The White House Wants Gamers To Buy Healthcare

I prefer the Republican healthcare plan:

Don't get sick, and if you do, die quickly.

Umm, no.

Obamacare is forcing you to buy a product you don't necessarily need or want.

Sure there was some actual reform needed, but Obamacare is NOT the answer and NEVER, EVER, EVER should have been shoved down our throats.
 
Umm, no.

Obamacare is forcing you to buy a product you don't necessarily need or want.

Sure there was some actual reform needed, but Obamacare is NOT the answer and NEVER, EVER, EVER should have been shoved down our throats.

Everyone needs healthcare, biff. Unless they're a robot. Are you a robot? Then my apologies, but I don't think the legislation applies to you.
 
It applies to everyone in the geographical boundaries of country.

Biff.
 
Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence.[1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[2]

Appeals to emotion are intended to draw visceral feelings from the acquirer of the information. And in turn, the acquirer of the information is intended to be convinced that the statements that were presented in the fallacious argument are true; solely on the basis that the statements may induce emotional stimulation such as fear, pity and joy. Though these emotions may be provoked by an appeal to emotion fallacy, substantial proof of the argument is not offered, and the argument's premises remain invalid.[3][4][5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

What causes deeper emotion than the issues of sickness, pain and death? And money, all rolled into one? There's little in the human experience that emotes greater feeling and to discount emotions in inherently highly emotional situations is illogical.

That's not to say that decisions should be made based on emotion but I think most would far more curious about how an individual reacts to a dire situation than what they say about it in comfort of a chair behind a computer.

Logically, most people don't want to die nor live in pain. I think rather than facing these situations most would take tax money for themselves or their loved ones rather than simply suffer regardless of their publically espoused politics.
 
Everyone needs healthcare, biff. Unless they're a robot. Are you a robot? Then my apologies, but I don't think the legislation applies to you.

Sure, healthcare does not equal health insurance.

There were a few years that I worked part time and a few years I worked as a contractor. I didn't have any health insurance, and I paid everything out of pocket.

A couple hundred a year was a whole lot cheaper than $300+ a month.

So don't give me this crap that everybody needs health insurance.
 
America has the best healthcare, but unfortunately has the worst delivery system.
1st world tech, 3rd world distribution!

It does at the top, just like everything. If you're a 1%, you can get the best of everything in America. The real myth is that it is obtainable by everyone - but as study after study has shown, American is falling behind every year vs. other OECD countries in the ability of someone born in a lower economic quintile to move into the next. So again, the top service, goods, healthcare, etc, are by far the best in America. But the average and the median are much better in other countries.

And here we come to the biggest problem with the left: they try to take things that work and come naturally at an intimate community level where people have real human connections and scale them up to the regional and even global level. That will never work.

I never get this argument. It is undeniable, quantifiable fact that these things DIDN'T work, which is why there were 65 million uninsured Americans in the first place. They weren't getting healthcare before through the magic of "intimate community levels" or "the invisible hand". Social Security, Medicare, the ACA are all societal responses to failed systems that were not providing for people's needs.

You are missing the point here. It's about choice.

Do you want to choose what you want or have the government choose for you?

ACA did raise the floor requirement for some healthcare, so there is some level of truth to less choice - but again, only on the low end. If you have money, or employer healthcare, etc, the government doesn't choose a damn thing for you. Even if you're completely broke and unemployed, you still get to choose from several care and expense levels on the exchanges. The "government choose for you" is a canard.

Incurring a high medicals bill beyond one's ability to pay completely out of pocket is a very common occurrence.

Somewhere from 57% - 62% of bankruptcies are caused by medical expenses. http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/2014/03/26/medical-bankruptcy/
 
Everyone should be required to purchase healthcare coverage. Period.

You can't drive your car without liability insurance, and likewise you shouldn't be able to live in the United States without emergency care coverage for yourself because by law we HAVE to render you aid when you do something stupid and hurt yourself.

But you don't need a single payer or government involvement to get just liability insurance for your car, so why should you need Obama to get a bare minimum level of emergency care coverage for yourself? That doesn't make any sense.

So that's where I say screw Obamacare, and just make sure that everyone, no exceptions, has a bare minimum coverage to cover emergency treatment. Then people can decide for themselves what additional level of coverage they want.

Otherwise you put a completely unfair tax burden on the people that use the least coverage as a group; young working males.
 
Sure, healthcare does not equal health insurance.

