Drug coverage should be separated out.
Drug coverage is best done on a national scale.
Without having to buy drugs, hospitals and hospital companies could sell care coverage, cutting out the middlemen and cutting costs greatly.
People should be able to import a year’s personal supply of drugs, with foreign doctor’s prescriptions being allowed entry through US Customs for FDA, Health Canada or EU approved drugs that are not addictive.
Deductibility makes coverage cheaper for more affluent people than for low income people.
Here in Florida, people with high incomes can get mortgages and pay about 50% less for an equivalent house than lower income people - that is crazy.
Perhaps a monthly subsidy of up to your age*$2, but not for more than 60% of the cost of a plan would be better.
I’m low-income. I need cheap plans.
As for coverage mandates, if any government thinks a plan should include X, then that government should pay for X for all people with incomes below $20,000/year and partially for those with incomes below $40,000/year.
Obama is an incompetent liar - on every possible subject. Everything about Obamacare was and is a lie. I was a US Army combat infantryman for several years fighting our enemies overseas and left the service to spend more time with my family. Since I’ve been out, my health insurance (Blue Cross) has been cancelled twice, I have no idea who my doctor is now, and my premiums in three years have gone from $450 per month to over $1200 per month (family of four).
No one should even gives this liar the time of day. Shame on all those who voted for such a godless, unqualified, juvenile delinquent to our highest elected office. Mark my words, Obama will go down in history as the worst, most corrupt US President of all time.
A more sensible Cadillac tax might kick in at say 130% of cost of the silver plan subsidy base amount for the employee’s area.
That would eliminate federal tax discrimination against highly unionized areas such as New York State.
Equivalent Cadillac cars cost about the same nationwide.
Equivalent coverage varies a lot nationwide, being very expensive in New York State and much less expensive in Salt Lake City.
Strange Bedfellows Defending ObamacareYou mean like so called, self-proclaimed conservatives that fall all over themselves in a rush to continue funding it?
Patriots, as mentioned in related threads, please bear in mind that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes. This is evidenced by the excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions below.
With respect to the constitutionality of the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fourth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. In that case, state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” -Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
” 4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphasis added] of indemnity against loss.” - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
”Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” - Linder v. United States, 1925.
In fact, regardless that federal Democrats, RINOs, activist judges and indoctrinated attorneys will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that the feds cannot do something then they can do it, note that the Supreme Court has condemned that foolish idea. More specifically, the Supreme Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not expressly delegated to the feds via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate healthcare in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Remember in November !
When patriots elect Trump, Cruz, or whatever conservative they elect, they also need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support the president, but also protect the states from unconstitutional federal government overreach as evidenced by unconstitutional federal funding for intrastate schooling, likewise for Obamacare and possibly Trumpcare.
Also, consider that such a Congress would probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.