Health Care Sharing

56 posts / 0 new
Last post
AlyssaEimers's picture
Last seen: 2 months 4 days ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

I can't speak to the financial specifics. I can only tell you that this plan is helping people that I know. Here is an example of a friend's FB post:

My information is exclusively anecdotal, I don't claim to have the big picture and I know nothing about economics. But I am hearing comment after comment from friends exactly along these lines.

Different experiences for different people. I have had heard story after story of people who have gone and looked into it thinking it was going to be the answer to their health insurance problems and just can't afford it.

I know a lot of it boils down to the States who are participating vs. the States who are not. The problem is the States that are participating are picking up the tab. States like NY have so much higher taxes that they are picking up the tab. However those people are still paying for it, just in a different way. I know real numbers on this because of my family being in NY and Me being in TN. My parents are paying $700 a month in property taxes. This is on top of their mortgage and any other expenses. Yes, they have land but my Aunt and Uncle who live in a similar area here with land pay $600 a YEAR in property taxes and no income tax. NY might be offering more by the way of insurance, but the people are still paying for it. The Government is helping out for the first three years, but what about after that. Some States simply can't pick up that kind of tab. I also have seen first hand what those kind of taxes are doing to that area. One of the last remaining companies in the area has just announced they are closing and moving to KY. A huge part of that is the taxes in their area are so much more than they would be in KY. I have seen that happen so much just in my lifetime.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Last seen: 2 months 4 days ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"mommytoMR.FACE" wrote:

I had a great affordable plan picked out with thanks to the ACA but shortly after I took another position and was offered insurance through my employer. I would never take on a sharing healthcare plan through a religious based organization; especially through a Christian based whatever it is. First of all, I'm not Christian. Secondly, with the surround sound speakers and flat screen televisions being installed in a lot of churches, how will the money stick around for necessary things like people's health? Thirdly, I have pre existing conditions like having had sex before marriage (fun times!) and smoking a ciggie or two. I also like to sleep in on Sundays when I can so I def wouldn't attend church. I would be denied from this biblical insurance. The ACA doesn't mind sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

No one is saying that it is right for everyone. For some people, it is the best option available to them. There also is nothing preventing someone for starting up the same kind of company that is non religious.

Spacers's picture
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

That is only if liberals stay in power.

I've never understood this. I'd think conservatives would LOVE a single-payer system. Canada, Germany, France, Israel, and most other industrialized nations cover all their citizens at a much lower cost per person. Just imagine the job creation and business growth that small employers would be able to manage if they didn't have to provide health insurance! Just imagine busting the unions, which are so strong because their members want, and can demand, decent health care! Just imagine Hobby Lobby or any other employer NOT having to go to the Supreme Court because they don't want to pay for contraception to female employees. Just imagine U.S. businesses being able to compete on a global level with companies in other countries that aren't burdened with our amount of health care and taxes! Just imagine being able to choose a health care plan that fits your family's needs, wants, and beliefs and not those of your employer! Just imagine the freedom to switch jobs without the risk of losing your health coverage! And then there's the Republican "shrink the government" argument. Our current fragmented healthcare system requires a multiplicity of federal and state bureaucracies, many of them redundant, to oversee the multiple programs that have been built by patchwork over the years. A single healthcare system will require far less government to administer; this has been proven as a fact in other countries. Aren't all of those things the conservatives are always whining about: job loss, high taxes, birth control, personal freedom, big government? All of those problems are solved with a single-payer system.

GloriaInTX's picture
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

I don't know why you think the only option is a single-payer system. I agree that health insurance should be separated from employment, but I don't think single-payer is the only way to do that.

The Obama administration’s latest employer mandate delay is causing some to question their support of the law, or at the very least, express frustration with the way in which President Obama’s signature domestic achievement has been implemented.

Among those expressing frustration is Ron Fournier, the senior political columnist at the National Journal.

In a column yesterday, Fournier explained that he is “getting sick of defending Obamacare,” pointing the White House’s politicization of the law, the thoughtless manner in which it was implemented, and changes and delays of various regulations. The journalist also made some of the same comments on Fox News on Monday evening.

“Advocates for a strong executive branch, including me, have given the White House a pass on its rule-making authority, because implementing such a complicated law requires flexibility,” Fournier wrote. “But the law may be getting stretched to the point of breaking. Think of the [Affordable Care Act] as a game of Jenga: Adjust one piece and the rest are affected; adjust too many and it falls.”

“If not illegal,” he continued, “the changes are fueling suspicion among Obama-loathing conservatives, and confusion among the rest of us. Even the law’s most fervent supporters are frustrated,” latter adding that he falls in the “frustrated category.”

Fournier says he still supports the law because he “want health insurance provided to the millions without it, for both the moral and economic benefits.” But then he wrote something profound. He explained that he also wants Obamacare to work “because, as Charles Lane wrote for The Washington Post, the link between work and insurance needs to be broken.”

That last point is really one that hasn’t been mentioned enough in the continuing debate over Obamacare, at least not until last week when the Congressional Budget Office explained that 2.5 million Americans will be disincentivized from working because of subsidies provided under the law.

Fournier is right on the mark in that the “link between work and insurance needs to be broken.” This is a policy goal for which most conservative and libertarian healthcare wonks have advocated.

Most Americans are used to receiving health insurance benefits through their employer, a practice currently encouraged by the government through generous tax deductions. But this practice means workers will change health plans multiple times. That’s a real problem, according to Rep. Tom Price (R-GA).

“We ought not have a system where if you change your job or you lose your job, you lose your health coverage,” Price told United Liberty last month. “Right now, between 60% and 65% of the American people get their health coverage through their employer. If they changed their job or they lose their job, they ought not have to get a different kind of health coverage when they move to the next job that they have.”

“The way that we solve that is very simple, we make it so everybody owns their own coverage regardless of who’s paying for it — so it’s like a pension plan, it’s like a 401(k) plan. If you change your job or you lose your job, you simply take your health coverage with you and plug it in there,” he added.

Rather than providing generous tax credits to employers, why not reform the system in a way that empowers individuals to purchase their own health insurance coverage, something that allows them to keep a plan regardless of whether they change jobs.

By extending these tax credits to individuals through some sort of a voucher system or a tax deduction, we could actually accomplish what Obamacare purports to do without the effect of creating an incentive for people not to work.

But Obamacare isn’t about breaking the link between employment and health coverage. It is, however, another redistributive scheme, which is why the White House and supporters of the law have been hailing the CBO report rather than acknowledging how absolutely devastating it is.

It's time to separate health coverage from employment | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government

AlyssaEimers's picture
Last seen: 2 months 4 days ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

I also do not think that healthcare should be attached to employment. I also do not think the Government having a monopoly is the way to go about things either. Competition between companies is always going to be better than one entity having total control.