esp. when you aren't actually in a dilemma where the only possible choice is one or the other.
If you are in a position of stopping a future tragedy with a strategic concession of relatively little consequence, it's really dumb not to take the opportunity.
I don't see how it would make a huge impact on the group that really can't afford insurance, but aren't eligible for current government programs.
If it's a small increment, all the more reason to concede it if you get something in return.
Remember its an expansion to an existing program, not a new program.
Exactly. And that's a good thing. Expanding an existing program by raising the income level for eligibility is far better than creating a disruptive new program.
So the only additional people who are covered are at the higher end.
Yeah, the higher end of the low end, the folks on the bubble. Lousy place to be, on that bubble.
If your making $50 to $83K you should be able to afford that.
The people we're talking about are above the poverty level but under the affordability level. I agree with you re those who can afford insurance. I'm concerned, though, about those who really can't, well, not about them but about their kids. I don't agree with the premise of many here that a civilized country doesn't let anyone do without health care, but a civilized country definitely doesn't leave kids without health care.
children are less expensive to insure
Can you just insure the kids and not yourself? That would work if they're so cheap. I wonder if such policies are available. They should be.
Cost $115 a month with a $10k deductible (catastrophic insurance)
Catastrophic coverage is fine for you and me but not for kids. When kids get catastrophic illnesses, there are charities that take them in, Shriners and the like. Coverage for kids should be for the higher end of routine care. |
