A very large number of working class people will never be able to afford health insurance regardless of the supposed magic of the free market.
I took the title of this article from the comment section in the NYT about an op/ed by Republican senator Ron Johnson
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/opinion/senate-health-care-bill.html?_r=0
What you fail to realise or at least acknowledge is that the US healthcare system as it is now configured is a symptom of low wages at the bottom of the income scale. A very large number of working class people will never be able to afford health insurance regardless of the supposed magic of the free market. Competition in the market will never lower premiums enough that someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners can afford it.
As an American who has lived worked and paid taxes in another first world country (Australia) I have a perspective most Americans lack there are better ways to provide healthcare to an entire country, but please admit it senator Johnson that is neither the goal nor intent of the Republicans. Maybe the whole thing has to come crashing down before it can be fixed but the collateral damage.
So many times public debate fails to see the forest for the trees. In America there is a vast disparity between the top incomes and the lowest incomes (or no income), and that disparity is somewhat recognized when it comes to income taxes, someone who makes 500,000 a year not only pays more money in taxes, they pay a higher percentage of their income in income taxes, at least in theory. That is the expectation let's say. The income (and payroll) taxes then pay for the functions of the government (national defense, maintenance of federal infrastructure , public schools, promotion of trade and commerce, food and drug safety, labor laws, social security, etc. ).
When it comes to health insurance though, until Obamacare the federal government didn't pay anything for healthcare for the working poor, nor did it provide assistance for those in the lower middle class.
As the NYT comment so appropriately notes, A very large number of working class people will never be able to afford health insurance regardless of the supposed magic of the free market. Health care costs don't care if you are rich or poor, if you make 15,000 a year or 150,000 or 1,500,000 or 15,000,000 the cost of that heart bypass operation to save your life is going to be the same.
And the cost of the insurance that will pay for it is going to be the same regardless of your income. Your income doesn't effect the cost of the product, only your ability to pay for it. Many people who don't have health insurance don't have it because they don't have the money. Ron Johnson says that the free market will make health insurance affordable for everyone. That is utter nonsense and the sad part is, he knows it. Even if premiums held at the exact level they are now for the next 20 years vast numbers of low wage earners could not afford it.
Obamacare tried to split the baby. Knowing that they could not get a universal health care proposal passed, the proponents settled for a system that would expand health insurance for the working poor, the so called Medicaid expansion. Now people making 10 dollars an hour instead of just 7.25 could get health care coverage, at the expense of the wealthy (who were taxed to pay for the expansion). Obamacare also had a requirement that insurance plans be designed so that a family making less than 60,000 dollars a year could have lower deductibles when they needed care, thus potentially saving these people thousands of dollars a year.
The new Republican plan does away with all that, in order to end the tax on the wealthy that funded these "benefits" to the working poor and lower middle class.
One of the pundits on This Week With George Stephanopolous yesterday said that the fight over the health care bill boils down to what will happen to one trillion dollars. Will it be returned to the wealthy , or will it be used to pay for health care for the poor?
Is health care a "right" ? Conservatives and libertarians are constantly talking about their rights. The Declaration Of Independence says all people have a RIGHT to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Does not universal health care uphold that right to life? People who get sick and are not treated will die, they will lose that right to life that the founders called an "inalienable right".
We use income taxes to send kids to school , to inspect food, to arm our national defense, to fund the court system, but we can't use it to provide "life" to the people?
Health care should be funded the same way all the other expenses of the federal government are, through a progressive income tax. Everyone would pay on a sliding scale. No one would any longer have health care premiums to worry about. People who make larger incomes may end up paying more than they do now for health insurance, just as they pay more now , through their taxes, for the national defense, public schools and food inspections.
This is the price we should have to pay for a capitalistic society.
by John Russell
Tags
Who is online
56 visitors
Any trolling on this article will be told Comment removed for CoC violation [ph] Only warning.
John.
A reminder of a seeders job from the CoC:
3. The NewsTalkers is a member moderated site, meaning that moderators are members of the NT community. Author/seeder (with assistance from administration) moderates his/her own article. Authors/seeders are expected to foster healthy, open discussions. They are responsible for the content they submit and must exercise impartiality if/when reporting abuse. If at any point in a discussion, an author cannot moderate, that author may close the article to comments. The author has the right to ask members to stay on topic and not disrupt the article. If a member is violating the CoC with intent of disrupting or being arbitrarily argumentative, the author must warn the member civilly, that they are violating the CoC and to stop or leave the article. The author can contact administration to remove all comments pertaining to an argument. Intentional disruption of an article is defined as " A continuous exchange of posts between two or more members, which goes off topic and/or are personal attacks resulting in the disruption of the article". Any/all off topic remarks or CoC violations can be removed by moderators.
No comment.
I am not sure of your comment John, but I am almost certain it is one I would have approved of, therefore I have given it a thumbs up in spite of it having been partially removed. Bravo sir!
