Invite ye felawes and frendes desirous in gold to enter the gates of Shrewd'm, for they will thanke ye later.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 4
No. of Recommendations: 4
In an extensive interview Tuesday, Greene, R-Ga., accused her party of not having a plan on health care and made the case that it should be working to fix the problem now.
True, they don't have a plan. They didn't have a viable plan in Trump's first term, either.
My own Congressman used to have vague ideas about "repeal and replace" and "market-based solutions" on his website, with dead links to some right-wing paper. That got taken down years ago. Nothing since.
If they have a goal it would be that everyone be on an employment-based plan. No work, no healthcare. Unless you're rich enough to pay your own way, in which case they'll give tax breaks.
No. of Recommendations: 0
I agreed with her months ago when i started banging the drum that ACA is a great issue - - and many Red and Swing voters need it.
MTG is just one example.....
Welcome people.
No. of Recommendations: 5
If they have a goal it would be that everyone be on an employment-based plan.
Except not everyone is employed. You can also run into other situations, like I saw when the Steelcase dealer I worked for went toes up. The other Steelcase dealer, that bought all the customer accounts refused to hire one of the warehouse guys, because he had a hernia, that the other dealer did not want to pay to treat. Many of the places I worked for required me to pass an employment physical, because they did not want to be stuck paying for anything.
That's why Plan Steve divorced health insurance, Social Security, and Medicare, from employment, funding the programs with something that would track GDP, like a VAT.
How many employers really want to deal with health insurance for their staff? How many employers really want to deal with a 401k program? Aren't they more "burdens" that take the "JCs" away from their golf game?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
Aren't they more "burdens" that take the "JCs" away from their golf game?
Watch the JC scream when the insurance companies take away his/her benefits--not sufficiently profitable for the insurance company.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Watch the JC scream when the insurance companies take away his/her benefits--not sufficiently profitable for the insurance company.
JCs are "exceptional". They have bargaining rights with the company that Proles don't. JCs get company paid medical, pension, retirement medical, the benefits the JCs took away from their employees in the 90s, all at company expense, regardless how high that expense is. Proles, on the other hand, are a cost to be minimized.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
That's why Plan Steve divorced health insurance, Social Security, and Medicare, from employment, funding the programs with something that would track GDP, like a VAT.
Sounds great. That's how they do healthcare in the UK.
How many employers really want to deal with health insurance for their staff? How many employers really want to deal with a 401k program? Aren't they more "burdens" that take the "JCs" away from their golf game?
Sure, but tying health insurance to employment keeps people working for low pay in their dead-end jobs. It's a trade-off, I guess.
I've heard countless people saying they'd love to do what I do - self-employed consultant/contractor - but they can't risk losing their employer health insurance.
Personally, I think we'd have a more dynamic and overall better economy if folks could leave their employer to try something new without fear of going bankrupt due to health issues.
Not sure your "JCs" see it that way.
No. of Recommendations: 0
JCs get company paid medical, pension, retirement medical, the benefits the JCs took away from their employees in the 90s, all at company expense, regardless how high that expense is. Proles, on the other hand, are a cost to be minimized.
JCs are just expensive proles. Save money, time, and effort by getting rid of them.
No. of Recommendations: 1
but tying health insurance to employment keeps people working for low pay in their dead-end jobs. It's a trade-off, I guess.
Which is why Universal Health Care is the best choice.
Total costs of health care are minimized--which minimizes ALL costs to JCs, because they ALSO are covered. If they choose to buy supplements, they may--at their cost (choice).
People are not required to work to pay for health care. They may if it suits them. Or fund it some other way (self employment, etc).
No. of Recommendations: 6
"Personally, I think we'd have a more dynamic and overall better economy if folks could leave their employer to try something new without fear of going bankrupt due to health issues."
Agree 100% with that. Entrepreneurs seem to be revered in our Society. Odds are there
would be more of them if healthcare wasn't tied to employment.
Having said that, it feels like it's another example of Americans saying one thing, but
doing another. Would entrepreneurship be considered competition for Corporate America ?
There must be some reason we are one of the few developed Countries that do not offer
national healthcare for all. The argument being made is that America can't afford it.
But we all paid for healthcare, even if one had an employer backed plan. And if one is
buying it on the marketplace as a standalone entity, they are really paying for it. So
that money could be used to mitigate the cost to the taxpayer. And America could easily trim a few $Billion off of the military budget, as well as rein in golf outings that our royalty
are taking on a very, very regular basis, at great taxpayer expense.
But we don't.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Tons of one man or two man business owners use ACA.
Sadly the minute Mitt Romney's idea became known as ObamaCare, my side hated it.
I continue to naively hope - no budget deal.
IF aca premiums are jacked to the moon, my side will sadly learn a much needed lesson.
