Should all Americans be required to have health insurance?

Jump to Last Post 1-14 of 14 discussions (76 posts)
  1. lauravan profile image61
    lauravanposted 11 years ago

    What, if any, role should the government play in determining individuals' adoption of health insurance? If you think everyone should be required to have some form of health insurance, why? If you don't think it's necessary, why not? Consider the effects of pre-existing conditions, monopolies on health insurance, varying personal finances, etc.

    1. Cagsil profile image70
      Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Absolutely none.
      People shouldn't be forced or required to have health insurance, but affordable health insurance should be available for everyone who does want to buy it.
      See above
      Pre-existing conditions was put in place, so health insurance companies didn't have to insurance people. Eliminating that bias is a good thing, but the side effects are increased pricing structure and a change in the business model so profit can actually be made.

      As for the health insurance monopolies? They shouldn't exist and the Regulations already in place are most likely not strong enough at a State level.

      As for getting America affordable health insurance and to bring down the pricing structure of the Health Care Industry is to increase competition through education, while each State ensures Equality in the marketplace.

    2. Disappearinghead profile image59
      Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's a requirement in the UK for everyone to have state health insurance. It's called National Insurance and it is automatically deducted by employers on behalf of the government. The employee pays 11% and the employer pays 12% of one's gross salary. It funds the health service and the state pension.

      To America this might sound like socialism gone mad with the next stop communism and a UN conspiracy to take away your freedoms, but in the UK, it is accepted by just about everybody of all political colours as a fundamental principle for for a modern civilised society that has a duty of care to its citizens. We may gripe at the inefficiencies of a huge government department  that costs a fortune, but we all know that if we need heart surgery, chemotherapy, or a family doctor, we will get it, no questions asked no matter what the cost or pre-existing conditions, free at the point of need. Last month, my wife was rushed into hospital with excruciating pain in her side. She got emergency surgery the next day to remove a necrotic Fallopian tube that had blown up to the size of a tennis ball. No charge, no questions, no insurance forms or claims to make.

      So to answer your question, universal health care free at the point of need for all irrespective of their wealth or status goes beyond politics; it's a fundamental principle of a 21st century Western democracy to provide it. The implementation, whether by taxation or compulsory private medical insurance, are the minor details.

      1. innersmiff profile image65
        innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        On the contrary, I am part of a growing and strong Libertarian movement in Britain that opposes any government compelling individuals to pay for any insurance, and believes practices like that represent a step backwards in civilisation. Healthcare can not be a 'right' as the implementation of this 'right' compels others to provide care, which violates that person's right to free association. We also understand that at some point it will not be possible to provide the care that your wife received as the system crushes under the cumulative weight of debt and dependence, and that a truly free health market is required to meet the needs of the populace most efficiently, and most ethically.

        1. carol7777 profile image75
          carol7777posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I am not totally sure about this forced health insurance.  The problem with taxing those who don't pay is that they won't pay the tax.  We end up paying for their medical care. The country is obviously in financial straits and I really don't believe it is fair not to give insurance to those with pre-existing conditions etc.  There are so many people who really want health insurance and cannot get it or afford it. However, there are those who just feel everything will be taken care of ..why bother.  I think this situation is far more complicated than people realize.  I saw an interview of several doctors on TV and they will be hurt the most.  More paperwork, less money etc.  I am not sure what the solution is, but the big question is what happens to the very poor and indigent .

          1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image86
            TIMETRAVELER2posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            We already pay for those without health insurance, and many of them could afford to buy it but do not.  I've written a few very specific hubs about this.  The truth is that if we abused ourselves less, we wouldn't need so much health care...but we are just too lazy to do that!

        2. Cagsil profile image70
          Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          What do you know? I'll agree. And I'm not part of any Libertarian movement, and don't want to be.

          1. innersmiff profile image65
            innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            What's wrong with Liberty?

            1. Cagsil profile image70
              Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I didn't say there was anything wrong with Liberty and why did you assume I did? hmm

              1. innersmiff profile image65
                innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I was been facetious. What I meant to ask was why wouldn't you want to be part of a libertarian movement?

                1. Cagsil profile image70
                  Cagsilposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Groucho Marx said it best. I wouldn't want to be a member of any group that would have me as a member. tongue

                  However, Cagsil- Citizens Attain Greater Satisfaction In Life is much better than a libertarian movement or a conservative movement, which are both systems that which are preset to offset other movements.

