For you personally, or for many other people? Because it was already unaffordable for many. Interesting that something is wrong when it becomes less affordable for YOUR income level, but isn't a problem when it is someone else's income level that is overly burdened by it.
I am guessing you'll say when Obamacare got passed. As I said, it was unaffordable or many before that. I have a friend whose mother is now dead from cancer. She was insured when diagnosed, then dropped. Now her widower is left with hundreds of thousands of debt, and the best treatments were not an option due to her no longer being insured. That renders me caring about how much insurance costs moot, since it won't be there when you need it anyway.
Just my take, but I am and have been of the opinion that medical insurance should be required like SS is required; with individuals only involved. No employer - corporate, governmental entity, etc. should offer or be compelled to offer it as a benefit. Having been an employee and an employer I find it ridiculous in both roles. Pay people enough in their jobs to purchase their own as a market based solution. The government, through taxes, can supplement lower income people/families. Medicare, Medicaid - all of it could go away with this approach. Make it a true safety net. Have people pay in a percentage of income to the "trust fund" and disburse for the lower income folks direct to the insurer of choice subject to maximum limits of assistance. Feds collect and then send funds back to the states for administration, proof of participation, verification, disbursement, etc. Medical providers would provide data on patients regarding proof of insurance, procedures, etc. The doctor/patient relationship would not change. The open market place of competition and added participants would help keep costs down. This is not an "either/or" situation. The feds could choose to pass legislation that sets the rules to the game regarding pre-existing conditions, dropping coverage, being dropped from coverage, etc. without taking it all over and subjecting it to politics. That is where we are today.
Why is that? You're saying if he's an empty suit, anyone can do it? I look at Romney's background, and I see a guy set up for success. He isn't from a trailer park. His dad was a damn presidential candidate. Me calling him an empty suit in no way means there are no barriers to success. Far from it.
May be some truth to that. Our street has 7 retired couples from Michigan living on it. LOL! IMO the primary reason for the government dependents in our state is we have no state income taxes, low property taxes, lower housing/food/etc. costs, and a good quality of life. We get a lot of Midwest and Florida move-ins due to one or more of those factors along with increasing tourism and automotive industry employment. The high sales tax rates haven't affect folks too much. To help with that the state has started lowering sales tax on essentials such as food. They can do it because the state's financial house is in order thanks to Bredesen (Dem) before and now Bill H (Repub). Both are moderates I might add. There are about 600 K uninsured in TN. Most are that way because they don't want to pay for anything. Some might fall through the cracks. However, most every county has a health agency where they can go for no to low cost medical care as well as privately funded free health clinics. I have a brother-in-law that went that route for a time before finally applying for and being accepted by Tenncare. My sister/brother-in-law are Meeechigan residents. They will leave once they retire. Easy to understand why.
Romney may very well be the epitome of the slimeball politician willing to say whatever he needs to get elected, but I don't get the empty suit comment. If elected he very well might be the smartest president ever sans billy.
That is crazy talk. He is successful because his Daddy was one of several Republican Presidential Candidates in 1964 and 1968.
Winner winner chicken dinner on the first part there. My point was the law caused my insurance to drastically increase. It wasn't incremental as you implied in your earlier post. The second part is really tragic and a shame. I do not mean this sarcastically at all. Healthcare in our country is becoming a hopeless mess. It has been for decades and decades. Neither of these candidates have a solution to the problem that will fix the problem. On that last part, all I'll say is good luck with that stance. I hope it works for you.
I have health insurance through my work. I just fully realize it can go away whenever the insurance company/my work feels like it. If you'd like to look, you'll find that health insurance has been climbing like all health care costs quite rapidly over the last couple decades.
Romney on 47% comments: I was ‘completely wrong’ – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs So now that Romney admits he was wrong to say the 47% comment, how long until all of the conservatives here admit they were wrong to try to defend it?
Perhaps they are waiting for you to admit you were wrong to try and defend the "You didn't build that" comment.
I am just relaying what happened to a few hundred people where I work. I'll leave the data mining to someone else. I went through the incremental increases throughout the 00s. It was not the same.
I explained that comment. You don't understand conversational English apparently. YOU didn't build the roads to your business. The government did with the tax dollars of your predecessors. It is black and white.
I believe I argued that the number and accusation was ridiculous. Odds are many of the conservatives in the state of Tennessee are part of his "47 %."
How are the two connected? Just because the intent of Obama's comments were twisted to suit the political agenda of the Republicans doesn't make it the equivalent of Romney expressly dismissing half the population as, literally, leeches on society whom "he doesn't represent". It's a false equivalency.
