ip_law-hokie wrote:That the Republicans have tripped over their dicks (again) over healthcare.
Can somebody give me the real scoop? It appears that single payer is on its way. [emoji33]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The honest scoop? Here it is.
It is almost impossible to take a benefit away from the people once it has been doled out. That's it in a nut shell.
The Republicans have been ranting for years about repealing Obamacare. The further out we got from its passing in 2010, and in particular 2014 when it really kicked in, the harder it was going to be to repeal it. Now they finally have the legislative and executive control they needed but we're 3 years into full implementation and too many people are dependent on it in some form or another. That doesn't mean it's better than what we had, or even good for that matter, only that about 15% of the population got something out of it and they don't want to give it up. And the republicans are caught in a tough spot because it is now politically untenable to repeal it. They will be voted out of office. And it's more important to them to stay in office than to actually fully repeal this disaster of a law and come up with something better from scratch.
This is why the 2012 election was so important. If Romney wins then Obamacare is instantly repealed (65-70% of the public was against it at that time), market based health insurance/health care reform is passed, and the great majority of the public is happy and better off. Elections have consequences, and the 2012 election F'd this country.
Wrong set of beggars. It's the insurance lobby that won't let go of it or the establishment wants more money to abolish. It's not the handful of people that would get bused to voting booths.
Nope. It's all about staying in office. 50%+ support Obamacare now because so many have it. It can't be taken away without them getting voted out of office. Has absolutely nothing to do with the insurance lobby.
A tenth of the population got new insurance out of Obamacare, it's not a voting block. Most didn't even want it. It's about $$$. These people aren't voting GOP anyway.
Again, you're wrong about the impact on people. Medicaid expansion was huge. families getting premium subsidies was huge. Too many people are impacted now. The democrats will crucify them in the election campaigns for pushing granny over the cliff and they WILL be voted out of power in both the house and the senate.
People didn't like it originally. 50% or so still don't like it. But there is a 50% that does, and half of those are directly impacted by it and don't want to give up the benefit that they got.
ip_law-hokie wrote:That the Republicans have tripped over their dicks (again) over healthcare.
Can somebody give me the real scoop? It appears that single payer is on its way. [emoji33]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The honest scoop? Here it is.
It is almost impossible to take a benefit away from the people once it has been doled out. That's it in a nut shell.
The Republicans have been ranting for years about repealing Obamacare. The further out we got from its passing in 2010, and in particular 2014 when it really kicked in, the harder it was going to be to repeal it. Now they finally have the legislative and executive control they needed but we're 3 years into full implementation and too many people are dependent on it in some form or another. That doesn't mean it's better than what we had, or even good for that matter, only that about 15% of the population got something out of it and they don't want to give it up. And the republicans are caught in a tough spot because it is now politically untenable to repeal it. They will be voted out of office. And it's more important to them to stay in office than to actually fully repeal this disaster of a law and come up with something better from scratch.
This is why the 2012 election was so important. If Romney wins then Obamacare is instantly repealed (65-70% of the public was against it at that time), market based health insurance/health care reform is passed, and the great majority of the public is happy and better off. Elections have consequences, and the 2012 election F'd this country.
Wrong set of beggars. It's the insurance lobby that won't let go of it or the establishment wants more money to abolish. It's not the handful of people that would get bused to voting booths.
Nope. It's all about staying in office. 50%+ support Obamacare now because so many have it. It can't be taken away without them getting voted out of office. Has absolutely nothing to do with the insurance lobby.
A tenth of the population got new insurance out of Obamacare, it's not a voting block. Most didn't even want it. It's about $$$. These people aren't voting GOP anyway.
Again, you're wrong about the impact on people. Medicaid expansion was huge. families getting premium subsidies was huge. Too many people are impacted now. The democrats will crucify them in the election campaigns for pushing granny over the cliff and they WILL be voted out of power in both the house and the senate.