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph] sneaks across the border and spits out anchor baby here and the government steals my earnings to pay for the anchor baby's healthcare that does indeed infringe on my right to liberty and pursuit of happiness.
The only fair tax rate is a flat tax rate there is nothing fair about a progressive tax rate.
Comment removed for context [ph] is a racial slur Dean. Thanks for your true colors.
I don't buy into the pc freedom stripping garbage. If the Federal government can call them Comment removed for CoC violation [ph] so can I.
Operation Comment removed for context [ph] was an immigration law enforcement initiative created by Joseph Swing , the Director of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation Comment removed for context [ph]
Definition of Comment removed for context [ph] offensive
: a Mexican who enters the U.S. illegally
So what some people also find Comment removed for context [ph] to be offensive but it doesn't stop you from saying it.
It's ok Dean, if you want to make racist statements I guess it is your human right to do so.
How can saying a Mexican who enters the U.S. illegally be racist? Pls. explain.
How can saying a Mexican who enters the U.S. illegally be racist? Pls. explain.
It's not saying the above is racist, it's the term used for those who enter that was.
That was 1954 Dean, an era that your ilk reveled in. KKK, intimidation of minorities, which included killing them. Jim Crow laws, segregation etc.
You should go back to that time, you are a perfect example of the ''White is Right'' time in our history.
Dean,
We are not living in the 1950's which is when that term was used by our government, and that term is no longer acceptable and is against our CoC.
7. Members agree not to upload or post any content anywhere on the site, that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, known to be false, or invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; are prohibited
John, see my above comment in support of your removed comments.
Bullshit s large amount of people were able to effort comprehensive healthcare under the ACA ,and the GOP is choking that off so they can crow that Obamacare is dying, while they kill it. They saying is dead. They should know. They are killing Obamacare. on purpose.
Why Deductibles Would Rise Under the GOP Health Care Plan ...
Why Deductibles Would Rise Under the GOP Health Care ... That would leave mostly the low- premium , high- deductible plans . ... The result : premiums may be lower in ...
Gov't report: Health care deductibles higher under GOP …
... average 61 percent higher under the House Republican . .. that out-of-pocket costs — deductibles and copayments ... covered as a result of ...
If you're older and lower income prepare to pay more under ...
Mar 13, 2017 · But under the GOP plan , his annual premium would be $14,600 since ... since they typically pay higher premiums . The GOP 's refundable tax ... result , fewer ...
GOP Plan Could Raise Premiums for 6 Million People …
GOP Plan Could Raise Premiums for 6 Million ... ACA but that nonetheless could also result in a premium ... threat of higher premiums creates an incentive ...
How much of that is offset by lower taxes? You are not showing the big picture.
There has to be something done about our healthcare, but I am not certain if we are on the right road. The idea that the premium would automatically be set on income is a good one. Obamacare is too complicated and the new bill is just as and doesn't address the problems. In England it is automatically taken out of your paycheck. If you are unemployed Medicaid should kick in.
Everyone of us is "entitled" to and I mean "entitled" to be properly treated.
I agree .
I don't agree with that entitlement mindset. None of my ancestors expected anyone other than themselves to be stuck paying for their healthcare. Not my father nor his father or his father before him.
EVERYONE takes part in the capitalist economic system, including those exploited at the bottom of the wage scale, and the unemployed. Unless someone is making low wages you literally cannot have wealthy people. The "entitlements" to the poor is the price the wealthy should pay because they are given the opportunity to exploit others in our system.
I don't agree with that entitlement mindset.
I don't give a flying fuck about your constant Simon Legree attitude about anything human or humane. Why do you bother constantly posting it when we all know you don't give a shit about your fellow human beings and if they live or die? You're the ultimate GOP attitude about you're fellow humans. Just die and leave more for me. Me, me, me. I am all that counts. I got mine so fuck everyone else. Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
You don't know that about him. Totally uncalled for.
You don't know that about him. Totally uncalled for.
You must be newer to the site than I thought.
I agree. However, just like we now have electricity, hopefully, we have reached the point where people can be treated for illnesses regardless of economics.
My family came to the U.S. when it wasn't the U.S. Tough and it remained tough. Don't know how my parents coped with everyday problems i.e. putting food on the table much less medical expenses. However, circumstances changed because of their insistence on education and our values of self worth.
We are all worth something....no person should go hungry nor should they be homeless and, nor, should they go without medical care.
no person should go hungry nor should they be homeless and, nor, should they go without medical care.
I used to think most people felt that way but these days I don't know.
The BLM, the feminist protests, the gay protests, etc. mean nothing to me. There should be a protest against being homeless and hungry, but that's not popular for the in crowd.
I don't envy anyone their money nor their fame, but it frosts my ass to see and hear these so-called "famous" people support causes because they are popular.
Doesn't everyone have a right to voice their opinions ? Are you saying that "famous" people should just shut up because they are famous ?
I wish I was famous so I would have a larger and louder platform to speak out on the things I believe in.
Dear Friend Pat Wilson You I and others do think and opine that this is how to be and do.
Peace and Abundant Blessings to You and Yours Always.
Enoch,
Thank you Dear Friend Enoch. You always shine light in these dark times.
And they had lousy health care. Even my grandparents, when they took their daughter up to Mayo's Clinic for a brain tumor in 1925, were paying for it during my mother's lifetime, born 5 years later, and the first daughter died...
My Grandpa nearly died of typhoid, in 1910, or thereabouts. They paid their doctor's bills in chickens and fresh eggs...
Times have changed, Dean.
While the bill is making its way through Congress, it will be invariably subject to amendment. Bills rarely get passed as written. The New York Times is way ahead of its skis, and appears to be acting as a shill for those opposed. Opinion as news is very distasteful, even from the "Paper of Record". They need to look at what's going on around them, and stop contributing the vitriol that plagues our government and country.
The New York Times published an op/ed article by Senator Ron Johnson , who opposes the GOP bill from the right.
I based my article on something I saw in the comment section connected to that NYT article.
Senator Ron Johnson
A person DIRECTLY INVOLVED in the formulation of the bill as it will eventually stand.
Even worse.
Well, it was an op/ed by a US senator and not a NYT opinion, but I guess we all see in it what we want to see.
No, we see it for what it is. The NYT is acting as a shill for the left, using a Republican as a shill for their agenda.
It's kinda like finding a Jew who supports the Palestinians, allowing everyone to use that single opinion as a litmus test for the entire, complex issue.
It's an oversimplification, and insults the intelligence of those who are actually attempting to get something done in Washington, standing opposed to the grandstanders.
The Senator in his heart of hearts believes that, if he reaches out to the subscribers of the NYT, that somehow, some way, a better job will be done in Washington. The fact is, he should STFU, put his head down and help make the sausage. If there's something wrong with this bill, he needs to get into the committee rooms and make that clear, and not write a shitty piece that will further divide our country and cause greater angst among our populace.
All those who are insistent that Donald Trump is meeting his campaign promises about providing better healthcare for everyone, at a fraction of the current cost - I hope you're working on how to spin the ensuing death count.
There will be no death count.
I'm going to quote you both on that. My daughter is quite concerned about the fate of my grandson, who needs thousands of dollars worth of meds per month to treat his lifelong heart condition. Oh wait - "bobby" probably thinks I'm lying about my grandson like I lie about having a gay stepson who is an fbi agent.
I was reading the other day about the astronomical costs involved in treating certain illnesses. That's where the pharmaceutical companies are shamefully to blame. The hold they have on us is disgraceful and our government does nothing about it.
It is tough for the entire family to cope with the life challenging issues that your grandson faces. I truly am sorry!
Wasn't it the republicans that were screaming about ''death panels'' with Obamacare...
LOL what a bunch of hypocrites.
Yes, they were. It was incorrect then and it is now. Not hypocritical at all. AND, it was not ALL Republicans!!!!
And it wasn't all dems either.
The hypocrite comment stands.
Carry on!
Just so you know....Currently 85% can't afford BO's "affordable" insurance and couldn't as soon as it was offered....and that was before the rates doubled. The current rate of "affordability" is even worse. If someone doesn't fix BO's mess soon none of us will be able to afford it.
CBO score on Senate plan came out today. 22 million will lose coverage.
I think we can get a Democratic congress elected on that if the GOP bill becomes law.
I think we can get a Republican congress elected by freeing us from that burden.
The libertarian party got 3% or so in the last election. That is your "we".
What I find interesting is the conservatives love to quote their hero, Ronald Reagan...If they really took the time to study Reagan they would find things that he was a strong supporter of that would horrify their limited understanding of their hero.
For instance his view on health care.
'' Conservatives might find this shocking and argue that Reagan would never have approved of federal subsidies such as those contained in Obamacare. But, to paraphrase Reagan himself, it’s not so much that our conservative friends are ignorant, it’s that so much of what they know just isn’t so. In fact, throughout his career, Reagan expressed strong support for government-subsidized medical care for people who couldn’t otherwise afford it.
Of course they have no idea of his views because they believe what they want to believe..
If you think his views on government subsidized medical care for people who couldn't overwise afford it, take the time to research it...Actually I think that his comment ''it's not so much that our conservative friends are ignorant, it's that so much of what they know just isn't so''..
Your welcome.
Wow inspiring to say the least.
Health care should be funded the same way all the other expenses of the federal government are, through a progressive income tax. Everyone would pay on a sliding scale. No one would any longer have health care premiums to worry about. People who make larger incomes may end up paying more than they do now for health insurance, just as they pay more now , through their taxes, for the national defense, public schools and food inspections.
This is the price we should have to pay for a capitalistic society.
by John Russell
That is brilliant and true.