US government set to sponsor nationwide health insurance

  • 84 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Aljosa23 (26232 posts) -

WASHINGTON The Obama administration will soon take on a new role as the sponsor of at least two nationwidehealth insuranceplans to be operated under contract with the federal government and offered to consumers in every state.

These multistate plans were included inPresident Obamashealth care lawas a substitute for a pure government-run health insurance program the public option sought by many liberal Democrats and reviled by Republicans. Supporters of the national plans say they will increase competition in state health insurance markets, many of which are dominated by a handful of companies.

The national plans will compete directly with other private insurers and may have some significant advantages, including a federal seal of approval. Premiums and benefits for the multistate insurance plans will be negotiated by theUnited States Office of Personnel Management, the agency that arranges health benefits for federal employees.

Walton J. Francis, the author of a consumer guide to health plans for federal employees, said the personnel agency had been extraordinarily successful in managing that program, which has more than 200 health plans, including about 20 offered nationwide. The personnel agency has earned high marks for its ability to secure good terms for federal workers through negotiation rather than heavy-handed regulation of insurers.

John J. OBrien, the director of health care and insurance at the agency, said the new plans would be offered to individuals and small employers through the insurance exchanges being set up in every state under the 2010 health care law.

No one knows how many people will sign up for the government-sponsored plans. In preparing cost estimates, the Obama administration told insurers to assume that each national plan would have 750,000 people enrolled in the first year.

Under the Affordable Care Act, at least one of the nationwide plans must be offered by a nonprofit entity. Insurance experts see an obvious candidate for that role: theGovernment Employees Health Association, a nonprofit group that covers more than 900,000 federal employees, retirees and dependents, making it the second-largest plan for federal workers, after the Blue Cross and Blue Shield program.

The association, with headquarters near Kansas City, Mo., was founded in 1937 to help railway mail clerks with their medical expenses, and it generally receives high scores in surveys of consumer satisfaction.

Richard G. Miles, the associations president, expressed interest in offering a multistate plan to the general public through insurance exchanges, but said no decision had been made.

Our expertise in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would be useful in the private marketplace, Mr. Miles said in an interview. But we are concerned about the underwriting risk in providing insurance to an unknown group of customers.

To be eligible to participate in the multistate program, insurers must be licensed in every state. The Government Employees Health Association recently bought a company that has the licenses it would need.

The new health care law stipulates that at least one of the multistate plans must provide insurance without coverage ofabortionservices. If a plan does cover abortions, it must establish separate accounts, one with money for abortion and one for all other medical services.

National insurance plans will be subject to regulation by the federal government, state insurance commissioners and state insurance exchanges. That mix could cause confusion for some consumers who have questions or complaints about their coverage.

The federal standards will pre-empt state rules in at least one respect: the national health plans will automatically be eligible to compete against other private insurers in the new exchanges, regardless of whether they have been certified as meeting the standards of those exchanges.

The administration has promised to work cooperatively with states. But it is unclear whether the government-sponsored plans will have to comply with all state laws and consumer protection standards; whether they will have to comply with state benefit mandates; and whether they will have to pay state fees and taxes levied on other insurers to finance exchange operations.

TheNational Association of Insurance Commissioners, which represents state regulators, expressed alarm at the prospect of a double standard.

It is absolutely essential that multistate plans compete on a level playing field with other qualified health plans, which are subject to state insurance law, the association said in a letter to the Office of Personnel Management.

Consumer groups expressed similar concerns. The national insurance plans and other carriers must be subject to identical standards, they say, or consumers cannot make valid comparisons.

Multistate plans have real potential benefits for consumers, said Ronald F. Pollack, the executive director ofFamilies USA, a liberal-leaning consumer group. But there is also potential trouble if the multistate plans are exempted from some consumer protection standards.

Robert E. Moffit, a senior fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said he worried that the nationwide health plans, operating under terms and conditions set by the federal government, will become the robust public option that liberals always wanted.

Insurers are pleading with the Office of Personnel Management to provide more detailed guidance.

