Trump’s Obamacare Replacement is ANNOUNCED! Mike Johnson should pray a little harder for wisdom because his RSC REFORM is Trump’s Plan in 2019 AFTER the SWAMP ruined his 1st plan with Tax Credits. Read this stupid Trump Plan, it’s too pathetic! Trump’s 2017 plan would have destroyed MEDICAID and this NEW plan gives trillions to State politicians, what could go wrong? All medical underwriting is PROHIBITED except Short-Term-Medical (STM). Let me help you see the difference in premiums when people get “Healthy Discounts” with STM and EXPENSIVE Employer-Sponsored Insurance (ESI). An Iowa State Employee, a single-parent 30-year-old Mother with a child, pays $407 a month out of her check for Blue Cross PPO. When she gets cancer her COBRA skyrockets to $2,306. In Contract, low-cost STM is $125 a month! Look at the MATH goofballs.
Trump insists that “Healthy Discounts” and medical underwriting are ONLY available to low-cost STM! Plus, Trump ELIMINATES the employer mandate so only a FOOL employer would continue to spend $2,306 a month when $125 STM is available with access to the MAYO Clinic, the best hospital in the world! Of course, the State of IOWA is a FOOL! They have absolutely no problem spending taxpayer money. People spending their own money care.
This is Trump’s Plan and Trump is a FOOL too. DeSantis should support Trump’s ORIGINAL plan BEFORE the swamp changed it to save EXPENSIVE Medicaid. I meet with DeSantis next week in Jefferson, Iowa. DeSantis should ask why Trump BLOCK GRANT trillions to the States’ politicians instead of individual voters? No way low-IQ Trump can defend this garbage!
PLUS, the whole darn Trump plan is 5 years old BEFORE powerhouse Allstate bought TIME’S STM insurance company. No one can fight Allstate, they have cornered the American health insurance market for Healthy People. Blue Cross can have all the sick people with pre-existing heart problems, that’s expensive!
34 Trillion Reasons We Need a Healthcare Revolution: Ditch Employer-Based Insurance, Embrace Age-Based Tax Credits
We’re drowning in debt, politicians bicker over scraps, and healthcare costs are a runaway train. It’s time for a radical rethink. Let’s ditch the employer-based insurance band-aid and embrace a solution staring us in the face: age-based tax credits.
Employer-based insurance: A wartime relic fueling hyperinflation.
This system, born from a WWII wage freeze, isn’t insurance – it’s a bloated bill-paying monster. Employers act as middlemen, jacking up costs while leaving millions uninsured. The result? Hyperinflation in healthcare, devouring our economy and well-being.
Politicians fiddling while Rome burns
While we sink deeper into debt, our elected officials offer stale debates on Obamacare and entitlements. They tinker with the edges, ignoring the elephant in the room: a broken foundation. We need a complete overhaul, not another patch on a leaky roof.
Age-based tax credits: the life preserver we need
Lee Benham and Ron Griener have been shouting the answer for years: age-based tax credits. This simple solution empowers individuals, not employers, to choose their healthcare. It fosters competition, drives down costs, and ensures everyone has access.
Imagine a future where:
Healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Every American, regardless of employment, has the freedom to choose quality care.
Costs plummet. Competition thrives, eliminating the middleman markup and driving efficiency.
Innovation explodes. Unburdened by bureaucracy, healthcare providers can focus on cutting-edge treatments and cures.
Debt shrinks, not balloons. We free up trillions to invest in our future, not prop up a broken system.
This isn’t a pipe dream; it’s the path to a healthier, more prosperous nation. We can’t afford to keep treading water. Let’s grab the age-based tax credit life preserver and pull ourselves towards a brighter, healthier future.
Join the movement! Demand action from your representatives. Share this message. Let’s drown out the bickering with a chorus of reason. It’s time for a healthcare revolution, and age-based tax credits are the key.
This is just a starting point, of course. Feel free to adapt and expand on it to fit your specific voice and arguments. You can also add personal anecdotes, statistics, or rebuttals to common objections. Remember, passion and clarity are your weapons in this fight!
Loading...
A Fairer Future for Retirement: Beyond Social Security and Personal Accounts
The debate over Social Security’s future often gets bogged down in false choices: personal accounts versus a “Ponzi scheme.” But what if we could create a system that goes beyond these limited options, one that’s fairer, more sustainable, and doesn’t discriminate against certain groups like Black men?
