good question Lefty. I ask my Obama lovin in-laws how it any different from right now except that it make having health insurance mandatory. Same insurance companies I'm pretty sure i could buy insurance from right now if I wanted to. Now they force people to have to support the industry on a whole (with the hopes that this will cause them to lower prices for everybody with the increase in low-payout 'healthy people' paying into the system). Cynics (like me) will say Insurance companies just going to scrape off them profits (Chain-up #1), not having to entice people with low price now cuz it mandatory . Middle class, upper middle age people in america (who generally have insurance already) think they going to get a bargain so they smiling (see Chain-up #1 above). People like me who have no health insurance right now know that is bullsh!t. Obama continuing to chain up with the "employers have to provide insurance" chain-up (#2). Walmart and dem done find the loop-hole and only hiring a set of part-time workers (so they don't have to pay for insurance). I foresee the whole country moving to contract and part time workers to preserve the bottom line. So the bottom line? Take a listen to Sizzla.
Your objections are unfounded.
"Chain-up #1": Yuh argument is that the insurance companies will just scrape off the profits and not pass them along to policyholders. Of course you have nothing substantial to support this; whereas (a) empirical evidence has shown that most high-cost procedures are due to preventable medical issues. Therefore it stands to reason that if you intervene and treat these ailments earlier, you don't have to opt for the high-cost procedures. In addition to this, even when the procedures aren't high-cost, (b) the sheer numbers of uninsured being treated for preventable illnesses is a huge strain on the system. If you treat these preventable illnesses then (at least in theory) you reduce the numbers of uninsured who show up for treatment.
So addressing (a) Insurers won't have to pay for the high-cost items, and (b) Hospitals don't have to absorb the cost of treating the uninsured, and therefore won't have to rely on government subsidies to offset this expense, as is currently the case in many jurisdictions. The latter is easily measurable and will result in direct savings to the tax-paying public. While there is nothing to force insurers to pass along the savings from not having to pay for high-cost items, there are additional savings from having a healthier population, individual patients are discharged and returned to work (where applicable) much sooner, and bed space is freed up to treat another patient. So really your criticism is more philosophical objection to the mandate, rather than anything concrete that you could point to. If we try hard enough, we could always conjure up the most extreme outcomes to any situation and posit them as criticism... sorta like a modified reductio ad absurdum.
As for (2) You say "poor people... knows it's bullshit." How come? How is guaranteed healthcare for those who can't afford it "bullshit"?
Bakes....you answer like a lawyer by refuting what the guy trying to say and talking in hypotheticals, but u never really answer the real question...."is it good, bad or in between." The Walmart scenario just illustrates what a company can to to avoid the headache ....hire them as 1099 workers (independent contractors), pay them what the market can take and let the people decide whatever they want to do with their own insurance. In this job market unskilled workers doh really have much choice.
This is what I know thus far (and I welcome any corrections or additional input).....nobody knows exactly what is going to happen because the rates are yet to be released and are due to come out in October. When that happens, people will have the option of keeping their present plans or finding a plan in the "marketplace" set up by the gov't. Some insurances are offering the option of early renewal in 2013 where u can hold your present rates for a year (which is a good idea so u can get to see what really going on) and some have opted not to enter Obama program.
In the marketplace, there will be tiered plans (gold, silver, platinum etc.) with different coverage levels as well as different percentage amounts that you are responsible for. The problem arises where people that previously had no coverage, or those with coverage that might have cost $100-$200/month might now be in a situation where the same coverage may cost $400/month plus your percentage to pay. Again these are scenarios based on what little info is there.
So that is where the problem lies.....because people will still not participate, regardless of the tax penalty. How are you going to fund it?