…the biggest federal subsidy for private insurance coverage is untouched by Stupak’s amendment. It’s the $250 billion the government spends each year making employer-sponsored health-care insurance tax-free. That money, however, subsidizes the insurance of 157 million Americans, many of them quite affluent. Imagine if Stupak had attempted to expand his amendment to their coverage. It would, after all, have been the same principle: Federal policy should not subsidize insurance that offers abortion coverage. But it would have failed in an instant. That group is too large, and too affluent, and too politically powerful for Congress to dare to touch their access to reproductive services. But the poorer women who will be using subsidies on the exchange proved a much easier target. In substance, this amendment was as much about class as it was about choice.

Ezra Klein (via azspot)


(via southpol)

(via newsweek)

Yes. This health reform charade is more about protecting the interests of the few under the guise of expanding coverage for all. Keep in mind, in 2016, the cost of providing insurance for each employee will average $28,500. This will be even more expensive on the individual market. How many families in the US will be able to afford “coverage for all?” Especially when the penalty for not purchasing health insurance is only 2.5% of gross income. The decision then becomes $28,500 vs. $2,500 for a family earning $100,000. If you decide to pay for insurance, after taxes you’ll have $36,500 in net income. If you decide to pay the penalty, after taxes you’ll have $62,500.

Tough decision…