51–60 of 88 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so i shouldnt have the right to choose?
You've now made this same point three times in this thread without expanding your argument. Please make each comment each add substantively to the discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i'd like the choice to not have any insurance
That's not a sustainable choice for our economy, it leads to too many people living like nothing could possibly go wrong until they need a doctor. The point of insurance is to distribute risk, not participating in that effectively negates the effectiveness of the industry.
It's quite possible that your health insurance could be limited at first, and grows to cover more things and higher dollar amounts.
And before anyone says you can't do this, go look at your dental insurance. Odds are that your coverage increases each year so long as you have two checkups annually and don't let a lapse of insurance occur.
Note that as the ACA is __currently__ written, the situation the OP states probably exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so i shouldnt have the right to choose?
No, because at some point you will inevitable need care. We build care systems in place and pay into them to mitigate and distribute risk. You are effectively free-riding on everyone else's participation.
Your logic makes no sense in the current environment. If I'm unemployed and can't afford it, I'm free riding.
So yes, you should be able to choose. If for no other reason than you already can (by not working).
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?
In western countries where we have deemed that immoral, you will be treated, and we would like not to pay for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've now made this same point three times in this thread without expanding your argument. Please make each comment each add substantively to the discussion.
because i recognize the futility in expanding my argument which a philosophical one thats been going on for centuries. no ones going to change their minds. if you'd like my expanded argument you should start with 'the road to serfdom' by hayek but i wont attempt to summarize it for you here on HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i'd like the choice to not have any insurance
That's not a sustainable choice for our economy, it leads to too many people living like nothing could possibly go wrong until they need a doctor. The point of insurance is to distribute risk, not participating in that effectively negates the effectiveness of the industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
i'd like the choice to not have any insurance
That's not a sustainable choice for our economy, it leads to too many people living like nothing could possibly go wrong until they need a doctor. The point of insurance is to distribute risk, not participating in that effectively negates the effectiveness of the industry.
Insurance is a useful product for mitigating risk, so accident insurance could be a very constructive concept (protecting against accidental injuries, broken arms, falls, car crashes, etc.). However, health problems are not a risk; they are a guarantee with probability approaching one as you age. The whole point of insurance is that you mitigate risk by paying more than you take out on average, but that doesn't make sense for healthcare, where almost everyone ends up going over their limit near the end of their lives.
If we didn't have all of these subsidies everywhere and inflated demand from Medicare/Medicaid/restrictive occupational licensing/FDA-granted monopolies/ACA, then perhaps we could pay everything out of pocket, which would make a lot more sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so i shouldnt have the right to choose?
As long as the rest of us don't have the right to let you die on the sidewalk outside the ER, no, I'm afraid you shouldn't have the right to choose not to participate. If you want to go off the grid, you need to go ALL the way off the grid. Otherwise you're just another moocher.
Not to mention that the majority of people who do have Obamacare are getting subsidized by the government (i.e., they're "moochers", in your terminology).
How does making this public subsidy pass through more sets of pockets before it gets to the doctor make it any less "mooching"? Please be specific.
Also, what about the people with expensive preexisting conditions? Virtually all of those people are consuming far more resources than they will ever pay in. Are they also "moochers"?
Note that I'm not saying that those people shouldn't have health care. I'm just objecting to calling it "insurance", because it isn't. Insurance is a bet.
For 8 years, this man had the option to walk humanity back from the threat of hair-trigger, launch-on-warning nuclear armageddon. An armageddon that would either destroy humanity in a single day...or perhaps merely starve a few billion in the resulting nuclear winter. From these facts alone, I know everything I need to know about his, and all US presidents, commitment to the health of their citizens, and humanity at…