That is one of the major reasons the public option was so very important as a premium cost cutting mechanism. That is also why insurance companies lobbied so hard against it. For this very reason. The public option should be on the table again right now but there isn't much of a political appetite to have that fight again by the democrats with the election coming up. But... you know. Socialism and all.
If we just "got stuff" from the government premiums would not be going up. It depends on what you describe as being successful. If success is maximizing profits than you are right governments won't do as well as private sector. And the private sector still controls their insurance companies. This is still private sector's insurance companies, it just has new laws that it needs to follow. But if success is getting more people access to health care then it is a success. Tens of millions of people now have access to health care they desperately need. That in itself is a success. Before people with pre-existing conditions (the ones who need healthcare the absolute most) were left out to be ruined by their health or the cost of their treatments. That is not a success. And the fact that claims went up (NOT healthcare costs, but claims) shows just how much this act was needed.
Nice heartfelt post. I mean that sincerely. But I want to talk about the bolded part because it is a major point of difference between me and you. Because the Civil Rights Act does exactly that, and is not preferential treatment. You have a constitutional right to life right? But if no laws were made to prosecute murder do you have that right at all? Can you sue someone for a violation of your right to life after you are dead? No. So to protect those rights and incentivize society to not deprive people of their right to life we have created laws against murder to punish people who violate that right. In theory you seem to think that since you have a constitutional right to life you shouldn't be murdered and therefore you don't need murder laws, and that society and community should resolve murder by shunning it and not have the government codefying with a morality bludgeon new laws against murder. And to do so is "faith by the sword". Civil Rights is no different. It is a protection of rights. Even though minorities may have constitutional rights, if there is no remedy for violations of those rights than they have no rights at all. Civil Rights protects all classes including white and Christian. It isn't preferential treatment it is codefying protection of people's rights so violations of their rights are actually actionable.
Except the "weird expense" for the insurance company in this case is actually paying more claims. If insurance companies make more than 20% profit off of the premiums then you actually get a rebate check. Also energy companies have local monopolies so there is no competition to keep prices in check. Just government oversight. It is possible that insurance companies cook the books in order to justify hikes and I worry about rate increases not getting proper scrutiny when requested, so those are fair concerns but at least with insurance there is competition.
You don't think there was anything wrong with our health care system in the first place?
I fail to make the connection. Energy companies have local monopolies and part of ACA is that it caps profits on premiums. 80% of premium revenue must be spent on health care payments.
As the ACA is implemented there will be adjustments but eventually rates will stabilize. Insurance companies can request rate hikes but that doesn't meant they will get them. Anything over 10% has to be justified to a commission. It shows how important this law is. There was obviously pent up demand for health services that were not available or not affordable before ACA. The rate increases are a result of people getting the health care they desperately need. That is a good thing
So are you saying that those two life experiences are why you hate black people? Or are you saying that black people not showing proper humility perpetuates racism? I swear, as soon as some of you guys post "reverse racism" is the real issue and until we deal with it nothing will ever change the predictable posters jump in with pie and support.
It has been there before. I don't believe it was ever lower than @70% between 1950 and when Reagan took office in 1980. At its highest it was at 92% I think We also had great economic growth with those high marginal rates. Not saying we should go that high again (neither is Sanders), just saying we have been there and people still worked hard to be wealthy and economy was strong
Sounds like another reason to raise minimum wage nationwide. If it results in increasing of prices for consumer goods that means inflation increases which means feds rates can go up. Win win and economy will be stronger, more stable, and better equipped to deal with future shocks
No. All that is from several different studies/analysis from many different research groups and universities and also from the Census Bureau . Also I don't believe anything I posted was from that Young Invincibles study I also don't visit think progress unless someone posts a link here. The only partisan websites I visit with any regularity is HuffPo and Drudge. Drudge just to see what is on there, HuffPo more for their entertainment news section