By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 25 December 2009
Edit Thread
Jackson5050 said:
Kasz216 said:That definitly is a point of contention.  People in that range should definitly be able to afford healthcare coverage... outside the very few cases of "Prexisting conditions" which should be adressed via law. 

$50,000 is a lot of money... if you can't afford heathcare at $50,000 a year you've got to be pretty poor with your money or once again "Prexisting conditions."

However even if that were the case that would still leave us with ~14 million people or so.

Still far less then is suggested.

I suppose it is a point of contention and one we may never agree on. Personally, I think a household in that range could only afford coverage by severely inhibiting itself in other areas of life. That is why it is illusory to state that households in that range "choose" not to purchase coverage. It is not unreasonable that a household earning $50,000 would be unable to afford coverage-that is, coverage worth purchasing. That is why the subsidies help cover the costs of purchasing insurance through the exchange(s) up to 400% of the poverty level.

Frankly, the lowest number that I have seen claimed was 15 million by Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and he reached his number because of a few errors.

Define "severly inhibiting itself".  Not being able to go on family vacations?  Not being able to smoke or drink?


Though, like I said.  The numbers are pretty clear if you go through their numbers using their own stated limitations with the criteria I provided.  It's the kind of stuff you do in peer review all the time.  It's something anybody can do... all the numbers are provided for you... mostly within the report. 

Which is a big thing... since often politicans will try and mix and match numerous different reports to get the best results possible.

 

Or just pick uncredible studies.  For example if you ever saw the "This many americans die because they don't have health insurance" report... you'd know that number was arrived at by comparing the death rate for people with insurance and the people without it... and that was the only factor taken into account.

Ignoring for example that more people without insurance are poorer and that even in countries with universal healthcare poorer people die way more often then richer people... and even survive operations less often etc.