Whether the pool got larger or not, the risk was increased enough that people who were previously rated at one dollar amount now have to pony up extra cash to cover a risk that was not previously present. A rate increase is still a rate increase.
I bit up on somebody else's boat analogy. My point was that sympathy goes both ways, and the "yeah" someone got got a life-vest should be considered in light of the one that was taken from someone else. The vests do not drop out of the sky. I highly doubt most of us in the boat were born into deck chairs and drinking lemonade, which the underlying envy of your comment suggests. We work and struggle too. There is a long stretch from offering compassion to your fellow man and having money confiscated to be handed out as though it grows on trees. Are my labors worth less than yours? No doubt there are people worse off then you...how much of what you make should you forced to surrender to help them out?
We will never be able to create true equality of outcome and I fear if we continue to try eventually wherever the line is drawn between the "winners" and "losers" we will find people unwilling to continue to risk/fight/struggle when they can simply cross the line and then where will we be? I, personally, am back at the drawing board to figure out how to rearrange my budget to accommodate the increased costs. I dream of a day when someone will let me know how much of my wages to which society "deserves" so I can plan [which is what most responsible people try to do] and just live my life.
Much of this is simply the story we're told as Americans, and it overlooks some basic facts - we're already spending more as a percentage of GDP than any other developed nation, and we're getting less for those dollars than nations that extend coverage to everyone. We need to do *something* to try to tap into the economy of "universal" scale because every year more and more working families are priced out of the current system. There is a reason so many insurance companies and medical providers back the ACA - because they know that our current trajectory was spiraling out of control and because they need relief from high numbers of non-paying patients.
I'm very tired of the argument that none of us have any responsibility to one another as part of society. So many people wail and moan about the loss of manners and common courtesy, but what sort of respect would you expect to find for one another in a culture that flat-out states lower-income citizens just need to suck it up and live without basic needs like health care because they've been priced out or cut out by companies for whom profit is the sole objective? The "I've got mine and I don't want to give up one thin dime to help anyone else" mindset (not just on this issue; I hear the same rants from people who hate public education, transportation, social programs, social security, etc) is just plain unsettling to me because I don't see how a country can function without the basic understanding that we're all in it together.
Condescending and superior much? Thanks for the explanation, but I know what disposable income is. Expenses include the cost of caring for your health. Insurance, copays, etc. Your family has choices that other families do not by virtue of your well above median income. That is a blessing for which your family should be thankful. If your healthcare costs are increasing, due to ACA or other factors, then your disposable income will naturally decrease. That means your family will make choices about what discretionary spending to continue and what will need to be reduced or eliminated.
Many families work with budgets of less than $50k/year. And there's just not as much room in those budgets for higher costs. If you're trying to raise 2-3 kids on $50k/year, your basic necessities already eat up a good part of that. There's very little disposable income in the first place. Some people, depending on family size, state and income, will benefit from new, expanded Medicaid eligibility rules. Some will be in the horrible gap between their state's unexpanded Medicaid and the federal subsidies. They'll make too much for Medicaid in their state but not enough for the federal subsidy. And healthcare will still be out of their reach.
I can't believe so many states are playing politics with this issue, refusing to help their own poorest residents because it doesn't suit the agenda of state leadership. I don't often see eye to eye with our governor but I give him a lot of credit on that issue; he faced the wrath of his own party to push the medicaid expansion, and he was successful. So at least in my state, this isn't a measure that will help the working class but leave the poorest behind.
To whom much is given, much shall be required. A flat rate with no deductions hurts people who already live on the edge. Sales taxes on basic needs hurts people making the lowest incomes who already struggle to meet basic needs. Let's just push them over, why don't we?
My own family, while not making $300k, has gone from $0 tax liability and a full EITC and food stamps and WIC to paying thousands in taxes. Yes, I've had to send the guvmint my money. They turned right around and sent it to someone else, I'm sure.
I think there's a "payback" element to any flat tax proposal, a desire to see "the other half" shoulder the weight for a while even if it means they can't keep food on the table or maintain a car to get to work. But the flaw in that is that it assumes a fairly static division between haves and have nots, when in reality it is more of a life-cycle question - most Americans pay taxes when they're young and single, then newly married. They have little or no liability in the child-rearing years, and then pay more again as the deductions leave the nest. It isn't a "payer" class and a "non-payer" class, as the political discourse is so fond of assuming.
Our family is in a similar position; we've never needed food assistance, but there was a time the kids were on CHIP coverage while we went without because of the cost. Then we reached a point where we do write a check to the IRS, and we do it in the literal sense - there's no employer withholding our taxes, we write those checks ourselves. It isn't fun, obviously, but I don't think it is a terrible price to pay for the fact that we enjoy a far better standard of living than we did in those times when we didn't have to write tax checks.
We are aware of that, and as another person with an income in that ballpark - if you have $300k in income and very little disposable income, you really need to read Elizabeth Warren's All Your Worth to make some adjustments - some of which may be very difficult like telling the family you help support that your support will be more limited due to insurance costs and they will need to find more ways of helping themselves (and I know that game as well, we supported by brother in law for two years while he was dying, and still help support my mother in law).
For folks like you and me - we would have been far better off with UHC and supplemental private insurance if we wanted it. I'm hoping that this is a stepping stone to that, although with the pull the insurance companies have, I don't think its likely.
And, for folks like you and me, we've gotten break after break from the government - first from Reagan and Bush, then Bush II, and Obama hasn't gotten us back up to our tax levels in the 1980s yet. Someone is going to have to start paying for the government - and it isn't going to be the people raising a family of four on $32k a year - even if you combine them all together, they don't have enough money. And it isn't going to be corporations. Hopefully - it will be the truly wealthy - the 1%ers instead of the mere 5%ers like us - but we will end up paying our share, I'd start planning for it now. Which is another reason to get your disposable income UP and save a bunch of it - unless we start taxing wealth, you'll want to have your wealth laid down already taxed at todays low rates.
Thank you.
So many people seem to forget that recent history has been much kinder to the upper classes, in terms of taxation, than any other period in the history of the American income tax. It seems the prevailing attitude right now is that $1 is $1 too much to pay to keep this country running.
I agree, its helping "the few" and hurting "the more". I guess we should be used to that by now.....................................
It is more than "the few". The median income in this country is around 50K. Contrary to DIS wisdom, "the many" aren't those making six figures and gnashing their teeth over the IRS. Those are "the few"; "the many" are the ones who cannot afford a $15K family health plan without a subsidy.
Fairness is impossible under conditions of inequality. 
.
