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 majority of the population is fairly healthy at any point in time, just like the majority of houses aren't on fire most of the time. That is the entire point of a risk pool, FFS.
Maybe so....but they don't tend to stay that way do they?
So....when they do eventually need that now massively expensive health insurance, they can't afford to actually use it......
Because their previously (before Obamacare) much lower deductibles are now sky high........and they certainly aren't going to go back down just because they get sick and are no longer paying into the pool.
Again.....Obamacare did help some people but it screwed a lot more than it helped.
I did so by design... it was never meant to actually work.
It was designed to be a stepping stone to single payer, as they knew people would not accept it unless their heath insurance got much worse.
The VAST majority of the people in this country were covered voluntarily by their employers, most of the ones who weren't were on Medicare/Medicaid/Some other form of state assistance. It was a relatively small # of people who had problems with the individual market which could have been fixed with more market base solutions opening up laws to allow people to bargain in large groups/allowing insurers to sell across state lines. The remaining people w/o insurance should have looked for solutions at the state level. It's not and shouldnt be the job of the federal government. A one sized fits all solution for people in Rural Wyoming & New York City alike makes no sense. Federalism works.
States have licensed and controlled insurance, since forever.
Nothing prevented any state from requiring insurers to cover all preexisting conditions.
Nothing prevented any state from limiting or eliminating the look-back period.
A few did and some states let insurers cherry pick with unlimited look-back periods.
Some state pretended to have high-risk insurance pools that excluded more people and conditions than they insured. At the peak, only 200,000 people were enrolled in such pools while millions were denied insurance at any cost.
Selling insurance across state lines is BS.
50 states. 50 healthcare laws and regulations. Premiums are based on many factors including Geo Ratings. For example, Florida has 60 different Geo Rated areas. The same insurer can sell the same plan to people the same age, in different intrastate Geo Rated areas at significantly different premiums.
The ratio of local healthcare providers: local population matters.
The ratio of local hospital beds: local population matters.
The ratio of local Individual Plan insurers: local population matters.
The ratio of local healthcare providers and hospitals: in an insurer's network matters.
There was no one size fits all before the ACA and there is not a one size fits all, today.
Insurers have been abandoning the Individual Plan Markets for more than 25 years.
While I am a strong advocate for Universal Healthcare, I am not necessarily an advocate for Single Payer.
No two countries with Universal Healthcare do it the same way. A few are Single Payer. A few are entirely private insurer pay. Most are a mixed bag.
Because not enough Americans pay federal income tax. 45% of tax filers pay no federal income tax. Therefore, there's not enough tax revenue to fund it.
Implementing a 25% VAT tax (like many European countries have) on all consumer goods would fund it, but Americans won't go for that.
That's why we can't have nice things, like universal healthcare.
Nope. Just change the mode of fed income taxation. No exclusions, no deductions. A family of four doesn't pay any fed taxes on the first $25,000 or so of income. Make it first dollar taxation. For everyone.
If you hacked off all the govt tenticles entwined in the differing layers of health care, prices would fall and great advancements would be made, just as seen with TV's, computers, cell phones, appliances...
Opinions are not facts.
There is no such thing as free market healthcare, anywhere.
Most insurance plans and Medicare do not cover hearing aids/implants. Yet, such aids can easily cost $5000-10,000. Medicaid may or may not cover, dependent on the state and conditions.
Most dental plans have very limited coverage and no influence on cost. Yet the cost of dental care is unaffordable for tens of millions.
Plastic Surgery and cosmetic injectibles are not covered by insurance. People desiring to look better/younger managed to spend a whopping $12 Billion a year during the Great Recession.
Most people do not have pet insurance. The cost of veterinary care is beyond the reach of many pet owners.
OP...US is a capitalist country , not a socialized one. They have no idea how to run a socialized health based US plan. We also have incompetent politicians that could never run it.
Do you notice how they always call it single payer? They try to sugar coat it to avoid saying socialized healthcare. Socialized healthcare is always shot down as communism.
With capitalism our current healthcare 'plan' is what the US has developed over the decades. Profit is king! Just how it is. Best you can hope for in US is to not get too sick. Our healthcare will keep skyrocketing from greed and mismanagement.
