Why you should support Obamacare, in 4 sentences.

obamacare-11-18-13-2

1)  Hospitals are required to treat people who show up in their emergency rooms whether they are insured or not, and whether they can afford it or not: if the people get treatment, and they cannot afford it, the hospital is paid using my tax dollars.

2)  With Obamacare, poor people will be “forced” to get health insurance; but if they can’t afford it, the cost will be subsidized by the government, so the insurance for poor people will be paid for using my tax dollars.

3)  I’m paying either way: it’s a hell of a lot cheaper to pay for insurance for poor people than to pay for emergency room visits for uninsured poor people.

4)  If you think Obamacare is taking away your “Freedom,” then you don’t realize that you are already paying for hospitals to treat broke people: that means you are already “not free”, and your only choice is to pay more (without Obamacare), or less (with Obamacare).



90 views shared on this article. Join in...

  1. SavaH says:

    I definitely support Obamacare!

  2. kevin says:

    Poor people do not pay federal income taxes. Tax deduction and credits are not to be celebrated for they are why our financial system is so “unfair”.

    Re: health care for the poor, why not look into medicaid which was intented to do what this outright p.o.s. bill was intended for. Unlike many previous implementation of entitlement programs, the poor will suffer disproportionally as the failed welfare state in this country will continue to buckle under obamacare.

    All demagoguery aside, look at how this program is funded. If you are not mathematically deficient or you give a rat’s behind about individual liberties, you will not defend this garbage legislation.

  3. John says:

    Greg, although on paper it seems like your arguments make sense, they do only from a socialists point of view. Redistributing wealth is what you are rationalizing.. Straight up obamacare takes away my rights by forcing people to buy something. Period. Any way you put it your justification is redistributing wealth and responsibility. The constitution states “the pursuit of happiness” not guaranteed government provided happiness. You are an admitted socialist and like all socialists you cannot believe people would rather be anything else. Especially independent or free. If I wanted to be a socialist I would agree with every one of your defenses. But they come at the expense of my freedoms and rights and now the choice to do what I want with my money. Next, The fees paid to pay the ER expenses of the uninsured are built into my insurance. It may be mandated by law but it is not tax money that pays the fees. The current system of insurance is truly messed up but there are many ways to bring down the costs through the free market system. Such as insurance companies being able to offer coverage over state lines or tort reform. You want to insure pre existing conditions? Make a high risk pool like all your car insurance references. Obamacare is about control. As a socialist wait until you feel the unintended consequences of a more socialist healthcare system. The kind you foolishly crave and defend. It’s economics 101. The system will be overloaded. You’ll take out the profit incentive to even want to be a doctor. What, Pay for 8 plus years of school for what? To Be told by Obama what you can charge? Earn? Death panels will have to happen. Simple supply and demand. R&d for new drugs without the profit incentive means less drugs. Less care. When is the last time you bought anything from socialist Europe let alone medical care? Maybe a car from the Germans and wine and fashion. Whoa. So much to say but now it’s wait and see. But history and economics say you are wrong. Btw. The USA is totally broke. Perfect for the dems I know. Shared misery. I can’t wait for the idiots who voted for obama to realize at obamacare is NOT free! It will hit blacks, women and college grads/kids the hardest as they are most likely to not get a job now. Especially if I have to insure them now. And now the first to be let go. Also how thrilled is anyone knowing that there will be a government record of all your illnesses. So that case of herpes /clap in college really doesn’t go ‘away’. How about that abortion. Its on your permanent PUBLIC record. Explain that to your future employer/ mate. No secrets anymore. And who the F wants the IRS to be involved with my health records or private life. But this is all fine with bleeding heart Greg. He has no problem giving the government that control of YOUR private life. And Greg sees no slippery slope. So because Greg wants obamacare and is blind to the bad effects, we all have to just take it right? Sound like a lot of taxation without proper representation to me. Especially since I don’t want to be represented by a socialist. Or democrat. And this isn’t about tea anymore. Greg will go straight to heaven for being so generous with our money and being such a nice, thoughtful, thinking guy… Oh sorry, Greg. You guys don’t believe in heaven. My bad. Elections have consequences and the uninformed masses, yes the takers, think they WON. They didn’t win anything. They just don’t yet realize what they lost.

    • albert says:

      ok john, and all of the other “conservatives” posting opposing views here. are you one of the 1%? because if not, youre espousing opinions against your own self interest just as pretty much everyone with your attitude does, since they are not likely one of the truly pirvaleged 1%. all taxation is redistrubition of wealth. this is one of the main functions of government. we redistribute our “common wealth” so that we can have basic needs of all of us met, defense, infrastructure, so on. so what makes us an “exceptional society”. is it redistrubiting the wealth to make sure that our citizens have basic healthcare or to give millionaire congressman unneeded, undeserved farm subsidies that they themselves are in a position to perpetuate. if youre not one of the 1% why do you sing their song. dont underestimate the power of the 1% and their goal, which is to soak up all the money in the economy and leave the rest of us at the bottom of a two tiered society, the immortal “haves and havenots”. even if youre wealthy, do you really think youre wealthy enough to compete with the 1%. not likely. so dont do their work for them. back to obamacare. it is not health care administered by the government; it is still healthcare administered by private insurance companies, so the records are not the governments but, if you think you really have privacy in this world then you do have your head burried in the sand. privacy has diminished and will continue do so with or without obamacare. it is true that r&d is greatly a profit driven function of our society but not completely. there are still people who are truly interested in bettering mankind for reasons other than money and the rewards will still be great, and so it will not be completely hindered. and as for your comment about believing in heaven; know this; just because we dont try to force our beliefs down the throats of others doesnt mean we progressives dont have any. many if not most of us believe in god we just dont use it in the hippocritical way that conservatives do. the jobs arent going to dry up because they are still an effective mechanism by which the 1% is pulling all the wealth to themselves. if there is a dollar to be made above and beyond that invested, the investment will be made by the greed driven class in this world. but the 1% are not the job creaters. the true job creaters are the larger sections of our society, the class that spends the majority of their income and therefore create the most demand. the 1% only take advantage of the demand and use it to pull more of the wealth to themselves. the odds are stacked against all of the rest of us. unless you are one of the 400+ multi-billionaires in this country, dont fool yourself into believing that the 1% have your interests at heart. maybe you should rethink your positions and take some that wont help to assure that you will continue to get poorer no matter how wealthy you are.

      • John says:

        I didn’t read your whole post- just the first few lines and that was enough. You’re just wrong. Taxes are NOT a redistribution of wealth. Taxes are meant to pay for the needs of the common welfare, without any particular benefit inuring to one group or another. Highways, street lights, police, military – these are the types of things taxes go to support – thing we ALL benefit from.

        • albert says:

          sorry you didnt have the courage to read the whole post because it was quite insightful. in a society that has laws against refusing healthcare to any of its citizens, controlling said healthcare is something we all benefit from. but to put it simply, the way you did, youre just wrong.

  4. jim says:

    ok. i live paycheck to paycheck, i am a 50yo male, decent helth insurance is going to cost me $400 a month. i can’t afford that. my company does not employ enough people to be forced to supply insurance under obamacare. so what am i supposed to do? i am going to be “taxed” because i don’t have insurance. if i cant afford insurance i sure as hell cant afford more taxes. so are you, greg, willing to be taxed more to pay my room and board, medical care in your local prison?