There were a few years that I worked part time and a few years I worked as a contractor. I didn't have any health insurance, and I paid everything out of pocket.

A couple hundred a year was a whole lot cheaper than $300+ a month.

So don't give me this crap that everybody needs health insurance.

The thing with health care costs is that they are high and for the most part unpredictable. High costs with unpredictable occurances are what insurance is for. So yes, insurance = healthcare. When you had healthcare costs of a couple hundred a year, you were lucky. Hoping you don't get sick isn't a responsible way to manage your life and money.
 
So that's where I say screw Obamacare, and just make sure that everyone, no exceptions, has a bare minimum coverage to cover emergency treatment. Then people can decide for themselves what additional level of coverage they want.

Otherwise you put a completely unfair tax burden on the people that use the least coverage as a group; young working males.

Obamacare tried to do that to some level with the mandate, and the GOP is working to undercut that. Which will send it into a very, very expensive death spiral.
 
The thing with health care costs is that they are high and for the most part unpredictable. High costs with unpredictable occurances are what insurance is for. So yes, insurance = healthcare. When you had healthcare costs of a couple hundred a year, you were lucky. Hoping you don't get sick isn't a responsible way to manage your life and money.

So I should have made other people subsidize my health insurance because I couldn't afford it?

Did you know that you are charged a lot less than what an insurance company is billed when you pay cash vs insurance?

It should be a person's choice whether or not they purchase health insurance. If they don't, then it is their responsibility to pay for it out of pocket.

And the whole auto insurance vs health insurance argument is retarded. If you want to make an apples to apples comparison, it is like forcing every single person to purchase auto insurance, even if they don't drive, minors included.
 
And the whole auto insurance vs health insurance argument is retarded. If you want to make an apples to apples comparison, it is like forcing every single person to purchase auto insurance, even if they don't drive, minors included.

That isn't apples to apples. Saying a human being will never need health care (via insurance) is ridiculous; at some point, everyone needs it. In fact, more so than auto insurance.
 
So I should have made other people subsidize my health insurance because I couldn't afford it?

Because if we going to treat people with expensive healthcare regardless of their ability to pay then that care gets subsidized one way or another.
 
So I should have made other people subsidize my health insurance because I couldn't afford it?

Did you know that you are charged a lot less than what an insurance company is billed when you pay cash vs insurance?

It should be a person's choice whether or not they purchase health insurance. If they don't, then it is their responsibility to pay for it out of pocket.

And the whole auto insurance vs health insurance argument is retarded. If you want to make an apples to apples comparison, it is like forcing every single person to purchase auto insurance, even if they don't drive, minors included.

Uh, actually you pay a lot more than the insurance company does. Because they have negotiating power that you do not have as an individual.

And subsidizing others healthcare costs is how insurance works. Sometimes you need it and the premiums pay for your care, sometimes others need it and your premiums pay for theirs.
 
And subsidizing others healthcare costs is how insurance works. Sometimes you need it and the premiums pay for your care, sometimes others need it and your premiums pay for theirs.

Excellent point. Not sure why some act as though insurance is some sort of personal trust fund. It's economic collectivism.
 
Uh, actually you pay a lot more than the insurance company does. Because they have negotiating power that you do not have as an individual.

And subsidizing others healthcare costs is how insurance works. Sometimes you need it and the premiums pay for your care, sometimes others need it and your premiums pay for theirs.

Have you ever paid for healthcare when you didn't have insurance?

My wife also worked in the medical industry and because of that I know how it works.

1. Usually you have a copay. Let's use my current normal office visit copay and insurance as an example. I also used this doctor when I didn't have insurance.

So if I go in and do a cash payment for a visit, it costs me $70. If I need something like an antibiotic, and I pay for that out of my pocket, that is another $5-$10.

If I use insurance, I have a copay of $40, and then the office also bills my insurance for a lot more than the $30 difference I would have paid if I didn't have insurance. For an antibiotic, I then get a "big discount" and usually get it for $1 to $5.

Sure the insurance doesn't pay near as much as the office bills for, but it is still more expensive for me overall if I have insurance, since I am paying a pretty hefty insurance premium every single month.

I also get a statement each year that says how much the company I work for is paying for my health insurance above what I pay in premiums. It is somewhere around $35,000 or so.. which is insane.

If I didn't have insurance and just put the money I was going to pay for an insurance premium into a savings account, I would have a nice hefty amount in a savings account if any emergency did happen to come up.

