My favorite conservative, Terry, responded...
And, once again, my response has moved over to the blog.
Terry, you often argue against AFA and I usually respond that you make the argument in favor of it, without realizing it. But, maybe I have never explained what I mean by that.
For our lifetimes, we have been paying for medical care for the "poor" (I take issue with your use of quotation marks, here. There are far to many actual poor in America. Most of them working two and three low wage, no benefit jobs just to get by,) and those who "bought a boat, instead of healthcare," who get there healthcare by using emergency rooms (the most expensive and inefficient way to provide non-emergency care) and county hospitals and clinics. We pay for their care through inflated ER bills, inflated hospital bills and inflated insurance costs.
Nothing is "free." Someone has to pay. And it has always been you and me.
When the AFA was first passed, one of the benefits that went into effect immediately, was that our 20-something children got to stay on our insurance until they turned 26. That cut a large swath out of the demographic that couldn't afford of didn't think they needed insurance. When I was in my early 20s, I didn't have insurance. Fortunately, I never got sick enough to need it. On the other hand, my son had a few minor medical issues, that would have become major if they had been let go. So, he and I are both grateful that he got to stay on my insurance for a few more years.
In 2014, people who cannot afford insurance will be given subsidies to help pay for it. That will cost us taxpayers. But, far less than defraying the cost of an ER visit does. The poor (and I have eschewed the quotation marks, here,) will be able to go to a general practitioner's office, at a fraction of the cost of an ER.
And, that guy who bought a boat? He might have to sell it. Or, maybe not. But, he will have to buy insurance without our help. If he can afford a boat, he is not eligible for a subsidy. Even if he can't afford a boat and insurance at the same time.
That rich asshole will have to embrace the Republican/Libertarian notion of "personal responsibility." No more sucking off of the public teet for him.
It is the simplest point about insurance.
The larger the pool, the lower the cost for everyone. Even if some people will need some degree of help from the rest of us. It's simple math.
The Heritage Foundation understood that when they wrote the bill that, essentially, became "RomneyCare," (which has worked out well for the people of Massachusetts,) and is the body and soul of "ObamaCare."
Your "finger, hammer, nail, amputation" analogy, while graphically poetic, frankly loses me. I have know idea what your point is with that.
Your third paragraph reminds me of the classic Tea Party protest...
Your last paragraph is just free of facts. The states (like mine) who have jumped in ahead of deadlines have already proven that none of these claims hold water. We are already showing reduced costs and better service, overall.
I have one real beef with the AFA.
(Besides the fact that it supplanted true "single payer" which I support.)
The bill excluded a mandate prohibiting for-profit insurance companies from raising rates over the two years before the AFA goes into full effect.
Was that an oversight?
No. I don't think so, either.
Go ahead and blame ObamaCare for rising insurance rates.
DO NOT! Blame your greedy insurance company.