We are concerned that O.P.M. has not yet released rules specifying the requirements for the multistate plan, said Jay A. Warmuth, a lawyer at UnitedHealth Group, one of the nations largest insurers.

Rules for the new program have been under review by the White House for three months, and officials said they would be issued soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/health/us-to-sponsor-health-insurance-plans-nationwide.html?_r=2

ummm wut. this came out of nowhere. awesome or awesomer?

#2 Posted by l4dak47 (6838 posts) -
It's a sad day as the U.S. becomes even more communist under that stinking, kenyan, liberal, socialist, communist, fascist, illegal, god-hating, leftist president.
#3 Posted by sexyweapons (5302 posts) -

its amazing how far left America is now

#4 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29946 posts) -
 .
#5 Posted by gameofthering (10515 posts) -

Seems like an improvement.

#6 Posted by TheFallenDemon (13933 posts) -

kraychik am cry

#7 Posted by Jackc8 (8500 posts) -

Love the idea of the government "sponsoring" something. As if their money comes from someplace other than the taxpayers.

#8 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13595 posts) -

Seems like an improvement.

gameofthering

Yup. I'll look into it. Humana (my current HMO) has so many exclusions and conditions that I feel like I'm gambling every time I see a doctor. I called once ahead of time and asked if a glaucoma test is covered because I'm a glaucoma suspect, and the final answer was "it depends."

Fvck, why the hell do I even write these people a check?

#9 Posted by l4dak47 (6838 posts) -

Love the idea of the government "sponsoring" something. As if their money comes from someplace other than the taxpayers.

Jackc8
Which is why single-payer system is best system.
#10 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43333 posts) -
Bring down premiums please.
#11 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -
I guess this means freedom is dead now
#12 Posted by Aljosa23 (26232 posts) -

Bring down premiums please. Stevo_the_gamer
Yes. This will make your healthcare much cheaper and competitive. win win!

#13 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Bring down premiums please. Aljosa23

Yes. This will make your healthcare much cheaper and competitive. win win!

Competition is what conservatives have been saying will be our silver bullet anyways.
#14 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43333 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Bring down premiums please. Aljosa23

Yes. This will make your healthcare much cheaper and competitive. win win!

Thank you Canadian for continually to be enthralled by what the United States does. Is Canada that boring? :]
#15 Posted by Aljosa23 (26232 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]Bring down premiums please. Stevo_the_gamer

Yes. This will make your healthcare much cheaper and competitive. win win!

Thank you Canadian for continually to be enthralled by what the United States does. Is Canada that boring? :]

I'd rather be boring than have non-stop chaos. :P

#16 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

Good. I think that I remember hearing about this sometime back.

#17 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43333 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Yes. This will make your healthcare much cheaper and competitive. win win!

Aljosa23

Thank you Canadian for continually to be enthralled by what the United States does. Is Canada that boring? :]

I'd rather be boring than have non-stop chaos. :P

Spoken like a true Canadian!
#18 Posted by toast_burner (22883 posts) -

They should just have a universal healthcare system.

#19 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13595 posts) -

They should just have a universal healthcare system.

toast_burner

Yup. Why have a for-profitinstitution sitting between you and your doctor telling you both what is and is not allowed?

When I lived in Canada, there was never a question if a procedure was covered or not. When my wife had a pulminary embolism and was hospitalized for two weeks, the total bill was $0. If we were still in the US, it would have bankrupted us insurance or not.

Because, you see, insurance doesn't foot the entire bill even for things they cover. Oh, and they also tell you how much you're allowed to spend on your health care within a given time period.

Apparently lifetime and annual caps are suppose to disappear in 2014 as part of Obamacare, but that's not the case now and hasn't been historically.

Health insurance companies are a fraud.

#20 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Yes. This will make your healthcare much cheaper and competitive. win win!

Aljosa23

Thank you Canadian for continually to be enthralled by what the United States does. Is Canada that boring? :]

I'd rather be boring than have non-stop chaos. :P

Mhmm. It's fun to watch a train-wreck but I wouldn't want to be in one.
#21 Posted by tenaka2 (17040 posts) -

Yay progress america :)

I know some americans may not like this but from a human perspective its a great thing.