2. Now let's take vision insurance as a second example. We always calculate about how much we expect to spend each year if we didn't have insurance vs having insurance.

It always ends up being slightly cheaper overall to have the insurance as I and 2 other people in my household use glasses and/or contacts.

Since I have been married, that is worth it to me. If I were still single, I definitely would not have vision insurance.

3. The same goes for dental. Not worth it at all if I was still single.

Also, what you may not know is that through this "reform", payments to healthcare providers have been lowered for anybody on medicare and medicaid.

Because of this, less and less healthcare providers are accepting those "insurance" plans. They lose money on them, and you can't stay in business if you aren't making money.

This whole thing is a huge mess, and is costing way, way, way more than was said. The costs will continue to rise. There is no way around it. It is just a bad deal all around.

Those of us that are citizens should also not be having to subsidize all these illegals who are being allowed through the border. Get rid of that problem and healthcare costs would go down. It is another huge mess, and it looks like it is only going to get worse.

You have both Repubicans and Democraps to thank for this because they are both trying to pander to the people who do not belong here. Bunch of freaking hypocritic retards.
 
I also get a statement each year that says how much the company I work for is paying for my health insurance above what I pay in premiums. It is somewhere around $35,000 or so.. which is insane.

I simply don't believe unless you're a really fat cat at your company that they are paying $35k for your premiums on top of your contribution. For this kind of money you can buy top line plans in the open market with zero deductibles and copays if you're relatively healthy.
 
That's why people go bankrupt; they're charged the full book prices for services that they then can't pay. It isn't as if the insurance companies actually pay the garbage fees like $4k-$5k per night just for the lousy room/bed rental alone.
 
Everyone needs healthcare, biff. Unless they're a robot. Are you a robot? Then my apologies, but I don't think the legislation applies to you.
Its not that simple.

Obamacare passed as constitutional in that it was sold to the court as being a tax, and the government has a right to tax the people. So there's income taxes, FSA and HSA taxes, excise taxes, services taxes, comprehensive cap taxes, and more.

Furthermore, the left wing has already created a society of dependent takers, with nearly half of all Americans receiving some form of regular government check, be it food stamps, rental assistance, SS, unemployment, and various forms of welfare. They reinforce their power by ensuring this ever growing segment of society understands that the Democrats control their paycheck which they have slowly but surely stagnated and grown comfortable on.

Obamacare, by requiring healthcare coverage for all citizens will have a large portion that will receive a further virtual check in the mail to pay for this service as well. In a nation where half of society are takers and not contributors, the question becomes who is going to pay for this additional tax burden?

And while I agree that everyone should be required to carry emergency-service healthcare coverage, in case they break a leg, fall off a ladder, get stabbed by a mugger, whatever the random event that a hospital can know the person is covered and just treat without any concerns until they are stable, and the person is being responsible in theory and actually PAYING for their own care (a strange concept, I know). But a healthy fit 26 year old male may find that he doesn't need more than the bare-minimum emergency coverage since its extremely unlikely he would have any other healthcare costs. Just as he can decide if he wants to bungee jump or go cave SCUBA diving at night, its his life and he should be able to determine what level of risk he wants to take on his own. Now however, you're taxing him to pay for all the before-mentioned takers, completely divorcing healthcare consumption and healthcare contribution. Its like your boss declaring that he's ordering a pizza for everyone at the office, and even the people not eating have to pay while others that are eating a lot don't even pay at all.

And speaking of that divorce, that's another specific problem with Obamacare, in that its completely dismissing pre-existing conditions. If you ALREADY KNOW that you have adult onset diabetes and require an additional cost for that, why should that healthy fit 26 year old be forced to pay the same as you? That's fucked up. You should pay more for pre-existing conditions because you're a greater risk, just as you pay more for car insurance for pre-existing accident history since you're statistically likely to cost more so you have to contribute more. Common sense and fair.

