Still most limey to have a cell phone, cable T.V, smoke cigs, ETC that could be dropped in order to afford coverage. A person in that situation really only needs catastrophic coverage which up until Obamacare was very cheap.
This is a generalization of what all people who make $18,000 do; doesn't apply to everyone. But if people are leeching off the entitlement system in such a way that they can make $18,000 and still afford all of that (which many are), then fix the entitlement system. Doesn't have anything to do with the healthcare system.
As far as catastrophic coverage being adequate, that's not the case. The cost of various medicines and treatments for even non-catastrophic events can be astronomical. There are many reasons for this, some of which can't and shouldn't be addressed by government legislation, but it's incorrect to presume that the only medical treatment an average person shouldn't be able to afford without insurance is catastrophic in nature.
I'll help pay their premiums when I am allowed to look into their financed and make the changes needed n order to budget what what they truly can afford. If I can not find the money in their budget by canceling luxury items that are not needed, I will help on the insurance side.
Again, this person is still uninsured under Obamacare so why the hell is it all for?
The government has calculated national standards for living. These are used by a variety of government agencies to determine who is eligible for government assistance programs, as well as to create a defined poverty level. The underlying premise is that, regardless of whether someone is choosing to waste their money on unnecessary items, they still wouldn't be able to afford the necessary items based on national and regional standards/averages for those items. I'm not arguing that these national standards are necessarily accurate or should be the only factor considered, but they're there.
If you want to require every applicant to submit a financial information statement to insure that not only are they legitimately classified as within the parameters of the poverty level, but that they also don't have unnecessary expenses, be my guest...but you're just advocating that the government spend more resources to produce, regulate, and review necessary documents and procedures. Unless the government finds some money hidden somewhere (or if they ever become fiscally responsible), that cost is going to be covered by the taxpayers. Will it be less than the ACA's costs? We wouldn't know until the government implements it, but I'm just pointing out that you're advocating that we spend taxpayers' money instead of spending taxpayers' money.
49 Replies
7598 Views