Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Yep, you got me. Everyone will indeed die. I am not sure how that effects the equation, death has plagued us since we existed.
And it wasn't my analogy, I too pointed out faults in it.
I guess, since you are comfortable with forcing everyone to carry insurance you will likely be comfortable with forcing them to go to those check ups and screenings. Heck, we'll all have a vested interest in it as it will help keep all our costs down, so may as well use the threat of incarceration or fines to help enforce it. Probably ought to also start to add in that folks who have certain habits ought to be fined or incarcerated too. Smoking is a Bad Thing, as is drinking alcohol,eating snack cakes, and we all know hobbies like scuba diving and sky diving or riding motorcycles greatly increase risk, so may as well use the gov't to limit them as well.
Yeah, my examples are getting silly. But hell, as long as we are gonna believe gov't coercion is the best way to handle the issue, we may as well go all out, right?
You list is quite entertaining especially since all of those things would jack up your heath insurance rates and maybe even get you dropped before the ACA. Threats of incarceration and fines are the only way the government knows how to do anything. What about peoples habit of crossing the road without being a crosswalk, it's government coercion, fines & threats of incarceration to stop it right? same as any law really, damn government threatening me to drive the speed limit. It's another good reason to keep republicans out of office, they've been known to ban large sodas.
Is the ACA's method the best method? No, they should have copied any of the other first world nation, and just used tax money to pay for it. But it is a lot better than letting americans suffer and die without proper care because insurance companies wouldn't cover high risk people. France has the best heath care system in the world, why not copy the best instead of stumbling around in the dark and recreating everything from the ground up.
The short version is that because Mississippie opted out of expanded Medicare, there's a huge gap of people that don't make enough (!) to qualify for tax subsidies.
That's true for most other states who opt'ed out too. Missourian are just as boned too.
Before we were married, my wife had an ACA plan in Ohio that worked out fine. I had some self employed friends that also had plans there.
Health insurance is expensive for everybody. I pay roughly $500 a month in premiums for my wife and I, and I'm a Federal employee!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/26 20:19:33
It’s clearly an attempt to remind the SC that their rulings have consequences, and that they have to live with it too.
Vindictive? Yep.
Rightiousness? Oh, hell to the f'n yeah!
Talk about the potential conniption fits... would Democrats in Congress argue against their own creation? If it passed, would Prez. Obama veto an awesome Act, as he claims?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/26 20:17:18
It’s clearly an attempt to remind the SC that their rulings have consequences, and that they have to live with it too.
Vindictive? Yep.
Rightiousness? Oh, hell to the f'n yeah!
Talk about the potential conniption fits... would Democrats in Congress argue against their own creation? If it passed, would Prez. Obama veto an awesome Act, as he claims?
Nobody would need to fight it, as the plan would be unconstitutional.
Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, [color=red]which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Of]fice. [/office]
Changing their health care is certinaly a diminishing of compensation.
Perhaps fittingly, that clause is there to specifically stop this sort of attack.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/26 20:24:12
It’s clearly an attempt to remind the SC that their rulings have consequences, and that they have to live with it too.
Vindictive? Yep.
Rightiousness? Oh, hell to the f'n yeah!
Talk about the potential conniption fits... would Democrats in Congress argue against their own creation? If it passed, would Prez. Obama veto an awesome Act, as he claims?
Nobody would need to fight it, as the plan would be unconstitutional.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, [color=red]which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Of]fice. [/office]
Changing their health care is certinaly a diminishing of compensation.
Perhaps fittingly, that clause is there to specifically stop this sort of attack.
Then adjust their salary compensation to make up for the difference.
Easy-Peasy.
Honestly, though... IMO, all non-Military Federal employee should having their healthcare compensation start at the Exchanges. (Adjusting for salary compensation of course).
Honestly, though... IMO, all non-Military Federal employee should having their healthcare compensation start at the Exchanges. (Adjusting for salary compensation of course).
While that sounds fititng, it actually creates a whole set of headaches, given how fluid the marketplaces are right now. The Federal Government, like most employers, wants to provdie stability for it's employees. And the marketplace is designed specifically to be for those whose jobs do not provide insurance.
