Unabogie
Philosopher
I live in MA and the numbers are not final.
I will when I can.
BTW: I've been required to have insurance all along. You may have heard of a guy named Mitt Romney.![]()
Who?
I live in MA and the numbers are not final.
I will when I can.
BTW: I've been required to have insurance all along. You may have heard of a guy named Mitt Romney.![]()
I know other states are different, but the fact that any NYer didn't haven't insurance was their own damn fault.
NY has (had?) a plan called Family Health Plus. It basically gave health insurance to anyone who wanted it that didn't qualify through other means...and depending on income, the cost was anywhere from ZERO to a few hundred dollars a month.
When I was working part-time after getting laid-off back in 2004, I was paying a whopping $9 a month.
Anyway...back to the show...
Maximum gross income for a single person: $11,490. So someone working 40 hours a week at minimum wage job ($7.25) with no health benefits makes $15K. Exactly how was it their fault?
This landscape of scapegoating is beginning to look a lot like fascism to me.
Because it would have qualified them for FREE (or damn near free) health insurance.
The money for subsidies is mostly coming out of Medicare.I'd be interested to see what you find once you look into it.
It still doesn't address where the money for the subsidies is coming from. If it's coming from taxes or increased cost to employers it's still coming out of your wallet.
You don't think Walmart or Homedepot are going to absorb this cost, do you?
Robbing Peter to pay Paul.The money for subsidies is mostly coming out of Medicare.
I'd pay more through the market place. If I keep what I have, I have better coverage for less.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul.![]()
We obviously have different views on reform controlling costs.So you keep your current plan. Problem solved.
ETA: Oh, I see. You just want to complain about "redistribution of wealth"![]()
We obviously have different views on reform controlling costs.
Why call it heathcare reform instead of redistribution? Let me guess, no one would vote for it.![]()
And they pay more because of their risk?Because the result is people who were denied health care before now have access to it. Words mean things.
And they pay more because of their risk?
I still don't understand why there is such resistance against making it easier for people to get health insurance and care.
And the rest is paid for by increased costs to other subscribers. With more people being allowed to signing up, wouldn't that actually increase cost (to most)?Yes, they pay more than zero, because they didn't have health care before.
Huh? They're not qualified. They make too much by simply having a full-time minimum wage job.
And the rest is paid for by increased costs to other subscribers. With more people being allowed to signing up, wouldn't that actually increase cost (to most)?
How does this reform heathcare costs again?