People didn't like it originally. 50% or so still don't like it. But there is a 50% that does, and half of those are directly impacted by it and don't want to give up the benefit that they got.
That's true, those that are getting free stuff no matter how bad aren't giving up their free stuff. The good news is most of those that get free stuff can't get their butts to the polls to vote, it's not like they can stop on the way home from work.
Looks like the only thing 1984 got wrong was the date.
RiverguyVT wrote:We can't afford single payer, as a nation.
Nobody who pretends to support individual liberty should support single payer. When health care is an entitlement - when you choose your health outcome at the ballot box - we're all just cattle.
The cost is not sustainable (until government decides who lives and who dies) - but the argument shouldn't even get that far. There's a lot more at stake here than cost.
RiverguyVT wrote:We can't afford single payer, as a nation.
Yes the cost as it stands now, is not sustainable.
Hate it all you want, but that ship has sailed. We're currently half way between single payer and free market. The move back to free market is extremely unlikely. Combine that fact with the extreme rise in education cost, rising pharma cost and the like which all drive up healthcare, a move back to free market that had millions dumped off of healthcare with many less millions paying for those things I just listed presents an untenable solution as well.
AG is a far right blowhard, but he's right, the healthcare industry has gotten a taste of that % from the full 330+ million people in the USA. They don't want to go back to the days of lesser percentages participating in the healthcare system. There's no going back. This is going to single payer.
RiverguyVT wrote:We can't afford single payer, as a nation.
Yes the cost as it stands now, is not sustainable.
Hate it all you want, but that ship has sailed. We're currently half way between single payer and free market. The move back to free market is extremely unlikely. Combine that fact with the extreme rise in education cost, rising pharma cost and the like which all drive up healthcare, a move back to free market that had millions dumped off of healthcare with many less millions paying for those things I just listed presents an untenable solution as well.
AG is a far right blowhard, but he's right, the healthcare industry has gotten a taste of that % from the full 330+ million people in the USA. They don't want to go back to the days of lesser percentages participating in the healthcare system. There's no going back. This is going to single payer.
Disagree. A simple solution is to roll medicaid back to what it was and who it covered pre-Obamacare. Now add in those with pre-existing conditions and those closer to the poverty line, covered at the same level. Turn the federal funding dollars over to the states, getting it out of the federal governments hands. Let the private insurance market cover individuals and groups across state lines. Eliminate corporate deductibility, or provide tax write offs for those without corporate coverage.
RiverguyVT wrote:We can't afford single payer, as a nation.
Yes the cost as it stands now, is not sustainable.
Hate it all you want, but that ship has sailed. We're currently half way between single payer and free market. The move back to free market is extremely unlikely. Combine that fact with the extreme rise in education cost, rising pharma cost and the like which all drive up healthcare, a move back to free market that had millions dumped off of healthcare with many less millions paying for those things I just listed presents an untenable solution as well.
AG is a far right blowhard, but he's right, the healthcare industry has gotten a taste of that % from the full 330+ million people in the USA. They don't want to go back to the days of lesser percentages participating in the healthcare system. There's no going back. This is going to single payer.
Disagree. A simple solution is to roll medicaid back to what it was and who it covered pre-Obamacare. Now add in those with pre-existing conditions and those closer to the poverty line, covered at the same level. Turn the federal funding dollars over to the states, getting it out of the federal governments hands. Let the private insurance market cover individuals and groups across state lines. Eliminate corporate deductibility, or provide tax write offs for those without corporate coverage.
I think that stuff helps. BUT...before Obamacare was even a part of our vocabulary, healthcare costs were climbing 13% annually since 1990. My dad consulted for blue cross and then worked for them for years. He said it was well documented(and he's a republican by the way). The reality is that the $ required to keep your family, or your group policy insured, reached critical mass sometime around 2006 to 2014 and businesses started shedding the exorbitant cost onto its employees. Of anything said about healthcare by everyone, the fact that people think it was all perfect before 2008 blow me away. We've been heading towards this abyss for years and decades.
