GOP Presidential candidate and ACA foe, and of course an MD has finally told us what his suggested replacement plan for the ACA as well as his solution to the health insurance maze for all of us. Get rid of everything and let each of us pay for our own health care from our savings!! Maybe Dr. Carson had a high enough income that he could self budget for both the likely and the unexpected. Next we can all save for ourselves to replace our home when it burns, and get rid of auto coverage and self cover for both repairs and any liability expenses. Yes Ben, nice to see how you understand those not in the 0.1%

Harwood: It sounds as if your preferred alternative both to Obamacare and to Medicare is a system of self-reliance in which you'd be responsible for your own care and that of members of your family.

Carson: That's how you pay for it.

Harwood: And you could replace both the Medicare system and Obamacare with that system of HSAs (health savings accounts)?

Carson: Absolutely. I think when people are able to see how much more freedom they will have, and how much more flexibility they will have, I think it's going to be a no-brainer."

It will be so nice to have the freedom to go bankrupt, and the flexibility that being catapulted into poverty will provide.

Beliefs like that are why Carson is unelectable.

Just one question--- Do you save for your retirement or do you rely 100% on the "free", "entitlement" of Social Security? If so, better learn to live on about $1400/mo on average. But if you contribute to a 401K or similar plan, YOU have taken the RESPONSIBILITY of funding your own retirement, perhaps with some employer matching contribution. If everyone took that responsibility seriously starting as soon as they started working, there would be no need for SS, which is going broke anyway.
Similarly, if everyone started contributing to a HSA at an early age, perhaps also run as employer match, there would be no need for medicare, which is also going broke. In that case, the individual would be more concerned over the cost and scope of their own medical care---no one pays attention when someone else is paying the bill
And don't worry about the top 0.1%--they will always be able to afford medical care.

Originally Posted by Guest

Just one question--- Do you save for your retirement or do you rely 100% on the "free", "entitlement" of Social Security? If so, better learn to live on about $1400/mo on average. But if you contribute to a 401K or similar plan, YOU have taken the RESPONSIBILITY of funding your own retirement, perhaps with some employer matching contribution. If everyone took that responsibility seriously starting as soon as they started working, there would be no need for SS, which is going broke anyway.
Similarly, if everyone started contributing to a HSA at an early age, perhaps also run as employer match, there would be no need for medicare, which is also going broke. In that case, the individual would be more concerned over the cost and scope of their own medical care---no one pays attention when someone else is paying the bill
And don't worry about the top 0.1%--they will always be able to afford medical care.

Very good post. IF everyone did the 401k, it would be wonderful, but that does not happen. The SS is a safety net to supplement your other retirement plan. That is why Means Testing is a good idea. If, according to a sliding table, your retirement income is high enough to get along just fine with less than, or none, of the SS money, you are able to draw a reduced amount or no SS at all.
The SS safety net is there for those in need, not for those who do not need it.

Originally Posted by Guest

Very good post. IF everyone did the 401k, it would be wonderful, but that does not happen. The SS is a safety net to supplement your other retirement plan. That is why Means Testing is a good idea. If, according to a sliding table, your retirement income is high enough to get along just fine with less than, or none, of the SS money, you are able to draw a reduced amount or no SS at all.
The SS safety net is there for those in need, not for those who do not need it.

Yeah, I want some bureaucrate that makes 100K or more a year to determine home much income "is high enough to get along just fine with less than, or none, of the SS money...". That sounds like great plan.

Naturally we still need a safety net, not only for seniors but those of marginal income as well. Means testing makes financial sense, but presents a huge political problem. Most retirees believe they are simply getting back what they paid in, even though they may have paid $10-20/ month in the 40's and 50's and now get $1-2000/month in SS checks. The reality is that their children are funding that check, and their grandchildren will pay for their children, so the whole system fails on demographics by 2036. SS is not an individual savings plan, it is a TAX, with no guarantee of getting anything back, even though that is the intention of the program
If we start changing the system we can avoid this. Let's say we start now with those 35 and under and gradually phase out FICA in favor of 401K plans. We have to pay SS tax, by law, and so does the employer. We could change the law so that the SS tax is now directed into retirement savings plans, with limits on investment risk. The current SS trust fund of 2.7 trillion is, by law, 100% invested in US treasuries with a historical return of about 4.5% and much lower in recent years (part of the problem). The historic return on the stock market is just over 8%, which makes a HUGE difference over time. We could also do the same with the Medicare tax and direct it into HSAs
The progressive left loves the European system in which "the government" pays for everything. But they need to realize the government does not produce anything, it only taxes, and the tax rates in Europe are quite high---there is no free lunch. The real reason they love it is because it is a massive redistribution of wealth. I favor the system that, at least in part, demands individual accountability

Originally Posted by Guest

Just one question--- Do you save for your retirement or do you rely 100% on the "free", "entitlement" of Social Security? If so, better learn to live on about $1400/mo on average. But if you contribute to a 401K or similar plan, YOU have taken the RESPONSIBILITY of funding your own retirement, perhaps with some employer matching contribution. If everyone took that responsibility seriously starting as soon as they started working, there would be no need for SS, which is going broke anyway.
Similarly, if everyone started contributing to a HSA at an early age, perhaps also run as employer match, there would be no need for medicare, which is also going broke. In that case, the individual would be more concerned over the cost and scope of their own medical care---no one pays attention when someone else is paying the bill
And don't worry about the top 0.1%--they will always be able to afford medical care.

The reality is most people are not responsible, and want someone else to take care of them. They are the majority and they vote Democrat.

Dr Ben Carson also said that the ACA is the same as slavery and the same as Nazi's. Does anybody think Carson is auditioning for an upcoming gig at Fox, perhaps replacing Mike Huckabee?

Originally Posted by Guest

The reality is most people are not responsible, and want someone else to take care of them. They are the majority and they vote Democrat.

This is really hysterical seeing that the southern red states are the states that get the most federal dollars while paying the least amount of tax dollars. South Carolina, for example, gets back almost $8.00 for every dollar it sends to Washington. On the other hand, Delaware gets back .50 cents for every dollar it sends to DC.

Originally Posted by Guest

This is really hysterical seeing that the southern red states are the states that get the most federal dollars while paying the least amount of tax dollars. South Carolina, for example, gets back almost $8.00 for every dollar it sends to Washington. On the other hand, Delaware gets back .50 cents for every dollar it sends to DC.

If you feel guilty living in a Red 'Taker' state, then maybe you should move to a Blue 'Giver' state.

Originally Posted by Guest

If you feel guilty living in a Red 'Taker' state, then maybe you should move to a Blue 'Giver' state.

I'm not the poster constantly complaining that democrats are the takers. I know better.

Any substantial changes to SS for anyone under the age of about 40 is going to be nearly impossible. You want to redefine what SS is there for - good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Guest

Very good post. IF everyone did the 401k, it would be wonderful, but that does not happen. The SS is a safety net to supplement your other retirement plan. That is why Means Testing is a good idea. If, according to a sliding table, your retirement income is high enough to get along just fine with less than, or none, of the SS money, you are able to draw a reduced amount or no SS at all.
The SS safety net is there for those in need, not for those who do not need it.

Originally Posted by Guest

Naturally we still need a safety net, not only for seniors but those of marginal income as well. Means testing makes financial sense, but presents a huge political problem. Most retirees believe they are simply getting back what they paid in, even though they may have paid $10-20/ month in the 40's and 50's and now get $1-2000/month in SS checks. The reality is that their children are funding that check, and their grandchildren will pay for their children, so the whole system fails on demographics by 2036. SS is not an individual savings plan, it is a TAX, with no guarantee of getting anything back, even though that is the intention of the program
If we start changing the system we can avoid this. Let's say we start now with those 35 and under and gradually phase out FICA in favor of 401K plans. We have to pay SS tax, by law, and so does the employer. We could change the law so that the SS tax is now directed into retirement savings plans, with limits on investment risk. The current SS trust fund of 2.7 trillion is, by law, 100% invested in US treasuries with a historical return of about 4.5% and much lower in recent years (part of the problem). The historic return on the stock market is just over 8%, which makes a HUGE difference over time. We could also do the same with the Medicare tax and direct it into HSAs
The progressive left loves the European system in which "the government" pays for everything. But they need to realize the government does not produce anything, it only taxes, and the tax rates in Europe are quite high---there is no free lunch. The real reason they love it is because it is a massive redistribution of wealth. I favor the system that, at least in part, demands individual accountability

I agree with much of what you wrote until you spoke to Trust Fund. There is no trust fund. Drawing from "trust fund" means borrowing from someplace else and adding to deficiet or raising taxes. We started doing that last year.

I think you will see a single payer system for medical care/medicare soon. Such a large percentage of people are covered by tax payers. Federal and state retirees, VA, military retirees, a host of public sector employees, seniors, poor people, even prisoners in jail, etc. The private sector cannot continue to support the system. Obama Care will not stay as is but our for profit medical industry is heading for a crash landing. Soon if we are lucky.

Originally Posted by Guest

Very good post. IF everyone did the 401k, it would be wonderful, but that does not happen. The SS is a safety net to supplement your other retirement plan. That is why Means Testing is a good idea. If, according to a sliding table, your retirement income is high enough to get along just fine with less than, or none, of the SS money, you are able to draw a reduced amount or no SS at all.
The SS safety net is there for those in need, not for those who do not need it.

Dear Guest: I understand your intent on being reasonable and fair. However, we are dealing with the government and dealing with the government is like dealing with a drunk. If you believe a Means Test is fair then be ready for when the government decides that you are making too much money and pulls your SS. The government did not provide a Means Test when they were withdrawing from people and the more you made the longer they pulled from your check.

Secondly these same people mismanage fund and have the audacity to blame beneficiaries/recipients

Thirdly why is it that decisions such
as means Testing ACA, etc are good or necessary for us but not them?

Fourth why is it they can serve two years or so and qualify for lifetime benefits and pensions?

Ben Carson's suggestion is new, needs refinement but basically is directed at the government and insurance carriers who control the medical field with unwarranted regulations fee schedules that are reduced on a continuum and administrative duties that only support their need to control.

Take electronic medical reports the demands from government/insurers are so great that doctors time is being pulled away from patient care to fill in boxes for bureaucrats .

Before you dismiss Carson's suggestion learn more about. It may not be feasible, prudent ,etc but what is going on with our healthcare amounts to the government/insurers squeezing the system to meet their goals while the quality of care diminishes

Personal Best Regards: