By forcing people that elect not to buy it to actually buy it, it drives down the cost of health insurance. That's sort of the whole point.
You don't understand the first thing about economics, do you? If the idea is to reduce the cost of health care the last thing you want to do is give people a way to avoid paying for health care. Buying insurance is a way to avoid paying for health by passing the cost of said care onto another party. This will increase the demand for health care, but not increase the supply of health care providers. That will drive costs up, not down.
Again, the more people there are paying into the system, the more costs are kept down. Duh.
Actually, it doesn't. What this will do is reduce the costs for the small group of people that use a high amount of health care. Insurance companies compensate for this by raising the price for everyone else. Most people actually end up paying more. I actually explained all of this a couple of years ago right here on this board, you should take the time to look it up and see where you are making your mistakes.
How would a single payer system reduce the cost of health care? Did a single payer system reduce the costs of wars at some point and I missed the memo?
The problem here is not that my asshole puckers when you mention stupid ideas, it doesn't. The problem is that the idea is stupid.
It is a tax, I have a Supreme Court decision that backs me up, all you have is capital letters and the claim that the Supreme Court is run by Fox.
No, because it doesn't, it just means they pay a little but less money to the government.
I don't have a side, this is just me. That said, my fracking side opposed the mandate in the first place because we realized way back then that the mandate is not a way to reduce health care costs.
By the way, what the Heritage Foundation proposed was coverage for catastrophic illness or injury, not a requirement that everyone buy insurance that covers routine medical care. They also proposed that everyone would get a credit to purchase health insurance of some type, and that refusal to purchase said insurance would mean a loss of that credit. That is about as far from the mandate we have today as it is possible to get.
Not to mention that the mandate was not actually original to them, they just stole the idea.
Is it discrimination to charge a person who has an accident every week more for his car insurance?
Of course not, it is common sense.
Having a bunch of people on your side doesn't make you right, it just makes them wrong.
Not me.
I generally ignore them, unlike your side.
The point, moonbat, is they have to make a profit to stay in business. If they can't do that by cutting fraud because the government doesn't let them spend money on cutting fraud they are going to do it by making money off the fraud.
Wann bet?
It sounded like you were talking with a shoe in your mouth.
Of course you do.
Strange thing, since insurance companies are all evil, and for profit hospitals are all evil, and all either of them care about is making money, if these things actually worked in the real world companies would be using them to help make more of their evil profits. The government would not have to come in and tell evil companies that are only interested in cutting costs and overcharging people to cut costs in order to save money, would they?
Wanna think your position through again, or are you one of those people that is always right?
You haven't had a fact in your post yet.
I have to be perceptive?
You mentioned Romney, I am glad you brought him up.
Here are a few facts, Massachusetts spends more of its budget on Medicare than any other state, they also have the fastest growing per capita health care cost in the country. I think that makes Romneycare a complete failure, but feel free to point ot it as an example of how Obamacare is going to cut costs.
You wrote what you wrote and you have no idea why anyone would think you're either intentionally or unintentionally ignorant to the facts? Really? You don't understand why getting the most amount of people covered is so vital to this thing but you don't know why we'd think you're ignoring the facts?
More facts for you, Ezra Klein has a BA in political science from UCLA. He doesn't have the education to understand complex subjects, and probably struggles with Algebra. Despite that, I would have a better chance of explaining what he got wrong to him than I have with you.
The idea behind expanding health insurance to more people is not to reduce the cost, everyone, including Klein, knows that. The mandate was a bone thrown to insurance companies so they wouldn't fight the requirement to cover pre existing conditions. The sole intent was for them to make money. That is reality, and denying that means you are the one ignoring facts.
It's not a massive tax hike; nor will it balloon health care costs. It's far from perfect, but until we get single payer, it's a great ******* start.
It is a tax, and a new one. How big it is is open to debate, but arguing that a new tax is not a tax hike is really stupid.
Romneycare ballooned costs, and still is almost a decade later. Yet, somehow, Obamacare is magically going to have the opposite effect. Believing that is not just a denial of facts, it is flat out delusional and should require an automatic psychiatric examination.
If this is your idea of a great start I would hate to be around anything you call an unmitigated failure.
I agree, those haters screaming the loudest seem to know the least.
