Jarhead
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2010
- 20,670
- 2,378
- 245
- Thread starter
- #21
Ok here's one and it directly relates to your story.
I am "paying in to the system" and now that the man in your story has insurance he will be able to see a doctor before the problem he has gets out of control. He will be able to see a general family doctor instead of using the ER as his personal physician. Yes, I am helping to pay for his coverage (just like I already was before), but at least I am doing it for a plan that will allow him to get healthcare at a much cheaper cost than rushing to the ER where the costs he would incur would be passed on to me anyway but at a much higher rate.
So there is your story from someone who is paying in to the system and is seeing benefits from the ACA.
excellent answer and one I will not attempt to refute with the exception of one point....
I highly doubt everyone who did not have insurance had to use the ER last year.
Likely, s small minority of those people did.
But now ALL of them are being suibsidized.
Seems to me it will prove to be much more costly.
Just basic logic, math and economics.
I don't disagree. Yes, it will be more costly. But in my mind, at the very least I'm glad that everyone can now partake in our shitty system.
So where does it end?
And if what you described is not wealth redistribution, then how would you define wealth redistribution?
Lets take the word "wealth" out of the formula. After all, that implies those paying into the system are wealthy.
Lets just call it income redistribution.
If it is not income redistribution and it isn't philanthropy/charity.....
Then what is it?