#22 Posted by guynamedbilly (12967 posts) -

Oh man, it just gets worse and worse. Stop Being Idiots! I wish they'd just stop futzing about and just give us a single payer system if that's what they want to try for instead of this Frankenstein's monster of bureaucracy they keep torturing us with.

Idiots everywhere!

#23 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

Health insurance is one huge scam since it tends to make certain procedures cost more, and I personally support a market based approach in dealing with healthcare. Ideally that would drive down costs and make it more affordable to consumers while maintaining quality.

However since that's not likely, I would like to see how this whole plan turns out.

#24 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

Oh man, it just gets worse and worse. Stop Being Idiots! I wish they'd just stop futzing about and just give us a single payer system if that's what they want to try for instead of this Frankenstein's monster of bureaucracy they keep torturing us with.

Idiots everywhere!

guynamedbilly

It'll still be bureaucratic. :? And even then, if the American people want a singlepayer healthcare system or universal healthcare of any sort then taxes need to be increased to cover costs and we already have a mounting debt thanks to the reckless spending policies of the last administration.

It's still possible but taxes still need to be increased.

#25 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13595 posts) -

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]

Oh man, it just gets worse and worse. Stop Being Idiots! I wish they'd just stop futzing about and just give us a single payer system if that's what they want to try for instead of this Frankenstein's monster of bureaucracy they keep torturing us with.

Idiots everywhere!

leviathan91

It'll still be bureaucratic. :? And even then, if the American people want a singlepayer healthcare system or universal healthcare of any sort then taxes need to be increased to cover costs and we already have a mounting debt thanks to the reckless spending policies of the last administration.

It's still possible but taxes still need to be increased.

Here's what I don't get: What's the difference in taxes and paying for insurance, except that insurance costs more (since a corporation has to pay your medical bills AND profit for the shareholders)?

#26 Posted by Aljosa23 (26232 posts) -

Health insurance is one huge scam since it tends to make certain procedures cost more, and I personally support a market based approach in dealing with healthcare. Ideally that would drive down costs and make it more affordable to consumers while maintaining quality.

However since that's not likely, I would like to see how this whole plan turns out.

leviathan91

This is sort of IS a market based approach. Only now the government is involved in the market and if private insurers want to play ball they'll have to lower their prices to compete. This is only good and a first step towards getting single-payer. Though I don't agree on the whole "market based approach" since healthcare is a right and shouldn't depend on how much money you make.

#27 Posted by guynamedbilly (12967 posts) -

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]

Oh man, it just gets worse and worse. Stop Being Idiots! I wish they'd just stop futzing about and just give us a single payer system if that's what they want to try for instead of this Frankenstein's monster of bureaucracy they keep torturing us with.

Idiots everywhere!

leviathan91

It'll still be bureaucratic. :? And even then, if the American people want a singlepayer healthcare system or universal healthcare of any sort then taxes need to be increased to cover costs and we already have a mounting debt thanks to the reckless spending policies of the last administration.

It's still possible but taxes still need to be increased.

Well, sure. But at least all of the customers and all of the companies won't have to jump through all of the hoops they do now, and that it looks like they will in the future. All while they are competing directly against the government. That is where the bureaucratic hodge podge comes up. It's better to go through one or two agencies than to go through ten.
#28 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="guynamedbilly"]

Here's what I don't get: What's the difference in taxes and paying for insurance, except that insurance costs more (since a corporation has to pay your medical bills AND profit for the shareholders)?

br0kenrabbit

It's the same. I'm not arguing to keep the current system. Healthcare insurance is a fraud and a scam since it raises prices. The market-based approach I'm talking about is a system that doesn't involve insurance. Basically the person pays the bill without the insurance company. Ideally that would lower costs since doctors and hospitals would need to stay competitive against other doctors and hospitals.

But like I said, it won't happen since the idea itself sounds ridiculous when I think it can truly lower costs and make healthcare more affordable.