And it STILL DOESN'T FIX THE ROOT PROBLEM!!! When you shop for a TV, you want to get the maximum bang for your buck If you see a TV or $400 and one that's about the same for $4000, you're going to go for the $400 one. And if it has an optional TV stand for $250 that you decide you don't even need, you'll skip it. Why? Because you're paying for it. With Obamacare, you're not paying for anything still. So the healthcare industry is going to push the $4000 TV and the $250 TV stand, you as a consumer who isn't paying one way or another will want the same thing, and now the payer in this case the government is the only one that cares about cost. So now they may force everyone to get the $400 TV without a stand, but what if you as a consumer want the stand? Tough, you can't have it. But what if you actually need it, I mean you know your house better than the government right? Sorry. And if you say, well screw this because guess what there's HUNDREDS of TVs and stands on the market to choose from, guess what you're still paying for that $400 TV in your tax burden, meaning you have less money available to get what you really want/need and the government is limiting you to a handful of options only.

So in this day and age of the internet, where consumers can really research a TON of options marketed directly toward them, you're boxing people into a "one size fits all" box where doctors can't even tell if they're working for you the patient or the government who is paying them; and either way Obama ends up dictating to both patients and providers what they can and can't have.

So its a fucktarded system and broken at its core, even though I support the idea of having a car-like "liability insurance" requirement with financial penalties for non-compliance in theory.
 
I don't disagree with that assessment Ducman. But I think both parties had a hand in this; the core of this plan came from a conservative think-tank and was rolled out by Romney in his own state first. Single-payer of basic insurance would never have gotten through, and the Republicans never came in and tried to meaningfully improve the program, they solely tried to torpedo it.
 
That's why people go bankrupt; they're charged the full book prices for services that they then can't pay. It isn't as if the insurance companies actually pay the garbage fees like $4k-$5k per night just for the lousy room/bed rental alone.
And that's what the problem was in the healthcare industry, that:
1) Pharmaceutical lack of integrity with them paying doctors to promote their products, while also directly marketing drugs to consumers (remember to ask your doctor if placebix is right for you), with more money spent by the industry on MARKETING to doctors and patients than research and testing on drugs.
2) An industry that wants to push the most expensive option with a consumer (patient) that wants to get the most expensive option, so no one directly involved ever has incentive to cost-shop, which causes people to get a $500 walker when they may decide they'll never even use it and stick with a $15 cane.
3) Massive costs of medical insurance for the physicians, staff, and hospital because of various frivolous lawsuits, or even in the cases of legitimate malpractice having lottery like awards given to... you guessed it... THE LAWYER who ends up getting rich and all that money flowing to the rich lawyers is baked right in to your healthcare cost.

There's more, but just these thigns alone are a huge problem, which Obamacare doesn't even attempt to address.
 
Don't disagree with any of that; on the other hand, I have seen some of the benefits of getting more citizens healthcare. Hopefully over time the idea of having universal healthcare will be less of a RAGEEEE moment and then we can actually work out the details to make it cost effect/more efficient.

But right now, talking details in almost any political context is lost; we're in a binary world of, "You want to kill children! (pro-healthcare)" and "You want to turn us into Muslim-sharia-communists! (contra-anything Obama does)".
 
I simply don't believe unless you're a really fat cat at your company that they are paying $35k for your premiums on top of your contribution. For this kind of money you can buy top line plans in the open market with zero deductibles and copays if you're relatively healthy.

Maybe for an individual. This is for me and my family. It also includes the amount that they pay for vision and dental.

And I am by no means a "fat cat".. I am an IT person.

I don't have very high deductibles and premiums are quite low compared to some other places.

If I were in AZ or CA, my premiums for a comparable plan would easily be over twice of what I am paying now if I worked for a different company. This is mostly due to the influx of illegals there, and the resulting skyrocketing healthcare costs because of it.

If I were given the option to get the money that my company normally pays for my health insurance, I would take it in a heartbeat. It would allow me to pay off my house in the next couple of years as well as have a huge medical emergency saving account.
 
Well, I haven't experienced Canada's healthcare firsthand, but I know that a lot of Canadians come to the United States if they have any type of medical issue that's actually serious (like say cancer) rather than just a broken bone.

On the other hand, the exact same medications in Canada cost a tiny fraction of what they do in the US, so they are doing something right there.

What I don't want to see though is something like the British NHS. I had a buddy that was involved in a motorcycle accident, and he was put into a cramped room with another guy that wouldn't stop screaming throughout the night who the nurses simply ignored despite his wailing, the food was absolutely atrocious making school lunches look supremely appetizing by comparison, and no doctors or nurses would spend any time to answer his questions... so he ended up transferring to one of the few private facilities but didn't have much money left to pay for that since all the money for the crappy service he was getting already came out of his paycheck whether he liked it or not. Then my mom here in the US had knee surgery, we got to shop around all over the area for the doctor and facility we wanted since she opted to pay in to a ultra-fancy healthcare plan, and my god it was wonderful. Some people will want cheap options to save money, and others will want something premium... you gotta have that kind of flexibility.

