Scott Walker hates America - Page 2
The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Wildear
Retriever Coach
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: Scott Walker hates America

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    4,659

    Default

    News flash, if you get a $3000 break in the form of as tax credit or a subsidy, you're both riding the same free stuff army train. Next thing we will here is this isn't an attempt at buying votes.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    RetrieverTraining.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #12
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    9,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mngundog View Post
    News flash, if you get a $3000 break in the form of as tax credit or a subsidy, you're both riding the same free stuff army train. Next thing we will here is this isn't an attempt at buying votes.
    I can agree that a tax credit or a "subsidy" works out to being the same thing.

    OTOH, with both medical costs and insurance eating up people's income, I can see some value. If there is no "mandate" for coverage, and these people are responsible enough to voluntarily keep themselves insured (and save society a lot of money by not getting free care), then maybe they actually have earned some respite from these costs? It would appear there is also a "cap" on the tax credit?

    Perhaps it's noteworthy that in spite of the subsidies, there were still a LOT of people who would rather spend less (by paying the O-care tax) rather than act responsibly. And we have to also note that mandating the "minimum" coverage made it impossible for certain plans available before to be legal after the law was in place. We know that there were also millions who had some coverage before the increases, were forced to have no coverage at all due to cost increases due to the law.

    So we shuffled around who was insured and who wasn't, and the net "gain" was minimal. That minimal gain was also made up heavily of new Medicaid insured. Unfortunately, that did not guarantee actual care to those joining Medicaid, since the reimbursement formula for Medicaid already had made doctors start refusing new Medicaid patients.

    O-care currently puts a penalty on plans whose benefits are too good, the "Cadillac plans"? That never made a whole lot of sense to me. We should be glad that those people will fully pay for all their health care and keep hospitals in business. Just a way to "redistribute" by making rich (or union workers) contribute to the less good plans. OTOH, that was then bastardized by issuing those "waivers" which exempted certain companies and unions from those penalties ... to gain their political support for the legislation.
    [email protected]
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •