President Trump- The Implications

[erfalf]

Government forces us to a lot of things Alfalfa. A lot. Mostly for our own good. Why is this one so different when it attempts to equalize a system that allowed uninsured to have the cost of their poor lifestyles or unlucky genetics be carried on the shoulders of those who did purchase insurance? It seems so...republican and conservative a concept. In fact the concept originated with the Heritage Foundation a conservative think tank. Imagine that.

Name another thing the government forces you to buy as a matter of living and breathing from a private for profit company.

[TeeDub]

Name another thing the government forces you to buy as a matter of living and breathing from a private for profit company.

Toll roads?    Car insurance?    Education?

[guido911]

Toll roads?    Car insurance?    Education?

Toll roads? Don't have to use them.

Car Insurance?  Don't have to own/drive car

Education? Not sure what that really means. People pay taxes.

But I do see the point. My issue is that coverage has increased because of force. Obama and others bragging about more people being insured as a result of force is a joke.

[erfalf]

Toll roads?    Car insurance?    Education?

Toll roads? I probably only pay $5 in tolls all year, and I probably could have avoided that if I cared to. Not forced on every person.

Car insurance? This is the one trotted out every time. Car insurance is ONLY required if you operate a motor vehicle in a public right of way (a street/road/highway). If I'm the Drummond's and want a fleet of F-150's that will never leave my property, I can drive them around checking cattle on my property as long as they do not cross a state road with absolutely no insurance. That being said, if they wreck it, all the costs are on them.

Education? Not really sure what you mean here unless you mean taxes. We can debate taxes another day, but to my knowledge the state does not force a fee paid to any for-profit (or non-profit in this case) institution for the benefit of education.

[heironymouspasparagus]

FIFY

Nobody forced you or anyone else to do anything about buying health insurance.  Just another RWRE lie.  If you want, you, along with other like minded individuals can continue to be parasitic freeloaders on the medical system and infrastructure that the rest of use support by carrying insurance....  it's all about the 'individual' anyway, isn't it?  Philosophy of, "I got mine, screw the rest..."

[heironymouspasparagus]

Name another thing the government forces you to buy as a matter of living and breathing from a private for profit company.

Making the case for fixing the system to a single payer!  There may be hope for you after all !!

[heironymouspasparagus]

Toll roads? Don't have to use them.

Car Insurance?  Don't have to own/drive car

Education? Not sure what that really means. People pay taxes.

But I do see the point. My issue is that coverage has increased because of force. Obama and others bragging about more people being insured as a result of force is a joke.

Yeah.  You are forced to pay taxes, so there is that...

It's the fee due to society as a whole (as opposed to going to just a king or something...) for the HUGE benefit of getting to live in a society that, in return for those 'tithes', gives you the opportunity to do what you do to make it so big here!  And it is literally YOUR choice what you do!!  How cool is that??  Don't wanna pay all these fees, taxes, tributes, et al - well, nobody is forcing you to stay!  If ya hate it so bad, go somewhere else.  See how THAT works out for you!!

Specious, false argument about "because of force".

[AquaMan]

Erf you're missing the point or more likely ignoring it. Guido may make his arguments that those things are voluntary but I could spend lots of time listing those that are not voluntary or used by individuals and you are forced to pay for. Its not always a visible cost. You ignore that this idea was a conservative think tank solution, successfully put in practice by a republican governor, that only became distasteful when a black, semi-liberal Democrat implemented it.

My argument holds, but the resulting increased cost Guido mentioned, is hard to pin down. Its not that Congress or the red state governors like madam Failin' made any effort to help the ACA succeed which would have led to more equitable and perhaps lower premiums. It became a "us' vs "them" political game.  I simply didn't see any increase at all in my premiums from Healthchoice. A few insurance companies saw the opportunity to gouge and to be complicit with the congressmen who voted 60 times to overturn the ACA. So, now we get to see whose philosophy the states prefer and what a benevolent dictatorship allows.

[TulsaMoon]

Senate Democrats sent a letter signed by all members to the Republican leadership requesting they do away with the bill passed by the house and instead all sit down and work together to fix what's wrong with Obamacare.

What a wonderful idea, wish I had thought of doing that.

https://www.apnews.com/777fb675d8324f4da3b13b990a8a3d22/Senate-Dems-ask-GOP-to-drop-their-plan-to-repeal-'Obamacare';

[heironymouspasparagus]

Senate Democrats sent a letter signed by all members to the Republican leadership requesting they do away with the bill passed by the house and instead all sit down and work together to fix what's wrong with Obamacare.

What a wonderful idea, wish I had thought of doing that.

Come on... you are pretty sharp!   You know you DID think of it!!   As did anyone else with a brain in this country!

My first suggestion for helping - get rid of the age 26 limit for kids to be on parents insurance!   That has always been ridiculous...21 is plenty old to get started on being responsible for yourself !  

Side note - one of the guys in the office is stupid rabid anti-Obamacare, but in direct opposition and massive hypocrisy to ALL his principles, got 2 of his kids signed back on to company insurance - one at 24, one at 22.  Even after they had been out of the house for a couple years - one was married!    And since the kids are still supposed to be under the umbrella of "living at home" - there most likely is an element of insurance fraud involved.   Such a moral, upstanding, enlightened example of RWRE philosophy!   And good example to his kids!!    

