Last edited Wed Feb 3, 2016, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)
And it is completely regressive, completely backwards in how it gives out allotment of care.
If you are well off yet not rich enough to avoid involving yourself in such nonsense, you are valued as a gold citizen and can receive care with a minimum of hassle.
If you are a struggling middle class household you are a silver valued citizen, you may receive care but pay dearly for the plan meaning maybe your vacation now involves a barbecue pit and not Disneyland, and if you need care, you must dip into ever decreasing savings or credit cards in order to actually receive it when you pay yet again at the door.
If you are struggling working class you are a bronze valued citizen, you can not really afford the insurance but eat more rice and beans and put off auto repairs to pay the premiums (hoping the car will last until the tax credits kick in), but you can't afford to ever use your insurance because your cards were maxed out long ago (probably to pay a premium), you have no money in the bank to speak of, and nothing in your pocket at the end of the month to pay the highest deductibles and co-pays possible under this system, custom designed to be the highest for the poorest, least valued citizens, the bronze people.
What could be more regressive than a system that is designed so those with the most need are given the highest bills (ones they can't pay) in order to obtain actual care at the door (so they never get to use their MANDATED insurance) and the well to do have plans designed for them to pay what is just change in their wallets at the door when they need care?
I could not think of a more regressive plan without involving leach pits for the poor myself and I have a good imagination.
Their should be no tiers in a system of health care rigged to insure the least affluent have the least chance of ever receiving care, if their must be tiers, they should be reversed into a progressive model where the poor pay the least when they need car and not the most, the pyramid is upside down people and the only reason this could make sense is if one wanted to force the working poor to pay premiums on insurance designed for them never to be able to actually use in order to make it cheaper for the well to do to get care while still providing obscene profits to unnecessary insurance middlemen and Viagra pushing pharma vultures.
Of course Hillary wants to build on this, she values people by their income just as this ass backward regressive system does.
The conclusions I leave to each to personally make as to why we have the regressive system we have and why Hillary wants to keep it this way.
= new reply since forum marked as read