    • Greg Stevens says:

      LOL… well, you throw a little curve ball in there with “prison”, at the end, bud.

      Obamacare subsidizes low-income individuals so that the cost of the health insurance that they are forced to buy will be offset by tax deductions. In other words, if you are really so poor that you CANNOT afford to pay for the insurance that you are forced to buy, then the government will DECREASE your taxes by the same amount … effectively making it free.

      So: MY taxes will go up in order to pay for YOUR insurance, if you really can’t afford it.

      And yes: I’m totally cool with that.

      • James Greenwale says:

        So you are willing to pay for my health insurance?

        • Greg Stevens says:

          If you can’t afford it, sure.

          Or, if you want to use more careful wording: I’m willing to be part of a system where my tax dollars are pooled with the tax dollars of other people who can afford it, in order to collectively pay for the insurance of people who cannot.

          Remember this key point: If you are really so poor that you wouldn’t be able to afford emergency care, then I ALREADY PAY.

          I pay for emergency room visits for people who default on their payments because they are broke. That ALREADY HAPPENS.

          So this is not an “additional charge” for me: it’s shifting my expenses from paying for emergency care for poor people to paying for insurance for poor people.

  5. Amber says:

    My fiance and I have 2 small children. I do not have a job right now, so he is the only one working. His gross income is about $15,600. We have barely enough to get by as it is. With Obamacare will we be forced to pay weekly or monthly insurace, or will they just take all our tax return dollars? I know for certain we cannot afford to pay for it.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      I’m not a lawyer or an accountant, so I can’t promise to tell you exactly what will happen in every detail.

      But from what I’ve heard, what will happen is this: since your family income is so low, you will qualify for a tax credit that covers the cost of getting health insurance.

      Now, how will it actually WORK, in practice? I’m not sure. Maybe you will have to pay a monthly amount, and then your tax refund will be INCREASED to pay you back. Or, maybe the payment for the health insurance will be deducted from your husband’s paycheck automatically, which means that he might be able to change his tax withholdings and will see no difference at all. I don’t know exactly how the details will play out.

      But I do know that with a very low income like your family has, the way it is supposed to work is that any cost of the insurance will be re-imbused to you through tax credits.

      The people who will NOT get reimbursed will be people like me — because I can afford it.

      I hope this helps? I’m sorry that I can’t give you a more definitive answer!

      • LibtardCrusher says:

        Here you see the mind of the ignorant liberal. If I am barely getting by on my current income how can I be expected to I to take on an additional monthly expense? One that could approach 40-60% of that monthly income? Oh that’s right, I’ll get “tax credits” But by the time tax returns come out I will already be homeless by then. You won’t mind if I come over and hang at your house would you Greg? At least until Obamacare rescues the economy. I could go on and on for hours with facts and common sense about how this entire thing is an abysmal failure. But it was never meant to succeed. Only to gain control over the very people it was supposed to help/protect. But facts, common sense and logic are irrelevant to the liberal mind. See folks, Liberalism is very similar to alcoholism, drug addiction and disabling mental disorders. Much like the addict. The Liberal mind cannot comprehend the logic and realities of everyday life, or the effects of their misguided delusions and the hardships that those policies force upon others. Greg conveniently omits the fact the the cost of gas and electricity alone have both more than doubled. Not to mention the rise in my property taxes,home and auto insurance, groceries,clothing,etc. So piling on with another crushing expense is the answer. Greg, There is a reason Stalin called people like you useful idiots. But you will never see it.

        • Greg Stevens says:

          Well, I’ve said this before, but I guess it bears repeating: if you are really only “scraping by”, then you will not pay anything additional under Obamacare.

          As far as some of the other odd little tidbits you threw in there… I really suggest you try watching and listening to something other than conservative propaganda, just now and then.
          “It was never meant to succeed” and “liberalism is like alcoholism” and all of these little catch-phrases are things that you’ve absorbed because it’s what you’ve been told, but… there really isn’t any evidence for any of it. It might be worth you while to just TRY to listen to the other side, from time to time.

          Obama care is not “piling on another crushing expense.” If you are well-off and uninsured, it will force you to pay for insurance. If you are well-off and insured, your taxes will go up a bit. But if you are being “crushed by expenses”, then your costs won’t go up: you will simply be forced to sign on to an insurance plan, and the cost will be picked up by the state.

          This is the whole liberal philosophy that conservatives like you ironically aren’t digesting completely. You will go on and on about how it is “morally wrong” to give poor people stuff and make rich people pay for it …. but in THIS situation, you are claiming to be the poor person. Well, guess what? Obamacare is EXACTLY the “redistribution” thingy you were complaining about: if you REALLY ARE TOO POOR to handle the expense of medical insurance, you won’t have to pay for it, because the cost will be covered by people more well-off than you.

          The idea that there is a “crushing expense” for people in your financial situation is a myth. The reason Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and that crowd keep talking about a “crushing expense” is because THEIR taxes will go up…. not YOURS.

    • Steve says:

      The use of birth control would have saved you this trouble.

  6. MidiMagic says:

    How am I supposed to pay for Obamacare? I am on a fixed pension. Half of my pension pays for my mortgage. The rest is necessary for basic life. My health insurance is a small policy for only catastrophic expenses. This will become illegal, requiring me to pay more than I have left after the mortgage payment for health insurance.

    The subsidy had better not be administered like welfare. Once I tried to apply for welfare when I was unemployed. I was not eligible because I own a house. The greedy Democrats in charge wanted me to sell my house to qualify. They would pay larger amounts for rent, but not one cent for a smaller mortgage payment.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      If you are actually too poor to afford Obamacare, then its cost will be subsidized as tax credits. You will end up paying nothing.

      The entire point of Obamacare is to that people like me — who can afford it — will use our taxes to pay for insuring people like you — who cannot.

  7. Todd says:

    This is to Larry Horn’s comments. Are you that dense? Taking away from what? Welfare? The welfare system is already in place. This is new, dumb ass. Tax payers are already paying their fair share of dues in taxes. The healthy single person who is claiming zero, and getting back a thousand dollars in income tax return ,is now going to lose a lot more of that return unless they pay for a health care that they will not use, and it will cost them more to get the insurance. Do you see the scam?Do you understand that? Is that too much for your brain? Most insurance companies are now asking if you smoke, then charging you a higher premium, even if you’re as healthy as a horse. What about the obese? I have not met many elderly obese people over 300 pounds in my life, yet both my grandfathers lived well into their 80’s smoking like chimneys. They don’t ask one other question about healthy lifestyle choices. Do they think that smoking is the only way to get sick and die? Is it not the choice of the obese to eat themselves into diabetes and heart attacks? FUCK insurances companies. If you read all these posts, then you already know my view point. It’s all nothing more than new wave discrimination. I will keep my auto insurance and continue to pay taxes, but they will not force me to sign up for discriminatory insurance like that, no thanks. I’ll pay the tax. It’s only one percent of your annual salary the first year or two, then it’s going up to 2.5%.

