Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody in a civilized society should be forced to purchase health insurance at the expense of not being able to buy food.
Well I think those who can not afford insurance will be subsidized -----or medicaid is their coverage. Now, my concern is lets say you have a mortgage, car payments and 2.5 kids, making $55,000 living in a not so cheap area of the US. How then is it calculated to conclude your obligation to purchase for-profit insurance which is called a tax when profits flow to shareholders? Another words what amount of subsidy would one receive? Would the government state that your purchase of a car was irresponsible, and so was that .5 child or buying a house? I look at it this way, taxpayers pay tax for medicaid, medicare, VA, and indian health already. Roll all that chit into one real tax that doesn't fill the coffers of the wealthy (make it non-profit), to create a single payer and leave the for-profits as supplemental coverage only. Presto, problem solved.
And where the Affordability provisions of ACA are fully implemented, practically no one will need to.
And where the Affordability provisions of ACA are fully implemented, practically no one will need to.
You seem to have a lot of faith in a law that has already been shown to be nothing like what was claimed immediately after it was passed. My suspicion, having actually read this atrocity of a piece of legislation, is that you will be unpleasantly surprised by many things. Until then, though, enjoy your delusion of affordable health care.
Roll all that chit into one real tax that doesn't fill the coffers of the wealthy (make it non-profit), to create a single payer and leave the for-profits as supplemental coverage only. Presto, problem solved.
I suspect that several other people in this thread will claim they could list myriad concerns with requiring that all subsidized healthcare and health insurance be non-profit. As alluded to earlier, many Americans have such a love affair with the right-wing that their spleen would burst thinking about taking the profit motive out of the provision of the basic essentials of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
You seem to have a lot of faith in a law that has already been shown to be nothing like what was claimed immediately after it was passed.
Wrong. I have great faith in the words I wrote and their actual meaning. Those problems actually are practically addressed by the Affordability provisions of the ACA. Are you saying that RWNJs will do everything in their power to obstruct those provisions, including but not limited to deliberately violating the law if necessary to make sure those provisions aren't satisfied? Yes, I can believe that. But that's not the fault of the provisions but rather of the RWNJs that obstruct them. Is the law perfect? No. Is it better than what we used to have? Yes. Better overall, because of its fundamental provisions.
You seem to have a lot of faith in a law that has already been shown to be nothing like what was claimed immediately after it was passed. My suspicion, having actually read this atrocity of a piece of legislation, is that you will be unpleasantly surprised by many things. Until then, though, enjoy your delusion of affordable health care.
We'll find out soon enough, October 1, 2013. If millions are hammered, things will change in a hurry. But don't delude yourself. If the republican party sees an opportunity to turn the clock back on this pig of a health delivery system we have currently, they will be sadly mistaken.
I suspect that several other people in this thread will claim they could list myriad concerns with requiring that all subsidized healthcare and health insurance be non-profit. As alluded to earlier, many Americans have such a love affair with the right-wing that their spleen would burst thinking about taking the profit motive out of the provision of the basic essentials of life.
I would have zero problem with taking profit away from insurance companies. Health insurance is one of the greatest money scams of all time, and without it we might very well be able to actually afford to pay for health care without handing over a large chunk of income to people who are betting that they'll never have to pay it back. Lucky for us that everyone is now going to be forced to gamble with the industry, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking
We'll find out soon enough, October 1, 2013. If millions are hammered, things will change in a hurry. But don't delude yourself. If the republican party sees an opportunity to turn the clock back on this pig of a health delivery system we have currently, they will be sadly mistaken.
Obama's already pushing back key provisions of his own law. Unfortunately, the general public doesn't carry enough weight for the individual mandate to be pushed back, but at least he's making the attempt to ensure that businesses, unions, and members of congress won't be hurt too badly by this disaster - at least until after the mid-term elections.
But don't delude yourself. If the republican party sees an opportunity to turn the clock back on this pig of a health delivery system we have currently, they will be sadly mistaken.
This is a very important point. Remember, one of ACA's main benefits is Guaranteed Issue (which prevents those with preexisting or chronic conditions from being left to "die in the streets"). It will be unequivocally political suicide for the GOP to come out in favor of repealing that provision of ACA. They will try to repeal it in total, and fail, over and over again, and so the best they could do is repeal individual provisions. But they will never go after Guaranteed Issue, because constituents will punish them severely for even suggesting it. With Guaranteed Issue intact, and secure, ACA has already succeeded more than any previous healthcare legislation in our lifetimes. And moreover, many of the most "hated" provisions of ACA exist because the industry cannot survive Guaranteed Issue without them. So attacking those provisions is essentially pushing for single payer to replace our nation's capitalistic healthcare system ... which would be yet another success for progressive forces. While much of the rest of ACA matters, too, it all simply comes down to Guaranteed Issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
I would have zero problem with taking profit away from insurance companies. Health insurance is one of the greatest money scams of all time, and without it we might very well be able to actually afford to pay for health care without handing over a large chunk of income to people who are betting that they'll never have to pay it back.
I'm positively gleeful that we could agree on something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
Lucky for us that everyone is now going to be forced to gamble with the industry, isn't it?
No. It would have been better if the RWNJs in Congress would have let Hillary Clinton put us on the path to universal coverage back in 1993. It also wouldn't have been perfect - it probably would have been a very bumpy ride - but it would have been better than what we had back then, and might have even been better than ACA. But, no. Those RWNJs were too greedy to allow for such consideration for the poor, and the Democrats couldn't get their act together back then either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
Obama's already pushing back key provisions of his own law.
A reflection of the impact of GOP obstructionism. Don't think for a minute that those RWNJs in Congress don't have impact. They surely do. They damage and harm and destroy progress, every chance they get. Their success doesn't make their selfishness right. It just makes it effective.
What I have seen in NC is the GOP trying to kill the ACA. They have created a budget which has a shortfall while funding Medicaid. If ACA works I see 2nd year of budget changed to accept ACA provisions and move Medicaid monies into the general fund,accepting Federal coverage of 100% of Medicare funding. This will drop to 90% after 3 yrs,I believe.
If the GOP at the Federal level is able to de-fund or overturn then they can claim victory. Mind you they have nothing to change law and make work.
My Kids( in there 30's) have already checked out the possible coverage they can purchase and have found lower costs for their families. I see the TP as not knowing a good conservative health plan just because it was passed by the Pres. and Dems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
