Forum Thread

The "Poverty Threshold" for Obamacare

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 19 of 19 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    RanmaMOJ Wrote: First off... Universal Health care (everyone has the right to health care regardless of income, disability, or pre-existing condition) is NOT the same as a single payer system. How do I propose to force a private company to cover everyone without forcing everyone to buy into the system? Simple... Pass a law saying that health care companies cannot deny health care coverage to those with pre-existing conditions or disabilities. Within the same law provide funds to pay for those WHO CAN'T afford it. A single payer system says the government pays for everyone REGARDLESS of income, meaning the government would pay for the VERY RICH and the VERY POOR.
    What happens when this "simple" law winds up costing far more than we could ever imagine? How do you pass a law forcing a private company to accept everyone, assure these private companies that the taxpayer will foot the bill, and then not force the young and healthy people to buy into it? How in the world will that ever work? How will that cost less than having everyone buy in to the system? Where will this money covering all the sick and poor come from? The money tree?

    Not just that, but who will determine who can and who can not afford health insurance under your plan? Will it be a set number or will it be based on what state or city you live in? People who make $20,000 a year in Chicago are probably struggling a whole lot more than people making $20,000 a year in central Montana. How will you determine who is rich and who is poor? Will someone who is denied coverage for being "too rich" because they make $20,000 a year have a chance to appeal? What happens if they don't get covered by this new law and have to go to the Emergency Room? Is it fair for the taxpayer to foot the bill for them then? Or will they have to declare bankruptcy and lose everything? I'm guessing if they do declare bankruptcy, then they will qualify for coverage under your proposed plan because they are now classified as poor?

    Trust me, I am not Obamacare's biggest fan, but I think it is a great first step towards making sure everyone in this country has access to health care. It looks like seven million people agreed, if we are to believe today's numbers.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    RanmaMOJ Wrote: Guy, Yes, everyone has a right to health care, and if you can't afford it the government should pay for it, but that does not mean that the government should pay for those who can afford it. If you are refused health care because of pre-existing conditions or disabilities then the government should change the laws, but the ACA doesn't stop at that, it says everyone has to have health care. What about my right to choose? (Granted I can't afford health insurance even if I wanted it...)

    I agree that the wealthiest people, who can well afford to buy and pay for anything they want, would not need to and should not collect Universal Health Care benefits (when we have them). And they do not need to and should not collect Social Security and Medicare benefits either.

    I think there should be a yearly means test, and only those whose income and assets indicate that they actually need to collect Social Security payments and Universal Health Care benefits (when we have them) should be able to do so.

    Of course, the wealthy would object to that, at first, and they would say that as long as they paid their taxes and their Social Security and Medicare (or Universal Health Care) premiums, they should be able to enjoy the benefits like everyone else. However, while that may sound like a logical argument, it ignores many precedents that have already been set.

    For example, the VA provides free health care to veterans if their means test reveals it would be a hardship to pay large medical bills. But veterans who can afford to pay have to pay copays based on a sliding scale according to their income and assets.

    As for the public mandate to have insurance, the right to choose is trumped for the equal protection of all in many cases. For example, those who drive in my state must have liability insurance, because otherwise one could suffer harm and loss caused by an uninsured driver. Moreover, we don't have the right to choose to drive without a license, or to avoid paying taxes, or to allow our children to not go to school. And most cases where the right to choose is trumped by the common good are reasonable, and good for the vast majority.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    Universal Health Care should be as it is defined and characterize on Health Care in most wealthy countries as it is the only health care system for rich or poor. Undoubtedly, one if they choose can elect to pay directly a doctor of their choice, but that is their choice and will be too costly for 99% of individuals to afford. There will always be the rich and they may spend whatever they desire to maintain their health or needs. Universal Health Care is America's future and what Affordable Health Care will evolve to. America will join with the world or stand alone as an island. America cannot afford to stand alone as an island, our recent history proves it. Our resources will be exhausted and business will be managed by foreign interests, which is currently where America is going. Our goal is to walk into a clinic or physicians office or hospital, fill NO financial paper work, show no health card and get served by premium quality health care.

    Whenever you have a foreign country telling American citizens that they have to give up their land based on Imminent Domain, is a clear example of foreign interests taking over our country. You know what current event I'm talking about and if not, read the Keystone Pipeline XL major player (TransCanada Oil)........that's a foreign interest.

    As in Health Care, a large number of countries have already taking a big step to Universal Health Care. Affordable Health Care is not Universal Health Care, however, it should evolve to a better health care that is universal to ALL people, rich and poor.

    A government managed mandate I understand is the vehicle to pursue Universal Health Care. You pay into a system a set amount, which is the same for all people with single, two-party or family w/children on different levels of payment. It would garnered from paychecks and taxes. I'm sure that there would be those that would escape the payment, being unemployed, but that is not different than what it is now, we are all still paying for those that don't contribute. It's just that Universal Health Care would be an improved Affordable Health Care.

    I encourage you reading this response to look at Britain, Australia, Canada, most all of Europe, even China on how Health Care is managed. There are gross poor medical practices in some, but the more successful ones are managed very well with superior health given to their citizens. A measure of their success is where the rate in world standings on care. Look where America sits alone in near the third world countries, with some ahead in ratings.
    America is deplorable in Health Care and mental illness.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Trust me, I am not Obamacare's biggest fan, but I think it is a great first step towards making sure everyone in this country has access to health care. It looks like seven million people agreed, if we are to believe today's numbers.
    Agreed. I would say this is a step that needed to be taken in order to get where this country needs to be (in healthcare). It still needs ALOT of work to be effective as we would all like it, but that would mean much...much more things in critical condition need to change first.