# Political.... Health Insurance Plan of GOP



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

This is a plan that Rand Paul is putting together....



> Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) unveiled an ObamaCare replacement bill Wednesday as part of his effort to urge the GOP to speed up work on an alternative to the healthcare law.
> 
> Paul has been pushing his colleagues to have a replacement plan ready to pass simultaneously with repeal of ObamaCare, a demand that has recently been gaining support inside the party. His office noted that President Trump and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have also reacted favorably to that idea.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ok... here are issues I have with this little "BLIP" of an article...

1. DOES NOTHING TO ACTUALLY LOWER WHY PREMIUMS COST SO MUCH.... Needs to lower the cost of doing medicine. Now I know this is just a blip and there could be things.... but they didn't say that so that is what I am going off of. (and yes I meant all caps as in screaming... what do elected officials don't understand... lower cost of medicine/procedures and it will lower cost of insurance.)

2. The tax credit to people buying individual plans.... Hmmm.... already in place. Unless it is more of a tax credit.

3. The HSA and tax refund idea.... Is good in theory but the government would need that money to directly going from tax rebate into an HSA account otherwise people would just abuse the system and take the $5000 and run. Which would just deflate the tax revenue that the US is bringing in which would send the countries debt even higher.

4. On the HSA... right now a single person can only put in $3400 (2017 tax year) as a contribution that is tax free..... So they would need to raise that up as well.

5. The 2 year pre-existing conditions thing. Well right now everyone should have insurance correct (one thing Obamacare said it would do with the mandate... :bop: ) But is a good thing. Because if those people with pre-existing conditions did run out and get insurance. They should have it for two years now. Which then would "grand father' them. That is kind of what I was seeing with Rand Pauls plan.

6. The elimination of some "mandatory" coverages.... This is good and bad. it will lower the cost of the plan. But will people not be covered correctly?? That is the double edge sword. It will help lower the cost....but then will people just go back to using the ER for minor injuries? Who knows. But this would lower the cost of premiums.

So again there are flaws in this plan. I am not 100% on board with it. But it is a jumping/starting point and really is the only one I have seen that has been announced so far.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Will they have to vote on it to know what's in it ? While the tax credit is nice it does .nothing for those who are at the poverty level and don't pay any taxes.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

health insurance should be treated exactly like car insurance, allow competition to drive down the cost.

buy across state lines, buy what you need not what some bureaucrat tells you ( old people like me don't need maternity insurance for example), kick all the illegals off the system and out of the country

competition thru capitalism without government meddling always drives the price down to the lowest possible level every single time

have a separate fund for the truly poor


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> have a separate fund for the truly poor


 I think we all agree with that. Separating the needy from the lazy has been a tough thing to do when democrats sell their soul for a vote. If we get the nerve to do something like that we could solve many of this countries problems, not only insurance.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Bobm.... Agree 100%... but also one thing is TORT reform.... lots of hospitals getting sued on a daily basis. So that increases the cost they push onto others..... and what pays 90% of medical bills... INSURANCE... so that is why premiums keep increasing.

Also the Health Care system needs to be revamped.... I don't need to go into great detail because I have before.... but when a person can call in and ask what it will cost them CASH for paying for an MRI... and the cost of Insurance paying for an MRI is about double.... something is wrong!!! I agree cash should get a discount.... but not double or sometimes triple!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Chuck I have had that happen with car insurance. The windshield of a Toyota Avalon was $675. I was talking to the guy at the body shop and he said he could do it for $250 cash. That's crazy. I don't understand how that is possible. Your up on the insurance things much better than I am so maybe you can give me a dumb down explanation.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Well with most insurance the company does research and finds out that the average price for a windshield and instillation is $$$..... So that is what they will pay. So that is what autobody shops charge. If you come in with cash... the auto body guy will say... well I get the glass for $100 and the shop time they will charge you $150. Where the insurance company they know that "shop" time is $100 an hour... now that is if they work 10 mins or the full hour. They charge an hour of shop time.

So to explain the above better.... and insurance company knows it takes 4 hours to put in a windshield (shop time, not driving the vehicle (considered shop time), etc. So they take that $100 glass, the 4 hours at an average of $100 per hour for "shop time".... that is how they get $500 for a new windshield + taxes and what not. Same goes for health insurance.... they average out stuff and that is how they come to a price.

Here is an example of how people abuse it..... trust me hospitals abuse it as well as body shops.

Growing up I rolled my dads explorer on a major highway.... cops came and called a wrecker. A guy from my home town showed up and hauled it back to my dads.... my dad wanted to pay him cash on the spot. Guy says, "i know this is an insurance claim so I will deal directly with the company!".... well normally that guy back then charged $50..... he charged the insurance company $400.... and they paid it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Well read an article today that said the GOP wants to get a "roth HSA" as apart of their health care over haul.

This is a great thing (if people can be trusted to save). It is good for employeers and employees. Here is a 3 grade level dumb down of an HSA... not to be confused with an HRA... I will explain the difference in the end.

