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.
If people are allowed to opt out of healthcare insurance,95% of people will.
Guess what,when those same people get cancer or some other illness?
Who will pay for them then?
What I would like to see,for all the ones who want to opt out,is some form or document where they sign that they opted out of healthcare,and as such, will not get treated for free IN ANY way,shape or form,unless they they have all the money up front. I wouldn't fine them though. Signing a type of document like this would prove more useful in the long run.
I'm just sick of freeloaders,and as this is my career,it effects my pocketbook.
This is an excellent point but nobody seems to want to go there. They all want freedom not to buy insurance with the safety net of the taxpayer picking up the tab if they get really sick.
My view is that, if the taxpayer is going to continue paying over 50% of health care in the USA then we should just go to a full single payer UHC.
If people are allowed to opt out of healthcare insurance,95% of people will.
Guess what,when those same people get cancer or some other illness?
Who will pay for them then?
What I would like to see,for all the ones who want to opt out,is some form or document where they sign that they opted out of healthcare,and as such, will not get treated for free IN ANY way,shape or form,unless they they have all the money up front. I wouldn't fine them though. Signing a type of document like this would prove more useful in the long run.
I'm just sick of freeloaders,and as this is my career,it effects my pocketbook.
What is your solution for those who opt-out but don't sign the form? Irresponsible people wouldn't be responsible enough to sign an opt-out form.
If people are allowed to opt out of healthcare insurance,95% of people will.
Guess what,when those same people get cancer or some other illness?
Who will pay for them then?
.
The history proves that 95% will not opt out. If that was true, then 95% of americans would not have insurance today.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 05-03-2012 at 09:03 AM..
If people are allowed to opt out of healthcare insurance,95% of people will.
Guess what,when those same people get cancer or some other illness?
Who will pay for them then?
What I would like to see,for all the ones who want to opt out,is some form or document where they sign that they opted out of healthcare,and as such, will not get treated for free IN ANY way,shape or form,unless they they have all the money up front. I wouldn't fine them though. Signing a type of document like this would prove more useful in the long run.
I'm just sick of freeloaders,and as this is my career,it effects my pocketbook.
People have the option to opt-out now! You don't have to accept the ins. your employer provides. The "voluntarily uninsured" tend to be young, unmarried, childless males.
Either you didn't bother to read this thread before you spouted off or you have a reading comprehension problem, since your reply has already been stated by those of us "who are not among that group of people" who know the basics about corporations.
Did you know that employers could have saved billions by dropping workers from health plans at ANY time, regardless of health care reform? Many did, some didn't. Or, did they finally learn that they are paying for something they shouldn't?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerseygal4u
Does anyone know why children are covered up to 26 years of age?
So they have coverage, and focus on more important things in life. Why do you hate the idea?
The difference is that a person can switch insurance companies if customers hate their rules. If a company makes too many rules customers hate, they will change it or go out of business. You can't change your policy if the federal government is the only game in town and you hate their rules. There's much less consumer choice involved
That's it in theory; in practice it's much different. They all have these crappy rules, restrictions, etc. There is very little consumer choice involved in employer-sponsored HI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
1)That's 6% after paying executives huge compensation, which is an accounting cost.
2) Non-profit doesn't mean the firm doesn't make a profit. It just means there aren't shareholders or owners that benefit.
Non-profits are allowed to keep, I belive, 15% of their profits. The rest has to be put back into the business. There is nothing, about NP that prevents these orgs from paying themselves big salaries, either.
That's it in theory; in practice it's much different. They all have these crappy rules, restrictions, etc. There is very little consumer choice involved in employer-sponsored HI..
Hi Katiana, let me add these to my post you quoted above:
1. Selling across state lines, and eliminating the power of insurance provider monopolies on the state level should address your concern. It will foster competition in lower pricing and reduction of crappy rules or companies will go out of business for inability to compete.
2. The exchange idea from "Obamacare" was actually a good idea. I'd like to see less necessity for employer provided insurance (but not elimination since the existence of it probably insures people who wouldn't be responsible enough to obtain it on their own). With the exchanges, I foresee steep discounts being given to individuals due to competitive pricing.
Use the example of federally chartered banks vs. state chartered banks. We can allow insurance companies to offer insurance across state lines using federal guidelines that will supercede that state's guidelines. Disputes will be handled in federal court instead of state court. This is a Constitutional application of the Commerce Clause, in my opinion.
Isn't the primary issue with ACA that federal government is setting guidelines to the minimum standards all states must meet? And if they can, they are free to chose their ways as many have?
The only thing you want added to it is that, (say) United Health Care be allowed to operate from a different state. Why do states need that? Why can't Texas (for example) handle this issue on its own? Can your idea be also applied to, say, auto insurance?
Hi Katiana, let me add these to my post you quoted above:
1. Selling across state lines, and eliminating the power of insurance provider monopolies on the state level should address your concern. It will foster competition in lower pricing and reduction of crappy rules or companies will go out of business for inability to compete.
2. The exchange idea from "Obamacare" was actually a good idea. I'd like to see less necessity for employer provided insurance (but not elimination since the existence of it probably insures people who wouldn't be responsible enough to obtain it on their own). With the exchanges, I foresee steep discounts being given to individuals due to competitive pricing.
"Selling across state lines" is a code phrase for eliminating all insurance mandates. So you may buy some cheap insurance that turns out to be a little too cheap, e.g, it doesn't cover you when you're sick.
You have a more positive attitude towards ins. companies than I do, probably b/c I have to deal with them in my work. People have to have health ins. The ins. companies know that! They're not going to offer discounts, etc to attract customers. If they were, they'd do it now.
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.
