Quote:
Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
SAM wants to extend something similar to the whole country. I was making a parellel argument using the cutoffs as an example of what would occur to most of us. Agian, I do not have much problem with providing an extended safety net. I have a problem with screwing things up for the vast majority of the country.
|
Did you even read her post? What Oregon was doing affected only people who did not have coverage through their (or their spouse's or parent's) employer -- i.e., people who currently qualify for Medicaid, and people who aren't quite poor enough to qualify for Medicaid but nevertheless do not have group insurance. While this is quite a large number of people, it is not the "vast majority" of the country.
I suppose that such a system could provide an incentive for employers to eliminate coverage for employees. However, that ought to result either in higher regular wages for the employees (or better other types of benefits) or lower prices for whatever the employer produces.
Sorry if this repeats what someone says; it bugged me too much to obey the "read THEN post" rule.
