The Economics of Obamacare

"Nobel Prize Winning"

That doesn't carry a lot of weigh anymore.

Since when? Since Obama was awarded a Nobel prize?

Lora

Nobel Prize Winner aside, cattle, fences and food crops, has got to be the worst analogy I have ever heard in my life on any subject of debate.

Every American should be outraged at the costs being passed down to them and be in full support of Obamacare.

My sentiment exactly !!!

Nobel Prize Winner aside, cattle, fences and food crops, has got to be the worst analogy I have ever heard in my life on any subject of debate.

Well, I didn't make it up but it does make sense.

In the most recent available figures from January 2012, Emperor Zero's own HHS Department admits they have given waivers to 1,231 companies. That means there are over 4 million people who've been told they get a pass and their costs get picked up by the people who weren't quick enough to get in on the get-out-of-Obamacare sweepstakes. Some cows are left to wander freely and the damage they are doing is charged, not to the farmer who owns the cows, but the farmer three houses down from him.

Both the left and right agree Obamacare needs to be repealed, it's just that the right says repeal it all at once, the left says do it one waiver at a time, based on how much genuflecting you do The Great and Powerful Emperor Zero.

T V

Excuse me, but am I to assume/understand from your comment that you would let a person with an illness or an injury go untreated because they are poor, indignant and/or living in poverty and thereby, can not pay for the needed medical services ?

If yes, what kind of ethical logic is that, better still, what kind of humanity is that, even more to the point, what kind of person are you? Do you really believe that such an attitude as you are displaying here on Gather News with your heartless comment, is morally acceptable in any civilized society ?

Further, from your statement, I would also be led to assume that there is no one in your family and/or among your close friends who are one of the 18 million people who are currently out of work and thereby, having to depend on social programs for their daily needs. Again, I must also assume there are none who are indignant, none which are senior citizens living on a fixed income, none which are living below the estab lished poverty level ? Such would mean and/or lead one to also assume, that all of your family and close friends are financially able to pay out of pocket for any illness and/or injury which may befall them. (hard for me to believe, knowing how prevalent and wide spread poverty is today)

Do you not personally know or know of, any indignant or poverty level person or people ? If no, then you are either living in Mitt Romney's neighborhood or you must be a total recluse and/or a person who shuts his eyes to that which he does not want to see.

The last report by the HHR Agency flatly stated, that one (1) out of every five (5) children live below the poverty level and are not assurred of having a meal to eat on any given day. Even with all the social programs we now have there are children and senior citizens who die each day because they do not receive proper medical treatment and you, if you were to have your way, would have even more people put into the same situation of death and dispair.

It would seem that as an American, even if you do not like ideological Liberal minded people and/or the President of the United States, as is somewhat apparent by the tone of your written comment, you would still have feelings of pity for those who are far less fortunate in life than you.

I'm afraid I do, Laura. Some of us on the left definitely do.

The bill is the dark side, though it has many fine qualities, they gave way to many concessions to the insurance industry that make it fatally flawed. The truth is, it makes no difference that I can now get insurance, I won't be able to, because they did not put any limit on what they can charge people with pre existing conditions. If I want a policy, the most I could afford is one that has a 2500 deductible before the policy even kicks in, and when it does, it pays only eighty percent. That policy would cost me four hundred and sixty dollars a month. I would not be any more able to afford going to the doctor, I would then be unable to afford my present prescriptions, because I gave that money to an insurance company for worthless insurance. We won't even talk about what the hell I would eat.

Each state sets up it's pool of insureds with pre-existing conditions. My partner takes depression medication -- that's considered a pre-existing condition. Because we cannot be legally married, she can't be on my health insurance through my employer but I found her a policy through our state pool of those with pre-existing conditions and I pay $232 a month for her coverage. That is actually half of what other insurance companies were quoting before I found this coverage provided by our state via Obamacare. And those other insurance companies not only quoted $400 plus dollars but then we got two denials -- none of them would have accepted her and she would not have coverage if it were not for Obamacare.
So, the cost of insurance for an individual is LESS under Obamacare that it would be without it. I simply don't believe otherwise, based on my experiences with the healthcare system to date.

My only assumption is that some states either aren't doing it right or haven't done what they are supposed to be doing to provide affordable healthcare to their citizens.

