Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydb
You do understand that every time the government subsidizes something that the taxpayer is getting soaked, right?
|
That's a nice talking point, but let's talk facts. Right now we are paying for the healthcare of 40 million people. The PPACA changes that, so they pay for the majority of their own health care, and we are left paying only for the health care of 10 million people.
That's a good thing. A very good thing, especially from your worry about taxpayers being soaked. Why are you against the taxpayer's being less "soaked"? That makes no sense.
Quote:
|
It's the non-paying deadbeats that are causing health care costs to skyrocket in the first place. That's why a 68 cent aspirin costs $10 in the hospital.
|
Yes. But don't forget record profit-taking by insurance companies, who break their contracts and rescind payment on people that have been paying their health insurance for years, which the insurance company takes away when they finally need it. Or insurance companies that refuse to pay for sick children over their lifetime. Insurance companies that agree to insure a population, who pays their premiums, but then figure out a myriad of reasons not to hold up their end of the bargain and pay out when their clients get sick.
That's precisely what the PPACA tries to address. You'll note it also has provisions in it to help decrease prescription costs. So your opposition to it makes little sense to me - it seems to address all your primary concerns.