The great fallacy here is that if obamacare had never come along, everything would be hunky dory. It's not. It hasn't been since 1990 and before.
RiverguyVT wrote:We can't afford single payer, as a nation.
Nobody who pretends to support individual liberty should support single payer. When health care is an entitlement - when you choose your health outcome at the ballot box - we're all just cattle.
The cost is not sustainable (until government decides who lives and who dies) - but the argument shouldn't even get that far. There's a lot more at stake here than cost.
What's the difference between the government deciding who lives and who dies and an insurance company doing so? Or even worse, one's income deciding who lives and who dies?
The free market works very well for most products and services. An issue arises when it is applied to health, and by extension, life. Preserving life should not be left to any construction where there are winners/losers or haves/have-nots. If we're talking about consumer goods, the free market will result in some families affording radios, while others can afford 80" televisions. But if we're talking about healthcare, the result is a difference in quality of life, and in the worst case, life itself.
RiverguyVT wrote:We can't afford single payer, as a nation.
Yes the cost as it stands now, is not sustainable.
Hate it all you want, but that ship has sailed. We're currently half way between single payer and free market. The move back to free market is extremely unlikely. Combine that fact with the extreme rise in education cost, rising pharma cost and the like which all drive up healthcare, a move back to free market that had millions dumped off of healthcare with many less millions paying for those things I just listed presents an untenable solution as well.
AG is a far right blowhard, but he's right, the healthcare industry has gotten a taste of that % from the full 330+ million people in the USA. They don't want to go back to the days of lesser percentages participating in the healthcare system. There's no going back. This is going to single payer.
Disagree. A simple solution is to roll medicaid back to what it was and who it covered pre-Obamacare. Now add in those with pre-existing conditions and those closer to the poverty line, covered at the same level. Turn the federal funding dollars over to the states, getting it out of the federal governments hands. Let the private insurance market cover individuals and groups across state lines. Eliminate corporate deductibility, or provide tax write offs for those without corporate coverage.
I think that stuff helps. BUT...before Obamacare was even a part of our vocabulary, healthcare costs were climbing 13% annually since 1990. My dad consulted for blue cross and then worked for them for years. He said it was well documented(and he's a republican by the way). The reality is that the $ required to keep your family, or your group policy insured, reached critical mass sometime around 2006 to 2014 and businesses started shedding the exorbitant cost onto its employees. Of anything said about healthcare by everyone, the fact that people think it was all perfect before 2008 blow me away. We've been heading towards this abyss for years and decades.
The great fallacy here is that if obamacare had never come along, everything would be hunky dory. It's not. It hasn't been since 1990 and before.
Your fallacy is Obamacare is better than what it replaced. It's not.
RiverguyVT wrote:We can't afford single payer, as a nation.
Nobody who pretends to support individual liberty should support single payer. When health care is an entitlement - when you choose your health outcome at the ballot box - we're all just cattle.
The cost is not sustainable (until government decides who lives and who dies) - but the argument shouldn't even get that far. There's a lot more at stake here than cost.
What's the difference between the government deciding who lives and who dies and an insurance company doing so? Or even worse, one's income deciding who lives and who dies?
The free market works very well for most products and services. An issue arises when it is applied to health, and by extension, life. Preserving life should not be left to any construction where there are winners/losers or haves/have-nots. If we're talking about consumer goods, the free market will result in some families affording radios, while others can afford 80" televisions. But if we're talking about healthcare, the result is a difference in quality of life, and in the worst case, life itself.
The insurance isn't making that decision, it's but 1 payment option in a free-market. There's only 1 payment option in socialized medicine, the government.
RiverguyVT wrote:We can't afford single payer, as a nation.
Yes the cost as it stands now, is not sustainable.
