- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
The worst problem in the Affordable Care Act, Clinton said, is a provision related to healthcare coverage for families. In some cases, one family member might be able to affordably insure himself or herself through an employer, but not the rest of the family. And the rest of the family could not receive tax subsidies to buy coverage through the healthcare law's exchanges.
"It's obviously not fair, and it's bad policy," Clinton said.
He said he believes the provision was a drafting error. LINK
Clinton also pointed to what is probably the most pressing problem in the law’s design. Obamacare was designed to provide Medicaid coverage, through a large national expansion, to all Americans earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level (FDL). Those earning above that level but below 400% of FDL will be eligible for federal subsidies to buy private coverage. But the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling that the Medicaid expansion must be optional for states has left legions of the working poor with no way to afford insurance. LINK
So what would you advocate?
Option 1: Implement the law ASAP even if it harms middle and lower class families the way Bill Clinton describes.
Option 2: Put implementation on hold until the glitches are fixed so that middle and lower class families are not harmed.
Which option would you choose?
You folks have got to get it out of your head that Obamacare is going any direction but forward. Really.
Implement the law and fix it as we go along.
You folks have got to get it out of your head that Obamacare is going any direction but forward. Really.
The OP is not about predicting "where Obamacare is going," it's asking people if they care about the actual impact the law's glitches have on middle and lower class families or if they just care about scoring political victory.
Implement the law and fix it as we go along.
You folks have got to get it out of your head that Obamacare is going any direction but forward. Really.
The OP is not about predicting "where Obamacare is going," it's asking people if they care about the actual impact the law's glitches have on middle and lower class families or if they just care about scoring political victory.
And that's the question libs aren't going to answer on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves.... or at least admit the truth, which
is also something they like to avoid.
Still a partisan way to go about denigrating Obamacare. That's like asking "Would you let a death panel kill your mother, just so you can have prenatal insurance coverage?"
They already have the victory. They got it when Obamacare was passed into law.
No, it's not like asking that. It's asking if you think the law should go into effect before resolving problems that harm the middle and lower classes, or after. That's not a false dichotomy like the one you made up.
Then why wouldn't they advocate delaying implementation pending correction of harmful and unfair glitches that leaders in their own party point out to them?
You biased your question in a partisan matter to get the answer you want. :shrug:
A) Be okay harming the middle class
B) Repeal Obamacare
Both answers are biased toward your partisan opinion.
Show me where in the proposed amendment where the House is addressing this issue precisely.
Sorry Maggie, a goodly number of the American public, myself included, are not just going to roll over and take it. We'll continue to put pressure on our elected representatives to scrap this nightmare and present a real solution. For the moment what I'd like to see is the end to every single exemption that has been granted. I believe that would achieve what I want most riki tik.
If that's how you interpret Option #2, it's going to be a difficult process explaining to you what you're reading.
Opposing bad policy does not make me partisan.
I didn't say anything about the House of Representatives. What sort of random request is this?
Taking the question for face value, I would need to be shown the Amendments that are being proposed
To answer your question, implement and amend as necessary.
I'm not asking anything about amendments being proposed. I'm asking in the opinion of forum members if they would rather implement the law and allow its glitches to impact lower and middle class families the way Clinton describes, or fix the glitches before implementing the law.
Option one then? Okay, thanks for answering.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?