After listening to the potential candidates stuff their feet into their mouths over the vaccine 'choice' issue, it seems that compared to any of the current crop of GOP imbeciles Hillary doesn't seem so bad.

There isn't one of those people I'd feel comfortable voting for.

McCain and Romney were poor enough choices, but this batch is going nowhere.

The election seems lost 20 months before it takes place.

Serious question, but no answer is hoped for. Is ocare meeting your healthcare needs as a retiree, particularly cost wise. Are you one of the some eighty percent that are enrolled with a subsidy.

Just wondering if you have an agenda to belittle one group and cheer lead for a pioneer of the village mentality.

I'm hardly cheerleading.

The fact is that the GOP as of today has no electable candidates.

I'm well prepared to go without a subsidy for my health insurance, but the fact is that those who have employer sponsored health insurance (like I did for 40 years) are subsidized too.

The cost to an employer to provide health insurance is and always was passed on to the consumer, so those costs are shared by society. The employee's share is a before tax deduction, in fact no SSA or medicare tax is even paid on it. By the way, you pay income tax on the SSA and Medicare tax. A tax on the tax. So you're saved that too.

Thus, group plans have always been subsidized - even encouraged. It's only been the individual ones that have not.

So, like the whore who won't work for a $1, but will for a million... we've established the situation, now we're just haggling price.

ACA in an attempt to level the field for all insurance purchasers created a huge disincentive to work. I'll not argue that the thing was botched, but the concept that everyone should have access to affordable insurance is correct.

I am and will continue to be a one issue voter. I like to shoot.

The race as of today, however, seems wide open... right after Hillary's second term.

It wouldn't surprise me if the GOP decided months ago that Rand Paul would be the nominee......

If the GOP disses its base again it will guarantee another presidential loss...Geo

At the rate the GOP is going they might as well just save their money and not even enter the race.

I don't think any American is ready for another Bush or a fAt New Jersey bully and Rand Paul has no chance of winning.

I think Scott Walker is their only chance of winning.

Gee, I always thought that I exchanged my labor and time for wages and benefits. Of course, all labor costs are always passed on to the consumer. I don't think it's subsidized if I work for it. Those of us who still work for a living don't do it for free, nor should we be expected to. There are those Democrats who have repeatedly proposed taxing benefits as income, but we never hear them wanting to tax welfare and food stamps as income. However, Unemployment Compensation given to laid off and displaced workers is taxed as income... the only insurance payout which is taxed. Workers and productive people have taken it on the chin quite enough already.

They don't even drug test Welfare recipients (or Congressmen). I think there would be a lot less Democrat voters (and Congressmen) if they did.

I have been accused of being a single issue voter, but typically, when you look at a candidate's stance on infringing upon the 2nd Amendment, those Leftist Democrats are also the ones who wish to tax me more, create a more Socialist country, and impose more government regulations which violate many other Constitutional freedoms.

All are important to me, but I can't for the life of me understand how anyone who enjoys the freedom to own guns and shoot could ever vote for extreme anti-gun politicians like Obama or Hillary. Ever!

Agree with jOe on Scott Walker, but it's still very early in the game.

Employer provided health insurance is subsidized by the consumer only insofar as all expenses are passed on to the consumer. Employer provided health insurance, as all other benefits, is part of the cost of hiring an employee and as such is a part of his salary. Were the employer not to provide health insurance, he could pay a higher salary and the employee would be responsible for his own healthcare costs. That is the way it worked in the dark ages when I first entered the labor force.

You have to laugh at the irony of those who wish to restrict the "Right to Choose" when it comes to vaccines, but are totally for free choice when it comes to aborting innocent unborn babies.

Most people recover from measles, but not too many babies recover from being aborted. For the record, I am in favor of most vaccines.

And do you all notice how the media is being very quiet about the largest pool of unvaccinated children... those of illegal aliens?
Is it any surprise then that the measles outbreak would occur in Southern California which has a very large illegal population?

Ergo, the consumer pays more for goods and services which has the exact same effect as paying a tax - the consumer has less money. The entire cost of all healthcare is borne by society as a whole. This method funds part of it.

The company has decided that their investment in developing a useful employee is protected by ensuring that the employee has access to health care. Healthy workers show up to work. They have longer productive lives.