I have heard it said, as well as having read it in many written statements, that our country was founded on Christianity, if that is true, I would ask, where is that Christianity today. It certainly is not in the hearts of those who have no feelings of responsibility towards those less fortunate in our society. It is not evident in the Americans who are demanding that our government abandon the social programs established to assisst the unfortunate, poor, and indignant among our citizens.

Further, I would also pose the question, if Christianity was the basic foundation of our country and was a basic part of it's citizen's moral ideology, I would ask, what foundation does our country rest upon today and what is the moral character of our people ??????????

The Bible has a lot of hate in it too. I think that must be what they are focusing on these days instead of the good messages found there.

This country was not founded on Christianity, that is BS. It was founded on age of enlightenment philosophy.

Ron

I am of the belief that our country was established on the premise that we did not want to pay taxes to England since we had no representation in/on his Majesty's Lord High Court.

I guess that could be considered as enlightenment philosophy, kinda like, half a dozen of one or six the other, whichever is the more enlightened reasoning to the individual.

As to the idea that our country was founded on Christianity, I don't consider that as being BS, only as being Religious dogmatic rhetoric, spoken to make one feel good about their faith.

What it is is a lie. Call it what you want. The dominionists do.

People seem to think the clock stopped between the Puritans and the revolution, but it did not. At the time of the revolution, one in ten to three in ten Americans belonged to any church, depending on which historian you listen to, all of the sects were in major decline, and the only religion that was making any headway in this country was the deist religion, the religion that sprang forth from the age of reason. Historians have called it the religious depression. This country was founded on age of reason philosophy and old English common law.

And the objection to the taxes of a king are derived of that philosophy in the first place.

The way it is now is better than the super bureaucracy that BO & NP built. At least it would cost the taxpayer less. I have no problem with the needy getting proper care.

Actually, the affordable care act will cut the deficit. Unfortunately it does it by forcing a lot of people that now qualify for medicaid to buy their own insurance, and doesn't much care that they may have to quit eating to do it. Three times the poverty rate is not actually three times the poverty rate in this country.

People should not support Obamacare. This bill was poorly crafted and will neither improve the nation's health nor reduce insurance costs. The V.'s observations on the number of waivers that have been issued are good, but I think there are even better reasons to reject Obamacare:

(1) Obamacare includes a tax on makers of medical devices. Even if they can afford the tax, they are likely to pass on the cost directly or indirectly to the people who need their products. Consequently, those in need of the devices will see the costs of their health care go up in one area.

(2) The New England Journal of Medicine surveyed doctors and found that a significent percentage of them would consider quitting their profession if Obamacare is approved. I suspect that most of them will not actually do so, but considering how many people are reaching their retirement age and approaching the end of their lives, when medical care becomes more important (a large percentage of medical expenses are incurred during the last year of a person's life), the last thing any government should be doing is passing a bill that may cause fewer people to become family physicians. You do not reduce the supply when the demand becomes greater.

(3) Obamacare does not do anything to reform our malpractice laws. One big expense for doctors is malpractice insurance. If you can make frivolous malpractice suits less likely, you will reduce the cost of their insurance and some of that savings will eventually be passed on to patients.

(4) Most diseases (more than 60%) result from inappropriate human behavior and Obamacare does not do a great deal to cause people to change their lifestyles for the better. If the people in his administration had any sense, they would realize that the costs associated with health care in America could be dramatically reduced at very little cost, which would then make it possible for insurers to eventually reduce their premiums. All the administration needs to do is produce many really good public service announcements stressing the importance of eating foods that are high in fiber. Public service announcements were very influential in getting people to stop smoking: Before they were utilized more than 50% of American men smoked; now that figure is somewhere in 20% - 25% range.

(5) The bill does not really address the question of whether indemnity insurance with riders will be considered sufficient coverage. Many people really need nothing more than indemnity insurance and one or two good riders. The issue of indemnity insurance is important because health insurance is and will continue to be far more expensive than indemnity insurance for people past the age of fifty. I, for example, can save more than $150 a month by having indemnity insurance in lieu of health insurance.