  8. Todd says:

    So Obama won, da de da. No offense, but not a surprise, and no sweat off my back considering Romney basically wrote Obamacare anyway,and we all have to realize that part. So, basically you couldn’t do much to stop it, if that was the beef with Obama. My joy came when I found out that Washington and Colorado passed the legalization of Cannabis! This is a great leap in the right direction. The Federal Government are still probably going to be assholes. Mr. Obama has raided farms and dispensaries 3 times more in 4 years, than Bush did in 8. This is terrible considering he promised to stop raids when he was running for office the first time. A nice big promise severely raped over in blood. The extreme hypocrisy with these laws that put innocent people behind bars is sickening. Cannabis is a miracle of nature, not a dangerous illicit drug. These God fearing, hypocritical americans need some common sense, and some real life experience before they make judgements and laws that science doesn’t support. MAYBE now Obama will play a better tune when it comes to cannabis, since he won his re election, but I seriously doubt that. What are your thoughts on this topic?

  9. JMF says:

    One thing for sure, if Obamacare is going to require me to pay, guess what I’m not going to pay a dime. They can penalize me all they want. Not getting a penny from me. There is always ways around, loop holes. Tyranny won’t work on me.

    • Larry Horn says:

      Spoken like a true patriot. How can I get away without paying my fair share? Emergency room welfare is one of the biggest actual entitlement programs out there. The problem with your philosophy is that you are screaming for your “freedom” from “Tyranny” while taking welfare from the rest of us every time you go to the ER. I say there should be a provision in Obamacare that allows those of you who do not want to buy health insurance (even though you will be subsidized by the government if you cannot afford it) out of your love of “freedom” to opt out on the condition that when you do get sick or have an accident we can just let you die!

      • MidiMagic says:

        “Fair” is socialism. I hate socialism, because it destroys economies and takes away rights.

        • Greg Stevens says:

          I don’t think you’re using the term “socialism” correctly here, but I’d rather not bicker about that right now.

          Instead, I’m curious: what rights do you think are taken away from you, if you have to (for example) pay a little money in taxes so that your neighbors can go to school or everyone can ride a bus more cheaply?

          Which specific rights would be gone, as a result of this?

          • Warren says:

            Hi Greg,

            I know this is an old thread, but I’d like to comment on this.

            most people concerned about loss of rights (myself included) are concerned that the mandate opens the door for the government to require Americans to purchase anything it wants or pay an extra tax. This seems to give the government undue control over people’s lives. For instance, could the government perhaps, require people to buy and own a government approved car if someone can convince people that cars are a necessity in today’s world and that somehow mandating car purchases would provide cars for the poor?

            Granted, they would have an uphill battle trying to convince people that cars are that much a necessity, but that’s not the point. Still, to address it, health insurance is also not a necessity to many, so if they’ve managed to convince us that it IS a necessity, then why not cars as well.

            Could they also do this with computers? Phones? Homes? News subscriptions? Bank accounts?

            I’ve heard this argument come up time and time again, but I’ve never heard anyone even try to address it. They usually sidestep it somehow or simply don’t respond. The most common counter-argument campares it to the requirement to buy liability insurance on a car, but that’s different. The liability insurance mandate is a requirement based upon owning a car. If you don’t want to pay for car insurance, don’t drive a car. But the Obamacare mandate is based upon simply existing, which is not something someone chooses to engage in.

            Please comment on this.

          • Greg Stevens says:

            Hi Warren! Thanks for your comment.

            I think part of the reason people react poorly — or don’t know how to react — to the “slippery slope” style of argument, is that it presents a hypothetical situation that doesn’t really have any context to it. You bring up the idea of subsidizing buying cars for the poor using tax money, on the grounds that having a car is needed for having a job. Before I can really react to that hypothetical, I would need to know more about the hypothetical world you are describing. What are the arguments? How many people really think this should be a priority? What has happened in our culture to make this seem like even a debatable issue?

            All of these things are important, because society is changing all the time. If someone proposed RIGHT NOW to give cars to the poor with tax money, the idea would go no where because our culture doesn’t have those priorities. If, in the future, our culture’s priorities change, then the question has to be considered in the context of THOSE cultural priorities.

            There are a lot of gray areas that we — as a society, as a whole — are always making semi-arbitrary decisions on, based on how we feel as a group. Right? As “We the People”, we take a lot of ambiguous “slopes” and turn them into “steps”. We think 12 year olds shouldn’t vote and 25 years olds should, and the line has to go somewhere, so we put it at 18. We think 12 year olds shouldn’t see movies with graphic sex but it’s ok for 25 year olds, and the line has to go somewhere, so we put it at …. I don’t even know. I don’t have children. Is it 17? Or 18?

            Anyway, hopefully you see my point. We as a culture exercise a lot of moral judgements that involve drawing YES-NO lines based on no logic better than the fact that we, overall as a culture, have decided that it is what we are comfortable with.

            And: as our comforts change, our laws change. But when people try to change laws faster than the culture, the culture LASHES OUT and pushes back. That’s part of the beauty of our political system, in my opinion. If I were to try to re-write “The Rules” with my own liberal ideology, I’d be stopped in my tracks… because that’s not where the COUNTRY is. This is a GOOD thing… I’m glad our country works this way. It’s a system of checks and balances, and I think more than anything else I’m not scared of the slippery slope because I trust those checks and balances.

            Culture is always fluid. Sometimes there are slopes, and our culture and legal system has a way of putting the brakes on things and slowing things down, and making sure that things don’t change too fast or go to far.

            Trust that process. For now, our system has concluded that universal health care IS a priority, and universal Car Ownership is NOT a priority. That’s just the way it is right now. It might change. It could go further, or it could swing back in the opposite direction. Whichever way it goes, our political system is built so that it will be guided by our culture and our people.

            I hope that makes sense! Let me know your thoughts.

          • Warren says:

            Greg,

            Thanks for that reply, but I think this argument sidesteps the issue at hand. The issue is not a matter of whether or not cars are really as important to our time as healthcare. It’s a matter of a person’s individual right to decide what they will or will not purchase, and what activities they will engage in.

            In that regard, I think the checks and balances have failed us in this particular chapter, in that we have now lost that right. Too many people, who should be involved in the process of checking and balancing to ensure that our rights are not eroded, failed to notice that this critical right is no longer protected by the Constitution thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision concerning Obamacare.

            Also, I think we as a people have become too content to pass laws based on the culture of the time. Cultural conditions come and go, but once a law is passed, it stays on the books and is very difficult to remove. Laws should be more based on principle than culture. While cultures might affect our understanding of principle at any given time, we should still do our best to remember that what is right should continue to be so in all cases.

            On principle, I don’t think that people have a right to health insurance. I do conversely think they should have the right to NOT own health insurance, even if someone offers to buy it for them.

          • Greg Stevens says:

            You say: “On principle, I don’t think that people have a right to health insurance. I do conversely think they should have the right to NOT own health insurance, even if someone offers to buy it for them.”

            I understand that idea; but I’d like to dig more in to what it MEANS to have a “right” to not have insurance.

            We live in a society where people who show up at a hospital in need of care get care. No matter what it costs, they are treated AT LEAST enough to stabilize them. Then, they are billed. They may or may not be able to pay that bill.

            That is a foundational principle in our current system: the costs for certain types care are going to happen, whether the person being cared for can pay or not.

            Now, given THAT, someone has to pay for those costs. This is the CORE of the argument I made in the original article. The costs come out of something. Currently, they come out of YOU: the taxpayer. If the person getting the care is uninsured, that means that YOU, the taxpayer, are being FORCED to pay for the care of an uninsured person, which is higher than the care of an insured person.

            Now let’s talk about rights. Why does this person, who showed up in the hospital, have the “right” to say: “I can’t pay for the hospital visit after I get hit by a bus. So I have the RIGHT to FORCE my fellow citizens to pay the maximum, uninsured rate for MY care!”

