As the insurable pool expands, rates go down. If they do not go down, then that money is being funneled elsewhere for other purposes. Those evil corporate white guys have pretty much stuck it to America and you're absolving them of their evil? Health is not a commodity but we seem to think so here in the US of A.
Evil? I don't think a business should be forced to take on customers it doesn't want to take on and so, by extension, I don't think an insurance company should be forced to take on risk it doesn't want to take on. If you think there's a viable business for providing coverage to those that could not get coverage before then by all means, start up your own insurance company... why don't you? I'll tell you why: because starting a business to do this would be unprofitable and you wouldn't last long.
You really think the insurance companies don't want to have more paying customers? They do. It's just that they aren't in the business of charity.
Speaking of charity, if you feel so strongly about this issue, why not just start a charity that offers to pay (in part or in full) the necessary rates? Such a charity would have the same net effect ultimately: expanding the insurable poor, thereby lowering rates and so on. And since it would rely on donations, it wouldn't be morally questionable.
The ACA sucks but it is better than nothing. We have a HC insurance problem affecting 100 million or so people (unisured or underinsured). You're judgment, colored by self-interest, denies many of those people coverage. Some 45,000 people a year die from this problem.
That's a whole load of bullshit. The ACA does little, or nothing to help, and comes at a big cost (and I am not taking monetary costs here).
You can trot statistics and numbers but others can play this game too. Let's assume 45,000 people a year die from this "problem" (i.e. that they cannot get or afford health insurance). As for your appeal to emotion, don't forget that there's 21,000 people dying
every day from hunger or hunger-related issues in the world. What do you propose to do about them? Or isn't food a higher priority than healthcare?
I think we can do better than that. If you have transition costs that cause you consternation, I'm sorry about that. But, for the greater good.
Fuck the greater good. I have no desire to subsidize the "greater good" even if we agreed on what "greater good" meant, which I suspect we wouldn't. Why do you think that you can force me to use my means to finance your ends?
