31–40 of 88 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You pay for private insurance or you pay for public insurance via taxes. Any other solution is unworkable and you are a free rider.
i'd like the choice to not have any insurance
I doubt anyone in Congress or the White House working to repeal the ACA reads the New England Journal of Medicine.
It's a pretty prestigious journal. It's likely that aides to senators and representatives in key positions, as well as it being forwarded from interested constituents will make sure that the article makes the rounds. And it's generally good political practice to keep informed on the moves made by major players. Likely people in the White House know about it as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Choosing to not be insured is unsustainable for our economy the moment you have an issue and need a doctor.
so i shouldnt have the right to choose?
It's a wonderful idea. Free healthcare for all. Sadly, it simply isn't sustainable financially. I think in the next 10 years alone it was supposed to cost tax payers 10 trillion and that money can't literally be printed fast enough and the debt our country holds, extremely unsustainable. If they did it cheaper or more cost effective, I would say yes, but financially, you can't.
Do you mean the $10 trillion cost from repealing? Here is republican senator Rand Paul on the huge budgetary expense of ACA repeal https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6AuIwR00T5g
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Choosing to not be insured is unsustainable for our economy the moment you have an issue and need a doctor.
so i shouldnt have the right to choose?
I doubt anyone in Congress or the White House working to repeal the ACA reads the New England Journal of Medicine.
They might not, but they are probably lobbied by doctors, hospital administrators, and insurance executives, all of whom are likely to at least skim the top medical journals.