Personal accounts offer a tempting glimpse of individual control and generational wealth creation. Imagine managing your own retirement investments, earning guaranteed returns and leaving something behind for your children. This could empower individuals and address existing wealth disparities.
Guaranteed returns on personal accounts eliminates risk and inequality. Not everyone is financially savvy or has equal access to investment opportunities. Mandating guarantee returns on PSA. eliminates existing inequalities and leaving low-income individuals or those with health challenges vulnerable.
Social Security, on the other hand encourages extreme poverty among seniors and promotes social barriers by decimating across race, gender and economic disparity. However, SS already has an efficient system in place, eliminating the need for additional infrastructure.
But simply raising the retirement age to 70, as some propose, is discriminatory and unfair. Black men, who have statistically shorter lifespans due to systemic inequities, would be disproportionately impacted, missing out on years of potential benefits while white women, with longer lifespans, might reap the advantage. This only widens existing gaps and erodes trust in the social safety net.
Instead of pitting these options against each other, let’s explore a hybrid approach:
Enhance Social Security with voluntary personal accounts. Allow individuals to contribute to their own accounts alongside guaranteed Social Security benefits. This empowers choice while maintaining a safety net.
Prioritize financial education and support. Everyone, regardless of background, should have the knowledge and tools to manage their finances effectively. This levels the playing field and reduces the risk of poor investment choices.
Address systemic inequalities. Tackling the root causes of poverty and discrimination ensures everyone has an equal chance to save and build wealth. This creates a fairer foundation for any retirement system.
The goal isn’t just personal savings or a safety net; it’s a future where everyone thrives in retirement. This requires comprehensive solutions that address fairness, sustainability, and individual needs without discriminating against specific groups. Let’s move beyond limited choices and build a retirement system that works for all, regardless of race, gender, or lifespan. It’s time to break the molds and create a future where everyone has a chance to age with dignity, security, and opportunity.
#HealthcareForAll #DitchEmployerInsurance #EmbraceTheFuture
Thanks for posting article on the RSC health insurance reforms.
I note that they have re-introduced the concept of a national high risk pool.
This one has been around the block a few times. The hope is that if the really expensive risks are segregated in the high-risk pool, then the bulk of healthy people can enjoy the kind of low premiums they used to get in the individually underwritten market (including the short term medical policies promoted above.)
This could work, but as the saying goes, “Show me the money.”
Based on my research, a policy for high risk persons would cost a minimum of $15,000 a year for a 40 year old, and way more than that for a 60 year old.
We cannot expect the high-risk person to pay the full premium; there have to be federal subsidies.
Let’s say that the insured pays $6000 a year, or $500 a month.
The government then subsidizes $9000 for the 40 year old.
The key question is how many people will need the high risk insurance. This takes some serious research, but let’s play around with a figure of 3 million persons who will want to be in this program.
At $9000 each in subsidies, the cost to the government is $27 billion a year.
Here is the problem — no Republican that I know of has ever come close to endorsing that much money for this problem.
Sec. Tom Price proposed $1 billion a year for high risk pools. Paul Ryan proposed $2.5 billion a year.
So I say to the current Repubs, and I wish them well, show me the money.
The RSC concept has the same fatal flaw as Obamacare. It’s basically an insurance scheme bolted on to a medical delivery cost problem. That is, another attempt to make insurance “affordable” by improving coverage and increasing subsidies. That ignores the underlying medical cost problem. Worse, it pours kerosene on a bonfire.
That concept didn’t work with employer-based insurance. It didn’t work with Medicare. It didn’t work with Medicaid. It didn’t work with Obamacare. Why should anyone believe the same concept – described in different words – would work now?
btw, I don’t see the problem as mainly physician-caused. It’s mainly a combination of the (1) cost of modern medical technologies, (2) cost of an aging population, (3) cost of defensive medicine, and (4) cost of regulation and process imposed on physicians by insurance companies and government authorities.
It’s possible that even if the delivery of care were optimized, its cost would not be much less than it is now. That’s an unknown because optimizing the delivery of care has not been seriously addressed. Nevertheless I think the goal should be to optimize medical delivery. Repeating past conceptual failure by treating our problem as an insurance problem is clearly a mistake to be avoided.