Hate it all you want, but that ship has sailed. We're currently half way between single payer and free market. The move back to free market is extremely unlikely. Combine that fact with the extreme rise in education cost, rising pharma cost and the like which all drive up healthcare, a move back to free market that had millions dumped off of healthcare with many less millions paying for those things I just listed presents an untenable solution as well.
AG is a far right blowhard, but he's right, the healthcare industry has gotten a taste of that % from the full 330+ million people in the USA. They don't want to go back to the days of lesser percentages participating in the healthcare system. There's no going back. This is going to single payer.
Disagree. A simple solution is to roll medicaid back to what it was and who it covered pre-Obamacare. Now add in those with pre-existing conditions and those closer to the poverty line, covered at the same level. Turn the federal funding dollars over to the states, getting it out of the federal governments hands. Let the private insurance market cover individuals and groups across state lines. Eliminate corporate deductibility, or provide tax write offs for those without corporate coverage.
I think that stuff helps. BUT...before Obamacare was even a part of our vocabulary, healthcare costs were climbing 13% annually since 1990. My dad consulted for blue cross and then worked for them for years. He said it was well documented(and he's a republican by the way). The reality is that the $ required to keep your family, or your group policy insured, reached critical mass sometime around 2006 to 2014 and businesses started shedding the exorbitant cost onto its employees. Of anything said about healthcare by everyone, the fact that people think it was all perfect before 2008 blow me away. We've been heading towards this abyss for years and decades.
The great fallacy here is that if obamacare had never come along, everything would be hunky dory. It's not. It hasn't been since 1990 and before.
The costs for those with corporate plans was not rising nearly as fast. It was the private market, and in particular those with pre-existing conditions. The tax deductibility of premiums, combined with HSAs will help the average person tremendously. The expansion of medicaid to cover those that 1) can't afford it, or 2) have uninsurable conditions, will also alleviate some of the pressure on the private marketplace.
Remember, 90% of the public was happy with their health insurance pre-obamacare. The main purpose of Obamacare (other than it being as far as the democrats could go towards single payer government healthcare) was to address that other 10% -- those just above the poverty line without coverage (because they couldn't afford it or didn't want it or need it?) and those excluded due to pre-existing conditions. In the end Obamacare helped half of those people, or about 5% of the public. That is the biggest issue with Obamacare -- it screwed up things for 90% of the population to help 5%.
RiverguyVT wrote:We can't afford single payer, as a nation.
Nobody who pretends to support individual liberty should support single payer. When health care is an entitlement - when you choose your health outcome at the ballot box - we're all just cattle.
The cost is not sustainable (until government decides who lives and who dies) - but the argument shouldn't even get that far. There's a lot more at stake here than cost.
What's the difference between the government deciding who lives and who dies and an insurance company doing so? Or even worse, one's income deciding who lives and who dies?
The free market works very well for most products and services. An issue arises when it is applied to health, and by extension, life. Preserving life should not be left to any construction where there are winners/losers or haves/have-nots. If we're talking about consumer goods, the free market will result in some families affording radios, while others can afford 80" televisions. But if we're talking about healthcare, the result is a difference in quality of life, and in the worst case, life itself.
Give me an example of an insurance company in the US deciding someone should die, please.
You think single payer eliminates a life or death choice being decided by income level? Places like the UK are far worse than here. The richest of the rich have boutique care, or can fly somewhere to get care, while the rest enjoy their shirt sandwich.
Your moral argument rings empty. Single Payer = government bureaucrats putting a depreciating value on your life. At that point, you become no different than a car where government bureaucrats decide when to just write it off and send you to the crusher if damages exceed your value as a tax slave. There is no moral argument for single payer.
RiverguyVT wrote:We can't afford single payer, as a nation.
Nobody who pretends to support individual liberty should support single payer. When health care is an entitlement - when you choose your health outcome at the ballot box - we're all just cattle.
The cost is not sustainable (until government decides who lives and who dies) - but the argument shouldn't even get that far. There's a lot more at stake here than cost.