Also, the federal government wants to be able to provide the same benefit to employees across the country, and realistically, a across the globe.
It might merge that way, but frankly as long as I get the same benefits, I don't care where my insurance comes from.
The short version is that because Mississippie opted out of expanded Medicare, there's a huge gap of people that don't make enough (!) to qualify for tax subsidies.
That's true for most other states who opt'ed out too. Missourian are just as boned too.
Before we were married, my wife had an ACA plan in Ohio that worked out fine. I had some self employed friends that also had plans there.
Health insurance is expensive for everybody. I pay roughly $500 a month in premiums for my wife and I, and I'm a Federal employee!
Thing is the best plan affordable(?) to me topped out at $10,000 after a $5,000 deductible and then required me to still pay them to avoid the penalty. I mean that's just insipidly stupid. No way am I still gonna pay premiums after I run out of insurance just so the poorer than me can have it better than me.
It’s clearly an attempt to remind the SC that their rulings have consequences, and that they have to live with it too.
Vindictive? Yep.
Rightiousness? Oh, hell to the f'n yeah!
Talk about the potential conniption fits... would Democrats in Congress argue against their own creation? If it passed, would Prez. Obama veto an awesome Act, as he claims?
Or, they could just spend their time trying to actually make things better for everybody rather than waste time being petty and vindictive. Because, you know, Congress's failure to accomplish anything useful should have consequences, too. Oh, right, it doesn't, which is why we're still spiraling down the toilet.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
It’s clearly an attempt to remind the SC that their rulings have consequences, and that they have to live with it too.
Vindictive? Yep.
Rightiousness? Oh, hell to the f'n yeah!
Talk about the potential conniption fits... would Democrats in Congress argue against their own creation? If it passed, would Prez. Obama veto an awesome Act, as he claims?
Or, they could just spend their time trying to actually make things better for everybody rather than waste time being petty and vindictive. Because, you know, Congress's failure to accomplish anything useful should have consequences, too. Oh, right, it doesn't, which is why we're still spiraling down the toilet.
/translation: Silly, wabbit. ACA is for serfs!
Actually, if there's ever a mandate of sort, imo, all officials at the minimum should be subjected to the laws as us plebs.
Then, they can say "we understand where you're coming from".
EDIT: in fact, that may *save* the ACA since the Federal Government has FETH ton of employees. A way to reduce the risk pools, and hopefully put downward pressure on cost.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/06/26 21:02:40
Thing is the best plan affordable(?) to me topped out at $10,000 after a $5,000 deductible and then required me to still pay them to avoid the penalty. I mean that's just insipidly stupid. No way am I still gonna pay premiums after I run out of insurance just so the poorer than me can have it better than me.
No... that means that, any thing you receive care for, up to 5k per year comes out of pocket. Once you've reached your deductible, you're either paying 80%, or 50% of medical care from $5,001-$10,000 Once a medical bill goes to 10,001 dollars, then it's entirely paid for by the insurance.
Of course, if you're in such a situation, I sincerely hope you have another family member in the household who is working, and not at your bedside, because you're gonna absolutely NEED someone making income to continue paying that premium.
And here's the best thing: look at a Catastrophic illness/injury, heart disease/cancer policy from a supplemental insurance company... Say you get one of those policies at the age of 23 for around 200 bucks a month (I am literally making that number up, don't quote me on it), and you keep paying that 200 bucks all year, and you keep this policy active year in and year out. When you're 40-50 and REALLY at risk for a heart attack, stroke and all those other nasty things we hear about. Guess what, you're STILL only paying that 200 a month. And actually, if you're a younger person, you won't even be paying that much. When I was selling insurance, the quote I did for myself, which also included a "injury resulting in severe burns, para- and quadreplegic status" and it came out to 115 bucks or so a month, and I was 28 at the time.
But the thing with those supplements is that, yes premium never goes up as long as it remains active, but it pays YOU to cover those $5,000 deductibles, not the hospital bill itself.
Compare that to your standard ACA policy, where when you're 23, you might pay 400 a month. Then you have a birthday, and youre just as healthy as ever, in fact, even more so now. Well, at age 24, that insurance company, out of their good graces is going to make your monthly premium 450. and then at 25, it'll be 500. You get married at 26, but because now the insurance is covering two people instead of one, we'll give you a "discount" and you're only gonna pay 800.
