from a political perspective, I dont have a problem voting for a Mormon like Mitt.

a baby is born...

and goes home with it's mother who is single and dirt poor.

the mom is already on all kinds of State aid, and so it looks like this child also has a lot of State aid in the future as well..

and this pattern goes on and on for generations...


how to break it?....i will tell you how

The mom signs up for some insurance that will cover the child for it's life.

to sweeten the deal, lets make the first 5 years (or whatever) of the child's life to be nearly totally free!

What mom would not jump at the chance to have their child receive free insurance for the most dangerous years the child will face?
It's a no-brainier.


So the mom signs for the child that this child will be covered by insurance for it's life...
That means as the child gets older every paycheck it earns will have a little taken out...even from the very first paychecks from McDonalds when they are under age.

So the child grows up covered, and becomes an adult with an insurance plan already set up from the get-go.

well....now lets say the child reaches age 30 (or whatever age it is) and decided to drop paying for insurance?
well....they still owe for them first 5 years, and thats likely about $20,000 bucks, and so the Insurance company has a right to ask for that money if the child wants to drop their coverage.

So the child will never drop coverage.....
I mean who would dare drop their coverage?...no one!


Its in the child's best interest to keep the coverage every day of their life...for as long as they keep the coverage they never have to pay back the company for the free insurance they already received!
Now sweeten the deal again, and if the child signs up it's own futuer children under the same plan, this lowers the fees for the whole family!

Suddenly its grandpa and grandma that are putting the pressure on the new parents to make sure the baby is covering under their same insurance!

The government gets to stay out of that conversation...as it should be.

everybody wins!

The hospital will always get paid.

The child receives very good health care coverage,(freaking free)

and part of the ding each paycheck the child earns will be for a life-insurance plan that will pay the $20,000 back...so the insurance company is happy knowing that they will always get their money back for covering the baby


It's so simple...

No government mandate needed,

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

The mom signs up for some insurance that will cover the child for it's life.

to sweeten the deal, lets make the first 5 years (or whatever) of the child's life to be nearly totally free!

What mom would not jump at the chance to have their child receive free insurance for the most dangerous years the child will face?
It's a no-brainier.

---

So, what do you do for the moms who don't do this? And is the dad in the picture here?

Quote:

---

So the mom signs for the child that this child will be covered by insurance for it's life...

---

IF the mom signs up. What do you do if she doesn't do this? Every idea past this is a moot point IF the mom opts out.

Quote:

---

That means as the child gets older every paycheck it earns will have a little taken out...even from the very first paychecks from McDonalds when they are under age.

---

What if the kid doensn't want to pay for this--what if they kid, as a teenager, thinks he is indestructable (imagine that), do you force him to pay for this insurance?

Quote:

---

So the child grows up covered, and becomes an adult with an insurance plan already set up from the get-go.

well....now lets say the child reaches age 30 (or whatever age it is) and decided to drop paying for insurance?
well....they still owe for them first 5 years, and thats likely about $20,000 bucks, and so the Insurance company has a right to ask for that money if the child wants to drop their coverage.

---

How did you get the kid to "opt in" in the first place? Was it by force? What if both the mom refuse to pay or the kid refuses to allow the money to be taken out of his paycheck?

Quote:

---

So the child will never drop coverage.....
I mean who would dare drop their coverage?...no one!

---

You are ***uming they bought in in the first place.

Quote:

---

The government gets to stay out of that conversation...as it should be.

---

How is your idea brought about? What happens for those who say no?

Actually, the problem with having insurance taken out before getting the paycheck is the same problem with having taxes taken out before hand---it allows for abuses.

[QUOTE=BigJulie;103351]

Quote:

---

And is the dad in the picture here?

---

I was just giving an example that would be of a child with only one parent, and comparing that situation as it ends now, (State AID forever)
with the way i would have it end. (no need for State aid)

Right now a mom in that situation where she would actually lose some healthcare if she got a better *** ....

Infact, the more money a mom would make by getting a better paying ***, the more the State would back-away from picking up her and the child's health care bills .

This means that the mom actually is under a lot of pressure to NOT get a ***.
Or to get a *** that does not pay very good....and to stay in a *** that has no future.

I suggest that this whole system of the state picking up the bills for the poor is wrong
.
It will only force more and more people to stay poor, or risk losing the aid they are getting now.

A better way to go is to have the mom sign up the baby for life-time health care insurance....with the first 4, 5 or 6 years for free!



At that point the mom will see the advantage in signing up for 5 years of free healthcare that will not be effected if she gets a better paying ***.

