Posted on 01/11/2017 8:16:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The debate is over. We do not need to repeal Obamacare; it will repeal itself. Two words summarize why: risk pool.
The ACA is founded upon a stunning misconception of the very definition of insurance. Its advocates have mistakenly conflated two unrelated concepts: insurance and welfare – or, more to the point, risk and charity.
People buy insurance in order to mitigate risk. We buy fire insurance because there is a slight chance that our house will burn down. If we cannot afford insurance, and our house burns down, we do not go to the insurance company to demand coverage for a pre-existing fire. Instead, we rely on the charity of donors – say, the Salvation Army. We do not demand it, and indeed, we may not receive it, but life has risks, which is why we buy insurance.
Obamacare has failed to make the critical distinction, which is why it is collapsing. The only people paying into the system are those who are wealthy enough not to need it and those who are so poor that they pay little or nothing. The rest of us pay the fine for not enrolling, or else we buy a policy that covers everything we will never use. For example, my wife and I are not at risk of getting pregnant, but we are expected to pay anyway.
The people who benefit from the ACA do so because they get something for nothing. They do so at the expense of the rest of us.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Remove the mandate and it collapses on it's own weight.
Yes. But the subsidies need to be removed too. Over 90% of the people with Obamacare are getting it subsidized. Even without the mandate they would stay on it as long as it is subsidized.
I disagree that Congress needs to "replace" it!! The government needs to get out to the health insurance business altogether. What they should be doing is passing laws that encourage the free market and that prosecute monopolistic and unfair practices, which include anti-consumer policies that are state centric. Capitalism works when the government gets out of the way but at the same time demands and enforces real competition.
The entire system was one big con job, and the mandate is the crucial element to it.
There is a fundamental misconception involved, but not the one the article author cites.
the fundamental misconception is that health INSURANCE is the same as health CARE.
The subsidy for health insurance is the carrot dangled in front of the welfare crowd. The fact that the cost of using said insurance is little better than having no insurance is the foundation of the misconception.
It does not make slaves of doctors, but rather enslaves those citizens that pay exorbitant prices without subsidy for coverage that is next to useless. If the cost of the insurance is $21000.00 per year, and the deductible is $10000.00 then the price of insurance coverage is really $31000.00 - an exorbitant price by just about any definition.
And Obama and the rest of the democrats think this is “fair”.
I’m in CA, yes 90% of the population is at or below poverty in California. 40% of all welfare in he country is in CA.
So 90% pay nothing or under $100 a month for insurance I would pay $670 a month for. I have a $6,300 co-pay before I access any of my insurance.
People who refuse to work, drug addicts, illegals, all the anchor babies all get plans 7 levels higher than mine for free with often zero deductibles.
If I need an operation I have to pay $14,000 not counting medication costs that year,
I think there is a boat load of subsidies from government going on here. No way as part of the full cost paying 10% can they cover everyone off of the 10% payers backs.
Where do these extra government monies come from to subsidize people to high end plans?
At what point do they end?
It, like California are unsustainable.
And thanks to the 8% rule, many people don’t have to pay the penalty.
The cool thing is that all they have to do is eliminate the individual and employer mandates, and it dies in no time.
Its not working that way. Many young adults, that get health insurance through their own company, are refusing it to stay on their parents plan. They are doing this because its cheaper for them. And in many cases, it costs their parents nothing. Many employer provided family plans don’t charge more after the 3rd family member. So lets say you have a family of four. The first kid goes off to college, graduates and gets a job. That person can pay to be on his employers plan, or he can refuse that plan and stay on his parents plan. The parents don’t pay more. The kid pays less and between the health insurance company and the parents employer, the cost gets worked in.
Then there are the kids who do nothing or little. They want to travel, hang out at their girl friends until they get kicked out, or they move from dead-end job to dead-end part-time job. No problem, they are on dad’s insurance. So its ok. Don’t worry they are finding themselves, that garage band is going to make it big soon.
Yeah, I’ve not had health insurance since the day Obamacare went into effect (1/1/2014). My wife and I are 63. We’ve saved over $40,000 after tax dollars.
The AMA does everything they can to stop that. Medical schools and Hospitals get funding for a certain number of medical students. After that amount, no funding. The AMA is trying to keep the number of doctors at a steady rate of growth with the population. But right now they are having a problem with that. As doctors are retiring with the baby boomers faster than new doctors are coming in.
bkmk
The regulators need to change that.
They have 3x as many doctors per capita in France and Germany. I can’t believe that it’s so much harder to find qualified students in the US than it is in France and Germany.
there were no misconceptions in the odorous bammy care....it was all designed perfectly to rob more and more regular working Americans of their money, to pay for the illegals....
the federales have taken in SOOOOO much of our money its unfathomable....
and we all must remember that this was designed to fail from the beginning, so the govt can just swoop in and take over all of it itself...just think how many more rat voters they can ensnarl with lucrative bureaucratic jobs.
Hence the word ‘entertain’. The word offers no promise of replacement, just that any propositions will be considered. Shuts up the opposition and provides cover for the party on power.
Government needs to get out of the benevolence industry. Private charitable organizations do a better job of assisting the poor and destitute, with less fraud, abuse, and graft. More of the funding goes to where it is ultimately needed, not to the salaries, benefits, and retirements of paper-pushing government drones.
Tying its efforts to the glory of God has the best results anyhow. This puts no required religious belief on the poor assisted, but may present them with invitations.
While I agree with the practical side of this analysis, I argue that the conflation was entirely deliberate:
They are communists, and they wanted coercive, universal redistribution - period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.