                  The only thing that offsets Cagsil is pure unadulterated Tyranny.

                  1. innersmiff profile image65
                    innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Well at least that's original in comparison to the media-shaped left/right paradigm of though :p  - I'm just thinking that it's a little vague, you might have to extrapolate.

                    The great thing about libertarian movements is that they can not force you to do anything as it violates their number one principle, so encompass an eclectic bunch of folks with different ideals. We just have to agree on one thing: do you oppose the initiation of force in all forms?

        3. Disappearinghead profile image59
          Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I'd say you are in a very tiny minority, no need to big your part up. It looks like you value principles of illusionary freedom above the health of your neighbours. If your neighbour dies horribly because a poor health history makes affordable insurance impossible, whilst you fit and healthy pay peanuts, hey why should you care? As long as you are ok, nobody else matters.

          1. innersmiff profile image65
            innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            A minority that is growing in force thanks to the growing realisation that we are living in a police state. Forced selflessness is not selflessness at all. Voluntary interaction to provide healthcare for our brethren is more ethical and efficient than stealing from the populace to provide a sub-par service to others, no need to start demagoguing.

        4. umbertoobrian profile image59
          umbertoobrianposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I am glad there is a growing libertarian movement in Britain.  This is encouraging since the philosophy that acts as the frame work for the Constitution are British in origin.

    3. SportsBetter profile image62
      SportsBetterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Forcing people to buy healthcare is not a solution.  It is going to make the economy worse, and the government won't have enough money to pay for this. 
      To solve this problem you need to look at why healthcare costs are high.  The main reason is inflation.  Technology has lowered prices in almost all areas of the economy except healthcare.  This is because the government inflated healthcare costs.  Government created Medicare and Medicaid, which interferes with the free market.  Any area of the economy the government gets involved in prices go up and quality goes down, for example education, energy, healthcare, agriculture.  Government is the problem and we need to realize that it isn't the solution.  The Constitution was written to restrain the power of government and we forget that. 

      “If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    4. profile image0
      promisemposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, absolutely, for two important reasons.

      1) Before ACA, medical bankruptcies were skyrocketing. Those expenses don't vanish into thin air. Hospitals and doctors raise their prices to cover those costs, so the rest of us pay for the bankruptcies.

      As prices keep climbing, more people cancel health insurance and more of them go bankrupt. It was becoming an unsustainable cycle.

      2) Cheapskates wouldn't pay for their own health insurance in the hope they won't get sick. They hide their assets from potential bankruptcy, which is easy to do. Even though they could easily afford insurance, they also would file for bankruptcy and move to places where they had assets protected from creditors.

      I know this for two more reasons:

      1) I know people who went through the first scenario, lost a job, had a major medical emergency and went bankrupt because of ridiculously high bills.

      2) If ACA gets cancelled, I won't be able to afford to pay $13,000 a year for health insurance with a $12,000 deductible for my wife and I. If we have a catastrophic health event (a recent visit to the hospital intensive care unit for someone we know had a $100,000 bill), we won't be able to pay for it.

      We will hide assets if we can (legally) and declare bankruptcy. The rest of you with cheaper health insurance because you are much younger than us (premiums for older folks are 3X higher than younger) will pay for our expenses through higher premiums.

      It won't be our choice. It's the result of a broken system that rewards youth and punishes age.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        How is it "punishing" age to require insurance payments commensurate with risk?  That seems like forbidding insurance companies to raise car insurance rates to youth or to those with frequent accidents.

        Insurance is not a "share the wealth" program; it is a "share the risk" with everyone paying according to their risk of having excessive health care costs.

        1. profile image0
          promisemposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          I have not cost my insurance company one dime in the nine years I have been running my own business.

          I have no history of any severe illness, don't smoke, exercise daily, weigh what I should weigh and present no pattern of risk. Despite those facts, my wife and I are forced to tolerate a $12,000 deductible and had a $13,000 annual premium before ACA simply because of our age.

          In contrast, someone who is 30 years younger than me, smokes, is obese, etc., has insurance premiums 1/3 the amount of mine. That 1:3 ratio was implemented with ACA. It was much worse before it.

          So to your car insurance point, yes, I should pay more if I am a risk. If I am not a risk, I should pay less.

          An overweight, 30-year-old smoker should pay more.

          Health insurance practices blatant age discrimination.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            You have had zero health care for 9 years and live healthy.  Which has exactly zero to do with the statistics on age vs health care costs.

