Quote:
Originally Posted by rahl
I've asked this question 3 times in 2 different threads now.
Can someone who is opposed to this bill please answer each one of the questions that I've posed please?
|
the fact that over 32 million people will now have coverage?
To the extent that coverage come out of my tax dollars, I object. The claim is this is covered by increased taxes on those earning over $200/$250K and by taxes on high cost insurance plans. Taxes on high cost insurance plans don't kick in until 2018. Over the last couple years, we've all seen how well government revenue projections can be counted on to be accurate. To the extent either of those fall short, the middle class taxpayer (me) gets to make up the difference.
the fact that pre-ex's will be covered?
If someone has a pre-existing condition because of a lifestyle choice, that's their problem, not mine. Somebody who has a pre-existing condition because of hereditary factors, probably ok.
the fact that life time maximum pay outs are gone?
That sounds an awful lot like expecting the insurance company write you a blank check for your medical care with no way to recoup their expenses. You get enough people and I don't care if you've got the entire world population in your insurance pool, you're still going to go broke. I kind of like the companies my 401K money is invested in to remain profitable, not bankrupt.
the fact that you can keep what you have if you like it or get something new?
That assumes my employer doesn't decide that it doesn't like the cost of health insurance plans any more, ditches the health care plan, pays the small penalty, and expects me to now pick up the cost of insurance, which I don't get any subsidy for.
the fact that it is budget nuetral?
That remains to be seen. See my comments about high cost insurance plans and assuming revenue streams for the next 10 years.