What's the difference between the government deciding who lives and who dies and an insurance company doing so? Or even worse, one's income deciding who lives and who dies?
The free market works very well for most products and services. An issue arises when it is applied to health, and by extension, life. Preserving life should not be left to any construction where there are winners/losers or haves/have-nots. If we're talking about consumer goods, the free market will result in some families affording radios, while others can afford 80" televisions. But if we're talking about healthcare, the result is a difference in quality of life, and in the worst case, life itself.
Give me an example of an insurance company in the US deciding someone should die, please.
You think single payer eliminates a life or death choice being decided by income level? Places like the UK are far worse than here. The richest of the rich have boutique care, or can fly somewhere to get care, while the rest enjoy their shirt sandwich.
Your moral argument rings empty. Single Payer = government bureaucrats putting a depreciating value on your life. At that point, you become no different than a car where government bureaucrats decide when to just write it off and send you to the crusher if damages exceed your value as a tax slave. There is no moral argument for single payer.
Just had a friend in the UK get diagnosed with breast cancer. They have told her/scheduled her to begin treatment in 8 months. EIGHT months!
RiverguyVT wrote:We can't afford single payer, as a nation.
Nobody who pretends to support individual liberty should support single payer. When health care is an entitlement - when you choose your health outcome at the ballot box - we're all just cattle.
The cost is not sustainable (until government decides who lives and who dies) - but the argument shouldn't even get that far. There's a lot more at stake here than cost.
What's the difference between the government deciding who lives and who dies and an insurance company doing so? Or even worse, one's income deciding who lives and who dies?
The free market works very well for most products and services. An issue arises when it is applied to health, and by extension, life. Preserving life should not be left to any construction where there are winners/losers or haves/have-nots. If we're talking about consumer goods, the free market will result in some families affording radios, while others can afford 80" televisions. But if we're talking about healthcare, the result is a difference in quality of life, and in the worst case, life itself.
The insurance isn't making that decision, it's but 1 payment option in a free-market. There's only 1 payment option in socialized medicine, the government.
Yep. And, a hospital won't refuse treatment to someone based on their (in)ability to pay.
His whole argument is silly on its face considering that there's a family in the UK desperately trying to take their kid to the US for treatments they'd willingly pay for. The state is going to make that kid die to save face and nothing else (well - save money too).
ip_law-hokie wrote:That the Republicans have tripped over their dicks (again) over healthcare.
Can somebody give me the real scoop? It appears that single payer is on its way. [emoji33]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The honest scoop? Here it is.
It is almost impossible to take a benefit away from the people once it has been doled out. That's it in a nut shell.
The Republicans have been ranting for years about repealing Obamacare. The further out we got from its passing in 2010, and in particular 2014 when it really kicked in, the harder it was going to be to repeal it. Now they finally have the legislative and executive control they needed but we're 3 years into full implementation and too many people are dependent on it in some form or another. That doesn't mean it's better than what we had, or even good for that matter, only that about 15% of the population got something out of it and they don't want to give it up. And the republicans are caught in a tough spot because it is now politically untenable to repeal it. They will be voted out of office. And it's more important to them to stay in office than to actually fully repeal this disaster of a law and come up with something better from scratch.
This is why the 2012 election was so important. If Romney wins then Obamacare is instantly repealed (65-70% of the public was against it at that time), market based health insurance/health care reform is passed, and the great majority of the public is happy and better off. Elections have consequences, and the 2012 election F'd this country.
The Republican leadership are a bunch of gutless pussies.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
RiverguyVT wrote:We can't afford single payer, as a nation.
Nobody who pretends to support individual liberty should support single payer. When health care is an entitlement - when you choose your health outcome at the ballot box - we're all just cattle.
The cost is not sustainable (until government decides who lives and who dies) - but the argument shouldn't even get that far. There's a lot more at stake here than cost.
What's the difference between the government deciding who lives and who dies and an insurance company doing so? Or even worse, one's income deciding who lives and who dies?
The free market works very well for most products and services. An issue arises when it is applied to health, and by extension, life. Preserving life should not be left to any construction where there are winners/losers or haves/have-nots. If we're talking about consumer goods, the free market will result in some families affording radios, while others can afford 80" televisions. But if we're talking about healthcare, the result is a difference in quality of life, and in the worst case, life itself.
The insurance isn't making that decision, it's but 1 payment option in a free-market. There's only 1 payment option in socialized medicine, the government.
As USN_Hokie mentions, even in the UK, there are non-gov't options under single payer.
RiverguyVT wrote:We can't afford single payer, as a nation.
Nobody who pretends to support individual liberty should support single payer. When health care is an entitlement - when you choose your health outcome at the ballot box - we're all just cattle.
The cost is not sustainable (until government decides who lives and who dies) - but the argument shouldn't even get that far. There's a lot more at stake here than cost.
What's the difference between the government deciding who lives and who dies and an insurance company doing so? Or even worse, one's income deciding who lives and who dies?
The free market works very well for most products and services. An issue arises when it is applied to health, and by extension, life. Preserving life should not be left to any construction where there are winners/losers or haves/have-nots. If we're talking about consumer goods, the free market will result in some families affording radios, while others can afford 80" televisions. But if we're talking about healthcare, the result is a difference in quality of life, and in the worst case, life itself.
Give me an example of an insurance company in the US deciding someone should die, please.
You think single payer eliminates a life or death choice being decided by income level? Places like the UK are far worse than here. The richest of the rich have boutique care, or can fly somewhere to get care, while the rest enjoy their shirt sandwich.
Your moral argument rings empty. Single Payer = government bureaucrats putting a depreciating value on your life. At that point, you become no different than a car where government bureaucrats decide when to just write it off and send you to the crusher if damages exceed your value as a tax slave. There is no moral argument for single payer.
As we've seen with Obamacare, covering every American without turning any away for pre-existing condition, and guaranteeing certain minimum coverages is probably not economically possible in a free market. Much like flood insurance, it's just too difficult to make a profit. The options then become: (a) reduce coverage or (b) move to a different model (not nec. single payer).
Reducing coverage should be the option of last resort.
RiverguyVT wrote:We can't afford single payer, as a nation.
Nobody who pretends to support individual liberty should support single payer. When health care is an entitlement - when you choose your health outcome at the ballot box - we're all just cattle.
The cost is not sustainable (until government decides who lives and who dies) - but the argument shouldn't even get that far. There's a lot more at stake here than cost.
What's the difference between the government deciding who lives and who dies and an insurance company doing so? Or even worse, one's income deciding who lives and who dies?
The free market works very well for most products and services. An issue arises when it is applied to health, and by extension, life. Preserving life should not be left to any construction where there are winners/losers or haves/have-nots. If we're talking about consumer goods, the free market will result in some families affording radios, while others can afford 80" televisions. But if we're talking about healthcare, the result is a difference in quality of life, and in the worst case, life itself.
Give me an example of an insurance company in the US deciding someone should die, please.
You think single payer eliminates a life or death choice being decided by income level? Places like the UK are far worse than here. The richest of the rich have boutique care, or can fly somewhere to get care, while the rest enjoy their shirt sandwich.
Your moral argument rings empty. Single Payer = government bureaucrats putting a depreciating value on your life. At that point, you become no different than a car where government bureaucrats decide when to just write it off and send you to the crusher if damages exceed your value as a tax slave. There is no moral argument for single payer.
As we've seen with Obamacare, covering every American without turning any away for pre-existing condition, and guaranteeing certain minimum coverages is probably not economically possible in a free market. Much like flood insurance, it's just too difficult to make a profit. The options then become: (a) reduce coverage or (b) move to a different model (not nec. single payer).
Reducing coverage should be the option of last resort.