Right now a single person can contribute something like $3600 per year to an HSA. Which can be used to pay anything medical out of that on medical stuff (insurance, deductible, medicines, over the counter medicines, chiropracter, etc). That money is tax deduction on your Income tax and that money can't be TAXED even if it is used. So it you YOUR MONEY. Now with an HSA you can keep piling up money... so lets just put it this way.... If a single person did this for 25 years (age 40 until they are 65 - retirement) and never got married and never touched that money with 0% interest (now interest rate I think it is about .05%)... They will have $90,000 built up that is TAX FREE!! They can use that money at that time any way they see fit! So they could use it to pay for medical insurance if they choose or at age 65 go buy a car! Then they received the tax benefit on both ends... deducted from their income all those years and also now tax free to use. This would be a nice little "retirement" fund to have sitting around on top of any other 401k's, Mutual Funds, Social Security, or other investments. Plus if you wanted to just use it for medical it would help pay for your medicare and medicare supliments when you turn 65 years old. :bop:

The difference for an HRA is that you can only keep $3600 in that account and cant keep piling it up. You have to use it or lose it.

Now there are also great tax breaks for an employer as well. Think about it.... Right now if the company is big enough they have to pay for a health plan... which is more than $3600 a year. Also lets say if they are a small guy.... they can give some "medical" coverage in an HSA and not get hammered by paying a full premium a year. They can pay all of that $3600.... and again that is a tax deduction for them.... and you as an employee don't have to "claim" this as income. A win/win.

I know people who contributed to HSA or had their employer's do it while they were covered under a spouses health insurance plan. So they used their employer's money since it was offered..... plus their regular retirement! Like I mentioned above they have this extra "fund" sitting there. Now their HSA is in a big program and is getting something like 3% return and they are still on a spouses plan that "retirees" can buy into for a increased rate compared to a full time employee. So that money is making a better return that a "savings" account. So they are just using savings to pay for their medical.

But this HSA is a good thing but needs help... ie: high interest rates for all, high limits you can add into it ($5000 a year would be nice for a single and double that for family),.... etc.


----------



## Habitat Hugger (Jan 19, 2005)

A Roth Type of HSA is a great idea Chuck, if you would trust people to use it as intended! I'm still cleaning spilled college from my lap top! I just finished (i hope) expect he absolutelely MOST PAINFUL MONTH of my entire life. Hopefully getting better now, but I could write a small book on the dealings with severe acute pain via ER's, getting appointments, adequate pain controls, proper surgery, etc. Another story though.
I read an interesting article about what the average 65 year old should expect tp pay for out of pocket medical expenses non covered by insurance - travel for medical stuff, glasses, hearing aids, day to day drugs, etc. READY?? Close tp 4 - 500 K based on a healthy age 65 and life expectancy of around 80 or so! So better stash away a bunch pods money you've never expected to budget for......ohwell, we can blame it on Obama or Trump or Jimmy Carter r someone when those bills come in, and they will, trust me!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

HH I remember you talking about spinal fusion a year or so ago. My wife had lower spinal fusion ten days ago. I think I am gaining a couple pounds a day sitting around the house being a nurse. That and my cholesterol med 
makes my legs hurt so bad I can't get any exercise. I think I could use a medical savings account. Wish it had worked this way all through my career.

I also remember you having pneumonia or something a while ago. I hope your doing better.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DuckDawg I sort of thought that way, but then thought perhaps I am being to pessimistic. I have seen people with no insurance mistreat themselves and thought they would find themselves in the ER. I remember the HMO's back in the 1980's that looked good, but the same type of people destroyed the ones I was familiar with. They run to the doctors for a sniffle.

I have taken people to dialysis in Bismarck and about 1/3 of he people going for dialysis are native Americans. Are they 1/3 of the population? I don't think so. Are they more susceptible to kidney failure? I don't think so. I think they abuse the heck out of themselves. Do they pay? I don't think so.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DuckDawg sent you a PM.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Duck Dawg....

You are 100% correct. And I agree.... with the bad PR/Law suits is TORT REFORM!!! But like I have mentioned before about 95% of our elected officials are from the Judiciary field...ie: Lawyers or Judges. So will they want "tort reform"... many of them got their teeth cut by suing hospitals or insurance companies. But you are 100% correct!!

I can only imagine the crap you have seen in the ER from people abusing the system. Then like you mentioned... the "buck" gets passed onto insurance companies or people who have the means to pay for things.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Now this is getting real interesting. A man who knows insurance (Chuck) and a man with experience in the system (DuckDawg). It's good to get perspective from both ends.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I haven't seen what the "new Obamacare lite" bill looks like. I cant get 100% behind it just yet...

I have just seen a couple of bullet points.... 
1. The 26 age stays for children for staying under parents policy
2. Insurance companies cant deny or charge more for Pre-Existing conditions
3. Sets up "relief"/Tax Credits not subsidies for people who buy their own insurance based on Age
4. Cutting funding to planned parent hood (unless they get rid of abortions)
5. Getting rid of taxing employer plans
6. either expanding medicad or medicare.
7. Allowing insurance companies to charge extra for people who have a "gap" in coverage. IE: Only buying when they need it.

