One foot in the grave for ObamaCare in 11th Circuit

PrintSmith wrote:

MsMAM wrote: I doubt that I will have health care when I retire. That is a concern for me since rate will be high for my age...

I don't understand why health care should be for profit.

For the same reason food, clothing and shelter are for profit enterprises. It encourages people to provide the services necessary to sustain life. The profit earned from the sale of medicine and care is what encourages people and companies to search for new medicines and care that will bring further benefit.

That's common sense but hard for some to get a grasp of which is one of the reasons for the strong division of the left and the right. Well said PS :thumbsup:

CriticalBill wrote:

PrintSmith wrote:

MsMAM wrote: I doubt that I will have health care when I retire. That is a concern for me since rate will be high for my age...

I don't understand why health care should be for profit.

For the same reason food, clothing and shelter are for profit enterprises. It encourages people to provide the services necessary to sustain life. The profit earned from the sale of medicine and care is what encourages people and companies to search for new medicines and care that will bring further benefit.

That's common sense but hard for some to get a grasp of which is one of the reasons for the strong division of the left and the right. Well said PS :thumbsup:

And one I don't agree with... (Of course) I can prepare for my aging by saving for retirement and paying for my house and be ready, but once I am no longer working, I have to pay for my insurance? It seems out of whack to me.

I agree that HC should not be tied to employers. It's a carryover from a day when employers actually had to lure prospective employees in by giving them good benefits.

towermonkey wrote: I agree that HC should not be tied to employers. It's a carryover from a day when employers actually had to lure prospective employees in by giving them good benefits.

BINGO!!

I hate the Mandate, not right. Solution? Why not have the ability to opt out but medical bills picked up by the public cannot be discharged thru bankruptcy. Like taxes.

MsMAM wrote: And one I don't agree with... (Of course) I can prepare for my aging by saving for retirement and paying for my house and be ready, but once I am no longer working, I have to pay for my insurance? It seems out of whack to me.

You can save all you want to Mam, that won't protect you from the type of inflation we saw as a result of federal overspending in the late 1970's and early 1980's when the annual inflation rate was in the double digits. When the federal government engages in devaluing of the currency to permit them to pay back the money they have borrowed, savings are deflated into irrelevancy.

No, the only hope we have is to once again tie the ability to pay for the services ourselves to the cost of the service. Return the social welfare programs to being a reimbursement paid to the person at the very least rather than holding their liability to a minimal contribution. The very reason that the services are so expensive is tied directly to the divorcing of the receiver of the services from the cost of the services they receive. No one will purchase the service when it exceeds any hope of affordability.

If one could get a Rolls Royce or a Chevy for the same amount out of pocket with someone else responsible for picking up the rest of the cost, everyone would be driving the Rolls and very few, if any, bowties would be seen on the streets. Since the consumer has to pay for the car out of pocket instead, you see an awful lot of Chevy's and very few Rolls being driven. The reason health care is so expensive is that we no longer pay the lion's share of the cost out of our own pocket. We're spending other people's money and, just like our national Congress, we see no reason to alter our spending habits since it is not our money being spent.

equating choices in healthcare to cars.....really?

archer wrote: equating choices in healthcare to cars.....really?

That's what I was going to ask.

Using cars to illustrate a point is a bit different than equating the two IMO. PS is right about this - if we had to pay for healthcare without the aid of insurance, we would opt for cheaper choices and do more shopping around.

archer wrote: equating choices in healthcare to cars.....really?

It's an anaolgy, not a comparison and definitely not "equating"....and he is right btw.