And you avoid the point.. so selling insurance with significantly less regulation (i.e. the insurers really dont need to cover the sick people) a better idea?
I can tell you its a great thing for healthy people... much much cheaper.
Its worthless for high risk people - those that are or are likely to get sick.
So if you want to make health insurance pointless, sell across state lines with loose regulation. No one will like the outcome of that, and that wont solve any problems with our health care system... it will only exacerbate it.
Its tough to treat health care as a pure free market issue... because in a free market, you can always refuse a good. In health care, you really cant refuse lifesaving treatment (at least, not if you want to have a society that doesnt resemble somethng from the 13th century)
And you avoid the point.. so selling insurance with significantly less regulation (i.e. the insurers really dont need to cover the sick people) a better idea?
I can tell you its a great thing for healthy people... much much cheaper.
Its worthless for high risk people - those that are or are likely to get sick.
So if you want to make health insurance pointless, sell across state lines with loose regulation. No one will like the outcome of that, and that wont solve any problems with our health care system... it will only exacerbate it.
Its tough to treat health care as a pure free market issue... because in a free market, you can always refuse a good. In health care, you really cant refuse lifesaving treatment (at least, not if you want to have a society that doesnt resemble somethng from the 13th century)
PLEASE tell me which market IS a "PURE FREE MARKET" Which market word you grant "Pure Free Market" worthiness? Answer: NONE Because you and other liberal have the NEED to CONTROL. It is like a sickness. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
Government totally LIED about the number of sick people who could NOT get insurance. It is a MINISCULE amount.... certainly not a large enough problem to DESTROY the greatest healthcare system in the world.
Most who do NOT have insurance CHOOSE not to have insurance, because they would rather spend their money on important things like cell-phones and designer jeans.
Total enrollment in the insurance program is up 50 percent over the last three months, from 8,000 to 12,000, but is a far cry from the projected 375,000 the administration anticipated would enroll by the end of 2010.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Dail...isk-pools.aspx
So you admit that the problem is COST... Is anything more expensive than government? Maybe if government instead of stealing 50% of my money they only stole 25%, you might be surprised what people could afford.
Oh, the issue is clearly cost. And that needs to be addressed. But of course, that wasnt gong to be touched with all the teapartying seniors screaming about how the government was going to take over their Medicare, and the Republicans jumping on concepts like 'death panels' - as if end of life planning was a horrible idea.
Health care is one thing that the government can do better than the private sector. Kind of like roads... would you really want every road in the country a privately owned road?
So your arguement is that once they have the utopian-government healthcare that they will NEVER be denied SPEEDY treatment for anything? Wow... you are dumb
Oh, the issue is clearly cost. And that needs to be addressed. But of course, that wasnt gong to be touched with all the teapartying seniors screaming about how the government was going to take over their Medicare, and the Republicans jumping on concepts like 'death panels' - as if end of life planning was a horrible idea.
Health care is one thing that the government can do better than the private sector. Kind of like roads... would you really want every road in the country a privately owned road?
Well, to respond to your misdirected railing...
1) I never said there was a pure free market. And a pure free market in health insurance is nonsensical and antithetical to the idea of health care for the sick. Really. Regulations in health care arent created because of radical liberalism... it doesnt make sense to have unfettered markets in health care.. at least if you want to keep people well and prevent people from dying in the streets.
2) There is a huge amount of people who are sick and cant get insurance. Many of those end up going broke and on medicaid. Massive medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy. (why do I have a feeling you would be the first guy to empty your parents assets when they had to go to a nursing home so you could get them qualified for medicaid and keep your inheritance?)
3) The ACA isnt fully running yet. Those numbers go up as the health insurance options rise.
So your point is that we should NOT sell health insurance across state lines?
Or is your point that we SHOULD sell health insurance across state lines?
Because clearly, the concept of selling insurance across state lines with NO regulation is a terrible idea, as has been clearly outlined in all the above posts.
I have a feeling you dont know what you want.. you just dont want government to touch your Medicare.
Oh, the issue is clearly cost. And that needs to be addressed. But of course, that wasnt gong to be touched with all the teapartying seniors screaming about how the government was going to take over their Medicare, and the Republicans jumping on concepts like 'death panels' - as if end of life planning was a horrible idea.
Health care is one thing that the government can do better than the private sector. Kind of like roads... would you really want every road in the country a privately owned road?
Not what I said at all. But I guess when you cant argue with the facts stated, you need to create straw men to beat up.
Did you say this: "Health care is one thing that the government can do better than the private sector."
How is that ALL that different from what I said? Is my interpretation of your words incorrect? Please correct me.
Do some research.... go lookup the denial rates for Medicaid and Medicare vs. Private Insurance. Just because you have "Coverage" doesn't mean you will get treatment. Big Daddy government is NOT as generous as you would like to believe.
Interstate sale of health insurance combined with tort reform and a few other things like pre-existing conditions could solve the problem very nicely. The argument that insurance sales will default to the states with the lowest rates is spurious. The risk pool will consist of all US residents.
Thats flat out wrong, unless the federal government mandates are as strict as at LEAST the median strictness in the nation for health care. And then, by definition, you'll piss off all the congresspeople, because half will have their states insurance regulations gutted, and the other half will have their insurance regulations tightened. Its politically impossible.
Glad to see you looked up 'spurious'.
Do some research.... go lookup the denial rates for Medicaid and Medicare vs. Private Insurance. Just because you have "Coverage" doesn't mean you will get treatment. Big Daddy government is NOT as generous as you would like to believe.
So what you're saying is that government can control cost better than the private sector. I agree.
What needs to be put in place is a system where we have government supplied basic healthcare for all, and supplemental coverage you pay for.
What? I dont get what you're saying. Can you clarify what you said.. maybe then it will make sense.
So what you're saying is that government can control cost better than the private sector. I agree.
What needs to be put in place is a system where we have government supplied basic healthcare for all, and supplemental coverage you pay for.
