"Boating All Out" wrote in message
...


With everybody in the system your "hypothetical" premium of $15k won't
hold. It's actuarially unsound, and based on that premium paying for
the uninsured and other inflated U.S. health care costs.
Of course you know by now that the current U.S. health care/insurance
system is the world's least efficient. Right?
Subsidies are pegged now in the AHCA up to 400% of poverty level,
which
is $88k for a family of 4. They won't pay more than 9.5% of their
income for insurance premiums.
I haven't seen anything for above 400% of poverty level, but a
reasonable view is your %100k family wouldn't go past 10% of income
for
premiums before their squawking about "unfairness" would be heard, and
rightfully so. Still less than they're paying now, but their expense
should be capped. Only fair.
Congress can address this as it comes up. (haha)
Likewise the tax for not carrying insurance. That can easily be
raised
to near the cost of what they would pay in premiums, bringing those
deadbeats to heel.
Some will call this overbearing government. Others will call it civic
responsibility. In any case, there will be tweaks to the law.

--------------------------------

Thanks. In theory it makes sense I guess, but certainly the plan will
have
to be tweaked and holes plugged. I am not sure I buy the fact that
more
people will be in the "system" thereby lowering insurance rates. In
fact,
I can envision as many or more exiting the market for health insurance
and just paying the tax. I suspect that having a mandate that
"forces"
those who can afford to pay to do so would have changed the
Supreme Court decision. The wording of the plan carefully avoided
that.

It's screwed up. But it's a first step.

Eisboch (a conservative who believes health care for all "is" a
federal government responsibility)