One common complaint with obamacare is that high deductible plans are considered legally sufficient, even at income levels where actually paying the deductible is not a reasonable expense on the income provided. If nothing else, I’d want a decent health care plan to have a cap on how much money someone has to have remaining after paying health expenses. (Not how much money they have in the bank, to clarify, but that the maximum out of pocket costs subtracted from the person’s income shouldn’t go below a a certain amount.)Yes if they don’t work for a company that provides a decent Heath plan
The solution is for us to stop thinking of medical care as “welfare”. There are tons of government services each and every one of us benefits from (highways, libraries, public education, public safety, etc) and we don’t consider that welfare.Sure, 100,000 doesn’t buy what it might have in the past, but still, putting folks like this into the Welfare system isn’t a good idea in my opinion.
The trouble with this sort of argument is that it could be applied to any government at all. It is the essential and necessary nature of a government that everyone is forced to participate for the benefit of society at large - and that not all of those things will benefit everyone equally.The last thing I want as a freedom-loving American is for someone else to be sent to jail because they don’t want to pay for my healthcare. Is there any compassion in the least in a system that forces all to participate? It seems to me nothing less than tyranny of the majority.
In many instances I’d agree with you because of the principle of subsidiarity. However when it comes to health I’d argue that the federal level is the lowest level capable of ensuring quality care afforded to all citizens. The last thing we need is 50 states with 50 disparate health systems; imagine the headache to both individuals and businesses in trying to make decisions about relocation, conforming with local law, etc.I want the federal government to have exactly 0% to do with healthcare or health insurance. If states want to implement something, so be it.
The federal government isn’t necessary to make charity work. State and local governments can ultimately be more effective since they only have to manage themselves, not themselves and 49 others.But what about our neighbors in need? Perhaps some charitable funds can help pay for some doctors visits and maybe even some more free clinics, but what about big-ticket items like chemotherapy, dialysis and daily medications? Do you think most people would be better off in a free market and that state and local governments as well as charities and foundations can help with those in need? Granted, if we did go towards a minimized federal government, we could see restructuring of tax codes as states and localities decide to step up and as a smaller state encourages more charitable giving and volunteerism (ideally), but even if it were to play out that way, the transition would be… quite an adjustment.
^^^^^^^ This.The solution is for us to stop thinking of medical care as “welfare”. There are tons of government services each and every one of us benefits from (highways, libraries, public education, public safety, etc) and we don’t consider that welfare.
To consider medical care the same as welfare (food stamps, section 8 housing, etc.) does a disservice to all of us. We can do better.
On the contrary, this is more likely to provide competition among states and an incentive to actually get a decent system in place, or get politically shamed and lose some of their tax base. If the entire system is federal, the incentive is absent. You get equal misery for all, instead of just misery for some.The last thing we need is 50 states with 50 disparate health systems; imagine the headache to both individuals and businesses in trying to make decisions about relocation, conforming with local law, etc.