People were already making choices on what to spend their money on before Obamadon'tcare and they still will after 1 Jan. This law will end up forcing millions of productive people to drop health insurance due to increased cost or job loss and the something for nothing crowd is crowned the winner. Assuming they can find a doctor that Obamadon'tcare didn't run off.You are taking two statements I made out of context and joining them together, which demonstrates confused and invalid logic on your part. Fail.
"Wait times are standard on all insurance", your words that go along with more of your words, "is the same under Obamacare" (referencing wait times). Nope, I'm not confused with what you wrote.
Again, nothing but confused jumbled invalid logic. What I showed is federal law required EMERGENCY ROOM TREATMENT. I did NOT SAY what you just said "the old way required healthcare to everyone but the old way wasn't good enough.", you just made that up. You are really grasping for straws by attempting to alter what I said.
No grasp on my part. Treatment in an ER is heath care. Period. Of course then you added, "Well if the hospital has to treat you, you should be required to carry ins. to pay for it, instead of sloughing off your burden on others.". Fine with me but how about letting the taxpayers off the hook for paying for health insurance for the something for nothing crowd. You should agree being you claim to be against, "sloughing off your burden on others". Note: Of course I made up the following, ""the old way required healthcare to everyone but the old way wasn't good enough." those were my words. Lets throw in a few words you used to describe your position, "jumbled", "invalid", "grasping for straws". Sober up dude.
There's a difference that you don't seem to get. Under the old system, many of the 50 million uninsured HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY for insurance and they don't, so if something real serious happens to them, and they can't cover the expense themselves, since they chose not to take responsibility for themselves, they slough it off on the rest of us (but they had the ability to pay for the insurance). In the new system, you are correct, some people will get nearly free health insurance, but the difference is that they DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY FOR IT otherwise. Then we face the moral issue, if someone can't pay for health ins. nor the care necessary to save their life, will we, in the richest nation on earth, just allow them to die. As a society, we are voting NO, we won't let them die. Now, I believe there are limits, I don't think we can ask the society to pay unlimited bills on a limited budget, and that is where we have to make some practical choices on what type of care to pay for that everyone will have access to.
It's their money and they know how better to spend it than you do. Look at the big "if" you put in your justification of trying to force people to spend their money the way you want them to. That "if" in no way means (a) they will get sick or hurt or (b) they can't cover the expenses.
You assume everyone that doesn't have heath insurance doesn't have the ability to pay for it. Lot's of people make choices in that places little or no priority on obtaining health insurance. Really, it's not that big a risk being most people had accident coverage with their car insurance and are also covered under workers comp.
Then here we are back to a point you already made. "we won't let them die.". The law before Obamadon'tcare already provided for that.