Quote:
Originally Posted by classicman
So apparently you think this is a slam-dunk great deal. Interesting. I haven't really heard that position from anyone else, including those who support it. Everyone seems to think this is some type of compromise or a great first step.
shrug.
|
Where did I say it was a great deal?
I said there are always winners and losers and I identfied who I thought those winners and losers are.
And I said there are always trade-offs (compromises).
I am a political pragmatist. You take what you realistically can expect to get...a half (or in this case, three quarters) of a loaf is better than none.
added:
IMO, a better bill would have had a much stronger public option. I also dont think it is great that some Americans (far fewer than ever) will still slip through the cracks, but the will to add the cost of that (at taxpayer expense) was not there. I would have supported generating more revenue to pay for it by lowering the threshold for the income tax surcharge from $500k/$1 million to $250k/$500K (or 300/600).
Those were some of the trade-offs (compromises) that were made to make passage of the bill possible.
But none of the above are reasons for me NOT to support this bill.
Even with those trade-offs, there are some great provisions that potentially benefit all of us, most notably, the elimination of excluding coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, prohibiting rate discrimination (mostly to the benefit of women) and capping annual out-of-pocket expenses so that no one faces bankruptcy as a result of a long-term illness or medical crisis....and for those millions of hard-working Americans currently w/o employer-based coverage, the plan will offer a range of coverage options that will be much more affordable than presently available.