2% is a “government takeover”?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/01/percent-reportedly-public-option/

You are all freaked out by an estimated 2% of US citizens who say they would sign up for the public option? Wow, if this is a government takeover, you are right: the government can’t do anything right!

Advertisements

9 Responses to “2% is a “government takeover”?”

  1. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    I’ll have more on the 2000 page bill as it is digested. I know, wait let me retract that. I’m sure there are a lot more problems with this bill.

  2. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    Just curious but are you going to opt in or pay the fine?

  3. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    Here is a little gem they put in the new bill:

    Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.

    Why would this be in here if the goal is to lower costs?

  4. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    I am an uninsured contract teacher without health insurance. I’ll be opting in, thank you very much!

  5. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    And so to help ease costs, what would you say to raising the eligibility age of SS and Medicare to 67? That’s where the real bottleneck is. We’ve got 2 or 3 people paying for every 1 recipient now, whereas when the program started it was like 14 to 1 or something like that. People are living longer. What would you say to that?

  6. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    As a short term fix that might help but what’s wrong with a required savings plan. People look at the stock market now and say it won’t work but here’s the thing. People don’t invest all of their money at the top of the market. Dollar cost averaging means that you invest througout your career which takes advantages of the lows when they come along. And you could set up a plan that requires that as you get older, you have less money in the stock market and more in safe bonds.

    So you are opting in when you have the more expensive government plan but not when you have more flexible options now? Because the high deductable stuff is going away when this kicks in. Whatever.

  7. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    We’ll see. That’s why they call it an OPTION. I have an OPTION. Get it?

    Raising the SS age is not a short term fix. In fact it is the exact OPPOSITE of a short term fix–it is a long term fix.

    And so having a required savings plan is ok with you, but not a required health plan? Interesting…so the government telling you what to do with your money is perfectly ok with you? Wow…who are you?

  8. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    Yeah I get it and you said you would. You are avoiding my points all together to avoid a discussion. And yes I’m ok with required saving in place of ss. That way we actually save for retirement. The government spends it every year. You didn’t think they actually saved it right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: