One foot in the grave for ObamaCare in 11th Circuit

PrintSmith wrote:

jmc wrote: I am insuring myself for catastrophic only, Biggest deductible. Just don't want to go broke.
Never expected medicare before 65, just looking at a totally broken "market " There is and never will be an insurance market for the sick and elderly with out paying when young and healthy. We should have the option to pay when young and if the $ are too little give the option to pay more, we should have the choice when we enter the work force. 2.9% is not enough to fund Medicare,as is is today. I just want people to have the choice to pay higher premiums for the better benefit. I want people to be able to choose. No body should be limited by your narrow minded choices.
When young and healthy huge premiums were paid that I never saw a nickel of benefit, now all you narrow minded fools look at is my contributions to medicare. The private companies rake in the profit when we are young and healthy then pass of the liability to the Gov. when we are old and sick. PS glad you like the system, foolish.

And what I want jmc is a system whereby the money I pay for the entirety of my working days is purchasing something for my benefit rather than having the money used for the benefit of others who are currently retired in the hopes that others will be willing to do the same for me. That latter is the same mechanism used to fund Ponzi schemes whereby the money from the newest investors is used to fund the benefits paid to the earlier investors. There is a reason that Ponzi schemes are illegal and why it was thought to be a good idea to fund the retirements and health needs of seniors in this nation upon this same principle defies any attempt at reason or common sense.

That they system will eventually collapse is not in question, it is simply a matter of how long the scheme can be kept going before that eventuality is realized - just as it is for any Ponzi styled investment scheme. We're at what, 45 years or so right now and the scheme is already pulling over 45% of its expenditures out of the general fund - and has been for a number of years now. It is, has been, and will continue to be fiscally insolvent. Every dollar it stolen from the general fund to keep the scheme operational is money that should be going to fund the functions of the federal government actually granted to it in the Constitution. Let me be perfectly clear - Medicare is a failure, it is fiscally bankrupt already and stealing funds needed to provide for the general welfare of the union to support the individual welfare of one citizen. Our bridges are collapsing and our roads are crumbling because the money that should have been used to maintain and replace these structures has instead been spent on one citizen's individual welfare rather than the welfare of everyone who uses the roads and bridges on a daily basis. That's the problem that needs solving jmc and the only way to solve it is to have Medicare resting on a firm financial foundation rather than one designed to support a Ponzi.

We kind of agree, I want to do it through the Gov. not a business that has the obligation to make a profit for the shareholders.
Medicare is a failure because you tax freaks won't charge what the cost really is . I and many others would pay the appropriate price for the coverage in our old age. Why can I not have that choice? I pay, I get the coverage, you others can rot away unless you bankrupt yourself. Your choice. I just don't want to be at the mercy of a for profit company. If I choose to do a gov. guaranteed investment, I get a lower return for the security, same deal. Your "moral" high road is total hate filled philosophical BS. Not even close to real world. Pie in the sky theory that is not even close to reality. Get with the real world and quit trying to live in 1800. Throwback!

I think we have degenerated from "let them eat cake" to "let them die".....it's tough to be poor/lower middle class in this country.

archer wrote: I think we have degenerated from "let them eat cake" to "let them die".....it's tough to be poor/lower middle class in this country.

I isn't even just the poor, it is all of us.I have never taken any govt. subsidization in my life. I have paid all my taxes (plenty) and yet there are some dickweeds that just keep thinking "market" somehow cures all issues. Myopic at best, idiotic at reality. Fools abound.

JMC, I am really having trouble following your posts. One minute its about medicare, then non-profit non-gov't something, I can't really tell what your final solution is and how we get to it. Keep in mind the Feds are really broke right now, and Medicare and Medicaid are badly broken and underfunded to start with.

