I'm not sure what you are saying, but I think you are suggesting that
you would be better off paying the penalty for not having insurance and
getting insurance if and when you need it.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's cheaper for individuals not to buy
it, and for employers to not provide insurance.
Under Obamacare's free-lunch theory--which is what Obamacare is--
insurers can't refuse you, the gov't promises to provide coverage to
employees that are dumped, so individuals can and should game it, and
employers too.
And they will.
In reality this is a very
dangerous thing to try. There are any number of illnesses that are very
serious and need immediate treatment. You don't get insurance at the
drop of a hat. It takes weeks or even months to get signed up. In the
meantime you could be paying out of pocket for very expensive treatments.
Still, that is a choice.
Oh pooh. What good would Obamacare be if you had to wait months and
months and perish first? Do you really propose that Kathleen Sebelius
would let insurers effectively avoid the guaranteed-issue mandate by
ignoring pre-existing life-threatening conditions? That pretty would
pretty well gut the whole pretext for forcing Obamacare on everyone,
wouldn't it?.
Just saying an argument is wrong is not of much value. Care to actually
contribute something substantive rather than just, "no, that's wrong"?
We've beat it to death here in sed, with loads of references. Maybe
it's your task to support your argument before making it?
The truth is that uninformed people have been told that all sorts of
manipulated numbers--such as our life expectancy at birth, or the
World Health Organization's ranking of how socialized America's
medicine is--are proxies for health care quality, without
understanding that these are /not/ proxies for quality.
When you examine actual outcomes for actual medical conditions,
America's medical care is superb, better even for our poor than for
other countries' better off, despite the disparities that exist in
every country.
~~~
Obamacare's based on the premise that mandating more services to more
people can be made cheaper by federal decree, and hundreds of billions
annually in federal subsidies. Only the people who don't understand
it believe in it.
One of their mechanisms for "savings" is to simply declare Medicare
reimbursement rates will be half or so--substantially lower than
Medicaid's, eventually. Ta-da!
It's not cheaper, you can't keep your policy, you can't keep your
doctor, and 2/3rds of America will quickly lose their current
coverage, the coverage they liked, that Obama said they can keep.
It's happening already. miso's insurer's rates have been
skyrocketing, even if not for him personally, yet. And employers are
starting to realize they'll have to dump people in droves to survive.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/franchisors-warn-obamacare-will-halve-profits/article/2507920#
"Most, said Atlanta Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken franchiser
David Barr, presumed that the reports about how hard Obamacare will
hit them were overblown. [...]
That is until he pulled out his powerpoint showing how funding
Obamacare will cut his--and likely their--profits in half overnight.
With simple math the small business folks understood, he spelled out
that their only choice is to slash employee hours so they aren't
eligible for company-paid health care or stop offering insurance and
pay the $2,000 per employee fine."
"I haven't met a thinking person who believes it can work." --Sen. Bob
Corker