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.
A quantum leap in the right direction would be to reward healthy living. Reducing premiums for people who don't use it. Why is a person who eats healthy, keeps their body mass in check, doesn't excessively drink or smoke, ball-and-chained to the other 80%???
Because that is how it works when you live in a developed nation. You contribute to the good of the community and sometimes you have to make personal sacrifices to do that. For instance, I don't have kids but I pay taxes that go to schools.
If you don't care about your fellow man, you can move to one of the many third world countries that do not provide Social Security, Medicare, or much education either. Of course the roads tend to be bad, water quality is iffy, police and legal system is iffy, and you are on your own for a lot of things.
You don't, because the Democrats refuse to lift a finger to make any changes to the disastrous scheme whatsoever. On top of that, there is actual ideological diversity in the Republican caucus, so they don't have the votes to do anything.
The only solution is to elect more free market conservatives and fire more Democrats.
Only solution?
Can you provide one example of a country with a " free market" healthcare system that is successful?
Because that is how it works when you live in a developed nation. You contribute to the good of the community and sometimes you have to make personal sacrifices to do that. For instance, I don't have kids but I pay taxes that go to schools.
If you don't care about your fellow man, you can move to one of the many third world countries that do not provide Social Security, Medicare, or much education either. Of course the roads tend to be bad, water quality is iffy, police and legal system is iffy, and you are on your own for a lot of things.
I don't agree with your premise. I don't agree with incentivizing bad behavior.
Our objective should be to lower health care costs for everyone. An easy way to do that is to incentivize good behaviors, i.e., eating healthy, exercising, not smoking, not using drugs, etc., and going in for routine checkups. People who choose to live healthy lifestyles should pay less for their health care. People are still free to smoke, use drugs, not exercise, and/or maintain a poor diet, but, if they do so, they should pay more for their health care.
How might we do this? Implement a mandatory annual or bi-annual check-up with a blood and/or urine test. If the person doesn't meet the criteria for a healthy lifestyle (whatever that is), or they refuse to go in for the periodic check-up, make them pay a higher rate for health insurance. If the person goes for the annual or bi-annual check-up and is found to be living a healthy lifestyle, then give them a lower rate for health insurance.
I see that idea floated a lot, but no one has ever suggested how the buy-in would be structured for those who haven't already paid Medicare tax for decades. There'd be a full-scale riot if everyone suddenly becomes eligible for that which others have had to pre-pay tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or in some cases, millions of dollars over the span of their careers.
We'd have to tax like they do. Would you agree to flattening the federal income tax brackets so that the top bracket kicks in at a middle class income? And then add a 20%-25% VAT tax on top of that? If so, it might work.
I would take some elements of the Swiss system. Regulate insurance so for example deductibles are standardized. Cap premium costs to a percentage of income. The Swiss use 8% but I would recommend 10% so that no one pays more than 10% of income for insurance.
I would include a provision similar to the Swiss that if you make substantial life style changes that have positive health results a portion of the premium you paid is rebated.
We could do that within the current ACA structure
You mean charge the overweight and obese, smokers, drug/alcohol abusers, etc., more for their health insurance? Yeah, that absolutely HAS to be done.
The fear mongering about taxes is funny, but the the math is math (at least in this universe).
All other first world countries have UHC in one form or another, and no "free market", the grand total per capita is cheaper. PERIOD.
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.