I've written on this topic extensively. Only thing that would work in US is...
Socialized plan + keeping the current plan. Just like our educational system.
Rich don't want socialized, hospitals don't want socialized, but average person can't afford rich plan. You need health plans for both.
...you will never get it.
Who is " they" and what does Universal Healthcare have to do with Single Payer?
Most countries with Universal Healthcare do not use a Single Payer model.
Glad, that under the block grant program that with the way the is written that Republican states will get a huge gift for voting Republican.
I love the fact that the Republican got smart and wrote a bill that would reward the voters of their states for voting Republican with lots of federal money.
Mississippi will get an increase of 900 percent and South Carolina gets an increase of 300 percent.
Seems like under the block grant program and how it is written that Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota would see more money also.
Mississippi and South Carolina deserve all that extra funding because they voted against the Clinton/Obama agenda.
Liberal states like Connecticut or California would have to have a massive tax increase again or they will have to make huge cuts to Medicaid.
Hopefully these liberal states keep Medicaid and raise taxes and send business back home to Republican states that love low taxes.
Those who tout the "Universal Health Care" in Europe should check on the tax rate in those countries, and the quality of health care. It isn't free, and the quality often isn't the greatest.
One should always remember TANSTAAFL: The Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch! (with thanks to Robert A. Heinlein)
Greatest?
The US healthcare system ranks middle of the pack, compared to other developed countries.
We trend fatter and therefore are more vulnerable to diseases/medical conditions that otherwise are mostly preventable.
When 75% of the population is overweight/obese, is there any wonder why the US spends more?
We trend more violent and someone has to pay when people are injured.
Many US people in their mid 50's-64 do without healthcare insurance and hope they make it to 65 and Medicare.
But it's not paid for. One third of it is paid for. That's it. One third. That can easily be refunded in comparison to the expenditure. It's is a government program.
You still don't get it. 1/3 is paid for so how does the rest get paid? Answer raising prices of the coverage and/or taxing the people to fund it. So in the end we the people pay higher prices. Otherwise it goes bankrupt and no one gets it. That's twice I've said it. What part of that don't you understand? Answer that and quit ignoring it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
What does "since the government got involved" mean? It makes no sense. Government was involved from day one. There never was a time when government was not involved in Medicare.
Since government got involved in the healthcare business. That's what my entire point has been and you still don't get it? lmao you are beyond help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
I wish I knew the same people because so far what I've seen are seniors gleeful about taking away health coverage while they are ensconced in the warm embrace of Medicare.
That's not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
They would be singing a different tune if it was happening to them.
That's not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
And we know Republicans want to privatize Medicare, they always have, so why not combine the two and solve the problem for all? As it is, they will be taking health coverage away from millions within ten days.
You still don't get it. 1/3 is paid for so how does the rest get paid? Answer raising prices of the coverage and/or taxing the people to fund it. So in the end we the people pay higher prices. Otherwise it goes bankrupt and no one gets it. That's twice I've said it. What part of that don't you understand? Answer that and quit ignoring it.
Since government got involved in the healthcare business. That's what my entire point has been and you still don't get it? lmao you are beyond help.
That's not true.
That's not true.
That's not true.
We the people as in the people who are working and paying two thirds of the cost of senior's Medicare. While seniors vote to take away health coverage from those younger than they are. Because they think their one third contribution entitles them to unlimited medical coverage no matter what the cost forever and ever and ever because of a promise made in 1965. Except costs have increased dramatically since then, expensive treatments have been developed since then and they want and get all of it.
Republicans have been clear about wanting to privatize Medicare and they want to end Obamacare. Fine, end all of it and let us start over.
Chuck Grassley has come out saying it doesn't matter how bad the bill is, as long as Obamacare is repealed.
Grassley: Repealing O’Care Is More Important Than Whatever Replaces It
Not "we care about the health of our citizens" but "we need a political win no matter who gets hurt".
At this point, since they don't care and have made it clear they don't care, let's just scrap it all and everyone can be in the same boat.
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.
