Just to be clear, you haven’t made a point.
BTW, it’s misleading to say that the indigent get “free medical care” due to the emergency room mandate. If they actually had some sort of health insurance, they’d receive better care for a lower cost. If the system requires the indigent to waste E.R. space for routine needs, it is the system that is defective.
IIRC, the Supreme Court ruled that mandated health insurance was a sort of tax, and the right-wing chortled in glee at that ruling. Well, make up your minds! Taxes are mandatory, but now some in the thread want the uninsured to get no care at all. Do you also think police and fire protection should be funded by (and available only to) subscribers, rather than funded by taxes?
I’m not sure what portion of total U.S. health costs are diverted to unpaid E.R. visits; I suppose it’s a lot. But isn’t that an argument for the mandate? (Making the generous assumption that those insisting that the uninsured should be left to die on the street are just indulging in Swiftian satire.)
TL;DR: The insurance mandate would significantly reduce insurance costs. Right-wingers oppose it because it doesn’t fit their morality play: that the poor, the insane, and the lazy should suffer for their faults.
John Galt’s alternate password.
Uh oh. We seem to have a new Hyperlibertarian among us. Government doesn’t merely tax; it sends jackbooted thugs to steal those taxes (or cattle-grazing fees) at gunpoint.
Can’t we start a BBQ Pit thread
Freemen on the Land and HyperLibertarians: Performance Artand leave GD for serious discussion?
Sure, you say that now, but when you’re bleeding out and in extreme pain? :dubious:
Pretty much, welfare has been gone since 1996, what with the the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act .
So the kids can be left to die too! A brilliant plan! Two birds with one stone.
You’ve got your foxhole conversions, and your deathbed conversions, and your bleeding-out-and-in-extreme-pain conversions.
Who said these things? Why do you paraphrase when you can quote from this thread the idea you are interpreting?
If you’re referring to me, I was only talking about life-and-death or severe health situations. It’s true that cost will not be a barrier to getting appropriate care in that situation.
Well, it actually ruled that the fee charged to those who don’t comply with the “mandate” is a tax…
The argument over that would easily be done away with if we had a single-payor, or government-run, health care system. Just sayin.
Why? Because why should hard working class people cough up money to pay for sick obese people that eat big mac everyday!!
Ever seen the problem on TLC the obese people!! That is where your hard earn tax money is going!!
One in three Americans are obese.
Why should hard working class people cough up money to pay for these people.
I’m a registered Republican and my beef is that Obamacare is only about halfway where I think things should be. I’m in favor of single-payer. Of course Obama could never have gotten that through, and I doubt anyone will in the foreseeable future, but IMO it’s the only fair solution.
Well, finally! A true Republican willing to say what the “something better” is that the GOP might replace Obamacare with. … Wait for it … ***Single-payer!! ***
Which of the six GOP clowns left standing is your dog, funky little lee? Is he proposing to repeal Obamacare and replace it with single-payer?
I am a registered Democrat and I think Obama is Satan*. What exactly does that prove?
The short answer to why I am against single payer is this.
The problem with Obamacare is that a) it just shifts who pays b) it doesn’t really control costs all that much c) it isn’t all that effective at increasing the number of insured (though the number has gotten better) and and doesn’t address real problems like doctor shortages.
I will try and post more later though I suspect most folks in this thread are more interested in posting what they think conservative think instead of actually finding out what conservatives think.
Slee
Actually, Obama is more a minor minion*.
** Kidding for those who are going to get all outragey.
Ever been seriously ill
Today, I expect you are healthy, and the value of insurance is fairly low to you. When (not if) you get sick the value of insurance will suddenly increase.
Say you are brought in unconscious and the doctors save your life. (As they are sworn to do.) Then you go bankrupt. Is that a good idea? Or do you sue them for not letting you die? See how far you get there.
I have medical insurance from my employer. That’s a mandate also - I must buy it unless I can prove I’m covered elsewhere. So the mandate is simple economics, and has really nothing to do with government power. Yeah, young people subsidize the old in general but that is okay since almost all of us get old. (Except for those who would rather die needlessly than knuckle under to the government, of course.)
There is a theory of insurance which is that the value of insurance to a person is roughly the payout times the probability that you get this payout. That is why people buy term life year after year and don’t feel ripped off if they don’t die.
Reducing the cost of healthcare is a longer term thing than changing some of the rules and signing more people up. Plus real decreases would require single payer in some way or what would be seen as restrictions on freedom of doctors and patients. Publication of hospital fees and the beginning of evidence based medicine is a start.
As for increasing the number of insured, you are aware that even more would be insured if Republican governors had accepted Medicaid expansion, right?
Doctor shortages will cure themselves globally - but lack of doctors in underserved areas and lack of GPs because or relatively poor pay is going to take other programs.
I believe the GOP’s real objection is that they didn’t do it and won’t get credit for it
And, despite their best efforts to sabotage it, it is successfully providing health insurance to 12 million people who didn’t have it before.
Even worse, the crash of the economy and high unemployment that were supposed to be a result didn’t happen, showing that Republicans wouldn’t be able to predict the outcome of a coin toss if the coin had two heads.
Remember Romney promised that unemployment would be down to 6% in 4 years. It is now under 5 and Obama and Obamacare are failures.
It isn’t just Republicans because I am not one. The reason we hate it is because it is an incredibly bad design that does nothing to decrease costs overall that increases cost for the average person and took a bad problem and made it worse.
For example, my employer had to increase their health plan deductibles to $4000 dollars a year for singles and $6000 for families. That is a really bad deal for singles so I just didn’t go to the doctor last year because it would cost a fortune for any visit. That seemed OK because I treated it like catastrophic insurance.
Oh no, you can’t get off that easy. It turns out that my employer’s insurance policy did not meet the minimum standards for medical coverage and now me and my coworkers are being fined about $1,100 on our tax return for the privilege of having useless insurance for the year. You heard that right. You can be screwed doubly and have to pay for the privilege.
We are all trying to fight it but getting nowhere. The chances are that we will have to pay $1,100 for a penalty that we were not aware of and had no control for services never received. That is the state of ObamaCare for professionals for you. I am sure it it is grand if you are dead broke. It sucks for people that actually work for a living.
Face it, it is a failed experiment.