            Sure, we could require a complete history and physical before getting any insurance and then charge accordingly, with rates tailored to each individual.  Do you think that is workable, or should we stick to the less accurate, but zero effort or cost to implement, method of using age?

    5. rhamson profile image70
      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Requiring health insurance is not the governments business. But showing up at a hospital with no means to pay is also unacceptable. Most jurisdictions require the hospital to turn no one away that requires treatment. So is the hospital to eat the cost with no recourse? Of course not because the government reimburses them for providing the services. So who pays in the long run? We do!

      1. GA Anderson profile image87
        GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Greetings again rhamson,

        It seems a couple clarifications might help the substance of your comment.

        It is not "Most Jurisdictions" that require hospitals to treat all that come to their emergency rooms, it is a 1986 federal law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

        Related to your declaration that government reimburses hospitals for uninsured care, although that 1986 Act required hospitals to provide the care, it contained no provisions for hospital reimbursement. I could find no source that affirmed your government reimbursement claim.

        I am not sure about current data, but a 1999 study indicated a national average of 6% of hospital's business resulting in uninsured and 'bad debt', (patient could, or promised to pay - but did not), costs. Costs that are absorbed/paid by the hospital, not the government.

        But, as a straw to cling to, most hospitals do get tax breaks/subsidies for providing services to their communities, (not for providing free care). To emphasize this point many states mandate a minimum percent, (5% I think), of their business be to uninsured/bad debt patients in order to receive these tax breaks/subsidies.

        I do agree with you that the government has no business requiring mandatory healthcare.

        Just sayin'


        1. rhamson profile image70
          rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          My wife works at a hospital and she has verified that the hospital is reimbursed a portion of the cost for those uninsured that come to the hospital. Whether it be a GOVERNMENT subsidy or otherwise we pick up some of the tab. From the horses mouth as they say. Don't tell her I said that as that I will deny. Are you going to continually split hairs with me now?

          1. GA Anderson profile image87
            GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Hey Buddy, I have a wife-authority too, and I have been married long enough to know not to argue with it.

            I did not mean to appear to be splitting hairs in my response. It just sounded like you were saying the government/we pay hospitals for their uninsured care losses. While it is true there are government programs that help defray those costs, they are not 100% reimbursements.

            Of course, in the end, successful hospitals must find ways to cover those costs, usually via higher charges for services. So maybe it was a matter of semantics instead of splitting hairs. Hmm...

            ps. you are a much braver man than I. I would never call my wife a horse, but at least your choice of ends was the lesser of two evils. :-D


            1. rhamson profile image70
              rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              I just call her the boss. It makes her feel good and life is sweet.

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 11 years ago

    Most countries in the world have compulsory health care. It is free or nearly so.

    1. umbertoobrian profile image59
      umbertoobrianposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It is interesting when someone calls something compulsory - "free."

  3. secularist10 profile image61
    secularist10posted 11 years ago

    The whole argument has been framed incorrectly (both here and in the larger discussion in the country). The government does not need to force anybody to have health insurance for everyone to have health insurance. They only need to provide incentives (such as tax breaks or deductions).

    In addition, the government could:
    (1) mandate that all children have health insurance (no constitutional issues there),
    (2) mandate that anyone receiving any kind of government benefit has health insurance (unemployment benefits being the main one; again, no constitutional problems),
    (3) simply loosen the criteria for Medicare and Medicaid. For instance, the age to qualify for Medicare could be lowered, and the income threshold to qualify for Medicaid could be increased. These measures would insure pretty much 100% of the population.

    I think currently somewhere around 80 to 85% of Americans have health insurance. So the issue is just extending coverage to the remaining 15 to 20%. This can be done through the measures above.

    It's a shame Obama and the Democrats have taken a great idea (universal healthcare) and made it so unpopular through their stupidity.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image59
      Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's a shame there are those who think that universal healthcare is somehow an infringement on THEIR rights and that there are those in society who are unworthy of receiving healthcare.

      Why should accessibility to heathcare be dependant upon the ability to pay  or per-existing conditions? It's not like trying to get car insurance.

      1. secularist10 profile image61
        secularist10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Absolutely. But even great ideas will be ruined by terrible leadership.

      2. innersmiff profile image65
        innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I'm over here if you want to respond to my argument. Nobody wants to prevent anybody from having care - those who oppose mandates and socialised care simply want the free-market to do it, which it would do more efficiently.