Now nothing has been "officially" released yet to the public. So who knows what is else in it.

MY Take on this:

#1 & #2... Are good and I like that they stayed.

#3... Now some of this stuff is good... but doesn't go far enough to offer "relief" to people who buy their own insurance. Lets take my situation.... the tax credit is for age 30 and under you get a $2000 tax credit... over 60 you get $4000.... so I'm in the middle. Lets say I get $3000. Now if a single person makes over $75,000 a year that credit goes down by $100 per $1000 u make over. Lets say I make $90,000 a year (now I have other expenses with business loans, car loans, and student loans)... .so take home isn't that but that doesn't matter. So my tax credit is $1,500 a year? That isn't enough when my policy is $7200 a year... with a $6500 deductible. But I do like the idea of a "tax" credit. It just needs to be tweeked.

#4... I personally don't care about. I don't like the fact that people are killing unborn babies. But I look at it this way if they don't offer that we will have the possibility of more people on welfare and single parents and unwanted kids draining the system.

#5... This is good to stimulate business and maybe more employers will offer health insurance. This way you are not "making" them... it is a choice they can choose to do or not to do.

#6... I am not sure on this one yet.... Need to know more.

#7... This is a good thing IMHO... and before people go off on I'm for the insurance companies. Lets look at it this way. If people can't be penalized for pre-existing conditions. Why buy insurance until you need it...ie: Got diagnosised with something. So now that will drain the coffers of an insurance company. So the insurance company will have to spread that cost out over its other insureds.... IE: Premium increases for all!! So this way they can make sure people will keep insurance and if not they will get a penalty. So this will make people go out and buy insurance or keep insurance on themselves. So the insurance "pool" of a company will stay full and COULD keep premiums down... again COULD.

Now again haven't seen the whole bill yet and there is lots of misinformation floating around or just people talking. But above is what I have gathered so far.

Still this bill does nothing to lower the actual cost of health care right now. Plus it doesn't do a damn thing like what Duck Dawg was talking about either. So again I can't say I am 100% behind it yet... need TORT REFORM!!!

Plus a major NO NO is passing it with out the CBO intel on it. It is just like Pelosi saying... we need to pass it to know what is in it. This way they hopefully will have "proof" that it is a better system.

But here is a great quote I have from an article I read from Pelosi...."But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Monday that Republicans should not move the legislation through committees without the CBO analysis: "The American people deserve to see what Republicans are trying to do to their health care.""

SO NOW SHE WANTS ANALYSIS... but when Democrats pushed it thru... no worries... LOL. I wish Californians would see how crazy she is.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> #4... I personally don't care about. I don't like the fact that people are killing unborn babies. But I look at it this way if they don't offer that we will have the possibility of more people on welfare and single parents and unwanted kids draining the system.


 I guess there are other places for abortion that are not paid with my tax dollars. What bothers me is my money used to kill. I would like to see Planned Parenthood totally defunded. They say they do other things like mammograms etc, but hardly any of their offices have the technology to do a mammogram as I understand. They are little more than a butcher shop.



> SO NOW SHE WANTS ANALYSIS... but when Democrats pushed it thru... no worries... LOL. I wish Californians would see how crazy she is.


 Only Kalifornia could elect such a dumb person. That whole bunch from Kalifornia is out of their skulls. I think Diana Feinstein is just as nuts, but slightly more coherent. Then if you really want crap for brains there is Maxine Waters.
They need to tell Pelosi they have to pass it to see what's in it. They should use that line every time just to showcase democrat stupidity.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman... I totally understand your stance on Planned Parenthood. Like I stated I don't like the idea of the abortion... but my thought process is that our tax dollars for future welfare and other burdens on society of unwanted children. Plus the poor life that the child could possibly have might out weigh the abortion. But again you can say the reverse on it like that child could have found the cure for cancer. But again to me it is 50/50.

You are 100% correct that the Republicans should keep using that Quote from Nancy about "passing to see what is in it".... it will show how stupid and blindly many dems ran with the original ACA. That is why I think that they should wait until the CBO takes a look at the bill. That is if the CBO can be completely neutral... which I am still not 100% sure of... :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> That is if the CBO can be completely neutral... which I am still not 100% sure of... :eyeroll:


 I'm quit sure they can't think neutral, but hope they can't create enough bs to make it look bad.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I'd like to see a mandatory "test" of the congressmen's knowledge of any such plan before they can vote on it. Meaning that they just don't get info and advice from their aides but are actually forced to personally familiarize themselves with the plan and pass a test on its content and application before they vote. It's that important. oke:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Dakota.... agree 100%!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

dakotashooter2 said:


> I'd like to see a mandatory "test" of the congressmen's knowledge of any such plan before they can vote on it. Meaning that they just don't get info and advice from their aides but are actually forced to personally familiarize themselves with the plan and pass a test on its content and application before they vote. It's that important. oke:


That's to reasonable it will never work. :rollin:


----------