            I don’t really understand how you can believe that.

            Remember, and this is the most important key to the argument: in our society, you cannot simply say: “I’m choosing to take the risk, please do not treat me if I show up in the hospital.” Therefore, if you end up in urgent care, you ARE A BURDEN ON THE SYSTEM whether you want to be or not (assuming you can’t pay for it out-of-pocket).

            Therefore, asserting your “right” to not have insurance is basically asserting your “right” to say “screw you, everybody else, I’m going to GET my urgent care but I have a RIGHT to not offset your costs by having insurance!”

            Does that sound like a “right” to you?

      • Warren says:

        Greg,

        I hear this argument a lot, and I can see how people think this way, but again it sidesteps the argument and is a bit of a double-standard and I’ll explain why.

        this argument stems on the idea that a person has a right to be treated if they can’t afford it in the first place. It’s a complex and inconclusive debate and we have no perfect answers, but most people, myself and, I assume, yourself included agree that to some extent we should treat these people on the imperfect assumption that they do have that right. Subsequently, we’ve decided to take that cost onto ourselves because, as far as we could discern, it was the right thing to do. We can see from this that some rights come at a cost, but that doesn’t make it any less a right. So why would you make the case that a person’s doesn’t have the right to refuse to purchase insurance simply because it costs the system more?

        With this in mind, yes, I think this does sound like a right, and perhaps even a more clear-cut right than a person’s right to receive treatment they can’t afford.

        Additionally, I have to question whether or not the cost of treating an uninsured person really does cost more than an insured person. Granted, the cost to the hospital is higher, that much is obvious. I assume the cost to the government is higher as well. I don’t say the cost to the taxpayer is higher, though, because the taxpayers are the people, and, while their taxes might be higher, they have more financial obligations than just taxes. They also pay insurance premiums.

        Ultimately, wouldn’t the cost of care come out to be the same or higher for an insured person than for an uninsured person? I mean, wherever the buck gets passed It’s still works out the same on the whole; Except that insurance companies have their own admin costs and profit needs. Aren’t they just one more middleman in the grand system? If it’s a question of using tax revenues to pay for a poor man’s bed in the hospital, or using tax revenues combined with increased insurance premium revenues to pay for his insurance so that his insurance company can pay for his bed in a hospital, the end payor, the American people, still pay the same or more. I don’t see how any cost savings are possible here.

        • Greg Stevens says:

          Good points. Two immediate thoughts jump out at me, though.

          “this argument stems on the idea that a person has a right to be treated if they can’t afford it in the first place….”

          Just for clarity: I was not saying that a person has a right to be treated if they can’t afford it. I was only saying that this is how things currently work in our country. Whether it is a right or not is, in my opinion, a whole other discussion. Maybe one worth having. But my argument was not based on that assumption. I was aiming more for a “GIVEN that this is how our system functionally works, what is the best way to pay for it?”

          “Additionally, I have to question whether or not the cost of treating an uninsured person really does cost more than an insured person. … wouldn’t the cost of care come out to be the same or higher for an insured person than for an uninsured person?”

          Well, I agree with you to an extent. I think that the current system will only exact savings through the provisions that try to force insurance companies to operate more efficiently. Things like that penalty where if more than X% (I forget the number) of their income is not spent on actual care, they have to give a rebate check to their customers. That’s where the savings will come in.

          But in the abstract, I agree with your argument…. which is why I actually prefer the idea of the system WITHOUT the middle-man, for-profit company. I’ve always been an advocate of a “single-payer” system, i.e. the “medicare for everyone” concept. But remember: systems evolve in baby steps. That was never going to happen in today’s political climate. So, as a liberal, I settled for Obamacare as a step in the right direction.

          Don’t think for a minute that I believe it to be perfect. 😉 In my ideal fantasy-land, it is simply the version 1.0 of a system that will later be upgraded to a single-payer system that excludes the for-profit companies. But don’t tell Sean Hannity I said that…. he’ll just call me a socialist. (LOL)

          • Warren says:

            I agree, a single-payer system seems to make the most sense to me, which I think is a point where I differ from many conservatives. I hope we can get there one day. But is Obamacare a step in the right direction? I kind of feel like mandating companies to provide insurance puts the task a litte farther out of reach.

          • Greg Stevens says:

            I guess we will see! 🙂

  10. OedipusRexius says:

    Your third point is the wrong one. Paying for emergency room treatment is actually cheaper than paying for emergency room treatment on top of birth control, testing for STD’s, counseling for STD’s, etc. this is much more expensive than simply emergency visits. If a woman wants contraception, that’s just fine, but why on earth would they not need to pay for it, and even more disturbing, why would people who object to contraception need to pay for it.

      • OedipusRexius says:

        It’s fairly simple, if you assume emergency medical care a “constant” then adding anything else to that constant will make the value greater. You may have misunderstood my comment, I am not saying contraception an the similar costs more than emergency room visits, but simply that because obamacare covers more than ER visits it costs more than just covering ER visits. I agree that there always has to be a system for paying for medical emergencies, but that it is no way a reason for obamacare. Look it up if you have to–obamacare covers many more things than emergencies.

        • Greg Stevens says:

          I think there is more math needed than that. I mean, I do understand your point: on the one hand, you’re paying X for emergency room visits, on the other hand you’re paying X + Y.

          However, there are all kinds of analyses that show that emergency room visits will decrease dramatically if people have more access to preventative care. So that’s our “unknown factor”. That’s our Factor F….. we have to ask whether X < F*X + Y or not, where F is a fraction that shows the amount by which preventative care decreases emergency room visits. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll have hard data on the value of F until we try the system for a while and see what happens.

          • OedipusRexius says:

            I see the point, and agree that the real results cannot be seen until in place for at least several years. Though it is important to note that a lack of preventative care would only account for a very small part of ER visits. For instance, motor vehicle accidents hold the top spot and would not be affected by preventative care. Also, many diseases would not be prevented by access to regular care (I do recognize that some would be stopped). But one of the most important parts to this is that Obamacare would cover things like contraception that are unnecessary and only personal choice. I think everyone, regardless of one’s religious convictions, should be able to recognize that birth control is not an inherent right, as freedom, life, etc. are. So overall, clearly there is more to be seen as to it’s actual cost, but I think that there are factors that will not allow the system to actually be more cost effective. The extra, unnecessary, services will cost too much for preventative care to make up for. This is just speculation at this point, but it seems that you can never save enough on ER visits to make up for the extra cost of non-preventative services and the extra cost of the preventative services themselves.

          • Greg Stevens says:

            You are right, it is speculation… My intuition on the matter is different from yours, but I certainly don’t claim any absolute knowledge on the matter. I guess we’ll just have to see!

  11. John says:

    Why don’t we get people back to work and then we can or they can take care of themselves. If no one is working than there is no point in anything anymore. Democrats want us to be dependent on the government it appears.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      The word “dependent” is a really tricky one.

      Does having a stable power grid make us “dependent” on electricity? Sort of, yes. In a way. But I don’t hear a lot of people decrying it for being evil or for making us “weak”. There are certain things that we expect our society to provide for us, because those things make our lives better and make us more ABLE to be productive, when we have the means and opportunity. Nobody is out there saying, “That terrible government is making people LAZY by making sure that there is a stable power grid in cities. They want to make people dependent. Why don’t people just learn to make electricity themselves!”

