Message #6354

[wbcoleman]

I do see the economics of the scheme you describe. It's just not reality, that's all.

You don't think the premia of younger drivers rise to offset the mandatory, meaningless discounts offered to older ones?  Naive.

Call me naive for not recognizing a delusion, and I raise you one and call you delusional for your delusion.

I guess you don't believe that Obamacare's mandate to insure sick people will be paid for by increasing premia for healthy people.

Indeed I do not because increased premia already pays for the indigent to go to the hospital emergency room at top dollar. A cheaper method of health care will mean lower premia instead.

So you don't believe that Obamacare will increase the demand for medical services, it'll just shift the financing.  Backers of the scheme claimed that 30 million previously uninsured people would be covered, but you think they are already covered by ER writeoffs.  Why weren't we told???

You WERE told. You just weren't listening because you dismiss the messenger as lying libs, that's why.  You'll get a whole lot further along in solving the nation's problems when you recognize facts as facts regardless of who it is that's telling you the facts.

FACT: the demand won't increase because it's always been there and it's always gone to the ER and it's a cost that the hospital eats.

FACT: the hospital won't eat the cost and so charges more on the insurance companies of the insured. This is the redistribution of wealth your side has always been blind to because it's a medical corporation that's redistributing wealth.

FACT: redistribution of wealth = redistribution of wealth whether it's the corporation or the government that does it.

clara, I am so sorry, your knowledge of the economics of the scheme appears close to nil, which is probably why you support it.