Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

RB TexLa

(17,003 posts)

19. That's 10 years of not being able to defer income through my HSA you are talking about

Reply to BigD_95 (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:31 AM

Feb 2013

Just using the 2013 maximum contribution you are costing me $32,500 in tax deferred income and the investment gains for 10 years on it.

Are you proposing this be mandatory at age 55? 55 is not old.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why are there no Dems talking about lower medicare to 55 to save money & gain jobs? [View all] BigD_95 Feb 2013 OP

Precisely Sherman A1 Feb 2013 #1

excellent idea. robinlynne Feb 2013 #2

Uh, you don't read so good. Warpy Feb 2013 #3

"Seriously no one says it on tv or radio." annabanana Feb 2013 #6

Not to mention, it was floated in 2009 as part of the ACA karynnj Feb 2013 #7

Joe Lieberman is Satan's helper SHRED Feb 2013 #12

True. avaistheone1 Feb 2013 #35

I'm talking about right now BigD_95 Feb 2013 #17

I tried to listen to "morning Joe". timdog44 Feb 2013 #22

Except that it didn't need 60 votes. eomer Feb 2013 #23

There were 2 FINAL bills - the main bill passed with 60 votes by the Senate and a smaller bill that karynnj Feb 2013 #28

The second (final) bill was a reconciliation bill. A public option could have been added to it. eomer Feb 2013 #30

Shhhh! bvar22 Feb 2013 #32

I know there was that push - and there were some Senators, who supported the karynnj Feb 2013 #34

The precedents are for, not against, something this large through reconciliation. eomer Feb 2013 #37

It was the passing of the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that led to the Byrd rule karynnj Feb 2013 #38

Not true, the Byrd Rule originated in 1985, was amended in 1990. eomer Feb 2013 #39

Because the "Serious People" don't think that way n2doc Feb 2013 #4

You read my mind. Curmudgeoness Feb 2013 #8

Correct. timdog44 Feb 2013 #15

I work around 4 people BigD_95 Feb 2013 #20

My husband retired early marlakay Feb 2013 #29

I am still disappointed Curmudgeoness Feb 2013 #36

dems party leadership (hah!) is promoting the republican austerity agenda instead of coming up msongs Feb 2013 #5

Has anyone done the calculations? andym Feb 2013 #9

I may be wrong, but i think I have heard Bernie Sanders bring it up rurallib Feb 2013 #10

How would the premiums be paid? PPL are not receiving SS at age 55. CarmanK Feb 2013 #11

The same way premiums are paid for Medicare now. subterranean Feb 2013 #13

Preventative care is CHEAPER than catastrophic care as well. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #14

Because there are no Dems in power anymore. Just republicans calling themselves Dems Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #16

Are you allowed to say that? AnotherMcIntosh Feb 2013 #21

Because it's elitist, undemocratic, a subsidy to the winners from the losers Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #18

A couple of things your not thinking about BigD_95 Feb 2013 #24

But the reality is that it is a huge taxpayer subsidy to the well-off, still Yo_Mama Feb 2013 #31

That's 10 years of not being able to defer income through my HSA you are talking about RB TexLa Feb 2013 #19

Du rec. Nt xchrom Feb 2013 #25

because most are being paid by the insurance companies still_one Feb 2013 #26

K&R woo me with science Feb 2013 #27

You have to look WAAAAAAY out on the Fringe Left Wing... bvar22 Feb 2013 #33