        1. Disappearinghead profile image59
          Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Let's look at the car insurance industry. Young people are considered so high risk they are priced off the road. If you have an accident and you are not at fault, your insurance company will insist that your car will be repaired at 'an approved' repairer which will inevitably be considerably more expensive than where you might take it. But that's ok the other company is paying. Your insurance will arrange for you at huge expense a replacement hire car from 'an approved' rental firm which will inevitably be considerably more expensive than a small outfit where you would go. But that's ok because the other company is paying. Your insurance will then add in huge admin fees for each activity which individually take no more an a couple minutes to perform. But thats ok because the other company is paying. Your insurance company will then sell the details of the accident to a third party claims company to work through the claim, who will then add in their admin fees. They will also encourage you to invent medical injuries so that they can make more claims from the other insurer. They might suggest you see a private medical consultant, again at very high cost. But that's ok as the other company is paying. Of course if the accident is your fault your insurer will abandon you and give you a comedy price for your car. Then you wonder why year on year your insurance keeps escalating in price.

          You think you can get a better deal from a price comparison website, but as they are all underwritten by a very small handful of large corporate insurers that fix the prices, you won't save much at all.

          In time, like the supermarket chains and energy suppliers, the small ones get bought up by the big ones. Eventually the market consists of a small handful of players who agree to fix their prices as they know that there is no longer any real competition. Big corporations have only one concern, which isn't you, it's share holder value. So prices continue to rise year on year.

          Now you might think it a little irritating that the cost of insurance forces you to drive a crappy little runabout rather than that nice luxury/sporty dream machine. But transfer this 'free market' model to health insurance and people will die. But hey as long as you are in good health so you can afford it, why should you care? Your neighbour dying is simply not your problem and probably their own stupid fault anyway.

  4. lauravan profile image61
    lauravanposted 11 years ago

    Thanks, all, for your thoughts. Admittedly, I'm not nearly educated enough on the matter, but that's why I'm always so interested to hear the perspectives of others. I'm not sure how I feel about everyone being required to have health insurance, but I do absolutely agree that steps need to be taken to ensure that everyone has affordable access to quality care. As it stands, our current system is incredibly biased.

    I do question, though, those who resist having insurance because they've never needed it before. The thing about illness is that it can hit you like a ton of bricks; it can be equal parts catastrophic and completely out of nowhere. My father, for instance, had been incredibly healthy for his entire life. He was fit, active, and strong. And then he found out that he had late-stage colon cancer. And then he had lung cancer. And then his colon cancer came back. This has been ongoing for ten years now. He is still around, though significantly weakened, and has beaten more than most people could, but my point is this: if he had never purchased health insurance because he didn't think he needed it (and why should he have?), he would likely be dead and our family would be destitute from trying to save him. Even WITH health insurance, the bills are unbelievable.

    So from personal experience alone, I caution others against becoming complacent. That's all.

    Apologies for somewhat straying from the original question and going off on my own tangent.

    1. carol7777 profile image75
      carol7777posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think your situation receives a lot of merit. Being complacent is ridiculous and what you say is so  true.  However, it is the pre-existing condition thing that needs revamping.  We have never been without health insurance, even when it was very hard on our budget. The insurance companies are wracking up the dollars.  The solution..I don' t think any of us really know.

      1. lauravan profile image61
        lauravanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I agree. The pre-existing condition clause basically left me without coverage for a year. At the time, I thought I had to find new coverage because I was about to be of an age where I couldn't continue on my parents' plan. But, because I had previously been diagnosed with an immunodeficiency disease, my new provider refused to pay for any care relating to it (including my medication) for a year after I signed up. You can imagine my family's dismay when we had to pay the full $3000 for a CT scan that revealed the bowel obstruction that arose from my inability to pay for and take my medication. Luckily, I was able to get back on my parents' insurance plan after the age limit was increased under Obama. But yes, the pre-existing condition thing is very personal for me.  I really think that it's prejudicial at best, deadly at worst.

  5. bn9900 profile image71
    bn9900posted 11 years ago

    No, the government should not have any control about what you buy.  They need to step back and let us make our own decisions. What need to be done though is if you need major medical attention you need to be a citizen or a green card holder.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image59
      Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Alternatively scrap the entire health insurance system and instead have healthcare provided by the government funded by a significant rise in taxation. Everyone will get healthcare and the costs are spread across the population. Works in Europe.

