Affordable Care Act’s free-market economics

[ninjadude]

That's right, they are going to compensate for it by charging more for your insurance.

You do understand how insurance works, right? There are millions of people paying in with no medical issues. And not just using the ACA. So no, there is no necessarily charging more.

yea, so even with aca plans, ppl will still get bills, and still not pay them. that does not look like aca is solving what it was made to solve in a first place.

The ACA was not designed to be single payer or having no bills to pay. Insurance works the same as it always has.

[aztek]

The ACA was not designed to be single payer or having no bills to pay. Insurance works the same as it always has.

lol, you don't say.

insurance works the same way, bill are not getting paid the same way. same ppl get treatment. so everything stays the same, except it is more expensive now, so what was ACA designed to do??

Edited January 7, 2014 by aztek

[ninjadude]

insurance works the same way, bill are not getting paid the same way. same ppl get treatment. so everything stays the same, except it is more expensive now, so what was ACA designed to do??

Eh? You still get bills with insurance for co-pays and deductibles. I'm sorry you've never had any because it's clear you just don't understand. Insurance pays the majority of the bill. People were not getting medical treatment when they didn't have insurance because it also was too expensive. And no, going to the ER was not an option. Healthcare is not "more" expensive. It was reported just today that the trend continues to fall sharply in the last year. For those who now have insurance everything is definitely not the same.

[+OverSword]

You do understand how insurance works, right? There are millions of people paying in with no medical issues. And not just using the ACA. So no, there is no necessarily charging more.

ND, I am a licensed insurance agent in life and disabilities in the state of WA. The people in the exchange are buying insurance, not from the govt. but from the carriers. The ACA affects your rates drastically. Period.

[F3SS]

Some parts of ACA were badly implemented and will require ongoing 'tuning', but ACA is not the healthcare disaster the anti-Dems, or anti-Government, factions are playing it to be.

I agree with the conclusions that ACA is not "socialised medicine", but the free-market at work. It just happens to be inclusive of all (or a much greater proportion) of the population than the previous system. Initial costs for some individuals may rise, but long-term benefit to the national economy will accrue from having more people with access to better healthcare.

It is not the job of Government to allow (or even pass law facilitating) business to exclude citizens from the benefits of living in a society. It is the job of Government to ensure business operates with a sense of social inclusion, and for Government to promote social justice. Government - even the govt of the US - is "for the people" and must be a balance against the selfish interests that would otherwise splinter the society it is there to serve.

It is not a free market when the government forces you to participate. Free market is by definition choosing what you spend your money on. Anything else is a tax. The government can levy taxes but not market chocies. I don't recall the amendment stating the government shall impose at will market decisions upon the citizens of the United States.

I always thought health insurance was a benefit of a job or personal responsibility. I never thought it was a benefit of being alive. You can argue that certain anti-discrimination laws are necessary but to say it is the governments job to mandate a business operates with 'a sense of social inclusion'. Wtf is that anyways? Some mushy feel good not the way to run a country stuff. And social justice?! Like Eric Holder refusing to make criminal cases involving blacks a priority? Social justice sounds more like reparations, in this country at least.

Along with for it is also of and by the people and all three mean it is our way and not theirs.

Those who work pay for those who cannot.

And those who won't.

What exactly do you think happened before the ACA? He still could have gotten his surgery without insurance, and skipped out on the medical bills (which occurs to the sum of $50 billion every year) and then us with insurance get hit for it with higher premiums. The only difference?

So it costs US 3 trillion dollars to enact legislation that allows the system to work pretty much as it already did except the only difference is that we got a few people to chip in $50 little dollars in exchange for a boost of confidence to head to the hospital and get them to do what they already would've done???

Now your friend's son isn't stuck with $30,000 in medical bills (which is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States).

But you still are! His fifty a month is never going to cover that.

Insurance works the same as it always has.

Except with forced participants.

Edited January 7, 2014 by F3SS

[ninjadude]

The ACA affects your rates drastically. Period.

as i've posted previously. It did not. It was like 50 cents a month.

[ninjadude]

It is not a free market when the government forces you to participate. Free market is by definition choosing what you spend your money on.

and yet we still have free markets for auto insurance where in almost all states you are required to purchase it.

