Perhaps I should be trying to maximize every possible opportunity offered to me. But I just can't stomach the idea of taking money away from other people to pay for my own personal problems.
Perhaps I should be trying to maximize every possible opportunity offered to me. But I just can't stomach the idea of taking money away from other people to pay for my own personal problems.
No it wouldn't. I provide it to my countrymen no matter their condition.
> Perhaps I should be trying to maximize every possible opportunity offered to me. But I just can't stomach the idea of taking money away from other people to pay for my own personal problems.
You live in a world where your tax money already is pooled and so you already do take money from people to pay for things as simple as the roads you drive on, or the emergency services you use.
There's no moral argument to not participating. You've paid the taxes and you have a right to the return.
People want everyone to be covered, which is how Obamacare got pushed through in the first place. You not getting covored can potential end up costing us more in the healthcare system (healthcare costs being the biggest reason for personal bankruptcy) if you don't take this and use it.
This is interesting. Is this true?
I apologize if it sounded like I was complaining. I only meant I chose this life. How is it reasonable for me to choose this, and then force other people to pay for me?
The other alternative is that I should feel like a shitty human for choosing not to maximize my earning potential and getting myself into this position in the first place. But part of having freedom of choice is the freedom to choose poorly. It's my own life, a life I'm not burdening others with. If I break my arm, can't afford to pay for it, and then become bankrupt as a result, then I have suffered a personal penalty which society will remember and will punish me for. And while I may have temporarily burdened others by not being able to pay for my emergency care, I've still been penalized as a result, which seems quite fair. Whereas taking a handout to cover the same expense feels like I got something for nothing.
I admit that there are some good arguments in this thread, though, so perhaps I should reevaluate my moral perspectives. But it's extremely difficult for me to become comfortable with the idea of encroaching on other people's lives by force.
Relevant bit: "Although the individual causes of bankruptcy are complex and multifaceted, the majority of personal bankruptcies involve substantial medical bills"
No matter what your intentions on the topic, if you end up in the emergency room for a preventable condition (which will lead to more treatment), you will end up costing everybody much more than simply taking the vouchers... take that fact as you will, but statistically speaking it's very likely you'll end up "costing" society more by not participating in the healthcare system.
That's nice, but earlier you did say:
> I don't appreciate the government intruding on my private life, forcing me to buy a product for at least $200/mo, a $200/mo I literally can't afford. (...) People simply have no money for $200/mo of extra costs.
Which seems rather straightforward. You want to be angry at the government for enacting the ACA, for "forcing" this $200/mo charge on not only yourself but also the "many others" in your same position. You're quite upset at this mandate that you and those many apparently can't afford. Backpedaling only after someone points out the obvious (vouchers, tax credits, etc) doesn't change your original message.
You are invited to drop your American citizenship and live on an island. Otherwise you don't really get your life and not be affected or influenced by others. That is a silly idea born out of fairy tales for kids and teenagers.
You are a part of a society. The moment you step out you are on a public street that someone paid for. On a private side-walk that someone else owns. You ride in a public transportation system that someone else has paid for. You are also driving a car because someone has granted you a license after you passed a test. Like it or not you are also protected from random other countries coming in and taking your stuff away by having a very very large military force.
If your house catches on fire people will come in a red car with sirens on it and drag your ass our of the building and save your life.
If someone assaulted you, you can sue them in a court of law and ask the judge to rule in your favor and force the other party to pay you some money.
If you have a family and your break your arm you know cannot earn money for them. It is not just you suffering in silence, now your children, wife, other dependents are now starving. Same happens if you happen to take up heroin and start stealing and not going to work. It is not just your doing whatever you like in a hypothetical bubble. You now your family is starving. You just going about doing your own thing have caused quite a bit of a mess.
Maintenance is cheaper than repair.
A comment from reason.com sums it up nicely: "Emergency rooms are required by law to treat it. If you are poor, they are unlikely to ever collect the bill for doing so. So why would a poor person wait days or weeks to see a doctor then they can go down to an emergency room and see one in hours?
Moreover, if you are being forced to pay for health insurance, you are more likely not less likely to seek treatment since you will rationally think "well I am paying for it so I might as well use it.". The idea that making people buy insurance will reduce overall healthcare costs has always been an insane one."
http://reason.com/blog/2014/01/02/no-obamacare-wont-reduce-e...
Because if you don't have a life threatening condition, you're not going to see a doctor in "hours" in the emergency room. You're going to be triage'd to the lowest possible slot, and it's my understanding that if they believe you can just be sent on your way, they'll do that. You can't go in for an ear ache.
> Moreover, if you are being forced to pay for health insurance, you are more likely not less likely to seek treatment since you will rationally think "well I am paying for it so I might as well use it." The idea that making people buy insurance will reduce overall healthcare costs has always been an insane one.
First of all, there are plenty of respected folks who don't think that's "insane". Presumably more respected than "John" from the comments section.
But regardless, that's what co-pays and deductibles are for. Let's also not forget that going to the doctor is still not a joy ride. There's forms, and there's a wait. I have health insurance, and I don't take a trip to the doctor's office like it's the local candy shop. Why would the poor, who feel the impact of a co-pay even more than I do?
You're spot on about doctor visits not being fun. We also have free GP access and people will see a doctor if they have a reason but most people would rather stay home and rest than go out to the Doctor's just because they have a sniffle.
Copays aren't that big of a deal when you're in extreme pain. Ours was $100 per ER trip. Surely that would dissuade people with ear aches. Had it been a 20% coinsurance charge, then we probably would have tried urgent care first, or waited longer. But you can see how having insurance (or a certain type of insurance) can affect your behavior, in a way that's not so predictable. Many policy makers were surprised by the results of the Oregon Medicare Study as are many people learning about moral hazard for the first time. It's counter-intuitive.
I live in a country FAR less wealthy than the U.S. (Uruguay), yet basic healthcare here must sound like a science fiction future for the average American.
U$ 50/month gives me access to a doctor that goes TO MY HOUSE in hours in case of ilness (including something like a flu, ear ache or whatever), or I can go to a clinic of said private emergency service, and get a doctor in minutes (yes, they're the least trained and paid doctors, but every single one has at least 7 years of university training).
Every single freaking Uruguayan can be treated for free, and most have access to decent hospital services. Yes, there are some big downsides - getting an operation scheduled takes months, and if you don't have money, quality of life stuff is practically ignored, but not a single Uruguayan has gotten bankrupt due to a severe or life threatening condition, you get stuff up to and including cancer and HIV treatments for free.
And you wouldn't believe how cheap the very best health coverage is, I'm paying for the 2nd best one.. U$ 150/month.
If you have a difficult operation or strange disease, there's no place like the U.S., but for everyday healthcare the U.S. sounds like a Medieval country.
Economically and socially, of course, but epidemiologically as well!
"But I just can't stomach the idea of taking money away from other people to pay for my own personal problems."
If you're found unconscious somewhere because of an untreated ailment, the "cost to other people for paying to for your own personal problems" will be dramatically higher. If you're conscious, you could maybe refuse emergency assistance, though I'd encourage you not to.
If you really need to make it up to your fellow citizens, meet your civic responsibilities: put thought and research into voting, serve - honestly and intelligently - on juries when called, etc. We ask some of you, it's fair for you to take what you're given without being exploitative.
That's in your head. Realistically it's in everybody's interest to keep their countrymen happy.