because something's are necessary for life.
food, shelter are required for life. Work is required to get those things. Transportation is generally required to get to work.
health insurance is a requirement of life.
Health care is less important than a car and gas? Why are all of those automatically 'just the price things cost,' but insurance costs are this outrageous burden?
As if he means that there will be 16 million policies cancelled. Hint-policies are changed ALL THE TIME. That doesn't mean the policy is cancelled. As has been pointed out, a lot of the policies offered before were worthless.
Health care is less important than a car and gas? Why are all of those automatically 'just the price things cost,' but insurance costs are this outrageous burden?
Health care is less important than a car and gas? Why are all of those automatically 'just the price things cost,' but insurance costs are this outrageous burden?
The Nail In Obamacare's Coffin[/b]
How can this be true? I was given a pamphlet to read and my opinion was swayed on this very forum. Hopefully people will start to learn to think for themselves and get off the political party tit for awhile.
But the poor benefit from decreased costs the same as anyone else. I have no problem with the truly poor and needy being subsidized for their healthcare costs. That would just work even better if healthcare costs were that much less to begin with- less cost to everyone else to subsidize as well.Nonetheless the really poor can NEVER pay for what they use in healthcare, so a free market system would never afford them much access. If you work a McDonald's or worse no job at all you are simply not worth enough to give you back a surgeon and MRI and hospital bed, etc. so it must be given by charity.
We have been brainwashed into thinking that less taxes is better. Taxes are great if they are spent properly. The only people who lower taxes truly benefit in the USA are the rich.
Is this thread serious?
This is not only a good thing, but a lot of it is the whole point behind the law. The policies are being cancelled are ones that allowed for exclusions for pre-existing conditions, had lifetime insurance caps, etc were the horrible things that the ACA was created to eliminate.
Good post.But the poor benefit from decreased costs the same as anyone else. I have no problem with the truly poor and needy being subsidized for their healthcare costs. That would just work even better if healthcare costs were that much less to begin with- less cost to everyone else to subsidize as well.
It amazes me people think the free market can't work for healthcare- and yet there are clear examples where it does. Lasik eye surgery is a good example. That's been a model based entirely on free market competition, not an insurance ponzi scheme. Therefore, the true cost of it hasn't been masked from the consumer. If you notice, Lasik surgery is advertised based on competitive price and skill/experience of the doctors. If you've ever been to a Lasik clinic, they are state of the art, clean, and you can show up, get an exam, and have the procedure done inside of a few hours and be in and out. Cost? It's gone steadily down, even as the technology has gotten steadily better. I remember when it was astronomical per eye- now it can be done for a few hundred per eye.
This is for a skilled surgeon to take a laser to your eyes. (Probably one of the last parts of most people's bodies they'd allow someone without a clue to mess with). Yet we act like it's the impossible dream to have doctors and nurses do routine things like prescribe medications, treat illnesses, give x-rays and blood tests and the like- all the procedures that make up most of what healthcare entails- for a reasonable cost.
People act like "heahtcare" is always brain surgery or something, when mostly, we're all paying a fortune for a lot of routine care that shouldn't cost nearly so much.
The free market can't handle everything, but it sure as hell could handle a lot of things. When my wife needed an ultrasound, we went to an ultrasound clinic and got one inside of an hour for about $45. No insurance scam needed. Why not free market x-ray and cat scan clinics that your doctor sends you to?
Free market health clinics with ala-cart menus of the services they provide (with a list of reasonable prices you pay up front) should be more common than fast food joints- one on every corner. Only a dumbass believes that just because something becomes more available and subject to competition and market forces does it automatically follow that it's less regulated. There would still be regulations and health inspections in a free market system.
When someone gets hit by a bus- of course, you go to the emergency room, not the corner free market clinic. But the great thing is- all the people who just have a boo-boo they need stitched up for $20 (not $1000+ a month insurance ponzi scheme) are at the free market clinic OUT OF THE WAY of the person who really needs the emergency room.
Just as you don't insure your car for oil changes, but against catastrophic damage, so too should health insurance be for catastrophic accidents, not routine medical needs.
Normally, I would be against most anything socialist, but healthcare and economics make for an ugly mix in nearly every way possible. Given the government's recent budgeting history (not exactly stellar) however, I'm unsure going solely single-payer will produce the results many would like to believe. Covering all taxpayers for lifesaving treatments (and running tests that end up saving you life) would probably be simpler and less costly (for those involved) to implement while insurance companies handle the rest.
Of course, there is also the issue with hospitals wanting exceptionally high costs compared to other developed nations. Ultimately, government intervention may be necessary here as well, due to the never-ceasing demand for said Hospital's products, lack of competition, and unusually strong leverage over consumers (as consumers normally have little choice when the need arises). For a social healthcare system to be sustainable, and of fair cost to the rich, middle, and poor alike, reining in the hospital prices should take precedence over the insurance companies. Reducing prices for healthcare at the source will also reduce insurance premiums, as well as taxpayer expense. Ideally, prices should be reduced through the elimination of immoral practice and excessive gouging instead of reducing pay for doctors, nurses and such.
stop showing up at the hospital with their little boo boo Band-Aid "insurance policies" that don't even cover the cost of the paper their discharge is printed on.
In case you were wondering, yes you will almost certainly pay more under the ACA. It sounds like you are young and high income without employer sponsored insurance. That's not a common combination, but you will pay more.
Health care is less important than a car and gas? Why are all of those automatically 'just the price things cost,' but insurance costs are this outrageous burden?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfl55GgHr5E
All sold on a lie. No, we're not letting up on this. The president needs to burn and burn and burn until the POS is gone!
Nope, it sure isn't. The huge, massive majority of ER visits are by old people, and old people are very likely to have medicaid. What you're doing is parroting the same lies used to sell aca, this preventative vs ER stuff, it's not even close to why health care is so expensive, just one small factor.First of all, healthcare is such a huge cost due to the current fact that everyone currently with a plan is also paying for hoards and masses of ER visits by those not insured.
I'd be kind and say you're wrong, but it's not fair. You're a liar. You've seen enough about this now to know what you just said is unequivocally untrue, and that makes you a liar.And if you are dropped from your current insurance plan, that is not because of ACA or Obamacare.
Virginia, Kentucky and Idaho have told insurance companies that they must scrap insurance plans that don't meet the minimum coverage requirements laid out in the Affordable Care Act.
Less taxes ARE better, and the rich are hardly the only ones that benefit. When a quarter of your check or more is being siphoned off by the government, the working poor and middle class are the only ones that feel that in every check. No, taxes are NOT "great", necessary to an extent for a society to function, but not "great". Only an authoritarian, government sycophant would describe labored for money being taken under threat of force as "great".
Great, I'm in Virginia. Right now I got college coverage, and its actually quite good. I bet it will suck next year.