Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[zoogs]

Yes, but you do have to buy car insurance if you drive a car.

People who aren't alive aren't subject to any health risks and costs and I'm okay with them not buying health insurance. People who are alive though have health needs.

 

[Junior]

Probably a good point. So, what is the correct word (if it's not extortion) when you are basically forced to do something against your will, under the threat of repercussions?

Taxes? Car insurance? Marriage?

I don't have to buy car insurance just because I'm alive and living here. I don't have to get married if I don't want to.

The marriage bit was a joke... FYI

But the point remains. If you want to drive a car, you have to get a license and car insurance... even if it is against your will.

 

[BigRedBuster]

That's not the same thing. I make a choice to drive a car. So, therefore, I have to get a license and insurance.

There is no choice I make (other than living) that then requires me to buy health insurance.

 

[JJ Husker]

JJ, what are the other things?

Health care isn't a commodity you can choose as a consumer to acquire or not. It's more of an inextricable necessity for anyone who happens to be alive.

Similar example: if you happen to drive, you are required to purchase auto insurance. There's no such thing as 'informed choice'.

Actually auto insurance was the example on the tip of my brain. Filing and paying income tax is another good one.

Health insurance and health care are both absolutely things a person can choose to acquire or not. The fact that you or I or most responsible people view them as inextricable necessities has nothing to do with the choice. This is exactly one of the biggest reasons our healthcare system is broken. Countless people decided to run the risk of not having insurance, discovered they needed care, sought that care, and then didn't/couldn't pay for it. Those costs are passed on to those of us who do have insurance and who do pay our bills.

 

[Junior]

That's not the same thing. I make a choice to drive a car. So, therefore, I have to get a license and insurance.

There is no choice I make (other than living) that then requires me to buy health insurance.

You could choose to move to another country. Then you could get free health insurance.

 

[Junior]

JJ, what are the other things?

Health care isn't a commodity you can choose as a consumer to acquire or not. It's more of an inextricable necessity for anyone who happens to be alive.

Similar example: if you happen to drive, you are required to purchase auto insurance. There's no such thing as 'informed choice'.

Actually auto insurance was the example on the tip of my brain. Filing and paying income tax is another good one.

Health insurance and health care are both absolutely things a person can choose to acquire or not. The fact that you or I or most responsible people view them as inextricable necessities has nothing to do with the choice. This is exactly one of the biggest reasons our healthcare system is broken. Countless people decided to run the risk of not having insurance, discovered they needed care, sought that care, and then didn't/couldn't pay for it. Those costs are passed on to those of us who do have insurance and who do pay our bills.

So if it comes down to food or health insurance, people should choose health insurance?

 

[JJ Husker]

But the point remains. If you want to drive a car, you have to get a license and car insurance... even if it is against your will.

Actually many people do drive without a license and/or without auto insurance. It is pretty much the same thing except with how you get caught. A person could drive their whole life without getting caught. Taxes and the new ACA will check in on your status every year.

Don't misunderstand my point. I'm not pushing the issue that the personal mandate is "legalized extortion". I saw the question presented and I just feel it significantly resembles that. I've said it numerous times on this board, healthcare reform and this law specifically has no chance of working without the mandate. If we allow people to seek care without coverage we won't solve very much of the problem. The mandate is a big step towards assuring more people have health insurance.

 

[zoogs]

People don't make responsible decisions, especially ones who are less well off.

That doesn't stop them from developing debilitating sickness or going outside, tripping, and breaking their leg.

Which the rest of us then pay for. Actually, now that I look at your post, that seems to be exactly what you're saying:

This is exactly one of the biggest reasons our healthcare system is broken. Countless people decided to run the risk of not having insurance, discovered they needed care, sought that care, and then didn't/couldn't pay for it. Those costs are passed on to those of us who do have insurance and who do pay our bills.

This is precisely the problem that the individual mandate is addressing, no?

That's why this is often said to be a 'conservative idea', right? Reading your latest post it even sounds like we totally agree, except for the part where you feel it resembles extortion. Couldn't you say that about any tax? ... which is what the Supreme Court decided it was?

I really don't understand why Obamacare is portrayed as socialized medicine. Unless I'm very much mistaken, it's the furthest thing from free universal healthcare.

 

[JJ Husker]

So if it comes down to food or health insurance, people should choose health insurance?

Here we f'ing go......

Who said that? Why inflame a sensible discussion?

That is specifically why a few posts back I stipulated "financial ability" and "informed choice". We can figure out a way to provide care for those who can't afford it or those who are not mentally capable of determining they need it. Those are the people I don't mind helping with my tax dollars. Now what about the people who can afford it and do understand it? The people who choose drugs or alcohol ahead of health insurance? The young healthy person who doesn't mind "risking it" for 5 or 10 or 15 years?

These things go much smoother when you don't put words in peoples mouths.

 

[Junior]

So if it comes down to food or health insurance, people should choose health insurance?

Here we f'ing go......

Who said that? Why inflame a sensible discussion?

That is specifically why a few posts back I stipulated "financial ability" and "informed choice". We can figure out a way to provide care for those who can't afford it or those who are not mentally capable of determining they need it. Those are the people I don't mind helping with my tax dollars. Now what about the people who can afford it and do understand it? The people who choose drugs or alcohol ahead of health insurance? The young healthy person who doesn't mind "risking it" for 5 or 10 or 15 years?

These things go much smoother when you don't put words in peoples mouths.

The fact that you or I or most responsible people view them as inextricable necessities has nothing to do with the choice. This is exactly one of the biggest reasons our healthcare system is broken. Countless people decided to run the risk of not having insurance, discovered they needed care, sought that care, and then didn't/couldn't pay for it.

Your definition of health care as a choice and statement that people have chosen to run the risk of not having insurance led me to that question.

 

[JJ Husker]

This is precisely the problem that the individual mandate is addressing, no?

That's why this is often said to be a 'conservative idea', right? Reading your latest post it even sounds like we totally agree, except for the part where you feel it resembles extortion. Couldn't you say that about any tax? ... which is what the Supreme Court decided it was?

I really don't understand why Obamacare is portrayed as socialized medicine. Unless I'm very much mistaken, it's the furthest thing from free universal healthcare.

Thank you. Yes, you could say that about any tax. And I'm sure we do basically agree- probably just approaching from slightly different angles.

I think it can be portrayed as "socialized medicine" because some people do/will get their care for free and others premiums will be subsidized by other peoples tax dollars. Pretty much the very definition of "socialized". IMO, socialized medicine is the only way to accomplish treating those less fortunate. So, just because it is probably necessary, doesn't/shouldn't change the definition of what it is. I have no qualms about claiming it is necessary while also calling it extortion or socialism. I simply view that as being realistic and honest about what it is.

 

[zoogs]

The people who choose drugs or alcohol ahead of health insurance? The young healthy person who doesn't mind "risking it" for 5 or 10 or 15 years?

These things go much smoother when you don't put words in peoples mouths.

Isn't the point that these people are always going to exist, and their actions result in a costly drain on society both by the damage caused to could-have-been-treated people not getting treatment, and to the times when they are treated and everyone else foots the bill?

A portion of the country which we all share doing this is a drag on national productivity and that ultimately hurts everyone. It's not as simple as "yeah, well, they deserved it for being stupid", because your own fortunes are tied to the national economy.

I get arguments for not taxing people and letting them keep their money when the aim is to spur economic activity and keep it healthy. I don't get the argument to pass on this tax so that we can let the irresponsible people hurt themselves and unnecessarily reduce the production potential of the country?

But yeah, we do seem to agree, so apologies in advance if I'm seeming argumentative.

I think it can be portrayed as "socialized medicine" because some people do/will get their care for free and others premiums will be subsidized by other peoples tax dollars.

Hm --- is there a notable difference from that and the previous status quo? i.e, higher amount of subsidizing? etc.

 

[JJ Husker]

Hm --- is there a notable difference from that and the previous status quo? i.e, higher amount of subsidizing? etc.

You are correct. Those with the ability to pay were, are, and will continue to subsidize it one way or the other. The only real difference is that subsidizing was happening through the market place. Now some of it will be happening by government decree. But, in only monetary terms, it probably has virtually the same impact on those footing the bill. To some degree, our whole economy is "socialized" even though most of us, myself included, harbor this grand illusion of free trade and capitalism. Market prices are controlled by what others in a society do. If not enough people buy a certain product or service, it's cost is likely to be higher and it's prognosis grim. So, I guess in a way the old supply & demand thing is sort of socialized. I guess the major difference would be an authoritarian government enforcing it.

 

[JJ Husker]

I saw this tidbit a few minutes ago and it struck me kind of funny. Yeah, I have a sick sense of humor.

According to The Washington Post, "more Americans have lost their individual health coverage than have gotten past the login screen on healthcare•gov."

Actually that isn't funny at all. It got me thinking about a worst case scenario.

-peoples policies are cancelled because they do not comply with new ACA provisions.

-People can't get on healthcare.gov to sign up for desired/required coverage.

-the yoyo's in Washington will not push back the mandate effective date.

-tens or hundreds of thousands of people lose coverage and technically become criminals.

And people on here wonder why I am skeptical about our governments ability to manage anything.

 

[zoogs]

The mandate effective date has already been pushed back.