      So I don’t think the “people need to take care of themselves!” argument is really one you believe. Not in the ABSOLUTE sense, anyway. You like that our culture provides us with SOME things. The only real question is where do you draw the line: what are the things that we put in the bucket of “the commons” — things that we think everyone should have access to — and what do we not?

      If you don’t think health care belongs in that bucket, then you have a right to your view. But don’t claim that it’s because you are “independent”. We are ALL dependent on each other, for some thing. That’s how it SHOULD be. We are social creatures by nature. We help each other out.

      • Larry Horn says:

        Greg, I love your attitude. I am sure when a fire breaks out in the neighborhood these people are not out there pushing the firemen away to show their independence. Requiring people to be responsible by purchasing health care while making it attainable for those who can not yet afford it is the very definition of promoting independence. The law does not require you to ask for assistance from the government, it requires you to take responsibility for the health care of yourself and your family. The problem with the argument from the other side is that they are for small government and less government interference as long as it is not something they want to control. I don’t believe the Democrats have an agenda to make everyone dependent on government for everything, I just think they believe there is nothing wrong with helping when it is necessary. Sure, some people abuse the system but I personally have no problem giving a little to keep little Johnny from going hungry today. Thanks for this post on Obamacare. You echoed my sentiments.

  12. Todd says:

    I knew that Romney had a similar health care plan in massachusetts, but didn’t know that it had a(deadbeat)mandate as well. So now, I guess that Romney just wants to be president, so he can take Obamacare, rearrange it superficially, then rename it Romneycare. I never liked either one, and knew that you really don’t have a choice. It’s a big fallacious act for the American people to “think” that they are actually playing a part in how this country operates, or in the overall outcome. I still can’t believe it’s now politically correct to call working,tax paying Americans, deadbeats,while knowing that it’s going to benefit non-working people who are trying to get a free ride. Is the deadbeat thing a mind game to make innocent people feel guilty? Yes, I know that it will benefit good people too, but at what cost? I don’t want a pro life, mormon underwear wearing, right wing ass, as president either, even if he represents the elephant. haha… Especially, if he too is for the (deadbeat) mandate. I guess I better get comfortable with discontentment.

  13. Todd says:

    There’s still going to be costs that go to the tax payers, my main problem is that,healthy hard working people such as myself, are now going to be forced to pay that tax. And, if by chance something happens to these people,then they still aren’t covered,yet they will be paying that penalty. Obamacare isn’t universal health care, like in other countries. Also, like I’ve said before,I’ve paid into social security for 20 years. If I were to get injured and rushed to a hospital, and couldn’t pay for whatever reason,then I need not feel guilty if tax dollars end up paying the tab. What about my 20 years of contributing to those taxes?

    • Greg Stevens says:

      I’ve been thinking about this last comment for a little bit, and I have to say: I agree with you that the CURRENT system isn’t perfect. The idea that a person can pay for something for X amount of time, then NOT get services, and yet not get a refund for their past payments, is baffling to me. I literally don’t understand why it’s not illegal. To me, it would be like me paying for a gym membership, and then after paying going to the gym and having them say, “Oh, I’m sorry, because of reason XYZ you actually aren’t allowed to work out here, but no you don’t get your money back.” It just seems insane to me.

      But I guess I see Obamacare as a step in the RIGHT direction. In your first sentence you say, “There’s still going to be costs that go to the tax payers, my main problem is that,healthy hard working people such as myself, are now going to be forced to pay that tax.” But if not you, then who? People who are poor and sick already can’t afford it. People who are poor and healthy will get the costs reimbursed by tax deductions. So all that’s left is people who are of moderate means and higher.

      Now, in my personal ideal world, the VAST MAJORITY of that burden would actually go on people making $1 million a year and more. But that’s because am an income-redistributing socialist. (LOL!!!!)

      I also don’t mind the idea of myself being taxed more to help those poor people, because I know that I can afford it. Is the system perfect? No. And I really hope we can make it better over time. But I think making some of the healthier people who can afford it pay more in order to help poor people who might go bankrupt otherwise…. I think that’s a step in the right direction.

      That’s just my own opinion, of course.

      • Larry Horn says:

        Greg, as you pointed out already in the blog, we are already paying out tax dollars to take care of these uninsured. Insuring them is partially paid for by the mandate. I am like you and would rather have a single payer system but this is the first step toward that. I like your gym membership analogy only the gym is not sending you away and without giving your money back. I believe a better way to look at it is you stay in such good shape with your home gym and everyday activities that you do not use the gym. At that point you ask for your money back because you have not used the service and they refuse. As for the comment about paying into social security being a reason for not feeling guilty for using tax dollars for your ER visit. That would be like saying that you have been paying dues at the gym for years why can’t you eat free at the local Subway. Social security tax is designed to supplement your retirement later in life for those people who do not have a large amount of savings when that time comes. I have been required to buy insurance to drive a car for over 30 years with no claims during that time. I will never see that money back. But you are rolling the dice and people like me keep it affordable for those who need to use it(multiple claims). This requirement to carry auto insurance feels a lot like a mandate…Just saying.

  14. Todd says:

    Once again Greg, the hospital would not wait to work on a critical person, or persons, just to find out how the bill(s)will be paid. That’s simply foolish thinking. That is not now, nor ever, how the hippocratic oath works. I”m sorry, but that is just common knowledge.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      I understand that. My point is that that is part of what is causing the problem.

      When Urgently Injured Person shows up at the hospital, one of two things can happen:

      1) They treat the person immediately, in which case there is a chance that the person cannot pay and the cost is absorbed by the hospital or the government. In either one of those cases, the cost is ultimately absorbed by the people, because if the cost is absorbed by the hospital their fees to OTHER people, for other things, will go up to compensate, and if the cost is absorbed by the government then taxes will go up to compensate.

      or

      2) They wait and don’t treat the person until they find out if the person can pay, and if the person cannot pay then they do not treat the person. In this scenario, there is no incursion of debt (i.e. costs that cannot be covered) so there is no financial liability.

      When I say this, please remember: I’m not saying that (2) is what happens, or that (2) has ever happened, or that I think that (2) should happen. All I’m saying is, (2) is the only way that you can possibly guarantee that there will be no expenses that aren’t covered. It’s literally the ONLY OTHER OPTION.

      So if you believe in the hippocratic oath, then you are left with #1: unpaid costs. The only question left is how to pay for it. Personally, I’m OK with people who make more money (like myself) paying extra to make sure that those costs can be covered for other people in society.,

      But I feel that way because I, as you so rightly have observed in other comments, am a stereotypical bleeding-heart liberal. 😉

      Incidentally… how would YOU propose paying for it?

  15. Todd says:

    I find it amazing that you deleted that comment I made in response to yours. [… more whining deleted…]

    • Greg Stevens says:

      Todd, I’ve allowed most of your comments on here, despite the fact that your tone has been less than polite and, to be frank, less than coherent, in many of them. My goal is to allow discussion and disagreement and I want to encourage anyone who reads my blog, agree or not, to engage on here.

      But when I wake up in the morning to find 6 new comments by you, all of them fairly long, rambling on a variety of different topics, I don’t actually think it serves the interest of my readers to allow all of them through. I’m sorry if this offends you, and I’m sure that you personally believe that every single word you write is of CRITICAL IMPORTANCE and that anything I might delete is OBVIOUSLY THE THING THAT WOULD MAKE ME LOOK FOOLISH, I’m afraid we’re going to simply have to agree to disagree on that point.

