- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 30,712
- Reaction score
- 22,318
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
What is not adequately discussed was why the republicant "plan" was so much worse. In order to appease the "moderate" republicants then all federal subsides had to be kept at (or above?) PPACA levels for the (15?) states that chose to expand Medicaid. Keep in mind that Medicaid is the most extreme (worst case?) scenario as far as government subsidized care is concerned - to the point that no co-pay or deductiblle is expected by the patient at all (except for the bizzare concept of incuring a debt to one's estate).
In other words, to fully fund 100% of the cost of medical care for a few (the approx. 15% to 18% of the US population below 134% of the FPL) places the most burden on others (the "rich" taxpayers) and leaves the least to help anyone that did not "qualify" for Medicaid (those making 134% to 400% of the FPL) but did "qualify" for PPACA subsidies. Once you have decided that you "must" keep expanded Medicaid and that you "must" cut the total subsidy cost (born by "rich" taxpayers) then that leaves only one group to "screw over" - those making 134% to 400% of the FPL.
Distribution of Total Population by Federal Poverty Level | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
The middle class or the working class.