What Obamacare DOES do:
1) Provides coverage for people with a pre-existing condition
2) Developed the National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council to promote healthier living and lifestyle choices (BTW - This negates your point #4)
3) Allows dependents to be on their parents' insurance till age 26
4) Prevents insurance companies from setting a lifetime limit on insurance coverage
5) Insurance companies cannot drop you for being sick
6) Medicare coverage is extended to small, rural hospitals
7) No copays for preventative care
8) Women's Preventive Services – including well-woman visits, support for breastfeeding equipment, contraception and domestic violence screening – will be covered without cost sharing.
9) And a slew of regulations to keep insurance companies from screwing over their insureds.

First, the creation of the National Prevention, Health Promotion and Public Health Council does not negate the point I made. That council will not cause most people to adopt healthier diets. It will help people about as much as the food pyramid did. When the government created that, it said people would adopt healthier eating habits. Guess what percentage of the American public was overweight or even obesebefore it was created. Less than 10%. Since that time the number of overweight people and the obesity rate have gone up, up, and away. And the creation of the food pyramid did not come free; it cost millions of dollars, taxpayer dollars.
The government has for a long time had these grand ideas about how it is going to make people eat healthier food. As a result, we see what percentage of vitamin A is in this product and what percentage of vitamin C is in that one. We see which frozen food product has lots of calcium and which provides us with some magnesium. In a country like Japan, where I lived for eleven years, the people don't get anywhere near the amount of nutritional information on their products that we get. Consequently, Americans should be eating much healthier food than the Japanese. Right? Wrong! The Japanese have one of the healthiest diets in the world, one that is much healthier than ours!
Second, I do not think that turning a 26-year-old ADULT into a DEPENDANT is such a great thing. If I could afford medical insurance and pay for my education at a very expensive private university (George Washington University), someone today should be able to do the same. Medical insurance for young people is far less expensive than it is for older people.
Third, if you eliminate lifetime limits on coverage, only the really big insurers will survive. Also, very few people would be willing to start up a new insurance company because they know AIDS-related, COPD-related, and cancer-related expenses over a long period of time could decimate them. Blue Cross/Blue Shield would love your business ideas! All their competitors would probably go belly up!
Fourth, "a slew of regulations" is not necessarily a good thing. Regulations are usually the result of aggressive lobbying by one company that wants to prevent its competitors from capturing part of its market. I suggest that you read some works by economist George Stigler. Every single regulation he studied was the result of one company's lobbying the government in an attempt to stifle competition. Do you know who was behind the effort to demonize eggs and cholestorol? Kelloggs, the cerealmaker.
I could go on and on, but I have a feeling that your mind is made up and you will not change it no matter what you read.

Just a point here, but tort reform is a pig in a poke. Despite the fact that insurance companies make sure any exceptions to the norm get highly publicized, lawsuits account for less than 4 percent of the healthcare dollar. The reform needed there is in the insurance industry that has used sensational cases to charge medical professionals insane rates far out of proportion to risk.

I don't disagree with your last statement, but just a few percentage points of the health care dollar really add up. Don't forget that you pay those premiums for many decades if you and your spouse live to be seventy, eighty, ninety, ....

The goal is to take people's rights, that have seriously been wronged, away from them, and give them no legal recourse. The vast majority of lawsuits are settled for reasonable damages, but in a for profit industry, the bottom line finagles what it can, where it can.

Dave - No government regulation, insurance plan, etc. is going to change people's eating habits. It's what goes INTO the food that is what is making Americans fat.
I don't necessarily think a 26 year old should be considered a dependant or that regulations are always a great thing.
I do believe that everyone should have healthcare coverage and should not have to worry about how they are going to pay for it. People should not have to make the decision about whether to pay their mortgage or stay alive by getting a medical procedure. It's morally wrong.
You can't regulate people's morals though either.
I still think Obamacare is a good first step to getting the inflated medical costs in this country under control. Is it perfect, no.
But do I think the whole thing needs repealed? Hell no.
We've got to start somewhere.

very few people would be willing to start up a new insurance company because they know AIDS-related, COPD-related, and cancer-related expenses over a long period of time could decimate them

So, insurance companies should only cover healthy people? And when they get cancer or aids, they should die if they cannot afford coverage? That is NOT the purpose of insurance.

They should cover people when the costs associated with treating them do not threaten their very existence. What is moral about forcing an owner of some business to incur expenses that will bankrupt him? Even if you decide that insurance companies should be forced to pay for people who have AIDS, COPD, all types of cancer ..., and they manage to survive, how do you think they will cover the huge extra expenses they incur? They will raise the premiums for younger, healthier people? What is moral about causing people who eat the right types of food products and choose not to smoke, to pay for the care of people who eat garbage and smoke in spite of the advice they receive from doctors?

