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.
My God, you just cheered for the government FORCING people to buy something. You dont support having to prove who the hell you are when voting. You support ILLEGAL immigration. YOU are the one lacking in common sense.
Okay, so if you think people should have to show ID to vote....AND you think it's bad for the government to force you to buy something....
...why aren't you upset that the government charges a fee for an ID card?
Oh for fecks sake, would you give illegal immigration a rest? It has nothing to do with today's ruling.
It does have a LOT to do with today's rulling.
The argument is: more Americans will have coverage and will not be showing at the hospital without insurance and then not paying for the costs...and will not be a burden to those who do have health insurance in the form of higher premiums, etc.
That does not apply to illegal aliens who are free of any TAX whatsoever and will continue to use Emergency Rooms as their PCP...and who will foot those bills? The tooth fairy?
Back in 2009.. interview with Obama: ( http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-is-not-a-tax/ )
OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on. "
Once again, who is going to pay for the "uncompensated care" that is provided to illegal aliens?
The GOP should be happy, this will help end the current healthcare system as it's currently set up, which is technically Socialism. Those who are insured paying for those who are not. My guess...they still won't be happy.
Does one need an individual mandate (I mean tax) for private insurance companies to offer catastrophic health insurance plans...
Covering someone who rarely requires health care, is just a good profit business for insurance companies.
But, why would you or anyone else for that matter, demand folks buy something from a private company when individually, they might not think it has financial value for them.
Remember Las Vegas' 100 year old flood. Should everyone in the State be mandated to buy
flood insurance, because you never know, you might get flooded some day in Winnemucca
Well in the flood case the chances of another 100 yr flood are unlikely, and if it does happen only YOU pay the cost of the flood. Accidents and unexpected illness are far more likely to happen than a 100 yr flood in the desert, plus the expense can be much great given the cost of hospital stays-To me this is a differetn comparison, health vs flood. you can't plan getting hit by a bus, or some freak accident or illness in an otherwise healthy person
After Obama wins they will stop this game and the economy will take off. Obama is for the workers and so the "job creators"have tried to destro him so they can continue the decline in living conditions for the workers.
I think those who think this law won't decrease costs on some level are not understanding the underlying "tax" we already pay with respect to health care. Part of the reason health care (particularly emergency care) costs so much is because there is so much demand for it, and hospitals have to absorb so much excess cost from those that cannot pay in a timely fashion, or at all. This increases the primary cost of hospital care for all of us, and we and our insurance companies pay for it. When our insurance companies pay more, we pay more in premiums.
What Obamacare does not even really attempt to control is the other major factor in cost which is price of prescription drugs. That has to be addressed before greater cost savings can be realized. And despite all the reasons I've laid out above this is a best case scenario. This actually being a fiscal winner for the country relies on this being implemented EFFICIENTLY. And I think we all agree the government's ability to do things efficiently is mixed at best.
Theoretically, when the law is fully implemented, those who now use emergency room care as their only option and then are unable to pay the bill are going to be either paying for insurance (on some level), or the 1% tax on income. So you pull out a lot of people who are free riders on the system and are paying into the system more than they are now. Premiums decrease because hospitals now are not absorbing millions of free riders. Demand for hospital emergency rooms should fall as well, due to not only the fact that free riders aren't taking as much capacity, but also due to primary healthcare serving as a buffer between health-seekers and the ER lowers the number of those free riders that will need its services.
I'm not convinced the shortage in doctors (a valid argument) will be as severe as some believe because supply and demand will dictate that the future demand of doctors necessary to staff hospitals (particularly ER's) will probably not rise proportionately to the future demand of doctors necessary in the primary care sector of the industry due to the reasons stated above. Therefore some doctors, nurses, etc. who are now in ER's will likely move to primary care to serve increased demand. I'm not in the medical field and by no means an expert so I don't know how difficult this transition would be or the economics associated with doctor licenses, specialties, etc.
I don't think the healthcare law is perfect, but it's a good first step. There's no reason we should continue to do nothing - we're all already being needlessly, clandestinely taxed. If the government can implement this correctly (key word: if) and can tweak it effectively at least we'll know up front what we're paying and we should have a better level of service. What Obamacare does not even really attempt to control is the other major factor in cost which is price of prescription drugs. That has to be addressed before greater cost savings can be realized. And despite all the reasons I've laid out above this is a best case scenario. This actually being a fiscal winner for the country relies on this being implemented EFFICIENTLY. And I think we all agree the government's ability to do things efficiently is mixed at best.
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.