      If you want a respectable debate, then leave one comment on one topic and I will be happy to reply to it, and things can proceed.

      But there is a term, the Gish Gallop, that describes a debate tactic where you simply ramble on and on throwing as many incorrect or disagreeable comments out as possible so that your opponent simply doesn’t have time to take them all on. I’m not going to let you do that on here.

      Thanks.

  16. Todd says:

    With the way this Government works,I’m leaning more toward anarchist, you on the other hand are the bull-shit liar,or at least the bull-shit buyer! Nobody in this country should have to pay more on top of what they already pay,just so the trash eating,bottom feeders can continue to get everything for free. If you can’t see that,then you have problems. This country is going to remain exactly how it is, if it continues this way,creating more obese low lifes, because we continue to feed them for free.

  17. Todd says:

    I’m not wrong,I’ve seen it countless times. You can call me a self-righteous bigot all you want. I was dating this beautiful girl a few years back, and loved her at one point, but I was so sickened by her very typical welfare family. These people expected everything they could get you do for them. They didn’t even get out of bed half the time, unless it was the beginning of the month. She was clean, but was following their example. She would get a job for a few months, but then always find a reason to quit. Then she could lie around all day, and act like she really did want to work. They didn’t even clean the house,while nobody there had a job. This is just one example,I don’t have time to list them all. I also said “most” there are a few example where you are right, and they want to work,but that is far, and few, and in between. If you have two good working arms, and two functional legs, then you CAN find something to do. If there weren’t jobs available ,then there wouldn’t be factories that end up filled with illegal aliens,because the americans are too lazy to hold these jobs. I worked in such a factory in WV. When it was all said and done, I was fluent in spanish, and they had to come in and ship out all the mexicans on like three bus loads. You can sit and say this or that to defend your ignorance, but I’ve been around,and I’ve seen a lot.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      “I’ve been around,and I’ve seen a lot.”

      It’s a shame that you find it impossible to believe the other people have been around, too, and might nonetheless have seen different things and feel a different way from you.

  18. Todd says:

    I have one more remark for your last comment. The rich ignorant,lazy,and greedy,at least hold there own. They are the 1%. If you can remember those asshole protestors’ picket signs. HAHA.. A percent of that 1% percent pay my wages, the point being,that the 1% at least in a greedy way, still help keep my head above the water, and there numbers are small. That other bunch of lazy,ignorant bastards, that want that Obamafoamm, can eat shit and die… for all I care at this point! Yeah, I know that I’m not even close to being in that 1%, and that’s fine with me. I just don’t won’t that bottom end of the 99% to drown me in their lazy, “gimme free shit cus I be deservin’ it”, bullshit.

  19. Todd says:

    A healthy person who works and pays their taxes, which are high already,should NEVER be “forced” to pay for something else they don’t need, just to help others who won’t help themselves. That is just absurd. I know that common sense isn’t very common, and maybe you like to think you are helping people, but I hate to break it to you, most people on welfare never intend on doing anything as long as they can be parasitical to the system.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      You’re wrong.

      Or, I suppose the polite way to say it is “I disagree.”

      But the fact is that most people on welfare are miserable and looking for work, and the idea that they are sitting around enjoying themselves is a lie that people allow themselves to believe because it makes them more comfortable with their bigotry and self-righteousness.

      Moreover, if people should never be forced to pay for anything they don’t need, then government collapses. A lot of people don’t think they need tanks. Even more think they don’t need Congress. Your handy capitalization of “NEVER” is a fantasy-land, because getting people to pay for things beyond their own personal individual interests is all that government ever does.

      Anyone who says that people should “NEVER” have to pay for something that they don’t individually benefit from is either an anarchist or a liar.

  20. Todd says:

    I’m replying to correct myself on a slight error in a previous comment. I’ve researched a little to find that the so called Obama phone was started when Clinton was in office. The Telecommunications act of 1996,was a bill signed by Clinton,and passed by Republicans in congress. The only thing is the number of phones given out has increased by over 400% in the last 3 years. It seems that Obama is using the phone as a campaign tool of sorts. I would also like to add that I don’t share your love and support of the poor. I’ve lived in cities and have seen the worst in humans as a race. I also grew up in the country, in a town of a few thousand, and seen some pretty useless human being there. I also love people to a certain extent, but not as a whole, not this human race. I think it’s something like 85% of the human population that either believe in ghosts,angels,ufos,conspiracy theories, and of course don’t forget the big one-GOD, or some bull-shit. I just can’t sympathize with ignorance and laziness, or greed. I’m to much of a misanthrope for that.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      “I just can’t sympathize with ignorance and laziness, or greed. I’m to much of a misanthrope for that.”

      This is one thing we can agree on. Perhaps one of the few. 😉

      But here’s my thing: my experience tells me that ignorance laziness and greed cut across all socio-economic levels. Seeing poor people who are ignorant or lazy doesn’t make me not want to help them, because they are no less deserving than the rich people who are ignorant and lazy and ended up rich anyway.

  21. Todd says:

    Ok,I’ve put a few comments on here,and this is my last. I love the remark you made about a car accident(I know you added or any accident). I still think that remark isn’t thought out very well. Hospitals would know ahead of time,or directly on arrival,that it was auto related. Auto insurance is one of the biggest insurance industries.The person at fault is liable,and their insurance company gets the bill. If that person isn’t insured,then they face being sued in court. If they still can’t pay,then the injured persons’ car insurance,in most all cases pays the bill. It’s not likely that both parties are uninsured. The point being is that hospitals do understand how auto accidents are covered. For me, at this point after paying social security for 20 years,will receive benefits from that insurance,if I happen to come down with a debilitating disease that leaves me unable to work. I’ve paid all my taxes,including SS for 20 years,and I’ve paid full coverage auto insurance for around 17 years, and never needed a cent in return so far.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      Well, you are right to correct me about the car accident example, although in some ways it only makes the matter worse and my larger point even stronger: now, the only way to avoid billing the tax payers is for me (if I’m the one hurt in an accident) to wait until someone finds out whether THE OTHER GUY is insured before I can get treatment. The point is, there is no “correct moral option” as long as you believe that both “people should be treated when they are hurt” and “people shouldn’t have to pay for other people’s care” are both absolutes. One of those two moral axioms has to give, in the real world. The only choice you have is which one.

      But I’d also like to address your last comment: “I’ve paid all my taxes,including SS for 20 years,and I’ve paid full coverage auto insurance for around 17 years, and never needed a cent in return so far.”

      I’m in the same boat as you. I turn 40 next year, and never needed a cent from my auto insurance, and have gotten almost nothing from my health insurance (I have extremely high deductibles, for philosophical reasons that I’ve blogged about before).

      But here’s the thing: I’m happy to do it. Absolutely. I’m MORE than happy to think that a little extra of my income is going into a system that allows poor people to get the treatment they need. My life is fine, I can afford the things that I want, and I don’t “resent” having a little less cash if I know that it will make my COMMUNITY a better place as a whole. And I fully believe that it makes a community better as a whole when we have a system where people can have insurance that keeps sudden illness from wrecking their lives.

      So you see, I’m happy to pay into a system that doesn’t give me, personally, a return, because I do understand how insurance works: and I understand that unless you have healthy people paying in, the system doesn’t work.

