"Affordable" Care Act - Yeah, Right.

[Upchurch]

Yes that is an example. Although that was when he knew Romney was running and RomneyCare would be held against Romney .

That is a spin on exactly my point. Republicans pointed to RomneyCare as a triumph of conservative free-market values. Once Obama took up their own cause, they threw their principles under the bus in favor of pure partisanship.

 

[gnome]

Don't move the goal posts. The government does, in fact, make you purchase car insurance if you want to operate a car. Likewise, the government does make you purchase health insurance if you want to operate a human body.

But not even, really, because they don't actually make you do it. They just tax you more if you don't, to account for the part of your decision that makes things more expensive for everyone else.

 

[Upchurch]

But not even, really, because they don't actually make you do it. They just tax you more if you don't, to account for the part of your decision that makes things more expensive for everyone else.

Baby steps, gnome. Don't go too fast.

 

[eeyore1954]

That is a spin on exactly my point. Republicans pointed to RomneyCare as a triumph of conservative free-market values. Once Obama took up their own cause, they threw their principles under the bus in favor of pure partisanship.

I don't think this is a spin on your point. It is just my honest guess as to why Dement said that. He was in favor of Romney over McCain.
Do you have any examples of Republican politicians pointing to RomneyCare as a triumph of conservative free-market values before President Obama (candidate Obama) took up their cause. Were there any other conservative states pushing to follow in Massachusetts steps?

I don't doubt at all that a conservative (or a liberal) politician who was in favor of one position would change after the other party started hawking it. It is just that I do not remember any signs that republicans in general liked it (especially as it was finally written). It could be that I wasn't paying that much attention to it.

 

[eeyore1954]

I did find an article saying Conservatives lauded it because it used conservative values. No new taxes, lower complexity, etc and there was link to conservatives who were in favor of it but the link was dead.

 

[Upchurch]

Okay, seriously, I've given you several examples, past and present over multiple posts, of conservatives and conservative organizations lauding Romneycare as an example of free market solutions for real world problems. Whether or not other states took up the cause does not change that fact. Please stop moving the goal posts by saying it has to be a politician, then a politician who is advocating it for their own state, then a politician who isn't advocating it for political reasons then and says he didn't really mean it now. I'm not going to be able to find you a left handed, redheaded politian with a limp who believe in the Tea Party, Marx, and the Buddha who approves of Romneycare but not the US Constitution.

 

[ravdin]

Don't move the goal posts. The government does, in fact, make you purchase car insurance if you want to operate a car. Likewise, the government does make you purchase health insurance if you want to operate a human body.



eta: whoops. mis-remembered the conversation. Edited to adjust

There's a pretty big difference. If you don't wish to pay for car insurance, you don't have to. Maybe it's a hassle not to own or operate a car, but that's your choice.

This isn't an argument against the ACA per se, I'm just countering that there's some sort of precedent for forcing you to buy insurance whether you like it or not.

 

[Tony]

There's a pretty big difference. If you don't wish to pay for car insurance, you don't have to. Maybe it's a hassle not to own or operate a car, but that's your choice.

In some places, it's more than a hassle, it is effectively impossible. Owning a car is definitely not a choice where I live, it is a necessity. By extension, the mandate to have insurance is not a choice.

 

[Upchurch]

There's a pretty big difference. If you don't wish to pay for car insurance, you don't have to. Maybe it's a hassle not to own or operate a car, but that's your choice.

This isn't an argument against the ACA per se, I'm just countering thalat there's some sort of precedent for forcing you to buy insurance whether you like it or not.

And I'm countering the argument that not everyone wants to buy health insurance. That's not a good excuse because people have no choice in not using healthcare.

 

[ravdin]

In some places, it's more than a hassle, it is effectively impossible. Owning a car is definitely not a choice where I live, it is a necessity. By extension, the mandate to have insurance is not a choice.

Nope. If you don't want to have a car, you can move. You can get a different job. Maybe these choices would constitute a huge inconvenience or even hardship that would make taking on the responsibilities of car ownership worth your while. But it's still your choice.

I have a good friend who doesn't have a driver's license. When she needs to go somewhere, she walks, takes public transportation, or gets a ride from a friend. I assure you she doesn't suffer for her choices and she has no interest in learning to drive. It is not a necessity to own a car.

And I'm countering the argument that not everyone wants to buy health insurance. That's not a good excuse because people have no choice in not using healthcare.