The problem is that many workers, especially those at the lower end of the pay scales, can't be trusted to actually use their own money to buy insurance even if a reasonable allowance is provided for just that. It's the same logic that resulted in the establishment of social security, and withholding tax. Planning for the future is not a universal trait. As much as we may wish otherwise, people frequently do not behave in a responsible fashion.

We don't turn people away from emergency rooms in this country, nor should we. The cost of that bit of largess as some see it is also borne by society in the form of higher cost for all. Thus the individual mandate.

The fallacy that companies 'will' (as opposed to 'could') pay a higher wage instead of providing sponsored health care and the fallacy that people 'will' (as opposed to 'could') actually spend it on health insurance is what lead to the employer mandate.

Reality is in conflict with ideology on both sides of the debate. What we need is someone who can offer a workable compromise.

I fail to see that person.

As far as Walker... which blue states turn red with his nomination?

Ummm, Wisconsin for one? Hopefully a few others who now see that "Hope and Change" was a failure and a lie.

As far as employee health care costs being borne by the consumer being the same as a tax, the consumer has a choice whether or not to buy a product, but a taxpayer is obligated or penalized regardless.

The biggest problem with the entire Health Care debate was that no one took the time to understand or ask why Health Care costs ballooned at 2 1/2 to 3 times the rate of inflation for decades.
Throwing more money at it, whether taxpayer funded or consumer driven, has not solved the problem. Costs are still rising, and the people who have been forced to buy ObamaCare are finding that they have huge deductibles and fewer services. There is no free lunch except for those who are already getting taxpayer subsidized freebies. Money has merely been moved around and working people will get less for more while non-working people will get more for less. ObamaCare is nothing but wealth AND health redistribution.

You mean like how Tennessee voted for Gore?

Costs are rising, that's for sure. I'd like to think care is getting better, and in some ways it is. The FDA isn't helping. They insist on 'risk free' drugs and there is no such thing.

Malpractice awards drive part of the cost. The 'game' played by medical billers who have to bill an insurance company 3x to get paid x doesn't help the poor bastard who isn't part of a group and can't negotiate his billed amount. Medicare tyranny results in higher cost for those not yet 65. The reasons are there for the looking.

Another driving force is the way the doctor supply is controlled by the doctors. You can't hardly get the schooling without paying your tariff to the monopoly and they control the quantity of medical school output. Good racket.

As far as freebies, how do you want your freebies? You want unlimited write offs by the hospitals taking care of indigents, or you want the cost spread around a few underwriters? Same difference. We all pay one way or another.

As far consumer choice vs. tax... one cannot avoid purchasing the necessities of life, and all industries have employees. I don't have to buy a Cadillac, but I do need to eat and pay for shelter, etc. I also try to avoid tax in all it's forms, but like most I have only limited success.

We very much agree on the constitutional issue of the second article. That is the one upon which all the others depend.

I would, however, prefer my pro-second amendment politicians keep their hands off the rest of the document. Separation of church and state is also important to me, as is my right to protection against unwarranted search.

Some values of the far right I do not share, but I'm not a communist either.

Is there no middle ground?

Blue Wisconsin has gone with Walker a couple times now, and he even weathered a recall election that was heavily funded by the DNC to take him out. He has a lot of successes and proof of ability to govern and manage. If he manages to disappoint the voters of Wisconsin, he will suffer the same fate as Gore in Tennessee.

I guess I still don't see Gold Plated Health Care as a Constitutional Right, and I don't think so many able bodied people should get free and high cost emergency care. Of course, I have always worked for my benefits and understand that liens would be placed upon my home and assets if I decided that I didn't need to pay my bills. I would like to see the able-bodied indigents somehow have to work off their freebies. We have huge infrastructure deficiencies, and there is no shortage of work that needs to be done. We don't all pay one way or another. Some perfectly able people are getting a free ride, and it needs to stop. It is not compassionate to take many hours out of your life and my life and give it to freeloaders. We all have finite lives. If you or I die prematurely because we worked hard to support freeloaders, or if a freeloader dies because they were too lazy to pay for their health care, what's the difference? I think if more able bodied people were refused free care, they would miraculously find work and the means to pay just like you and I.