And then there's the issue of expedient care, which if you haven't heard the NHS is still up to its usual shenanigans. They keep getting busted for "resetting" the clock on patients to lower their average wait times, and yet even with that we're still seeing long waiting lists that are now exceeding 3 million patients with most to be served in less than 18 weeks (a target they missed... think about that): http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/12/nhs-waiting-list-over-3-million

There are some people that have had to wait over a year to get treatment... imagine that. Remember a few years back when there was a bunch of British protestors on youtube doing their own dental work because of the long waiting lists, in particular people pulling their own teeth?

I know its not as bad in Germany, but my mom is convinced that the reason my grandma died was because of how long she was delayed before finally getting medical treatment, which I don't know if its true or not, but it certainly could have been a major contributing factor. And her sister's certainly thought so too, which is why my aunt that was diagnosed with cancer actually came to us to get treatment here in Houston (which as hard since again so much of her money was paid in taxes for a service she chose not to use)... btw, didn't realize that Houston actually is one of the world's great cancer treatment hubs, who knew.

So sure we can get into details and what not, but remember that Obamacare was rushed through to the point that no one was allowed to even read what was in it, which is pretty ridiculous. So of course the goal is to sink it and start from scratch when you start off like that.
 
On the other hand while Canadians are coming here for healthcare, a significant number of Americans go to Mexico or South America for major surgery since it is so much more affordable. Working in banks monitoring transactions, we'd see these larger than average (for the person) overseas payments, look up the recipient and see it was a clinic in Colombia or Mexico. Always would keep an eye on those, see if the patient passed away and the doctor/nurse goes on a spending spree with their card. ;)

It goes both ways; as I mentioned above, if you have the $ for Cadillac level care, you come here. But the median/average level of care is likely better in Canada, Britain, etc.
 
Everyone needs healthcare, biff. Unless they're a robot. Are you a robot? Then my apologies, but I don't think the legislation applies to you.

Everyone needs healthcare? SURE!

Does everyone need health insurance? Maybe, maybe not.

When it's priced in such a way that people are living beyond their means just to buy the cheapest tier of care that doesn't even cover them properly if many circumstances? That still financially ruins them if they actually get ill?

Then the answer is NO. All it's doing is sucking money out of the pockets of those who can afford it least.
 
Everyone needs healthcare? SURE!

Does everyone need health insurance? Maybe, maybe not.

When it's priced in such a way that people are living beyond their means just to buy the cheapest tier of care that doesn't even cover them properly if many circumstances? That still financially ruins them if they actually get ill?

Then the answer is NO. All it's doing is sucking money out of the pockets of those who can afford it least.

Except the law subsidizes those peoples premiums or allows them to join medicaid.
 
Because without the youth, en mass, signing up for healthcare than the system will forever be hemorrhaging cash. In the end, they'll simply threaten the American sheeple with insane "fines", gradually increasing year after year until they are signed up. Grats!

Which is still cheaper than insurance, by a long shot. :rolleyes:
 
Except the law subsidizes those peoples premiums or allows them to join medicaid.

That's great. But how does this stop major illnesses/injuries from becoming life-ruining financial debacles?

Oh yeah. It DOESN'T.
 
Look guys, people get sick.

You couldn't possibly understand.

That's why it doesnt matter how we pay for this thing, don't get all caught up in the logic of it.

This program makes me feel good, because I don't like people getting sick.

I have right on my side.

People shouldn't get sick.
 
Uh, that's what having the insurance does
No it doesn't but that is what it's suppose to do. Read your policy. Unless you have a really high coverage ones (ie the really expensive ones), anything "affordable" is just a f**king groupon. You pay like $3700/year and if by some chance you hit their deductible say $3000, then and only then will they actually pay for 50% of your bill from that point forward till the end of the year and then it resets and you have to spend another $3000 before it kicks in again. Insurance is a joke unless you are willing to pay a min of $900+/month. It doesn't stop you from going bankrupt, it just slows that process down by a certain percentage. Worst part is if by some chance you get sick and get taken to a hospital that is "out of network" your on hook for 100% of the bill. Insurance will "save you from bankruptcy" my ass.
 
People shouldn't get sick.