You might not want to if you're young and healthy. Or at the very least you might want to pay as little as possible so that you have a high deductible. Didn't a certain politician promise that we could keep our plans if we liked them?

 

[SumDood]

There's a pretty big difference. If you don't wish to pay for car insurance, you don't have to. Maybe it's a hassle not to own or operate a car, but that's your choice.

If you don't wish to pay for heath insurance, you don't have to. You can just choose to make less money and Medicaid will pay for it. Maybe it's a hassle not to make as much money, but that's your choice.

 

[ravdin]

If you don't wish to pay for heath insurance, you don't have to. You can just choose to make less money and Medicaid will pay for it. Maybe it's a hassle not to make as much money, but that's your choice.

I think this is a choice that many will end up making. Why work hard if you will end up with the same amount of disposable income with a part time job and lower pay?

 

[Ziggurat]

I think this is a choice that many will end up making. Why work hard if you will end up with the same amount of disposable income with a part time job and lower pay?

Three cheers for perverse incentives!

 

[plague311]

Or better yet, just wait until they get sick, then get covered! Hey no pre-existing conditions denial! Wait for your house to burn down, then get home insurance. Is Obamacare wonderful?

That's a good idea, but if an emergency happens and you need all of the ER work or something like that right away...it's not going to be that easy. If you trip, fall, blow your face out, and lose all your teeth, you're not going to walk around without teeth and a messed up face while your insurance gets approved and processed. You're going to want the medical attention right away. That's the whole point of this thing, is that when it happens you'll have the insurance.

Actually, that's the definition of all insurance today.

And fortunately they aren't forced by the federal government to get it. And they can chose what level of minimal coverage they want. Not so with Obamacare.

But there are minimum requirements that you have to have that is considered enough coverage. Same thing with Obama care, they have them classified by using precious metals. Bronze, etc. Kind of like liability and full coverage.

 

[Upchurch]

You might not want to if you're young and healthy. Or at the very least you might want to pay as little as possible so that you have a high deductible.

Round and round we go...

A driver might not want car insurance because they are a good driver. However 47 states still require at least liability insurance. (Two of the remaining three have some kind of public alternative. The last, New Hampshire, requires that you prove that you can pay for an accident out of pocket.)

 

[Xulld]

Paying off 10 year old student loans and medical bills from when I couldn't afford insurance.

Oh wait, I still cant afford it but now I will pay a penalty.

 

[ravdin]

Round and round we go...

A driver might not want car insurance because they are a good driver. However 47 states still require at least liability insurance. (Two of the remaining three have some kind of public alternative. The last, New Hampshire, requires that you prove that you can pay for an accident out of pocket.)

You take a risk every time you get on the road that your car can be totaled, or you could be injured or even killed as a result of someone else's poor judgment. So absolutely you should be required to prove that you can pay for an accident that you cause, unless of course you opt out of driving a car altogether (although I'd also argue you should be exempt if you have the means to put, say, $1M into escrow against such an event, which would mean you're providing your own insurance).

Not sure how we got so far off track here, but I'm still not buying that mandatory car insurance (for people who voluntarily drive a car) is a good analogy for mandatory health insurance.

 

[Upchurch]

Not sure how we got so far off track here, but I'm still not buying that mandatory car insurance (for people who voluntarily drive a car) is a good analogy for mandatory health insurance.

Why not? For a driver in most states, insurance is mandatory. Even the healthiest young person is at risk of violence, accident, or even sudden illness. Where does the analogy break down?

(And lets not go down the road of saying "driving is voluntary". Of course it is. I'm speaking about the situation for people who drive, in which driving is a given. Don't make me show that the analogy still works by pointing out that having health is also voluntary.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's a good idea, but if an emergency happens and you need all of the ER work or something like that right away...it's not going to be that easy. If you trip, fall, blow your face out, and lose all your teeth, you're not going to walk around without teeth and a messed up face while your insurance gets approved and processed. You're going to want the medical attention right away. That's the whole point of this thing, is that when it happens you'll have the insurance.

ERs are required to see you and stabilize your condition whether you have insurance or not. ACA doesn't change that.

 

[plague311]

ERs are required to see you and stabilize your condition whether you have insurance or not. ACA doesn't change that.

Nor am I even slightly implying that they wouldn't. However, they aren't going to provide you new dentures, they aren't going to provide you with physical therapy, they aren't going to take care of any of the post work. Like you said, they'll stabalize your condition, and move you along.