Author Topic: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional  (Read 936 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2018, 04:45:58 PM »

Online Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22462
  • Tommy Points: 1072
This libertarian thing with the mandate is just plain dumb.  The only way that you can eliminate the mandate and have it work is to protect hospitals so that if someone without insurance shows up at the ER in a coma after a car accident, then the hospital is OBLIGATED or REQUIRED to let them die.  Otherwise the cost for the uninsured just gets passed on to the insured.

It's weird that you say there is only one way to make it work (which is death) and then post an alternative that is that the insured cover the cost. It seems like that's backward. The one way it works is to pass along the cost, otherwise... death.  :)

I specifically amended my take.  My point is that anyone with enough money to insure themselves wouldn't do it.  What this seems to relate to is young healthy people who don't want to pay for insurance, at least not until they need it.

My "death" example is the worst case of course.  It could apply to many things where an uninsured shows up at the ER with some form of catastrophic injury or illness and does not have the ability to pay.  Without the mandate, and assuming that they are not in a coma, they could sign up for insurance on the spot and just say "pre-existing condition".

It just doesn't work without mandate and no one has ever provided a answer to my question about the person who decided not to get insurance but has a car accident and needs long term care to stay alive.  Who is going to pay for that?  How is that going to work?  I will tell you the answer, it will be either taxpayers or people who buy insurance (passed along by higher costs/rates).
actually the super wealthy often self-insure as premiums are often a waste of money and one for which they can find a better use for the money.

I am not sure if what you state is true or not but I am fine with that if you have the money to self insure.  If you can show that you have the financial resources to self insure, then you can have a waiver for the mandate.  With that though would need to include a clause that once you run out of money, the hospital can stop caring for you.  I am sorry though, I don't think this applies to very many people who would decide not to buy insurance.

They don't allow this for car insurance so it seems unlikely they will try this for health insurance.
you don't actually have to have car insurance, you have to have some form of financial responsibility.  Most people just get car insurance, but you don't have to.  There are many forms of financial responsibility.  You could, for example, post a surety bond, which almost certainly won't cost as much as car insurance premiums for someone that is wealthy and has the assets to cover the bond.
Historical Draft - Portland Trailblazers
PG - Magic Johnson, Tony Parker
SG - Clyde Drexler, Dennis Johnson, Alvin Robertson
SF - James Worthy, Alex English
PF - Charles Barkley, Ben Wallace
C - Moses Malone, George Mikan, Brad Daugherty

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2018, 05:09:08 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4630
  • Tommy Points: 385
you don't actually have to have car insurance, you have to have some form of financial responsibility.  Most people just get car insurance, but you don't have to.  There are many forms of financial responsibility.  You could, for example, post a surety bond, which almost certainly won't cost as much as car insurance premiums for someone that is wealthy and has the assets to cover the bond.

If someone wants to deal with a bonding company to cover their health insurance, I would be fine with that.  A bond is really just another form of insurance though.  It is not self insurance.  To get a bond, you need assets to secure the bond and you also have to pay a fee for the bond.  So instead of paying a fee for health insurance and getting to keep your home if you suffer an accident or illness, instead you pay a fee (smaller I guess) but lose your house with a bond.

As I said, I am fine with that if you chose to do that but as you said, you need the assets and the willingness to risk them or it is a moot point.  And I still don't believe that very many people would chose either a bond or self insurance.  I am not sure what point you are arguing for.  What ever minuscule percentage of people that would even be in a position to consider self insurance or a bond does not change the point that for the vast majority, without a mandate, hospitals are going to have to deal with uninsured people every day and someone is going to pay for that one way or another (unless Trump can get Mexico to pay for it after they pay for the wall).

Re: Judge in Texas rules Affordable Care Act unconstitutional
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2018, 10:02:13 PM »

Online slamtheking

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21566
  • Tommy Points: 9183
This libertarian thing with the mandate is just plain dumb.  The only way that you can eliminate the mandate and have it work is to protect hospitals so that if someone without insurance shows up at the ER in a coma after a car accident, then the hospital is OBLIGATED or REQUIRED to let them die.  Otherwise the cost for the uninsured just gets passed on to the insured.

It's weird that you say there is only one way to make it work (which is death) and then post an alternative that is that the insured cover the cost. It seems like that's backward. The one way it works is to pass along the cost, otherwise... death.  :)

I specifically amended my take.  My point is that anyone with enough money to insure themselves wouldn't do it.  What this seems to relate to is young healthy people who don't want to pay for insurance, at least not until they need it.

My "death" example is the worst case of course.  It could apply to many things where an uninsured shows up at the ER with some form of catastrophic injury or illness and does not have the ability to pay.  Without the mandate, and assuming that they are not in a coma, they could sign up for insurance on the spot and just say "pre-existing condition".

It just doesn't work without mandate and no one has ever provided a answer to my question about the person who decided not to get insurance but has a car accident and needs long term care to stay alive.  Who is going to pay for that?  How is that going to work?  I will tell you the answer, it will be either taxpayers or people who buy insurance (passed along by higher costs/rates).
actually the super wealthy often self-insure as premiums are often a waste of money and one for which they can find a better use for the money.
only foolish ones would and I doubt there's many who do.  a smart wealthy person would find premiums for a good coverage a drop in the bucket (if they weren't already getting covered through their job/companies) but even if they didn't want to pay that kind of premium they'd be smart enough to get a 'catastrophic' coverage -- for example a policy that had a $10,000 deductible before it paid. probably cost like $1000 in premiums per family member.

if they only incur $1000 in medical expenses for a family of 3, well, that's $4000 for the year out of their pocket.  less than a premium for a good coverage.  however, if one member of the family has an accident, surgery or needs to be admitted to a hospital for even just 2 days, they'd be looking at bills starting at about $20,000.  complete self-insurance would be foolish. 

if you have a number of examples of the super wealthy that self-insure, please share.  one or two examples wouldn't prove much, expecially if you're picking Bill Gates or Steve Bezos (just picking a couple of super rich guys as examples - I highly doubt they self insure considering the companies they own)