Let Lower Income "Pay Their Fair Share"!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:News flash: subsidized housing requires the voucher holder to pay a portion of the rent. It's calculated as a percentage of their "income" which could be from employment/wages, disability benefits, VA disability benefits, SSI, etc.

That means they do have skin in the game.

"Food stamps" only cover certain items, which means people are paying out of pocket for food and items like diapers. Food stamps don't cover diapers, cleaning products, etc.

Again, that's skin in the game.

Re: healthcare - free healthcare is primarily limited to children and people with disabilities. Do you want kids without access to healthcare in class with your precious snowflake?

News flash. Many landlords willing to take government vouchers do not care if the tenant pays the small amount of rent required. They have a guaranteed bigger check from the government than their beater housing would get in the marketplace

Food stamps can buy food that can then be sold below market for cash to buy cleaning products as well as beer, cigarettes and diapers

Free health care is provided through Medicaid and is in no way limited to children and those with disabilities. It is also provided through hospital emergency rooms who will never collect on the bills and by free clinics

I am not sure why people are naive enough to believe that these programs are not perverted by the beneficiaries or by those who provide the benefits.

[Anonymous]

The government needs to re-examine the AMT and re-index it to inflation. It is a tax that is absolutely killing those at the middle band of the tax brackets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a big part of the problem is the inequity of the whole thing. Liberals have the whole "inequality thing" as one if their mantras, but now we have an upside-down equity. The poor and lower-class get free care for even the most expensive treatments when they need it, and the middle class have to scrimp and save and often go without the treatments they need. So the poor are now given better medical care than the middle class can afford to pay for. Why aren't the liberals screaming about that inequity, rather than racing to its defense?

But they really aren't getting free care. They get subsidized care. And most have disabilities or are medically vulnerable.

Or are addicted to drugs, tobacco, and alcohol and made themselves medically vulnerable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/20/federal-health-care-law-what-came-true-and-what-di/

From politifact. Debunks some myths.

Politifsct leans liberal. They're not the be all and end all.

Wrong.

Did you miss the Cato quotes? Do you not know what Cato is? Hint: it's not liberal.

Nice reminder of how clueless conservatives are.

And the "smart" liberals are the ones that passed Obamacare.

Actually, it was watered down by the clueless conservatives. Remember? Of course not...because you are a clueless conservative.

Fortunately it was watered down or it would be a bigger disaster. The doofuses who thought people without health insurance were young and healthy created the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/20/federal-health-care-law-what-came-true-and-what-di/

From politifact. Debunks some myths.

Politifsct leans liberal. They're not the be all and end all.

Wrong.

Did you miss the Cato quotes? Do you not know what Cato is? Hint: it's not liberal.

Nice reminder of how clueless conservatives are.

And the "smart" liberals are the ones that passed Obamacare.

Actually, it was watered down by the clueless conservatives. Remember? Of course not...because you are a clueless conservative.

No longer responding to the rude obnoxious liberal who blames Obamacare on Republicans. Always someone else's fault!

Newsflash: most of us are glad the ACA was passed. We are glad that more people have access to healthcare. We are glad that parents can keep their adult children on their plans longer. We are glad that pre existing conditions no longer prevent people from ever getting coverage.

Open your mind and try to look at the bigger picture.

PP. please tell us about your health care coverage. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/20/federal-health-care-law-what-came-true-and-what-di/

From politifact. Debunks some myths.

Politifsct leans liberal. They're not the be all and end all.

Wrong.

Did you miss the Cato quotes? Do you not know what Cato is? Hint: it's not liberal.

Nice reminder of how clueless conservatives are.

And the "smart" liberals are the ones that passed Obamacare.

Actually, it was watered down by the clueless conservatives. Remember? Of course not...because you are a clueless conservative.

Fortunately it was watered down or it would be a bigger disaster. The doofuses who thought people without health insurance were young and healthy created the problem.