Under the Affordable Care Act, about 630,000 uninsured veterans would qualify for Medicaid, and an additional 520,000 would receive subsidized health insurance in the state exchanges, according to a study from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. “It is striking how many of the uninsured veterans would qualify for Medicaid under the ACA,” said the report’s co-author Genevieve Kenney. Nationwide, 1.3 million veterans are uninsured, and another 900,000 veterans use VA care but have no other insurance coverage. On top of that, about 900,000 adults and children in veterans’ families are uninsured.

how do you think they will cover the huge extra expenses they incur?

That's why we pay a monthly premium for insurance. What about the healthy people who pay their premium for decades and never even use 1/10 of the benefits? The insurance companies should be smart enough to figure out what they need to charge as a premium to cover everyone's healthcare within the pool -- and believe me they ARE smart enough to figure this out. There are complex algorithms used to calculate every type of insurance premium.

Knowing that, how could an insurance company lose money?

What is moral about insurance companies and banks making record profits while more people fall below the poverty line?

What is moral about banks sidestepping the controls of Dodd-Frank (meant to decrease their huge bonuses and profit margins to equal things and regulate their haphazard hedging that almost caused a financial collapse) by adding additional fees passed on to consumers to make up the difference? The banks executives are unwilling to just make a decent living, they want to remain elitists. To keep their status, who is getting hurt? The middle class.

The middle class can't be squeezed much more in this country. There's hardly any juice left there.

"How could an insurance company lose money?"

An insurance company could lose money the same way any other company does. It charges too high a price for the service it provides and then loses customers. After losing those customers, it no longer can make a profit. Once it cannot turn a profit, it either goes into debt, goes bankrupt (if the situation is really bad), or sells its business to a competitor.
Companies go out of business all the time. Why do you think insurance companies are any different? If the insurance business was without financial risks and nobody ever failed, you would see more people starting such companies?

"What is moral about insurance companies and banks making record profits while more people fall below the poverty line?"

What is moral about the government forcing insurance companies and banks to surrender a large portion of their profits to solve problems they did not create? When a single woman gets pregnant three or four times out of wedlock and the result is that she ends up in poverty, the insurance companies and banks certainly should not be penalized. The person (or persons) who should pay the price are the guys who impregnated the woman.
Also, record profits means record gross profits. It does not mean record profit margins. Many companies that show huge gross profits on their balance sheets actually have very small profit margins. Fast food restaurants often make much money, but their profit margin is small. Consequently, their room for error is small. This year they might make $120,000,000,000 even though their profit margin is only 2% because they sell a zillion burgers. But two years later they could lose the same amount if the public decides that the new fast food place has better burgers.
What you don't seem to realize is that each company has to make lots of money when the going is good in order to stay in business when the economy tanks. Another problem is that businesses are often cyclical in nature because they are seasonal. Think about some little local landscaping business in Connecticut that makes its money by mowing lawns, weeding, pruning, .... It may make way too much money for your liking in spring, summer, and early fall, but what will happen to it in early January when half of the state is covered with five inches of snow? It has to make much money during its peak seasons in order to survive when it has no work and no income during the winter.

Hi, Lora...It is assumed that we are all helpless when it comes to paying for our health care. When I go to the doctor or to the emergency room, I pay for the visit, myself. If I have to, I will make payment arrangements to take care of my medical costs. If that is not an option, I will borrow the money to take care of my medical expenses. When I speak of individual responsibility, it is not merely a statement, but how I live my life. I do not expect you, or anyone else to pay for my health care expenses. It is not your responsibility.

Then you should support this legislation. It forces everyone to be responsible for their own healthcare costs.