The short version is that because Mississippie opted out of expanded Medicare, there's a huge gap of people that don't make enough (!) to qualify for tax subsidies.
That's true for most other states who opt'ed out too. Missourian are just as boned too.
Before we were married, my wife had an ACA plan in Ohio that worked out fine. I had some self employed friends that also had plans there.
Health insurance is expensive for everybody. I pay roughly $500 a month in premiums for my wife and I, and I'm a Federal employee!
Thing is the best plan affordable(?) to me topped out at $10,000 after a $5,000 deductible and then required me to still pay them to avoid the penalty. I mean that's just insipidly stupid. No way am I still gonna pay premiums after I run out of insurance just so the poorer than me can have it better than me.
First off, the ACA got rid of the lifetime caps on what they'll pay out. Also, if the plan costs you $10k you won't pay a penalty unless you make a huge amount of money.
You can also blame the Republicans for not expanding Medicare. They choose to hurt people to spite the president.
It’s clearly an attempt to remind the SC that their rulings have consequences, and that they have to live with it too.
Vindictive? Yep.
Rightiousness? Oh, hell to the f'n yeah!
Talk about the potential conniption fits... would Democrats in Congress argue against their own creation? If it passed, would Prez. Obama veto an awesome Act, as he claims?
Or, they could just spend their time trying to actually make things better for everybody rather than waste time being petty and vindictive. Because, you know, Congress's failure to accomplish anything useful should have consequences, too. Oh, right, it doesn't, which is why we're still spiraling down the toilet.
/translation: Silly, wabbit. ACA is for serfs!
Actually, if there's ever a mandate of sort, imo, all officials at the minimum should be subjected to the laws as us plebs.
Then, they can say "we understand where you're coming from".
EDIT: in fact, that may *save* the ACA since the Federal Government has FETH ton of employees. A way to reduce the risk pools, and hopefully put downward pressure on cost.
Unfortunately, Congress will never understand where the common American "is coming from." Every Representative and Senator is already set for life. Even if they never get elected again, they're guaranteed high-paying jobs as lobbyists, advisers, commentators, think tank members, staff members for higher-ranking politicians, politically appointed administrative posts, and the list goes on. And that doesn't even include their pensions.
As far as the whole government getting the ACA, there are about 4.2 million federal employees, 1.5 million of which are military (and would the Rs allow the military to go on ACA?). If the info I found is correct 16.4 million are currently enrolled under ACA. Would another 2.7-4.2 million really make that much of a change? Maybe with the Fed backing it? I don't know.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Thing is the best plan affordable(?) to me topped out at $10,000 after a $5,000 deductible and then required me to still pay them to avoid the penalty. I mean that's just insipidly stupid. No way am I still gonna pay premiums after I run out of insurance just so the poorer than me can have it better than me.
No... that means that, any thing you receive care for, up to 5k per year comes out of pocket. Once you've reached your deductible, you're either paying 80%, or 50% of medical care from $5,001-$10,000 Once a medical bill goes to 10,001 dollars, then it's entirely paid for by the insurance.
Of course, if you're in such a situation, I sincerely hope you have another family member in the household who is working, and not at your bedside, because you're gonna absolutely NEED someone making income to continue paying that premium.
And here's the best thing: look at a Catastrophic illness/injury, heart disease/cancer policy from a supplemental insurance company... Say you get one of those policies at the age of 23 for around 200 bucks a month (I am literally making that number up, don't quote me on it), and you keep paying that 200 bucks all year, and you keep this policy active year in and year out. When you're 40-50 and REALLY at risk for a heart attack, stroke and all those other nasty things we hear about. Guess what, you're STILL only paying that 200 a month. And actually, if you're a younger person, you won't even be paying that much. When I was selling insurance, the quote I did for myself, which also included a "injury resulting in severe burns, para- and quadreplegic status" and it came out to 115 bucks or so a month, and I was 28 at the time.
But the thing with those supplements is that, yes premium never goes up as long as it remains active, but it pays YOU to cover those $5,000 deductibles, not the hospital bill itself.