As for "tax freaks" I assume you include Pres. Obama who pledged not to raise taxes one-nickel on 95% of the population.

jmc wrote: Okay , I will drag this conversation into the gutter, we pay the private sector insurance a fortune of profit when we are young and healthy . We bitch and moan that when it is no longer profitable to pay when we are old and sick, the burden falls to the the taxpayer. Wise the hell up!. It is a scam that pays the private industry when times are good,and penalizes the taxpayer when times are bad. A corporate free ride when times are bad. You idiots don't see that the taxpayer is subsidizing the private sector to the tune of billions.
Moronic ,

Single payer won't fix that moronic aspect of the problem jmc, it will make it worse. We pay, or we used to anyway, the insurance company against a catastrophic "what if" that might befall us. Only recently has that been altered to become a form of prepaid services. The idea behind insurance is to protect you in case something bad did happen while you saving your money to build up a fund to be used when something bad happens when you get older and are more likely to actually need health care on a regular and continual basis. That is the way it is supposed to be, how it is supposed to work. The likelihood of the vast majority of young people needing the insurance company to cover their medical bills is very small, just as the likelihood of the vast majority of people who have automobile insurance needing the insurance company to replace their totaled automobile is very small. That is why automobile insurance works and health insurance does not at the present time. Health insurance is not insurance, it is instead a prepaid medical policy whereby you send your anticipated annual care costs to the company a month at a time instead of paying the doctor when you go visit them in their office. Included in that cost is also a measure of catastrophic insurance to cover the cost of either an accident or the unlikely event of you developing a major illness that requires expensive treatments. The group that you belong to at the company is more likely, not less, to actually cause the insurance company to pay out some of the revenue that they collect in premiums. This prevents the insurance company from discounting your group plan the way that many insurance companies discount your auto insurance based upon your individual record of claims. That is why group policies, encouraged at first by the government to provide increased compensation in an environment of government imposed wage controls, are an inherently poor model upon which to structure health insurance to begin with, and that is before we even get into such areas as portability. Can you imagine what your automobile insurance premium would be if you had to subsidize all the poor drivers at the company you worked for via your company auto insurance policy? How about your home insurance. Think you want to have a group policy there so that your premium reflects all the hail damage, burst pipes and heaved foundations of everyone who works for the company even though the likelihood of your roof sustaining hail damage or your foundation cracking due to expansive soils are virtually nil? Again, why should health insurance be any different?

The problems this nation has with health care and health insurance are clearly the result of bad policy and bad management of the federal government after inserting itself into the domestic affairs of each and every citizen in each and every state - which was never the intention of the Constitution to begin with and is simply little more than a power grab that has occurred to the detriment of the general welfare of us all. The fix is to remove from them the power over the domestic affairs of the states' citizens that they have usurped for themselves instead of inviting them to take over more of them.

If you fail to recognize this by now, to paraphrase poubelle, you are either dumber than dirt, ideologically blinded, or merely a useful tool for those that would seek to subjugate you in the same manner as countless tyrannical governments throughout the known history of our species have subjugated others. One government with sole power to govern results in corruption, despotism and tyranny. Always has, always will. That is not my judgement, it is the judgement of history - thousands upon thousands of years of it.

Joe wrote: JMC, I am really having trouble following your posts. One minute its about medicare, then non-profit non-gov't something, I can't really tell what your final solution is and how we get to it. Keep in mind the Feds are really broke right now, and Medicare and Medicaid are badly broken and underfunded to start with.

As for "tax freaks" I assume you include Pres. Obama who pledged not to raise taxes one-nickel on 95% of the population.

I will try to make this simple. We pay a medicare tax 2.9%, half paid by the employer, We also pay for private insurance that is very profitable to the private health insurance companies. So far so good. The private industry ( health insurance) make a huge profit insuring the young and healthy. still no problem. When we get older and sicker, the taxpayer (medicare) picks up the tab. We should ,IMO, balance that out. We should pay a higher % to insure our old age and if we let "private insurance" make huge profits when we are young healthy., the insurance companies should have competition from the taxpayers to balance the risk. Today the taxpayers get only the high risk and none of the low risk . Seems like the taxpayer is subsidizing the for profit insurers.

