|
|
|
|
|
|
by dlp211
3435 days ago
|
|
|
> This is a false dichotomy, which assumes that the only possible alternatives are Obamacare and no insurance at all. No it isn't, the parent poster made no judgement about the system available, just that one must participate. What that system looks like is an entirely different debate to the "I should be able to not have insurance" debate. > Also, what about the people with expensive preexisting conditions? Virtually all of those people are consuming far more resources than they will ever pay in. Are they also "moochers"? That is the entire point of insurance. Some will pay more than they take and others will take more than they pay, but in the end, both sides of the ledger for the collective is balanced and both individuals had the same* access. *for some loose definition of same. |
|
|
If you are allowed to buy "health insurance" after you are already sick, it's not "insurance" at all. Sorry, it just isn't.
Do you also think that you should be able to buy fire insurance after your house is already on fire, or car insurance after you've already had the accident?
Note again, and note well, that I'm not saying that people who are already sick should be abandoned. That is a real problem and one which should be addressed. I'm saying that bundling them into an "insurance" program makes no sense whatsoever.
It makes even less sense when you bundle them into Obamacare, the other users of which tend to be poor. I mean, they weren't able to afford insurance before... and now they're expected to not only cover their own costs, but the costs of all those with preexisting conditions? How did anyone expect that to work?
If you insist on funding the preexisting folks by charges on another risk pool, it probably should be done across the board (i.e., by charging the costs of the preexisting folks to all recipients of health insurance, not just the ones unfortunate enough to be stuck with Obamacare). That, at least, would have spread those costs over a much larger pool.