ObamaCare ends free-loading

[JuliefromOhio]

thoughts from conservative Andrew Sullivan:

"For conservatives, freedom is always coupled with personal responsibility.

With the individual mandate, "the law is telling adults that if you want to go without insurance, you are not going to make everyone else pay for it if your risk-analysis ends up faulty. You have to exercise a minimum of personal responsibility to pay for your own potential healthcare. In other words, rights come with responsibilities in a liberal democracy. At least that is what I always understood the conservative position to be.

more at the link.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/05/since-when-was-free-loading-a-conservative-value/

 

[NightSwimmer]

There are no conservatives in the Republican Party. There are only Republicans.

 

[fairsheet]

(I've rambled on this in the past)

It was President Ronald Reagan, that signed EMTALA into law. That was the one that forbade hospitals from turning away emergency cases that couldn't prove they could pay.

Although....I'm not sure that Reagan deserves all the "credit". I think our society had simply evolved to the point where it was decided that denying any American care, was untenable. Thirty years hence, there's no way of walking that one back. We'll NEVER legislate a regime whereby for whatever reason - even the reluctance to buy insurance - people will be tossed back out into the street if they can't pay for their care.

In a functioning free market, if I don't pay for that bangle, I don't get that bangle. But, if the guvmint AND society were to insist that everyone gets a bangle whether they pay for it or not, the ONLY choice we have is to insist that everyone pay.

 

[Drumcollie]

ObamaCare ends free-loading

No truer words spoken....those most likely in need of freeloading will be affected the most by Obamacare...Minorities and Women

 

[JuliefromOhio]

RomneyCare has been working very well in MA......98-99% of residents are covered. it's a shame that Willard Mitt didn't run on that success.....for the good of the country. he blew the opportunity to educate his party on conservative values of personal responsibility.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/romneycare-massachusetts-years/story?id=16614522

 

[Drumcollie]

RomneyCare has been working very well in MA......98-99% of residents are covered. it's a shame that Willard Mitt didn't run on that success.....for the good of the country. he blew the opportunity to educate his party on conservative values of personal responsibility.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/romneycare-massachusetts-years/story?id=16614522

Your absolutely correct...just ask the folks in Massachussetts

A study published in The American Journal of Medicine, "Medical Bankruptcy in Massachusetts: Has Health Reform Made a Difference?", compared bankruptcy filers from 2007, before reforms were implemented, to those filing in the post-reform 2009 environment to see what role medical costs played. The study found that: From 2007 to 2009, the total number of medical bankruptcies (defined as due to unpaid medical bills or to loss of income due to illness, with no distinction between those causes) in Massachusetts increased by more than one third, from 7,504 to 10,093;

So you are saying that it better for the State to choose...not the federal govt?...I doubt it.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

Reagan said 'America will not deny medical care to anyone.' Romney with MA and now Obama with the entire country, are implementing a more efficient and cost saving way to do just that.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

thoughts from conservative Andrew Sullivan:

"For conservatives, freedom is always coupled with personal responsibility.

With the individual mandate, "the law is telling adults that if you want to go without insurance, you are not going to make everyone else pay for it if your risk-analysis ends up faulty. You have to exercise a minimum of personal responsibility to pay for your own potential healthcare. In other words, rights come with responsibilities in a liberal democracy. At least that is what I always understood the conservative position to be.

more at the link.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/05/since-when-was-free-loading-a-conservative-value/

Yup, that's why the Heritage Foundation, Many senate Pugs in the 90's, and Mitt Romney came up with the idea of the individual mandate and supported its passage - it causes people to pay for their own care through insurance, as opposed to foisting the costs off on society.

Of course, once Obama and the Dems supported it, it became part of a socialist plot, to be bitterly opposed at every turn.

Even 40 House votes to repeal it!

If Pugs only knew how much comic relief they provide.

;-)

 

[Drumcollie]

Reagan said 'America will not deny medical care to anyone.' Romney with MA and now Obama with the entire country, are implementing a more efficient and cost saving way to do just that.

wow you really belive that...tell me then how much money will I save over the cost I am paying now?

 

[Drumcollie]

Genius...If the govt isnt paying for your healthcare and now is paying for healthcare ...that saves us money? brilliant jules

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

wow you really belive that...tell me then how much money will I save over the cost I am paying now?

How about if Obamacare reduces the rate of cost increases that would occur without Obamacare? Would that make you happy (or at least less miserable)?

 

[fairsheet]

Reagan said 'America will not deny medical care to anyone.' Romney with MA and now Obama with the entire country, are implementing a more efficient and cost saving way to do just that.

It says a lot about today's Fox/GOP that in order to be their presidential candidate, Mitt had to argue AGAINST his own greatest achievement. If Mitt was an ounce of a man, he would've refused.