PrintSmith wrote:

jmc wrote: Okay , I will drag this conversation into the gutter, we pay the private sector insurance a fortune of profit when we are young and healthy . We bitch and moan that when it is no longer profitable to pay when we are old and sick, the burden falls to the the taxpayer. Wise the hell up!. It is a scam that pays the private industry when times are good,and penalizes the taxpayer when times are bad. A corporate free ride when times are bad. You idiots don't see that the taxpayer is subsidizing the private sector to the tune of billions.
Moronic ,

Single payer won't fix that moronic aspect of the problem jmc, it will make it worse. We pay, or we used to anyway, the insurance company against a catastrophic "what if" that might befall us. Only recently has that been altered to become a form of prepaid services. The idea behind insurance is to protect you in case something bad did happen while you saving your money to build up a fund to be used when something bad happens when you get older and are more likely to actually need health care on a regular and continual basis. That is the way it is supposed to be, how it is supposed to work. The likelihood of the vast majority of young people needing the insurance company to cover their medical bills is very small, just as the likelihood of the vast majority of people who have automobile insurance needing the insurance company to replace their totaled automobile is very small. That is why automobile insurance works and health insurance does not at the present time. Health insurance is not insurance, it is instead a prepaid medical policy whereby you send your anticipated annual care costs to the company a month at a time instead of paying the doctor when you go visit them in their office. Included in that cost is also a measure of catastrophic insurance to cover the cost of either an accident or the unlikely event of you developing a major illness that requires expensive treatments. The group that you belong to at the company is more likely, not less, to actually cause the insurance company to pay out some of the revenue that they collect in premiums. This prevents the insurance company from discounting your group plan the way that many insurance companies discount your auto insurance based upon your individual record of claims. That is why group policies, encouraged at first by the government to provide increased compensation in an environment of government imposed wage controls, are an inherently poor model upon which to structure health insurance to begin with, and that is before we even get into such areas as portability. Can you imagine what your automobile insurance premium would be if you had to subsidize all the poor drivers at the company you worked for via your company auto insurance policy? How about your home insurance. Think you want to have a group policy there so that your premium reflects all the hail damage, burst pipes and heaved foundations of everyone who works for the company even though the likelihood of your roof sustaining hail damage or your foundation cracking due to expansive soils are virtually nil? Again, why should health insurance be any different?

The problems this nation has with health care and health insurance are clearly the result of bad policy and bad management of the federal government after inserting itself into the domestic affairs of each and every citizen in each and every state - which was never the intention of the Constitution to begin with and is simply little more than a power grab that has occurred to the detriment of the general welfare of us all. The fix is to remove from them the power over the domestic affairs of the states' citizens that they have usurped for themselves instead of inviting them to take over more of them.

If you fail to recognize this by now, to paraphrase poubelle, you are either dumber than dirt, ideologically blinded, or merely a useful tool for those that would seek to subjugate you in the same manner as countless tyrannical governments throughout the known history of our species have subjugated others. One government with sole power to govern results in corruption, despotism and tyranny. Always has, always will. That is not my judgement, it is the judgement of history - thousands upon thousands of years of it.

Sorry PS , for a very smart guy, you have a rational blind spot on this issue. This not philosophical it effects millions of real people. It can be fixed with a rational combination of common sense. Not a time for fairy tail thinking about what may have been. Real issue ,we need real solutions, not theoretical nonsense and pontificating blowhardiness.
Warned you I would take this to the gutter.

pontificating blowhardiness

I think I will save that for a future handle.

haha LOL.

I don't really have anything to add, just trying to get the last word in. Never works with JMC though.

Actually JMC, I would pay more for medicare, and I think the monthly premiums should be much higher for those that can afford it. They are only $100, quite the deal really.

Joe wrote:

pontificating blowhardiness

I think I will save that for a future handle.

haha LOL.

I don't really have anything to add, just trying to get the last word in. Never works with JMC though.

Actually JMC, I would pay more for medicare, and I think the monthly premiums should be much higher for those that can afford it. They are only $100, quite the deal really.

PS will be back, I promise. His pontificating blowhardiness supreme.

archer wrote: I think we have degenerated from "let them eat cake" to "let them die".....it's tough to be poor/lower middle class in this country.

Medicare is going to stop you from dying? Who knew!