Article about the alleged "safety net"

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

again, like i said, it's a bad law. i think i made myself clear on that...but then, i thought i was clear about people begrudging assistance to poor people and saying they're christian.


it's kind of funny tho...so many people said 'well, if everyone would be responsible and buy insurance, it would be better...'. now they have to, and it's wrong too. there's no pleasing some people.

i wonder if those against any help in getting insurance went back thru the history books, and took out all the anti-social security, anti-medicare and anti-unemployment screeds and just 'cut and pasted' them to fit today's 'end of the u.s. as we know it' topic du jour.

See I don't think many people are against the idea of getting insurance more affordable. The difference is that this is the same old government program retread - take more from people already paying so they can supplement others. That's what people object to.

If you could buy insurance in any state - if a NY resident liked a Nevada plan, he should be able to buy it. Increase competition by removing barriers - not taking over the industry with government run "exchanges".

Allow flexible savings accounts to accrue and not be a "use it or lose it" proposition. Someday, as you have more and more good years, you could at least partially self-insure.

When you buy insurance of any kind, you only need the amount that mitigates risk you are uneasy with. This is why people bought catastrophic-event only plans. A young guy who breaks his finger playing basketball can probably handle the bill, but if he gets in a car accident he wants to be covered since it's a lot more money.

But there's the thing - Obama and those of his party stroll in telling you "You can keep your plan." Damn straight - because you, Mr. President, should have NO meddling in my affairs.

When you have an open market, you have the option of saying no - and that is the biggest power in all of capitalism. If enough people do not buy a product at an inflated cost, the price comes down. That power has been lost by use of the unconstitutional federal mandate. Therefore, prices will skyrocket due to both the supplementing of others for insurance, AND opportunism on the part of the insurance companies. That will happen also - but strictly because the government is helping them do that by not allowing the free market to work, specifically by forcing every American to be a customer no matter how high the price is.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

See I don't think many people are against the idea of getting insurance more affordable. The difference is that this is the same old government program retread - take more from people already paying so they can supplement others. That's what people object to.
If you could buy insurance in any state - if a NY resident liked a Nevada plan, he should be able to buy it. Increase competition by removing barriers - not taking over the industry with government run "exchanges".

Allow flexible savings accounts to accrue and not be a "use it or lose it" proposition. Someday, as you have more and more good years, you could at least partially self-insure.

When you buy insurance of any kind, you only need the amount that mitigates risk you are uneasy with. This is why people bought catastrophic-event only plans. A young guy who breaks his finger playing basketball can probably handle the bill, but if he gets in a car accident he wants to be covered since it's a lot more money.

But there's the thing - Obama and those of his party stroll in telling you "You can keep your plan." Damn straight - because you, Mr. President, should have NO meddling in my affairs.

When you have an open market, you have the option of saying no - and that is the biggest power in all of capitalism. If enough people do not buy a product at an inflated cost, the price comes down. That power has been lost by use of the unconstitutional federal mandate. Therefore, prices will skyrocket due to both the supplementing of others for insurance, AND opportunism on the part of the insurance companies. That will happen also - but strictly because the government is helping them do that by not allowing the free market to work, specifically by forcing every American to be a customer no matter how high the price is.

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.

[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?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

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?

yeah, it kills me that the koch bros and others say to the young that 'you're better off economically to pay the fine. don't buy it'.
they say that to try to kill the plan, as they are sooooo worried that people will (gasp) like it once they get it. like social security, medicare, etc.

except.....
who will be in a car accident? changes are, younger folks (or the very old). who skateboards? rides a bike? takes countless chances on countless things? young people. now, some might be financially better off to pay the fine.

but the trick is, how do you know if it's you or not? why would people say it's responsible to have insurance, so as not to burden others...and then tell others not to buy it?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

I love also how people act like premiums never, ever went up in the years prior to the ACA. Srsly?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_...src=burger_bar

The real problem is that health care in the US is too expensive. We pay far more than the rest of the high-income nations and we get much poorer outcomes. We tell ourselves it's the best health care in the world, and sure, if you're rich you can afford anything. But that goes for rich people anywhere in the world. I don't see how a state that is content with 9000 people dying a year from preventable issues (back to you, Texas!) can claim it's part of a country with the best health care in the world.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I love also how people act like premiums never, ever went up in the years prior to the ACA. Srsly?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/business_...src=burger_bar

The real problem is that health care in the US is too expensive. We pay far more than the rest of the high-income nations and we get much poorer outcomes. We tell ourselves it's the best health care in the world, and sure, if you're rich you can afford anything. But that goes for rich people anywhere in the world. I don't see how a state that is content with 9000 people dying a year from preventable issues (back to you, Texas!) can claim it's part of a country with the best health care in the world.

texas has the most uninsured i do believe. and didn't expand medicaid. you gotta be responsible, dontchaknow.
so, listen up all you kids out there, pick better mothers! texas is counting on you.

but yeah, it does cost too much, especially when one considers the ROI. good care, bad delivery. great research and development...but only for those who can pay. it's the american way.