      1. rhamson profile image70
        rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Unfortunately the healthcare lobby has bought too many slimebags on the hill to allow for any real change to help this problem.

      2. bn9900 profile image71
        bn9900posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Disappearing head, keep the current healthcare system,  lower taxes so that businesses can prosper, then when the unemployment rate come back and lets talk, but until the rate is lower than 5% nationally, I will be against government requiring you to purchase anything from them.  And why do I have to cover someone else's health issues I already do through insurance.

        1. bn9900 profile image71
          bn9900posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I see disappearinghead put his head back in the sand....

          1. Disappearinghead profile image59
            Disappearingheadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            What you do not appear to consider is that your healthcare system only works if you do not get sick. Should you ever become long term chronically ill health insurance would become almost prohibitively expensive if available at all. Then you might find yourself in an earlier grave.

            Still at least when you are on your deathbed or poor and destitute through medical bills you can be happy that your freedoms from government interference have been preserved.

            1. bn9900 profile image71
              bn9900posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Oh I consider that, but then lets consider this: if I do get sick, I already know what the doctor is going to tell me, take this pill, take that pill, so why bother even going to them in the first place. Also there have been studies done already that doctors will either: retire, quit, or quit taking Medicare due to getting lower payments for the work they do.
              I can see that you only want socialism and the government to tell you what to do, and what to buy, if you like that, move to Europe and get in line there, they'd be happy to pay for your care, but they're broke.

              1. lauravan profile image61
                lauravanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                "if I do get sick, I already know what the doctor is going to tell me, take this pill, take that pill, so why bother even going to them in the first place."

                Because unless you, yourself, have an MD, then the doctor is the only one who can legally provide you with the medication that you need?

                1. bn9900 profile image71
                  bn9900posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  OTC medications

                  1. lauravan profile image61
                    lauravanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Right, but those often aren't enough for many illnesses.

  6. Wayne Brown profile image80
    Wayne Brownposted 11 years ago

    It works in Europe only if you enjoy paying taxes out the wazoo and sitting around waiting for care like you currently experience at the drivers license office or when you sign up for Social Security...beauracrats who have little caring or value for your time or your health for that matter.  While we are at it, why not require everyone to own a home, a car, a boat,....define the number of plants in their yard and how often they cut their figure out where it stops and where it crosses the line in terms our rights of choice under the Constitution.  Giving up those rights for what appears to be free government cheese is simply the first step in the government owning you and telling you have to live your life, etc.  Healthcare fall into the same category as all other things that wage earners can (for the time being) decide whether they want to spend their money on.  I do not need a government telling me what I must buy and I don't need a government that expects me to pick up the tab for those who refuse to buy it or are not willing to work in an attempt to try.  That is where the buck stops.  WB

  7. brimancandy profile image78
    brimancandyposted 11 years ago

    No. I don't think that everyone should have health insurance. But, my opinion would be different if I thought that the care insurance companies would be all inclusive, and NOT all them to exclude this and that at their leisure. Until they do, it should be up to the consumer to beware.

    Insurance companies of any kind, are going to try to find a loophole to get out of paying any claim that comes their way. Look at all the people down in New Orleans who are still waiting for insurance companies to come through on rebuilding their homes. Or, very sick people who are denied coverage, because of a clause in their insurance contract that a good insurance lawyer will find to keep their client from paying for major medical bills, that fall back on the patient anyways.

    My brother was a military veteran, but do you think when he became ill, that the VA or insurance company would pay for all of his care? As soon as he became to sick for the VA to care for him they dropped him like a rock, and passed him off onto medicade, which pretty much refused to pay for anything without dancing around one issue after another. And, now that he has passed on, we still get calls from the VA, and His medical insurance wanting him to come in for a check-up.

    Yes sure, we'll send you his ashes right away.

    So, no. I do not think anyone should be made to have insurance. It's a joke, and nothing more than another way for a corporation to make money. Free healthcare is what we really need.

    1. bn9900 profile image71
      bn9900posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      "Free" What is your definition? Someone needs to pay for it, and sorry my taxes are to high already. I am sorry to hear about your brother, but why on earth would you want "free"government healthcare when you see how the Government operated VA handled your brothers situation? I would have thought that you would have been the first to tell government   "paws off"

      1. brimancandy profile image78
        brimancandyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Free healthcare means lots of things to me. It doesn't just mean you don't have to pay for it. It also means free of restrictions. Stop companies from the right to deny coverage to their customers at the drop of a hat. End, the pre-exisisting condition loopholes which allow companies to charge more for crappy service. There are other countries in this world where their people do not pay a dime for healthcare, and they are doing just fine. In fact their economies are far better than ours. The only reason not to offer better healthcare in this country is because big insurance companies will lose money, and that is the only reason. That, and the whole we don't want to pay more taxes bunch. The ones who pay the least in taxes are the biggest complainers.

