Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
She continued to work to maintain their family health insurance, her husband was a self employed contractor and didn't have that benefit.
Has nothing to do with potential government perks.
-spence
|
Well, if no government perks would have anything to do with quitting, then it sounds like she needed to work to supplement the household income since her husband wasn't making enough to buy adequate insurance. Sounds like something worthwhile and to be proud of rather than, as you say "a lot life going down the drain." Good role model for the kids. Good for the "economy." And financially good for the family since she must have made much more than required to pay her premiums.
Sounds like she might have benefited from allowing interstate insurance purchasing and tort reform and true competition among insurers. Of course, I'd go a lot farther than that. More like eliminating third party pay for health care except for those who might want to invest in some catastrophic plan. I don't see the necessity of creating a monstrosity such as the ACA. And given its various restrictions and qualifications, even some in situations like hers might find insurance too expensive.
But that's small potatoes. The rest of my post which you skipped was more germane to the CBO discussion.