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

**Qutlsilh** · 07-10-2012, 01:41 AM

In a nutshell, the principle idea behind Obamacare is that if you force everyone to get insurance, the cost pool is divided between more people, meaning the overall cost to each individual is lower.

The sad fact is, and no one who opposed OC actually wants to debate this point specifically, is that those who are neither insured nor in Medicare, do actually get emergency treatment anyway. Who pays? People with insurance. Not only that, but people who have inadequate insurance and end up being bankrupt or on payment plans they can never complete, also have had their treatment, the hospital got their cash and someone paid. Again, it's people with insurance.

So the argument that "I don't want the government telling me how to live" is simply not applicable to this situation.

Even if you're the most heartless individualist, you'd have to recognize that you either force people to contribute somehow, or completely withhold treatment altogether for those who cannot, or will not pay. You cannot have it both ways.

It's unfortunate that it's impossible to have a measured debate on this subject without retreating into rhetoric about socialism or other nonsense.

07-10-2012, 01:41 AM	#52
Qutlsilh Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 485 Senior Member	In a nutshell, the principle idea behind Obamacare is that if you force everyone to get insurance, the cost pool is divided between more people, meaning the overall cost to each individual is lower. The sad fact is, and no one who opposed OC actually wants to debate this point specifically, is that those who are neither insured nor in Medicare, do actually get emergency treatment anyway. Who pays? People with insurance. Not only that, but people who have inadequate insurance and end up being bankrupt or on payment plans they can never complete, also have had their treatment, the hospital got their cash and someone paid. Again, it's people with insurance. So the argument that "I don't want the government telling me how to live" is simply not applicable to this situation. Even if you're the most heartless individualist, you'd have to recognize that you either force people to contribute somehow, or completely withhold treatment altogether for those who cannot, or will not pay. You cannot have it both ways. It's unfortunate that it's impossible to have a measured debate on this subject without retreating into rhetoric about socialism or other nonsense.
	Quote