this is a good post. people need to realize that people dying of preventable illnesses, like houses burning down, is never a good thing.
it kind of astounded me how popular this sentiment was on twitter. imagine the shock they're in for when they realize that canada's president is black too. :evan:
you were surprised by stupidity on twitter? clearly you need to get around the internet more.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I am either for or against Obamacare, I didn't intend to do so. I'm really just here commenting on the SCOTUS decision as a legally-trained observer.
I'm so glad they put that in there. There's no way they're going to abuse the fact that people must buy their product now.
1. Just wondering how else they can abuse the fact. I don't really see any other way beyond rate increases (in case you didn't realize there's more than one insurance company).
Mm, ok. I was thrown off by your comment of "yup, Trax, baby steps," i guess.
Competition doesn't necessarily mean that prices will remain low. While it's certainly a helpful factor in doing so, equally important is the option not to purchase. Knowing that if their product is too high priced, a customer would rather go without is what keeps prices low - you need customers, after all, to first consider buying the product before they decide who to buy /from/. Without the need to attract customers, insurance companies are much more free to exploit them - and without the option to quit paying if prices get too high, getting robbed is a real possibility. Just look a cigarette companies for an example of this in action.
But when insurance prices rise to a price that you cannot afford in your budget, you are eligible for government care without paying a tax penalty.
Here's the thing; you have an option to buy a car or not, and if you choose not to, you don't have to buy car insurance. You don't have the option to choose not to have a body.
I could be completely wrong on this, but hasn't this plan backfired everywhere in america? Particularly poor districts? Like, people start buying as many calories as they can as cheaply as they can?
http://thanksobamacare.org/index.php?id=12
Is something like this that expensive? The other good countries of the world can afford it, I guess they're not several trillion dollars in debt though.
EXACTLY. This is reason #1 why I hate this ruling on the Affordable Care Act. Say hello to privitized profits on public utilities. You don't have to have a Poland Spring(tm) water line directly into your house, but you still have to pay if you don't! It's a new water tax! Holy shit these companies must be salivating over these new opportunities.
The Affordable Care Act is laying the foundation for universal health care...by forcing people to buy private insurance with their own money? How does that make sense?
There's plenty of education available already. I think the public education system has bigger responsibilities at the moment, like why kids can't do math in an economy where you need a college education to get an entry level position.
Ah, right, I forgot I made that comment. Most of the thinking behind that comment was "that is the only way anything gets done in this country, we'll take what we can get."
I wouldn't call Lopez a brilliant move by any stretch of the imagination. Guns in school zones have absolutely no rational relation to interstate commerce. Congress went too far in that case, and the Court rightfully stepped in and said "now hold the fuck UP a second."
My point was that I wouldn't be surprised if the government took control of health insurance away from private companies in the future. It would be easier to do if everyone already had insurance.
That makes no sense.
I don't see why it doesn't. Let everyone get settled in with their insurance plans first. If the government buys out the private companies and keeps the same plans in effect, less people are likely to complain about the change in who is in control.
Due to the fact that we already have a privatized health care system established, it is, in my own opinion, better to utilize what we have through implementing strict regulations and creating a public option than to blow up an age old industry. It takes a lot of stress from the government's budget. The public option creates a safety net that the consumers can fall upon.
that article affirms my point, thank you
You said that the emergency healthcare system was enough to compensate for the coverage disparity among the poor and this article shows that is far from the truth so I'm confused as to why I affirmed your point. Under the new legislation, the poor are covered by the US's Medicaid program. If I affirmed your point that government run healthcare is inefficient, then I don't agree. Without the emergency room, the poor would have absolutely no chance in receiving any healthcare they need under any circumstance and would die before owing anyone anything. Although it is very badly thought out, it is much better than having nothing in place at all. The healthcare reform seeks to fix the problems the currently unregulated system suffers from. I am still wondering as to why Republicans think this is "bad law" beyond the mandate and other rebuked statements they have made in the past, though. I wish they would bring their legitimate concerns to light so they can be discussed instead of just saying no to everything without real reason besides "not wanting it".
