Don't forget the drug companies! They helped write the ACA as well.
Good and bad came from the ACA:
Many received health insurance that didn't have it before.
The premiums for certain wage brackets went down.
The premiums and deductibles went up for some.
The premiums and deductibles skyrocketed for others.
Obamacare was a rewrite of Romneycare in Mass. It was basically a Republican bill.
The reason that Republicans want to repeal it is to give a tax cut to the wealthy.
Under their plan there will be some winners and some losers.
A 64 year old making 26,000 can't pay $14,000 for health insurance which the non partisan Congressional committee has predicted.
I'm all for not allowing insurance to be canceled or denied because of pre existing conditions. The only way to do that is to raise premiums for everyone or pay for it through taxes.
I favor making Medicare available to everyone while allowing people to have private insurance if they wish.
Those who are financially able would not receive any subsidy for their Medicare. As the income falls below what is considered enough income to pay the real cost of medicare, there would be a subsidy given.
Medicaid needs to be abolished and combined with Medicare. Great costs could be made having only one bookkeeping and coverage plans. There is no need to have a different one for medicaid. Those that qualify for Medicaid would be under Medicare. There would e no difference in what they would have to pay and little difference in what they could receive in benefits, but savings can be made by not running two different plans.
Veterans health insurance should stay separate, but the book keeping etc should follow the same procedures.
Private insurers could use this system for some subsidy so that it would be cheaper for them to use the same procedures and such than come up with their own system.
Taxes will have to be there to pay for Medicare as the premiums seniors pay for Medicare don't come near the cost of their coverage. The same would be true for those on subsidies, but of course the less people earn the bigger the subsidies and that means more tax dollars.
Hospitals receive huge sums of tax dollars to support the emergency rooms. It will save a lot of money to reduce the amount of money spent on the emergency room plus sometimes hospitalization that would not have been necessary if the patient had seen a doctor a day or more earlier and not waiting until the health issue required hospitalization.
Keeping the tax on the wealthy would help fund Medicare for all who want it. A very light tax medicare tax could be put on incomes of $50,00 or more. A very small percent for those making $50,000 to $100,000. A modest for the income above $100,000 to 150,000. The tax on the first $50,000 to 100,000 would stay the same. Continue that build up until $250,000.
Keep the percent the same as is for $250,000 to $500,000. The percent can go up a little at $500,000 and then again at $1,000,000.
When a person is able to make that kind of money with the protection of the government providing law and order, public roads, etc. There's nothing wrong with having the person pay a bit more because he has benefited from our system so well.
I am not suggesting a socialist or communist style of health care where the tax percent for health care is ridiculously higher for the wealthy. But a one or two percent wouldn't hurt the wealthy, and would help provide health care for those who can't provide it themselves: children, the disabled and many of the elderly.
A person may be a millionaire for many years and then lose it all at age 60. Then in the five years between 60 and 65 when Medicare kicks in they might be with health insurance.
I look at it this way. Everyone who is able to pay for health insurance would be paying a bit more if they can. In return they have guaranteed health care. There have been billionaires who have lost it all.
For those who can pay more than the actual cost of their insurance that year, the extra payments for for health insurance the rest of their lives regardless of their financial resources.
I look at it at everybody wins.
One difference from my plan and the plan many nations have is that those who can afford it can purchase their own health insurance and not use the Medicare system. They would still have to pay the Medicare tax.
I do believe that all able bodied people receiving assistance should be working. If they can't find work, then there are plenty of public works jobs that they can do to earn their health insurance plus be paid for what they do. The pay should be commensurate to the job they do. If a person who can't find work gets a public works job as a fork lifter where the pay is $50 or more, they shouldn't be paid minimum wage !
Single parents can work in groups with some kind of sharing care of preschool and after school. A single parent with two preschool children can't work for minimum wage and play $300 a week or more for child care. The child care is more than what they would earn. Some kind of plan needs to be developed to address this issue other than providing free child care for their children. It would cost less in taxes for the parents to stay at home than for the government to spend $300 or more in taxes a week for child care.
All of this can be done and the US keep its capitalist system, This doesn't require our major industry to become government owned.
It doesn't require democratic socialism to provide health care as a universal right the same as public school education, etc is! This has nothing to do with socialism vs. capitalism as the economic system that we follow here in the US.