So the mom can feel free to search for a way more better paying *** and not worry that she will have to give up anything!

5 years later the child is in school now, the mom's life is more stable and she has a better *** , and that that point the normal insurance fees go into effect...

the first 5 years of free insurance are the reason the mom will stick with the plan.

Stay in the plan = never have to pay that money back.

They also are the same reason the child will always also stick with the plan.

Suddenly you have in place a health insurance plan that is a normal part of every person's life, and the government is not in the story at all!!!!


Now thats just my example of a child with only one parent...and I hope you can see that I was not saying that the "dad" cant be part of this idea....

I hope the dad is very much in the story of each child.....

it will not change the insurance of the child, and it would make the life of the child better...

[QUOTE=BigJulie;103351]

Quote:

---

What if the kid doensn't want to pay for this--

---

if your mom signed you up for this type of legacy life-long insurance, and under the rules at a certian age (like age 21 or 31 for example) you decide that you no longer wish to be covered under your old insurance?


Fine....

Good for you!

There is no law that says you have to have insurance.

being an American means you have the freedom to decide this for yourself!
Enjoy your freedom my friend.

But oh by the way, remember that first 5 years of free insurance you have already received when you were a baby?....You still owe that.
and..the insurance company now wants you to pay that bill off today!......


LOL...

It's about $20,000 bucks...and they want it in cash.LOL


so you now face a choice>

Either you drop your insurance and take out a loan to pay off the $20,000.00 insurance bill you owe for the 5 years?

Or...

You keep your current insurance going and never have to pay off that 5 year bill?

you tell me what you think most people will do?_________

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

How is your idea brought about? .

---

there actually would need to be only one real change to our current broken system.

its the same change that insurance companies have been telling us they would like to use to save the system for years.

its about the ability of a parent to sign for a child , and have it binding on the child even into the age when the child is an adult.

that's why this is called "legacy" insurance.
You get it from your parents, they sign you up and commit you to a life-long relationship with their insurance.

So the insurance is "p***ed down" to you

But it works the other way too.

legacy means that some of the money paid in to the insurance by the grand kids, goes back to old Grandma!

"legacy" insurance, is all about a family ....it works to bind the family closer.
when your children sign up their own children, it lowers the fees for everyone else that you signed for ...The more members of the family under you that get signed up, the better it is for everyone!

Do you see how this plan has totally replaced the 'stick' of the State turning lose the IRS on you to force you to get insurance, with the "carrot" of lower rates, cash to grandma, and free insurance for baby Joey!

Everyone wins....

even the insurance company wins as they get everyone in the family all signed up for life-long insurance before they can even speak!

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Infact, the more money a mom would make by getting a better paying ***, the more the State would back-away from picking up her and the child's health care bills .

This means that the mom actually is under a lot of pressure to NOT get a ***.
Or to get a *** that does not pay very good....and to stay in a *** that has no future.

I suggest that this whole system of the state picking up the bills for the poor is wrong
.
It will only force more and more people to stay poor, or risk losing the aid they are getting now.

---

I am a stay at home mom---sometimes money is not the issue for choosing to stay home or stay poor. I think there is a benefit (a large one) to society when mothers take care of their own kids.

Quote:

---

A better way to go is to have the mom sign up the baby for life-time health care insurance....with the first 4, 5 or 6 years for free!

---

Nothing is ever free. Who is going to pick up the tab on this?

Quote:

---

At that point the mom will see the advantage in signing up for 5 years of free healthcare that will not be effected if she gets a better paying ***.

---

What if the mom doesn't want to sign up for something (as there are always strings attached)?

Quote:

---

So the mom can feel free to search for a way more better paying *** and not worry that she will have to give up anything!

5 years later the child is in school now, the mom's life is more stable and she has a better *** , and that that point the normal insurance fees go into effect...

the first 5 years of free insurance are the reason the mom will stick with the plan.

Stay in the plan = never have to pay that money back.

---

And here is the catch as to why some may not sign up.

Quote:

---

They also are the same reason the child will always also stick with the plan.

Suddenly you have in place a health insurance plan that is a normal part of every person's life, and the government is not in the story at all!!!!


Now thats just my example of a child with only one parent...and I hope you can see that I was not saying that the "dad" cant be part of this idea....

I hope the dad is very much in the story of each child.....

it will not change the insurance of the child, and it would make the life of the child better...

---

But, you have written the father out of your policy here---a dangerous thing to do in my book allowing the father to 'opt-in' to being a father.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

if your mom signed you up for this type of legacy life-long insurance, and under the rules at a certian age (like age 21 or 31 for example) you decide that you no longer wish to be covered under your old insurance?


