Sadly, there are too many Americans that would benefit from the govt taking over their retirement accounts.

 

Not buying that. SS is a disaster

I'm not sure what he might mean, but I can see where the barrier is for low income people in deciding to participate in a 401K. Let's say you have a family of 4 making $35K, both eligible to participate with a company match of 4%. It's a really tough sell to tell them that even if they participate at 1% each it's a good thing because their employer matches that 1%. In reality they'd each pay in about $180 and get $180 matched annually. However, if they're living paycheck to paycheck, every little penny seems paramount, and the promise of a matching $180 hardly seems worth the risk.

 

Your point is well taken, and most of us have been there. I have that discussion with all kinds of young people these days, and I tell them no matter what they do...give up a year model on a car, don't eat out as much, whatever...they must find a way to put some money in their 401k. if they have access: 1) it reduces the current tax liability, and 2) the company contribution, if there is one, is extra income they would not get. It is not easy when one is starting out, but a person has to make it a mission or it won't happen. I tell them they will put flowers on my grave when they retire if they find a way to save now. Secondly, I encourage them to find a way to increase their education.....ie. take your future in your own hands. I, like many people borrowed money to get through school, and it was the best investment I ever made.

Could he mean that because they may not pay income taxes they are not getting the benefit of delaying the tax on the income?

 

May be.

No one is denying anyone birth control, just pay for it yourself.

JFK would be ashamed of today's Democractic Party.

All of us should be ashamed of our educational system to have allowed such a total disregard for our Constitution.

The "The Greatest Generation" would be ashamed of the wiiligness of those who are so lazy in thinking and/or work habits to believe that government owes them a living.

 

 

The only point I would disagree with out of the above would be birth control. I am in favor of any support necessary to stem the tide of unwanted or unvalued pregnancy. I would even include pro-choice in that equation. A BIG issue in our society is that quite the opposite is true...there is a financial incentive to add a head to the family roster from a support situation. And from this population come many of the issues above.

 

Your point is well taken, and most of us have been there. I have that discussion with all kinds of young people these days, and I tell them no matter what they do...give up a year model on a car, don't eat out as much, whatever...they must find a way to put some money in their 401k. if they have access: 1) it reduces the current tax liability, and 2) the company contribution, if there is one, is extra income they would not get. It is not easy when one is starting out, but a person has to make it a mission or it won't happen. I tell them they will put flowers on my grave when they retire if they find a way to save now. Secondly, I encourage them to find a way to increase their education.....ie. take your future in your own hands. I, like many people borrowed money to get through school, and it was the best investment I ever made.

 

You know, I just want to thank you for the civil and reasoned way you respond. I love the back and forth of a civil debate when all parties present their views without drawing on extremes to make their point! Just wanted to take the time to tell you I appreciate it!

You know, I just want to thank you for the civil and reasoned way you respond. I love the back and forth of a civil debate when all parties present their views without drawing on extremes to make their point! Just wanted to take the time to tell you I appreciate it!

 

Thanks as do you. I know I am not always that way, and then I hit the send button too soon....oops, then I regret it.

 

Next it will be free adderal for all college students so they can get through college. Heck, I'm prolly paying for 20 kids college education + full tuition for my two. Might as well cover the adderal to help them study.:irked:

 

Not sure why you would be upset about contributing toward an educated populace. As to adderal, I would think it is likely already covered in most prescription plans considering the number of children I know who have been issued a prescription.

That's not it at all and if I might ad typical of the "war on women" mentality that Obama and his disciples fostered. Why are women's health issues to be considered so important that they above most others. I used to be fat, obesity is a known health risk, why not mandate that insurance companies cover all expenses for weight reduction? The left did a masterful job in the last election of painting those of us that oppose Obamacare as being opposed to women's health issues and it looks like you bought into that line of thinking. I have a question, when Obamacare takes full effect and Medicare reimbursements are slashed how is that going to affect the livelihood of your other child?

 

Again the left believes that the government can do a better job of deciding how people should be taken care of then the individual and this is just another example of it.

