That's NOT how insurance works. Insurance is a gamble on the company betting that the premiums they charge a customer would be higher than the costs they have to pay out for him. It's voluntary on both ends. If I don't like that a company is charging me $1000 a month, then I can choose not to pay that. If a company doesn't think that they can cover me for the premium I want, they don't have to. Insurance is a separate issue from health care (which was my point to begin with). Why? If they deem it'll cost more for the care of a cancer survivor than someone who's never had it, why shouldn't they be able to either charge them accordingly or not take the risk at all?
Sorry I don't have better answers, but that's my general understanding in trying to answer your questions.
PS you are literally describing a death panel that chooses who gets to be on insurance, and who doesn't.
Look, I think we want the same things. I don't want cancer medicine to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don't want an MRI to cost $3k. I don't want a stay in a hospital to cost $2000 a night. But that's not getting fixed at all with this. What's happening here is that another group of people (in this case, mostly people who don't want to pay for insurance, or those whose medical situations are such that insurance is cost-prohibitive) are going to get something for free or at a reduced rate. They like that, sure...and for them, there probably isn't much difference between PPACA and "affordable health care." But for the other 255 million Americans, there will now be a tax if they don't choose to pay the insurance companies' rates for now having to cover previously uninsurable-for-cost-prohibition customers. Costs for their care didn't go down. But the price they have to pay for insurance just went up, and business' costs for having plans for their employees went up.
Why should a private company be forced to pay for someone's care? Why isn't that person? Or their family? Or their neighborhood? Or their church? Why are you now restricting the ability of a private company to choose its customers, or the prices they charge for them? It's not Blue Shield's concern that I get cancer or not unless I'm their client. Why the heck should they have to take on a case where they lose money? So spare with the scary words.
Good post. And when the fraud sets in, the cost to you and me will be hundreds of dollars per month. Some people just can't afford it. But if they can't, they then get fined on top of it all. It's kind of like living in a communist country.
No, in a communist country healthcare is free and everyone gets it. There is no money to be fined in the first place.
Since "average joe america" and "the tea party types" are polar opposites (politically speaking) I'm not sure what your point is.
tell that to the scores of democratic congressmen and senators that have gotten voted out of office the past two years. :MARIS61:
25 year-old children. Well, at least Obama's economy has record numbers of 25 year-olds still living with Mommy and Daddy.
There is also free food in Communist countries! Mmmm mmm. Nothing like a half-day wait from some tasty bread and water!
[video=youtube;56c1fSdTAWI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56c1fSdTAWI&feature=player_embedded[/video] Oops.
Roberts rewrote a law, changing it from a "penalty" to a "tax". He is constitutionally unentitled to write or rewrite laws. Impeach him now.
No surprise who shows up for a circle jerk. As a union member though, you really don't have a right to say anything, since unions are exempt from ObamaCare.
