It’s true that insurance works by spreading risk amongst a large pool.
But there are two aspects in play. If 10,000 people each pay an equal amount to be covered by car insurance and two of them have accidents, it’s true that those two are subsidized by the 9,998 other drivers. But each person in that example paid an equal amount to participate in the pool. That’s unremarkable.
The aspect that was being highlighted by WillFarnaby is that presumably the aggrieved woman’s entry into the risk pool was subsidized. It’s not the subsidy that occurs when the insurance covers herm in other words, but rather that the taxpayers cover her premiums in the first place.
Now, that’s still a point for debate: absent the ACA subsidies, how can this woman afford insurance? That’s a fair point for discussion – should the taxpayer subsidize premiums? If the tax payer does not, what avenue exists to cover her health care costs?
But it’s not the same point as conflating subsidized premiums, the cost of entering into the risk pool, with the subsidy that occurs when the insurance pays out as a result of the shared subsidy provided by the other participants in the risk pool.
How many of those nations have generations of people raised to expect that someone else will take care of them? I honestly have no idea, but I do think the US is unique in that respect.
Well, golly geez, I wouldn’t know, what with how Will says the whole thing is just too darn complicated for my delicate little brain.
All I know for sure is that Will’s statement has not inclined me to give him any benefit of the doubt in terms of “presuming” anything. Maybe he can come up with a cite, preferably one that’s not chock full of numbers that would leave poor lil’ ol’ me hopelessly confuzzled…
If it proves impossible to provide decent and equitable health care without adversely affecting the profitability of our insurance providers, it is a sacrifice I am prepared to accept on their behalf. I am entirely willing to have that good deed credited to their Permanent Record, as I have no plans of going to Heaven anyway.
They figured out for a long time already that all are the ones taking care of them, even themselves because when they were healthy before getting sick they paid taxes to cover the health care of all.
So far, the best (by which I mean “most outrageous”) excuse for chickening out has been offered by Louie Gohmert, who cites the shooting of Gabby Giffords as a reason for not showing his face in public.
This doesn’t appear to be an answer to my question. Here in the States we have far too many people who have no concept of delayed gratification. They want a house, they buy it whether they will be able to afford it going forward, so we ended up with all of those junk mortgages. They want kids, they have them when they want to because after all, the government & various private groups have all of those programs that give them shit for cheap or free for children. Save to make sure said kids can go to college? Oh hell no - they can get a loan or just start working. If their jobs don’t provide group insurance, and many (most?) of the ones you can get without an education beyond high school don’t, they can’t be bothered to get insurance until something expensive happens and then they are pissed because the insurance company doesn’t want to take on their expenses, or won’t insure them at all.
I guess what you are saying is that the government should step in and force these folks to be responsible, at least in the area of healthcare coverage? By setting it up that as soon as they are adults or working or something, they have to pay a tax to support the government insurance? Are you aware of how well government insurance has worked (not) in this country?
And none of this touches on those who were raised on welfare and see no reason to get a legit job, and those who are paid under the table (lots of those here in CA) and anyone else who flies under the radar but would still be able to access the government sponsored healthcare.
So, back to my original question - does universal coverage work in other countries because a vast majority of their people are responsible, contributing citizens. Or is it like it is here - the responsible, contributing ones pay to cover the irresponsible?
Have you ever met any of these people that you disdain and hate so much? I have a feeling you have no personal experience of what you speak and this all comes from other people telling you about them and that you need to be mad at them.
Also, you have a very dim view of your fellow Americans. You really think that our people are so inferior to the people in other countries?
Ya know what? I am really sick of the assumption that I have no idea what it is like to be poor just because I am tired of paying almost 40% tax to support them. I was BORN poor (my parents were idiots) and I left home at 18 to get away from abuse and ended up living well under the poverty level for several years. With poor people.
Now days, I am middle class tho the husband is close to retiring so we may end up losing that. I live across the street from a family in a $600,000 home whose kids got free lunches at school for awhile because their public situation was that they didn’t have enough money to pay their mortgage and car payments. Except there were five adults living in that three bedroom house, so they had plenty of money to feed their three kids lunch, they just didn’t tell the schools that they had income from three more people. I know many people who get around half their income under the table. I know a woman whose 14 year old had a baby and then moved in with the dad after about four months, yet all of the freebies for the baby kept coming to grandmas house. She used to joke about getting so much stuff they had to throw it out. Etc. People game the system.
It has nothing to do with what I think of people in the US or anywhere. I am just wondering if the glowing reports on how well universal healthcare works elsewhere is happening in the same situation we have here. Are people in other countries paying ridiculously high taxes to support people who just blither thru life without a plan?
Does being a paid agitator come with health insurance?
Anyway, isn’t this a good thing for democrats, and the country as a whole?
If republicans are scared of showing up at town halls, if they are scared of being confronted by their constituents, is they are scared of having to explain why they are working against the interests of the people who voted for them in the first place, they won’t last very long.
This is great really, we have all been wondering how long it would take for moderate republicans to stand up to their party, and demand that it start putting country first, rather than a distant third or fourth, as they currently value it.
If this means that some of these crazies get primaried and are replaced by more moderate sane republicans, who then end up winning and going to washington, our country benefits.
They may have had an electoral “victory” that they are all proud of themselves about, but they are having a complete failure when it comes to putting their ideology into place. Unless they shape up quickly, they are going to find themselves on the outs for a generation or more. And if they do shape up quickly, then at least they will stop doing things that help themselves or their party or their friends at the expense of the country.
Yes, every country with universal healthcare has people that live on the government dime and game the system. I guess that just means other countries care more about their citizens than we do?
If you really want to know this, why don’t you look up statistics of countries with universal healthcare. Look up their tax rates, welfare rates etc. If you are so angry about it why don’t you already know this? I guess its easier to just be angry about your assumptions and lash out at poor people than it is to actually find out whether your theories are correct about how much more selfish and lazy Americans are than the citizens of other countries. The data is out there if you really want to know.
Just because some people game the system doesn’t mean the system isn’t serving a useful purpose overall.
It is more efficient, and cheaper in the long run, to have a universal-coverage national health insurance system than to deny poor people healthcare and scold them for being too shiftless to afford it.
I’ll bet you have “Taxation Is Theft” carved in granite over the drawbridge of your castle, don’t you?
Like it or not, we live in a society comprising a lot of different people, we all benefit from being in that society in myriad uncountable ways, and we are all better off when the society and everyone in it is healthy. Yes, there are people who cheat and take advantage, but for those folks who think that a better alternative is to let everyone sink or swim, then I frankly feel sorry for your crabbed, fear-filled existence.
First the conservatives tell us that Democrats aren’t winning elections because they’re not paying enough attention to the economic problems of working-class white people.
Then when working-class white people try to tell their Republican representatives about their economic problems and demand that their elected government do something to help them, conservatives fall all over themselves to sneer at those people as tantrum-throwing children and irresponsible feckless idiots.
Honestly? The main reason why white working-class people have so many economic problems is because their Republican politicians exploit their support to screw them over in favor of enriching wealthy and business interests. And a chief reason why Democrats lose elections is because Republican politicians are very good at dishonestly blaming Democrats for their own exploitation of their white working-class constituencies.