Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What we have right now is half the country paying for the other half and paying for themselves.
Now, its all very well to argue in favor of choice and complain about "Obamacare" denying that choice. But it is choice without consequences because those that choose to not be insured, choose to be under-insured or simply cannot afford to be insured can do so in the knowledge that they will get treated anyway and on someone else's nickel.
Of course, the consequences of choice are socially unpalatable to many of us. Would we really be okay with a child dying of cancer because his/her parents "chose" not to have insurance? Would we really leave someone laying in the street with a broken leg because he/she did not have insurance?
What many UHC systems do is to spread the cost of health care across the entire working population via some form of mandatory insurance payment (similar to the way we pay for social security). This is not socialism. Rather, it is ensuring that everyone pays their share. In a system where choice has no consequence, I really don't see what is wrong with this.
LOL, the unions wriggle out of it, why not the rest of us. . . waivers to [the Affordable Care Act's] requirement that health plans have annual limits of no less than $750,000. . . 860,000 of them are already exempted from this provision of [The Affordable Care Act]."
Exempted from a single provision. That provision being the cap on annual limits. And they're only eligible to be exempt for 3 years, then no more exemption.
Not exempt from the Affordable Health Care Act's provision of having health insurance.
Not opting out of the law entirely.
One provision.
Your own site and the part you quoted even said that.
And no, no one should be allowed to "opt out" of having health insurance. The fact that so many don't have it now is what costs the rest of us an arm and a leg to insure ourselves. If you're poor and can't afford it, there are options available to you. Otherwise, quit "stealing" from me (and don't give me that garbage about you paying cash. Everyone here knows damn good and well that a huge, huge majority of the uninsured don't pay a dime). TANSTAAFL.
No, health care is part of cost of living. Plain and simple. It needs to be factored in. Too many people simply live paycheck to paycheck and one injury or illness leads to financial ruin. If wages are increased, people will not save money, gas prices and housing costs will rise because of "market value" or simply arbitrary markup by rich people who want to be richer. Requirement of healthcare purchase is simple common sense. If it must be purchased, it is included in cost of living. It will increase wages to accomodate, or drive down other costs to accomodate through market forces. Pretty simple concepts. It will enable the poor to pay into the system by making it a requirement.
Can conservatives dispute that people will not make use of healthcare at all in their lifetimes? They were all for it in the 90s.
It enables people to be responsible instead of our current situation where people are in no win situations of limping along paycheck to paycheck, unable to afford healthcare.
People can't be responsible if they are placed in crappy situations, which is most of the blue collar and service sectors of the economy nowadays.
The only real problem with the law is the lack of government option, that would save tons of money. For profit healthcare is loaded with beauracracy and payouts to stockholders and overpaid CEOs who do not really produce anything. They just make money off of the hard work of nurses and doctors.
This is what the option is that people who opted out would not receive any care unless they could pay cash up front. If they can't pay and opted out, then they would be denied treatment completely regardless of severity or emergency situations. Essentially a you have an option to completely opt out, but the responsibility to pay will be entirely on the person and not the government or taxpayers. You can pay up front, you get no service.
So if someone has say, a heart attack [insert any horrible condition here], and is dying, they should not be treated if they do not pay up front, correct? How about people with head injuries who are not conscious? This line of thinking makes no sense in regard to true emergencies.
Part of the problem lies in abuse of ERs. Your kid falls while running through the house and bumps his head, ER. You've had the sniffles for a few days, ER. Your back hurts, ER. You stub your toe, ER. It's ridiculous. This is a HUGE part of the problem, and these people are the ones who tend to refuse to pay for services.
So if someone has say, a heart attack [insert any horrible condition here], and is dying, they should not be treated if they do not pay up front, correct? How about people with head injuries who are not conscious? This line of thinking makes no sense in regard to true emergencies.
Part of the problem lies in abuse of ERs. Your kid falls while running through the house and bumps his head, ER. You've had the sniffles for a few days, ER. Your back hurts, ER. You stub your toe, ER. It's ridiculous. This is a HUGE part of the problem, and these people are the ones who tend to refuse to pay for services.
Precisely. With this new law in place, I'd like to see ERs be able to do a bit of "triage" and turn away morons who don't needEMERGENCY care and tell them to call their family physician or go to the walk-in clinic.
So if someone has say, a heart attack [insert any horrible condition here], and is dying, they should not be treated if they do not pay up front, correct? How about people with head injuries who are not conscious? This line of thinking makes no sense in regard to true emergencies.
Part of the problem lies in abuse of ERs. Your kid falls while running through the house and bumps his head, ER. You've had the sniffles for a few days, ER. Your back hurts, ER. You stub your toe, ER. It's ridiculous. This is a HUGE part of the problem, and these people are the ones who tend to refuse to pay for services.
This is what the new healthcare law is fixing. Instead of using ER's for a stomach ache or other minor issues by the uninsured, inturn being passed on to the taxpayer, the new law will allow people to use the proper primary care facilities that they otherwise couldn't use before.
Instead of the the bickering and time/money wasting trying to repeal it entirely, it seems as an idea for people to completely opt out of everything, and take on the risk entirely themselves. Essentially the perfect "less government!" approach many on the right want. This would effectively completely eliminate ER abuse as everything would be paid for either by the insurance company, or the person themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