 

Finally able to get back to this. Contraceptives aren't "free" any more than any other prescription is "free" that is covered under insurance. What the difference in the situation of contraceptives, is that prescription plans often didn't cover them. For what reason, I have no idea. And contraceptives are prescribed for more than just contraception, which I have described in the past. If you don't have a medical condition that is aided by them, you will never understand how much they help women live normal lives. You, as a male, would definitely not understand cramps so bad that you lose days of work, that make you pass out, or heavy bleeding that makes it difficult to leave the house without embarrassing yourself before you get to your next stop. You wouldn't understand what affect a hormonal imbalance can have on your body.

 

While you mention expenses related to weight reduction, I'm not sure what prescriptions you refer to. So, I can't really even address that because I have no frame of reference. I do know that many of the health problems caused by obesity have prescription meds that are covered by insurance...blood pressure medicine, insulin, etc. Are you also referring to things like gym memberships, etc? Or are you referring to things like barriatric surgery? If you're talking about surgery, the I agree it should be covered.

 

The biggest thing I think that people are missing is that this will not really change things for those that already qualify for medicare. And that's not what the AHCA is trying to address. It's those people caught between eligibilty for healthcare and an income level that affords one the ability to pay. It's also designed to create access to affordable healthcare by pooling those for whom an employer-offered healthcare isn't available. By doing this, the "pool" creates a larger economic force to bring the costs in line with the shared costs of larger plans that larger employers offer. This isn't exactly a reveloutionary concept. There are already small companies who participate in a pooled concept to offer a cost-effective health insurance plan for their employees. I know this, because the company I used to work for utilized this method.

 

Some things that keep getting thrown about by neo-conservatives that really confuse me are the contraception issue and the refusal to acknowledge that basic, affordable access to healthcare is a good thing for this country. As to the latter, preventative medicine is absolutely necessary to prevent catastrophic illnesses, which either wind up being footed by the tax-paying public, or finacially cripple an individual or family.

 

As to the contraception issue, I read and hear constantly that we need to cut welfare. One of the favorite talking points are people who have abortions as a method of birth control. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if contraceptives prescribed to PREVENT pregnancy might actually have an affect on both by preventing unwanted pregnancies? I stand by my strong opinion that even if RvW is overturned, there will still be abortion, and that the solution isn't legislation. But I'm also not getting that one can be anti-abortion, and also anti-contraception....in secular terms only. From a religious perspective I understand.

 

Anyway...just wanted to reply as promised.

Your point is well taken, and most of us have been there. I have that discussion with all kinds of young people these days, and I tell them no matter what they do...give up a year model on a car, don't eat out as much, whatever...they must find a way to put some money in their 401k. if they have access: 1) it reduces the current tax liability, and 2) the company contribution, if there is one, is extra income they would not get. It is not easy when one is starting out, but a person has to make it a mission or it won't happen. I tell them they will put flowers on my grave when they retire if they find a way to save now. Secondly, I encourage them to find a way to increase their education.....ie. take your future in your own hands. I, like many people borrowed money to get through school, and it was the best investment I ever made.

 

 

I agree with most of what you say here. I will share that I have been in the situation over the course of my life where I often didn't have enough money to pay my bills. I heard all the same things you are saying about saving, etc. But the reality is that there sometimes isn't any wiggle-room in a budget. Shoot, I've chosen NOT to get insurance for myself in the past, because my kids could be covered under my ex-husband's plan. I had to pay him for that, but that was still less expensive than what insurance was availabe to me through my employer for just myself. If I couldn't afford health insurance, I sure as heck couldn't afford to contribute to a 401K. From an "outside looking in" point of view, I can agree with your logic. But from a perspective born of experience, I can understand how alien the thought of retirement planning is when you don't know how you're going to pay the electric bill AND the rent.

It is as if I am reading into this, that you want to penalize those who can afford a 401k, because someone else cannot. I hope that is not the case.

Life is just tough sometimes and people have to make the best of it. I grew up with no insurance for my family and we made it.

For those who did not have insurance in recent years, they were taken care of, even if it was not a perfect system. It was here that a way could have been created to help this group, without the government taking over everything.

 

Today's leftists want all the warm fuzzy feelings to take over all conversations, without regard to whether they will work or if we have the ability to pay for them.

