Intended consequences

Companies like McDonalds that offer crappy health care plans are going to be forced to improve their health care coverage or drop their coverage entirely and help pay for better plans on the public exchanges.

Despite what McDonalds and Republicans will tell you, that’s a feature, not a bug. Americans should expect a minimum baseline of coverage for their health care dollars, and now they’re going to get it.

7 Comments

  1. Todd

    Yep, raising costs so that employers can afford fewer employees is a good thing.

    The employed will get better health care and the unemployed will get on the dole. Big win.

  2. Ian

    You can pretty much dismiss any argument that uses “on the dole” as worthless. Get over it, we have some social welfare in this country. It isn’t going away.

  3. Chris

    Government isn’t raising the costs of health care, it’s being done by health care providers and insurance companies. The government is just making sure there is a minimum of care provided by an insurance program.

  4. THOMAS

    employers are mostly slave masters and only care about them selves.rarely do many provide a living wage while living high on the HOG..that’s capitalism. i am proud to collect my social security that i in fact paid for by working.i am glad that the dis enfranchised people in this society will get health insurance. BUSINESSES MUST BE TAXED MORE AND BUSINESS OWNERS FORCED TO LIVE UNDER AUSTERITY LIKE THEE REST OF US.they didn’t earn it, we the employees did. SO THERE LMFAO

  5. SisterSue

    You can pretty much dismiss any argument that uses “get over it” as worthless.

    …. I mean, is “get over it” an argument? Or is it simply dismissive. Is what Todd said so bothersome that we can’t even admit there might be some merit to it?

    And Chris, by forcing insurance companies to improve their coverage/plans the government is raising the cost of healthcare — at least temporarily. And that happens for a number of reasons. The simplest — insurance companies have greater cost. But, it also means that healthcare providers can drive up their prices — because insurance companies will have to foot the bill (it’s like a reverse monopoly where there’s only one buyer and he has to buy everything and at any cost).

    Do I think any of that is a reason to repeal our recent healthcare reform bill? No. But I think it would be pretty irresponsible to not even acknowledge that there are drawbacks. Or to think that they’re not worthy of discussion. How else can we begin to figure out what issues need to be addressed and which ones are simply growing pains.

  6. Ian

    I was being dismissive, hence why I said I could dismiss him. And no, there is no merit to his argument because it basically boils down to “poor people screwing over rich people” which is borderline delusional.

  7. SisterSue

    “And no, there is no merit to his argument because it basically boils down to ‘poor people screwing over rich people'”

    I think I missed the part where he said anything of the sort. I admit that “on the dole” has mildly negative connotations, but is it that inaccurate? Or that wrong for him to say?

    Could you explain a little further?

    ——

    By the way, if you’re suggesting that its implausible for “poor people [to] screw over rich people,” then I would argue that it’s your comment that’s delusional. There are countless examples of people exploiting our social programs — and many of those people (sometimes even whole communities) celebrate their actions as a way of “getting back at the man.” (reminder: I’m talking about the people who EXPLOIT the system as an example — and by no means mean to suggest that everyone who is “on the dole” is “on the take”)