You raise many interesting points about the factors which are driving these insane health care costs. Too bad our politicians haven't been looking at the problems and actually solving them instead of just moving money around and redistributing wealth. That was exactly my point. Simply throwing money at our problems has not solved any that I'm aware of.

I'm not for freeloading either.

You may find it interesting that Michigan is going to start drug testing welfare recipients on a 'reasonable suspicion' basis. I doubt it will stand in court, but they've at least made the effort.

I think that access to affordable health care is a human right. I'm not advocating freeloading or free anything, but there is no justifiable reason that decent insurance should cost $1,000/month.

Your point that taxes are not voluntary is well taken and very valid. Taxation is a terrible power, and many times misused.

I well recall a session as a prospective juror, listening to a passionate lecture by the circuit court judge about our trial by jury system and how we don't administer our laws like many countries do - down the barrel of a gun. I resisted the urge, barely, to ask just what the hell he thought backed up a property tax if it wasn't a sheriff with a gun...

Sgjones, all your medical cost considerations could be fixed for free by legislation and sound regulation rather than legitimizing redistribution.

The problem with all your explanations as I see it is, it doesn't come down to whining about cost, hoops to jump through, tax-n-spending and on and on. The problem is, fixing the problem of the uninsured citizens has not been addressed, and you don't seem willing to admit it. You say, it's here to stay and we have to unbotch it, I don't think even scratches the surface of promise rhetoric.

Also, look at your 'basic' needs. It looks like you don't need a Cadillac, but apparently we do 'need' a car? Just like food and shelter, is the gore mansion and caviar covered under 'needs'.

Mostly, I was curious to ask. Apparently, separation of church-n-state is an area that you can count on the left to preserve. When exactly have you noticed a right wing elected official at any level, attempt to start or advocate for state sponsored 'religion'. Do you think we might keep mandatory work place mecca prayer breaks, airport handwash stations, and direct access by cair to this wh, to a minimum. Or, that type of religious integration is pc okay.

By the way, I hope your wife is doing well, and I'm glad that your scenario doesn't rely on ocare like it seemed to at one time.

Thank you for your concern about my bride, Craig. She is doing fairly well, my being home now and off the road has made all the difference.

As for fixing the problem of uninsured citizens... that actually has been addressed at least to an extent in the program. There is currently no reason for anyone to not have insurance that at the very least pays providers after a huge deductible has been satisfied. The entire cost of a so called Bronze Plan is paid for nearly everybody who qualifies for a subsidy. Deductibles approach $6,000 annually.

There is a major incentive to purchase the Silver Plan options in that the insurance is actually very good, comparable to an excellent employer plan. This is, however, far from free.

The major flaw in the plan is of course the huge deductible with the Bronze scheme. This requires providers who choose to participate to in effect grant credit in the amount of the deductible to those seeking care. It's not likely they will see payment from the target audience in the event of a large bill. It does limit the exposure of a hospital to the first $6k of what may otherwise be a huge write off.

Can the system be fine tuned? Of course. It can also be replaced with something more sensible, and we certainly have the talent in this country to do that if we can all get on the same page. I'm not hopeful that we can.

Personally, my needs are modest. I do have working man's ethics, and (again) I do not seek to freeload. I agree that the problem of the huge escalating cost of health insurance has not been corrected, but I'm not above participating in a program that protects what assets and freedom I still have against an out of control health care system. I paid into the system for 40 years, with essentially no claims. Now, if I need health care why shouldn't I be able to afford it?

We'll get nowhere on the religious discussion. Suffice that I find individuals such as Huckabee and Jeb not so much a threat that a 'state' religion is in the offing as a possible source of unworkable and divisive rhetoric that will not serve progress on the national debate one bit. Freedom from religion in public policy is essential to our system, as is respect for the beliefs of others.

With all due respect, this is to some extent or another a freeloading mindset. Regardless of the rhetoric of insuring all the uninsured, the numbers do not support the claim.

Can anyone really hope to get affordable health care just because they 'paid in', if they dictate to facilities and providers to take the loss on the deductibles/copays, etc. The reason I asked if you were satisfied with ocare is because you're a clear supporter, but there is no answer to cost containment. You wisely budgeted for huge increases, does the plan protect joe average from cost surprises.

My understanding, I thought by law, copays and deductibles are required to be payed. Isn't that the point, to discourage use of the 'benefit'. I didn't know cheating doctors out of their pay for the work they do was written into the law, but maybe it's risky to retirement plan based on getting the bronze deductible 'waiver'.