It is as if I am reading into this, that you want to penalize those who can afford a 401k, because someone else cannot. I hope that is not the case.

Life is just tough sometimes and people have to make the best of it. I grew up with no insurance for my family and we made it.

For those who did not have insurance in recent years, they were taken care of, even if it was not a perfect system. It was here that a way could have been created to help this group, without the government taking over everything.

 

Today's leftists want all the warm fuzzy feelings to take over all conversations, without regard to whether they will work or if we have the ability to pay for them.

 

I am not advocating penalties on 401K's. I simply was commenting on what the barriers are for some. As to those without insurance in recent years....no...not everyone was provided for. Medicare does not cover you if your income exceeds certain levels. Those in between those levels and the level of being financially able to afford it foot 100% themselves

I agree with most of what you say here. I will share that I have been in the situation over the course of my life where I often didn't have enough money to pay my bills. I heard all the same things you are saying about saving, etc. But the reality is that there sometimes isn't any wiggle-room in a budget. Shoot, I've chosen NOT to get insurance for myself in the past, because my kids could be covered under my ex-husband's plan. I had to pay him for that, but that was still less expensive than what insurance was availabe to me through my employer for just myself. If I couldn't afford health insurance, I sure as heck couldn't afford to contribute to a 401K. From an "outside looking in" point of view, I can agree with your logic. But from a perspective born of experience, I can understand how alien the thought of retirement planning is when you don't know how you're going to pay the electric bill AND the rent.

 

I do understand this point...all too well I'm afraid. In my younger days I remember peanut butter and jelly holding me over the last few days before a paycheck. However, I am grateful that I finally got to a point where I could put money in the 401K my company offered. I only encourage people, if they have any chance at all, to take advantage of a savings plan and take a hard look at other discretionary costs that maybe could be put second. Of course this does not include rent, medical, and other.

Finally able to get back to this. Contraceptives aren't "free" any more than any other prescription is "free" that is covered under insurance. What the difference in the situation of contraceptives, is that prescription plans often didn't cover them. For what reason, I have no idea. And contraceptives are prescribed for more than just contraception, which I have described in the past. If you don't have a medical condition that is aided by them, you will never understand how much they help women live normal lives. You, as a male, would definitely not understand cramps so bad that you lose days of work, that make you pass out, or heavy bleeding that makes it difficult to leave the house without embarrassing yourself before you get to your next stop. You wouldn't understand what affect a hormonal imbalance can have on your body.

 

While you mention expenses related to weight reduction, I'm not sure what prescriptions you refer to. So, I can't really even address that because I have no frame of reference. I do know that many of the health problems caused by obesity have prescription meds that are covered by insurance...blood pressure medicine, insulin, etc. Are you also referring to things like gym memberships, etc? Or are you referring to things like barriatric surgery? If you're talking about surgery, the I agree it should be covered.

 

The biggest thing I think that people are missing is that this will not really change things for those that already qualify for medicare. And that's not what the AHCA is trying to address. It's those people caught between eligibilty for healthcare and an income level that affords one the ability to pay. It's also designed to create access to affordable healthcare by pooling those for whom an employer-offered healthcare isn't available. By doing this, the "pool" creates a larger economic force to bring the costs in line with the shared costs of larger plans that larger employers offer. This isn't exactly a reveloutionary concept. There are already small companies who participate in a pooled concept to offer a cost-effective health insurance plan for their employees. I know this, because the company I used to work for utilized this method.

 

Some things that keep getting thrown about by neo-conservatives that really confuse me are the contraception issue and the refusal to acknowledge that basic, affordable access to healthcare is a good thing for this country. As to the latter, preventative medicine is absolutely necessary to prevent catastrophic illnesses, which either wind up being footed by the tax-paying public, or finacially cripple an individual or family.

 

As to the contraception issue, I read and hear constantly that we need to cut welfare. One of the favorite talking points are people who have abortions as a method of birth control. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if contraceptives prescribed to PREVENT pregnancy might actually have an affect on both by preventing unwanted pregnancies? I stand by my strong opinion that even if RvW is overturned, there will still be abortion, and that the solution isn't legislation. But I'm also not getting that one can be anti-abortion, and also anti-contraception....in secular terms only. From a religious perspective I understand.

