Republican Study Committee Chairman Steve Scalise, R-La., has a bill which is a 180-degree turn from Obamacare. It would offer standardized tax deductions across income levels, while the ACA provides tax credits on a sliding scale, depending on age and income. Under the GOP plan, everyone would be given the same income- or payroll-tax deduction: $7,500 for individuals and $20,000 for families. For low-income taxpayers, the deduction would be up to the amount of their income taxes or payroll taxes owed. The plans also differ in their treatment of low-income individuals and those with preexisting conditions. Under the Republican plan, individuals not currently on Medicaid or Medicare would be buying their insurance on the existing individual market. The GOP belief is that market competition would drive premium costs down so there are no protections in place for lower-income individuals. While the ACA offers states the chance to expand Medicaid and provides higher subsidies for lower-income individuals, under the GOP plan, those individuals would rely on their standardized tax deductions. The Republican plan, like the ACA, provides some protections for people with preexisting conditions. But unlike the ACA, which sends these individuals to the exchange, the GOP plan reinstates the state high-risk pools and expands federal support to $25 billion over 10 years, while capping their premiums at 200 percent of the average premium in the state. the bill is still a work in progress, but it would contain cost by market forces, but there aren't any raised taxes, nor any mandates. the estimate is 19 million of the currently uninsured 30 million would sign up over a 10 year period. That beats Obamacare by 11 million. http://mobile.nationaljournal.com/daily/republican-alternative-to-obamacare-relies-on-repeal-20130922
7 months ago
Last edited at 8:12AM on 9/24/2013
Honest Employers who give workers a fair weeks hours of work (full time) and healthcare. It's not rocket science. BUT neither party would EVER admit to that need. It is too 'profit oriented' for (R)s and not social(ist) enough for (D)s
All this brought about by business that complains 'we can't afford full time with benefits', and a Government that allows business to dictate how to 'socially care for the masses' (insurance co's) The two equal government handouts, and government subsidy of business. (since employees who work less than 30 hours are NOT required to get benefits, the govt must pick up the slack) OUR TAXES fill the gap.
I've not seen one. Several have stated from the beginning that their focus is NOT to replace it with something "better" and work in the interest of the country; rather, their focus is to oppose anything the president does, period.
In Canada nobody falls through the system as health care is universal but not free as WE ALL PAY TAXES. No chid or elderly person is left out. The Health departments Federal and Provincial are always working to keep costs down. Sensible people do not run up the costs by going to the doctor for a mosquito bite! capitalism sure. We still have to pay our medications or ask for charity. In the US the honest working Joe is worried he/she will have to pay for all the lazy passive people on social assistance and there are many. They suck from the system and make no effort to find real work. Some are selling drugs on the side and paying no taxes. If you take for the common pot contribute something.