[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the premise isn't to take money from some and buy insurance for others. the law is based on
if everyone has coverage, there won't be people subsidizing others' care-which is what we've been doing for years. i have insurance, have had for decades. so, my bills are grossly inflated because my insurer will end up paying not just for my care, but for however many others who got care and had no way to pay. their bill was 'written off' (but not really, hospitals have to get money, so they have, from those with ability to pay, or with insuranced).
so, supposedly the overall cost of healthcare will be lower, because they can charge everyone correctly now, since everyone (conceivably) will now have coverage of some sort. that's why taxes on individuals haven't changed, because it's supposed to be revenue neutral.
the main reason why people have seen premium increases is because their substandard plans were phased out. does it stink? yep. but from what i've seen, far more people will benefit from the plan than will be adversely affected.

Yet people argue to their death against a plan designed to protect them and lower their costs long term. They will argue for the right to not buy insurance if they choose knowing they will never do so and knowing they will be paying for those that do. Is it brainwashing?