• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Affordable" Care Act - Yeah, Right.

Upchurch said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Car Insurance is mandatory only to protect others against damage you cause to them; i.e. liability insurance. Drivers are not required to insure against damage they cause to their own vehicles or bodies. Of course, when you finance a car, the finance company requires you to insure damage to the car, but that's not a government mandate.

Health insurance is a completely different concept. You are protecting yourself from financial losses due to illness or injury. And health insurance as defined by ACA isn't really insurance at all. Certainly insurance is a component, but it's mostly a prepaid/discounted health plan.
 
Upchurch said:
At a quick Google, only one state does not require it and that was only recently. The analogy is still valid. Government can and does require the purchase of insurance for lots of things whether or not the purchaser wants to buy it. This is neither unprecedented nor unusual.
Click to expand...
It unprecidented that the federal government would force citizens to buy something that they might not want or need, or force them to pay a penalty.

gnome said:
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.
Click to expand...
LOL: I point a gun at your head: Gimme your wallet.

Note that I'm not actually forcing you to give me your wallet. You have a choice.

Upchurch said:
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.
Click to expand...
Health insurance <> health care.

plague311 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Um no, the definition of or purpose of insurance is to mitigate unacceptable risk against financial loss.

plague311 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Then to get the rest fixed, you get insurance for the post-accident medical attention. The "no pre-existing conditions" part of Obamacare is an incentive to wait until you need it, to buy it.
 
xjx388 said:
Car Insurance is mandatory only to protect others against damage you cause to them; i.e. liability insurance. Drivers are not required to insure against damage they cause to their own vehicles or bodies. Of course, when you finance a car, the finance company requires you to insure damage to the car, but that's not a government mandate.
Click to expand...

Have you not heard of no-fault insurance?
 
plague311 said:
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.
Click to expand...

True. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were implying.
 
elbe said:
Have you not heard of no-fault insurance?
Click to expand...

Sure, but I personally think it's a bad idea. Didn't a lot of states repeal no fault laws? And it's worth noting that it only covers bodily injury and the resultant medical bills -not vehicle damage which is still paid by fault.
 
Neally said:
Then to get the rest fixed, you get insurance for the post-accident medical attention. The "no pre-existing conditions" part of Obamacare is an incentive to wait until you need it, to buy it.
Click to expand...

You must have missed where I replied to that already. So you're just going to walk around with a busted up face, and no teeth while you wait for the insurance to go through? That's not even the worst case scenario. What if you lose a body part, or have to go through a series of surgeries?
 
plague311 said:
You must have missed where I replied to that already. So you're just going to walk around with a busted up face, and no teeth while you wait for the insurance to go through? That's not even the worst case scenario. What if you lose a body part, or have to go through a series of surgeries?
Click to expand...
I didn't miss it. You want it for free, you don't get it fast. Wait for the open enrollment, then get your treatment. I'm just pointing out the thinking for those that are trying avoid using the system. The biggest demand is for those with pre-existing conditions and those that are going to get subsidies to pay for their premiums. The rest have a dis-incentive to participate, which already is causing concern that the system won't work long term.

BTW accidental dismemberment insurance is cheap due to the fact that it's relatively rare.
 
xjx388 said:
Health insurance is a completely different concept. You are protecting yourself from financial losses due to illness or injury. And health insurance as defined by ACA isn't really insurance at all. Certainly insurance is a component, but it's mostly a prepaid/discounted health plan.
Click to expand...
It's not a hard argument to make that it does protect others from increased financial burden by not jacking up hospital costs to cover uninsured patients.


Neally said:
Health insurance <> health care.
Click to expand...
I agree, but that has nothing to do with what you were responding to.



Regardless, I am really confused why conservatives are up in arms over the mandate. It's a conservative plan to prevent people from free-loading off the system by forcing participation in a private free-market solution. Seems right up their alley.
 
Upchurch said:
It's not a hard argument to make that it does protect others from increased financial burden by not jacking up hospital costs to cover uninsured patients.



I agree, but that has nothing to do with what you were responding to.



Regardless, I am really confused why conservatives are up in arms over the mandate. It's a conservative plan to prevent people from free-loading off the system by forcing participation in a private free-market solution. Seems right up their alley.
Click to expand...

They are against it now because they know it's the most unpopular part.
 
Neally said:
It unprecidented that the federal government would force citizens to buy something that they might not want or need, or force them to pay a penalty.
Click to expand...
You don't want a universal health care system paid for by taxes? Congratulations, you get one that forces you to buy health care.

You have no one to blame but yourself and your Republican buddies that blocked attempts to institute a single-payer system.

Stop whining like a little baby, and accept that the sensible people have won and will be ensuring you and your fellow citizens get better and cheaper health care.

That or move to Somalia.
 
obamacare.png
 
Strange how indifferent some people are to Obama's lies. Is it that you knew all along that he was lying and just didn't care, because it served the cause? Or is it that you're not one of the people getting screwed right now because of it?
 
Ziggurat said:
Strange how indifferent some people are to Obama's lies. Is it that you knew all along that he was lying and just didn't care, because it served the cause? Or is it that you're not one of the people getting screwed right now because of it?
Click to expand...

It might just be that right wing echo chambers have been crying wolf on the sins of Obama for so long, its hard to take the -gate du jour with any credibility. Especially considering your cited blog is, in turn, citing nationalreview.com.

eta: :dqueen
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
It might just be that right wing echo chambers have been crying wolf on the sins of Obama for so long, its hard to take the -gate du jour with any credibility. Especially considering your cited blog is, in turn, citing nationalreview.com.

eta: :dqueen
Click to expand...

If you can't trust "Ace of Spades" linking to National Review Online, who can you trust?
 
So in other words, you don't care that Obama lied because people you don't like are complaining about it. That's one approach, I suppose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom