When one is priced out of being able to afford coverage, that has precisely the same effect as having no coverage.
Oh, I agree. But 30% for a year doesn’t price anybody out of anything. It’s a penalty for failing to be responsible enough to maintain coverage. Just like the ACA had a penalty on your tax form if you failed to maintain coverage.
No. No no no. All other things are not equal; that is precisely the point.
Nobody argued that all things WERE equal. If you back up a bit, you argued that it made no, nada, zero sense to have an age-based subsidy. I was simply pointing out that mathematically, it makes quite good sense.
Then as I said again, I agree with you that that there should be an income means test as well. So let’s not quibble on whether or not it should be age + income or income only; you and I have no control over what ends up in the final bill anyway.
Then why are you disagreeing so vehemently with this woman?
:-). You think I was being “vehement”? I was simply pointing out that she was incorrect about the pre-existing condition issue, and perhaps shouldn’t worry so much.
When people who cannot pay — the working poor, if you will — are not given subsidies sufficient to let them afford insurance, they are being priced out of having health insurance. That is in part what she is talking about.
Why? Nobody has any idea if the House plan would result in higher, lower, or the same costs as the ACA right now. Everyone is guessing. Keep in mind that ALL of the predictions about the ACA were way off.
You know what’s really starting to piss me off? The fucking lefty agitprop media that goes out and models all the worst case scenarios so they can get donations flowing into Democrat pockets, not giving a shit that in the process, the are scaring the bejeezus out of the people who are at risk for being hit with any changes.
Besides, know what’s the most likely thing that will happen right now vis a vis health care? That the House bill is dead forever; the Senate says they’re going to start from scratch; and if they do that, they need to write something that makes Susan Collins and Dr. Bill Cassidy happy….
Rival Senate healthcare group seeks to make waves
A rival group of Republican senators is seeking leverage to influence the direction of the Senate's ObamaCare…
….and if it makes Susan Collins and Bill Cassidy happy, it’s going to make everyone currently on the ACA happy, too.
This is such an astounding attempt to simply ignore the problem via semantics that I have to assume that you know what you’re doing, and you know that being priced out of coverage has precisely the same effect as being denied.
See above. 30% isn’t “priced out”. You may as well have just admitted you were wrong.
Enough of your sophistry.