WHAT'S THE HURRY PRES. TRUMP? How about an entirely new healthcare plan called REAL Social Security?

[swtrnr]

Frankly I'm puzzled by the big hurry the new administration is in to ram another healthcare system down our throats the same way Obamacare was. It's simply a false narrative that we're either stuck with Obamacare or take what's being offered by the new bill. There are other ideas that need to be on the table, including this one: REAL Social Security. Before sending you to the website to read about it I'll give you a teaser: the plan would not only replace Obamacare with universal healthcare that would be much better than anything ever proposed but would by its very implementation (after a phasing in process) deal with virtually all entitlements in such a way that deficit spending would no longer be required (at least for social programs), thus facilitating an opportunity to pay off or at least pay down the national debt in relatively short order. To read about it go to www.realsocialsecurity.org. You can comment on it there as well as reply here.

[ABX]

Here is what seems to be the crux of the plan which, from an economics sense, is unbelievably asinine. The height of crony corruption  where the government chooses and funds (though your tax dollars and forced employer contributions) private corporations overseeing social programs. So these few businesses will have a financial interest to keep people on and active in social programs, with zero competition. This is Obamacare on steroids.

Every worker would continue to pay federal, state and local taxes (where applicable) but at a significantly lower rate (once fully implemented) because there would no longer need be any governmental funding of social programs. (In fac, if this plan were adopted it might be a good time to change over to the long discussed fair/sales tax system.) Also deducted from our paychecks (or paid directly by the self-employed), in similar fashion to present-day FICA and Medicare deductions, would be an additional amount, matched by your employer. But instead of the money going to the government it would be sent to a predesignated and approved private company. (I would envision one of these these companies to be a sort of combination Vanguard/Cigna or T. Rowe Price/Aetna, e.g., because of their combined financial and medical functions. These companies would be responsible to administer the funds received on behalf of each worker. Each worker's fund would necessarily be compartmentalized (health insurance, retirement, rainy day fund, etc.), the companies investing them in order to obtain maximum long-term return, and to distribute the funds back to the worker (or family) when needed (and authorized) to pay hospital, doctor, dental and other medical expenses such as prescription drugs. A portion of everyone's contributions would necessarily go to an umbrella fund that would cover others with catastrophic illnesses, the disabled and for those who for whatever reason can't cover all their needs with their own accounts. These administering companies (and their profits)  would be highly regulated and the funds therein insured by the federal  government. Although the money would not be available to the worker on demand he/she would have ultimate control and the freedom to transfer their funds to any of the other approved  companies without penalty, thus insuring healthy competition.

[GtHawk]

Apparently, they felt this plan was so awesome that they registered today to share it with us. I don't understand why socialists insist on pushing socialized medicine on Americans, when it doesn't work worth a damn where it's in use.

[Sanguine]

Why do I want some federal bureaucrat handling my healthcare?  I just don't get it.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Why do I want some federal bureaucrat handling my healthcare?  I just don't get it.

Some people just don't like personal liberty or personal responsibility. 

[ABX]

Apparently, they felt this plan was so awesome that they registered today to share it with us. I don't understand why socialists insist on pushing socialized medicine on Americans, when it doesn't work worth a damn where it's in use.

This one is actually classic Fascist (still collectivist). Not in the Hitler sense, but the old 'marriage of corporate and state', with the government providing for and awarding singular corporations favored status in required transactions by all people and forced payment by individuals and other businesses to these private corporations.

If it sounds like how Obamacare works with insurance companies, you are right on the money. This is just that on a grander scale.

[truth_seeker]

It looks like the situation of government employees, all across this country.

And when  you look at "full costing" of their costs, the unfunded nature of their pensions as promised, many municipalities are going to face bankruptcy soon.

Vallejo, San Bernardino, to name a couple.

California uses a 3 and 30 rule, whereby government employees get 3% up to 30 years, for their pensions.

