Liberal Forum

Misty » 02 Jan 2014 1:17 pm » wrote: And there were (are) a good many people who can't afford to pay out of pocket for routine check-ups and tests and would show up already very sick in the ER.
We end up paying way more after they are in the advanced stages of illness, than we would if we provided preventative care and the ability to diagnose their illnesses early.

I thought you right wingers were fiscal conservatives?
Since we're going to pay for the uninsured one way or another, isn't it better to do it in the more cost effective way?

BTW, many of the people who had the kind of policies you mentioned, were dropped by their insurance carrier once they got sick.

I was not talking about those can't pay out of pocket for routine costs. I am talking about those that could afford it and used their freedom of CHOICE to do it.

So now people who made a responsible fiscal CHOICE to structure their insurance in that manner are now paying thousands of dollars annually for a service they do not want. You are ok with that? Having middle income people pay thousands more annually is not the cost effective way to do it.

I know quite a few people in that boat and those that did suffer major medical issues were not dropped. Since you made the argument it is incumbent upon YOU to prove it with legitimate links and stats. My wife was in that category and she was not dropped for her issues. And like many, many people we make just a little too much to get a subsidy, this law needs to be repealed.

Three of the people I know are small business owners. 2 of them are not following thru on their plans to hire another worker or two and the other laid off one worker because of this bill and talk of increased min wage.

I thought you self described liberals were all about choice? Hell, I am more liberal than you could ever hope to be, from abortion to government mandates, I firmly believe in freedom of choice in ALL areas, not just abortion.



.