C'mon, CSM, play fair. Abolishing the 3 to 1 ratio rule will immediately lower the premiums that younger workers pay, because they won't be subsidizing older workers. Meanwhile, an effective means for employers to satisfy their own mandate requirements by providing cash to encourage employees to go to the ACA exchanges will bring more younger, healthier lives into the pool of insurables. Again, the bottom line is lower premiums as the risk is spread among a larger pool. That's insurance 101, not evidence that I'm not "sincere" in wanting the working poor to have affordable insurance.
Shouldn't you be supporting single payer, where insurance is paid for out of general tax revenues? If your concern is the working poor, that's the means by which coverage can be made most affordable, but letting the rich subsidize the poor.
First, I am playing fair. You claim to be concerned about the "working poor," however the realities and results of big government programs brings harm to those people. It happens every time, no matter the program. Progressives therefore only use the term in order to advance their own preferred big government programs, they use the term "working poor" as an emotional hammer. It isn't about real concern.
If it were about real concern, then you would not be advocating the very thing that I showed you actually harms the working poor. Instead, you just keep advancing an agenda that conforms to your own preferred big government program. You can try to twist and turn the language, but the fact will remain that entire objective of big government health insurance is to redistribute wealth. It just so happens to steal from the younger generations (poor) to give to the older generations (rich.)
Second, no I would never advocate single payer, or any such thing. You are offering a false narrative that our only choice is between fixing the ACA and going to single payer. That is a false choice from someone that has no faith in man and turns to the government to solve all of life's ills. The fact of the matter is that we would have an unlimited number of options, if we were to let the market work.
Third, I never said that the working poor was my concern. You used them to advance your agenda, which is very typical of utopians. I showed you how your concern is false and your response is saying that my concern for them is false. Hence, you have proven my very point.
Finally, you also seem to be conflating Health Insurance with actual Medical Care. I will concede that many other societies have better rates of "insurance," however I assure you that our society offers the broadest and most comprehensive medical care. Our survival rates from disease are the best in the world, we have the broadest coverage of services in the world, we have the most medicines available, and on and on and on. The best way to "knock America down a notch" is to continue down the path of centralizing the health insurance market.