This has nothing to do with. People tend to not want to get sick as a matter of personal preference. And when they do, they typically seek medical assistance particularly if they are experiencing severe pain or an obvious life threatening situation. And more often than not we provide medical to these people even when they lack the ability to pay.
 
No it doesn't but that is what it's suppose to do. Read your policy. Unless you have a really high coverage ones (ie the really expensive ones), anything "affordable" is just a f**king groupon. You pay like $3700/year and if by some chance you hit their deductible say $3000, then and only then will they actually pay for 50% of your bill from that point forward till the end of the year and then it resets and you have to spend another $3000 before it kicks in again. Insurance is a joke unless you are willing to pay a min of $900+/month. It doesn't stop you from going bankrupt, it just slows that process down by a certain percentage. Worst part is if by some chance you get sick and get taken to a hospital that is "out of network" your on hook for 100% of the bill. Insurance will "save you from bankruptcy" my ass.

Health insurance has certainly prevented my wife and I from facing much more expense than otherwise.
 
Hey guys... here's $50 off your $500 monthly premiums. Enjoy your $5,000 deductible and 50% copay!

A $5000 detectable is nothing when the bill is $100k. Don't know of too many policies that put people on the hook for half of say $100k.

We can debate this all day long. All I can refer to with detailed knowledge are my own experiences with health insurance and they're NOTHING like what many anti-ACA folks are saying here.
 
A $5000 detectable is nothing when the bill is $100k. Don't know of too many policies that put people on the hook for half of say $100k.

We can debate this all day long. All I can refer to with detailed knowledge are my own experiences with health insurance and they're NOTHING like what many anti-ACA folks are saying here.
Believe me I am not anti-ACA, but the whole point of insurance is so that in a worst case scenario condition, you don't get wiped out. Problem is there are no "affordable" policies that do that. If you qualify for a subsidy, then you probably can get one of those $1000/month plans for $100/month or less, but if you don't, you are looking at some really bad almost useless policies. I can tell you from my experience that the deductible for most of the "affordable" health insurance plans, I have not even reached once even if I tallied up all my out of pocket with no health insurance costs for the past 2 years + the penalty I will have to pay the IRS this year for not having it. So if for the past 2 years I had bought the lowest priced health insurance I could find I would have spent in the $6500+ range over 2 years instead of the < ~$1600 I actually spent on medicine, doctor visits and laboratory fees. I am willing to buy some catastrophic health insurance plan cause that is what I think is the ONLY thing that should be required by law to have.
 
A $5000 detectable is nothing when the bill is $100k. Don't know of too many policies that put people on the hook for half of say $100k.

We can debate this all day long. All I can refer to with detailed knowledge are my own experiences with health insurance and they're NOTHING like what many anti-ACA folks are saying here.

There used to be policies that had low (or no) deductibles, low premiums, and low (or no) co-pays that also covered catastrophic incidents (you know, actual "insurance"). There were limitations on some items (like you can't get ten MRIs a year) so that the insured took on some of the risk. For some people this is the most logical (and only affordable) plan. But these don't exist any more.

This is all very basic stuff, of course. Insurance is about averaging out payouts across a risk pool. When the pool and / or the risks are broadened the cost to the participants (not the insurance company) goes up.

The appropriate step here is for everybody to just abandon "insurance" and force the insurance companies or medical industry to foot the bills themselves. This is, after all, the paradigm that they set up and wanted.
 
All I can refer to with detailed knowledge are my own experiences with health insurance and they're NOTHING like what many anti-ACA folks are saying here.

As an almost poor person I'll give you my personal experience. I qualify for "assistance" which is a whopping $30 a month credit. The least expensive option to me is ~$150 and covers absolutely nothing other than a major accident. I still have to pay to go to a DR and for Meds (which I maybe do once a year if it's a bad year.). A plan that would actually let me go to the DR without paying a fortune is going to run closer to 400 a month. As of right now it is cheaper for me to pay the tax penalty than it is to get useless heath care.

The only people winning with this are poor people or people with kids. My GF loves it because she gets free healthcare and food stamps and only has to work a couple days a week. Life is great as long as you aspire to be a piece of shit for the rest of your life.

The problem with the ACA is that government went to health insurance companies and asked "How can we make care cheaper?" and they said "Force everyone to buy our services?"'. So rather than fixing grossly over inflated prices and a clearly broken system they just strong armed people into paying into the still broken system. Good job guys!
 
Back
Top