Posts Tagged ‘insurance’

192326_600

Special mention

pettj20170301_low garcie20170301_low

aca

source

As readers know, I am no fan of the current U.S. healthcare system.

The U.S. healthcare system, as it is currently configured, only really works for those who make a profit—selling health insurance, pharmaceuticals, and in-patient and acute-care services in hospitals—and those who have the wherewithal to finance their own healthcare.

But Republican plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, will move us even further from the goal of providing universal, affordable, high-quality healthcare for the American people.

According to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office (pdf), both the number of people who do not have health insurance and the premiums paid by people who do purchase individual health insurance will likely rise in dramatic fashion:

The number of people who are uninsured would increase by 18 million in the first new plan year following enactment of the bill. Later, after the elimination of the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid eligibility and of subsidies for insurance purchased through the ACA marketplaces, that number would increase to 27 million, and then to 32 million in 2026.

Premiums in the nongroup market (for individual policies purchased through the marketplaces or directly from insurers) would increase by 20 percent to 25 percent—relative to projections under current law—in the first new plan year following enactment. The increase would reach about 50 percent in the year following the elimination of the Medicaid expansion and the marketplace subsidies, and premiums would about double by 2026.

Oh, and not to be overlooked, repealing the Affordable Care Act would provide an immediate windfall tax cut to the highest-income Americans while raising taxes significantly on about 7 million low- and moderate-income families.

huck2dec

Special mention

download-2 188895_600

183538_600

Special mention

183532_600 183540_600

wasserman-7-7

Special mention

166070_600 jieGn.AuSt.79

b24e3b2a-c70a-498b-917a-ed7176735de6-1020x712

Special mention

image universal_health_care

21cSafetyNet-fig5NEWNEW

source

Maybe now that the proportion of unemployed workers on jobless benefits has fallen to an all-time low (thereby undermining John Boehner’s belief they don’t really want to work and prefer to just sit around, relying on government handouts) but the number of poor people remains at an all-time high, perhaps it’s time to take another look at Jonathan Swift’s “Modest Proposal” to advance the public good, relieve the poor, and give some pleasure to the rich:

The number of souls in this kingdom being usually reckoned one million and a half, of these I calculate there may be about two hundred thousand couple whose wives are breeders; from which number I subtract thirty thousand couple, who are able to maintain their own children, (although I apprehend there cannot be so many, under the present distresses of the kingdom) but this being granted, there will remain an hundred and seventy thousand breeders. I again subtract fifty thousand, for those women who miscarry, or whose children die by accident or disease within the year. There only remain an hundred and twenty thousand children of poor parents annually born. The question therefore is, How this number shall be reared, and provided for? which, as I have already said, under the present situation of affairs, is utterly impossible by all the methods hitherto proposed. For we can neither employ them in handicraft or agriculture; we neither build houses, (I mean in the country) nor cultivate land: they can very seldom pick up a livelihood by stealing till they arrive at six years old; except where they are of towardly parts, although I confess they learn the rudiments much earlier; during which time they can however be properly looked upon only as probationers: As I have been informed by a principal gentleman in the county of Cavan, who protested to me, that he never knew above one or two instances under the age of six, even in a part of the kingdom so renowned for the quickest proficiency in that art.

I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl before twelve years old, is no saleable commodity, and even when they come to this age, they will not yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half a crown at most, on the exchange; which cannot turn to account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriments and rags having been at least four times that value.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasie, or a ragout.

Of course, Swift’s proposal would work even better in our own times, since according to conservative thinkers the lives of the poor are even better—which means their children should be even more delectable. In addition, even though the one percent have given up their role as “job creators,” their escalating incomes should be sufficient to purchase infant flesh. And, as Swift explains, because “they have already devoured most of the parents, [they] seem to have the best title to the children.”

Update

These days, of course, as a friend of mine informed me, many of the the rich prefer to eat only free range and organic and to deal directly with the breeder rather than through an unscrupulous supplier.