All of my formerly uninsured friends are young and healthy. Other uninsured people were people who couldn't get coverage for pre-existing conditions. Wouldn't it be nice if there were a Medicare option for all?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazing how iberals bend over backwards to ensure that the poor don't have to contribute a cent to their care while not giving a flying F about the middle class struggling to make ends meet. For example....

When Obamacare was being rammed down Americans' throats, I told my neighbor I was against it. She called me "heartless," and then proceeded to tell me about a poor friend of hers, earning $20 an hour, who couldn't afford health insurance. She told me that if this friend has a medical situation, she MIGHT HAVE TO SELL HER HOUSE. (She bought the house years ago, when she had a good job.) When I asked if she was looking for a better job, I was met with complete disdain and told how she couldn't find a better job.

Flash forward. Her friend now has free insurance and medical care, and is still in her house. I, on the othe hand, am crashing under an overpriced insurance plan (they've got to charge middle class more to make up for the total coverage they're providing the low esrners), plus thousands of dollars of medical bills the insurance doesn't cover. It's adding up to nearly 30% of my moderate tske-hime pay, and I can't continue indefinitely. Probably within a year or so, I'll need to sell my house. When I told that same neighbor that my medical costs were so high I might have to sell - she said, with a hint of contempt...."well, instead of complaining, just get a higher-paying job."

All the defense for the lower class and to Hell with the middle class. We will see more of it under Hillary, as she shifts even more money from the middle to the lower.

Again: you are attacking the wrong people. Why try to get $10 out of a homeless person seeking medical care when you could have the wealthy pay more? Redirect your anger towards the wealthy.

Reply:

The Anderson model of healthcare utilization is dependent on three factors: predisposing factors, enabling factors, and need. Studies in MediCARE patients show when access is unrestricted and completely free (an enabling factor) elective procedures increase while producing NO corresponding changes in health status, morbidity, or mortality. This was demonstrated across all ethnicities and incomes and in patients who had insurance prior to accessing Medicare benefits.

In other words, completely free care tends to drive utilization up with unnecessary treatment and little corresponding increases in patient health.

A small payment helps shift accountability for healthcare utilization to the final healthcare consumer, which is necessary when healthcare is delivered in a for profit system - which is why Medicare users who were insured before age 65 tend not to get elective procdures prior to the more generous coverage of Medicare. When users don't have incentives to shop and make careful decisions, free market forces are removed from the system. When sellers are rewarded for selling more healthcare instead of wellness, another free market driver is removed. Furthermore, not only are there no rewards for wellness, there are no incentives, penalties, or requirements for compliance on high utilizers who have chronic conditions which are amenable to management. These are some of the factors for increasing healthcare costs.

Conversely according the the Anderson model, barriers and access (enabling factors) have been removed for one class of patients and increased for another group of patients, through premiums, increased cost sharing, and high deductibles. Ideally, Obamacare adds access, or enables care for ALL groups, but this has not been the result of the legislation.

Adding access for one group and effectively disabling access for another group is NOT providing effective universal healthcare for our citizens. Obamacare is a failed system and will never be able to work in a free market-for profit healthcare industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little history/background---and a call for detractors to come up with an actual plan rather than merely throwing rocks.

Frankly, GOP disunity on health care is what led to Obamacare in the first place. After the failure of Hillary Clinton’s health plan in 1994, Republicans declined to unite around a free-market approach to reforming the system. Instead they mostly breathed a sigh of relief and moved on.

Republicans mostly voted down Democratic health care policies or approved watered-down versions of the same. That’s why we got Kennedy-Kassebaum, SCHIP and Medicare Part D, as just a few examples. Then there were ideas floating around to compete with Hillarycare that never got much conservative support, with the exception of medical savings accounts.

One of those ideas, emanating from the Heritage Foundation’s domestic policy shop, was the individual mandate. While it was never a consensus conservative policy, it found its way into the Massachusetts health care law known as Romneycare. Obamacare wasn’t far behind.

Liberals are wrong to say Republicans don’t have any health care plans today. But they haven’t coalesced around a single one. Part of this has been by design: once you have settled on a specific plan, it is easier to attack. Part of this has also been the product of legitimate policy differences.

