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.
“Because this Vermont boy wants to implement that health care, the single payer health care system tomorrow and I don’t know why you guys want to stop me from doing that,” said Shumlin. “It is the right thing to do, the rest of the world has figured it out, let’s grow up and join them and get on with the journey.”
Shumlin in 2014
"The lesson was: I was wrong," Shumlin said. "I don't think small states can go it alone, at least little states like Vermont, with an unstable federal partnership."
Vermont's single-payer plan, called Green Mountain Care, would have required an 11.5 percent payroll tax on businesses, plus an additional state income tax of up to 9.5 percent. The plan would have covered about 94 percent of Vermonters' health care costs, on average, not including adult vision or dental coverage.
States going it alone does not compute. This is similar to say flood insurance. Imagine the premiums for flood insurance without Federal subsidies. The difference is we can choose to live in a flood prone area, or not.
States going it alone does not compute. This is similar to say flood insurance. Imagine the premiums for flood insurance without Federal subsidies. The difference is we can choose to live in a flood prone area, or not.
No one chooses Cancer.
the poor couldn't afford cancer treatment before ACA, and they can't after ACA... ACA helps with prevention/etc for primary care and not long term care. most of that comes out of pocket still which the poor still can't afford with the subsidies
ACA is for health "insurance", not health "care", the insurance companies can still restrict/limit/deny treatments/doctors
the way they afford it is with medicaid which was around before ACA
The problem is, there is no easy answer and there never will be. There are WAY too many greedy hands in the pot and none of them want to lose out. You have for profit hospitals charging a small (or large) fortune for medical procedures. You have insurance companies charging a fortune for premiums. You have the pharma companies charging a fortune for their pills. This goes on and on. Any slight change to the healthcare system and all aspects of the system will raise their prices and claim "uncertainty". If you try and implement some sort of universal healthcare like Canada or the UK, you will basically be putting major corporations out of business. Insurers and agents will no longer have a job if health insurance is no longer needed. Do you think the government will allow that many people and businesses whos profits are in the billions to fail? Out of all this, who suffers the most? The American public suffers while everyone is in line at the bank counting how many zeros are next to that 1.
Just like I can choose to not pay medicare taxes or subsidize seniors?
Convince folks medicare is a bad idea and I'll begin to listen about "Choices" because it seems seniors and boomers get some pretty generous socialized either lined up or in their back pocket.
Seniors paid all their working years into Medicare, and FYI, we still have to pay hundreds of dolors a month for supplemental insurances.
Seniors paid all their working years into Medicare, and FYI, we still have to pay hundreds of dolors a month for supplemental insurances.
I think that's why, even if we did have single payer, we'd still need some private insurance as a supplement. No way could we afford a national system like Medicaid for all, where everything is paid for.
SOME of the. 31 % of Florida's population and SOME of the .37% of Alabama's population ( note decimal placement ) will face substantially higher premiums within their state's Individual Plan Markets because they make too much to qualify for premium subsidies.
I say SOME, because premiums vary within each state, dependent on Geo Ratings. Those who make too much money to qualify for a premium subsidy who live in geo areas with sicker local populations will face higher premiums than those that live in areas with healthier populations. This Geo Rated stuff substantially predates the ACA.
None of us know how many people missed qualifying for a subsidy because their income was $1 too much versus $ millions too much.
The average Obamacare premium is $575/ mo in Alabama. The average premium subsidy in Alabama is $301/mo. We can all appreciate that someone making $1or $10 or $100 or $1000/ yr more than the threshold, pays $301 higher monthly premium ( ouch) or does without health insurance.
My point was and remains the percentage of people in this very unfortunate situation is very, very low compared to all insured people in these states.
There is no such thing as affordable for all people, all the time.
It does not matter if it's .0001%.....it went up....right?
Now, look at it the other way, that 99.62% (notice decimal placement) are not going to receive subsidies...how much is their premium's going up?
In the end it's going up...faster than normal....up 220% here in Alabama....
...affordable healthcare is saved - if you can afford it.
Yes, Obamacare is only for rich people. My neighbor just retired and he's too young for Medicare. Health insurance for him and his wife is almost $1600 per month for a $7000 deductible.
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.
<
