It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Mak Manto
reply to post by jdub297
I'm against idiots not having insurance.
People get sick, and like I said, if they go to the emergency room, it's money out of our pockets...
I would say that you shouldn't need health care insurance if I knew that if you got sick, it wouldn't mean money of the people's pockets.
Originally posted by jdub297
Actually, 12 million is an exaggeration. There's probably 7 million people who actually do not have access to health care. They may work, but for an employer who doesn't provide insurance. Or they have income too high for public assistance but not high enough to afford their own coverage.
There IS a need for a "sagety net." Government (us, you know) and employers and insurance should take care of catastrophic and basic care for those who can't afford it.
But do we need to destroy everyone else's options to help out the few?
So let’s round it off to 10 million and say the government invests 2 billion a year into a program to cover them…. That would fix the issues at hand, but I bet we see a price tag in the trillions though.
Profit is already IN the equation!
First, let's understand something about profits.
Doctors expect to profit from their services. So do hospitals, and radiologists, and nurses, and janitors.
Do you work to give your boss money, or do you expect to "profit?"
Insurance companies DO NOT make "huge profits." Look for yourself.
Industry Industry 2007 Profits
Rank as % of
1 Network and Other Communications Equipment 28.8
2 Mining, Crude-Oil Production 23.8
3 Pharmaceuticals 15.8
4 Medical Products and Equipment 15.2
5 Oil and Gas Equipment, Services 13.7
6 Commercial Banks 12.6
7 Railroads 12.4
8 Entertainment 12.4
9 Insurance: Life, Health (stock) 10.6
10 Household and Personal Products 10.2
So, you expect the government to save money by paying others to service the poor?
Why should anyone insure a crack smoking, twinkie eating, whiskey guzzling motorcycle racer? Especially when there will be no insurance w/i 5 years of the "plan."
They have to pay for his visit when it could've been taken care of by insurance
Do you think a health care fairy flies on in and takes care of the coverage?
Originally posted by carewemust
I wonder if it would be cheaper for a healthy 25 year old person to
pay the penalty for not having insurance, than it would be for him/her
to buy the insurance? It's these kinds of details..the dollars and cents
stuff, that people want to know.
Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Libertygal
You've conflated 2 separate considerations: the 25 y.o. and the victim.
For the 25 y.o., why do you want to subsidize his lifestyle? And doesn't the hospital already pick up his costs through higher fees passed on to everyone else with a "guarantor?" (Ask your accounting dept.)
For the victim,his INSURANCE (following your premise of a reasonable person) will pick it up to the limits of his coverage. Then, his disability program or Social Security will kick in and pay the remainder. (Ask your accounting dept.)
We are ALREADY paying for the 25 y.o.'s behavior!
So, what will giving Obama $1 trillion (for the 1st 5 yrs. of the plan) change?
How does this stop the NEXT 25 y.o. from coming thru the door, not to mention his victims?
We can only hope so.
From messiah to lame duck in 8 months.
Could be a record.
Originally posted by winotka
reply to post by carewemust
Not trying to agree or disagree, but the maximum penalty($3800) would still be cheaper than my current policy premium. I think there's something wrong with that picture too. I don't have any preexisting conditions or ongoing conditions either.