 

[Drumcollie]

How about if Obamacare reduces the rate of costs increases that would occur without Obamacare? Would that make you happy (or at least less miserable)?

IF?????????????????????? you didnt read the bill either did you....you cant offer anything as neither can Jules which will reduce the amount I pay now...

here is a hint...this wont do it either. Try again

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

IF?????????????????????? you didnt read the bill either did you....you cant offer anything as neither can Jules which will reduce the amount I pay now...

here is a hint...this wont do it either. Try again

Your dodge is noted.

 

[Mytzlplk]

thoughts from conservative Andrew Sullivan:

"For conservatives, freedom is always coupled with personal responsibility.

With the individual mandate, "the law is telling adults that if you want to go without insurance, you are not going to make everyone else pay for it if your risk-analysis ends up faulty. You have to exercise a minimum of personal responsibility to pay for your own potential healthcare. In other words, rights come with responsibilities in a liberal democracy. At least that is what I always understood the conservative position to be.

more at the link.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/05/since-when-was-free-loading-a-conservative-value/

like with all things, they reserve the right to be for it until they are opposed to it

 

[Spamature]

Your absolutely correct...just ask the folks in Massachussetts



So you are saying that it better for the State to choose...not the federal govt?...I doubt it.

Hmmm? I wonder what happened between 2007 -2009 ? I can't remember... Something to do with the economy as I recall. I wonder if might have played a role.

 

[NightSwimmer]

wow you really belive that...tell me then how much money will I save over the cost I am paying now?

Can't get any cheaper than free. This isn't about saving you money. It's about savings for folks who work for a living.

 

[trapdoor]

thoughts from conservative Andrew Sullivan:

"For conservatives, freedom is always coupled with personal responsibility.

With the individual mandate, "the law is telling adults that if you want to go without insurance, you are not going to make everyone else pay for it if your risk-analysis ends up faulty. You have to exercise a minimum of personal responsibility to pay for your own potential healthcare. In other words, rights come with responsibilities in a liberal democracy. At least that is what I always understood the conservative position to be.

more at the link.

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/05/since-when-was-free-loading-a-conservative-value/

His analysis is nonsense. A 25 year old is less willing to pay for insurance for the simple and obvious reason that a 25 year old doesn't need it as much as a senior citizen. Most young people can "pay as they go" and never become a burden to "society" in any way.

What Obamacare does is ensure that the outliers, those who aren't insurable by normal insurance companies because of their already-endangered health; and those with too little money to buy insurance on their own; are able to be insured by the moneys paid in by those young people who previously chose not to have insurance.

Whether you call it a mandate, a penalty, or a tax, the designers of Obamacare knew this feature of the program would be unpopular -- this is why it was scheduled not to kick in until after the 2012 elections. It's going to be even less popular once it is dragging an additional ~$600 per year out of the pockets of lower-end workers -- all those waiters and cooks at restaurants too small to provide insurance, for example. Of course, those young people may also lose employer-provided insurance via another path -- companies are cutting back on full-time employees in order to avoid providing insurance. This has a gloss of "high employment" -- they're hiring more people, but only giving them 30-hours a week to avoid providing benefits.

Those of us who predicted that Obamacare implementation would be a train wreck have been validated so far -- witness the complications in setting up the exchanges, and the fact that the president had to ignore the law to push the employer mandate back an additional year.

I realize that many of you favoring the law see it as an attempt to "do good." Sometimes it is better to do nothing at all than to do something that won't work.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

"Most young people can "pay as they go" and never become a burden to "society" in any way."

if they're lucky, but the young need to take personal responsibility for their healthcare and most will. of course, there will be the outlier conservative freeloaders who might need a few years of paying penalties before they wise up.

 

[trapdoor]

"Most young people can "pay as they go" and never become a burden to "society" in any way."

if they're lucky, but the young need to take personal responsibility for their healthcare and most will. of course, there will be the outlier conservative freeloaders who might need a few years of paying penalties before they wise up.

But the experience rate among those young people indicates that most of them, almost all of them, will indeed "be lucky" -- and hence able to take care of their health care out of their paychecks if they choose not to purchase insurance. Prior to Obamacare, these people were not "freeloaders" in any sense of the word -- they were paying only for the health care they used, which was minimal.

As for "conservative" freeloaders, I've yet to see a study indicating that the people who will be impacted most by the mandate are conservatives. Mostly, it will fall on young people who work for small employers. Many of them may find it more efficient to just pay the $500 or $600 a year in "tax" rather than to carry insurance -- they can then do exactly what insurers don't want people to do, which is to wait until they're sick to sign up for insurance.