[erfalf]

Yeah.  You are forced to pay taxes, so there is that...

It's the fee due to society as a whole (as opposed to going to just a king or something...) for the HUGE benefit of getting to live in a society that, in return for those 'tithes', gives you the opportunity to do what you do to make it so big here!  And it is literally YOUR choice what you do!!  How cool is that??  Don't wanna pay all these fees, taxes, tributes, et al - well, nobody is forcing you to stay!  If ya hate it so bad, go somewhere else.  See how THAT works out for you!!

Specious, false argument about "because of force".

Because one does not purchase health insurnce (or any insurance for that matter) does not make them a freeloader. You are being incredibly hyperbolic in this regard.

I will say it again, you can NOT insure a certainty (pre-existing condition). It just doesn't work like that.

And the big gripe was that it is unique in that payments are forced directly to a for-profit entity, where as all the other goodies we get from the gub'ment are indirect. In other words, we pay the government and the government may or may not contract with a for-profit enterprise (they do obviously).

[erfalf]

Erf you're missing the point or more likely ignoring it. Guido may make his arguments that those things are voluntary but I could spend lots of time listing those that are not voluntary or used by individuals and you are forced to pay for. Its not always a visible cost. You ignore that this idea was a conservative think tank solution, successfully put in practice by a republican governor, that only became distasteful when a black, semi-liberal Democrat implemented it.

My argument holds, but the resulting increased cost Guido mentioned, is hard to pin down. Its not that Congress or the red state governors like madam Failin' made any effort to help the ACA succeed which would have led to more equitable and perhaps lower premiums. It became a "us' vs "them" political game.  I simply didn't see any increase at all in my premiums from Healthchoice. A few insurance companies saw the opportunity to gouge and to be complicit with the congressmen who voted 60 times to overturn the ACA. So, now we get to see whose philosophy the states prefer and what a benevolent dictatorship allows.

Not ignoring anything. I understand there are "hidden costs" in all walks of life because of bad payers. But I also understand that there is this fruitless effort to try to marry insurance with the provision of health care that will never work. As I mentioned health insurance is a financial service to mitigate risk. If a person has a preexisting condition, the risk has been eliminated, therefore no sane insurer will want to be on it.

Now, as you have been discussing, if you want to change the way we pay for medical care (or how we subsidize it) that is a whole other discussion. What I would like to see is the divorce of insurance from this discussion because it in the end is just a cash grab disguised as a humanitarian effort.

[AquaMan]

Because one does not purchase health insurnce (or any insurance for that matter) does not make them a freeloader. You are being incredibly hyperbolic in this regard.

I will say it again, you can NOT insure a certainty (pre-existing condition). It just doesn't work like that.

As far as your first statement that is your opinion not really backed up with any kind of logic. Yes, the guy who bummed me at QT this morning for bus fare with a backpack and obviously no job is freeloading on our health insurance. When he stumbles in the street and is hit by an insured, he will receive the same EMSA treatment, the same emergency room treatment and the same surgery for a broken leg as the guy who hit him. That is the law. We don't leave uninsured on the streets writhing in agony and drive on by. Our insurance costs and our taxes eventually will reflect those costs. 

Your second statement is also kind of curious. I haven't seen you say that, but is it supposed to be more powerful because you keep repeating it? True Gingrich mentality there. I just don't understand the statement anyway. You can insure anything you want as long as you pay the premium. Losing your good looks, your marathon quality legs, your genetic predisposition to allergies. Anything. So, what exactly is your point?

[AquaMan]

Not ignoring anything. I understand there are "hidden costs" in all walks of life because of bad payers. But I also understand that there is this fruitless effort to try to marry insurance with the provision of health care that will never work. As I mentioned health insurance is a financial service to mitigate risk. If a person has a preexisting condition, the risk has been eliminated, therefore no sane insurer will want to be on it.

Now, as you have been discussing, if you want to change the way we pay for medical care (or how we subsidize it) that is a whole other discussion. What I would like to see is the divorce of insurance from this discussion because it in the end is just a cash grab disguised as a humanitarian effort.

I want to see for profit health insurance replaced with a system to provide health care to all citizens as a right. So, I guess we agree on that. Swake had a pretty impressive solution.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Because one does not purchase health insurnce (or any insurance for that matter) does not make them a freeloader. You are being incredibly hyperbolic in this regard.

I will say it again, you can NOT insure a certainty (pre-existing condition). It just doesn't work like that.

And the big gripe was that it is unique in that payments are forced directly to a for-profit entity, where as all the other goodies we get from the gub'ment are indirect. In other words, we pay the government and the government may or may not contract with a for-profit enterprise (they do obviously).

I have NEVER met anyone in my entire life - quite a long time - who has not availed themselves of the medical infrastructure at one time or another.  Have you?  Really??  Answer truthfully!  By accident, disease, misadventure, or whatever path, EVERYONE gets to 'enjoy' the attentions of medical care.

And if they choose NOT to participate when reasonable cost insurance is available, then YES, they are freeloaders!!  By definition.  Making the rest of us who do participate take up the slack for them!  That's probably the source of the term 'slackers' - for people like that!

Unless they choose to NOT go to the hospital, clinic, Dr. at any point during the time when they are avoiding paying their fair share of the cost of said medical infrastructure.  Then and only then would they NOT be freeloading!   Or in the situation where they just bring cash/check/money order/credit card to pay the bill...