Should There Be An "Opt-Out" Clause With The New ACA To Make Right Winger's Happy?

[dblack]

Btw, after a little thinking, I think the best way to described the Indv. Mandate is that its a 'Penatly disgused as a tax' if that makes any sense.

It does, but then you could also look at all tax "incentives" the same way. People who rent are paying a penalty (in the form of higher taxes) for not maintaining mortgage debt, for example.

 

[oldernwiser]

At least under ACA, it doesn't have to happen that way. It's incredibly short-sighted to look at this as "I pay my own way, why don't you?". Particularly because at any time in your life it COULD be you wiggling those ghost fingers. Sticking your head in the sand won't make that possibility any less real.

That's the point. People will now have coverage to make sure that doesn't happen, but for those lone stand out right wingers that think they are "sticking it to da libs and O'bummer" by opting out will receive no health care unless they can pay up front.

They are always the first to try and be tough guys, as well as the first to start crying once they don't get their handouts.

No pay = no service.

Don't get me wrong here, but I personally don't think ACA was the right thing to do. It seems rather pointless to "fix" the insurance industry by adding MORE insurance. One of the biggest problems - the cost of prescriptions - is a total paradox.

On the one side, ACA assesses a small tax on brand name drugs (obviously, as with every tax, that will be rolled into the price of the drug itself). But, the Administration (going back some DECADES) also fights to protect intellectual property rights. This allows a very effective cancer treatment medicine like Nexavar, patented by Bayer AG, to be sold at $5k/dose for as long as the patent is valid. This particular drug needs to be taken once a month continuously for a few years. Right now, the USPTO is fighting with India over their use of compulsory licensing to manufacture the same drug at $157/dose. Poor, poor $3.4B a year Bayer is pissed that they'll only get a 6% royalty. HIV/AIDS patients face a similar hurdle, and past administrations have successfully blocked the use of compulsory licensing in other countries which tried to provide a cheaper alternative.

USPTO is also backing protection of certain clinical trial data as intellectual property for 12 years - a move that prevents any other pharmaceutical company from improving a design or even scaffolding the data to provide other treatments. This creates a HUGE monopoly in big pharm which is guaranteed to boost health care costs. The paradox was that Obama actually used PhRMA - a lobbying firm - to get ACA pushed though Congress in return for not attempting to mess with pharm's windfall profits.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ever since the affordable care act was passed, the right wingers have been going into a complete rampage over having to actually grow up and get health insurance, instead of just freeloading off the rest of the hard working americans.

Now to shut them up and for them to keep their "freedom", should there be an opt-out clause? By signing an opt out wavier, this would mean an up front payment for all medical services. If they require expensive treatment, this will all be need to be paid up front (cash, no credit or loans would be applicable) and the same with a 911 call or emergency.

They would have to "carry their papers" such as a bank statement with a debit card or credit card (no checks) to cover the likely $600 ambulance ride, plus $1,000 to walk in the door of an ER. From there the care would be only administered by how much funds they have available. Run out, then you get a wheel chair ride to the curb, no matter how sick. Sound fair?

Carry Papers!! Never, only those who want to vote should carry papers!

 

[dblack]

Ever since the affordable care act was passed, the right wingers have been going into a complete rampage over having to actually grow up and get health insurance, instead of just freeloading off the rest of the hard working americans.

Now to shut them up and for them to keep their "freedom", should there be an opt-out clause? By signing an opt out wavier, this would mean an up front payment for all medical services. If they require expensive treatment, this will all be need to be paid up front (cash, no credit or loans would be applicable) and the same with a 911 call or emergency.

They would have to "carry their papers" such as a bank statement with a debit card or credit card (no checks) to cover the likely $600 ambulance ride, plus $1,000 to walk in the door of an ER. From there the care would be only administered by how much funds they have available. Run out, then you get a wheel chair ride to the curb, no matter how sick. Sound fair?

Carry Papers!! Never, only those who want to vote should carry papers!

Masks slip on occasion.