Fine....

Good for you!

There is no law that says you have to have insurance.

being an American means you have the freedom to decide this for yourself!
Enjoy your freedom my friend.

But oh by the way, remember that first 5 years of free insurance you have already received when you were a baby?....You still owe that.
and..the insurance company now wants you to pay that bill off today!......


LOL...

It's about $20,000 bucks...and they want it in cash.LOL


so you now face a choice>

Either you drop your insurance and take out a loan to pay off the $20,000.00 insurance bill you owe for the 5 years?

Or...

You keep your current insurance going and never have to pay off that 5 year bill?

you tell me what you think most people will do?_________

---

So your idea is to sucker in the naive and then have them trapped into paying insurance. Good, the insurance companies can have an absolute ball with that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

there actually would need to be only one real change to our current broken system.

its the same change that insurance companies have been telling us they would like to use to save the system for years.

its about the ability of a parent to sign for a child , and have it binding on the child even into the age when the child is an adult.

that's why this is called "legacy" insurance.
You get it from your parents, they sign you up and commit you to a life-long relationship with their insurance.

So the insurance is "p***ed down" to you

But it works the other way too.

legacy means that some of the money paid in to the insurance by the grand kids, goes back to old Grandma!

"legacy" insurance, is all about a family ....it works to bind the family closer.
when your children sign up their own children, it lowers the fees for everyone else that you signed for ...The more members of the family under you that get signed up, the better it is for everyone!

Do you see how this plan has totally replaced the 'stick' of the State turning lose the IRS on you to force you to get insurance, with the "carrot" of lower rates, cash to grandma, and free insurance for baby Joey!

Everyone wins....

even the insurance company wins as they get everyone in the family all signed up for life-long insurance before they can even speak!

---

Wow, and what if I don't want to be forever attached to an insurance company (that I now hate) that my parents roped me into or I get stuck with a huge fine that I may not be able to pay. Wow, this is not freedom as you describe. This is a form of bondage that was signed on by my parents. This is what the Book of Mormon describes for how the devil "binds with flaxen cords" until the person is trapped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Nothing is ever free. Who is going to pick up the tab on this?

---

perhaps I could have made this more clear...

Under the legacy healthcare insurance plan, the mom will never have to pay for the first 4,5 or 6 years of their child's insurance coverage.

But this amount is recorded, and it is credited to the child.
this means that when the child is old enough to decide to cancel theiur own insurance, that the total bills for their own first 5 years of coverage would now come due.

In every-day terms, what Legacy insurance means, is that you only have to pay for the first 5 years of your coverage if you stop paying your monthy fees.

it does not matter for what reason you stop paying your insurance fees...be it because you dont want to have insurance anymore, or you die.

at that moment that you stop paying your month insurance fee you then owe your bill for the first 5 years.

if you decided to just stop having insurance?
fine, that's your right...
the terms of the contract your mom signed on your behalf are thereby fulfilled, and you now just have to pay off the bills for the first 5 years....(might be about $20,000.00 so good luck with that)


But what if you die?
Your monthly insurance fee also has within it a life insurance coverage payable to the company at your death, so they get paid back for covering you for your first 5 years..

So everyone ends up happy.

No one is forced to carry insurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Wow, and what if I don't want to be forever attached to an insurance company

---

You can drop out of the plan at any time....

You just owe for the coverage that the insurance company carried you for and didnt bill your mom for.

It was free to her.

But it was for you....and you received the benifit of that coverage.
thus you can walk away from the insurance company at any moment you want.
no law says you are stuck with that company forever.

But you do still owe them, and no matter where you go, where you work, you will need to pay off that debt.


remember, the goal ?

The goal is to have everyone covered under their own health insurance plan, and to keep the State out of the mix....

thats the goal..

so that everyone grows up with great insurance, and its there when they need it..
and to do this without a State 'mandate"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

But, you have written the father out of your policy here.

---

You really awake yet?

Im thinking that you did not really understand that i gave only the 'single mom" example as a typical worst-case example..

Im not saying that only single moms can apply....LOL

see....the idea is that you want the average person to feel very connected to their insurance.
You want them to always want this connection.

that way you dont have a 31 year old guy walk in to the ER with no insurance later.....

You want that 31 year old guy to have had a life-time connection with insurance....thats what you want to bring about....thats the goal...

You cant lose sight of the goal.

Whats the goal Julie?


You talked about a guy walking into the ER with no insurance, and the bills for his health care falling on the State to pick up.

We want to stop that.
That is the goal.