I know religious discussions go no where. You brought it up, along with the question, 'is there no middle ground'. But, it doesn't look like we can get along. All I asked was if you knew of any politician that tried to create or advocate for a state sponsored religion. My feeling, the simple answer is no, but you elected instead to nicely justify division.

I was wonder if you noticed, bo said in the sotu lecture, that the rich needed to pay more of their 'fair' share. He said....they should be taxed on their 'accumulated' wealth, didn't mention their 'income'. As King would say, suck it up. If you paid in for forty years and bo says you do NOT deserve affordable care, then it's simple, you do not. Careful in the voting booth, good luck getting answers before hand, but any talk of villages and fairness probably means your nest egg is on the radar. It doesn't matter what your 'ethic' is, they'll justify it like supporters do of ocare.

walker the light weight union buster up against cuomo the heavy weight populist...

i shutter to think of how that would turn out...


https://www.google.com/?trackid=sp-006#q=cuomo

Health care administration in the US is evolving slowly. Some of the more obvious defects have been corrected. For instance, lifetime benefit limitations have been lifted and the 'pre-existing condition' weasel out has been outlawed. Insurance is now 'portable' to some extent, and substandard plans that paid low or no benefits and yet cost real money have been banished. And no, you can't keep your usury plan even if for some reason you like it (BO isn't the only president to have been misinformed about his own administration's policies - reference Iraq 'weapons of mass destruction').

Insurance companies are evil, and require constant regulation and supervision. Medical bankruptcy is a common form of bankruptcy. What happens is that a serious illness eats all a person's assets because of underinsurance and they end up on Medicaid and welfare. We can pay as a group upfront or pay later. In either case, we pay.

Deductibles must be paid, in the same way that mortgage contracts must be paid. But you can't get blood from a turnip. Cost containment as far as insurance cost in recent years has trended to these high deductible policies. Due to the number of write offs, the cost of health care goes up to cover the losses. It's an endless cycle.

BO is a communist, as is Pelosi. I'm well aware of that. History does show that the largest tax increase in history was signed into law by Bush the First. The highest marginal tax rates were increased the most. Ironically, these rates were temporarily suspended during the administration of Bush the Second and thereafter referred to as the 'Bush tax cuts'. The only thing new was the 10% bracket and that has stayed.

The system still sucks. I didn't vote for anyone who helped pass ACA, I'm just trying to live with it.

As far as being entitled to affordable insurance after having been a working drone for 40 years and paying in... yes, I do feel that way. All I'm asking for is a policy that costs less than 10% of my meager gross. Is that unreasonable? Do high earners who have paid SSA tax refuse the distribution after retirement on moral grounds? The difference is an annual policy vs. a lifetime shakedown. Health insurance is a social system just like SSA and lifetime administration seems the obvious way to go... just skip the pyramid scheme.

The 'Gold' plan I bought last year from BCBS of MI went up by $100/month for this year. Total plan cost increased by 17%. The regulators approved that. Clearly, cost containment so far is a giant failure. I instead bought a Silver HMO plan, which is obviously what they wanted me to do.

The only thing worse than the health care system administration is the political system trying to sort it out. Both extreme positions shouting "you're an assbag" at each other isn't real productive.

I didn't vote for the scum bag.

First off, the largest tax increase in recent history was in 1968 under Democrat Lyndon Johnson, at 1.74% of the GDP. The tax increase Shotgunjones attributed to Bush 41 actually came under Reagan in 1982, but it followed a massive Reagan tax cut in 1981, so the net effect was a small tax decrease.

Lying Democrats love to point out the 1982 increase but somehow forget to mention the even larger 1981 decrease. Right King?

Next largest as a percentage of GDP came in 1993 under Bill Clinton. This was followed by the 1990 Bush 41 tax increase where Democrats convinced him to violate his "Read my lips... no new taxes." pledge. Then in a wonderful display of bipartisanship, they drove the spike into his heart.

I wonder why Republicans aren't smart enough to take a page from the Democrat playbook and constantly criticize Obama for violating his own pledge to not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 per year. Here's a video of Obama telling that Lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUiiIrZpUCU

The next largest tax increase was Jimmy Carter's 1980 "Oil Windfall Profits Tax" which of course got passed on to the consumer. Seems like most of our massive tax increases came from Democrats or were encouraged by Democrats. What can we learn from this as 2016 approaches?