        1. SportsBetter profile image62
          SportsBetterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          The reason prices are high and you need insurance is because the government inflated the cost of healthcare.  You wouldn't need coverage if prices stayed flat.  Also, before government was involved there were many charities that gave free healthcare.  Since government has control over what drugs and food we eat, we aren't given the best options.  This is why quality sucks.  If we had more competition and less regulations there would be better healthcare for a lower price.  We need to let the market place work and do what it does best.  Government solutions may have good intentions, but they always cause more harm than good.  We used to have the best healthcare in the world.

  8. Alternative Prime profile image57
    Alternative Primeposted 8 years ago

    YES ~ Health-Care should be & is NOW Mandatory for ALL Americans until we ultimately CONVERT to "MEDICARE at BIRTH" which should have been ACCOMPLISHED Long Ago ~

    Prior to OBAMACARE, an exellent FOUNDATION which Eliminated "PREMIUM Gouging" by Insurance Companies for AMERICANs who had the Audacity to have a Pre-Existing Condition, and Eliminated "ARBITRARY Unilateral Insurance Cancelleation" which happened frequently, Republicans were JUMPING Off Buildings while COMPLAINING about picking Up the TAB for those individuals who did NOT carry Health Insurance ~ NOW, they are STILL JUMPING Off Buildings because we are on OUR way toward INSURING All Americans WITHOUT PRIVATE Corporate GREED Driven Interference ~

    We need to address the GREED Driven Escalating "Premium & Deductable Issues" by Instituting a "CAP", which is the ONLY Realistically Plausible way to solve it, and of course we need to re-visit other areas of the ACA, but in Totality, 20 MILLION MORE Americans are NOW Insured and that's a GOOD thing ~

    KEEP the Private SECTOR OUT of OUR Health-Care & the Federal GOVERNMENT IN, unless of course you don't mind CORPORATE Profits taking Precedence OVER your HEALTH ~ sad

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this do understand that insurance is a tad bit different from actual care, don't you?  That having an insurance plan that precludes any care, while collecting premiums from the taxpayer, only benefits the insurance company? 

      The ACA is a great plan...for liberals touting the wonders of useless health care insurance and insurance companies.  For those actually stuck with deductibles far beyond their means it's just another liberal boondoggle.

      1. Alternative Prime profile image57
        Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Apparently, some readers tend to DISREGARD my ENTIRE Previous Entry which clearly mentions "Deductables & Premiums" and what Remedies and or Amendments need to be IMPLEMENTED going forward ~

        ACA Deductables on average according to most sources, are between $5,000-$7,000 as COMPARED to the Extreme Burdon of paying for the ENTIRE Medical Procedure Pre-OBAMACARE ~ A Burdon which was typically assumed by the "COMMUNITY" ~ In some cases these Procedures TOTALED $10,000, or $50,000, or $100.000, or even MORE WITHOUT a Deductable ~ I think the Comparison is Quite Clear ~

        To "PRIVATIZE" as most BACKWARD Republicans would fight for is essentially to RAKE in a Profit at your HEALTH's Expense, the GRAND Scheme to make money while you're in need, what else is new with CONservatives? ~ sad

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, the comparison is quite clear.  With ObamaCare or without, the community still picks up the cost of care for the poor.  The only difference is that with the wonderful ACA Obama's friends in the insurance business get a massive influx of currency to pad their bottom lines.  Plus, of course, socialists get to scream that they've done a wonderful thing by forcing us to pay insurance companies for an unusable product for a third person..

          Except, of course, that even that didn't work - company after company is finding that the claims of the liberals promoting this trash grossly underestimated the cost of care, and that they are going broke with the plans required.  We'll have to pony up even more than we are in order to keep that worthless insurance in effect.

