Much has been said on Obamacare, both pro and con. As a pharmacist, I know it will affect me on both a professional level and (eventually) on a personal level. As a pharmacist I can see it being a billing pain in the arse. Anytime we have to deal with ” the guvment” nothing goes as planned. Red tape is everywhere and the only person happy is the auditor when he finds a I missing its dot and takes all of his money back.
On a personal level I do understand the concept of “mandatory coverage”. The point is to create the largest pool of subscribers possible paying premiums to pay out the bills for those who actually use it. The larger the pool the more the money is spread out. The smaller the pool the higher the risk.
And why the outrage about “mandatory”? if you buy a car, every state mandates liability coverage….if you FINANCE that car, the financier will REQUIRE comprehensive coverage…why should your inanimate object be better covered than the one driving it??
So I have devised a pretty simple answer. If you refuse coverage then you forfeit your rights to receive health care UNLESS YOU PAY FOR IT. Pretty simple concept. Hospitals would no longer have to take you as a patient because you refused the mandate. Under the current system, hospitals cannot refuse care on the basis of ability to pay. Hospitals cost shift in order to write off the bills the indigent, uninsured or under insured currently don’t pay.
If a person is to refuse coverage, he becomes essentially a parasite…a parasite by definition is” a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return,as one who lives on the hospitality of others.” ( www.dictionary.com) Sound familiar? Sound much like our current medicaid system, and THAT doesn’t work very well either. Parasites, by design or intent, suck off their hosts until the host dies or it moves to another host.
My mandating the coverage for all, the parasites can no longer suck. they have to contribute SOMETHING to the pool. The premiums will be tiered based on income, so I know the poorest of the poor will probably still pay what they pay now: nothing. But even the medicaid recipients have “coverage”. If a person refuses coverage and goes completely without insurance then by definition, they should no longer be able to demand health care if they cannot pay for it.
Like any other commodity, I cannot demand a car without paying for it, I cannot walk into a restaurant and demand food and expect the establishment to eat the cost. Its time to realize that health care IS a commodity: services and products delivered to another that has value. It has to be paid for.
Its only fair. And thats my oversimplified take on the subject.