Simple answer, the fundamental transformation in this situation is this: those with insurance before 2009 no longer have it because it was made too expensive and invasive. Meanwhile, they have been replaced on the insurance rolls by those who did not have it before because they are being subsidized to buy it. Kind of a shell game.
BTW, this is a win win for the insurance companies. If they lose money, virtually impossible under the rules, the government bails them out. Meanwhile, the taxpayers pay more taxes (or more debt) plus those who had insurance before either don’t have it now or pay more for what they did have with about 50% of the benefits of having it.
Welcome to Obamaland where up is down, down is up and social justice rules.
Yep. You are absolutely correct.
BTW, this is a win win for the insurance companies. If they lose money, virtually impossible under the rules, the government bails them out. Meanwhile, the taxpayers pay more taxes (or more debt) plus those who had insurance before either don’t have it now or pay more for what they did have with about 50% of the benefits of having it.
You said it all, in two concise paragraphs.
I disagree. The number claimed is likely at least half and probably 6/10 people that had insurance and lost it. The other fraction might be those that had no insurance before.
Once they understand that they have no insurance because the premium and deductable combined effectively mean there is no insurance, they will drop it. They are getting nothing for theri money. The question should not be have they paid the premium but if they paid the second and third pemiums
Obama’s policies have a common theme - not of raising up the have-nots, but whacking the crap out of the haves.