|
|
|
|
|
|
by credo
3335 days ago
|
|
|
I have no pre-existing health problems (that I know of) and I get no government subsidies. The scorecard lists people like me as winners in the GOP health care bill. However, I think, most of us will lose from this bill, because we'll live in a country that is less fair * less fair (if you believe that a market-based approach to healthcare is unfair to people who are born with - or acquire - serious health problems, aka pre-existing conditions ...... and if you believe that poor people should get subsidies to let them get affordable healthcare) |
|
|
Most of us will lose, even financially. Uncertainty is a huge drag on business. Insurance is all about reducing uncertainty, and universal insurance is even more potent in that regard. Millions of Americans will now be less likely to change jobs or take other risks that might leave them exposed to a greater risk of catastrophic medical expenses. Lenders and businesses will have to adjust for an increased number of people defaulting on loans because medical expenses forced them into bankruptcy. In these and a dozen other ways, this regression on insurance is going to hobble the economy and end up hurting us all.
BTW, I'm not at all trying to imply that it's only bad because it's bad economics. Far from it; I think the moral objections are even stronger. I'm just trying to explain how this change is wrong even according to the one criterion its proponents still (arguably) care about.