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 health insurance industry is so tied to health care in this country that most people w/o insurance are left without options for care. Insurance does tend to equal care in this country. Rates for services are have been inflated to unaffordable levels for those w/o insurance.
I believe some form of universal coverage is necessary in this country. It's good for people, AND, it's good for business. I agree everyone will have to pay for it, but we do have to realize those countries without a 47% don't just have universal health coverage, they also have higher minimum wages, many other subsidized benefits such as child care, education, etc. that leave them better able to afford higher taxes. We would have to get truly realistic about the state of our economy, and how to pay for it.
Other countries use well regulated health insurance, and individual mandates to provide universal coverage that people have to pay for. Options could be explored, but it has become such partisan mess that I don't see any changes coming until the rising health insurance, and rising medical care cost leaves many more affected.
I think a good thing would to be to cut out the eitc and all the benefits and put that towards coverage. Boom people are covered and they can be healthy and go earn some money
The health insurance industry is so tied to health care in this country that most people w/o insurance are left without options for care. Insurance does tend to equal care in this country. Rates for services are have been inflated to unaffordable levels for those w/o insurance.
I believe some form of universal coverage is necessary in this country. It's good for people, AND, it's good for business. I agree everyone will have to pay for it, but we do have to realize those countries without a 47% don't just have universal health coverage, they also have higher minimum wages, many other subsidized benefits such as child care, education, etc. that leave them better able to afford higher taxes. We would have to get truly realistic about the state of our economy, and how to pay for it.
Other countries use well regulated health insurance, and individual mandates to provide universal coverage that people have to pay for. Options could be explored, but it has become such partisan mess that I don't see any changes coming until the rising health insurance, and rising medical care cost leaves many more affected.
Only three countries in the world have a higher median household income. Those three are small European states with a combined population less than California.
A quick trip over to the WHO website and I can pull salaries by country by occupation. Again, we win.
Your argument is counter to the facts. Who has a higher standard of living: a bus driver in the UK earning $2200US with a high tax rate or the U.S. driver earning $3100 with almost zero taxes?
Only three countries in the world have a higher median household income. Those three are small European states with a combined population less than California.
A quick trip over to the WHO website and I can pull salaries by country by occupation. Again, we win.
Your argument is counter to the facts. Who has a higher standard of living: a bus driver in the UK earning $2200US with a high tax rate or the U.S. driver earning $3100 with almost zero taxes?
All I'm saying is that needs to be looked at more deeply to see exactly what type of restructuring might need to be done. It's easy to complain about the 48% who don't pay federal taxes, BTW they do pay taxes, fed excise, state, local, sales, etc., and those costs would have to be added in as well. 48% of Americans earn less 25K, 30% earn less than 15K, many earn less, those people are not living lives of luxury.
You can't just pull salaries, we aren't comparing apples to apples when you compare the US when most Europeans are paying taxes for such highly subsidized societies. You have to look at child care costs (many working poor lose money by working because of child care costs alone, child care averages 12K/yr) health care, education, transportation, and other costs, that the govt. pays for in those societies before making a blanket assumption that all those low earning people in the US are all so much better off than Europeans.
BTW, I don't believe that only the wealthy should be responsible for all of our taxes. I'm not opposed to a careful look at tax rates, and raising them for the non wealthy when warranted. Nor am I opposed to cutting govt. benefits when warranted, but I also believe we need to take just as careful look at the fact that the American taxpayers are subsidizing corporate payrolls when their workers earn so little that they end up needing welfare benefits because of low wages.
The problem is that the country is too engaged in partisan bickering to take a real look at what could be changed to benefit the people of this country. This ends up hurting most of us while the very top always seem to come out ahead. I wonder how far this country has to fall before people wake up, and realize they are being played.
In a law where "state" is clearly defined as the 50 states + DC, and where it is clear that subsidies are only available to exchanges established "by the state," it is ridiculous to try to read the statute as authorizing subsidies for exchanges established by the Federal government, which is not a state as defined by the law. Does the law work with this interpretation? No. But sloppy drafting/unintended consequences doesn't give a court, which is tasked with interpreting the law not stretching it to meat its own objectives, the authority to "save" the law so as not to see these consequences come to pass. Nancy Pelosi famously said "we have to pass the law to see what's in it." Well, the law is passed and its sloppily written. There's only one wait to interpret this unambiguous language in my view and I hope the Court gets it right.
In a law where "state" is clearly defined as the 50 states + DC, and where it is clear that subsidies are only available to exchanges established "by the state," it is ridiculous to try to read the statute as authorizing subsidies for exchanges established by the Federal government, which is not a state as defined by the law. Does the law work with this interpretation? No. But sloppy drafting/unintended consequences...
I disagree that it was the result of sloppy drafting/unintended consequences. Gruber, who was the WH's and Congress's consultant on the ACA, has been taped repeatedly stating that the law was written that way to coerce states to establish their own exchanges.
Quote:
There's only one wait to interpret this unambiguous language in my view and I hope the Court gets it right.
Absolutely correct. Any other outcome, and SCOTUS even further diminishes the integrity of their already increasingly questionable rulings.
Sure they are. States have had high risk insurance pools for such persons since long before Obamacare.
You don't qualify for a high risk pool simply by being self-employed. But you already know this because we had this discussion in this very thread already. You just enjoy calling self-employed people takers because in some way it enhances your sense that takers who receive government sponsored subsidies through their employers are superior to those who receive their subsidies through exchanges.
I disagree that it was the result of sloppy drafting/unintended consequences. Gruber, who was the WH's and Congress's consultant on the ACA, has been taped repeatedly stating that the law was written that way to coerce states to establish their own exchanges.
Absolutely correct. Any other outcome, and SCOTUS even further diminishes the integrity of their already increasingly questionable rulings.
I call it sloppy drafting because the evidence, whether its true or not, that the framers of the bill did not intend to coerce the states to establish their own exchanges is even stronger than the evidence in favor of such an argument, both from a legal standpoint and from a "factual" standpoint. Legally speaking, for the coercion argument/interpretation to be successful, the Federal government usually has to put states on clear notice that there are strings attached (while some can claim that the notice was clear, the fact that this is only an issue recently and that states didn't make this argument when fighting Obamacare tooth and nail prior to the 2012 election makes such a claim tough to sell).
Factually speaking, while Gruber makes that claim (and, for the record, I believe him and find his honesty refreshing), every Democratic member of Congress (and the bill sponsors have already made such a claim) will swear that there was no coercive intent involved and that the bill was intended to subsidize Federal exchanges as well. Whether one believes these members or not, their words hold significant weight in that regard as this is an all Democratic Party bill (as you know, not a single Republican voted for this bill).
Also, excuse the type errors for "wait" vs. "way" and "meat" vs. "meet." Blame it on Siri!
You don't qualify for a high risk pool simply by being self-employed.
You qualify for a state high risk pool by having a pre-existing condition that others won't insure, which was the point being made. The rest of your post is therefore irrelevant.
Make all doctors, nurses, pharma and anyone in the healthcare industry, including all hospitals, property of the federal government.... Yes property. Not employees, because employees can walk away.
That should fix it.... Right? LOL!
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.