John is correct on the ultimate causes of our health care cost problems.
But give me a minute to discuss the insurance aspects a little further.
The RSC notes correctly that health insurance is becoming unaffordable for many families.
The question is, do their policy solutions really work?
In my opinion, the main cause of rising premiums is what is called the actuarial death spiral.
As claim costs go up, the insurer raises the rates. This causes low-risk people to drop out; the insurance is not worth paying for.
But the cost of claims stays about the same – the low risk people weren’t filing any claims.
So the insurer raises rates again to a smaller group, and this causes even more low risk people to drop out. Eventually you get the ridiculous premiums quoted by Mr Greiner for the state of Iowa plan.
The Democrats’ answer is to throw public money at the problem.
The Republican answer, in general, is to make it easier for low risk persons to escape. Their plans sound reasonable on the surface. What is a young man in perfect health doing with a health plan that covers maternity? or Parkinson’s for that matter?
As I mentioned in an earlier post, my concern is that the Republicans will be real good at attracting healthy people, but be real stingy in spending on sick people.
Bob, the death spiral is a factor (not the main factor) in the cost of insurance. I’m looking past the cost of insurance because rising insurance cost does not cause rising medical cost. It’s the other way around Rising cost of medical care causes the rising cost of medical insurance. The cost of medical care is the problem. It has always been the problem.
I’m saying the best way to stabilize medical delivery cost is to optimize the delivery of medical care so that physicians can deliver it at least possible cost consistent with standards of patient care.
I’m saying that’s not what our health care thought leaders, politicians, and others have been doing for the past, oh, 50 years or more. Instead, we’ve watched a steady parade of insurance schemes that failed because they were designed to solve the wrong problem. Now comes RSC with yet another.
I’m saying there’s no reason to believe RSC’s scheme will stabilize the cost of medical delivery, any better than its predecessors did.
Isn’t it obvious that If the cost of delivering medical care is not stabilized, then it will continue to rise? And, with that, the cost of medical insurance will also continue to rise? Death spiral or no death spiral?
Trump’s Obamacare Replacement is ANNOUNCED! Mike Johnson should pray a little harder for wisdom because his RSC REFORM is Trump’s Plan in 2019 AFTER the SWAMP ruined his 1st plan with Tax Credits. Read this stupid Trump Plan, it’s too pathetic! Trump’s 2017 plan would have destroyed MEDICAID and this NEW plan gives trillions to State politicians, what could go wrong? All medical underwriting is PROHIBITED except Short-Term-Medical (STM). Let me help you see the difference in premiums when people get “Healthy Discounts” with STM and EXPENSIVE Employer-Sponsored Insurance (ESI). An Iowa State Employee, a single-parent 30-year-old Mother with a child, pays $407 a month out of her check for Blue Cross PPO. When she gets cancer her COBRA skyrockets to $2,306. In Contract, low-cost STM is $125 a month! Look at the MATH goofballs.
Trump insists that “Healthy Discounts” and medical underwriting are ONLY available to low-cost STM! Plus, Trump ELIMINATES the employer mandate so only a FOOL employer would continue to spend $2,306 a month when $125 STM is available with access to the MAYO Clinic, the best hospital in the world! Of course, the State of IOWA is a FOOL! They have absolutely no problem spending taxpayer money. People spending their own money care.
This is Trump’s Plan and Trump is a FOOL too. DeSantis should support Trump’s ORIGINAL plan BEFORE the swamp changed it to save EXPENSIVE Medicaid. I meet with DeSantis next week in Jefferson, Iowa. DeSantis should ask why Trump BLOCK GRANT trillions to the States’ politicians instead of individual voters? No way low-IQ Trump can defend this garbage!
PLUS, the whole darn Trump plan is 5 years old BEFORE powerhouse Allstate bought TIME’S STM insurance company. No one can fight Allstate, they have cornered the American health insurance market for Healthy People. Blue Cross can have all the sick people with pre-existing heart problems, that’s expensive!
Hello President DeSantis!!!
34 Trillion Reasons We Need a Healthcare Revolution: Ditch Employer-Based Insurance, Embrace Age-Based Tax Credits
We’re drowning in debt, politicians bicker over scraps, and healthcare costs are a runaway train. It’s time for a radical rethink. Let’s ditch the employer-based insurance band-aid and embrace a solution staring us in the face: age-based tax credits.