          1. Alternative Prime profile image57
            Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            I think most Rational, LOGICAL Minded individuals understand the FACT that we as a COMMUNITY realize a SUBSTANTIALLY Dramatic Cost Savings when we Collectively "Pick-Up" a  $7,000 TAB versus Picking Up a $50,000 TAB which was the case Pre-OBAMACARE ~

            CONservative Republicans would simply DRAG everyone BACK to the "NightMarish" 1700's where everyone was on their OWN to fend for themselves while a freshly minted Bottle of WHISKEY & a Dull Steak KNIFE was the ONLY Health CURE ~ sad

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

              And I think that the individual looking for truth rather than a trumped up, false-to-fact outright lie will actually examine total costs rather than make silly political statements.  You haven't, in the effort to push the entire nation into an economic collapse that will gather the entire world in and kill billions of people in your misbegotten effort to steal what others have worked for and play Robin Hood.  A noble goal, to be sure, if your personal moral code allows theft.

              1. Alternative Prime profile image57
                Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                The BURDEN is on you wilderness ~ Where's the LIE? MORE False Accusations? I ONLY Post FACTs & everyone around here understands this ~

                If I'm inaccurate I'll glady make the Correction but I don't believe I am ~ According to my sources, the average ACA Deductable is $5,000-$7,000 as a TOTAL Cost to the Insured ~

                An In-Patient Surgery Procedure WITHOUT insurance or the Benefit of ACA would cost the patient perhaps $20,000? $40,000? $100,000? $200,000? Depending on the Required Care ~ If said individual is "Income Challenged", we as a COMMUNITY would "PICK Up the TAB" ~

                Basic Mathematics Clearly illustrate the COST Savings OBAMACARE provides to the COMMUNITY, but I understand most CONservative  Republicans DENY Factual Science ~ sad

                You should VOTE for "Drumpf" Trump ~ His JOKE of a Brilliant PLAN is to simply "Get RID of the LINEz" ~ I guess when you are Pre-Occupied with CRYING like a little GIRL because you forgot to EDUCATE yourself about the "RULES", as Trump currently is, an Ingenius IDEA like "Getting RID of the LINEs" is to be EXPECTED ~

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  LOL  I don't recall you EVER posting a "fact" - just made up claims supporting liberalism.  Like claiming that society is responsible for the health care of everyone. 

                  Nor do you seem to understand even the most basic arithmetic - ObamaCare has grossly increased the cost of health care for our society and it's going to climb ever higher due to that abomination.  Saying that deductibles are "only" $7,000 per year doesn't help the poor even a tiny bit as they don't have that $7,000 to pay...but that tiny (but supremely important FACT) is ignored in your "funny math", isn't it?  We'll just pass it along to society (as we always did) PLUS the profits of insurance companies we ALSO pay now.  But musn't talk about that, eh?  It kind of ruins the "mathematical savings" you wish to lie about!

                  1. Alternative Prime profile image57
                    Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                    wilderness ~ If you READ my Previous Comments you'll see that I already understand the FACT that we as a COMMUNITY "Pick Up the $7,000 TAB"  for "Income Challenged" AMERICANs as we should ~ There's Absolutely NO Debate about that ~

                    But you also must understand the FACT that PRIOR to OBAMACARE, that $7,000 TAB was $10,000, $50,000, $100,000, or even $250,000 for the UNINSURED depending upon the Patients NEEDS ~

                    Once again, I post ONLY FACTs and I'm sorry, but there's NO Escaping them nor Basic Mathematics ~

  9. aware profile image68
    awareposted 8 years ago

    Got fined .Got ins . Co paying many docs weekly. It's nice to have insurance. But the cost is high.

  10. aware profile image68
    awareposted 8 years ago

    Gouging . We need to address that. One charge for all. They charge 10 grand. But will take 700.  Wth

  11. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    Mandated health care is unconstitutional  !  As with many of our liberties however certain  dynasty  inclined "leaders " fend off constitutional law like it  a cheap prom dress after the dance .    Obama  is a anti-constitutional president and he will get his just deserts ,  no legacy for the wicked .  All this congress and president HAS  done is give  more than one industry , including the health care industry , free reign to  inflationary  slavery  of its people !

    Our founding fathers  had more common sense than either this president or  our elected representatives in congress .   I do however believe that this election cycle is proving to be a turning point in our history !   For a government to enslave its people to paying corporate  welfare projects like Obama Care  is  against every thread of our being .

