Originally posted by sh76
[quote]Though the nation’s overall uninsured rate has dropped about five percentage points in the last year, Americans are still more likely to say the health care law hurt them rather than helped them, according to a new Gallup survey.

Fifty-four percent of respondents say Obamacare has “not had an effect” on them or their family. But those who did notice ...[text shortened]... olitics.com/articles/2014/10/08/poll_more_say_obamacare_hurts_them_rather_than_helps_124226.html

More people are "hurt" by insurance than "helped".

Originally posted by quackquack
So you believe that a guy who paid $4000 more for his health insurance isn't worse off? By definition when everyone pays a premium for compensation for a rare contingency, when the contingency occurs (here a pre-existing condition) a small group gets a huge benefit and those who pay the premium are worse off. The idea that Joe six pack is better off be ...[text shortened]... does not have to pay the fair market value for their health insurance is absolutely ridiculous.

someone benefiting from an unjust situation can't say he is worse off when that situation is corrected.

yes, he lost money. do we get to pity him? do we provide compensation? no. even if it wasn't his fault.

"The idea that Joe six pack is better off because someone else with a pre-existing condition does not have to pay the fair market value for their health insurance is absolutely ridiculous"

the idea that there is a "fair market value" on human life is ridiculous. but let's ignore that for a sec, and address simpler issues.

the people with pre-existent conditions were NOT given fair market value. they were denied a product entirely by the insurance companies, for reasons made up entirely by insurance companies.

did you know that sleep apneea is considered a preexistent condition? and that a cancer patient with sleep apneea can have his cancer not treated because of it?

Originally posted by boonon
Not really sure what your saying here. Do you think that your 'cancer patient' is now entilted to insurance coverage because of the passage of the ACA?

I have two friends who are healthy and can not afford the most basic plan of the ACA. They have ...no... coverage at all. It will more affordable for them to pay the fine levied on them at tax time , then to purchase this 'affordable' health care.

were those two friends more insured before the ACA?

"It will more affordable for them to pay the fine levied on them at tax time , then to purchase this 'affordable' health care"
aren't they still uninsured in that case?

Originally posted by normbenign
How about a middle ground where people make free choices in a market overseen by government to prevent force and fraud?

you keep going on and on how healthcare should be treated like any other market. it is not like any other market. this isn't a product that you can refuse.

if i am unsatisfied with the quality and price of my fast food, i stop going to mcdonalds. if wendy's, taco bell and burger king join mcdonalds in offering almost equal levels of quality and price, i stop eating fast food. as such, in time, the price will go down and/or quality up in order to regain clients.


healthcare is not a product like fast food. if all offer mostly the same product at the same price, i can't refuse to buy it, or i may die.

that's where "force" comes in. the insurance companies "forced" you to buy their product because the government didn't intervene.

"fraud" was when paying customers were denied service based on internal insurance companies' rules, rules created without anyone regulating and overseeing.
the rape victim who had to pay for the ambulance ride because she was unconscious and couldn't say who her provider is.
the child who entered a hospital with 40 degrees fever and was sent to another hospital even though she was covered (she died)
the cancer patient that must pay extra to treat his cancer because he has sleep apneea, even though that pre-existent condition would have nothing to do with anything except sleep apneea treatments.

you had force and fraud with insurance companies, you agree the government should step in and oversee, which is exactly what ACA does.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, you can't.

Yes you can.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
How many bear skins is a triple bypass operation?

how many the one doing the triple bypass demands.

do you think you can negotiate? you are dying. without a third party regulating the transaction, this is effectively a mugging, not free trade

Originally posted by Zahlanzi

that's where "force" comes in. the insurance companies "forced" you to buy their product because the government didn't intervene.

.

Explain exactly who was forcing who, and how.

No insurance company that I am aware of has forced anyone to buy their product.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Explain exactly who was forcing who, and how.

No insurance company that I am aware of has forced anyone to buy their product.

read my damn post. don't play dumb.


it's the first sentence before the excerpt you quoted in case you need a helping hand. what you quoted was the conclusion.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
how many the one doing the triple bypass demands.

do you think you can negotiate? you are dying. without a third party regulating the transaction, this is effectively a mugging, not free trade

No need to be so dramatic.

With socialised state enforced health care there is a budgetry line, it's not 'save any life no matter what the cost.' People do die on waiting lists. You overstate the majic of forced health care.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
read my damn post. don't play dumb.


it's the first sentence before the excerpt you quoted in case you need a helping hand. what you quoted was the conclusion.

Nope you didn't state specifically how an insurance company forces you to buy their product.

That there are uninsured people is proof of your BS.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
read my damn post. don't play dumb.


.

He's not playing.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Yes you can.

No. The existence of a government implies that force/coercion is used to alter the use of resources.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, you can't. (have currency without the government deciding that certain people need to subsidize the costs of others.)

Not only can you have a free market healthcare without the government mandating that certain people subsidize others, if we tried it the system would be more efficient and people would have the freedom to purchase what they wished.

Originally posted by quackquack
Not only can you have a free market healthcare without the government mandating that certain people subsidize others, if we tried it the system would be more efficient and people would have the freedom to purchase what they wished.

Not only can you have a free market healthcare without the government mandating that certain people subsidize others[...]

No, although you could have a government that is not directly involved in health care.

if we tried it the system would be more efficient and people would have the freedom to purchase what they wished.

More efficient in what respect?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]Not only can you have a free market healthcare without the government mandating that certain people subsidize others[...]

No, although you could have a government that is not directly involved in health care.

if we tried it the system would be more efficient and people would have the freedom to purchase what they wished.

More efficient in what respect?[/b]

When I go to a restaurant there is one price for each item. We don't have rich people pay more for an item so poorer people can get their food cheaper. We don't give certain people obtain only 80% of a portion so really hungry people can get extra insurance. We don't make people pay for things they don't wish to eat even if the restaurant thinks it is delicious.
I'd like healthcare to be the same way. If you have no intention of ever using a certain type of insurance (drug rehab, mental health, abortion) and your provider will sell you a policy that is cheaper without the coverage the government should not interfere. If you don't have a pre-existing condition and your insurance company can quantify that you are cheaper to insure, your insurance should be cheaper. You should not have to pay more for insurance because the government decides that someone else needs insurance but the government has determined that they cannot afford theirs (need based redistribution).
If you liked your insurance before, the government should honor its promise and you should be able to keep it.

We could start by allowing people to pay for the plan that they want and not be forced to have coverage for things that they do not intend to use. We also could allow those who wish not to spend their money on healthcare to not be forced to have something that the government believes they need.
We also can allow people to pay for insurance based on their expected costs and not use healthcare as an excuse to redistribute money in the form of subsidies (whether we call it need based or pre-existing conditions, the majority of people are paying for the costs of others healthcare).