Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Individual health plans sold on Michigan's Affordable Care Act exchange will jump 16.7% next year
@Dan, If they raise capital and seek to make profits for shareholders they are capitalist. The prevailing government ideology so long as that ideology allows them to operate in such a fashion is irrelevant. By the way, there never has been a purely capitalistic or communistic country and fascism can exist in either system, and all countries are somewhat socialist, it being a matter of degrees as to how much the government owns and controls.
@Dan, If they raise capital and seek to make profits for shareholders they are capitalist. The prevailing government ideology so long as that ideology allows them to operate in such a fashion is irrelevant. By the way, there never has been a purely capitalistic or communistic country and fascism can exist in either system, and all countries are somewhat socialist, it being a matter of degrees as to how much the government owns and controls.
Then what are they if they lose money for their shareholder?
Amazing so many 'usually' intelligent people rely on divisive opinion programs that are only geared to selling advertising and making profits at their behalf. Entertainment at it's worst. For some reason, some people see talk radio as news and believable information.
Amazing so many 'usually' intelligent people rely on divisive opinion programs that are only geared to selling advertising and making profits at their behalf. Entertainment at it's worst. For some reason, some people see talk radio as news and believable information.
Nothing will change until the haves pay their fair share for the have nots. That may mean a tax on net worth along with an increase on income. I'm guessing many here structure their portfolios for capital gains instead of income. They need to pay their fair share. France has such a tax.
The burden is being place too heavily on the poor! And that is creating more poor. Business cut workers' hours to under 30 so they do not have to provide insurance. But that worker with less than 30 house has to buy insurance.
Those that are defending Obamacare should be among the first to volunteer extra payments or sponsor a low income worker and pay their insurance.
'Business cut workers' hours to under 30 so they do not have to provide insurance."
Well, there's the law ... ACA Ruling: You can now get sued for reducing employee's hours (HR Morning)
The big takeaway for employers: If employees can tie a reduction in their hours to an intent to skirt ACA requirements, you could be staring down the barrel of an expensive lawsuit.
There are the explanations for this, including CNN's observation that the economy is expanding, and KQED's observation that cutting hours just isn't good for running businesses.
As far as France's wealth tax goes, the only thing that it's got to do with health care is that it's a source of general revenue, and government budgets include health care expenditures. The matters are only loosely coupled.
Beyond that, France levies its tax on just 1% of its population - is that what you're suggesting for the US? While you may suggest that many people here focus on capital gains, I have my doubts that many people here are in the top 1% in wealth (around $8M).
How would you address the possibility of another Jarvis tax revolt? France limits its wealth tax to 75% of income, but that hardly seems like an adequate solution.
Don't get me wrong. I like the concept of a wealth tax. I just prefer well thought out ideas to platitudes, so I await your well thought out idea.
My well thought out idea for solving deficit issues in general for government programs is specifically a dramatic increase in the estate tax and short-term capital gains taxes, and lengthening the term for short-term to three or five years. You could end deficits, stock market speculation and trust fund kids like Paris Hilton in one fell swoop and there would be no disincentive to work. To the contrary, trust fund kids would suddenly have to make their own way in the world. Indeed, I believe there is one trust fund kid running for office right now whose life would have been dramatically different if the estate tax was much higher. And the U.S. currently has a net worth of about $85 trillion with the top 10% of adults controlling 85% of that wealth. A much higher estate tax on that top 10% would gradually pay off deficits over time as people died off. Regarding tax evasion, bear in mind the top 10% of people are a rather small population. Technologically, it wouldn't be too hard to keep track of them and make sure if they tried to evade by say moving to the Cayman Islands that they'd pay such a stiff exit tax they would regret it. The U.S. could also sign tax treaties with other nations as they don't like tax cheats either and the U.S. is a haven for some of theirs, and we're just more powerful than most other nations anyway so they'd be inclined to listen to us. The violation of said treaties could invoke stiff penalties on the nation harboring our tax cheats wealth. Obviously, it's much more complicated than that. In fact, politically because the top 10% owns both parties and the Supreme Court thanks to Citizens United, it is impossible right now. But you said no platitudes, MSF.