Compare that to your standard ACA policy, where when you're 23, you might pay 400 a month. Then you have a birthday, and youre just as healthy as ever, in fact, even more so now. Well, at age 24, that insurance company, out of their good graces is going to make your monthly premium 450. and then at 25, it'll be 500. You get married at 26, but because now the insurance is covering two people instead of one, we'll give you a "discount" and you're only gonna pay 800.
Huh, that's absolutely not how it was explained to me by the rep or the website. Even still I don't have the near $500 (affordable?) they want every month. So I guess all those poorer than me can enjoy my tax refunds and I'll keep buying that food and shelter I need more than health insurance.
Thing is the best plan affordable(?) to me topped out at $10,000 after a $5,000 deductible and then required me to still pay them to avoid the penalty. I mean that's just insipidly stupid. No way am I still gonna pay premiums after I run out of insurance just so the poorer than me can have it better than me.
No... that means that, any thing you receive care for, up to 5k per year comes out of pocket. Once you've reached your deductible, you're either paying 80%, or 50% of medical care from $5,001-$10,000 Once a medical bill goes to 10,001 dollars, then it's entirely paid for by the insurance.
Of course, if you're in such a situation, I sincerely hope you have another family member in the household who is working, and not at your bedside, because you're gonna absolutely NEED someone making income to continue paying that premium.
And here's the best thing: look at a Catastrophic illness/injury, heart disease/cancer policy from a supplemental insurance company... Say you get one of those policies at the age of 23 for around 200 bucks a month (I am literally making that number up, don't quote me on it), and you keep paying that 200 bucks all year, and you keep this policy active year in and year out. When you're 40-50 and REALLY at risk for a heart attack, stroke and all those other nasty things we hear about. Guess what, you're STILL only paying that 200 a month. And actually, if you're a younger person, you won't even be paying that much. When I was selling insurance, the quote I did for myself, which also included a "injury resulting in severe burns, para- and quadreplegic status" and it came out to 115 bucks or so a month, and I was 28 at the time.
But the thing with those supplements is that, yes premium never goes up as long as it remains active, but it pays YOU to cover those $5,000 deductibles, not the hospital bill itself.
Compare that to your standard ACA policy, where when you're 23, you might pay 400 a month. Then you have a birthday, and youre just as healthy as ever, in fact, even more so now. Well, at age 24, that insurance company, out of their good graces is going to make your monthly premium 450. and then at 25, it'll be 500. You get married at 26, but because now the insurance is covering two people instead of one, we'll give you a "discount" and you're only gonna pay 800.
Huh, that's absolutely not how it was explained to me by the rep or the website. Even still I don't have the near $500 (affordable?) they want every month. So I guess all those poorer than me can enjoy my tax refunds and I'll keep buying that food and shelter I need more than health insurance.
The government that gave you disappearing IRS emails, said, "what difference does it make?", when embassy staff get murdered, send administration officials to funerals of muggers and bullies, not forthcoming? Who would have thought?
Huh, that's absolutely not how it was explained to me by the rep or the website. Even still I don't have the near $500 (affordable?) they want every month. So I guess all those poorer than me can enjoy my tax refunds and I'll keep buying that food and shelter I need more than health insurance.
If your health insurance is $500/month, unless you make more than $75,000, there isn't a tax penalty you will have to pay. (Assuming it's talking about the second lowest cost silver plan and you're not complaining about the best plan out there being expensive...)
The government that gave you disappearing IRS emails, said, "what difference does it make?", when embassy staff get murdered, send administration officials to funerals of muggers and bullies, not forthcoming? Who would have thought?
All of that seems like a massive non-sequitur.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/27 02:24:06
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
The government that gave you disappearing IRS emails, said, "what difference does it make?", when embassy staff get murdered, send administration officials to funerals of muggers and bullies, not forthcoming? Who would have thought?
It was 4 something for this year more next. And it was silver. The bronze isn't worth the effort. And I make waaay les than 75,000 and still had to pay the minimum penalty this year.
Yesterday at work I had a medical emergency and had to drive to the emergency room. Ithe was worrying. In and out in a few hours, the doctors said what was wrong with me was simple, sent me on my way with some medicine.
