare spending is $670+ Billion annually, out of a $3.2 Trillion health care market. It is not a problem that can be solved with "a few hundred million leftover" from whatever figures you have invented. It’s a 12 figure problem, not a 9 figure problem.

Click to expand…A 65 year old with 100K set aside for health care will very likely be broke by the time they are 70, actually $100K would certainly be insufficient if they are expected to buy insurance in a free market as the extreme cost of insurance for the elderly would almost immediately deplete that account. Private insurance doesn’t want to fully insure elderly. If the elderly don’t buy insurance OR have a program like medicare, whether they go broke or not is entirely a roll of the dice as to whether they have a health event. If they dont’ have a health event, 100K might last a good while, as soon as they do… poof. 100K is gone. It’s not even a matter of living responsibly vs. not living responsibly really. Illness can strike anyone, even those who exercise and workout. It’s just an absurd miscalculation on your part.

The problem with your proposal is basically this. It doesn’t actually change anything UNLESS you drop the BS about the "means test" and "safety net for those who need it". It’s the safety net that costs hundreds of billions! You get that, right?

A 65 year old with 100K set aside for health care will very likely be broke by the time they are 70, actually $100K would certainly be insufficient if they are expected to buy insurance in a free market as the extreme cost of insurance for the elderly would almost immediately deplete that account. Private insurance doesn’t want to fully insure elderly. If the elderly don’t buy insurance OR have a program like medicare, whether they go broke or not is entirely a roll of the dice as to whether they have a health event. If they dont’ have a health event, 100K might last a good while, as soon as they do… poof. 100K is gone. It’s not even a matter of living responsibly vs. not living responsibly really. Illness can strike anyone, even those who exercise and workout. It’s just an absurd miscalculation on your part.

The problem with your proposal is basically this. It doesn’t actually change anything UNLESS you drop the BS about the "means test" and "safety net for those who need it". It’s the safety net that costs hundreds of billions! You get that, right?