Why on earth would everyone be covered in a free market? That's the point - people have the freedom to choose.
RiverguyVT wrote:We can't afford single payer, as a nation.
Nobody who pretends to support individual liberty should support single payer. When health care is an entitlement - when you choose your health outcome at the ballot box - we're all just cattle.
The cost is not sustainable (until government decides who lives and who dies) - but the argument shouldn't even get that far. There's a lot more at stake here than cost.
What's the difference between the government deciding who lives and who dies and an insurance company doing so? Or even worse, one's income deciding who lives and who dies?
The free market works very well for most products and services. An issue arises when it is applied to health, and by extension, life. Preserving life should not be left to any construction where there are winners/losers or haves/have-nots. If we're talking about consumer goods, the free market will result in some families affording radios, while others can afford 80" televisions. But if we're talking about healthcare, the result is a difference in quality of life, and in the worst case, life itself.
Give me an example of an insurance company in the US deciding someone should die, please.
You think single payer eliminates a life or death choice being decided by income level? Places like the UK are far worse than here. The richest of the rich have boutique care, or can fly somewhere to get care, while the rest enjoy their shirt sandwich.
Your moral argument rings empty. Single Payer = government bureaucrats putting a depreciating value on your life. At that point, you become no different than a car where government bureaucrats decide when to just write it off and send you to the crusher if damages exceed your value as a tax slave. There is no moral argument for single payer.
As we've seen with Obamacare, covering every American without turning any away for pre-existing condition, and guaranteeing certain minimum coverages is probably not economically possible in a free market. Much like flood insurance, it's just too difficult to make a profit. The options then become: (a) reduce coverage or (b) move to a different model (not nec. single payer).
Reducing coverage should be the option of last resort.
Why on earth would everyone be covered in a free market? That's the point - people have the freedom to choose.
And insurance companies have the freedom to choose as well. Hence the issue.
VisorBoy wrote:
... companies have the freedom to choose...Hence the issue.
Not that this needs to be said, but....
You're arguing to take away a person's freedom to choose in order to take away a company's freedom to choose. On what planet is that the moral choice again?
Because they took advantage of the system. they were betting they wouldn't break a leg(sudden trauma) and if they got cancer, they'd say they were laid off and would jump on the plan. My very democrat mother even thinks that if you opt out of health insurance and you get cancer, tough luck. You get to pay out of pocket or hope it doesn't spread until the next open enrollment comes around.
A big problem with obamacare and the people electing to not get insurance is that in the case of catastrophic illness that occurs over a long time frame, they can get the insurance after they find out they are sick.
VisorBoy wrote:
... companies have the freedom to choose...Hence the issue.
Not that this needs to be said, but....
You're arguing to take away a person's freedom to choose in order to take away a company's freedom to choose. On what planet is that the moral choice again?
It's not complete freedom of choice currently. Most people are tied to their health insurance in similar ways that they're tied to their 'choice' of ISP.
Secondly, freedom of choice isn't available to everyone in the market-based scenario. In fact, they may not have any choices available to them if they have pre-existing conditions (or lack the funds to pay for insurance that covers certain treatments). Choice is available to the wealthy, I'll grant you that.
Because they took advantage of the system. they were betting they wouldn't break a leg(sudden trauma) and if they got cancer, they'd say they were laid off and would jump on the plan. My very democrat mother even thinks that if you opt out of health insurance and you get cancer, tough luck. You get to pay out of pocket or hope it doesn't spread until the next open enrollment comes around.
A big problem with obamacare and the people electing to not get insurance is that in the case of catastrophic illness that occurs over a long time frame, they can get the insurance after they find out they are sick.
I don't see how that's "gaming the system", per se, any more than older people are gaming the system by having their health insurance subsidized by younger folks.
Places like the UK are far worse than here. The richest of the rich have boutique care, or can fly somewhere to get care, while the rest enjoy their shirt sandwich. 