A police officer at age 55 retires, with 90% of his highest pay level, and usually includes massive overtime in the period used to calculate. He also has platinum health coverage, for him self and surviving spouse, for their remaining lifetimes.

The result is one officer on the job, from age 25 to 55, and two more on pensions costing staggering amounts. The "funded" portion of these pensioners, is  only a part of the total cost.

The unfunded part comes from current accounts; general expenditures--until they can't cover it, which is bankruptcy time.

[swtrnr]

There are only two things that could remotely be considered socialistic about the program I've introduced. One is that all workers would be required to participate, thus solving the problem of not having enough participants who aren't sick to take care of those who are. The second "socialistic" item is that a portion of everyone's contributions would go into an umbrella fund to supplement the needs of those with less/no income. The charge that this is "Obamacare on steroids" is ridiculous because each worker/contributor would have total control over their accounts (after their umbrella contributions are deducted), making all their own healthcare choices whether that be choosing their own doctor, hospital, pharmacy, specialist, right on down the line. As far as making the administering companies rich, trust me when I say that there would be plenty of healthy competition for the right to administer a worker/family's account. And besides how is it that much different than states requiring drivers to purchase auto insurance from private companies? Now for the great advantage of this plan: all the money and control would be out of the government's hands, ANY government! So there would no longer be any need for deficit spending by the government for social needs programs, thus a unique opportunity to pay down the national debt. And don't forget, even though the money itself wouldn't be in the hands of the government, this program would be highly regulated and insured by the federal govenment. Finally, can you imagine just how much taxpayer money would be saved by eliminating the bureacracy now required to administer all these programs (Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, disability, unemployment compensation, food stamps, etc.)? I could also point out many other advantages to the plan, including saving every business a ton of money by not having to provide health insurance and their not having to worry about the decision as to whether they should hire full time or part time. The system would be completely portable so preexisting conditions would be a moot point. I rest my case. If you do go to the website I humbly ask that you please read it in its entirety before commenting. After that I definitely do solicit your comments, both on the Comment/Contact page there as well as here. Here is the website: www.realsocialsecurity.org

[Idaho_Cowboy]

There are only two things that could remotely be considered socialistic about the program I've introduced. One is that all workers would be required to participate, thus solving the problem of not having enough participants who aren't sick to take care of those who are. The second "socialistic" item is that a portion of everyone's contributions would go into an umbrella fund to supplement the needs of those with less/no income. The charge that this is "Obamacare on steroids" is ridiculous because each worker/contributor would have total control over their accounts (after their umbrella contributions are deducted), making all their own healthcare choices whether that be choosing their own doctor, hospital, pharmacy, specialist, right on down the line. As far as making the administering companies rich, trust me when I say that there would be plenty of healthy competition for the right to administer a worker/family's account. And besides how is it that much different than states requiring drivers to purchase auto insurance from private companies? Now for the great advantage of this plan: all the money and control would be out of the government's hands, ANY government! So there would no longer be any need for deficit spending by the government for social needs programs, thus a unique opportunity to pay down the national debt. And don't forget, even though the money itself wouldn't be in the hands of the government, this program would be highly regulated and insured by the federal govenment. Finally, can you imagine just how much taxpayer money would be saved by eliminating the bureacracy now required to administer all these programs (Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, disability, unemployment compensation, food stamps, etc.)? I could also point out many other advantages to the plan, including saving every business a ton of money by not having to provide health insurance and their not having to worry about the decision as to whether they should hire full time or part time. The system would be completely portable so preexisting conditions would be a moot point. I rest my case. If you do go to the website I humbly ask that you please read it in its entirety before commenting. After that I definitely do solicit your comments, both on the Comment/Contact page there as well as here. Here is the website: www.realsocialsecurity.org

The bolded text is contradictory, dude. So's a lot of the rest of it.

Have you considered investing in a good book on Political Science and Economy?
https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Versus-Tyranny-Socialism-Controversial/dp/0817949127

If you don't see taking other peoples money by force and giving it to other people as socialism you really need to study harder.

