DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Darnisg** · 07-09-2012, 11:17 AM

I over generalized. Ive heard of Canadians using emergency medical care in the States and the Canadian government foots the bill. Either way the US isn't going to provide health care to visiting foreigners; took us long enough to cover our own people.

... except our own people are still not covered. Note how this changes so little, by ensuring that people who don't work continue to collect at the expense of those who do... and those who work hard but don't make enough money to buy insurance are now not only going to be screwed by not having healthcare, but also by a penalty. Oh, and the penalty is just large enough to be basically an insult, rather than enough to actually pay for any kind of healthcare. Given that it starts at $800, and the per-capita healthcare spending in the US tops $8000/yr, I think anyone who can do math realizes exactly how useful this measure is.

The concept is certainly important, in that everyone is going to have to pitch into the common healthcare fund, because it's the one expense that only an infinitesmal percentage of the population can bear on their own. But the execution of it is toothless and deeply flawed.

Similarly to the fiasco of the Massachusetts plan which this legislation was roughly based on, and similar to the federal homeowner subsidies, the bank bailouts, the car maker bailouts, and more or less the entire cluster**** of the past decade, the law's consequence will largely be to reward sitting at home and collecting welfare, and punish the working class.

However, don't get me wrong, the fact that this is a turd of a bill doesn't mean I wanted it struck down. The fact of the matter is that I was equally terrified of the Supreme Court decision going the other way. After all, our healthcare system is in a desperate need of reform, and defeat of this act would likely sideline such an effort for years. Also, some provisions of the act are essential to the proper functioning of the healthcare system and should have been law decades ago. Things like ensuring that pre-existing illnesses don't prevent people from obtaining insurance, which in the past meant that if you lost your job (which had company insurance) and you were ill, you were basically left with the choice to go bankrupt or die... and most likely did both.

07-09-2012, 11:17 AM	#48
Darnisg Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 431 Senior Member	I over generalized. Ive heard of Canadians using emergency medical care in the States and the Canadian government foots the bill. Either way the US isn't going to provide health care to visiting foreigners; took us long enough to cover our own people. ... except our own people are still not covered. Note how this changes so little, by ensuring that people who don't work continue to collect at the expense of those who do... and those who work hard but don't make enough money to buy insurance are now not only going to be screwed by not having healthcare, but also by a penalty. Oh, and the penalty is just large enough to be basically an insult, rather than enough to actually pay for any kind of healthcare. Given that it starts at $800, and the per-capita healthcare spending in the US tops $8000/yr, I think anyone who can do math realizes exactly how useful this measure is. The concept is certainly important, in that everyone is going to have to pitch into the common healthcare fund, because it's the one expense that only an infinitesmal percentage of the population can bear on their own. But the execution of it is toothless and deeply flawed. Similarly to the fiasco of the Massachusetts plan which this legislation was roughly based on, and similar to the federal homeowner subsidies, the bank bailouts, the car maker bailouts, and more or less the entire cluster**** of the past decade, the law's consequence will largely be to reward sitting at home and collecting welfare, and punish the working class. However, don't get me wrong, the fact that this is a turd of a bill doesn't mean I wanted it struck down. The fact of the matter is that I was equally terrified of the Supreme Court decision going the other way. After all, our healthcare system is in a desperate need of reform, and defeat of this act would likely sideline such an effort for years. Also, some provisions of the act are essential to the proper functioning of the healthcare system and should have been law decades ago. Things like ensuring that pre-existing illnesses don't prevent people from obtaining insurance, which in the past meant that if you lost your job (which had company insurance) and you were ill, you were basically left with the choice to go bankrupt or die... and most likely did both.
	Quote