You seem to be implying that most people under 65 really don't want healthcare insurance. They would prefer to risk the the health and financial future of themselves and their family. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of people under 65 who do not carry health insurance do so because either they can't get it or they can't afford it.
Most Americans don't use healthcare? Well, that's like saying most Americans don't use an emergency room. Almost everyone will need healthcare and will need it badly. If they are among the lucky few who don't, their spouse or other family members will.
Sorry if it comes across that way. My premise is that there is a better way than government one-size-for-all coercion as the answer.
It is not.
Freedom and liberty apply to healthcare.
Now, for a bedtime tale, on that point:
The Dog and the Wolf
A gaunt Wolf was almost dead with hunger when he happened to meet a House-dog who was passing by. "Ah, Cousin," said the Dog. "I knew how it would be; your irregular life will soon be the ruin of you. Why do you not work steadily as I do, and get your food regularly given to you?"
"I would have no objection," said the Wolf, "if I could only get a place."
"I will easily arrange that for you," said the Dog; "come with me to my master and you shall share my work."
So the Wolf and the Dog went towards the town together. On the way there the Wolf noticed that the hair on a certain part of the Dog's neck was very much worn away, so he asked him how that had come about.
"Oh, it is nothing," said the Dog. "That is only the place where the collar is put on at night to keep me chained up; it chafes a bit, but one soon gets used to it."
"Is that all?" said the Wolf. "Then good-bye to you, Master Dog."
Better starve free than be a fat slave.
Doctor Aesop
Nice analogy, but the situation is a bit more complex.
As the saying goes, one person's freedom ends where another begins. Is a person to be allowed to act irresponsibly when those actions hurt others? This is exactly what would transpire if people were allowed to reject health insurance for themselves and their families and subscribe to it once they become ill or to depend on government to pick up the tab.
Just as before healthcare reform, there are plenty of healthcare options. Individual policies and group policies, PPOs, HMOs, EPO's, and a host of new policy types, some being catastrophic policies featuring high deductibles and low cost and other that cover everything. There will also be more Co-Ops which offer even more choices. Policies can be acquired just as they are now. For individuals and low income workers, they can be acquired through regional exchanges. Healthcare reform is certainly not one size fits all. In fact people will have far more choices, not less.
"There will also be more...."
Sadly, that is not the case.
I have a problem believing that you actually subscribe to what you just posted. Are you denying that the thrust of ObamaCare is a government takeover of the industry...and a sleight of hand policy of taxation designed to redistribute the wealth of the nation?
Up for a little education?
1. Obamacare was intended to have one national exchange to regulate all health insurance, and to distribute subsidies. Forced to back down on that idea, he got fifty instead! Under Title I,
state officials are instructed that they “shall” establish an “American Health Benefit Exchange, “ (AHB) in each state. The secretary of HHS will make grants to each state to set them up, determining the amount of money, whether or not to renew depending on whether the state is “making progress” in meeting the new
federal insurance requirements, and other “benchmarks” that the secretary may see fit to establish. And the secretary has the power to decide if the state exchanges are “qualified,” as of January 1, 2013.
a. These exchanges will be the central vehicle for
the federal government to control and regulate the health insurance market. Washington will dictate exactly how they work, and step in and set them up if not satisfactory.
PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321(c) (1)
b. Rather than co-equal with the federal government, as is the character of American federalism,
the state becomes nothing more than an distal agency of Washington.
2. The
feds will require the ‘state’ exchanges to perform a dozen or so “minimum functions”
Section 1311(d)(4) of the PPACA requires all Exchanges to perform certain minimum functions:
Certify, recertify and decertify health insurance plans as “qualified health plans” to be offered through the Exchange,
Operate a toll-free hotline for consumer assistance,
Maintain a website providing standardized comparative information on health plans,
Assign price and quality ratings to plans,
Present plan benefit options in a standardized format,
Provide information on Medicaid and CHIP, determine eligibility for applicants, and enroll eligible individuals in these programs,
Provide an electronic calculator to allow applicants to determine the actual cost of coverage, taking into account premium tax credits and cost sharing reductions for which they are eligible,
Certify individuals who may be exempt from the individual responsibility requirement,
Provide information to the Treasury Department and to employers on certain employees who are eligible for premium tax credits, and
Establish a Navigator program that provides grants to entities to conduct outreach and education, as well as assist consumers in enrolling in qualified health plans through the Exchange.
a. While
states cannot accept any insurers who offer policies that provide fewer benefits than those ordered by the federal government, they may offer plans that include more benefits. This, of course,
obviates the kind of competition that lowers cost or favors the consumer. The state must them subsidize the additional benefits, which requires extensive invasion of privacy of the individual.
b. While mandating additional benefits, the PPACA imposes restrictions that one would hardly expect in a free market system, i.e., more benefits results in higher premiums. On the contrary, this
law gives the secretary of HHS the ability to remove the company if the increases are 10% or more.
Questions and Answers: Keeping the Health Plan You Have: The Affordable Care Act and ?Grandfathered? Health Plans
3. One would do well to look beyond the word salad in
section 1311 (d)(4), and carefully consider the machinations necessary to ascertain
“Provide information on Medicaid and CHIP, determine eligibility for applicants, and enroll eligible individuals in these programs” , to “Certify individuals who may be exempt from the individual responsibility requirement, “ and to “Provide information to the Treasury Department and to employers on certain employees who are eligible for premium tax credits, and cost sharing reductions for which they are eligible,” and “Certify, recertify and decertify health insurance plans as “qualified health plans” to be offered through the Exchange.”
a. They will have to check the incomes of people applying for health insurance subsidies to make sure they qualifyÂ…and stay qualified. Every month. Every family member.
b. The state exchanges will be tasked with making sure that
all ‘private plans’ meet the new expanded federal mandates and standards. They must have, as well, enough, and the right mix of doctors.
c. Exactly what the ‘private plans’ in the exchanges must and will do is difficult to pin down, as the
PPACA has built in the right of the secretary of HHS to change, add delete requirements at will. Neither the ‘private plan’ nor the consumer has any rights here. The secretary has sweeping powers to decide which insurers will be allowed to sell policies in the exchanges.
PPACA, Public Law 111-148, section 1321(e) (1)(B)
Please find any errors in the above.
If there are none....see if this verifies your post.
