I know, the rest of us with jobs pay for them... Awesome right?
That has nothing to do with the ACA. That's always been the case. At least now you don't have to pay for people taking advantage of the system.
That has nothing to do with the ACA. That's always been the case. At least now you don't have to pay for people taking advantage of the system.
No i don't trust words, i look at track records and use that as a base for what they are likely to do.
You still do. The cost is just spread among more people giving the illusion of cost reduction.
That's exactly the point.
Again its not about not wanting to insure people its about forcing others with the threat of incarceration to pay for it. I dont see what could be called moral about that tbh...
Poor business are going to be forced to provide health care coverage, but will still be subject to demands for higher wages without the healthcare cost being factored in earnings 
Its crazy. I'd outsource too.
Its crazy. I'd outsource too.
Still believing politicians and their promises eh?
Hows that worked out for you in the past?....
Yes, in theory everyone must pay in, and everyone will benefit...
Theory being the key word there. here are a few random thoughts i had reading your post.
Congress is exempt though...
and not everyone is going to be able to pay... but everyone will receive care
and we still havent acknowledged the supply and demand issue, that always exist without exception...
I thought members of congress had healthcare though.
They will be exempt from Obamacare, and yes they have healthcare. Great health care in fact.
Of course they will be and of course they do.
Why do you think the unions are suddenly
at Obamacare?
Brown_Pride
All Star
Well that's one of the fundamental arguments. Is healthcare a right? I believe it to be. You clearly do not. On that point we're likely to reconcile and it's at the root of this entire issue. IF you don't believe that then sure, turn away people who are sick but not dying yet. The issue I have from that is both altruistic and one of common sense. Why not provide someone with $4 anti-biotics in order to prevent 100k surgeries and hospital stays in order to treat the inevitable life threatening results of untreated illness?Simple supply and demand. More demand for care, less supply for it.
Its that simple but constantly missed.
IMHO hospitals should turn away those who are uninsured and not facing immediate death.
It would lower cost across the board.
Because of the greater damage it does to the system as a whole. Its a loss of freedom to have the government able to decide what you will and will not purchase.
What you are not saying but is implicit in programs like this is that, society doesnt care enough about the sick to donate money and provide charity. So we are going to forcibly take a cut from the money the earn and allocate where we think it should go.
^ I'm against this and anything resembling this.
Reaching in your own pocket = compassion
Reaching in some one elses = theft.
Brown_Pride
All Star
It's not just an illusion though, theoretically (i.e. baring greed....which i'm not goign to bar) the fact that more people will now have their medical expenses "paid for" hospitals will no longer have to write off the losses they used to on uninsured/non paying patients. This means more cash flow and should result in hospitals not having to spread those previously written off losses to those who do pay.
I suspect prices will remain the same though; and hopsitals will now just pocket the difference and we'll see no significant reduction in prices...that's just what my gut is telling me btw.
On a side note, the idea that the services of some one else could ever possibly be a right is crazy.
You are not factoring the increase in demand for care, the hiring of more staff, new facilities, more medicines etc...
those are what I like to call hidden cost.