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 1993 bill would have established standardized benefits, creation of purchasing pools, individual mandate, and vouchers for the poor.
States already establish standardized benefits, thats why there are state insurance commissions, ACA doesnt establish a purchasing pool, and the mandate was to SAVE YOUR OWN MONEY IN YOUR OWN ACCOUNT.
And yes, they were handing out vouchers, but not by taxing others. In fact that was the biggest criticsm of the bill which is that it wasnt paid for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Romneycare.... What is the difference between giving someone a tax credit or subsidy? They both come out of revenue.... .
There is a huge difference between you taking your money to pay for your insurance vs you taking someone elses money..
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Sounds like you got tricked by your Republican buddies....
Not at all, its YOU who keeps trying to equate them as the same when they arent even close
Let's be honest here, not all democrats are equal and not all republicans are equal. ACA was the culmination of a lot of compromise within the Democratic party (single payer wouldn't get passed by Dems) and hoping the Republicans would support something that more embodied conservatism (albeit it seems the far right is more powerful than when the 1993 Chaffe (R) Bill was introduced).
There is NOTHING conservative about taking person A's money to pay for person B's welfare..
You can continue posting this talking point over and over again, but that doesnt make it true..
Romenycare gives people tax credits to buy health insurance..
ACA is the exact OPPOSITE of both of these...
There is very little difference between the two plans.
They both have an employer mandate.
They both have subsidies.
They both require people to buy insurance.
They both have a penalty for the employer and individual.
They were both designed by the same person.
They both expanded Medicaid, but to different groups.
The devil is in the details.
Under the ACA ,employers with less than 50 FTE are exempt, but that number drops to 11 in MA. Under Romneycare the penalty is 1/2 of what the cheapest insurance would cost, but is only $95 under the ACA. Eventually, the penalty under the ACA will reach 2.5% of AGI or $695, but is capped to not exceed the cost of a bronze plan. The MA plan provides subsidies to people making 300% of FPL, but the ACA expands that to 400%. In MA, Medicaid was expanded to children if the HH income was below 300%, but the ACA expanded the program to everyone if income was below 138% of the FPL.
I did not say that. A private sector solution is not going to lead to a just and compassionate health care system. We all know that, and besides, employer provided health insurance puts our companies at a disadvantage. It should not be their job. It is society's job.
Since when is the government "just and compassionate"?
Since when is the fact that government linked health care and employment a reason to get government more involved?
There is very little difference between the two plans.
They both have an employer mandate.
They both have subsidies.
They both require people to buy insurance.
They both have a penalty for the employer and individual.
They were both designed by the same person.
They both expanded Medicaid, but to different groups.
The devil is in the details.
Under the ACA ,employers with less than 50 FTE are exempt, but that number drops to 11 in MA. Under Romneycare the penalty is 1/2 of what the cheapest insurance would cost, but is only $95 under the ACA. Eventually, the penalty under the ACA will reach 2.5% of AGI or $695, but is capped to not exceed the cost of a bronze plan. The MA plan provides subsidies to people making 300% of FPL, but the ACA expands that to 400%. In MA, Medicaid was expanded to children if the HH income was below 300%, but the ACA expanded the program to everyone if income was below 138% of the FPL.
Saying they are similar and then listing a few ways they are the same is like saying a Porsche and a Pinto is the same because they both have 4 wheels...
if I can save MY OWN MONEY in MY OWN ACCOUNT, that is NOT the same as having to give the money to the government.
There is a HUGE difference..
The employer mandate under ACA actually diminishes over time, in fact that "designed by the same person", recently came out and said that over the next 20 years, it will be financially impossible for an employer to offer insurance under ACA
Saying they are similar and then listing a few ways they are the same is like saying a Porsche and a Pinto is the same because they both have 4 wheels...
No, it's like saying chocolate and vanilla are both ice cream flavors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
if I can save MY OWN MONEY in MY OWN ACCOUNT, that is NOT the same as having to give the money to the government.
There is a HUGE difference..
That is an option under both the ACA and the MA plan. Neither plan invented HSA accounts nor took away HSA accounts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
The employer mandate under ACA actually diminishes over time, in fact that "designed by the same person", recently came out and said that over the next 20 years, it will be financially impossible for an employer to offer insurance...
You though, think thats the same...
The employer penalty is actually indexed for inflation. What you are referencing is the Cadillac tax.
Seems to me that most of the critiques of the ACA have to do with the horrific complexity of demanding people buy insurance, when some of us get it through our work, etc. What not just develop a single payer system like all the rest of the first world? That would be better for our citizens and would help our businesses compete. People could add to a public system, if they had the means, just like people do with private education.
I know the insurance lobby would fight this ferociously, but I have a hard time believing the needs of the general population could not prevail. The ACA is basically the GOP-designed approach for working through insurance companies, and it seems pretty inefficient. Single payer just seems much less complex and more just. The health of our citizens should not be meted out by insurance adjusters.
OK, here's a way to single payer I'll support.
Ratify a balanced budget amendment, then find a way to pay for it so we are in compliance with our new balanced budget amendment.
Plus the GAO has determined several top federal agencies, to include DOD, cannot be audited because their books are too effed-up.
Do we really want to trust our health care to the same government that lost Lois Learner's E-mails?
They didn't lose them, they lied to us over and over. As I said, for those who want single payer you better start holding the liars and corrupt politicians accountable or it's never going to happen.
Why not Single Payer?
If the Fed CANNOT run a small scale , the VA, efficiently, what makes you think they can run a system 100 times bigger?
Some of those country's you are talking about are haveing HUGE problems. NONE of them are as perfect as some seem to think.
Because the democrats couldn't possibly expect their constituents to pay for single payer so it will never happen.
To them single payer means one really, really rich guy paying for everyone else. In the rest of the world it means regressive taxes.
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.