      Is it perfect? Of course not. I think it would be cool if the some of the profits of the CEO’s went into increasing the level of care instead. But, over time we can also work on these things and make the system better. The answer is to make the system stronger, not weaker.

      And maybe you will reply and say that you are NOT fine with paying as much as you do into the system and getting nothing back. Maybe you will say that you are struggling financially and having that little extra in your pocket each month would help you. (Even if you, personally, don’t feel that way I’m sure that there are people who do.) But if that’s the case, then I say the solution is to BILL ME MORE so that your bill can be less. And yes, I still don’t care whether I get an ROI on that (personally), because I know it’s going to help make the larger community that I live in a better place for the people as a whole.

      FYI: the article I alluded to above is here: http://gregstevens.com/2010/09/17/the-purpose-of-insurance/

  22. Todd says:

    I guess it’s ok for me to take one for the team,but not the Government,right? Thanks alot Obamacare.

  23. Todd says:

    I myself am in my mid-thirties,and have never even had a cavity. I’ve been working,and paying taxes since I was 14. Social Security will be depleted by the time I can retire,yet I’ve been paying it for 20 years. I’ve probably paid at least 40 thousand dollars in taxes since I started working. If I get hit by a drunk driver,and if his insurance doesn’t cover me,and I can sue him for what ever reason,then why should I feel guilty if the Government gets stuck with the bill. What about that 40 thousand dollars? What about that SS they still make me pay, when Romney and Obama both will tell you it’s not going to be around when I do retire. I’m pretty sure you never even think of this when you tell tax payers everyone else is paying for them if they get sick or injured?

  24. Todd says:

    A little of topic,but it’s obvious that the Obama administration has curbed a few other well established American rights,or should I saw eliminated a few. Look up the NDAA bill. Doesn’t it make you a little sick to know that you are no longer innocent until proven guilty. Even if you get caught with the bloody knife in your hand,you are suppose to be entitled that. You are suppose to have a right to trial and a lawyer,right?Think again…I’m so happy for you to get along fine being “forced”to do anything that this country said was unconstitutional in the past.

  25. Todd says:

    Your number 1 reason may be the funniest one,considering taxes as a whole aren’t going to go down because of the shape the economy is in.It means more taxes,only from the people who never get sick,and already pay high taxes that aren’t going to decrease anytime soon. Sure, a few here and there may get sick or injured and not pay their bill.The vast majority of this demography on the other hand, will stay healthy and continue to pay the penalty,or get expensive insurance they NEVER use. Thanks alot Obamacare,and any fool who supports it!

  26. Todd says:

    Hey Greg,didn’t you read the part about Asashii working,staying healthy,and being able to save thousands over time. That way if they happen to get hit by a drunk driver,they’ll be able to pay the tab,or a least a substantial part of it.Also your number 3 comment for someone said the government will pay for the poor that can’t afford it?What the hell,that’s bull.Is Obamacare going to eliminate poverty? They will pay it alright,right from that hardworking person who doesn’t even need health insurance,but now gets the penalty.

  27. Todd says:

    Also, don’t forget if you support Obama, that you can stay on welfare as long as you want,and now they throw these poor slobs a FREE OBAMAPHONE for christ sake. Don’t forget the free phone.Free food,Free money,Free phone.What a joke on everyone,except the slobs,and the fools. Both Romney and Obama are supported by Goldman Sachs anyway. That way the Federal Reserve can’t lose.

  28. Todd says:

    What about the healthy people who work without health insurance? Now the Government can rape more taxes from them,while taking away their right to choose. Remember also, that Obamacare was found to be unconstitutional,until they changed the word penalty to tax. How convenient for government, and not so much for the huge amount of hard working individuals from their teens through their 30s and even 40s, that work, and stay healthy,and don’t deserve the extra tax. A duck is still a duck, whether you call it a chicken or not. There will also still be millions of homeless people who’ll walk into a hospital and get a free ride.

  29. Roger says:

    Would hospital/medical costs go down after full implementation of Obamacare? Would costs go down for those “covered” under the law?

    • Greg Stevens says:

      This is a great question! I’m not sure that the answer is clear to anyone… yet.

      I know the law INTENDS to bring down medical costs. For example, it has provisions that try to limit the amount of pure profit providers can make above and beyond satisfying the costs of the care they give. There are also provisions intended to prevent fraud and abuse.

      Will they work? We will see. But I also know that this is how laws evolve over time. In the years that come, things will probably have to be adjusted and tweaked, things will have to be added. But that’s how all laws get better over time: you see what works and what doesn’t, and you amend.

      So we shall see…. as long as we have politicians who are intent on both making sure people have coverage, and making sure costs remain low, at least we can have people working toward a solution.

  30. Mike says:

    “3) I’m paying either way: it’s a hell of a lot cheaper to pay for insurance for poor people than to pay for emergency room visits for uninsured poor people.”

    Look up at some point in time what happened to Massachusetts when they implemented required health care. Premiums rose as well as bankruptcy due to health care costs. Its a rather good indicator of what could happen nationwide.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      I hate to burst you bubble, but everything that you said is basically wrong.

      Numerous unbiased organizations such as FactCheck.org and The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation – a think tank funded by business – determined that the cost of Romneycare is “relatively modest” and “well within initial projections.” FactCheck.org also concludes “Claims that the law is bankrupting the state are greatly exaggerated.”

      Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation goes on to say: “Despite claims to the contrary, the Foundations recently released analyses of the cost to taxpayers of achieving near-universal access to healthcare showed that the average yearly increase was only $88 million, well within original estimates. Critics ignore the fact that the fundamental problem is not the costs of Romneycare but rather the unprecedented collapse of state tax revenues.”

      The cost of premiums has gone down dramatically for individuals who buy their own insurance without the help of an employer. According to FactCheck.org, individuals who bought insurance on their own “saw a major drop in premiums, as much as a 40% decline, according to some figures.” On average, premiums dropped between 18%-20% for the average individual buying health insurance on their own. Helping individuals obtain more affordable health insurance has been one of the great success stories of RomneyCare.

      How about families and businesses? According to FactCheck.org, “the evidence is conflicting: Massachusetts premiums rose faster for those groups than the national average, but the same data show that 19 other states had larger increases, including the nearby states of Vermont and New Hampshire.”

  31. Rik says:

    If the government can force everyone to purchase health insurance, why can’t the government force everyone to purchase a 9mm handgun for self-protection?

    • Greg Stevens says:

      Because there isn’t a direct pathway that you can point to where taxpayers are forced to pay more as a result of you NOT having a handgun.

      As long as there is a law that says that hospitals HAVE to treat people who show up with their lives in jeopardy, regardless of whether they can pay, then there is a direct pathway whereby people WITHOUT insurance put a burden on taxpayers.

      There are really two ways to solve this: make everyone have insurance, OR have hospitals check for insurance before treating people who are wheeled in after a car crash (or any other emergency).

      Maybe you want to live in a world where a hospital can look at a person mangled on a stretcher because he was hit by a bus, and say: “I’m sorry, you can’t prove that you can afford this surgery so we can’t operate.”

      But personally, I’d rather everyone just had insurance.

