Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not going to answer this one since it is so clear.....
However, I'm really glad that Trump types are pushing this sort of thing...even after it was the #1 concern in the last election and they got "trumped" with it.
It's nice to have full proof of the rights support for crimes, russian interference and lack of caring for fellow Americans right out in the open. No more "compassionate" conservatives...rather deplorables are in fashion.
There does not seem to be a solution for this, because everyone has been brainwashed to fear the "R" word. You don't need much Regulation in the free markets for goods and services that are optional - cars, restaurants, smart phones, hotels. These markets tend to regulate themselves through the normal laws of supply and demand.
Civilized nations understand the need to regulate markets with inflexible demand - like health care.
Insurance companies will still make a fine profit, and they will still remain competitive if they are ALL required by regulation to play on the same field and are ALL required to cover pre-existing conditions.
There does not seem to be a solution for this, because everyone has been brainwashed to fear the "R" word. You don't need much Regulation in the free markets for goods and services that are optional - cars, restaurants, smart phones, hotels. These markets tend to regulate themselves through the normal laws of supply and demand.
Civilized nations understand the need to regulate markets with inflexible demand - like health care.
Insurance companies will still make a fine profit, and they will still remain competitive if they are ALL required by regulation to play on the same field and are ALL required to cover pre-existing conditions.
The most simple form of regulation, price transparency to whatever extent possible for health care providers.
There does not seem to be a solution for this, because everyone has been brainwashed to fear the "R" word. You don't need much Regulation in the free markets for goods and services that are optional - cars, restaurants, smart phones, hotels. These markets tend to regulate themselves through the normal laws of supply and demand.
Civilized nations understand the need to regulate markets with inflexible demand - like health care.
Insurance companies will still make a fine profit, and they will still remain competitive if they are ALL required by regulation to play on the same field and are ALL required to cover pre-existing conditions.
I'd say everyone is brainwashed to thik that they need a middleman either govt or insurance to dictate how much to pay what is covered.
get RID of it. Gone. Watch prices DROP in order to compete for business.
I'd say everyone is brainwashed to thik that they need a middleman either govt or insurance to dictate how much to pay what is covered.
get RID of it. Gone. Watch prices DROP in order to compete for business.
We already know that's true by merely looking at the cosmetic surgery industry. Elective. Not covered by health insurance. They have to compete for patients/clients on the basis of cost/benefit.
I'd say everyone is brainwashed to thik that they need a middleman either govt or insurance to dictate how much to pay what is covered.
get RID of it. Gone. Watch prices DROP in order to compete for business.
You missed the most important part of my comment, or you simply didn't understand it.
Cosmetic surgeries are a market with FLEXIBLE demand so you are correct - they will respond to the law of supply and demand. Markets with INFLEXIBLE demand do not behave the way you describe.
Drugs that are required for you to remain alive? Treatments or surgeries that are required for you to remain alive? These are markets that are inflexible, because these goods and services are not optional. Not optional at least in a civilized nation. It becomes increasingly clear than many people have no desire to live in a civilized nation.
To follow your logic to the ultimate conclusion, those that require these expensive life sustaining goods and services should be terminated. That would resolve the problem of limiting the profitability of insurance companies and health care providers, right?
You missed the most important part of my comment, or you simply didn't understand it.
Cosmetic surgeries are a market with FLEXIBLE demand so you are correct - they will respond to the law of supply and demand. Markets with INFLEXIBLE demand do not behave the way you describe.
Drugs that are required for you to remain alive? Treatments or surgeries that are required for you to remain alive? These are markets that are inflexible, because these goods and services are not optional.
At least as I said before in a civilized nation. From what I can see, we have no desire to live in a civilized nation. To follow your logic to the ultimate conclusion, those that require these sort of life sustaining goods and services should be terminated. That would resolve the problem of limiting the profitability of insurance companies and health care providers, right?
And if no one can afford to buy them, the company DIES.
The services, drugs and devices will have to be affordable.
Or they go out of business.
Do you not understand that? How do you jump from well, that poster doesn't think insurance works so that means the poster wants everyone to die? Really??? THAT is what you consider "LOGICAL"?
Good gawd. No wonder people willingly hand off tens of thousands of dollars each year and actually get NO healthcare. It all goes to insurance. And they think that is logical.
The "reason" insurance companies *should* cover pre-existing conditions is because everyone has them - by excluding them, most everyone on the planet would have their "conditions" excluded.
I know how insurance works - not everyone with pre-existing conditions is going to be tapping the system - they will still pay in and will either not get treatment, or will die (after contributing quite a bit for years and years).
Also: If insurance companies and doctors, et al were smart - the focus would be on health and preventative care - this would pay off for everyone involved (well, not the doctors).
The "reason" insurance companies *should* cover pre-existing conditions is because everyone has them - by excluding them, most everyone on the planet would have their "conditions" excluded.
No, they don't. You are bastardizing the word. Pre-existing = Previous-Existing. Pre-existing condition means the condition has Previously occurred or Exists right now, not that it will some day in the future. Where it gets dicy is when genetic markers show a predisposition to an issue however I'm good with mandating that Pre-disposition != Pre-Existing.
Exactly. Just charge each person $10,000/year in taxes to cover the cost. If they can't pay, they're not insured.
Single: $10,000/year
Couple: $20,000/year
Mom and two kids: $30,000/year
Family of four: $40,000/year
Etc.
We pay $10 000 per person today. Apparently Medicare for all would reduce the cost.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
