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.
yes its a freebee but hard to get and requires some form of payment supplement. many do not like any of this. if this is the plum the poor having been waiting for-- its pretty slim pickings.
Anyone who earns 46K or less will qualify for a subsidy. 71% of Americans earn less than 50K so it's hardly a surprise that the majority qualified for subsidies. The subsidy for one who earns 35K is about $8. I'm sure people would like everyone to believe that everyone who buys insurance through the exchange is a poor moocher, but most are working, or they would qualify for medicaid.
It's better to have people insured than racking up bills at hospitals. Taxpayers and people who have insurance pay the $42 Billion in costs that the uninsured rack up and don't pay. Everyone who has health insurance pays an additional $1000/yr for the unpaid bills of the uninsured.
I would think it would be closer to 100%. If by "obamacare" you mean signing up through an exchange. There is no reason to do that if you aren't getting subsidies, you just buy a policy from an insurance company or broker like people have always done. Understand that it will STILL be "obamacare" in that it meets ACA requirements.
I'm never quite sure what people think they are talking about.
There's an ROI from one group and nothing from the other.
Maybe that's the reason why.
Sure, we wouldn't want to let the wealthy take any risks with their money, as long as it is a positive investment, even if it is propped up by the tax payers. You are just trying to reason with yourself why it is okay to give the wealthy subsidies and not the poor.
It's not tax exempt..it's an expense, just like paid vacations, stock bonuses, other taxes.
And don't forget the employer is also contributing to SS, medicare and unemployment (both state and federal) insurance.
The insurance is tax exempt compensation for the employee. The employee pays no tax on the income that goes toward health insurance. The employer also receives generous tax exemptions for providing that insurance. Employment based health insurance means a lot fewer taxes are collected from employees and the businesses they work for, and that's fine because health care is important, and everyone should have access to a health insurance plan to help pay for it.
The ACA allows people who can't get this benefit to qualify for reduced costs on their own insurance. The most important thing it did was allow everyone to be able to get insurance, instead of denying anyone who had a health condition, or kicking people out as soon as they get sick. I've yet to see the replacement plan the conservatives will implement. It seems to me they preferred the old way where insurance company profits mattered more than Americans having health coverage. I'm an independent, but I will never vote for a republican if all they have to offer is repeal to the horrible old way.
I would think it would be closer to 100%. If by "obamacare" you mean signing up through an exchange. There is no reason to do that if you aren't getting subsidies, you just buy a policy from an insurance company or broker like people have always done. Understand that it will STILL be "obamacare" in that it meets ACA requirements.
I'm never quite sure what people think they are talking about.
Wrong. Many states (35?) like TX had High Risk pools that insured all the Pre-existing individuals like my Ex who had cancer. Those state discontinued those plans and are forced to go through the Exchange.
Her costs went up a good 25% through the exchange from her previous high risk pool policy. She has no other options at this time.
Wrong. Many states (35?) like TX had High Risk pools that insured all the Pre-existing individuals like my Ex who had cancer. Those state discontinued those plans and are forced to go through the Exchange.
Her costs went up a good 25% through the exchange from her previous high risk pool policy. She has no other options at this time.
We had a high risk plan in CA like that too...it was paid for by our taxes because the rates were really low the people being insured were getting one hell of a deal. . I wish I could have taken advantage of that but you had to be uninsured for 6 months to even qualify. The rates were clearly not sustainable so unless you advocate raising taxes or cutting spending and throwing it all into a National Health Plan for everyone I don't know who is supposed to pay for their own policy. Stop looking at the pretend rates of what used to be but can't be anymore, and look at reality.
Sure, we wouldn't want to let the wealthy take any risks with their money, as long as it is a positive investment, even if it is propped up by the tax payers. You are just trying to reason with yourself why it is okay to give the wealthy subsidies and not the poor.
Dont you support ACA, despite their guaranteed return to the insurance companies taking part?
its a tranfer of wealth just like every wealth sharing program;plain and simple.Insurance is allowed the same 20% net profit like before. For those its just a transfer of cost to others as it cost no less to treat them. Unlike most pools tho everyone does not pay the same in the risk pool.
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.