Republicans remain divided on how completely Obamacare must be torn up and on how competitive any alternative must be with Obamacare in terms of the number of Americans covered. Conservatives remain confident that there can be better markets for health insurance than the exchanges as presently constructed and certainly higher quality coverage than rickety Medicaid, which is currently driving most of the coverage gains under Obamacare.

But at this point, voters won’t believe them until they see it.

You actually sound reasonable!

I have seen some of the proposals by various Republicans - maybe 15 of them - and some seem viable. (None are perfect, but what is?) They really do need to coalesce around one of them, but when Hillary becomes president, I suspect she'll veto it in favor of Medicare-for-all, which has a host of problems of ots own.

In the interim, I am one of the millions of middle-class people really struggling financially under the law.

I am not a huge HRC supporter, not a liberal... but I actually think HRC would try to work with Repubs to fix ACA *if* they were also willing to work with her - as she stated in the last debate (or was it 2nd one). I truly don't think she's as left as Sanders. Now *he* would probably want medicare for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/20/federal-health-care-law-what-came-true-and-what-di/

From politifact. Debunks some myths.

Politifsct leans liberal. They're not the be all and end all.

Wrong.

Did you miss the Cato quotes? Do you not know what Cato is? Hint: it's not liberal.

Nice reminder of how clueless conservatives are.

And the "smart" liberals are the ones that passed Obamacare.

Actually, it was watered down by the clueless conservatives. Remember? Of course not...because you are a clueless conservative.

No longer responding to the rude obnoxious liberal who blames Obamacare on Republicans. Always someone else's fault!

Newsflash: most of us are glad the ACA was passed. We are glad that more people have access to healthcare. We are glad that parents can keep their adult children on their plans longer. We are glad that pre existing conditions no longer prevent people from ever getting coverage.

Open your mind and try to look at the bigger picture.

PP. please tell us about your health care coverage. Thank you.

I am blessed to have Cadillac health coverage. I realize what a blessing that is, and I certainly don't believe that others shouldn't have the same coverage and access to care. I don't think that I'm entitled to better coverage since my husband and I work hard. Rather, I think everyone should have quality care.

Why does my family have such excellent coverage? Because DH and I strategically planned our careers. We recognized that certain employers provide better coverage, so we strategically opted for one of us to go that route (even if it means a lower salary than other careers).

Candidly, a lot of my friends in Big Law are the ones who bitch about health care costs. Once you make partner, you have a bigger financial obligation for health care costs. Sorry, but I just can't feel sorry for the "poor" partners at law firms who earn triple (or more) than I earn as a public interest lawyer. YMMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little history/background---and a call for detractors to come up with an actual plan rather than merely throwing rocks.

Frankly, GOP disunity on health care is what led to Obamacare in the first place. After the failure of Hillary Clinton’s health plan in 1994, Republicans declined to unite around a free-market approach to reforming the system. Instead they mostly breathed a sigh of relief and moved on.

Republicans mostly voted down Democratic health care policies or approved watered-down versions of the same. That’s why we got Kennedy-Kassebaum, SCHIP and Medicare Part D, as just a few examples. Then there were ideas floating around to compete with Hillarycare that never got much conservative support, with the exception of medical savings accounts.

One of those ideas, emanating from the Heritage Foundation’s domestic policy shop, was the individual mandate. While it was never a consensus conservative policy, it found its way into the Massachusetts health care law known as Romneycare. Obamacare wasn’t far behind.

Liberals are wrong to say Republicans don’t have any health care plans today. But they haven’t coalesced around a single one. Part of this has been by design: once you have settled on a specific plan, it is easier to attack. Part of this has also been the product of legitimate policy differences.

Republicans remain divided on how completely Obamacare must be torn up and on how competitive any alternative must be with Obamacare in terms of the number of Americans covered. Conservatives remain confident that there can be better markets for health insurance than the exchanges as presently constructed and certainly higher quality coverage than rickety Medicaid, which is currently driving most of the coverage gains under Obamacare.

