Yes, because of Obama
No, because of Obama
Yes, because it's a great idea
No, it's a terrible idea
10 piece McNuggets with fries
As you probably know, it's not the plan it's the man who shoved it through Congress against the wishes of the G-nO-P that the far right really doesn't like. The GOP will probably be whining about this until they join the Whigs in thirty years or so.
And they will get zero sympathy from me.
(1) Premium costs are little if any lower with the bill than without it, so the incentive to buy in at several times the penalty for not buying in will for many be absent.
(2) The system is wide open for being gamed by people who do not buy in until they get sick.
If enough people opt for the penalty and for playing the game then there could be a real train wreck.
Last edited by USViking; 10-13-13 at 11:52 AM.
We have some experience with UHC on a global basis. Countries with these systems nearly always keep them in the basic form they are, forever. Single payer countries stay single payer, multi payer countries stay multi payer. Centralized systems stay centralized, decentralized systems stay decentralized. That's the way entitlements work. If people like it, they don't want to change it.
So no, single payer is not going to happen, because either a) ACA will work well and the public will support it, or b) it will fail and the public won't trust Democrats when they say, "Well, we have this other idea..."
It's an infringement on personal liberty, period. It is unlike auto insurance because driving is optional.It is an infringement necessary to keep the public and the medical industry from having to foot the bill for uninsured expenses. The same general principle applies to mandatory auto liability insurance.
No, we need a govt forced to operate within budget and within statutory limits on taxation.Taxes should never have been reduced by that silly little prick GW Bush, and they should have been raised again as soon as we went to war in 2001. We have needed a tax increase ever since, over and above anything ACA does.
It is certainly worth revamping it.I also have doubts about the wisdom of this. It is not worth throwing the entire bill out for, though.
It is ponzi because it relies on healthy subscribers to fund the unhealthy subscribers.It is not ponzi because the customers do not buy in for profit, but to avoid having to pay for a loss out of their own pockets.
The difference is that under obamacare, insurers are required to offer insurance to those that are sick right now. There is no period of premium payment with no payout for the company to invest.The viability of ALL insurance relies upon income from people who do not have to make a claim for loss, didn't you know that? Among health insurance policyholders those are necessarily going to be younger in average age, and they will pay significantly lower rates. The opposite is true in auto insurance, where young policyholders produce a higher rate of claims and consequently pay higher premiums.
The number of truly uninsurable persons is statistically insignificant. The numbers are very low, and they'd have been better served by an expansion of medicare than they are under obamacare.That is ridiculous. The presently uninsurable obtain a product of essentially unlimited value.
The argument that we need to foot the bill for people's medical care because we're footing the bill for unpaid medical bills is not very convincing. Either way, you're footing the bill.