@LewisBraham - thanks for posting more than a line or two on your thoughts. It's a good start, especially since you're working down from your objectives (increased revenue, reduced stock market speculation, etc.)
Personally, I agree with you about strengthening the estate tax and increasing its rates. The tax has many positive features, some of which you commented on. It mitigates the propensity of wealth to become increasingly concentrated. It does not interfere with the ability of a living person to do what he wants with his money.
At the same time, it exists largely as an expediency - as a relatively simple way to tax income (unrecognized gains), albeit deferred. In contrast, a direct tax on wealth might do a better job at addressing severe economic inequalities in the current generation as opposed to succeeding generations.
Under present law, what counts as part of the estate is complex. Trusts and insurance policies make taxing estate assets especially convoluted. As you wrote, the odds of getting "tax simplification" along these lines are slim and none. How the Billionaires Get Around the Estate Tax (Columbia Journalism Review, 2013). http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/bloomberg_waltons_how_billionaires_get_around_estate_tax.php
As you noted, increasing the holding time required for long term gains would reduce speculation (rather than substantially increase tax revenue). Though shouldn't we be hearing from all the indexers (efficient marketeers) shouting that this is harmful, that it impedes efficient allocation of resources? While that's somewhat tongue in cheek, I think it's fair to discuss what speculation issues this is trying to address.
Looking at taxing income: Recognizing (and taxing) gains annually regardless of whether realized might accelerate revenue and also cut back on one of the tax dodges - borrowing against securities for "income" (cash flow) instead of realizing the gains. See, e.g. this NYTimes op-ed, The Zuckerberg Tax. It suggests marking to market and taxing accordingly.
I already mentioned a reason for taxing income as opposed to wealth - cash flow. Income almost by definition entails having cash, so taxes on it can be paid. Taxing wealth, or imputing income (whether by mark to market or even something as "simple" as imputed interest on TIPS) may be painful for those without cash on hand.
It's difficult to come up with the right mix of tax types, the right exceptions and considerations, but I believe it is doable and agree that the estate tax is a good starting point. My objective here is to offer a sense of tradeoffs, issues, and complexity. Also a small glimpse into my personal thinking and preferences.
and what is feasible to pass and enact beyond some VAT
That is what other nations have done and that will be done in the USA. Again the poor will be burdened with the debt. And what little enjoyment they now have in life - a fast food dinner, a beer, a movie, etc. will become a rarity.
Just trying to make people feel better. My MIL LOST Obamacare. How's that?
Seriously folks if you had another option for Healthcare you wouldn't need Obamacare. With insurance or without insurance is the only call to make. I'm not saying increased premiums don't hurt. However unless you are in your 20s, you can't feel sanguine about not having insurance at all.
I'm ready to sacrifice starbucks $4 latte's and vacations to pay for insurance if I need to. Are you?
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal spending on premium subsidies will total $43 billion in the current fiscal year and $672 billion over the coming decade — costs that could increase if premiums and subsidies continue to rise. Still, the subsidy costs are much less than the budget office originally predicted because enrollment is much lower and health costs have grown more slowly.
In his remarks last week on the Affordable Care Act, made in a conference call with thousands of supporters and health insurance counselors, Mr. Obama said that after subsidies are taken into account, “more than seven in 10 consumers will be able to find a plan for less than $75 a month.”
But 15 percent of the 10 million people with marketplace coverage under the 2010 health law do not receive subsidies, mainly because their incomes are too high. And the administration estimates that 6.9 million people buy insurance on their own outside the marketplace, so they cannot obtain subsidies, which are available only through the exchanges.
IMHO, for those who do not think that the ACA is being properly subsidized from many directions, well.................... What the heck, just add it to the debt.
I debated even whether to comment again on this thread, seems like any political discussion this year is a no-win situation, and yes the ACA is political. Being a CPA and business consultant in Michigan, I would suggest you go out and talk to small business owners who provide health insurance to their employees, and get their take on the ACA. I can assure you they do not think it is working well in Michigan, and neither do I as a multiple business owner.
@briboe69 I suggest talking to any of the millions of people who were previously denied health insurance before Obamacare because they had a pre-existing condition or were dropped from their insurance plans because they developed a chronic expensive to treat illness. I also suggest talking not just to small business owners but to small business employees who previously had no insurance at all because their employer wasn't required to offer it to them. Yes, the law has flaws and small business owners need some greater support getting insurance for their employees as private insurers have been gouging them, but the average citizen is better with the law than without.
@briboe69 I suggest talking to any of the millions of people who were previously denied health insurance before Obamacare because they had a pre-existing condition or were dropped from their insurance plans because they developed a chronic expensive to treat illness. I also suggest talking not just to small business owners but to small business employees who previously had no insurance at all because their employer wasn't required to offer it to them. Yes, the law has flaws and small business owners need some greater support getting insurance for their employees as private insurers have been gouging them, but the average citizen is better with the law than without.
I suggest you speak with people who: Had their hours cut below 30hrs/wk and now have to pay for health insurance Lost their job because of Obamacare Had their non-Obamacare health insurance canceled Could not keep their doctor Are paying more for health insurance now; then before Obamacare Are paying more for products and services because the increases in Obamacare it passed along to the consumer. Are struggling financially because of the cost of Obamacare Young and going to have to deal with the long term financial aspects of Obamacare Have gone bankrupt because of the high deductibles. Have difficulty finding a doctor because some doctors are not accepting Obamacare policies
I guess as long as it is only the poor, voiceless and powerless who are harmed by Obamacare then haves will defend it. The pain of the poor and working poor is real and is more then a 'flaw' in the system. The ranks of the poor and working poor are increasing. Maybe the 'haves' need to feel the pain before it is changed.
@Dan I'm not really sure you want to know the truth:
The truth!? Are you saying the pain the poor are feeling is not real? The oppression of the poor is not real? The insensitivity towards the poor is not real?
Are you blaming the poor for not moving to state with Obamacare Medicare?
To quote Hillary Clinton: What difference, at this point, does it make?!
@Dan I am saying that the benefits have outweighed the drawbacks and that most of the pain the poor have experienced has not been caused by the law but by those actively seeking to block the law's proper implementation by refusing to expand Medicaid.
An old one liner - a recession is when other people lose their jobs, a depression is when I lose mine. In a nutshell, that's one of the problems with using anecdotal data. Distorted perspective.
Yes, some people are worse off than before. (At least if you discount their former risk of going on the dole because their coverage was capped or because their small company employer would cancel its plan if one employee got sick and rates shot up, or ...)
While I'm not poor, I am certainly feeling the pain (DH's phraseology). I've had my non-ACA plan cancelled. I'm facing a $2K increase in my 2016 ACA individual (not family) plan rate for 2017. A specialist I use takes no ACA plan, so I have to either pay cash out of pocket (and he won't even give a cash discount), or drop a doctor I've used for many years.
So if one really wants to speak with people who have been harmed (again, not my choice of words) by the ACA, one can start with me. I'm trying to move the needle. I've talked with my state Senator's office (he's on the Insurance Committee). I'm communicating with state regulators (ACA may be federal legislation, but it is implemented and regulated at the state level). What are you doing?
For more objective perspectives, people have given lots of links above. Or just try any of the sites that crunch the numbers and analyze the laws in depth. Kff.org and HealthAffairs.org are two good places to start.
@Dan I am saying that the benefits have outweighed the drawbacks and that most of the pain the poor have experienced has not been caused by the law but by those actively seeking to block the law's proper implementation by refusing to expand Medicaid.
The truth of that can not be validated because there are no alternatives.
@Dan, "The truth of that can not be validated because there are no alternatives." That's inaccurate because the alternative is what we had before the legislation was passed. And there is ample evidence cited by myself, Davidrmoran and others that a significant number of people have benefited from the law and a lot more people now have insurance and access to medical care than did previously. I'm not saying the law isn't flawed. It has many flaws, but it was the only law that could be passed given the obstruction it faced and still faces. But the solution is not just get rid of the law. It's to improve it.
@Dan, "The truth of that can not be validated because there are no alternatives." That's inaccurate because the alternative is what we had before the legislation was passed. And there is ample evidence cited by myself, Davidrmoran and others that a significant number of people have benefited from the law and a lot more people now have insurance and access to medical care than did previously. I'm not saying the law isn't flawed. It has many flaws, but it was the only law that could be passed given the obstruction it faced and still faces. But the solution is not just get rid of the law. It's to improve it.
Right now the poor are being burdened with the cost. Go tell a person who had their hours cut below 30 hours and now works 2 or more jobs to pay for Obamacare and basic living that she should be thankful because it was worse.
Paying increased costs for services and goods as the high cost of Obamacare is priced in.
Had their hours cut below 30hrs/wk and now have to pay for health insurance Lost their job because of Obamacare Had their non-Obamacare health insurance canceled Could not keep their doctor Are paying more for health insurance now; then before Obamacare Are paying more for products and services because the increases in Obamacare it passed along to the consumer. Are struggling financially because of the cost of Obamacare Young and going to have to deal with the long term financial aspects of Obamacare Have gone bankrupt because of the high deductibles. Have difficulty finding a doctor because some doctors are not accepting Obamacare policies In the future a VAT will be added and the poor again will be hurt the most.
Please give us a solution that helps the poor and does not hurt them.
Comments
By the way, there never has been a purely capitalistic or communistic country and fascism can exist in either system, and all countries are somewhat socialist, it being a matter of degrees as to how much the government owns and controls.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/28/health/us-pays-more-for-drugs/
Why pharmaceuticals are cheaper abroad
Geniuses?
My favorite line in the article is this: Amazing so many 'usually' intelligent people rely on divisive opinion programs that are only geared to selling advertising and making profits at their behalf. Entertainment at it's worst. For some reason, some people see talk radio as news and believable information.
The burden is being place too heavily on the poor! And that is creating more poor. Business cut workers' hours to under 30 so they do not have to provide insurance. But that worker with less than 30 house has to buy insurance.
Those that are defending Obamacare should be among the first to volunteer extra payments or sponsor a low income worker and pay their insurance.
Obamacare is Stealing Our Eating-Out Money
http://www.lifezette.com/healthzette/obamacare-stealing-eating-out-money/
The Non-Affordable Care Act’s Restaurant Recession
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-non-affordable-care-acts-restaurant-recession-1477863331
https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Non-Affordable+Care+Act’s+Restaurant+Recession&oq=The+Non-Affordable+Care+Act’s+Restaurant+Recession&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60j69i64&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Yeah, the faith model for charity --- that'll work.
How do you think it should be done? (again)
Well, there's the law ...
ACA Ruling: You can now get sued for reducing employee's hours (HR Morning)http://www.hrmorning.com/aca-ruling-you-can-get-sued-reducing-employee-hours/
There's data ...
No, Obamacare is not reducing employees' hours (CNN/Money)
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/25/news/economy/obamacare-employees-hours/
There are the explanations for this, including CNN's observation that the economy is expanding, and KQED's observation that cutting hours just isn't good for running businesses.
To Avoid Obamacare, Some Fast Food Restaurants Cut Staff Hours. Did It Work?
https://ww2.kqed.org/stateofhealth/2016/01/25/to-avoid-obamacare-some-fast-food-restaurants-cut-staff-did-it-work/
Of course there are the fact checkers, which is I suppose where one should really begin ...
Donald Trump wrongly claims there are many more part-time jobs because of health care law (PolitiFact)
http://www.politifact.com/arizona/statements/2016/jun/22/donald-trump/donald-trump-wrongly-claims-there-are-more-part-ti/
As far as France's wealth tax goes, the only thing that it's got to do with health care is that it's a source of general revenue, and government budgets include health care expenditures. The matters are only loosely coupled.
Beyond that, France levies its tax on just 1% of its population - is that what you're suggesting for the US? While you may suggest that many people here focus on capital gains, I have my doubts that many people here are in the top 1% in wealth (around $8M).
There are some obvious implementation problems with wealth taxes. They motivate "tax evasion [that] reduces the effectiveness of the tax and the capital flight hurts economic growth. In a 2009 paper on France’s wealth tax, Eric Pichet found evidence for both of those effects."
https://newrepublic.com/article/117499/heres-what-we-know-about-thomas-pikettys-wealth-capital-tax
That's a phenomenon observed in the US - the Florida intangibles tax led to FLINTs (aka FLITEs) - trusts designed to circumvent the tax.
