Sanguine, I made a mistake placing that post on this thread. As you well know, I depart from social conservatives on most of the social issues, but I'm a perfectly conventional conservative when it comes to health care reform. I certainly do "expect capable adults to take care of themselves and not take from others". My focus on health insurance access has mostly been on addressing the arbitrary disparities faced by HARD WORKING folks in a system that's based on employment status. This isn't about the virtuous vs. the non-virtuous. Too many working poor don't have effective access to health insurance because their employers don't offer coverage, or they must juggle multiple part-time jobs. The ACA is a failed attempt to address that. But I don't want to give up trying.
Without concern for the very HARD WORKING people the ACA has cost not only health insurance, but their full time jobs?
Why don't those employers offer coverage?
Because the coverage they could afford to offer dried up in the face of Obamacare demands, that's why. Forced to choose between closing their doors, penalties, or cutting hours (and not offering the plans they may have had that no longer were in the marketplace because of the ACA), those employers did what they could--the only thing they could, they cut hours.
Now those employees have to work two jobs to make up that income, which means they don't even have a shot at getting in some overtime. This is a result which was predicted, and it happened. So much for advocacy for the "hard working poor".
But we know the real reason you laud Obamacare, don't we?
Your advocacy of so many things 'gay' ignores the fact that the 1.3 million people (hard working or not) who have HIV/AIDS are going to have medical bills between 600K and 750K (each) in their next 25 years of life (A trillion dollar aggregate liability, now, and growing). You couldn't mean the junkies in that bunch because it's hard to claim someone who spends time with a spike in their arm is "hard working", so that leaves the risk groups of homosexuals and the promiscuous, who are reputed to have plenty of overlap.
Insurance companies ordinarily would not underwrite such a serious risk without exhorbitant premiums, and you want the rest of us to pick up that tab.
It isn't about little Johnny with cancer, or little Susie with leukemia, (they can turn to Shriner's or St Jude's and/or community assistance from church groups and others) it is about the people you claim have the 'right' to demand services from a baker or florist for their ersatz wedding, demanding health insurance from the rest of us. Why don't you just come clean and stop lying about this?
