[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

That's a great point, however our auto insurance allows copious amounts of medical coverage in the case of an accident, for the driver and for anyone else in the accident.

Which, of course, you pay for through your auto insurance premiums, so in this respect paying for auto insurance (which you don't apparently object to) isn't much different than paying for health insurance (which you do apparently object to).

Regardless, for your car-insurance medical coverage to apply, mustn't the claim giving rise to the medical issue be auto related? If so, you should really plan on having your heart attacks and strokes in conjunction with your car wrecks.

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

If you don't medically insure yourself, you aren't hurting anyone else.

Your statement, while possibly being accurate, is similarly untruthful. By not having health insurance, you are imposing the costs that you cannot afford onto others.

You say that you have "cash" to pay for health matters. It is highly improbable that you have enough "cash" to pay for all of the health matters that you may face.

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

You shouldn't be forced to pay for something if it only affects you.

Great logic there---my car only affects me, so I shouldn't have to pay for it, right? My food choices only affect me, so I shouldn't have to pay for food either, right?

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

You can argue with me all you want, but the fact is, if you don't have medical insurance and something catastrophic happens, you'll pay one way or another- whether it be losing your house, your business, making payments, having crap credit- whatever.

No, not really, since even the most ruthless creditor realizes that once the money is gone, there is no point in expending additional funds and effort in trying to recover something that isn't there. So once the "cash" medical consumer has exhausted all of their "cash," the prudent* consumer would file for bankruptcy**, which would effectively--when all is said and done--shift the unpaid medical costs onto others. Namely, those who have health insurance (and, I suppose, other cash medical consumers).

Similarly, once you have run out of "cash" and assets, you can apply for Medicaid, which is, of course, paid for by all US taxpayers and generally allows for reduced-cost, if not outright free, medical care to those in the program. If, because of your earlier decision to be a cash medical consumer you end up enrolled in Medicaid, I'd appreciate it if you limited your use of that program, since my taxes are already high enough as it is and I don't particularly like subsidizing free-loaders.

So your whole argument about how your decision not to have health insurance only affects you is, clearly, an exceptionally bogus one.

Originally Posted by BigBrodieFan

Hell, most medical insurance has a cap anyway, and you're left owning a ton of money regardless of the situation.

Ironically, the ACA does away with both lifetime and annual limits and caps.



* Something of a oxymoron here, since a truly prudent medical consumer would have had health insurance coverage, but that's beside the point.

** Which, depending upon the laws of the bankrupt's residence, would allow the bankrupt to possibly keep their house, their business, their tools, etc.