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.
The more government has gotten involved in healthcare the more prices have increased. We just need even more government involvement.
Massachusetts is a wealthy state with an African-American population of about 2%.
And over 10% hispanics. And quite a few Asians.
It's wealthy because - it's healthy, educated and diverse. Texas....no state could have more wealth than that! They hit the jackpot with oil and gas and now wind and a lot of other resources.
But instead of using the money for education and health they enjoy talking about whether they are worth 3 billion or 4 billion.
That's the difference...whether one feels we are part of a country (commonwealth) or whether "this is MY oil and I own it and damn if I will pay taxes on it - in fact, I want the government to pay me subsidies".
Insurance, in the absence of government intervention, does not force persons with low risk factors to subsidize those with high risk factors. Nor are the poor subsidized. Nor do people who do not insure have to pay higher taxes because of their decision.
Insurance works by spreading risks. Typically over time those with low risk subsidize those with high risk. The enrollees typically don't know all their risks, and that is the information asymmetry that favors insurance. Gov't not needed there. Gov't is needed when low risk people are asked to subsidized those with known high risks, i.e. those with pre-existing disease. And Gov't may be asked to bail insurance if too many enrollees knew about or actually had increased risks. This is why the exchange plans are failing right now.
The only thing that will work, is major societal overhaul:
For starters, get the government, & doctors OUT of every person's decision-making process...
OK, so we let the family or person with a 90 IQ make their own decisions based on the marketing company that placed that cool ad on the TV?
This sounds like FREEDUMB again!
Since the government is paying 2/3 of the cost......AND also has the responsibility for basic safety of public health, "getting them out" would result in disaster.
I suppose you want those 90 IQ families to just use Siri and be done with it? Or stop in GNC and ask which supplements will fix them?
Or, better yet, send some money to Joel Ostein and have him pray for them?
I just don't get it. We are entering backwards bizzarro world again. This would be like asking NASA to get rocket scientists and physicists out of the Space Business and instead hire Joe Dirt.
Insurance works by spreading risks. Typically over time those with low risk subsidize those with high risk. The enrollees typically don't know all their risks, and that is the information asymmetry that favors insurance. Gov't not needed there. Gov't is needed when low risk people are asked to subsidized those with known high risks, i.e. those with pre-existing disease. And Gov't may be asked to bail insurance if too many enrollees knew about or actually had increased risks. This is why the exchange plans are failing right now.
I feel like I am repeating myself, but government already pays 2/3 of ALL of our health care costs.
The basic idea being floated is to make that 100% of our costs and then collect the money from all of us in taxes and fees. Heck, we are most of the way there already....
You act as if health is the same thing as car insurance. It's not.
everyone already has access to health CARE..the care is provided by a DR
insurance is not nor has it ever been about care
of the 40 million that didn't 'have' insurance...20 million didn't WANT the insurance
why would you spend $500+ a month for insurance if you are a health 20 something and only go to the doctor once a year for a checkup costing less than $200.... is it reasonable or intelligent to waste 500/month (6000 plus a year)(and most insurances are more costly than that) when you will only be using 200 dollars worth of service???? if you think so, then I have a bridge to sell ya in Brooklyn...
insurance...there's a sucker born every minute
For the system to work they have to make it like Social Security and take it out of peoples paychecks. The premiums went up because not enough people were paying into it. Even myself didn't for quite a few years... I just fudged my taxes and dodged the penalty.
If you're a 16 year old you're not collecting Social Security for another 50 years..but you start paying into it when you're young. They have to make health insurance the same way that's the only way it's ever going to work.
Then on top of that you have Fortune 500 for profit insurance companies screwing everyone over. It's bs after Hurricane Katrina all the insurance companies did was whine because they had to pay out. Then the govt even stepped in and helped them.
It's a total crock if you want to get rich and screw over the entire country, just start an insurance company.
Last edited by wanderlust76; 04-02-2017 at 10:09 AM..
I feel like I am repeating myself, but government already pays 2/3 of ALL of our health care costs.
The basic idea being floated is to make that 100% of our costs and then collect the money from all of us in taxes and fees. Heck, we are most of the way there already....
You act as if health is the same thing as car insurance. It's not.
You couldn't be farther off. As a doc I have been involved with teaching others since the early '90's why HC is so very different than auto or homeowners insurance. The asymmetry of information is potentially much larger in HC. The economic and implications on happiness and life much larger. The affect of age much more important.
In very crude numbers Gov't pays about 1/3. Taxes 1/3. And OOP's about 1/3.
Insurance works by spreading risks. Typically over time those with low risk subsidize those with high risk.
In the free market those with higher risk are charged accordingly. It is why one or two vehicle mishaps will cause your auto insurance premiums to rise and, yes, in a couple years they will go back down providing no other mishaps (you may have to switch insurance companies to get the most benefit in the latter case).
I feel like I am repeating myself, but government already pays 2/3 of ALL of our health care costs.
The basic idea being floated is to make that 100% of our costs and then collect the money from all of us in taxes and fees. Heck, we are most of the way there already....
You act as if health is the same thing as car insurance. It's not.
And corporations pay most of the rest. Why do you wish to burden the taxpayer with costs currently paid by corporations?
In 2014, non-Hispanic Whites had
a higher rate of health insurance
coverage (92.4 percent) compared
with Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics
(Table 5). The health insurance coverage
rates for Blacks and Asians were
lower than for non-Hispanic Whites,
at 88.2 percent and 90.7 percent,
respectively.33 Hispanics had the lowest
rate of health insurance coverage
in 2014, at 80.1 percent.
Yet hispanics, who have the lowest rate of insured, have a higher life expectancy than non-hispanic whites who have the highest level of insurance.
In the free market those with higher risk are charged accordingly. It is why one or two vehicle mishaps will cause your auto insurance premiums to rise and, yes, in a couple years they will go back down providing no other mishaps (you may have to switch insurance companies to get the most benefit in the latter case).
That's why I said obese people should have to pay more...if they get in shape, their premium goes down.
If you want to make it like auto insurance that's how you would have to do it.
In the free market those with higher risk are charged accordingly. It is why one or two vehicle mishaps will cause your auto insurance premiums to rise and, yes, in a couple years they will go back down providing no other mishaps (you may have to switch insurance companies to get the most benefit in the latter case).
Agreed.
But in medicine there are many who will predictably have many 'accidents', or already are experiencing a long term 'accident'. So retail coverage for them is well nigh impossible because of the potentially enormous medical expense. Auto insurance can be limited to the lowest acceptable liability with a useful but cheap car and no collision coverage. I'm not sure with HC insurance if you can still get a policy 'rider' and get coverage for all but your pre-existing. But IMO that seems reasonable if it fits.
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.