The all time largest tax increase in U.S. History was the Revenue Act of 1942 which was used to finance WWII expenditures, and was 5.04% of GDP.

The Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare is right up there in terms of massive tax increases, but unless it is changed or repealed, it will almost certainly move into first place as the largest tax increase of all time.

The annual deductible for Bronze ObamaCare plans is actually $10,400 per year, and $6000 for the Silver plans. This is in addition to the monthly premiums. For a working person on minimum wage and working an average of 28 hours per week, getting sick while covered under a Bronze plan could eat up virtually 100% of their income, and even a Silver plan would leave very little for food and rent. Fewer folks will actually go bankrupt only because healthy young people who seldom get sick are now forced to subsidize the rest through either insurance premiums or fines and penalties. But the smoke and mirrors game was always meant mostly to redistribute wealth and benefits to the non-working class. The basic problem of medical costs rising much faster than inflation has not been addressed as evidenced by Shotgunjones' one year 17% premium increase.

The deductibles and maximum out of pocket costs in excess of premium for all plans under ACA vary by insurer, state, and region.

They are also different for those under 200% Poverty Level. This is based on income, not assets.

In MI, a Silver HMO at 199% PL carries a $450 deductible and an annual $1,450 max out of pocket cost.

For those over 200% PL, the Gold plans offer comparable limits to a Silver at the lower income level. They cost about $100/mo. more.

The subsidy continuously slides until 400% PL when it ceases.

I did not find any Bronze plan offered in Michigan that had in excess of $6,000/yr. max out of pocket cost.

Edit: I just looked it up. ACA says max out of pocket for any plan is limited to $6,600 for an individual. Family plans, of course, are more.

Thanks for the discussion Keith, and Craig, and all. I wish we could just go shooting but it's too damn cold here.

That may be true. I have not shopped for any ObamaCare plans because I still have coverage through my employer.

The figures I used came from the U.S. News and World Report special issue on Best Hospital Rankings which I was reading this morning when I went to the doctor for my annual physical.

Another intangible will be the level of care you will receive with ObamaCare coverage. I recently told the story about a Doctor friend who, along with many of his colleagues, will be refusing ObamaCare patients because of the ridiculously low reimbursements he would get for patient care. He told me that to do a Hospice visit, he would leave his office and drive perhaps 30 minutes, spend at least 30 minutes with the patient examining and prescribing medications, drive another 30 minutes back to his office, and get paid less than $8.00. He said that the average reimbursement wouldn't even cover his gas for this type of patient care, and that after taxes, he would be making less than a McDonalds french fry cook.

It's still very early in this game, but so far ObamaCare doesn't look so hot. I'd like to agree that everyone should have a right to affordable health care, but I have not seen anyone show how we can possibly do that when we already have a $17 trillion National Debt and $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Spending money we don't have cannot possibly have a happy ending. When the whole economy collapses, everyone will suffer, not just the relative handful who go bankrupt due to lack of medical coverage.

I can't disagree. There must be a better way.

As for coverage/service...

I used the insurance once last year, for a simple outpatient thing.

The total tab as billed was about $850, which used up my $250 deductible (Gold BCBS plan). The plan paid the rest less my 20% co-insurance. I specifically bought that plan because I knew this minor procedure was pending.

The EOB statements looked just like any other insurance, and the providers got paid their billed amount less a 'discount' all insurers take. The amount paid was about 90% of that billed.

I don't have an 'O'bamacare' card. It's a Blue Cross card like any other, and the plan is very similar to any employer sponsored contract. There is no reason for any provider to refuse it.

I've been through a whole host of employer sponsored plans, from Cigna which wasn't too bad once I talked the company into the 'passive PPO' because there were no providers in my area otherwise, to one called Great West Healthcare which as far as I'm concerned is just outright fraud. Great West's scam is that they are a form of self insurance for a company, and their goal is to manage the employer cost (read here, screw the employee).

Between my bride's Medicare, the PDP and Medigap for her and my BC PPO, we paid last year (including the medical insurance part of a policy on one automobile) in excess of $8,000. I'm freeloading I guess.