We dont want the IRS to be going after people who simply dont want to have insurance.
That also is the goal.

We dont want all the bills for people's health care to land on the State to cover.
That also is the goal.


The goal is to have that same guy walk into the ER when he gets sick, and have some darn good insurance to cover his bills.
That is the goal.


Q - How long did this guy have his insurance?
A - all his life.

Q - did the government or his parents put the pressure on him to always have good insurance?
A - his parents.

Q - Who should receive the benefit if he always has insurance, the state or his family?
A - his family

Q - when he signs up his own children for insurance, who should receive a kick-back for that, the State or his parents?
A - his parents, for they have successfully p***ed on to the 2nd and 3rd generation the importance of always having insurance...so they they deserve the reward of lower rates by the company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigJulie

the insurance companies can have an absolute ball with that one.

---

if you think that the answer to the health care problem in America is somehow to "stick it" to the insurance companies?....you are in error.

The insurance companies are going to be the heart of the final, correct answer to the problem..

Any, and I mean ANY answer that our leaders come up with have to have high on their list a means to make the insurance companies VERY happy.

Unless they take this into account, all efforts to fix the problem are useless....

My views as i have presented here, do allow for all parties of this to come away happy.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

perhaps I could have made this more clear...

Under the legacy healthcare insurance plan, the mom will never have to pay for the first 4,5 or 6 years of their child's insurance coverage.

But this amount is recorded, and it is credited to the child.
this means that when the child is old enough to decide to cancel theiur own insurance, that the total bills for their own first 5 years of coverage would now come due.

In every-day terms, what Legacy insurance means, is that you only have to pay for the first 5 years of your coverage if you stop paying your monthy fees.

it does not matter for what reason you stop paying your insurance fees...be it because you dont want to have insurance anymore, or you die.

at that moment that you stop paying your month insurance fee you then owe your bill for the first 5 years.

---

The problem I see with this program is that the parent is locking the child into a bum deal---either stay or pay. That doesn't sound like freedom at all to me.

Compare it to a phone company---you start, it seems like a real good deal--but as the year goes on, the service gets worse and worse. You want out, but you have this big charge if you do. Yours is one step worse--where the parents opted in with the child having no voice. And with a $20,000 opt out bill, who could afford it. It is subtle bondage, but bondage all the same.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

You can drop out of the plan at any time....

You just owe for the coverage that the insurance company carried you for and didnt bill your mom for.

It was free to her.

---

Yes, then it should be her bill when you opt out, but not yours as she is the policy holder and chose the policy, not you.

Quote:

---

But it was for you....and you received the benifit of that coverage.
thus you can walk away from the insurance company at any moment you want.
no law says you are stuck with that company forever.

But you do still owe them, and no matter where you go, where you work, you will need to pay off that debt.

---

Wow, I think this is the same policy the government has. Give you benefits that you didn't want and then you are stuck with the debt. Bondage is bondage--whether it is to a government or an insurance company.
remember, the goal ?

Quote:

---

The goal is to have everyone covered under their own health insurance plan, and to keep the State out of the mix....

thats the goal..

so that everyone grows up with great insurance, and its there when they need it..
and to do this without a State 'mandate"

---

We could do this without the state and without this bondage as well. It is called, letting the hospitals turn people away who cannot pay. Callous---yes, but that is also total and complete freedom for both all individuals involved--provider and providee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

You cant lose sight of the goal.

Whats the goal Julie?


You talked about a guy walking into the ER with no insurance, and the bills for his health care falling on the State to pick up.

We want to stop that.
That is the goal.


We dont want the IRS to be going after people who simply dont want to have insurance.
That also is the goal.

We dont want all the bills for people's health care to land on the State to cover.
That also is the goal.


The goal is to have that same guy walk into the ER when he gets sick, and have some darn good insurance to cover his bills.
That is the goal.


Q - How long did this guy have his insurance?
A - all his life.

Q - did the government or his parents put the pressure on him to always have good insurance?
A - his parents.

Q - Who should receive the benefit if he always has insurance, the state or his family?
A - his family

Q - when he signs up his own children for insurance, who should receive a kick-back for that, the State or his parents?
A - his parents, for they have successfully p***ed on to the 2nd and 3rd generation the importance of always having insurance...so they they deserve the reward of lower rates by the company.

---

But you are meeting your "goals" with bondage--and bondage that the child got signed up for before he/she was even old enough to realize that. You do realize that debt is a form of bondage, right? Wow, I can't even imagine the abuses an insurance company could get away with under this system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

if you think that the answer to the health care problem in America is somehow to "stick it" to the insurance companies?....you are in error.