Actually, Lora, there are many factors that people either do not understand or are just overlooking as being insignificant, but are not going to be possible in sustaining a system that will work. Like it or not, the insurance companies are basically cutting the checks to pay for the health care of those who are clients with the companies. The government seems to think that they can force the insurance companies to accept anyone who has a pre-existing condition and force the insurance companies to absorb the cost. This will kill the insurance companies. Pre-existing conditions will include cancer, MS, blood disorders, bone disorders, diabetes, aids, etc. It will consist of approximately 96 million clients that the government is going to force the insurance companies to not only accept, but to pay for their health care. The government not only does not have the right to force them to do so, but it will destroy the insurance companies, and that is the financial part of our medial system. The government is going to force the private sector (the actual components of the health care system) to absorb the cost. You cannot weaken the components of the system and expect to improve the system. I have actually read the entire health care bill, which has not been read by either congress before they voted on it, or by the the president before he signed it. The plan is about controlling the system, not improving it.

It's not right that people die because they cannot afford a mammogram. Or they die because they can't afford the cancer treatment. How do we expect to be the United States of America for much longer if we don't give a crap about each other?

I believe the healthcare costs are inflated. I also believe the numbers we are given (for annual nationwide insurance premiums, provider costs -- especially provider costs, medication costs, etc.) are wrong. I think the insurance companies can absorb the cost.

It reminds me of the Dodd Frank bill -- that puts a lot of much needed regulation on Wallstreet. It also took away some of the fees that contribute to the record profits that banks were making. The banks can absorb that and lower their executive bonuses by a few hundred thousand. But instead, they impose additional fees on the consumer to make up the difference. The government smacked their hand and they turn around and hit the consumer over the head with a bat. This is why the Occupy Movement believes the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The banks should not have been allowed to add those fees. They should take their punishment and move on. But instead, the bullies that they are, they pass the punishment on to the consumer. It's crap!

Lora, here is what I said should have happened, and it shows that I have always suggested that everyone have access to affordable health care. In a nation of 313 million people, the government has told us that 47 million people do not have health care insurance. (Keep in mind that this number includes about 20 million illegal immigrants by the government's own numbers) That means (based on their own numbers) that in a nation without a national health care system, there are 266 million people in this nation that do have health care insurance. That is not a broken system. It needs improvement, but our focus should be on those 47 million (if you include the illegal immigrants) and leave the 266 million alone for now. Our focus should be on providing health care for the 47 million, even if it has to be done with taxpayer dollars, but we do not need to renovate the entire system that works for the 266 million who already have health care insurance. To even consider including the 266 million indicates that the health care plan is all about controlling the whole system, not to improve the quality or to lower the cost. The plan, as written is not possible, mainly because it cannot be financed. The government is simply calling the shots, and will pay for absolutely nothing. The insurance companies, the pharmaceutical companies, the doctors, the nurses, and the hospitals will absorb the costs. Many small businesses and even large corporations have already promised that many jobs will be eliminated simply based on the fact that they cannot afford to insure them. This plan is a disaster and it was told that it had to be passed as soon as possible, even though it would not be implemented until 2014. Nancy Pelosi said we needed to pass the bill so we could see what was in it. We need to make sure every single person within our borders has access to health care and I have said that all along. But this plan will destroy the system, not improve it. It is based on guesswork and predictions that are full of economic flaws. It cannot be funded without pushing the components of the industry to the edge of bankruptcy. The government will have the ability to totally control the private sector of America if this plan is put into play, and that is the true goal. Read the bill. It will make that quite obvious....

Actually, this plan is highly advantageous to the insurance companies, who traded off the concessions they made for the 23 million new forced policy holders. This legislation was negotiated by the OA with big insurance and big pharma long before debate even started on it. Some believe even before he took office. Single payer was never on the table, and the public option was only a pipe dream for the homies. They sat back and let the right buzz like angry bees until the public opinion had fallen and expectations fell to where their agreement already said it would go. The people that will pay the cost of this are the ones that were previously eligible for medicaid, and will now be forced to buy worthless high deductible policies that they can ill afford. It cuts the deficit, and the medical industry still gets paid. It's a win win, unless you are above three times the poverty level, which is hardly three times the real poverty level, but hey, they're powerless, right?

I also agree with Vic. I am not quite as cynical as you, JJ, but the bill is a "monstrosity." I don't necessarily think Obama wants Americans to have a substandard life, but he definitely likes to control as much as he can get his hands on. I think, though, he wants to do that not because he strives to make our lives substandard, but because he is a paternalistic elitist; he thinks that he is smarter than everybody else, that he is the adult and we are a bunch of children who are incapable of making good decisions.