But at this point, voters won’t believe them until they see it.

You actually sound reasonable!

I have seen some of the proposals by various Republicans - maybe 15 of them - and some seem viable. (None are perfect, but what is?) They really do need to coalesce around one of them, but when Hillary becomes president, I suspect she'll veto it in favor of Medicare-for-all, which has a host of problems of ots own.

In the interim, I am one of the millions of middle-class people really struggling financially under the law.

I am not a huge HRC supporter, not a liberal... but I actually think HRC would try to work with Repubs to fix ACA *if* they were also willing to work with her - as she stated in the last debate (or was it 2nd one). I truly don't think she's as left as Sanders. Now *he* would probably want medicare for all.

Expanding Medicare for all who want it just doesnt strike me as the worst idea ever. The government, for as much as conservatives love to hate on it, has extraordinary bargaining power, and having that many more customers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/20/federal-health-care-law-what-came-true-and-what-di/

From politifact. Debunks some myths.

Politifsct leans liberal. They're not the be all and end all.

Wrong.

Did you miss the Cato quotes? Do you not know what Cato is? Hint: it's not liberal.

Nice reminder of how clueless conservatives are.

And the "smart" liberals are the ones that passed Obamacare.

Actually, it was watered down by the clueless conservatives. Remember? Of course not...because you are a clueless conservative.

No longer responding to the rude obnoxious liberal who blames Obamacare on Republicans. Always someone else's fault!

Newsflash: most of us are glad the ACA was passed. We are glad that more people have access to healthcare. We are glad that parents can keep their adult children on their plans longer. We are glad that pre existing conditions no longer prevent people from ever getting coverage.

Open your mind and try to look at the bigger picture.

PP. please tell us about your health care coverage. Thank you.

I am blessed to have Cadillac health coverage. I realize what a blessing that is, and I certainly don't believe that others shouldn't have the same coverage and access to care. I don't think that I'm entitled to better coverage since my husband and I work hard. Rather, I think everyone should have quality care.

Why does my family have such excellent coverage? Because DH and I strategically planned our careers. We recognized that certain employers provide better coverage, so we strategically opted for one of us to go that route (even if it means a lower salary than other careers).

Candidly, a lot of my friends in Big Law are the ones who bitch about health care costs. Once you make partner, you have a bigger financial obligation for health care costs. Sorry, but I just can't feel sorry for the "poor" partners at law firms who earn triple (or more) than I earn as a public interest lawyer. YMMV.

The irony of your previous and current postings is even more delicious.

[Anonymous]

Remember when Hitler demonized Jewish people? Scary how the republicans manipulate their followers to demonize the poor. They're fostering class and racial divides...which never ends well.

And the blame can be shared by the liberals who have failed to implement tax reform to make the wealthy pay more and who have failed to push back on the medical and pharmaceutical lobby. Shame on everybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/20/federal-health-care-law-what-came-true-and-what-di/

From politifact. Debunks some myths.

Politifsct leans liberal. They're not the be all and end all.

Wrong.

Did you miss the Cato quotes? Do you not know what Cato is? Hint: it's not liberal.

Nice reminder of how clueless conservatives are.

And the "smart" liberals are the ones that passed Obamacare.

Actually, it was watered down by the clueless conservatives. Remember? Of course not...because you are a clueless conservative.

No longer responding to the rude obnoxious liberal who blames Obamacare on Republicans. Always someone else's fault!

Newsflash: most of us are glad the ACA was passed. We are glad that more people have access to healthcare. We are glad that parents can keep their adult children on their plans longer. We are glad that pre existing conditions no longer prevent people from ever getting coverage.

Open your mind and try to look at the bigger picture.

PP. please tell us about your health care coverage. Thank you.

I am blessed to have Cadillac health coverage. I realize what a blessing that is, and I certainly don't believe that others shouldn't have the same coverage and access to care. I don't think that I'm entitled to better coverage since my husband and I work hard. Rather, I think everyone should have quality care.

