If it’s Affordable, Why Does it Need to be Subsidized?

Sometimes the simplest questions are never asked.

I ponder this as I read an article regarding Oregon finally getting rid of their State Health Care Exchange.

I realize this next statement will not be a surprise for most of you who read my inanities, but…

We Don’t Have Any Money!

And When I say “We”, I mean The United States of America.  And When I say “Money”, I mean actual wealth upon which to base our currency in order for it to represent a frozen form of production at a consistent level.  And When I say That… I mean we’re quadrupling the money supply by printing dollars out of thin air, which is one of the single most horrific jokes ever played upon the American People.  We are devaluing (read “stealth taxing” or better yet “Stealing from”) Everyone who has a dollar without them understanding it’s happening to them.  Just 10-years ago a ‘dollar’ was worth, let’s say, a $1.  Today it’s worth $.25.  And we’re supposedly using some of that ‘magically new’ money to Subsidize something which we were sold as “Affordable”.  Remember Obama Care is actually called The Affordable Care Act?  Of course you do.

This entire legislative abortion needs to be repealed.

It needs to be replaced with legislation allowing Insurance Companies to conduct business across state lines as all other businesses are allowed to do by virtue of the Commerce Clause.

The Insurance Companies would be quick… quick as in that very day… to have plans ready for Individuals to sign up and possess Health Insurance.  Not Health Care mind you… but apparently having Health Insurance make you Healthier, rather than having Health Care.  (I know, I’ve learned a bunch of stuff over the last 6-years that I never knew or thought could be known.)

The Solution Seems pretty Simple if you don’t allow certain corrupting variables get it the way.

But then… how would the State Legislators and the good, honest, folks in DC extort… sorry, control… no… influence the Evil Insurance Companies… wait, no… their Evil Voters… not Evil!  Illegal? No.  Informed?  Um… let’s just say Voters,  and when I say influence I mean make sure their Voters get the very best Health Insurance from Companies which donate money to certain political campaigns… no, no, that sounds bad too…  Evil Companies?  Or, Evil Political Campaigns?  It just all get’s so confusing.

I’ll have to think about this over a six-pack.

Advertisements

About Mike

Background is in Media with a little History Major thrown in just to be annoying. View all posts by Mike

6 responses to “If it’s Affordable, Why Does it Need to be Subsidized?

  • insanitybytes22

    Not even a six pack will make this all make sense. Perhaps nibbling on a magic mushroom or something?

    I’m still trying to figure out why I have to pay a fine for not having “free” insurance I cannot afford even with a subsidy, insurance with a deductible that exceeds my yearly income and covers nothing. Other than that, I think it’s just awesome, marvelous, the best thing since slice bread.

    Now if I could just figure out if this non-fine fine, that shall not be viewed as a tax for the purpose of tax penalties, actually has tax penalties associated with it’s non tax status, I could get my blasted taxes filed.

    Like

  • Invisible Mikey

    Because the word “affordable” can mean, but doesn’t always mean without subsidy. In plenty of instances the subsidy is what MAKES a thing “affordable”. You can have what’s called “affordable housing”, and it can be both with subsidy on a sliding scale (Section 8), and/or just lower cost to rent or own.

    Like

    • Mike

      Mikey… someone is paying for it.

      Affordable
      [ əˈfôrdəbəl ]
      ADJECTIVE

      inexpensive; reasonably priced:
      “affordable housing”

      Powered by OxfordDictionaries · © Oxford University Press

      Did the Idiots at Oxford get it wrong?

      And, Wouldn’t it be a bit more honest to call it The Redistributive Care Act?

      Good to hear from you Mikey.

      Like

      • Invisible Mikey

        I suppose the “more affordable” care act would have been more accurate, since that was the stated goal of the law, to have coverage be more affordable than it was under the prior system. I know that hasn’t been the universal result. It IS more affordable for some, and more expensive for others. Medicaid is a subsidy, and the majority of the previously uninsured that got insurance under the PPACA qualified for it because the boundary requirements for assistance were expanded.

        Oxford is a wonderful resource, but it’s not universal. Section 8 housing is subsidized affordable housing, but the same housing can be occupied by tenants who are not subsidized.

        Thanks for the welcome!

        Like

        • Mike

          I think you’re on to something here Mikey.
          I would offer your title of “More Affordable for Some Care Act” the best so far… now we just need to figure out who it is more affordable for… and what care you can actually get for it.

          Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: