Thanks for the explanation.
Bill Bolte

Great point Bill. There are many variables. But what is the statistical likelihood that a substantial enough pool of people would experience such positive outcomes, and thus it would further result in some sort of overall positive budgetary norm. In this case, the proposed law should not cover the “what ifs,” but instead the “what’s happening nows.” Further, what is the likelihood of a given state to actually vote to raise taxes? A majority of the states in the US are governed by GOP governors and legislatures. It is antithetical to GOP belief to raise a dime in taxes, especially to skew them toward the wealthy. Look at this monsterous senate legislation as an example: the only real benefactors are the 300 richest families in this nation. Not one aspect of this proposal does what it was intended to do. It isn’t a repeal of Obamacare, it is a softening of its core tenants. It won’t lower premimums; it won’t lower deductables. It covers less people. And it goes further than just handicapping Obamacare by its gutting of Medicaid by $800 billion, roughly half. It is an attack on about 75 million Americans who have Medicaid, and this attack is led by the billionaire class. Lastly, the comment about the boy getting a better paying job: How likely is it for a family on Medicaid or Obamacare to be able to focus on getting an education, job-training, or any other asset that could provide a better job, if the members in that family are solely having to concentrate so much of their incomes to the astronomical rising prices of basic healthcare, let alone, the care needed for anyone with a serious illness or disability? Health expenses are the #1 cause for poverty and financial insecurity in this country.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.