Why is that? Why should I pay twice as much for heath care? The insurance companies were making record profits, while America came in last place for health care in the industrialized world. I submit that the self-styled libertarians on this site are in fact, collectivists, and elitists, who oppose individual health care that people can afford.
I would have to agree with you. Why should I pay twice as much for healthcare? And for coverage I couldn't possibly need?
All health care policies, whether government run, private, Obamacare, etc., include services that not everybody needs, such as breast exams, prostate tests, children's dental, etc., so they work it out and spread the costs. The insurance companies cannot custom design individual polices for everybody. To do so would require much more manpower and data, and would raise the already sky-high prices, through the roof.
This sounds like something a government official would say as a non-answer to my question. I'm sure my healthcare plan before covered all sorts of things that didn't necessarily apply to me, and I was fine with that. That wasn't really the issue. I'm not asking for a hand tailored plan. What I had before was affordable and I was happy with it. I'm just wondering what was wrong with my healthcare plan that worked just fine for me this whole time. Because it would be now illegal were I to keep it. I have to pay almost double that I was before just to satisfy the requirements. I'll ask again Garrison, since you had the same concern as I presently do, why should I have to pay double for healthcare? And what happened to "If you like your plan you can keep it"?
I am not an apologist for Obamacare, nor an expert, but what I know about it is enough to justify paying more. How much more, or whether people are being overcharged, is something that I am not qualified to answer. The reason that you are likely getting charged more is the fact that there is no more lifetime cap on coverage. When a devastating illness or accident used to occur, the plans stopped paying after a certain amount and you were then responsible for all future charges, which could run into the millions. This led to massive debt, bankruptcies, foreclosures - and even death for those who could not afford to continue treatment. There are also more services that DO apply to everybody, which are preventative-orientated. Again, this is a VERY broad subject and even highly qualified experts can't explain it all.
If highly qualified experts can't explain this, why is it law? Why are a bunch of bureaucrats in charge of it? Because they sure as hell are not highly qualified experts in healthcare. Afterall, it's called the affordable healthcare act and they advertised it by claiming it would lower the healthcare costs for americans, and it did the opposite of that. Earlier in this topic you asked why you should have to pay twice as much for health care and I think my concern is just as valid as yours. What happened to "if you like your plan you can keep it"
Of course paying more is a valid concern, and I told you that you'll never have to worry about being capped out, and left with nothing - among other things. Are you paying more than 10% of your income for health care insurance? Most people are not.
Oh, no I am not. I'm fortunate enough to afford the increases in my healthcare costs due to the ACA. I am just a little sore over the fact that I was lied to about keeping my plan and whatnot. Still don't know what happened to "if you like your plan you can keep it"?
Why is that? Because your costs being higher do not indicate that someone else received a causal benefit in their plan. This is referred to as the Zero Sum Fallacy in economics.
Your bourgeois, school-teaching friend had a nice way of dismissing everything and everybody that challenged his theories, but that's only the opinion of a repressed college professor with his head up his ass.
"June 6, 2009: "If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you'll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold." July 16, 2009: "if you've got health insurance, you like your doctor, you like your plan - you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you." July 21, 2009: "If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it. Let me repeat that: If you like your plan, you'll be able to keep it." March 3, 2010: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because I can tell you that as the father of two young girls, I wouldn't want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor." June 14, 2010: "The bottom line is that under the Affordable Care Act, if you like your doctor and plan, you can keep them."
So he lied, to get the bill through. Just like the insurance companies and the Republicans lied in desperate attempts to stop it. They're both wrong, but I'll take affordable insurance with no lifetime cap over the worst system in the modern world, which is what we formerly had. Not that we're out of the woods yet, that will take a long time to correct. When you're in last place, sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Actually... all omelettes require broken eggs. Unless you omit eggs from the recipe, but i don't think that can still be called an omelette. As long as the top .01% control the world, we will never be "out of the woods."
Are the people whose healthcare costs have gone up significantly the eggs that need to be broken? Just trying to understand the analogy. I get where you're coming from. I was uncertain as to whether or not you were able to say that he lied to the People in order to get this bill through - which will continue to rake in profits for insurance corps so I don't get the point there - and I guess you are. Obama is a multimillionaire who is set for life - no one should have believed what he said about healthcare to begin with. It's our fault.
The assertion that one person's cost necessitate another's benefit (the zero sum fallacy) is rejected by every school of economic thought that I can think of. Nice ad hominem though. That's two fallacies. Awaiting the third now. Stand by.