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.
In 2006, Massachusetts launched a first-in-the-nation initiative requiring nearly everyone to get health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Because of that law, Massachusetts now has the highest percentage of insured in the country. But soaring monthly premiums, combined with skimpier coverage for services and medications, has burdened many with bills they can no longer afford. And calls to consumer help lines from residents with health insurance are mounting...
What does this indicate as far as applying a broader Massachusetts approach to the rest of the country? I ask because Massachusetts' healthcare seemed to be viewed as a model that could be applied to other states.
Much of the rise in healthcare costs nationwide, the study concludes, is linked to increasing use of prescriptions and hospital care, pricey new medical screenings, and an insurance market with few consumer protections.
As far as those consumer protections related to the insurance market. What kinds of possible protections are they referring to?
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,024 posts, read 22,712,119 times
Reputation: 36018
I strongly disagree with the government mandating that people pay for insurance, especially if the cost is prohibitive for those with pre-existing conditions.
Once again, this situation never addressed the rising cost of health care. The main problems arise with the insurance middle man dictating health care costs and working with doctors on these. Let's cut out the insurance, cut out the admin costs and see how much healthcare costs go down.
Once again, this situation never addressed the rising cost of health care. The main problems arise with the insurance middle man dictating health care costs and working with doctors on these. Let's cut out the insurance, cut out the admin costs and see how much healthcare costs go down.
Are you advocating for a single-payer system? If so,what kind of issue will tax funding be with 78 million baby boomers starting to retire? That's a significant loss of tax revenue needed to fund a single-payer system.
I've heard that it's best to have more competition between those insurance companies. This will bring down cost or keep them in check. I liked McCain's idea of making it easier for people to shop accross state lines for private insurance.
Quote:
John McCain advocates allowing insurers to compete across state lines. Currently, it is not possible for a person in one state to buy a cheaper health plan with more benefits in another state.
I strongly disagree with the government mandating that people pay for insurance, especially if the cost is prohibitive for those with pre-existing conditions.
So then you agree that someone else be forced to pay it for them.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,024 posts, read 22,712,119 times
Reputation: 36018
Quote:
Originally Posted by coastalrap
So then you agree that someone else be forced to pay it for them.
I think people should be free to decide whether to purchase it or not. Since I have a "pre-existing" condition according to my insurance company due to a past condition I had, personal insurance would be expensive for me. I would probably purchase it anyways as protection for myself but I don't want any governmental agency forcing me to purchase it without offering me some help in paying for it.
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.