The insurance companies are going to be the heart of the final, correct answer to the problem..

Any, and I mean ANY answer that our leaders come up with have to have high on their list a means to make the insurance companies VERY happy.

Unless they take this into account, all efforts to fix the problem are useless....

My views as i have presented here, do allow for all parties of this to come away happy.

---

I don't think we need to stick it to the insurance companies---I also don't think putting our children in bondage to them is the solution either.

Actually, I dont' think we have to keep the insurance companies happy. One of the problems we have right now is the government protections for insurance companies. The last thing an insurance company would want (compared to what they have right now) is a total and free market. That is why Romney states he was trying to use the "free market" system as much as possible. I haven't read the bill--haven't seen it through. But, I know your system is just a form of holding children hostage to an insurance company and I would personally never go for it.

Alan--this system of yours reminds me so much of systems I hate---free for the first 30 days, etc. and then you are stuck with this bill every month and you fight on the phone for hours trying to get rid of it. I can't imagine doing this to my child and the opt out payment is $20,000 or so. No way.

[QUOTE=BigJulie;103372]

Quote:

---

The problem I see with this program is that the parent is locking the child into a bum deal---either stay or pay.

---

Julie you got to ask yourself, what is the goal?

You seem to have as a goal to make it easy for kids to drop their insurance?

trust me Julie, thats the case right now,,,
so how has that worked out?

Julie, I think you need to take a look at the goal you have in mind as you think about this issue....

You listed the situation where a guy walks in to the ER because he is sick, and he has no insurance....

The hospital treats him, and the bill gets paid by the State.

This situation is the same as what the insurance companies have been warning the country about for over 20 years!

thats if you make insurance unneeded, you invite people to treat their State supported healthcare as if it were a All-you-can-eat buffet.

The goal you should always have in mind is finding a way to get people to have their private insurance.

so in the future when that 31 year old man walks into the ER, he has an insurance card in his pocket.

The best way to bring about such a better future is to bring up that young man in a home where from birth he learned the value of good insurance.

the best people to teach him that valuble lesson is not the state, nor the IRA....,but rather the pest people to handle that *** are good old mom and dad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Julie you got to ask yourself, what is the goal?

You seem to have as a goal to make it easy for kids to drop their insurance?

trust me Julie, thats the case right now,,,
so how has that worked out?

---

But you are subs***uting your goal with giving the insurance companies too much power over the now-grown child. This is just a set-up that would allow insurance companies to be able to be very abusive.
I would never do that to my kids and therefore would reject the option. (It is akin to leasing a car and all those other abusive programs where it sounds good on the front and bad on the back side.)

As I stated, if we want total freedom --then we need to allow hospitals to turn away people who can't pay or don't have insurance. That would give plenty of people incentive to get and keep insurance. BUT, and this is the big BUT---as a society, can we accept the death of our citizens because of their own poor choices when WE could do something to save them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Julie, I think you need to take a look at the goal you have in mind as you think about this issue....

You listed the situation where a guy walks in to the ER because he is sick, and he has no insurance....

The hospital treats him, and the bill gets paid by the State.

This situation is the same as what the insurance companies have been warning the country about for over 20 years!

thats if you make insurance unneeded, you invite people to treat their State supported healthcare as if it were a All-you-can-eat buffet.

The goal you should always have in mind is finding a way to get people to have their private insurance.

so in the future when that 31 year old man walks into the ER, he has an insurance card in his pocket.

The best way to bring about such a better future is to bring up that young man in a home where from birth he learned the value of good insurance.

the best people to teach him that valuble lesson is not the state, nor the IRA....,but rather the pest people to handle that *** are good old mom and dad.

---

Yeah, but your system is not to "bring up the young man where...he learned the value of good insurance." Your system is to put your children in bondage to a corperation known as an insurance company. You are meeting one goal with something that could be far worse.

Im talking about a system that is different than Mitt's system to be sure.
And my system is based on the idea that we want to make insurance the most easy for every man to have when he walks in the door of the ER.

My system is completely voluntary...and thats the thing that a lot of Mitt supporters dont know how to deal with about Mitt's past..

a fact is a fact, and it is a cold hard fact that one of the issues that was the very foundation of the Tea Party is the Clinton, then Mitt/Obama health care push to bring in a mandate.

This is also the reason for the media being so kind to Mitt, while it tries it's best to destroy anyone who is a challenger to Mitt to leading the ticket.

The liberal press wants Mitt to win the primary!

The liberals know that the moment that Mitt wins the primary, the whole health care mandate issue is taken off the table.