General Discussion

Demo_Chris

(6,234 posts)

27. That's paying for the subsidy/tax credit side of things. The other larger half...

Wed Dec 18, 2013, 10:39 AM

Dec 2013

Is the insurance company side. That's covered by forcing every man, woman, and child in America to send in a check every month to their friendly neighborhood insurance company.

And it is there that we are told that people have to send that money in, they HAVE TO, particularly the young and relatively healthy, otherwise the entire system doesn't work. We need to force young people to buy catastrophic policies that they cannot afford to take advantage of -- worthless policies -- because that's what makes it work for older people with pre-existing conditions.

Now we COULD have spent less as a nation, provided actual healthcare for everyone, AND funded it progressively rather than regressively, but that wasn't anything this White House was interested in doing.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

36 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

In The Philadelphia Inquirer is an 'article' called 'Obamacare: A bad deal for young people' [View all] onehandle Dec 2013 OP

That sure isn't our families experience OKNancy Dec 2013 #1

Right wing crapaganda (R) to pollute American brainpans Berlum Dec 2013 #2

I am relatively certain that some of their assumptions are false. Mass Dec 2013 #3

Heritage Foundation? GoldenOldie Dec 2013 #4

Independence Blue Cross Freddie Dec 2013 #5

They can afford to play both sides of the coin. onehandle Dec 2013 #6

Looking forward to it Freddie Dec 2013 #17

Actually, they are correct, that's the point of the mandate... Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #7

This is pure ProSense Dec 2013 #9

Yeah, but that's crap Prosense, and you know it... Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #12

No, it's not "crap." The Heritage Foundation is spewing crap ProSense Dec 2013 #13

Then there is nothing to worry about and we don't need any mandates. nt Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #16

What does that have to do with the fact that the OP is nonsense? ProSense Dec 2013 #19

As I said, it's not, but that's okay. I am not interested in debating the self-evident. nt Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #24

A tax-funded single-payer system would do exactly the same thing. Nye Bevan Dec 2013 #10

The NHS is funded through general taxation. nt Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #14

Not with a progressive income tax it wouldn't, since older workers are wealthier, and earn more. Romulox Dec 2013 #15

I think quite a few DUers would dispute your "older=wealthier" theory. Nye Bevan Dec 2013 #29

It's statistically true, even as there are many individual exceptions. Romulox Dec 2013 #31

Another reason ProSense Dec 2013 #23

That's paying for the subsidy/tax credit side of things. The other larger half... Demo_Chris Dec 2013 #27

There you go again ProSense Dec 2013 #30

+1 mmonk Dec 2013 #34

Wasn't the ACA ... sendero Dec 2013 #8

Krugman explained ProSense Dec 2013 #11

Was that after Krugman recently explained his support for the Trans Pacific Partnership? Romulox Dec 2013 #21

You're knocking Krugman and agreeing with BS from the Heritage Foundation? ProSense Dec 2013 #26

Nonsense. Obamacare ("Romneycare") is *also* from the Heritage Foundation. YOU agree with them. nt Romulox Dec 2013 #28

Yes it was solarhydrocan Dec 2013 #18

Yes, and almost exactly in the form it was enacted--e.g. no drug reimportation, no public option. nt Romulox Dec 2013 #20

The idea that the youngest workers could bail out the healthcare industry is bizarre, to begin with. Romulox Dec 2013 #22

that's my paper and here's the funny part: PCIntern Dec 2013 #25

Your posting this here why? Capt. Obvious Dec 2013 #32

Welcome to ignore. onehandle Dec 2013 #33

How immature of you Capt. Obvious Dec 2013 #35

Of course it is... hughee99 Dec 2013 #36