  32. Mark says:

    Wow, did you graduate third grade?? Your reasons for obamacare are some of the biggest reasons not to have osamamcare! Now not only do I have to pay for people to go to the Er because they aren’t sick. But now I have to pay for them to have insurance and go to the Er for no reason. Because they still aren’t going to use normal providers

  33. Asashii says:

    why you should NOT, i make lets say 25K a year, i have to spend about 1300, to 1400 hundred a year on health isurance, i choose not to because hey i am 39 years old and have never been hospitalized right you follow me, thats thousands i have saved over many many years right you follow me, now i must pay a fine that goes up every year or buy health insurance well the policy i get just so conviently falls under that 1300 to 1400 a year threshold, which MEANS NO subsudies, no i have to pay 1150 dollars a year which i cannot afford, thats why i dont have insurance, i will need it when i start missing meals because i have to buy commi insurance that i cannot afford, everyone that actually wotks for a living getting screwed yet again, i will if i have to pack up travel around like i did in colleg and get paid CASH and say to hell with paying the government at all its that or bust my rear and struggle you do the MATH !!!!

    • Greg Stevens says:

      You say: “…i have to buy commi insurance that i cannot afford, everyone that actually wotks for a living getting screwed yet again…”

      It’s a shame you don’t care about the people who get screwed if you DO end up in the hospital emergency room, which you obviously also can’t afford. That money doesn’t appear out of nowhere. It gets paid for by everyone else in the country. That’s part of the reason EVERYONE’s care is so expensive. So you’re basically placing a bet: saying “I’m going to gamble that I won’t get hit by some drunk driver” … but if you DO, then you end up “screwing” everyone else, because you get treated in a hospital that you can’t pay for.

  34. Derek Button says:

    Oh great. So when poor people get injured they can go to the hospital and governement insurance will get the bill instead of the…ehem goverment. So under Obamacare these same poor people will be able to go to the doctor for every little ache and pain, hit urgent care for every little fever, outpatient clinics for a sprained ankle, massage therapist for back pain ect….get my drift? Bottome line is free healthcare, welfare, entitlements, etc makes people lazy and more dependent on the goverment. Why get a job and better myself? The governement gives me everything I need.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      You said: “So under Obamacare these same poor people will be able to go to the doctor for every little ache and pain, hit urgent care for every little fever, o….”

      Why would you believe that? Does YOUR insurance cover it if you go to Urgent Care for a headache?

      It’s just insurance. It’s not Magic Insurance. It covers the basic stuff normal insurance covers, nothing more.

  35. Nancy says:

    I thought we were a republic. When did we become a socialist country? They russian didn’t make it work why do we think we can. I think a flat tax is the way to go. Ombamcare is going to break the back of the people who really can’t afford insurance any way. Small buisiness’ who can’t afford insurance will have to get ( but only if they have a certain number of employees) but then they may have to cut pay to get the insurance. It is a catch 22.
    Taxing those who don’t have insurance or my have another type of plan for LARGE medical expenses is unfair. Mr president you have spent money taking care of a lot of groups but what about the people who make under $200,00 or $100,00 or even $50,00 like most people.
    To have the idea that 200,00 is an average income is crazy. When my husband and I both worked we didn’t even make $110.00.
    universal care would be better than Obamacare in my opinion. I am not really hot about it but then many are. I just think we should rethink alot of what has happened in the last four years before we embrace things.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      1) You should look up “socialism” … I don’t think it means what you think it means. Obamacare is requiring you to buy insurance from a private insurance company. The government isn’t actually providing insurance.

      2) Russia was never socialist. They were communist.

      3) People who can’t afford insurance will have it paid for by the government. That was in sentence number two, above. You may have missed it.

      4) Universal care WOULD be better than Obamacare. But it would also be socialist, so I’m surprised to see you supporting it. Although, I still think you don’t know what “socialist” means.

      5) We should definitely rethink a lot of what has happened in the last four years. Although, of course, none of them have anything to do with Obamacare. You know that, right?

  36. Jon Wiesman says:

    Excellent post, Greg. It’s amazing how many people haven’t fully thought out the implications of the Ronald Reagan Free Riders.

  37. Violet says:

    I’m very glad my tax money has been going to help the poor(er) and sick, but it still really bothers me that I might be forced to buy health insurance for myself. I don’t require medical intervention very much, so if it does happen I would rather deal with the potential expenses on my own. I guess that still makes me a bad person; I mean, it /should/ be a good thing that a government policy wants to help people afford to be healthy, if only I can get past the personal aspect.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      “if it does happen I would rather deal with the potential expenses on my own”.

      I totally understand, and respect, this attitude.

      The problem is, the government actually won’t LET you do this. And that’s not because of Obamacare: it’s been that way for decades. If you get into a horrible accident, and you can’t afford to pay for your emergency room visit, you don’t have the option of refusing care. You actually have no legal way that you COULD “deal with it on your own”, even if you want to. You would go bankrupt, and the hospital would get paid by the government. End of story. The money comes from the taxpayers.

      So although I think it’s very honorable for you to say you want to “deal with potential expenses on your own”, the fact is… you can’t. If you get in “over your head” because of some accident that is no fault of your own, then the taxpayers will foot the bill… and there’s literally NOTHING you can do to prevent that.

      • Matt says:

        I will blame part of the problem we have with our health care system on the government but put most of the blame on the health care industry in general, i.e insures, medical supply companies, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, doctors. Do you know if you were in some other country and got into a horrible car crash or accident and arrived in the er, they would look at you and say sorry, give you some pain meds, and put you in the “corner.” The reason why is because they know that the outcome, if you do survive, is going to be poor! You will most likely be vent dependent, bed ridden, and most likely a veggie!

        Here in america it is the total opposite, we will do everything we can even if we know that the outcome is going to low. Doing this to everybody who comes through the ER alone will raise the cost of medicine because as you said not everyone will be able to pay for all this. Secondly, it is the health field industry that says medicine should be costly, you have heard of the saying $8.00 for aspirin, $5.00 for a band-aid, it cost so much because everybody in line wants their cut even though that person had nothing to do with either of those 2 items or because I am Dr. such and such and I am world-renowned so to see me will cost you $500.00 a visit. Do you really think insures are going to pay that much? no so that is again cost that is passed down the patient.

        Do not get me started on insures. Whoever let them get so out of control or should be in control of such a monopoly should be shot! But do you think our government will come out with some watch dog to make sure insures are being fair? No because, they pay Washington to allow them to do what they do! Do not think for one second that just because some bill is telling them they have to keep cost low and they will start being taxed for this and that that they are just going to sit there and take it? Any new cost to the health industry will be coming out of our pockets directly or out of our paycheck!

        I do believe everybody should be able to have access to free or very cheap health care but this will never happen in the system we have because somebody will always be paying more then somebody else to make up for it! I for one believe in a single-payer health care system or even yet a single-payer-universal-health-care plan that the government puts money into it but this will never happen because of the people in Washington will never give up their free healthcare that you and I pay for!

  38. Cassie says:

    My family of four is going to be or is being or forced to pay for “obamacare” when we can hardly afford food or to pay the bills and taxes we already get,my parents work full time and we still don’t hardly have any money. Obama probably doesn’t even tax the rich people, just the poor ones.

    • Greg Stevens says:

      If you are really so poor that you can barely pay for stuff, then you will get a tax deduction that pays for Obamacare and it won’t cost you. The entire point of the system is that everyone will have insurance, and the cost will be offset for the people who CAN’T afford it.

  39. tom krings says:

    Thank you for taking the time to do all that research, so you could cite facts and hard numbers. Oh wait…..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

You may use these tags : <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trending Articles

Keep up with my writing!You will only be notified about new articles. No ads, no petitions, no digests, no nonsense.