Another obvious problem is that with rising real estate prices, people may be left "capital rich’ but ‘income poor’ and who may, therefore, find it difficult to pay the tax."
https://www.french-property.com/guides/france/finance-taxation/taxation/wealth-tax/
How would you address the possibility of another Jarvis tax revolt? France limits its wealth tax to 75% of income, but that hardly seems like an adequate solution.
Don't get me wrong. I like the concept of a wealth tax. I just prefer well thought out ideas to platitudes, so I await your well thought out idea.
My well thought out idea for solving deficit issues in general for government programs is specifically a dramatic increase in the estate tax and short-term capital gains taxes, and lengthening the term for short-term to three or five years. You could end deficits, stock market speculation and trust fund kids like Paris Hilton in one fell swoop and there would be no disincentive to work. To the contrary, trust fund kids would suddenly have to make their own way in the world. Indeed, I believe there is one trust fund kid running for office right now whose life would have been dramatically different if the estate tax was much higher. And the U.S. currently has a net worth of about $85 trillion with the top 10% of adults controlling 85% of that wealth. A much higher estate tax on that top 10% would gradually pay off deficits over time as people died off. Regarding tax evasion, bear in mind the top 10% of people are a rather small population. Technologically, it wouldn't be too hard to keep track of them and make sure if they tried to evade by say moving to the Cayman Islands that they'd pay such a stiff exit tax they would regret it. The U.S. could also sign tax treaties with other nations as they don't like tax cheats either and the U.S. is a haven for some of theirs, and we're just more powerful than most other nations anyway so they'd be inclined to listen to us. The violation of said treaties could invoke stiff penalties on the nation harboring our tax cheats wealth. Obviously, it's much more complicated than that. In fact, politically because the top 10% owns both parties and the Supreme Court thanks to Citizens United, it is impossible right now.
Personally, I agree with you about strengthening the estate tax and increasing its rates. The tax has many positive features, some of which you commented on. It mitigates the propensity of wealth to become increasingly concentrated. It does not interfere with the ability of a living person to do what he wants with his money.
At the same time, it exists largely as an expediency - as a relatively simple way to tax income (unrecognized gains), albeit deferred. In contrast, a direct tax on wealth might do a better job at addressing severe economic inequalities in the current generation as opposed to succeeding generations.
Under present law, what counts as part of the estate is complex. Trusts and insurance policies make taxing estate assets especially convoluted. As you wrote, the odds of getting "tax simplification" along these lines are slim and none.
How the Billionaires Get Around the Estate Tax (Columbia Journalism Review, 2013).
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/bloomberg_waltons_how_billionaires_get_around_estate_tax.php
As you noted, increasing the holding time required for long term gains would reduce speculation (rather than substantially increase tax revenue). Though shouldn't we be hearing from all the indexers (efficient marketeers) shouting that this is harmful, that it impedes efficient allocation of resources? While that's somewhat tongue in cheek, I think it's fair to discuss what speculation issues this is trying to address.
Looking at taxing income: Recognizing (and taxing) gains annually regardless of whether realized might accelerate revenue and also cut back on one of the tax dodges - borrowing against securities for "income" (cash flow) instead of realizing the gains. See, e.g. this NYTimes op-ed, The Zuckerberg Tax. It suggests marking to market and taxing accordingly.
I already mentioned a reason for taxing income as opposed to wealth - cash flow. Income almost by definition entails having cash, so taxes on it can be paid. Taxing wealth, or imputing income (whether by mark to market or even something as "simple" as imputed interest on TIPS) may be painful for those without cash on hand.
It's difficult to come up with the right mix of tax types, the right exceptions and considerations, but I believe it is doable and agree that the estate tax is a good starting point. My objective here is to offer a sense of tradeoffs, issues, and complexity. Also a small glimpse into my personal thinking and preferences.
Seriously folks if you had another option for Healthcare you wouldn't need Obamacare. With insurance or without insurance is the only call to make. I'm not saying increased premiums don't hurt. However unless you are in your 20s, you can't feel sanguine about not having insurance at all.
I'm ready to sacrifice starbucks $4 latte's and vacations to pay for insurance if I need to. Are you?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/us/politics/affordable-health-care-premiums.html
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal spending on premium subsidies will total $43 billion in the current fiscal year and $672 billion over the coming decade — costs that could increase if premiums and subsidies continue to rise. Still, the subsidy costs are much less than the budget office originally predicted because enrollment is much lower and health costs have grown more slowly.
