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.
The consequences for those unable to find affordable housing the [Harvard Joint Center on Housing Studies] says is dire. They spend about $130 less on food, 40 percent less than those living in housing they can afford. Thus housing is clearly linked to hunger in the U.S. They also spend significantly less on health care and retirement savings.
People dumb enough to support the ACA don't care about anyone but themselves. They got theirs and someone else paid for most of it, "********* and yours" is how they live life.
People dumb enough to support the ACA don't care about anyone but themselves. They got theirs and someone else paid for most of it, "********* and yours" is how they live life.
Fantastic point MYK...but what does that have to do with the availibility of affordable rental properties?
The consequences for those unable to find affordable housing the [Harvard Joint Center on Housing Studies] says is dire. They spend about $130 less on food, 40 percent less than those living in housing they can afford. Thus housing is clearly linked to hunger in the U.S. They also spend significantly less on health care and retirement savings.
Actually, it's the ACA detractors who want to tax them. The ACA supporters, by definition, support expanding Medicaid in order to help lower-income people - and the relatively few high-income renters will likely have insurance through their company. It's the detractors that wish to keep Medicaid tight and take away subsidies that will assist low-to mid-income people.
Because if they get sick, is uninsured and end up in the ER, everyone who pays taxes and a premium will have to cover the loss incurred by said patient. The least they can do is contribute to their unwillingness to cover themselves and at least cover some of their costs.
Of course, single payer would make everyone pay a tax to cover themselves and we wouldn't have to worry about deductibles and copay and all that other BS most 1st world countries don't have to deal with it. But well continue with the same old same old and champion how great our health care system is
Because if they get sick, is uninsured and end up in the ER, everyone who pays taxes and a premium will have to cover the loss incurred by said patient. The least they can do is contribute to their unwillingness to cover themselves and at least cover some of their costs.
Of course, single payer would make everyone pay a tax to cover themselves and we wouldn't have to worry about deductibles and copay and all that other BS most 1st world countries don't have to deal with it. But well continue with the same old same old and champion how great our health care system is
so the liberal solution is to tax people who can't afford rent or food or insurance?
I expected the two issues to separately attract people on opposite sides; the Obamacare supporters wouldn't expect these people to save for retirement, and thus I expected them to ignore the question of how much they should save for retirement. So I added the ACA question because I didn't want to give supporters a pass.
Because if they get sick, is uninsured and end up in the ER, everyone who pays taxes and a premium will have to cover the loss incurred by said patient.
This whole argument has always been wishful thinking not backed up by data. The small numbers of studies that have been done were swept under the table because they suggested that there is no free lunch -- expanding coverage caused all costs and utilization to go up, including ER. Just recently a major, high-quality study was released that definitively proves that the argument you are making fails in the real world.
"In 2008, Oregon initiated a limited expansion of a Medicaid program for uninsured, low-income adults, drawing names from a waiting list by lottery. This lottery created a rare opportunity to study the effects of Medicaid coverage using a randomized controlled design. Using the randomization provided by the lottery and emergency-department records from Portland-area hospitals, we study the emergency-department use of about 25,000 lottery participants over approximately 18 months after the lottery. We find that Medicaid coverage significantly increases overall emergency use by 0.41 visits per person, or 40 percent relative to an average of 1.02 visits per person in the control group. We find increases in emergency-department visits across a broad range of types of visits, conditions, and subgroups, including increases in visits for conditions that may be most readily treatable in primary care settings."
So get ahold of your Congress critter to petition for "ObamaRent"..subsidized rent money.
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.
