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.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,610,214 times
Reputation: 9169
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by sprez33
Canada does not have a "single payer" insurance program. It has a three tiered program:
1. Minimal gov't provided payment system
2. Private health insurance
3. Cash market
Dental and vision aren't covered by Medicare, that's what the supplemental private insurance is for, and private insurance can't duplicate things covered by Medicare.
Did your Democrats address that? No, because Democrats are part of the problem.
Health insurance is not the problem. The problem is the cost of medical care.
Health insurance is part of the problem but not because of what they charge or cover. The problem is they have reduced a free market by cutting back-room deals with providers. That is why the medical bill starts out at $50k but gets reduced to $10k which is what the insurance will pay. All of that reduction is a deal they have struck with the hospital. But it reduces cost transparency and prevents us, the consumer, from making open market decisions. That is the big problem. Well, one of them.
I am not convinced we need M4A, at least not what Warren is pitching, but I believe we need to overhaul the insurance industry and probably have a single national insurance company.
I also believe we need to help cover those people who cannot afford healthcare.
Quote:
Making hospital monopolies and monopolistic cartels illegal -- which is what Euro-States have done --- will reduce your medical costs 30%-60% overnight, causing the cost of your health insurance to drop 30%-60% overnight.
If you adopted the European healthcare delivery system, then you'd save another 10%-30% in medical care costs which will reduce your health insurance another 10%-30%.
I pretty much agree with this ^^^. Most states have insurance commissions that restrict how much insurance companies can charge us. We need something similar for healthcare.
The question was what kind of medical insurance I would like to see, not what kind of medical insurance I think properly addresses how those without insurance can access health care services.
WHAT I WANT is exactly as I described.
Government totally removed from the equation.
My insurer and I working out a policy that is mutually beneficial, free from coercion or duress, according to voluntary association.
Government totally removed from the equation.
Government totally removed from the equation.
Government totally removed from the equation.
Government totally removed from the equation.
That's WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, which is the direct answer t the direct question of "what kind of medical insurance plan(s) would YOU LIKE TO SEE?"
Protecting all of us is not my freaking concern when I purchase any product. I don't GAFF what your plan is, how easily you can access health care, what your freaking health status is, none of it. It is not my concern in any way whatsoever. On that same token, I don't expect you to care even one iota about any of the above for me. Not your concern, never going to be.
So what I would like to see is individual plans being truly individual, same as every other good/service under the Sun. Purchase it if you like, do not purchase if you don't. Weigh the cost and benefits, caveat emptor, blah blah.
Then it sounds like health care through bankruptcy is your plan.
Look into Australia's system... It's not just the coverage but also how they pay for it. An excellent starting point and everybody has skin in the game.
Medicaid for unemployed? Most red states did not expand Medicaid to unemployed adults.
That's because Republicans in Red States pretty strongly see Medicaid as wrong and immoral, because it encourages people to depend on the state for their health care, rather than themselves.
That's because Republicans in Red States pretty strongly see Medicaid as wrong and immoral, because it encourages people to depend on the state for their health care, rather than themselves.
But they just end up going to the ER for every little thing. The hospital ends up billing the county which then raises your property tax. So you are paying for them anyway. If they could go to a regular doctor it would be far cheaper for everyone. That is the theory behind giving healthcare to poor people, ultimately it costs the tax payer less.
Where did I say screw everyone else? I simply said what other people purchase or don't, what they can afford or can't, etc is not my concern.
If other people having insurance is your concern and you are so altruistic...how many poor people are you buying insurance for right now...voluntarily, with your disposable income? How many other deductibles are you paying the OOP costs for...voluntarily, with your disposable income? I am betting the answer is NONE, at least outside of your marriage/children.
You care about your fellow man less than I do, truth be told. Wanna know why I can say that? Because I admit I don't care, but I am not advocating putting a gun in anyone's face to make them pay for other peoples' stuff. You on the other hand, under your assumed guise of "caring" are advocating exactly that. You want a gun put in my face in order to fund people you think deserve things that they cannot pay for but I can. That's how the statist ideals work. The government has no money until they first take it, by force, from those who have it. That's what you advocate on behalf of...taking money from everyone, by force, to fund what you think is "beneficial" to society. That doesn't make you a caring person, it makes you a thief and a hypocrite. Really, the only difference between you and a common thief is the common thief has the guts to face me man to man, they don't lie about what it is they are doing, and they don't demand that I sanction their actions under some nonsense about social contracts and all that.
No statist, especially such a devout one as yourself, can come at me and talk about caring about others. It's pure hypocrisy. Caring about others means you volunteer your money, not demand that I volunteer mine. I'd explain how those are different, but trying to explain logical consistency and morality to a statist would less productive than trying to teach Trigonometry to my cats.
You can have the greatest plan on Earth .. others lack of healthcare is still gonna cost ya buddy. You know that already so why are you pretending otherwise?
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.
