Which is roughly the amount of my annual mortgage interest deduction and my home value is pretty much at the US average. Does that make me a moocher? Does that make everyone else that takes this deduction a moocher?
No because you bought a home like a good, responsible taxpayer of this country! Here is your reward!!1one!
Mortgage deduction is not a “tax credit”. It’s a deduction. Do you know the difference?
A deduction reduces the income on which taxes are calculated. A “tax credit” is a handout to you from the government, whether you pay taxes or not.
Well one, thanks for letting us know you got through. Due to the news I didn’t even glance at the website yet as I figured it was still borked. I’ll be looking within a week now.
I was wondering if any of your possible plans included dental and optical care? Or is that still one of those “You’re an adult now…didn’t you know only kids need glasses and get cavities?” things?
It seems that a lot of the ACA haters are pulling a disingenuous trick of quoting the rate for catastrophic insurance as if that were always the cheapest option. I noticed this in another thread a while back.
In NY State, if you make 20K a year and otherwise qualify to purchase catastrophic insurance, you’d pay $180 a month minimum. This is a great statistic for fueling outrage, especially considering the high deductibles.
But wait…if our 20K a year hypothetical “upgrades” to a Bronze plan, they can get a policy for under 30 bucks a month because of the subsidies.
The truth is I’m not a huge ACA fan, I’m a little too progressive for that. I think they insurance mandate is regressive and I think that not nearly enough was done to rein in the outrageous pricing caused by our economically distorted health care system where money is no object because the costs are not being borne by the person consuming the product.
But the hypocrisy in the Republican party is staggering. They complain abut how regressive the ACA is and how it unfairly shifts costs to the young and poor, then when presented with evidence that it doesn’t and that poor people can get insurance cheaply they get all outraged about “moochers” and their tax dollars.
I am generally a kind person, but a small part of me wants to see the laws requiring hospitals and emergency rooms to treat people for free repealed as part of the ACA. I bet that would make the law work.
So I’m curious (really!). What is your proposed solution if someone actually can’t afford health insurance premiums after paying for rent, food, and other necessities? If they get sick without insurance, the public is going to pay, right? Is that the preferable option in your opinion?
I am not a Republican, so maybe that’s not an indication, but never once have I complained about how regressive it is or about the “young and poor”. What I see as the great evil of Obamacare is hooking millions more people on government handouts.
Yes. Combined with public clinics where doctors volunteer for pro-bono work, and charities, yes. Add to that much expanded role for nurse-practitioners. And in the context of reform that would kill all “comprehensive” health insurances, leave only catastrophic ones in place allowing the marketplace to dictate the prices and encouraging price-shopping.
If my auto insurance covered oil changes, I am sure they would cost $1000 a pop.
Part of the reasoning that makes market-dictated prices work is that in most situations, people can opt not to buy, or not to buy immediately, and shop around if the price is too high. That works for things like auto repair and consumer goods. However, in cases of things like serious illness and accidents, people are not often able to put off getting care until they find a suitable price and/or shop around, nor are most people really qualified to make decisions about the specifics of care (that is… most people really can’t say what blend of drugs they need for cancer).
How do you propose making that work in the context of health care?
I see that argument a lot, and it is really a fallacious argument. People don’t seek health care only at the moment they get sick. They have regular doctors and even regular specialists they go to, and if there was no comprehensive insurance they would price-shop to find reasonably-priced ones WAY before the urgent need for one. Once they do, they have to trust those doctors to provide the reasonably-priced options in case of serious illnesses. In spite of what you think, a GREAT majority of doctors would not even think of price-gouging their patients when they come in sick.
Do you consider your taxes to be largess on your part?
Very much so. You’re welcome.
Ah. Therein lies the source of our differences.
In my personal experience, off the top of my head, I can think of 4 - wait, 5 - people I personally know who, in the past few years, despite having regular doctors and going in for regular checkups, have had catastrophic, expensive things happen to them with no chance to shop around. Indeed, had they had the time to shop around, they were very, very sick, and had neither the energy nor the mental capacity to do said shopping.
So yeah, that gives me a different perspective.
I do agree with you on “doctors don’t gouge.” The expensive bit, in my experience, has been drugs and tests like MRIs and PET scans.
On the same note : Have any first-world countries implemented the market-based system Terr proposes? The closest I can think of is the USA itself (where I think we can all agree it hasn’t worked very well). Are there others?
Let me get this straight. Instead of your taxes going to pay for people’s health insurance so they can afford to visit a doctor when they’re sick, you’re in favor of doctors GIVING away their time?
Would you be in favor of them charging a little extra to make up for the time they donated in the clinics?
In such an event, the “shopping” duty falls on their regular doctors.
And doctors send you to those labs. So the good doctors, the ones you pick, will send you to reasonably-priced ones. If there was an incentive to do that.
Voluntarily, yes. A lot of doctors do that now, and a lot more would do it if the restrictions were removed. I know my wife wanted to volunteer a few times in various places and couldn’t because of some seriously stupid regulations. Or because she would have had to drive an hour one way to the nearest one.
They would have to decide that themselves based on whether it would price them out of the market they want to be in.
Wow, really? Isn’t that sort of like going to a mechanic, having them say “it’s gonna be $500 to fix your car” and you say “wow, I can’t afford that” and then expecting them to start calling around to all the other mechanics in town to see if someone will do it cheaper?
Yeah, but in the case of, say, MRI machines, in a lot of areas, there’s not that many of them. They’re too expensive and the area might not have a population to support more than one.
No, it’s like finding a mechanic you trust who does a good job at a reasonable price, then going to him and asking him for his recommendation for a body shop that does a good job at reasonable price. If you’re in a hurry and cannot shop around yourself.
Then they would be expensive. In my area, you can’t spit without hitting an MRI machine.
Which means his income should be in the toilet, which means he should get subsidies.
What am I missing here?
For Absolute, that would be the gift of the MAGI!
Somebody had to say it, dammit.