 

Anyway...just wanted to reply as promised.

 

As I have said on numerous occasions I understand that there are medical reasons that women take BC pills other then contraception and have ZERO problem with insurance plans covering them. I have a HUGE issue with the government deciding that every insurance plan has to cover them just like I pretty much oppose any mandates by the government at any level as to what has to be covered under medical insurance plans. LET PEOPLE BUY AND PAY FOR THE COVERAGE THAT THEY WANT. When Kentucky passed sweeping mandates on what had to be covered under medical plans in this state the cost of insurance soared while the number of providers evaporated. FWIW I'm a big proponent of pay as you go for routine medical expenses with insurance being only used in catastrophic situations. You don't expect your auto insurance to cover routine maintenance why does everyone expect that they should pay little or nothing for medical maintenance?

 

You didn't address the issue however of how the slashing of Medicare reimbursements to "pay for" Obamacare is going to affect your other child? I have a feeling it will be pretty devastating.

As I have said on numerous occasions I understand that there are medical reasons that women take BC pills other then contraception and have ZERO problem with insurance plans covering them. I have a HUGE issue with the government deciding that every insurance plan has to cover them just like I pretty much oppose any mandates by the government at any level as to what has to be covered under medical insurance plans. LET PEOPLE BUY AND PAY FOR THE COVERAGE THAT THEY WANT. When Kentucky passed sweeping mandates on what had to be covered under medical plans in this state the cost of insurance soared while the number of providers evaporated. FWIW I'm a big proponent of pay as you go for routine medical expenses with insurance being only used in catastrophic situations. You don't expect your auto insurance to cover routine maintenance why does everyone expect that they should pay little or nothing for medical maintenance?

 

You didn't address the issue however of how the slashing of Medicare reimbursements to "pay for" Obamacare is going to affect your other child? I have a feeling it will be pretty devastating.

 

I think I am usually on the same page with you, but from my insurance seminars, I gathered some contradictory information from the insurers point of view: basically, wellness and preventive care is cheaper than illness (and maternity). I know our CDHP covers wellness care at a higher percent, but then is non-existent unless one has a major illness.

 

As I have said on numerous occasions I understand that there are medical reasons that women take BC pills other then contraception and have ZERO problem with insurance plans covering them. I have a HUGE issue with the government deciding that every insurance plan has to cover them just like I pretty much oppose any mandates by the government at any level as to what has to be covered under medical insurance plans. LET PEOPLE BUY AND PAY FOR THE COVERAGE THAT THEY WANT. When Kentucky passed sweeping mandates on what had to be covered under medical plans in this state the cost of insurance soared while the number of providers evaporated. FWIW I'm a big proponent of pay as you go for routine medical expenses with insurance being only used in catastrophic situations. You don't expect your auto insurance to cover routine maintenance why does everyone expect that they should pay little or nothing for medical maintenance?

 

You didn't address the issue however of how the slashing of Medicare reimbursements to "pay for" Obamacare is going to affect your other child? I have a feeling it will be pretty devastating.

 

If the costs of medical treatment without insurance weren't such a barrier to receiving wellness care, I could agree with you. As well, when I didn't have insurance, the only care I could receive was from public health centers. I would have to often miss a whole day of work because they didn't take appointments. Private practitioners wouldn't even see me. Of course, this was over a decade ago so maybe it's changed?

 

As to my son's future, it isn't dependent on medicare reimbursement. And after the first round of new regulations were released, he was promoted and put on salary. Of course some of that is due to him proving his value by his work ethic and performance. He is routinely put in leadership roles in special projects related to compliance with those regulations. He is in a small organization, a specialty women's, hospital so they are already very streamlined, but through his reorganization of his department he has been able to identify bloat and eliminate it. And, he voted for Obama. He's no idiot. If he felt this was a threat, I have no doubt he'd have voted for Romney. He is a registered Republican.

 

My daughter, interestingly, just accepted a job at Humana. So both kids will be very vested in the future of AHCA.