[MiskatonicGrad]

and yet we still have free markets for auto insurance where in almost all states you are required to purchase it.

yes but we don't force people who ride bicycles to buy car insurance! how can you possibly draw a parallel?

[F3SS]

and yet we still have free markets for auto insurance where in almost all states you are required to purchase it.

Not for simply being alive.

[+OverSword]

and yet we still have free markets for auto insurance where in almost all states you are required to purchase it.

But you're not required to purchase a vehicle so that's a poor example.

[+OverSword]

yes but we don't force people who ride bicycles to buy car insurance! how can you possibly draw a parallel?

He can easily draw a parallel because he has a mental disorder which renders him incapable of finding wrong in any action or legislation by democrats. He probably thought wiener would have made a fine mayor of NYC.

[aztek]

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
   
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
   
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
   
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!.
   
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
   

[questionmark]

But you're not required to purchase a vehicle so that's a poor example.

You are not required to seek medical attention if you are sick either... so not really

[aztek]

You are not required to seek medical attention if you are sick either... so not really

no you are not, i agree, however you are required to have a health insurance,

[questionmark]

no you are not, i agree, however you are required to have a health insurance,

which was introduced because people were seeking medical attention without being able to pay for it or doing without causing bigger (and more expensive) problems in the future for which they could not pay either.

ACA is not the cause, ACA is the effect (and quite screwed up... but better than nothing)

[aztek]

which was introduced because people were seeking medical attention without being able to pay for it or doing without causing bigger (and more expensive) problems in the future for which they could not pay either.

and it still has not changed much in reality, . they might have a policy now, that more symbolic than usefull.

no one removed deductable, copay, items ins isn't covering. lots of items, btw. they only increased, for everyone now,

so ppl still will be getting bills they can't pay, even more so now.

so it will become a cause for even bigger disaster.

just wait and see.

Edited January 8, 2014 by aztek

[Agent0range]

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
   
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
   
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
   
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!.
   
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
   

Do you have a source for this post?

[aztek]

you liked this one, uh? describes socialism pretty good imo.

there are dosens of sites with that, not to mention various boards posts on WWW.

which one do you want?

if you copy first sentance, and paste it into google, you will find all of the sources,

but in case you mean i should have linked to it, you absolutely right, i should have, now i can't remember what board i copy pasted it.

but here is site.

http://thevisitingsc...prosperity.html

Edited January 8, 2014 by aztek

[+OverSword]

You are not required to seek medical attention if you are sick either... so not really

Regardless, you are required to purchase health insurance. you know that so I assume you're just being a wise guy.

[F3SS]

Do you have a source for this post?

You disagree? Break it down point by point and explain why.

Edited January 8, 2014 by F3SS

[Agent0range]

You disagree? Break it down point by point and explain why.

How about you break it down point by point. Or better yet, go read rule 2c before calling someone out.

[aztek]

is that why you asked the source?????? rule 2c????

well you are right, rules are rules.

[Agent0range]

is that why you asked the source?????? rule 2c????

well you are right, rules are rules.

Yes, a source must be posted, and I was 100% sure they weren't your words.

[F3SS]

How about you break it down point by point. Or better yet, go read rule 2c before calling someone out.

Well if you're all about technicalities there's also a rule stating that members not refer the rules to other members. As for calling you out? What are talking about? That's what we do here. I didn't realize you were acting as moderator. It seemed as though you were shooting those statements down and that really doesn't seem too far fetched considering many of your view points. Those statements didn't necessarily require a link for veracity. Sorry I didn't coddle you with pleasantries but making a demand wasn't my intent.

Edit: that's what we do here meant calling you out for something you comment on. I believe the rule means I can't be in a conversation your not a part of and say that's totally an agentorange mindset. Your not allowed to pick on someone, bully them or call them out in that manner.

Edited January 8, 2014 by F3SS

[MiskatonicGrad]

Yes, a source must be posted, and I was 100% sure they weren't your words.

How about his own D*** common sense! Or did you just say he isn't intelligent enough to come up with those thought on his own?

just because the current administration doesn't think like this doesn't mean other people can't.

Edited January 9, 2014 by MiskatonicGrad