Well it's obvious you have no interest in logic and find it completely excusable to take from one person to pay for another.
But it's already happening under this system. We just say that your premiums are going up instead of calling it a tax or a fine. It's still money out of your pocket.
It's not just a matter of everyone needing healthcare later.
Well, for some it is. I use mine all the time, but there are other healthy people out there who don't know when (not if) they will need healthcare. That's why they get insurance. If they want to take a gamble and not have insurance, the ACA offers that option in the fine and that fine will help cover for whatever catastrophic conditions might befall them in the future. Is it perfect? No, but at least it attempts to address the problems of critical ER care being used by the uninsured.
You're going about this too simplistically. If people pay into a system then by all means use the insurance. We are talking about people who won't pay a dime into the system and expect to freeload off someone else. That is utter nonsense. Maybe not every one of them is a freeloader so I won't assume the percentage, but another part of the reason the system is broken is too many people sticking their hands in the cookie jar who weren't part of the baking process.
You're absolutely right, which is why we should have a single payer system where everybody contributes taxes to its funding via taxes. Ideally we would get the same quality healthcare, except everyone would have it and we'd get rid of that shady insurance company middleman. See, problem solved.
I don't agree with you and you can pose all the "moral" lessons you want. We'll never agree. You're political ideology seems to sway towards some utopian egalitarian system in this aspect where everyone deserves a piece of the pie regardless of who earned it. This isn't even about facts for you.
Well, then give me some facts please. So far I haven't really seen a good argument for why
You're mind was already made up before you even entered the discussion.
Well yeah, as a diabetic I kind of have a vested interest in this issue, but don't put this all on me. You're not as open-minded as you originally claimed to be?
Maybe I'm wrong though, but judging by your neglect for hardworking citizens to keep their piece of the pie and decide on their own what to do with it, I am guessing I'm right.
But if that hardworking citizen doesn't have insurance, he gets hurt, goes to the ER and I have to pay for his ass in increased premiums, is he suddenly a lazy leecher on the system?
All of the bleeding hearts who are concerned with the uninsured should make their own contributions instead of leeching off someone else. They all seems to be pretty good at spending other people's money. Let them reach a little deeper into their own pockets if they are as concerned as they claim to be.
That's a pretty bold claim. Not everyone who doesn't have insurance is a 'leecher.' Not every employer offers insurance to their employees and it used to be that buying insurance for yourself without that employer mediator was very expensive and god forbid you have a pre-existing condition, then you're pretty much screwed and can't get insurance even if you do want it.
So yeah, clearly a bunch of fucking leeches.
Also, I disagree on your stand regarding regulations. I think there are too many government regulations. End those strict regulations and you'll see more reasonable pricing.
What strict regulations are driving up healthcare prices? I have no doubt that regulations drive up the prices on commodities, but since we're talking about healthcare, would you kindly list some of them?
Both Dems and Republicans will never stop the regulations as long as they can earn their buck from it. Like so many other things, it all comes down to shady bureaucrats.
That's a simplistic response to a complex issue. Care to list how some of those regulations only line pockets and don't contribute anything more to our society?
So it seems you're more concerned with robbing Peter to pay Paul. I don't see the logic in that. Fining someone for not wanting to buy something they don't need is completely ludicrous. Let them keep their current insurance like the savior promised they would be able to do. Stop picking on the little guy so the savior can be all buddy buddy with his backers. TKiC already addressed this, but I think I'll put it a little more simply since you seem to avoid this point. If Paul can't or won't pay for insurance, should we let him die?
Won't pay? Then isn't that his own problem if he really is just lazy?
Can't pay? What are the circumstances? Is he disabled? That's a different story. Is he 90 years old? That's a different story. Is it a 35 year old man who has to go to the doctor because he has a runny nose? Let him pay out of pocket like I used to. I don't expect or never expected anyone to pay for me before I was able to get a job with health insurance. You won't get sympathy from me by using the "what if he doesn't have insurance" routine. I was there and I dealt with it. Maybe I come from different stock than everyone else does.
You missed the point. This isn't about going to the doctor for a runny nose, this is critical, ER care here, ie your body is convulsing and the EMT's have to load you up and take you to the nearest hospital. If he's uninsured, what do you do? Critical care is expensive. Do they swipe your credit card before you're loaded up into the ambulance and if it maxes out are you just left there? Would they evaluate your credit rating, take a pay stub beforehand to see if you're financially secure enough to treat? Because in this sort of scenario I'm really struggling to figure out how to care for someone in critical condition that is uninsured other than leaving them to die. If they can't pay, then who pays for it? The other insured Americans who get a nice increase in their premiums.
At least, that's how it is now.
We never had this problem until the government got their fat hands involved.
This has been going on for a long time, hate to break it to you like that.
This is why our government started to destabilize...by starting too many systems that needed government reliance.
This ACA might not be "government run", but to say the government (or actually the politicians) is not benefiting from this program is a complete distortion of the facts.
It is? How so?