Quote:
Originally Posted by serger
Lol.
The only thing the insurance companies will do is they will increase rates for everybody else. That's the result of young and healthy skipping insurance.
|
Yeah, because Obamacare did such a wonderful job of making health insurance affordable.
Had the ACA done anything to actually make health care affordable, the individual mandate may have been a good thing. For the majority of the working class, though, it combined prohibitive rates with exorbitant copays.
Let's take a logical look at your argument.
Insurance Company A raises their rates. Rates are now too expensive for most to afford, so Insurance Company A loses customers. They still have some that can afford the prohibitive rates, but far less than they had before.
Insurance Company B realizes that affordability and quality are the main reasons why consumers purchase a product or service. They lower their rates, drawing off customers from Insurance Company A, and their customer base increases.
Which company is in better shape?
Considering that you are complaining about the removal of unethical (and technically illegal) portions of a law that was broken before it ever went into effect, you'll probably answer that Insurance Company A is in better shape. But, that's only because you don't understand economics - which is evident due to the fact that you think the individual mandate is a good thing.
Overall, what do you think is a better idea between these two?
1) Continue to force American citizens to purchase a faulty product that they can't afford in order to prop up the insurance companies.
2) Stop forcing American citizens to purchase a faulty product that they can't afford and force the insurance companies to engage in a market where they will have to provide quality products at an affordable price in order to gain customers.
The answer is evident to anyone who uses common sense to approach the question.
It truly amazes me that the same demographic (liberals) who hate big business are now losing their collective mind over the fact that big health insurance businesses are no longer being propped up by an artificial market that was arbitrarily created by a President who supposedly was looking after the common people.
If you go back 35 years, the same type of idiotic doom and gloom was being said about the breakup of Ma Bell. While the situation isn't exactly the same, nobody can reasonably argue that increasing competition put the end consumers in
worse shape than they were before. While what we are dealing with now isn't a monopoly, but it does, in effect, work the same way. Just like when one company has a total monopoly, when consumers are forced into business with a small number of companies there is no incentive for those companies to set their prices at an affordable level.
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.