I didn't lay a dime. I don't care if for some people it's unethical, without Obamacare, I would not have had that piece of mind.
Mr.Church13 wrote: It was 4 something for this year more next. And it was silver. The bronze isn't worth the effort. And I make waaay les than 75,000 and still had to pay the minimum penalty this year.
Then I suggest you get someone to do a second look at your taxes. One of the exemptions for paying the penalty is that it costs more than 8% of your income.
CptJake wrote: When you force every 16 year old and older person to purchase car insurance, wether they drive or own a car or not, your comparison will be closer.
Given that every single person in the US is owner of one human body and therefore can get sick, your argument makes exactly zero sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Okay...please clarify because how is this in any way incorrect? It's an extremely important distinction that gets lost in these discussions.
Health Insurance <> HealthCare
Once again, healthcare insurers are no longer able to deny coverage to people with a pre-existing condition. They can't step away from $100k in treatment by deciding you had that problem when you signed up. That is a massive cost to healthcare companies. But allowing people to just turn up and get coverage after they've found out they were sick means no-one would bother getting healthcare until they got sick. The individual mandate counters that.
But, of course, people who want to complain just look at the individual mandate in isolation, and claim that ACA makes private insurers more profitable.
As to corporate welfare (hyperbolic yes)...
Meh, it's a pretty small movement, easily explained by the reduction in uncertainty following the ruling.
It's still wrong and starts danger precedent.
It ought to be RAW... otherwise, this is no Rule of Law.
From this point forward, we need to look at this ruling as an EXCEPTION, rather than a RULE.
Except the Supreme Court stated, contrary to your earlier claim, that the intent of the ACA was clear. Not that it had to be interpreted, but that the intent was without a doubt completely clear.
It's like with RAW arguments in 40K, even within that there's generally an exemption for obvious typos. One that sticks in mind is that expansion a couple of editions ago that offered players to take Dawn Raid, which said the nightfighting rules were in place until a 4 was rolled at the start of the turn. It obviously meant 4+, but was a typo.
Well, 'state' was like '4'. There was no interpretation of intent required, it was plain for all to see. Only the most extreme RAW players refused to accept that one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: Reducing the risk pool payments as drastically as they have (5-1 to 7-1 adjustments based on age, moreso for pre-existing conditions as MANY WOULDN'T INSURE THEM AT ALL) effectively eliminates them and places a higher burden on the young and healthy to even further subsidize the old and and already sick.
Capped age premiums mean the young subsidise the elderly, yeah. But that's a millions miles from the claim that there are no risk pools, as was incorrectly claimed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I actually agree with Whembly here.... The language of the ACA is specific, and as such should be viewed in that light.
There's a reason why the 1st amendment says "freedom of the press" and not "freedom of the newspapers" or the 2nd reads "the right to bear arms" instead of "the right to own guns" Those are general terms, not specific. In American politics, the only times we use "The State" to mean the federal government, is when we're dealing with international issues; if the issue is domestic, the term the State refers to one or more of the 50 states of the union.
Absolutely, the argument put forward that it 'state' included the Federal Government was both incorrect, and disingenous - everyone new they were referring only to the states. But it is also clear that it was not intended to be like that, the subsidies are an essential part of the guaranteed coverage, individual mandate & subsidy structure. And so it becomes a question of whether the SC will overturn the most significant bill passed in the last decade over a typo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghazkuul wrote: The difference in this scenario is that the car insurance you use is paid for BY YOU THE OWNER OF THE CAR! and furthermore you can choose which company you wish to use and how much coverage you would like. In Obamacare the problem encountered is that most Americans get health insurance who couldn't afford it before, but instead of that person paying for it themselves, those of us who could afford health insurance before Obamacare are now forced to pay for them. This is another system of Socialism that allows the poor to benefit from the middle and upper class.
Just think that through to the end - what happens when a poor person gets sick? What happens when some guy working night security for minimum wage +2 gets some weird kind of bone cancer? There is no way that guy is ever going to repay $100k+ in medical bills. So the options are;
1) Let him die.
