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.
This is what the conservatives/libertarians typically say. However I wonder exactly where people draw the line here. We can get the government completely out of healthcare, but that would entail 911 services as well. Would you who agree with the conservative motto agree that we should not have 911 services provided by the govt? The issue with that is that at the moment of truth, it would seem to me somewhat irrational to have to find someone's ID card, or look up whether a person is insured or not. So governments of the world have stepped in, very much the same as with putting out fires.
Secondly I have heard from at least Carly Fiorina that she meant the states should manage high risk pools on their last debate. This is not getting the government out of healthcare, but more accurately getting the federal government to hand the role back to the states.
Now I am not advocating complete government control of healthcare. I simply would advocate a limited role as catastrophic care provider. Very much the same role that Singapore has chosen to take with fantastic results. If either the federal or states provided the healthcare, I would assume that at least they would provide catastrophic coverage. That is why I think that America should copy Singapore in making a pragmatic decision about how to cover its people. We can still have markets and prices to deal with things such as the common cold. However the proverbial hit by a bus should be covered by government, since at the end of the day, that is who will end up paying the bill anyway.
lets not get stupid here shall we? yes get government OUT of health care, specifically the FEDERAL government. some regulation is needed to make sure the insurance companies are doing what is expected of them. but we dont need obamacare with its 2700 pages of law, and more than 22,000 pages of regulations that make things WORSE for the average person, what with higher premiums, much higher deductibles, and forcing the people to pay for crap they dont need or want.
many of the things the federal government does, should be done at the state or local level anyway, rather like the 911 system for instance. 911 is operated locally as it should be. heaven help us of the feds ever take over the 911 system, those idiots would be dispatching first responders from chicago to handle cases in miami florida!!
Admittedly an "out of the box" thought inspired by this other thread (link).
I have a radical idea that I entertain occasionally. Back in the day, before insurance was prevalent, medical service administration and bills were far lower. Basically you walked into an office, sat down in the waiting room and the doctor came out when he was ready to see you. My pediatrician bill, in 1963 was around $6. So even adjusting for inflation (and prices have not gone up six-fold) that would be $36 or less. As for reaching the doctor you would call and he would return calls between 5PM and 7PM except for emergencies.
Adult matters may be a bit more complex. However, I can't believe that the armies of paper-pushers are free, or needed. I wonder if we'd be better off eliminating employer-paid insurance, and perhaps recasting Medicare as insurance, for all people, against true catastrophes, such as complex cancer or heart disease, or muscular dystrophy. Much of the GDP is now going towards "health care" or more likely overhead. Insurance also distorts employment relationships. Since employer-paid premiums are deductible and the employees' share is paid in pre-tax dollars, too much money is allocated to insurance.
The net result of this is that no one is satisfied. Doctors are unhappy and not doing well. Patients are often stuck in "voice mail jail" dealing with insurers or medical care groups. And life spans have been expanded well beyond the ability of many people to work. Even if I can continue working (I'm a lawyer) can a pipe-fitter who goes into sewers or construction workers who go onto scaffolding often work into their 80's? Maybe some can. But not many. All and all I think we'd be better off with far less insurance.
can I just have my old healthcare plan back?? the one I was told "I could keep"????
the one I could actually afford, with a low enough deductible that it actually made sense to pay for it???
the one that I had that covered exactly what I needed and didn't cover what I didnt want it to???
can I get that plan back????
because if I can't... my whole family still goes without health insurance as we cant afford it now
You are probably better off. If I were you I would start learning about diet and herbs and using sites like this one. HerbalLegacy.com which has many of Dr. John R Christopher's formulas he used during his career as a Naturopathic Doctor and Master herbalist and before that as the only medic in the Army authorized to use herbs on sick and injured soldiers because of the wonderful results he would get using them.
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.