Employer-based insurance: A wartime relic fueling hyperinflation.
This system, born from a WWII wage freeze, isn’t insurance – it’s a bloated bill-paying monster. Employers act as middlemen, jacking up costs while leaving millions uninsured. The result? Hyperinflation in healthcare, devouring our economy and well-being.
Politicians fiddling while Rome burns
While we sink deeper into debt, our elected officials offer stale debates on Obamacare and entitlements. They tinker with the edges, ignoring the elephant in the room: a broken foundation. We need a complete overhaul, not another patch on a leaky roof.
Age-based tax credits: the life preserver we need
Lee Benham and Ron Griener have been shouting the answer for years: age-based tax credits. This simple solution empowers individuals, not employers, to choose their healthcare. It fosters competition, drives down costs, and ensures everyone has access.
Imagine a future where:
Healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Every American, regardless of employment, has the freedom to choose quality care.
Costs plummet. Competition thrives, eliminating the middleman markup and driving efficiency.
Innovation explodes. Unburdened by bureaucracy, healthcare providers can focus on cutting-edge treatments and cures.
Debt shrinks, not balloons. We free up trillions to invest in our future, not prop up a broken system.
This isn’t a pipe dream; it’s the path to a healthier, more prosperous nation. We can’t afford to keep treading water. Let’s grab the age-based tax credit life preserver and pull ourselves towards a brighter, healthier future.
Join the movement! Demand action from your representatives. Share this message. Let’s drown out the bickering with a chorus of reason. It’s time for a healthcare revolution, and age-based tax credits are the key.
#HealthcareForAll #DitchEmployerInsurance #EmbraceTheFuture
This is just a starting point, of course. Feel free to adapt and expand on it to fit your specific voice and arguments. You can also add personal anecdotes, statistics, or rebuttals to common objections. Remember, passion and clarity are your weapons in this fight!
A Fairer Future for Retirement: Beyond Social Security and Personal Accounts
The debate over Social Security’s future often gets bogged down in false choices: personal accounts versus a “Ponzi scheme.” But what if we could create a system that goes beyond these limited options, one that’s fairer, more sustainable, and doesn’t discriminate against certain groups like Black men?
Personal accounts offer a tempting glimpse of individual control and generational wealth creation. Imagine managing your own retirement investments, earning guaranteed returns and leaving something behind for your children. This could empower individuals and address existing wealth disparities.
Guaranteed returns on personal accounts eliminates risk and inequality. Not everyone is financially savvy or has equal access to investment opportunities. Mandating guarantee returns on PSA. eliminates existing inequalities and leaving low-income individuals or those with health challenges vulnerable.
Social Security, on the other hand encourages extreme poverty among seniors and promotes social barriers by decimating across race, gender and economic disparity. However, SS already has an efficient system in place, eliminating the need for additional infrastructure.
But simply raising the retirement age to 70, as some propose, is discriminatory and unfair. Black men, who have statistically shorter lifespans due to systemic inequities, would be disproportionately impacted, missing out on years of potential benefits while white women, with longer lifespans, might reap the advantage. This only widens existing gaps and erodes trust in the social safety net.
Instead of pitting these options against each other, let’s explore a hybrid approach:
Enhance Social Security with voluntary personal accounts. Allow individuals to contribute to their own accounts alongside guaranteed Social Security benefits. This empowers choice while maintaining a safety net.
Prioritize financial education and support. Everyone, regardless of background, should have the knowledge and tools to manage their finances effectively. This levels the playing field and reduces the risk of poor investment choices.
Address systemic inequalities. Tackling the root causes of poverty and discrimination ensures everyone has an equal chance to save and build wealth. This creates a fairer foundation for any retirement system.
The goal isn’t just personal savings or a safety net; it’s a future where everyone thrives in retirement. This requires comprehensive solutions that address fairness, sustainability, and individual needs without discriminating against specific groups. Let’s move beyond limited choices and build a retirement system that works for all, regardless of race, gender, or lifespan. It’s time to break the molds and create a future where everyone has a chance to age with dignity, security, and opportunity.