2) Give him treatment, but have him accrue the debt. When cured he will have a debt he cannot pay, so he declares bankruptcy and you take what assets he has. Almost all of the debt will be left, with the expense worn by the healthcare system.
3) Have the government pay for all or almost all of it.
Because we are not deranged sociopaths, we don't consider option 1. Instead your country opts for some combination of option 2 and option 3. Option 2 ends up with the rest of society paying pretty much the same amount as it does with option 3, albeit without the waste of bankruptcy proceedings.
But, you know, socialism, so option 3 is bad. Or something.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Honestly, though... IMO, all non-Military Federal employee should having their healthcare compensation start at the Exchanges. (Adjusting for salary compensation of course).
IMO, all employees, public or private, should acquire their own health insurance. But then I'm just one of those free market lunatics...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Because, you know, Congress's failure to accomplish anything useful should have consequences, too. Oh, right, it doesn't, which is why we're still spiraling down the toilet.
You're not spiralling down the toilet. You remain the most powerful country in the world with the largest economy by far, and there's no way that is going to change in the forseeable future. End of the day, congress has been a disfunctional cesspit since, well, since there's been congress. But the whole system still functions well enough to not get in the way.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2015/06/29 03:01:46
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Once again, healthcare insurers are no longer able to deny coverage to people with a pre-existing condition. They can't step away from $100k in treatment by deciding you had that problem when you signed up. That is a massive cost to healthcare companies. But allowing people to just turn up and get coverage after they've found out they were sick means no-one would bother getting healthcare until they got sick. The individual mandate counters that.
But, of course, people who want to complain just look at the individual mandate in isolation, and claim that ACA makes private insurers more profitable.
Stahp.
Again, Health insurance is NOT the same thing as the Healthcare industry.
Just like Car Insurance isn't the same thing as GM, Ford or Toyota.
whembly wrote: Honestly, though... IMO, all non-Military Federal employee should having their healthcare compensation start at the Exchanges. (Adjusting for salary compensation of course).
IMO, all employees, public or private, should acquire their own health insurance. But then I'm just one of those free market lunatics...
.
Oh you dirty, stinking capitalist.
In my lifetime, I'm willing to bet that we'd expand our federal Medicare to everyone that covers 70% of what we have now (catastrophic + general maintenance).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/06/29 04:52:39
Again, Health insurance is NOT the same thing as the Healthcare industry.
Just like Car Insurance isn't the same thing as GM, Ford or Toyota.
Of course they're not, but that has nothing to do with the basic reality that if you're going to let people get insurance once they're sick, you have to make them get insurance when they're healthy. Or else, you know, death spiral.
Oh you dirty, stinking capitalist.
In my lifetime, I'm willing to bet that we'd expand our federal Medicare to everyone that covers 70% of what we have now (catastrophic + general maintenance).
Medicare expansion is pretty believable. I mean, it's likely that lower incomes will remain as stagnant as they have for the last generation, and the expectations for healthcare (and the cost) are only going to grow, so I can see Medicare slowly pushing upwards, covering more and more people.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
CptJake wrote: When you force every 16 year old and older person to purchase car insurance, wether they drive or own a car or not, your comparison will be closer.
Given that every single person in the US is owner of one human body and therefore can get sick, your argument makes exactly zero sense.
Yeah, it does. Forcing young people to buy insurance that covers things they don't need to have covered is pretty damned similar, be it health insurance or car insurance.
Unless you are making the argument that a 21 year old with no existing health problems has the same insurance needs as a 40 year old or 70 year old. I suspect a tiny bit of research would show that the health issues of those groups are not the same in most cases.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
CptJake wrote: When you force every 16 year old and older person to purchase car insurance, wether they drive or own a car or not, your comparison will be closer.
Given that every single person in the US is owner of one human body and therefore can get sick, your argument makes exactly zero sense.
Yeah, it does. Forcing young people to buy insurance that covers things they don't need to have covered is pretty damned similar, be it health insurance or car insurance.
Unless you are making the argument that a 21 year old with no existing health problems has the same insurance needs as a 40 year old or 70 year old. I suspect a tiny bit of research would show that the health issues of those groups are not the same in most cases.
Hey at least I know I can get quality prenatal care on my male body if I need it.
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
