Hm… so allowing people to buy exactly want they need and want is a race to the bottom? To the bottom of what? Exactly why is making people buy things they cannot even use is a good thing? I think not.
Back to my grocery store analogy from a few pages back - what if one were told that every time you go food shopping you must spend X amount, even though your family does not need that much food. What do you think resourceful / financially smart people would do? How about go to the store less often and even stop going to that store all together.
That was one of the problems with the old ACA; the government loaded up the policies with stuff that many people didn’t want. If they had made bare bones catastrophic illness policies available, a lot more young people would have signed up. Instead, they have these policies that cover items that very narrow segments of the population wanted like mental health, and the costs ballooned.
Not sure how this relates…but a number of doctor practices have been bought by the hospitals. For example, Cleveland Clinic had purchased quite a few private practices. In doing so, the Clinic assumes a lot of,the overheard for these doctor practices, and particularly their employees.
“Hm… so allowing people to buy exactly want they need and want is a race to the bottom?”
:-h What about all those people with preexisting conditions? You know, the ones you constantly forget in your comments?
“What do you think resourceful / financially smart people would do?” Yes, you have addressed this already and many of us have pointed out the fallacies of this argument. You are choosing to view healthcare as not a necessity nor a right for citizens of a first world country. My guess is you also don’t have family members and loved ones with health issues that have barred them from being able to get healthcare in the past. Your worldview seems to be of the “I’ve got mine. Screw you.” mentality. We don’t need to rehash that opinion again.
My healthcare insurance is not a tax. It is a product that consumers, such as myself, should get to choose what he or she requires, just like any other product. The only people I know who are happy taking possession of something that they do not need or want are people not paying for it.
And yes, if a private person came to my house and forced me buy something that I could not use under threat of reprisal, I could sue them for extortion. I see that no different than government forcing me to buy a product I cannot even use.
In simple terms, I have seen nowhere where mandated ACA insurance plans are called a tax.
EDIT: And to give you examples of the difference between a product and a tax - I can avoid the highway tax is simply by not having a car and not buying gas. As for public schools, I can choose not to pay for that by not buying a house since most are funded by property insurance. Basically, a tax can be avoided by choosing not to consume. However, making me consume is not a tax; it is equivalent to going into my wallet and taking my money since I cannot use the product sold to me.
That was one of the maddening things about ACA. The people who wrote the bill swore up and down that ACA was not a tax, until they got in front of the Supreme Court and argued that it was legal because it was a tax, and John Roberts agreed that it was a tax and constitutional. As soon as the court upheld the law, the people supporting ACA went back to arguing that it was not a tax.
This is only true if one cannot imagine of other ways to do things outside of mandating by government.
There are many ways to provide the services people are talking about without the heavy hand of government. And this includes providing insurance for the uninsured and pre-existing conditions. However, it is impossible to have that discussion with people who think government is the end all and be all.
“As for public schools, I can choose not to pay for that by not buying a house since most are funded by property insurance.”
Incorrect. Property tax is being passed onto the renters by their landlords, so unless you choose to live on someone’s property illegally, you are not avoiding this tax - your landlord simply passes the money from you to the government.
“There are many ways to provide the services people are talking about without the heavy hand of government. And this includes providing insurance for the uninsured and pre-existing conditions. However, it is impossible to have that discussion with people who think government is the end all and be all.”
But, @awcntdb, you have not presented us with a workable option to consider. I’m all ears.
“There are many ways to provide the services people are talking about without the heavy hand of government. And this includes providing insurance for the uninsured and pre-existing conditions. However, it is impossible to have that discussion with people who think government is the end all and be all.”
With the grocery analogy, it’s more like this:
you will buy some groceries each week that you won’t use, and we’ll donate them in your name to hungry people. However, if you ever lose your job, we’ll provide you with free food every week till you find a new job, and we’ll cover your kids till they’ve launched or reach 26, whichever happens sooner.
When you pay for stuff you don’t need now, you plan for the future and you make a gesture signifying you understand a nation is a community. It’s win-win.
(I understand there are cost issues currently, but here were cost issues before, sometimes much more harrowing; and nevertheless, the principle remains the same. The above is eactly why people mention pre-eisting conditions - plan for the future- and taking insurance from 22 million people - we are one nation. “My premium’s high so 22 million people can die horrible deaths for all I care” doesn’t really fly.)
Right now, the ACA, with all its flaws, is all we have. Anyone with a plan I’m willing to listen to, but as of now I haven’t heard of any. It sounds like the ACA is like democracy, the worst plan with all others even worse. (I know I’m misquoting, sorry).
When ACA was being discussed prior to approval, several protestors said they didn’t want the government involved in their health insurance. While holding signs to not touch their Medicare or VA health plan.
Ideally, both sides want to make healthcare affordable and available to as many people as possible. Each side has a different way of getting there, but the end goal is the same.
One way is by having government guarantee it, and the other way is by letting the free market provide it at an affordable price, with regulations to keep things in check. There are pros and cons to each path.
This idea that people should be left out in the cold, “every man for himself”, is more representative of far, far right wing/anarchy ideology.
^Oh, and heaven forbid they ever lose the mortgage interest deduction on their taxes and all those other entitlements that they just don’t see as entitlements.
What detailed proposals of the latter type have been under serious consideration? Would they have reduced the involvement of third party payment (employer and government provided insurance that predominated before ACA and still does) that dulls normal market forces that exist when the user is the buyer? If so, how would they have handled non-wealthy people who could not afford to self-pay for care for medical incidents that are expensive?
I am not a Trump supporter but since the election he has stated as have others that the intention is to keep the prexisting condition provision and the children until 26 years old provision of the ACA. I have not seen anyone on this thread mention that. Whether we like him or not he is our next president. Based on that I will give him the chance to follow through on that.
CF: do you have a source document for your claim, or should we just flag your post as political?
Incidentally, once Prop 103 passed, all auto insurers, including those from OOS, who wanted to sell in California had to abide by the new rating restrictions for coverage in that state.