Is Obamacare an insurance program, or just a wealth-redistribution program? (activist, health care)
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.
Now that people are finally able to go to these "exchanges" the liberals keep proudly pointing to, and get actual numbers for what their own family's charges will be and what govt subsidies they can get, some disquieting facts are coming up.
A family of four, looking at the "bronze" plan (the least expensive up front), found that the charge for it would be $750/month. That was scary to them, a major hit... but then they found out that they might be eligible to get govt subsides to cover part of that cost.
The same family, if they made a lot more money, would have had the same charge... but no govt subsides. They'd have to pay all of it.
The "insurance" part, as the liberals piously protest, isn't coming from government at all. You are getting insurance from the same companies you've always gotten insurance from (well, some of them), not from the government. The govt merely sets the standards, it doesn't provide the actual insurance, the liberals now tell us.
The conclusion is clear.
Obamacare is, at its fundamental nature, just another wealth-redistribution program. It's a program that uses health care as its excuse for redistributing, but its original purpose was, and still is, to redistribute wealth.
It's doing it, as people are finding out, by imposing high costs on everybody... and then "giving" lavish govt subsidies to those who earn less.
Basically it's taking lots of money from those who earn more, and handing it to those who earn less.
All this stuff about exchanges, patient loads, keeping your old plan etc., is merely window dressing. Obamacare is and always has been, a wealth redistribution program.
Is this what the American people wanted?
As the politicians said, we had to pass it just to find out what's in it. Unfortunately, once we found out what's in it, we would NOT be allowed to un-pass it if we didn't like it.
Not without a fight, against the people who tricked us into it.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 10-03-2013 at 10:41 AM..
Now that people are finally able to go to these "exchanges" the liberals keep proudly pointing to, and get actual numbers for what their own family's charges will be and what govt subsidies they can get, some disquieting facts are coming up.
A family of four, looking at the "bronze" plan (the least expensive up front), found that the charge for it would be $750/month. That was scary to them, a major hit... but then they found out that they might be eligible to govt subsides to cover part of that cost.
The same family, if they made a lot more money, would have had the same charge... but no govt subsides. They'd have to pay all of it.
The conclusion is clear.
Obamacare is, at its fundamental nature, just another wealth-redistribution program. It's a program that uses health care as its excuse for redistributing, but its original purpose was, and still is, to redistribute wealth.
It's doing it, as people are finding out, by imposing high costs on everybody... and then "giving" lavish govt subsidies to those who earn less.
Basically it's taking lots of money from those who earn more, and handing it to those who earn less.
All this stuff about exchanges, patient loads, keeping your old plan etc., is merely window dressing. Obamacare is and always has been, a wealth redistribution program.
Is this what the American people wanted?
As the politicians said, we had to pass it just to find out what's in it. Unfortunately, once we found out what's in it, we would NOT be allowed to un-pass it if we didn't like it.
Not without a fight.
Obamacare is both. As it should be. The only way to pay for this was to tax wealthy individuals higher.
And once all the states expand medicaid and they will, it will really be redistributionist.
That's what this whole thing is about. Shine the light on the Dems It's socialism. That's their agenda. It's not about keeping the parks open or honoring the vets. They couldn't care less.
That's what this whole thing is about. Shine the light on the Dems It's socialism. That's their agenda. It's not about keeping the parks open or honoring the vets. They couldn't care less.
You use the term redistribution like it's a bad thing.
We've been cutting upper-income taxes for decades as the bottom 99%'s income is stagnant and get fewer services. Redistribution is a necessary part of a capitalist system that doesn't want to be like a Dickens novel.
Quote:
And the real challenge we face is not how to resolve our differences — something that won’t happen any time soon — but how to keep the expression of those differences within bounds.
What are the differences I’m talking about?
One side of American politics considers the modern welfare state — a private-enterprise economy, but one in which society’s winners are taxed to pay for a social safety net — morally superior to the capitalism red in tooth and claw we had before the New Deal. It’s only right, this side believes, for the affluent to help the less fortunate.
The other side believes that people have a right to keep what they earn, and that taxing them to support others, no matter how needy, amounts to theft. That’s what lies behind the modern right’s fondness for violent rhetoric: many activists on the right really do see taxes and regulation as tyrannical impositions on their liberty.
There’s no middle ground between these views. One side saw health reform, with its subsidized extension of coverage to the uninsured, as fulfilling a moral imperative: wealthy nations, it believed, have an obligation to provide all their citizens with essential care. The other side saw the same reform as a moral outrage, an assault on the right of Americans to spend their money as they choose. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/14/op...14krugman.html
Obamacare will hurt the middleclass. The rich will stay rich.. Obama does not like the middle class... he wants them insurance poor.. problem is , the middleclass becomes poor and businesses will crumble and the insurance industry will grow by leaps and bounds.. It is a wealth distribution on the middleclass... the rich will still thrive.
I see insurance companies being priced out of the market ..
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.