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.
How many of them are working taxpayers? How many will be paying higher effective tax rates than both the working insured and the non-working insured? You okay with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neko_mimi
Yes. I don't think people are owed something simply because they exist.
Are they not owed an effective tax rate no higher than the effective tax rate paid by the working insured and the non-working insured?
IOW, are they not owed the ability to keep more of what they earn?
Nobody here is suggesting they are "owed something" - only that they NOT be taxed at a higher rate in order to subsidize the insured.
p.s. Where did you get the idea that allowing the working uninsured to keep more of their own earnings is liberalism???
It's a widely embraced business concept that the 100% solution isn't cost effective. In fact, the point of diminishing returns is around 80%. At 93%, we should call the health care situation a success and focus on more important issues. Rubio is correct.
Yes, 80% of commercial airliners landing safely is where we want to be at..
If you can't afford to purchase something, did you really choose not to buy it?
Do most of the homeless choose not to buy - er, rent - housing?
Explain how a childless minimum wage worker can afford to buy coverage.
Read post 10 to see how those people in the situations you mention received care in the past.
Also, rest assured many younger people who are healthy do not want to buy insurance to help subsidize those who are sick.
Socialists want to sell people on the idea of making everyone equal, but want to do it with othe rpeoples money. Of course they never mention that the leaders of socialism and communism do not live like everyone else.
As in Animal Farm, "some animals are more equal", right?
Read post 10 to see how those people in the situations you mention received care in the past.
Also, rest assured many younger people who are healthy do not want to buy insurance to help subsidize those who are sick.
Socialists want to sell people on the idea of making everyone equal, but want to do it with othe rpeoples money. Of course they never mention that the leaders of socialism and communism do not live like everyone else.
As in Animal Farm, "some animals are more equal", right?
So all those other countries making the availability of healthcare as a 'universal for all' concept are doing so because they all do not live like everyone else, hence; they're all living better?
In all of the countries where basic healthcare is provided through taxation; it was done with demand, mandate and approval of the citizens, therefore; they must be the leaders you speak of.
Many more than 23 million are impacted by Trumpcare but won't lose their insurance. It's only 23 million that will lose insurance.
There will be many additional millions between age 45 and 65 that will be paying much higher monthly premiums due to TrumpCare's rate increase. They will be spending more money on health insurance and this impacts them greatly - some more than others. The rate increase for some of these will make them ponder whether to keep their health insurance or cancel it - a gamble that many won't want but others will choose to make.
Only once someone decides that the Trumpcare rate increases is more than they can/choose to spend, then they fall into the 23 million group. It could be a life or death decision to keep paying the monthly premium or cancel the insurance and risk getting cancer that cannot wait until the next enrollment period.
Because the mandate is gone, rates are likely to increase for everyone after a few years - even those younger than 45. This is because many healthy people and young people will choose to forego buying health insurance because they know they can enroll the next year. This is not a smart move since an accident or health issue could arise instantly and cost tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars or they could be refused care if it's not an ER issue and they don't have the money to pay(such as chemo or surgery or ongoing treatment).
If they have to wait until the next annual enrollment to signup for insurance, it's too late because the bills already accrued before the enrollement period or if the cancer spread if they delayed treatment until their insurance plan kicked in the next enrollment period. 10 months or 7 months or even 5 months is a long time to wait when cancer is spreading. This could be the difference between life and death.
But many people will be ok taking the risk and they will forego insurance until they think they need it. This will cause monthly insurance premiums to rise for people that choose to buy policies.
I read that as "23 million people will be receiving fewer handouts at the expense of my tax dollars".
I read stuff like this as "As long as I got mine, a functional society does not matter. Poor people cost more to treat than they contribute to the economy and can go die."
It's a widely embraced business concept that the 100% solution isn't cost effective. In fact, the point of diminishing returns is around 80%. At 93%, we should call the health care situation a success and focus on more important issues. Rubio is correct.
The health care situation is a disaster, and the Republican proposal will only make it worse. The problem is health care costs in this country, and our government's reluctance to address those costs. The demographics show a tidal wave of baby boomers who will be retiring (no longer receiving employer-sponsored insurance) and who will be needing more and more healthcare. The Republican proposal only means that older Americans who will be facing insanely high premiums will be deferring medical care until they reach a crisis point. Health care costs are going to cripple this country, and our elected officials are playing partisan games.
Small percentage of Floridians on Medicade? Even smaller percentage of Seniors in Florida on Medicade? Sure, Rubio. He doesn't know his OWN State, let alone the rest of the country.
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.
