If its so important and glorious to ensure that non-citizens can vote, why is
this really such an obstacle?
Utah Health Policy Project,Why would people making 400% above the Federal
Poverty level NEED Government Subsidized Healthcare?If people
earning nearly six figures qualify for gov subsidized healthcare... why not just
give EVERYBODY gov healthcare?I make a pretty good living, but
I've never made $92,000 a year. My family has been fine. Why do I NEED
Government subsidized healthcare?This whole scheme just seems so
Saul Alinsky esque. Like the first step in a plan to get more people addicted
to government subsidized healthcare. And once you have the majority dependent
on government healthcare... there is absolutly no way to go back (because there
would be riots) and you have enough votes to replace private healthcare with
government healthcare. And once you hold the population's healthcare
(literally their life) in your hands... you can do whatever you want, and they
have no way to unelect you (becasue you can threaten to dismantle their
healthcare system IF they do).I don't like being that dependent
on the government or giving them that much control over my life.
Actually, studies predict that 270,000 Utahns--not the 29,590 mentioned in this
article--will be eligible for tax credits to make insurance more affordable, The
sliding scale tax credits are available for people making between 100% and 400%
of the federal poverty level, which is a large percentage of the state's
population. An individual making $44,000 a year can get tax credits, as can a
family of four making up to $92,000 a year.
The ACA will benefit some people. But it will cost the nation as a whole a
ton. And that's OK. That's how Socialism works.I
don't know why they called it the "Affordable Care Act". There
was absolutely nothing in it to help reduce the actual COST of any procedure or
any medication. It only addressed who PAYS for the care.Initially
ACA will benefit a small group. People who had insurance before should still
have insurance (IF their employer doesn't cut their hours to less than
30/week). They should see no change (just higher premiums). People without
insurance will see no change. They were already covered by Medicare/Nedicaid
and will still be covered (just with more need for gov beurocrats to find ways
to cover less to save the budget). But people who didn't have insurance
and didn't qualify for Medicaid could see a benefit, and employers who can
push their employees onto the Government insurance will benefit from not having
that expense.But ACA was never intended to decrease the actual
EXPENSE of healthcare. It was intended to make American's so misserable
they would BEG for Single-Payer National Healthcare.
Some people are determined to destroy ACA because they hate Obama. That's
the only reason they need.
Re JoeBlowWhen through university I was nickel and dimed by the bank
I banked I am with the credit union now it's much better the only fees I am
aware of is if you write a bad check.Instead of trying to torpedo
Obamacare I wish Republicans would work with Democrats and make this the best
health care system in the world. They should have a goal to make our healthcare
system as good as the Congressional healthcare system. Better yet they should be
under Obamacare then they would have the motivation to work together and make it
better.If we would stop getting into unnecessary Wars as we've
been doing for decades and the wars we must fight, fight them quickly and get
out Obamacare could be very affordable for us. Nations with less wealth than
ours are able to insure decent healthcare for all there is no reason why we
cannot do it too.
There's going to be a health insurance exchange. People will be able to
choose the plan that suits their needs. Companies allowing unbanked payments
will do a brisk business.
Well this could be fixed by Congress but you know... Republicans have no
interest in making this thing better.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are recommending that health care
providers participating in Obamacare need to accept forms of payment that are
easily accessed by those without bank accounts.The move was
confirmed by a Department of Health and Human Services official, who told
Bankless Times that "CMS has issued guidance to issuers that they must
accept payment in ways that are non-discriminatory."The
statements were published in the Federal Register and the comment period closed
on July 19. The final statements must be issued within a month.CMS
has the power to enact this regulation.
could it be that the poor are "unbanked" because they want to avoid all
the fees associated with bank accounts without large balances?I may
be giving away my age, but it used to be that banks actually PAID you when you
had money in their bank.