obamacare

1. my plans cost: Texas has adopted my plan in many areas, and other states and districts have certain plans like this, reducing costs, and keeping the premiums lower (better then obamacare). So with this on the table subtract a few thousand cities and royalties/taxes better premiums- a few thousand city's and staffers= less cost in the long run Obamacare= higher taxes less quality less training bad businesses spending federal pissed republicans :) like me more expensive insurance= WTF America were in a deep hole now. To see y you tube video on the topic look at my video on the comments. My plan is cheaper then Obamas plus it wont raise the federal debt because its paid locally by states and local city's. My plan would cost more, but not on the federal budget, and i would be made over many stages. 1. big city's 2. after they regain a surplus or stabilize locally then make smaller hospitals in small towns 3. The interns don't get paid because their still in training and the doctors watching them will rotate to other ares nearby changing their pay from saller amounts to bigger ones. So maybe a fellowships pay to a partnership. (a fellow ship makes you s specialist at something in training, a partner ship is you partner up with someone and make anywhere from 100,000 to infinity) This will cost the same as the ER treatment that we have now. Only people injured or uninsured go there anyway so it will actually be less slightly. Plus my plan encourages people to get insurance so they can get good care. So don't pay and get moderately good care, or pay and get state of the art care. And y plan would include tax breaks for insurance company's and people with insurance for more incentives, bringing costs down over time. The Break would be 5% for insurance holding citizens and 10% for company's. So this medical field will grow and encourage people to get insurance. So costs may go down tremendously over time. And I will bring other tax plans into this that will encourage my plan. It will make a stage tax plan. The rich get a 20% ax (lower then the 40% for me or the 50-70% of the really rich) and the other bracket gets a 5%. With the tax break for the wealthy, those who create the jobs, then job creators would make jobs making people more rich and then people could afford insurance. Plus I would enact a you cant turn someone down because of a pre- existing condition also making the field more prosperous. And the intern thing. They would have to work at the public one. Forced, it would be required for their training, so there would always be a group of interns at any given public hospital. My plan cannot take 20 years, it would be implemented slowly over 30 or 0 years, and it would cost less because if the locals say we don't have enough money they can suspend for a while, and with the bug city priority they would technically only need to build one in places that have a population of 500,000 people or more in the 20 years, the rest can take from 1-100 years or more if needed. So once again, my plan is better in the long run. "In contrast, Obamacare actually saves the government money" this is false, consult the video on the bottom for more detail. It describes it with visual aid much better than I could. Here's a site on this that covers this issue and many of my other points: http://townhall.com... Also my plan kills of these subsidies and gets rid of medicaid, also reducing spending. Ignores the cost of saving. Yes in some cases ObamaCare reduces spending, but there a lot more spending then saving in that bill. it's like saying 100-1=a lot of saving. No you still add %99 of that bills spending into the budget. "However, in France, which maintains mostly private coverage, wait times have not increased. France is rated the best health care system in the world, yet spends half as much per capita on health care as does the United States." notice 3 thing in this. 1. private coverage 2. rated best 3. spends less. The rated is obviously because f the mostly private insurance, obama still adds about 16 million people to the government dull, and even though that's only some, that is a lot more then France. So since their system is actually similar to mine that should prove something. Spends a lot less. True, their population is much less, and their healthcare system was reformed correctly, not perfectly, but they did pretty well. I believe in privatization. So the private coverage sounds great, as of now their healthcare plan sounds like mine and works, proving my point. O.k. I'll tell you about the links then. They all have to do with more spending, decreased quality, and worse/longer wait times. Oh and more costs. Gruber: http://econlog.econlib.org... this summarizes his statements. The ER statement. Well I have insurance and I went to the ER once, and paying for a doctors appointment is expensive too so that will man = cost. Younger people: well older people will be on the plan too so = cost and your state exchange aggregate is government interference which is always bad for the economy as has been proven. So economy goes down, bad. If you tell a company what to spend on then they can't have free market, so that is a bad point to take. Yes the tax credits etc. well that wont stimulate the economy once taxes rise. so not they see a tax break on a 40%, later they will see one for 70% so they are still paying a lot, we have seen this in England. Now math the 10$ co-pay. 16 million Americans are UN-insured. So lets d the math: 16 million times 10 = one hundred sixty million. That adds up quite a bit. I've been searching the 3:1 was put in the bill. Starting in 2014, Obamacare will limit insurers to a 3:1 age variation in premiums. These legislative restrictions on age-rating health insurance force carriers to reduce rates for older individuals while significantly increasing rates for young adults. Heritage.org claims it is in the bill in writing. But neither you or I can affirm this because I haven't read it, you haven't, our scourges haven't and almost no on has read the WHOLE thing. But i have read part of it's areas online, well in summery, and it is in there. (this was about a month ago so if i can find the site I will give it to you, I remember because I wrote the stuff down so I could get an opinion.) "Obamacare's fine is either $695 or 2.5% of household income, whichever is greater." choose one pick one, defend it cant refute it without clarification. "None of the rest of the arguments is coherent enough for me to respond to. Michelle Bachmann having "read the bill" hardly makes her an authority on it." well that gives her more authority to talk about it with more knowledge then you or I. She has read most of it, so she can give you and me a lot of info on it. I have researched it too, and it is not pretty, well it is bad but my plan would work much better. "1. Did you know that . . . since Jan. 1 of this year (2011), you cannot use your flex-account at work (FSA) or health savings account (HSA) to purchase over-the-counter medicines? 2. Did you know that . . . since July 1 of last year (2010), Americans have been paying a 10 percent excise tax on all indoor tanning services? 3. Did you know that . . . starting in 2018, if your health insurance is "too good" or considered a "Cadillac" plan, then you will incur a new 40 percent tax on your health plan? 4. Did you know that . . . Obamacare has 21 new or higher taxes in it, totaling over $500 billion in increased taxes going to the government over 10 years?" http://www.theblaze.com... Finish it at this link.