I have been reading the news in the USA, about the "government shutdown" and "Obama Care", and want to share my perspective on the situation. The Democrats were able to pass their Health insurance law, but when it comes to actually funding this law, that is a different matter. The new law will force everyone to buy a comprehensive health insurance plan, or pay a significant tax penalty. Basically the law forces everyone into one risk pool, by severely limiting how insurance companies can discriminate between different risk groups in pricing. This means rates will go up for younger people to lower rates for the old, rates will go up for healthy people to lower rates for chronically sick people, and so forth. Progressives do not like the idea of "discrimination", so want to force their "equality" on everyone. Of course, this will greatly make rates go up for young adults, many of whom will not be able to afford these insurance plans, so the law incorporates government subsidies. I believe that was the intentional design of this law, to disguise taxes in the form of higher rate prices. Progressives have used this trick before. It sounds overly complicated, and that's because it is. It is just moving money around, disguising the actual cost burden. The Republicans are refusing to fund the subsidies. Not only are they generally against taxation to pay for all this insurance, but without the subsidies the plan falls apart. How outraged do you think young low income people will be when they not only are forced to buy a health insurance plan they cannot afford, but that the rates on that health insurance plan go up even higher to help make insurance more affordable for the sick and old? This is the reason the two sides cannot agree on a budget proposal. It is the Democrats who are holding the government hostage, so to speak. They refuse to pass a budget until they get what they want, and that is government subsidies to fund their Health Insurance Plan, and approval for the government to borrow more money. The Democrats are intentionally trying to make the "government shut down" as conspicuous and annoying as possible. To counter this, one Republican tactic has been to make proposals to individually fund different parts of the budget that are seen as essential, so the Democrats cannot blame them. The Democrats do not like this at all, because it chips away at their leverage. The end direction of all this individual funding approvals would essentially be a passed budget that does not include what they want. So the Democrats are basically blackmailing the Republicans. Viewed from this perspective, it is obvious that the Democrats are actually the ones creating the "government shutdown". The Republicans are merely calling their bluff.
Here is an idea I think both sides could agree on: REPUBLICANS: Expand Medicaid the Federal government covering 100% of all the added costs permanently in return states must Expand Medicaid as long as they spend no additional funds to do so which should make it acceptable. DEMOCRATS: Repeal the rest of Obamacare non-taxes and taxes to the point of logically funding the Medicaid Expansion, in return back a Catastrophic Plan that is affordable and everyone else must take with real penalties if the party is not otherwise insured. I think if they did this they could come to a health care reform many could support and the Federal Government could give incentives for tort reforms and other state options to add to the law, funding for good ideas to see what works and what doesn't.
I think that a sensible Health Care plan exists, but I doubt the two sides will be willing to come to the table to agree on anything. The government could pay for preventative care, and subsidize the cost of insurance for low income people, and people with pre-existing conditions, along with a few other small things, that could be a very sensible plan. But the Democrats want a wide and sweeping Health Care scheme that puts everyone in the same cost pool. The Democrats were using this as an excuse to push through their huge legislation. Because "something" is better than "nothing".
Right on point. I was reading about how this law will apply to our politicians and I'm a little confused on how this will work. Maybe someone can help clear this up a little. Though they are not exempt from the law they will still be receiving a majority of Their employer contribution which they cannot put towards their health coverage. But they still receive that money. Tax payer money. I thought the idea behind the law ( as explained to the masses) was to keep group A from having to cover group B. To me it doesn't make sense to basically refund these monies spent from their pockets when the American citizens won't receive the same for a " must participate or face a penalty" situation. Is this train of thought making sense?
