What's a conservative way to address healthcare and insurance costs?

[dblack]

What do we all want? I assume we all want everyone to be covered if they get cancer. Can we start there? And I mean without losing my life savings. Thank god I have employer provided healthcare. I better continue to have it till I'm 65. 10 more years. God willing.

I think a lot of us would support lowering medicare age to 62 when you can collect ss. Not 65. I know many, many, many people who are 63 or 64 and have told me they'd already be retired if they didn't have to pay out of pocket for healthcare.

I don't know what to say about 3rd party people. You have a lot of good ideas, you get it on some level, but you don't realize we live in a 2 party system and yall need to pick a side. And not the GOP side. Maybe instead of Trump you should have given Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren a shot. OMG she said she was an indian. Isn't it crazy how one little thing can take a good Democrat down but Bush can lie us into Iraq and Trump can lie constantly and somehow to you, they are the same?

Sorry. If the best your two parties can do is "Biden/Harris vs Trump" I'm not pretending that either "side" is worth a shit. Certainly not worth a vote.

Do better.

 

[sealybobo]

But we know that will not happen. Democrats cannot outsmart Billionaires. Billionaires own Democrats - and Republicans.

Can you give a more realistic answer? It sounds like you want to have medicare for all in reality, but with a fairy tale way of paying for it.

Wait a second. Papageorgio says Biden was bullying Mark Zuckerburg. I just realized the cognitive dissonance that must take place when someone says the billionaires own the Democrats but then they also claim that Biden bullies Billionaires. Seems like you guys want it both ways, are arguing out of both sides of your mouths, and honestly, your party likes the country being run and controlled by billionaires and corporations. You voted for one didn't you? Well sort of. He may not have actually been a billionaire in 2016 but you voted for him. Did he ever release those taxes?

 

[sealybobo]

Sorry. If the best your two parties can do is "Biden/Harris vs Trump" I'm not pretending that either "side" is worth a shit. Certainly not worth a vote.

Do better.

Yea yea yea. Before when it was Biden v Trump you guys said "if one party would just nominate a younger person" and so we gave you a younger person and you voted for the old ****.

Even young women voted for him. So **** them too. LOL. They believed Trump would be better for the economy than Kamala. Guess what? He isn't.

 

[dblack]

Yea yea yea. Before when it was Biden v Trump you guys said "if one party would just nominate a younger person" and so we gave you a younger person and you voted for the old ****.

Even young women voted for him. So **** them too. LOL. They believed Trump would be better for the economy than Kamala. Guess what? He isn't.

The funny thing is - I totally agree with you about Trump. He's a buffoon. But people hate your party so badly that he still won. Doesn't that have you rethinking your approach? People aren't buying what you're selling.

 

[sealybobo]

Hypothetical situation:

A person makes a decision at age 25 to not have health insurance, even if his employer offers "subsidized" option. Instead of making monthly health insurance payments, they save and invest the 300-1200 dollars as part of their "life savings."

At fifty-five, that person develops a very treatable, but very, very, expensive form of cancer.

Who should be responsible for paying for that treatment?

I was surprised when a co-worker told me that her husband's medicare (with supplements) was better than her workplace health plan. I have the same plan as she and it isn't bad, relative to most post ACA plans. Yet, she found Medicare to be better for her husband, who is only a few years older than I. He is a former football player and goes to the doctor more often than I due to old injuries and wear and tear.

So, from a strictly consumer viewpoint, lowering the age of Medicare makes a lot of sense - unless one uses dynamic reasoning.

If we lower the age for Medicare, then Medicare will cost more to administer. Who should be responsible for paying for that? We cannot just say "everyone!" becuase we know that will not happen. People who get Medicare at 62 and then are able to retire, for example, will not pay the additional price. The fact that they stop paying means even more money is needed.

Another way to look at it: who will pay the largest proportion of their wages/salaries/income to Medicare? Would it not be the lowest income among us?

How about this. If you get sick and need government help so you won't go bankrupt getting cured, then that goes against your social security. You can no longer start collecting at 62 if something like this happens to you. NOW you have to wait till 67 to collect. AND, let's say you were going to get 2000 a month. Maybe now you will only get $1500 a month. In other words, you owe that money.

I had this same idea for welfare. Why should a welfare mom get to retire and collect ss at 62? Sorry honey you have to wait till 67.

 

[SmokeALib]

Yea yea yea. Before when it was Biden v Trump you guys said "if one party would just nominate a younger person" and so we gave you a younger person and you voted for the old ****.

Even young women voted for him. So **** them too. LOL. They believed Trump would be better for the economy than Kamala. Guess what? He isn't.

To be fair, I wouldn't hire camela to run a laundromat.

 

[sealybobo]

To be fair, I wouldn't hire camela to run a laundromat.

That's projection.

I wouldn't hire Trump to run ANYTHING other than my company into the ground. And he would make a lot of money in the process.

I wouldn't hire Trump to watch my 12 year old grand daughters. Biden either but Biden isn't around anymore now is he? Plus with Trump you have Scott Bessent around. A gay man who has shown violent tendencies. Who let him adopt kids? They should do a wellness check on them often.

 

[Seymour Flops]

How about this. If you get sick and need government help so you won't go bankrupt getting cured, then that goes against your social security. You can no longer start collecting at 62 if something like this happens to you. NOW you have to wait till 67 to collect. AND, let's say you were going to get 2000 a month. Maybe now you will only get $1500 a month. In other words, you owe that money.

I like that idea a lot. Much better than thecvarious schemes that make me the ultimate payer.

I had this same idea for welfare. Why should a welfare mom get to retire and collect ss at 62? Sorry honey you have to wait till 67.

Also that one.

Your party would wail about the injustice.

 

[sealybobo]

I like that idea a lot. Much better than thecvarious schemes that make me the ultimate payer.

Also that one.

Your party would wail about the injustice.

Think about it. Some woman who collected welfare from 20-40 years old while raising bastards should not be able to retire at 62. She owes us some money.