If someone is paying you to promote this drivel tell your puppet master that they need better talking points. If you are an honest newby welcome, look around there's a lot to learn. Stay away from the manscaping thread.

[Sanguine]

The bolded text is contradictory, dude. So's a lot of the rest of it.

Have you considered investing in a good book on Political Science and Economy?
https://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Versus-Tyranny-Socialism-Controversial/dp/0817949127

If you don't see taking other peoples money by force and giving it to other people as socialism you really need to study harder.

If someone is paying you to promote this drivel tell your puppet master that they need better talking points. If you are an honest newby welcome, look around there's a lot to learn. Stay away from the manscaping thread.

I don't think he has a puppet master; I think he really believes what he is saying.

@swtrnr, you might want to continue this conversation and pay attention.  There is much collective wisdom on this forum, and they can introduce you to facts and ideas that you may never have seen before. 

Oh, and what the heck is a "manscaping thread"?  Regardless, stay away from it.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Oh, and what the heck is a "manscaping thread"?  Regardless, stay away from it.

Ask @Wingnut 

[Wingnut]

Oh, and what the heck is a "manscaping thread"?  Regardless, stay away from it.

It's a healthcare man date... with himself.

[truth_seeker]

A. There are only two things that could remotely be considered socialistic about the program I've introduced.

1. One is that all workers would be required to participate, thus solving the problem of not having enough participants who aren't sick to take care of those who are.

2. The second "socialistic" item is that a portion of everyone's contributions would go into an umbrella fund to supplement the needs of those with less/no income.

From Each According to His Ability...Hillary Clinton's quest for economic justice

Jacob Sullum | January 23, 2008

During this week's Democratic presidential  debate, Hillary Clinton said putting together the right kind of stimulus package is "a part of economic justice." The remark reflected a major campaign theme for the New York senator, who has declared she would pursue "a new vision of economic fairness" as president.

snip

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/23/from-each-according-to-his-abi

A writer (or thinker) who respects his readers, and wants to communicate clearly and effectively, use paragraphs.

[swtrnr]

Although brand new in this forum I have a great deal of respect for each of you and your opinions because, quite frankly, we're on the same side for the most part. You may find it surprising that I consider myself very conservative politically, going all the way back to supporting Barry Goldwater in the 1964 election when I was still too young to vote. Like most of you I'd personally prefer that we return to the days before FDR, when we either took care of ourselves or went to our family or church for help. But I’m also a realist and the fact is that we're simply not going back to those times, at least not without a revolution. Let’s face it, the family isn’t what it used to be in most circles and fewer and fewer people consider themselves religious, let alone belong to any organized church. My plan tries to address the reality that most people now, even in the United States, consider healthcare and other “entitlements” a right and look to government for help. While I agree that there are no such rights enumerated in the Constitution, the plan would address both the phrase in its Preamble “promote the general welfare” and the public’s increasing appetite for social needs guarantees.

In response to the Idaho Cowboy’s contention that the following phrases (“all the money and control would be out of the government's hands” and “this program would be highly regulated and insured by the federal government”) are contradictory simply misses the mark. The plan would of course have to be enacted by the federal government, that’s clear. Each worker/family’s account would be insured and protected by the government in similar fashion to how insurance policies and savings accounts are protected today. But each worker would own the account and have control of it, the funds therein not being available for governmental confiscation (as in what happened to all of our Social Security contributions). A good analogy might be of being required to invest in a 401-K when you begin working your first job. But instead of being employer-based your 401-K goes with you no matter how many times you change jobs. And instead of being simply an investment designed to give financial returns, it would be compartmentalized in such a way as to take care of one's health needs, retirement, disability, periods of unemployment, etc.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

@swtrnr Thanks for the clarification and since I did a lousy job saying it early welcome. 

This sounds a lot like the health savings account idea which while not ideal would be a better compromise than the current plan out there.