General Discussion

zipplewrath

(16,698 posts)

43. Only for the insurance

Tue Mar 20, 2012, 12:43 PM

Mar 2012

They are eligible for subsidies on the insurance, not the underlying health CARE. If you have a pre-eixsting condition, the care will be very expensive, the insurance won't be cheap either. There is a huge distance between what these people will be forced to pay and "free". In between those two will be alot of bankrupt people. This plan ensures that the insurance companies will get paid, even if the federal government has to kick in some money. Not so much on making sure that the health CARE gets delivered.

He isn't so much hoping the law gets "derailed" as he is concerned about the political backlash when people find out just how much health CARE will cost them, even with HCR. And for those that don't particularly need health care at the time, they'll be suprised to find out how much they've been forced to pay for insurance, that they couldn't afford to use anyway.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hurray for Health Reform By PAUL KRUGMAN [View all] babylonsister Mar 2012 OP

Good piece. n/t ProSense Mar 2012 #1

And of course, some folks who previously defended Krugman will throw him under the bus. Oh wait stevenleser Mar 2012 #17

Not a surprise that Mr. Free Trade loves forced corporate purchases. Romulox Mar 2012 #2

Post removed Post removed Mar 2012 #7

You don't read Krugman much, do you? lark Mar 2012 #23

You might be confusing Krugman with Friedman Orangepeel Mar 2012 #29

Unfortunately, there is no mistaken identity. Here's the Wall Street Journal's glowing review Romulox Mar 2012 #51

You can say that again. zipplewrath Mar 2012 #3

I'd ProSense Mar 2012 #4

It's called negotiation zipplewrath Mar 2012 #5

Well ProSense Mar 2012 #6

another false dichotomy zipplewrath Mar 2012 #9

Repeating ProSense Mar 2012 #12

But the PO was close zipplewrath Mar 2012 #13

What? ProSense Mar 2012 #14

I agree zipplewrath Mar 2012 #15

It did NOT federalize insurance regulation eridani Mar 2012 #31

Yeah, it did zipplewrath Mar 2012 #33

Yes, but implementation will be handled by states, many of which are very hostile to HCR n/t eridani Mar 2012 #34

Within federal regulation zipplewrath Mar 2012 #35

You asserted that the only better plan than the current Wealthcare and Profit Protection Act TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #48

A Perfect Storm approaches. bvar22 Mar 2012 #8

As much as I agree with you zipplewrath Mar 2012 #10

You are entitled to join Krugman in believing the these MILLIONS will go along happily, bvar22 Mar 2012 #16

How many will be "aware" zipplewrath Mar 2012 #19

Prices for policies on the exchange go up very, very quickly after age 50. amandabeech Mar 2012 #42

Expecting health care insurance companies to do "the right thing" OnyxCollie Mar 2012 #22

Their working knowledge of the ACA is poor now. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #25

You are radically underestimating the dept of the fury that will be unleashed in 2014. bvar22 Mar 2012 #27

Something like 60% of bankruptcies are related to medical costs. Approx 80% of those had insurance. riderinthestorm Mar 2012 #28

$2500 a year for a worthless policy will be cheap. amandabeech Mar 2012 #39

That will last until they try to use their shitty "bronze" coverage. eridani Mar 2012 #32

I think it's funny how much outrage resulted from saying that some people choose to be uninsured lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #36

"preexisting conditions" have been addressed ONLY for those in the Upper Middle Class... bvar22 Mar 2012 #37

Must have hit a nerve. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #38

Only for the insurance zipplewrath Mar 2012 #43

Yes. You DID hit a nerve, bvar22 Mar 2012 #45

The subsidy is to keep premiums to 10% of gross income, not to cover premiums for TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #49

Inaccurate. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #53

See my post #39. amandabeech Mar 2012 #40

So I should be happy about being forced to buy insurance and going bankrupt anyway? n/t eridani Mar 2012 #46

I wish I could rec this response. n/t MadrasT Mar 2012 #18

+1 n/t area51 Mar 2012 #20

You're very wrong about this. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #24

"When the perfect isn't an option, good is the goal." boxman15 Mar 2012 #26

I'm afraid not zipplewrath Mar 2012 #44

Hooray for Paul Krugman! qb Mar 2012 #11

K & R. n/t FSogol Mar 2012 #21

Glad that he's happy about 50% of all bankruptcies STILL to be caused by medical bills. eridani Mar 2012 #30

That's not a fact that I've seen before, and it is very, very telling. amandabeech Mar 2012 #41

It's really very simple. Their governments control health care prices eridani Mar 2012 #47

The U.S. government sets some Medicare costs. amandabeech Mar 2012 #52

Yes, but those powers were greatly curtailed for political purposes when it was enacted eridani Mar 2012 #54

Important point about this, the law doesn't work except to increase the percentage insured. TheKentuckian Mar 2012 #50

+100 n/t eridani Mar 2012 #55

Facts and estimates are very different things. lumberjack_jeff Mar 2012 #57

From 59% down to 50% is NOTHING to write home about eridani Mar 2012 #58

Wait until 2016, MadHound Mar 2012 #56

Wonder if Krugman also wants to eliminate Medicare eridani Mar 2012 #59