In his remarks last week on the Affordable Care Act, made in a conference call with thousands of supporters and health insurance counselors, Mr. Obama said that after subsidies are taken into account, “more than seven in 10 consumers will be able to find a plan for less than $75 a month.”
But 15 percent of the 10 million people with marketplace coverage under the 2010 health law do not receive subsidies, mainly because their incomes are too high. And the administration estimates that 6.9 million people buy insurance on their own outside the marketplace, so they cannot obtain subsidies, which are available only through the exchanges.
IMHO, for those who do not think that the ACA is being properly subsidized from many directions, well....................
What the heck, just add it to the debt.
Regards,
Catch
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-obamacare-michigan_us_5817f34ae4b0390e69d23f18
Had their hours cut below 30hrs/wk and now have to pay for health insurance
Lost their job because of Obamacare
Had their non-Obamacare health insurance canceled
Could not keep their doctor
Are paying more for health insurance now; then before Obamacare
Are paying more for products and services because the increases in Obamacare it passed along to the consumer.
Are struggling financially because of the cost of Obamacare
Young and going to have to deal with the long term financial aspects of Obamacare
Have gone bankrupt because of the high deductibles.
Have difficulty finding a doctor because some doctors are not accepting Obamacare policies
I guess as long as it is only the poor, voiceless and powerless who are harmed by Obamacare then haves will defend it. The pain of the poor and working poor is real and is more then a 'flaw' in the system. The ranks of the poor and working poor are increasing. Maybe the 'haves' need to feel the pain before it is changed.
latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-medicaid-health-20160805-snap-story.html
Many of the people you mention that have suffered are due to conservative states refusing to expand Medicaid: kff.org/uninsured/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not-expand-medicaid/
You are essentially blaming Obamacare for a concession it made to conservatives to allows states to decide whether to expand Medicaid or not. In states where conservatives have refused to extend Medicaid some of the problems you've mentioned have occurred:
usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/12/28/up-75-without-medicaid-working-poor-who-cant-job-related-insurance/75657202/
But again there is more evidence the law is helping than hurting and if obstructionists stopped trying to sabotage it every five minutes it would do even more good.
Are you blaming the poor for not moving to state with Obamacare Medicare?
To quote Hillary Clinton:
What difference, at this point, does it make?!
Yes, some people are worse off than before. (At least if you discount their former risk of going on the dole because their coverage was capped or because their small company employer would cancel its plan if one employee got sick and rates shot up, or ...)
While I'm not poor, I am certainly feeling the pain (DH's phraseology). I've had my non-ACA plan cancelled. I'm facing a $2K increase in my 2016 ACA individual (not family) plan rate for 2017. A specialist I use takes no ACA plan, so I have to either pay cash out of pocket (and he won't even give a cash discount), or drop a doctor I've used for many years.
So if one really wants to speak with people who have been harmed (again, not my choice of words) by the ACA, one can start with me. I'm trying to move the needle. I've talked with my state Senator's office (he's on the Insurance Committee). I'm communicating with state regulators (ACA may be federal legislation, but it is implemented and regulated at the state level). What are you doing?
For more objective perspectives, people have given lots of links above. Or just try any of the sites that crunch the numbers and analyze the laws in depth. Kff.org and HealthAffairs.org are two good places to start.
Paying increased costs for services and goods as the high cost of Obamacare is priced in.
Had their hours cut below 30hrs/wk and now have to pay for health insurance
Lost their job because of Obamacare
Had their non-Obamacare health insurance canceled
Could not keep their doctor
Are paying more for health insurance now; then before Obamacare
Are paying more for products and services because the increases in Obamacare it passed along to the consumer.
Are struggling financially because of the cost of Obamacare
Young and going to have to deal with the long term financial aspects of Obamacare
Have gone bankrupt because of the high deductibles.
Have difficulty finding a doctor because some doctors are not accepting Obamacare policies
In the future a VAT will be added and the poor again will be hurt the most.
Please give us a solution that helps the poor and does not hurt them.