He definitely didn't teach to have the federal government help people.
You just don't know what you're talking about.He obviously did teach you anything.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Which really doesn't have anything to do with the Repub leadership's efforts wrt healthcare, does it? If it does, explain.
You just don't know what you're talking about.
Just proving my point. If I don't want the government to take over the entire health care system then I must want kids to die of cancer.
Just proving my point. If I don't want the government to take over the entire health care system then I must want kids to die of cancer.
A measure that simply will not fund healthcare subsidies for those who need them to have coverage at all.
The Repub plan will put people who make a helluva lot less than you do at the same price point as your own. It's Repub action that makes your premium what it is & they'll extend that dubious privilege to even more people if they can.
Their every move is designed to serve the investor class at the expense of the rest of us.
Out of curiosity, who is asking for the American govt. to "take over the entire health system"?
Sea Ray is the Real victim here, being forced to pay for people who wouldn't die already.
To be really honest with you here, no, you don't " share my pain" Do you seriously think I would still be working if I could be allowed to buy into Medicare early? If COBRA didn't cost $2,500 a month?
I literally drag myself to my job & by the time I get home every joint in my body is screaming in pain, I am exhausted all of the time. There are no vacations, no dining out, no nothing except work & trips to the cancer center. I am glad to be alive but this road is getting pretty hard to walk & having nightmares every night at the prospect of being uninsurable is pushing me to the end of my endurance. My stress is a living nightmare
Those that are calling for universal health care, single payer, Medicare for all. Pick your term. They all mean the gov't taking over the entire health system
You can always get the goody. All you have to do is lower your lifestyle until you meet the means testing for medicaid. Or at least low enough to get the ACA subsidies if you are counting that as a goody. I see this from my family a lot, "I bust my ass and they don't do anything and get all this stuff", then go ahead and do nothing. If it is so great to get these goodies then follow their lead.You don't get it. I'm fine with folks getting goodies...but where's my goody? Get me in on this...
You can always get the goody. All you have to do is lower your lifestyle until you meet the means testing for medicaid. Or at least low enough to get the ACA subsidies if you are counting that as a goody. I see this from my family a lot, "I bust my ass and they don't do anything and get all this stuff", then go ahead and do nothing. If it is so great to get these goodies then follow their lead.
You could also get the goody by pushing for the removal of means testing completely, which means supporting some form of UHC.
The root of it all seems to be that you want direct benefit for your tax dollars? You want direct goodies for your money. Are the indirect benefits not sufficient?
I'm sure the new plan will address that.
That is explicitly my point. Means testing means that there is a line somewhere. Why don't I get to make a student loan interest deduction when I pay taxes? There's a limit to who can get that benefit. There is a limit to who can get government healthcare benefits, a line has to exist somewhere in our current system.Why does Obamacare end subsidies at 400% of poverty? Why doesn't Geekbabe get help? It's eating up 22% of his income.
That is explicitly my point. Means testing means that there is a line somewhere. Why don't I get to make a student loan interest deduction when I pay taxes? There's a limit to who can get that benefit. There is a limit to who can get government healthcare benefits, a line has to exist somewhere in our current system.
Removing means testing is either UHC or zero government involvement. No in between.
olls have shown the House bill to be among the most unpopular of any major piece of legislation in the last two decades. Those numbers have not improved in the past few weeks with the introduction of the Senate's version of the legislation.
You don't get it. I'm fine with folks getting goodies...but where's my goody? Get me in on this...
GOP healthcare bill gets brutal poll results.
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/gop-healthcare-plan-just-got-150048484.html
Read that and let it sink in for a few minutes.
If they push this dung through with these types of poll numbers....well....er....
There's not a realistic way to do that. Cost varies by geography and person. You could maybe regulate costs to help make it more predictable. You'd also have to keep in place the minimum coverage that insurance has to provide and tie the % of income to plan level (I think ACA does something like this in determining subsidies but I'm not 100% sure).Means testing in this case should mean that health insurance can only eat up "% of one's income." Obama made sure it took care of the lower middle class but didn't seem to care about folks like me or Geekbabe. He didn't want health insurance to eat a significant portion of some people's income but not others.
I think the reason he didn't is because if he applied this same percentage standard to everyone the program would become unwieldly and the increased coss would be passed onto the gov't and not the people.
There's not a realistic way to do that. Cost varies by geography and person. You could maybe regulate costs to help make it more predictable. You'd also have to keep in place the minimum coverage that insurance has to provide and tie the % of income to plan level (I think ACA does something like this in determining subsidies but I'm not 100% sure).
At the end of the day though any kind of means testing will have winners and losers. That is baked into the system. It will also lead to people working the very edge case of the system to gain some kind of advantage. Without tight controls on insurance companies a % of income system would just devolve into insurance companies maximizing gains without doing any better than they do today. I mean if it was capped at 10% and I spend 8% today why not get the 25% plan and just cover the extra 2% myself? Whatever numbers you come up with will have cases like that because there is a line.
Means testing in this case should mean that health insurance can only eat up "% of one's income." Obama made sure it took care of the lower middle class but didn't seem to care about folks like me or Geekbabe. He didn't want health insurance to eat a significant portion of some people's income but not others.
I think the reason he didn't is because if he applied this same percentage standard to everyone the program would become unwieldly and the increased coss would be passed onto the gov't and not the people.
It isn't a constitutional right either.