    1. Alternative Prime profile image57
      Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Um....That's not what the SUPREME Court said, as a matter of FACT, many including myself believe Health-Care is a CONSTITUTIONAL Right for ALL Americans, but unfortunately, all BACKWARD Republicans I'd assume will continue to Re-Litigate & Re-Litigate in the THEIR Little Demented Minds via FOX Loser Snooze Channel, and continue to waste MORE & More our our Taxpayer DOLLARS into INFINITY  even though the DEBATE on this Subject had ENDED Long Ago ~

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

        Wrong my man , What you and ALL liberal  me-er's believe is that  you simply want more for you  , from everyone else's expense  !  No one holds it against you though  at least  when you're being honest , mostly !   What is always dishonest though is  explaining it as some kind of   god given right .       You will all see though what happens to Obama care , Hillary care  and the likes of pseudo- socialist gimme's  after the elections .   

        But , just how is it that ,in explaining to your offspring,  how you contributed to bankrupting an entire nation ?    You are exactly the kind of liberal  that , as being part of the 45 % that aren't even paying their ,[ your]  education loans back AND didn't use it to begin with . . You are part of the  liberal inner city liberal management  me -me's  that have bankrupted entire  inner citiy  school systems with  increasingly higher taxes , you are part of the me generation that believe in a nanny state federal government like Bernies dream- world while , if you bothered to vet him - would look at his home state where he has hardly been in years ,  And is financially, educationally , and  economically  failed !

        Alternative power , even the name speaks in liberal origins  .   Power as long as the source is alternative , as in paid for by all others around you ,  While liberals sit there in the glow of the laptop screens and photo-shop  Bernie and Hillary photo's to  Maoist backgrounds  , the rest of a nation pays the cost .

  12. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    Liberals and so ALL democrats in America  , their ideologies and  their characters are  completely and totally about What They Can Get for free from Everyone Else Paying Their Way  !   There is no way that any democrat in that  position can even begin to claim support of fiscal responsibility !  Show me a liberal who claims a government should be fiscally responsible - I'll show you a delusional , selfish  ,  entitlement  driven  freeloader ,  who lies through their teeth .

    1. Alternative Prime profile image57
      Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      SIMPLY Untrue ahorseback ~ Despite what FOX Loser Snooze Channel constantly babbles aimlessly about, nobody wants anything for "FREE" ~ But what about all the "FREE Subsidies" BIG OIL Co's have been recieving? ~ They don't talk about that now do they ~

      IN REALITY, Progressive Democrats / Socialists are ALL About "Shifting the FINANCIAL Burden" toward those Individuals & WALL Street Entities that right now pay either ZERO Taxes or very little ~ It's nothing less than CRIMINAL Behavior ~

      We are ALSO "ALL About" Retrieving OUR Wealth from those same individuals & GREED Driven Wall Street Entities that conveniently and or Illegally "STASH Cash" and other ASSETs in FOREIGN Lands to either EVADE and or AVOID paying their Taxes ~

      Not a single CONservative Republican utters word ONE about these important issues ~

  13. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    "Retrieving our wealth from ...corporate .....blah .....wall street ".....right !  Corporations enjoy subsidies  for the protection of jobs for one thing . For instance ,     U.S.  Farmers couldn't compete with the countries YOU buy your store packaged food from in Argentina  who pays their help a dime on a dollar ,    Tax breaks for  defense corporations protect your jobs  from foreign competition ,      Wall street "took " your money , you gotta prove that for me ,  I listen to Fox very little  ,    so your whole "free subsidies" argument doesn't  float.    You are part of a left that IS ALL about free everything .  Otherwise , get off the system and pay your own way . Over 45 % of college loans aren't being repaid = liberals .       Welfare progams , food stamps   enjoyed a huge increase with Obama = liberals ,   ,       Obama care insurance companies underwriters are dropping out of the system  right and left because they're going broke ,= liberals  , Every inner city  slums in America is run buy liberal entities in local political offices =Liberals ,  Food stamps and welfare  have   become the new old  "right to work "mentality .   

    They left IS all about Gimme's ,   your call for more  big government involvement in everything  is about entitlements = liberals.

    To liberal America , big government is the new "Go Fund Me"  sugar daddy !

  14. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

    By the way, your  blaming Fox News for everything is growing  pretty stupid,   Otherwise  its so plain to see the left ideologies are the real reason for national debt , for increased  dependence on Uncle Sam for everything .  You never hear " gimme more please " from the right do you !

    As most advice coming from the right  would say ,"  Don't like your  poor lifestyle   -Get A Job !"   Stop asking for more from me !  The right  wants smaller less expensive   government !

    1. gmwilliams profile image84
      gmwilliamsposted 8 years agoin reply to this



This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)