I actually think Obama is smarter than MOST Americans. The IQ in this country has been on a steady decline.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201103/are-americans-getting-dumber

The President should be smarter than anyone else in the country. He's making the decisions that affect us all. He should also be surrounded by equally intelligent people to advise him in all areas of running the country.
I believe his intelligence is yet another reason the right hates him so much. Humans hate and fear what they don't understand.

You have a point, Vic, about narrowing the plan to the 47 million without healthcare but Obama's plan -- I will preface by saying I have not read the bill in it's entirety -- says if you have health insurance, nothing changes. Your insurance stays the same. I've heard him say that.
So, the goal is to address the uninsured, those with pre-existing conditions, etc. and those of us with jobs and health insurance through our employers don't see a change. I know I have not. Other than my employer setting up a high-option plan and a low-option plan. I have to send in a blood sample and fill out a questionnaire to get on the high-option plan with a slightly lower premium.

Hi, Lora...The government plan has never been about only taking care of the ones without health care. The plan will affect everyone in various way, mainly the cost. Consider the following. If you only include those without health care insurance, you are talking about 47 million people. The government is not going to pay one cent of it. They have no money. The components of the health care industry are going to be responsible for the 47 million people. They are telling the insurance companies that they will be forced to accept approximately 96 million people who have pre-existing conditions. Can you imagine the money that will be dished out by the insurance companies to cover what will automatically be extreme costs for those with cancer, aids, etc.? People seem to not realize that the insurance companies are the ones who cut the checks to pay for the medical expenses, and unlike the payment of a premium by the client of $300, these checks could be extremely high payments. You multiply that by each of the ones with a pre-existing condition, and you have insurance companies that are in serious trouble. If we destroy the ones who actually fund the health care, who is going to pay? The government is wanting to take complete control of the health care industry, and the bill dictates what all of the components of the industry must do, and that is where the true problem comes in. The government does not have the right to control the private sector of America. Obama has appointed a "HEALTH CARE CZAR." That mean at this time, the president has control of the health care industry. That power that is not allowed bv the United States Constitution has been shifted to the executive branch of our government. That is complete control, and this bill is nothing but control. The quality of health care will decrease, as we have doctors who will be doing what the government says, instead of functioning based on knowledge, experience, and science. The government will dictate what health care you get, not you, and not your doctor. The cost will increase, instead of being lowered. Either that, or the components of the industry will literally go broke. People need to read the bill. If you do not think this bill is about controlling the industry, maybe you should ask yourself why there is mention in the bill of using the military to enforce the health care plan if necessary.

Well, first of all, that sounds absurd that the doctors in your area will not accept Medicare. Medicare has been around since 1965 and many senior citizens depend on that coverage. The doctors that "opt out" do so because the reimbursement is not enough???

Personally, I think healthcare costs are inflated and we aren't shown the REAL numbers. The doctors charge these HUGE bills --- of course Medicare isn't going to pay that! It's inflated to 3 or 4 times the actual cost of the services provided.
Then the insurance companies make a deal with the provider and pay them usually about half (or so it seems on some of the statements I've seen). The whole billing system is what needs reformed. Then over half of the Obamacare legislation is obsolete.

And you can get your medical bills paid if you walk into the welfare office and give them some kind of sob story that you're unemployed, desolate, depressed...I don't know what they say but I know one 18 year old who attempted suicide by taking their whole bottle of anti-depressants. They got a $20,000 hospital bill after their stomach was pumped and that person went to the welfare office and got the whole bill paid. Just like that.

I've never been so fortunate (or unfortunate) to have any of my bills paid either.

I feel that this legislation will, hopefully, eliminate the working person from getting a huge medical bill with no health insurance and getting it paid at the welfare office.

The case I described is because of a stupid choice. But many people are one legitimate accident away from either losing everything or walking into the welfare office to get the bill paid. It has to stop.

That's certainly a big difference ($3,800 to $34.88)! You actually think Paul Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare will fix that?
I also wonder, if it legitimately costs that much, why the huge difference in reimbursement?
And this is also a great example of the costs being passed down by someone who cannot or does not pay (in this case Medicare) to the paying insured (you or me). The doctor's office undoubtedly charges more for other things to recoup some of that loss, right?
So, if everyone had insurance -- that actually paid for their services -- it's more fair than having someone else's costs passed down to the paying customers, don't you think?