Asside from the rediculous notion that PPACA is a republican idea that had 100% demorat votes and no republicant votes, you still fail to say why "anything" is better than no change at all, or making multiple separtate changes in single/related "problem areas".
Use spellcheck much? Anyway, I didn't say 'anything' is better than no change at all - I said that half a loaf is better than none. Getting insurance for tens of millions of Americans who can't afford insurance today is a heck of a lot better than the system that we had.
Tax the employer provided insurance benefit as income to the employee, which is exacty what it is. That alone raises way more revenue than PPACA and is 100% constitutional per the 16th amendment.
So you're taking the money away from the workers - from the people who can least afford it - in order to pay for it. Now most conservatives and libertarians would have no problem with this, but right now we've got a greater income gap than at any time since the days before the crash of 1929. Y'all need to stop coddling the rich and worshiping them as 'job creators'...because what drives an economy is NOT supply, but DEMAND...and
when people have less money to spend, there will be less demand. That last sentence is in a nutshell why the first-world democracies are ALL high-tax socialized democracies.
Limit the pre-existing condition penalty to one year coverage delay per year previously uninsured or at least as a serious cap on annual benefits for the previously uninsured (say no more than 300% of premiums paid) for that period of time.
Sounds good for the bean-counters at the insurance companies, huh? But those with pre-existing conditions - like my oldest son - are screwed for yet another year. More people die, more people are driven into poverty...and here's another thing that conservatives and libertarians don't get: when OTHER people are driven into poverty for whatever reason, YOU also pay for it. You either pay higher taxes to help keep people out of poverty, or you pay through a whole host of venues (including taxes) when people are driven into poverty. You WILL pay either way, as long as you live in the country where this happens. So which is better: to pay more to keep people out of poverty, or to pay more for the consequences for more people going into poverty?
The idea that those without insurance can simply by it "as needed", paying premiums for a few months while getting many, many times over that in benefits is obviously not going to work, thus that goofy idea of an individual mandate (instead of allowing a simple penalty for periods uninsured).
You DO realize, of course, that the individual mandate PENALIZES those who try to buy insurance 'as needed', right? If you don't purchase insurance, you will get penalized.
Guy, EVERYBODY needs health care at some point in their lives. If you breathe, you WILL need health care. So seeing as how YOU already pay extra in taxes for those who go to emergency rooms and can't pay for it, YOU already pay extra in taxes because of the families who went into bankruptcy and/or foreclosure because of their lack of health care, it seems to me that YES,
it is a strictly conservative idea that everyone should have to pay for something that EVERYONE will use sooner or later. And that's why this whole plan was a conservative idea to begin with!
The problem with the individual mandate is that the fine is far lower than the cost of the cheapest possible policy allowed. Imagine if you could wait and until a vehicle theft or accident occured and then purchase full coverage auto insurance to help recover your added "investment", it would certainly save you lits money but totally defeats the very purpose of insurance which is a risk sharing pool.
Do you really know how much the penalty is?
Here, check it out - starting in 2016, it ain't that cheap...especially considering that the poorer people who would get penalized would pay MORE than they would if they got the insurance. Why? Because after the government subsidy is included, the lower-cost 'bronze' plans are cheaper than the penalty
As long as insurance is for the rare, unexpected and very expensive event it is relatively affordable, what PPACA wants to do is make insurance be used for every bit of medical care incliuding normal preventive, routine and elective procedures with no thought to people actually caring what that medical care actually costs. The horor of anyone having to pay $10/month "out of pocket" for birth control pills! That is what drives costs up. Imagine what auto insurance would cost if we mandated that it cover tune-ups, worn tire replacement and oil changes. Imagine what homeowners/renters insurance would cost if it covered lawn maintanence, replacing worn out furniture and periodic repainting. What PPACA seeks to do is ever more insulate users of medical care from the actual costs of that care - precisely the oppostie of keeping prices down via competition.
I know this may come as a shock to you, but we're not talking about tune-ups and lawn maintenance. We're talking about PEOPLE. I don't know if you personally are 'pro-life' or not, but it's truly ironic that so many self-professed 'pro-lifers' are so hardwired against a program that WILL save lives, that WILL lower the birth mortality rate.
My suggestion for medical insurance is a high deductable (catastropic) policy coupled with a medical savings account (MSA), as your MSA balance rises/falls then increase/decrease your insurance deductable accordingly.
Ah. Do you see the problem with your suggestion? Picture this: you're the breadwinner of the family, and you've got choices to make - you're struggling to pay the rent and put food on the table, not to mention school expenses for the kids...and THEN you're also expected to find money for a 'Medical Savings Account', too? This is the problem that faces the tens of millions of Americans today who don't have - who can't afford - health insurance today. What you're suggesting is not a solution - it's an option, and as such would be ignored by those tens of millions of Americans who are more worried about affording food, shelter, and clothing than they are about putting money into some anomalous savings account.