Why does my family have such excellent coverage? Because DH and I strategically planned our careers. We recognized that certain employers provide better coverage, so we strategically opted for one of us to go that route (even if it means a lower salary than other careers).

Candidly, a lot of my friends in Big Law are the ones who bitch about health care costs. Once you make partner, you have a bigger financial obligation for health care costs. Sorry, but I just can't feel sorry for the "poor" partners at law firms who earn triple (or more) than I earn as a public interest lawyer. YMMV.

The irony of your previous and current postings is even more delicious. [/quote

I don't think you know what irony means ;0)

I am grateful for my excellent coverage that I earn through my job, and I believe everyone should have excellent coverage...unlike the posters who think only those who can afford coverage without any assistance should have access to care.

The real irony is that people who are struggling are throwing rocks at those a step behind them...which is befuddling since they could potentially end up in need of assistance themselves one day.

[Anonymous]

^^^ because Obamacare decreases access to care for the "just enough they don't qualify for subsidies" group, they are effectively uninsured. Because they have a small amount of assets (probably only their house) they have a good chance of losing that to the combination of healthcare costs and disruption in employment. So yes, then they'll have free healthcare. Yay.

I don't see why, if you support Obamacare, why you have such a problem seeing that the just enough group often goes without care now. It's disingenuous to claim 20 million people now have care, when many more don't have adequate care as a result of the changes. Now 31 million people are underinsured without adequate care according to Commonwealthfund.org which surveys insurance trends.

I don't think that's right. However, I'm not attacking the newly covered. I'm attacking the legislation which created the gap as not very equitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A little history/background---and a call for detractors to come up with an actual plan rather than merely throwing rocks.

Frankly, GOP disunity on health care is what led to Obamacare in the first place. After the failure of Hillary Clinton’s health plan in 1994, Republicans declined to unite around a free-market approach to reforming the system. Instead they mostly breathed a sigh of relief and moved on.

Republicans mostly voted down Democratic health care policies or approved watered-down versions of the same. That’s why we got Kennedy-Kassebaum, SCHIP and Medicare Part D, as just a few examples. Then there were ideas floating around to compete with Hillarycare that never got much conservative support, with the exception of medical savings accounts.

One of those ideas, emanating from the Heritage Foundation’s domestic policy shop, was the individual mandate. While it was never a consensus conservative policy, it found its way into the Massachusetts health care law known as Romneycare. Obamacare wasn’t far behind.

Liberals are wrong to say Republicans don’t have any health care plans today. But they haven’t coalesced around a single one. Part of this has been by design: once you have settled on a specific plan, it is easier to attack. Part of this has also been the product of legitimate policy differences.

Republicans remain divided on how completely Obamacare must be torn up and on how competitive any alternative must be with Obamacare in terms of the number of Americans covered. Conservatives remain confident that there can be better markets for health insurance than the exchanges as presently constructed and certainly higher quality coverage than rickety Medicaid, which is currently driving most of the coverage gains under Obamacare.

But at this point, voters won’t believe them until they see it.

You actually sound reasonable!

I have seen some of the proposals by various Republicans - maybe 15 of them - and some seem viable. (None are perfect, but what is?) They really do need to coalesce around one of them, but when Hillary becomes president, I suspect she'll veto it in favor of Medicare-for-all, which has a host of problems of ots own.

In the interim, I am one of the millions of middle-class people really struggling financially under the law.

I am not a huge HRC supporter, not a liberal... but I actually think HRC would try to work with Repubs to fix ACA *if* they were also willing to work with her - as she stated in the last debate (or was it 2nd one). I truly don't think she's as left as Sanders. Now *he* would probably want medicare for all.

Expanding Medicare for all who want it just doesnt strike me as the worst idea ever. The government, for as much as conservatives love to hate on it, has extraordinary bargaining power, and having that many more customers?

Part of the problem with medicare is that the payment to drs. is super low. Many Drs don't take medicare for that reason. IDK what would happen if the majority of people went on medicare... would more drs accept them? Hard to say.