#HealthcareForAll #DitchEmployerInsurance #EmbraceTheFuture
Thanks for posting article on the RSC health insurance reforms.
I note that they have re-introduced the concept of a national high risk pool.
This one has been around the block a few times. The hope is that if the really expensive risks are segregated in the high-risk pool, then the bulk of healthy people can enjoy the kind of low premiums they used to get in the individually underwritten market (including the short term medical policies promoted above.)
This could work, but as the saying goes, “Show me the money.”
Based on my research, a policy for high risk persons would cost a minimum of $15,000 a year for a 40 year old, and way more than that for a 60 year old.
We cannot expect the high-risk person to pay the full premium; there have to be federal subsidies.
Let’s say that the insured pays $6000 a year, or $500 a month.
The government then subsidizes $9000 for the 40 year old.
The key question is how many people will need the high risk insurance. This takes some serious research, but let’s play around with a figure of 3 million persons who will want to be in this program.
At $9000 each in subsidies, the cost to the government is $27 billion a year.
Here is the problem — no Republican that I know of has ever come close to endorsing that much money for this problem.
Sec. Tom Price proposed $1 billion a year for high risk pools. Paul Ryan proposed $2.5 billion a year.
So I say to the current Repubs, and I wish them well, show me the money.
The RSC concept has the same fatal flaw as Obamacare. It’s basically an insurance scheme bolted on to a medical delivery cost problem. That is, another attempt to make insurance “affordable” by improving coverage and increasing subsidies. That ignores the underlying medical cost problem. Worse, it pours kerosene on a bonfire.
That concept didn’t work with employer-based insurance. It didn’t work with Medicare. It didn’t work with Medicaid. It didn’t work with Obamacare. Why should anyone believe the same concept – described in different words – would work now?
btw, I don’t see the problem as mainly physician-caused. It’s mainly a combination of the (1) cost of modern medical technologies, (2) cost of an aging population, (3) cost of defensive medicine, and (4) cost of regulation and process imposed on physicians by insurance companies and government authorities.
It’s possible that even if the delivery of care were optimized, its cost would not be much less than it is now. That’s an unknown because optimizing the delivery of care has not been seriously addressed. Nevertheless I think the goal should be to optimize medical delivery. Repeating past conceptual failure by treating our problem as an insurance problem is clearly a mistake to be avoided.
John is correct on the ultimate causes of our health care cost problems.
But give me a minute to discuss the insurance aspects a little further.
The RSC notes correctly that health insurance is becoming unaffordable for many families.
The question is, do their policy solutions really work?
In my opinion, the main cause of rising premiums is what is called the actuarial death spiral.
As claim costs go up, the insurer raises the rates. This causes low-risk people to drop out; the insurance is not worth paying for.
But the cost of claims stays about the same – the low risk people weren’t filing any claims.
So the insurer raises rates again to a smaller group, and this causes even more low risk people to drop out. Eventually you get the ridiculous premiums quoted by Mr Greiner for the state of Iowa plan.
The Democrats’ answer is to throw public money at the problem.
The Republican answer, in general, is to make it easier for low risk persons to escape. Their plans sound reasonable on the surface. What is a young man in perfect health doing with a health plan that covers maternity? or Parkinson’s for that matter?
As I mentioned in an earlier post, my concern is that the Republicans will be real good at attracting healthy people, but be real stingy in spending on sick people.
Bob, the death spiral is a factor (not the main factor) in the cost of insurance. I’m looking past the cost of insurance because rising insurance cost does not cause rising medical cost. It’s the other way around Rising cost of medical care causes the rising cost of medical insurance. The cost of medical care is the problem. It has always been the problem.
I’m saying the best way to stabilize medical delivery cost is to optimize the delivery of medical care so that physicians can deliver it at least possible cost consistent with standards of patient care.
I’m saying that’s not what our health care thought leaders, politicians, and others have been doing for the past, oh, 50 years or more. Instead, we’ve watched a steady parade of insurance schemes that failed because they were designed to solve the wrong problem. Now comes RSC with yet another.
I’m saying there’s no reason to believe RSC’s scheme will stabilize the cost of medical delivery, any better than its predecessors did.
Isn’t it obvious that If the cost of delivering medical care is not stabilized, then it will continue to rise? And, with that, the cost of medical insurance will also continue to rise? Death spiral or no death spiral?