A US National Health Care System? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: i-node who wrote (40312)	9/27/2015 11:04:27 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 42652

I don't think it's stupid--in the context of the whole stupid thing, that is. There were provisions included intended to cut costs. And there were provisions to level the economic playing field. This does both. It would not seem to me to affect a whole lot of people. I look at my Blue Cross--what it costs and what it provides. It's really excellent coverage. I cannot imagine what better coverage might look like. And it doesn't cost anywhere near the threshold for Cadillac coverage. So, it would seem that the policies that would be affected must have unnecessary frills. I don't see any reason for the government to favor frilly policies. I'm not into scalping the rich but I would not want to support luxury. Seems to me it will affect lots of people and their employers will either cut benefits or the tax is just another tax imposed to pay for Obamacare. I always figured the point was to cut out excess, unproductive health care costs by encouraging companies and unions to be more judicious . If you have reason to believe that putting a ceiling on policy cost is cutting out critical benefits, I'll listen. Otherwise, the provision makes sense to me.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next