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.
Amen to the bolded part of your post. Anyone who has lived without access to health insurance lives in fear every day of their lives that they will get sick or hurt and be ruined. That is what the ACA has done for many millions of people, it's allowed us the same access to subsidized healthcare as those who have theirs subsidized through their employers.
I agree, universal healthcare is the way to go, but we won't get that with this Congress.
We'll never get UHC because even though it would benefit them greatly, too many Americans don't want to pay the highly regressive taxes (meaning the tax burden falls most heavily on the middle class and poor) needed to fund it.
Quote:
"UC Davis's Peter Lindert has argued in his book "Growing Public" that European social democracies were only able to develop the programs they did because they used efficient consumption taxes that didn't lower growth as much as progressive income taxes, particularly those on capital income. European countries needed tax systems that could raise a lot of money without hurting growth, and only regressive consumption taxes fit the bill."
You're against oil subsidies but advocate the subsidies you like? Maybe they are both wrong.
Great. Now point me to the dozens of votes and lawsuits that the Republicans have led to strip the subsidies from oil companies. When you can do that, I will believe that the GOP's attempt to strip subsidies from ordinary middle class Americans has anything to do with the subsidies and is not purely political. I won't be holding my breath.
Last edited by HeyJude514; 03-05-2015 at 08:58 AM..
Your taxes are paying for big Oil to be getting a tax subsidy. Tell me why an individual should not get the same type of subsidy for their healthcare?
Has it been mandated that everyone purchase a consumer good from the oil companies or face the wrath of the IRS? Why then are we mandated to purchase a consumer good/service related to healthcare or face such consequences? While I don't agree with the subsidies given to oil producers, it doesn't make it right to do the same on the health insurance front.
If I find gas to be overly costly at the pump, no amount of whining on my part will result in a check magically appearing on my mailbox to compensate me. Why should health insurance be any different?
Has it been mandated that everyone purchase a consumer good from the oil companies or face the wrath of the IRS? Why then are we mandated to purchase a consumer good/service related to healthcare or face such consequences? While I don't agree with the subsidies given to oil producers, it doesn't make it right to do the same on the health insurance front.
If I find gas to be overly costly at the pump, no amount of whining on my part will result in a check magically appearing on my mailbox to compensate me. Why should health insurance be any different?
You won't be getting a check, but if we the people voted to eliminate gasoline taxes, gas would be cheaper, and the result would be very similar to getting a check, since gasoline is so important to all our lives and productivity. This can happen without magic.
The Chevron deference, established by the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), is a principle of administrative law requiring courts to defer to interpretations of statutes made by those government agencies charged with enforcing them, unless such interpretations are unreasonable.
I am hoping you are not a Con law professor given that JP Stevens in delivering the opinion of the court in Chevron v, NRDC said, "When a court reviews an agency's construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress."
The intent of the Congress was clear and unambiguous.
You won't be getting a check, but if we the people voted to eliminate gasoline taxes, gas would be cheaper, and the result would be very similar to getting a check, since gasoline is so important to all our lives and productivity. This can happen without magic.
Same with HC insurance.
Then the actual costs of HC, not insurance, needs to go down. Would you propose the government mandate what doctors can charge for their services through regulation? When that's done for airlines and milk producers (products), that's one thing. When it's done for services delivered directly from one individual to another, that's indentured servitude.
Amen to the bolded part of your post. Anyone who has lived without access to health insurance lives in fear every day of their lives that they will get sick or hurt and be ruined. That is what the ACA has done for many millions of people, it's allowed us the same access to subsidized healthcare as those who have theirs subsidized through their employers.
I agree, universal healthcare is the way to go, but we won't get that with this Congress. In the meantime, I will take what is available and pay for a policy purchased through the exchange. How many people receiving health insurance through large groups where the prices are greatly reduced would willingly give it up and live in uncertainty and fear? I'd wager not a one. But many of those same people would be perfectly happy to throw millions off their insurance to win a political point, with no thought of the inhumanity of such a stance.
It's estimated that by 2020, fully 40 percent of American workers will be employed as independent contractors, meaning no access to employer based health insurance. Should nearly half the population be denied access to basic healthcare? Is that really the country we want to be?
I hope u realize most people who declare BK and still try to claim medical costs as the reason for filing BK. Those people already have comprehensive health insurance.
Canadians still file BK at the same rate as USA citizens.
You want to know the reason why people get behind on their medical bills? It's not because of lack of insurance. It's because when they become sick. They are unable to work. If someone is unable to work. Most will go broke It's as simple as that. A construction woker who has to have major heart surgery is looking at being out 3 months minimum. How are they going to replace that lost income?
They need temp disability policy which most people won't buy. It's a chicken and egg issue.
And very few people on the individual market were denied policies due to pre existing condtiion. You are talking most likely 1% of the total US population. 5% of us population is currently on the individual market. Although with the ACA. The govt is hoping 20-25% will be on the exchanges by 2020. Because that point the insurers may have the upper hand on the providers and hospitals to low ball them in terms of payments.
Most all of us benefit from central largesse. Many rich on balance may be net negative. But even then the rich might benefit from other central supports, such as infrastructure. Roads, communication, anything that encourages increased commerce and security.
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.
