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.
. European systems, while not all identical to each other, appear to work well enough and are half the cost. What is the superiority of free markets here?
. Young people are bound to pay far more than their actuarial share in a national system. Is that fair?
. Health expenses are definitely backend loaded as you age.
. Medicare is highly subsidized (I believe that Medicare taxes account for about 1/3 of the total spent). Should it be means tested when used?
. Perhaps one answer is to have opt-out insurance rather than opt-in. A national plan, but if you are a rugged individualist, you have to pay cash up front for emergency rooms, hospital stays, any kind of medical procedure. If you can't afford it, you get a free aspirin.
. We could go a lot further towards a national plan if people didn't always ramp up the benefits. Catastrophic insurance is a lot easier to fund than $1 co-pays and free acupuncture (which is on the new California plan that won't get anywhere).
Trump promised us, again and again, that we would have coverage for everyone and it would be cheaper than Obamacare.
Why can't we get Medicare for everyone on the books? The premiums would be very reasonable with such a huge risk pool, and we would eliminate almost 1/3 of healthcare spending right off the top by eliminating so much of the administrative overhead brought about by all the payers.
I believe that administrative overhead by insurers is in the 10-11% range. Some small percent of that is profit.
The business of Medicare have 2% overhead is kind of disingenuous, they contract out the backoffice work I think (which isn't included in the 2%).
An opinion: Are insurance companies less efficient than the .gov at administering a health system? I seriously doubt it.
I never understood why all of the collectivists who want these things cannot just organize this themselves in the marketplace. I mean what stops a group of regressive 19th century authoritarians from forming a non-profit medical group so they can give away health care to anyone who wants it? I would never try and stop them and nobody else would either (hey, I might even donate some money if they seemed to be doing a good job). (Oh, their beloved government would, how ironic is that?)
Why does every collectivist wet dream involve using government guns to enforce their will upon everyone else? If the ideas are so great for everyone, everyone would voluntarily agree without the need of government goons.
In fact, the necessity of having to make something mandatory by using government aggression, is evidence that that something is horribly flawed. Somehow the "progressives" are always the most regressive when it comes to human freedom. The only thing "liberal" about them is in the liberal application of aggression towards their fellow man to impose their personal beliefs upon everyone else.
It already happened. It was called Blue Cross, later Blue shield was added. However over the decades this non-profit was regulated to mimic for-profit in order for the rackets to succeed. Over time even some BCBS are profit driven.
If there are not enough of such places, apparently the people do not feel the need to have more of them. Again, no one, (except ironically the State) is stopping any of the true-believer hard-line collectivists from forming their own non-profits to do their charity work.
Why do "progressives" always need to use government guns to enforce their personal will upon everyone else? If they want to give to charity, they can go ahead, no one is stopping stopping them.
If they want to impose their personal will upon others with initiations of force, by their government goons of course, that is pure evil. Call it statism, collectivism, socialism, communism, social democracy, whatever, once you compel others with aggression you are evil, regardless of intent. Charity is not done at the end of a barrel of a government gun. The ends DO NOT justify the means.
The government, and actually no person or group, has a "right" to initiate force upon anyone for any reason. Perhaps the government run indoctrination camps can teach medicine to kids instead of the history which they obviously do not teach at all. Then those good little servant/slaves of the State can grow up and provide free health care in their community after they "graduate".
Medicine, just like any other good or service is just that. It is not a right any more than is having an iphone. Does it cost far too much? In my opinion, yes. But that is mostly the doing of government regulations bought and paid for by the medical industry. Also in large part to the "virtue" of leveraged exploitation instead of exchange that is so entrenched in the elitist mentality of medical "professionals".
You don't like these government programs....until you need them. Then, you're the first to fight for them like it's your "right" as a "red blooded M'urican"....
This is all B.S., and a lot of people, especially the young and healthy, don't want to be forced to buy something they don't need.
Are you serious? Every day young "healthy" people come into the hospital with injuries or find out they have an illness. Sometimes it's serious. It is always expensive. Young people are least likely to have the money to pay those bills. So, yes, insurance. I got mine at eighteen years of age because that used to be considered adult. Now you get up to age twenty six on daddy's policy and you still complain...?
I think I rather like the notion of an 'opt-out' policy, call it antiinsurance if you like.
The idea here is that you institute a national plan, paid for by the usual suspects (VAT, high income taxes,etc.). Insurance could be run by non-profit organizations or for-proft via a bid, it doesn't really matter.
Rugged individualists get to avoid the system. We can pay them some monthly stipend for not being part of the system via tax refund...but...they have to pay cash up front for any healthcare. It would probably be best to carry around $5k or some prepaid debit card, for things like an ambulance trip. Surgery? Cash on the barrelhead. Prescription drugs are full boat retail.
In the case of Medicare, since it's very subsidized (the real cost is only partly paid for by payroll withholding), we can cut these folks a check for what they've paid in plus interest. From there on, all maladies of aging are on their dime.
If they like, private insurance companies can sell any policy they like to these people subject to no restrictions except for outright fraud in the contract. Any limits on payout are fine, preexisting conditions (including testing of DNA) is OK, gender is allowed in pricing. A completely free market in this case.
The newest version of the American Health Care Act will add an extra 14 million people to the ranks of the uninsured by next year, and 23 million by 2026, the Congressional Budget Office said in a score of the bill released Wednesday.
The CBO also notes that the new law would destabilize insurance markets in 2020.
CBO predicted 30 million not covered by obamacare....
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.