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Health insurance is one huge scam since it tends to make certain procedures cost more, and I personally support a market based approach in dealing with healthcare. Ideally that would drive down costs and make it more affordable to consumers while maintaining quality.

However since that's not likely, I would like to see how this whole plan turns out.

Aljosa23

This is sort of IS a market based approach. Only now the government is involved in the market and if private insurers want to play ball they'll have to lower their prices to compete. This is only good and a first step towards getting single-payer. Though I don't agree on the whole "market based approach" since healthcare is a right and shouldn't depend on how much money you make.

I should have clarified. Look at the response above. Also government has been involved in our healthcare since the 1940s. Look up McCarran-Ferguson Act, and we spend more on healthcare than any other country in the world thanks to this broken system so I highly doubt the 2010 healthcare reform bill will fix everything in the long run.

But this recent news, it could work but I'm not holding my breath.

#29 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -

It's the same. I'm not arguing to keep the current system. Healthcare insurance is a fraud and a scam since it raises prices. The market-based approach I'm talking about is a system that doesn't involve insurance. Basically the person pays the bill without the insurance company. Ideally that would lower costs since doctors and hospitals would need to stay competitive against other doctors and hospitals.

leviathan91

Lol that is the dumbest system for trying to reduce costs that i have heard.

Lets get rid of distributing costs!

#30 Posted by Omni-Wrath (1970 posts) -

This is tyranny! If those poor lazy welfare recipients actually got up and got a job to pay for their healthcare, we wouldn't need any of this. My generation had to work two jobs to support the family, kids, and pay for our insurance--you don't see me complaining. America is becoming a lazy country and the liberals are responsible for this mess. Don't be surprised if 90% of America is on welfare by 2020.

Not only does America reward laziness, but hates success. The rich in this country have been screwed over with high taxes over and over again. Before you know it, Karl Marx's dream of a classless society will come true--all the rich will be poor with the high taxes!

#31 Posted by tenaka2 (17040 posts) -

Oh dear god, americans are monsters. Healthcare should be for everyone, you people are damaged.

#32 Posted by kingkong0124 (8329 posts) -

Thx Obummer

obama-sad1.jpg

#33 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

Oh dear god, americans are monsters. Healthcare should be for everyone, you people are damaged.

tenaka2

I agree. So should cars, phones, robot slaves, food, houses (the fancy big houses), planes, trains, and... maybe some dogs. Yep that should be for everyone and it should be free.

It can be argued whether healthcare should be a privilege or a right but it should be a matter of efficiency and practicality. Since we value low taxes, a universal healthcare system is impossible unless there is some way to make it so efficient that it wouldn't be so costly. Personally though while I do support a market-based approach (NOT the one with insurance), I think another idea is to let the state decide their own healthcare policy, similar to what Massachusetts did.

#34 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

It's the same. I'm not arguing to keep the current system. Healthcare insurance is a fraud and a scam since it raises prices. The market-based approach I'm talking about is a system that doesn't involve insurance. Basically the person pays the bill without the insurance company. Ideally that would lower costs since doctors and hospitals would need to stay competitive against other doctors and hospitals.

Person0

Lol that is the dumbest system for trying to reduce costs that i have heard.

Lets get rid of distributing costs!

It would make it more competitve since doctors and hospitals wouldn't have to deal with insurance companies. They'll have to compete and lower costs to stay in business in order to get more patients and help them. Also, patients can negotiate prices with their doctors.

While insurance companies foot the bill, those same services tend to cost more than they should be, driving up healthcare costs.

I mean, if we shouldn't try that system, why don't we also have food insurance? Food is essential yet there's no insurance for it, yet food is cheap. Very cheap.

#35 Posted by tenaka2 (17040 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Oh dear god, americans are monsters. Healthcare should be for everyone, you people are damaged.

leviathan91

I agree. So should cars, phones, robot slaves, food, houses (the fancy big houses), planes, trains, and... maybe some dogs. Yep that should be for everyone and it should be free.

It can be argued whether healthcare should be a privilege or a right but it should be a matter of efficiency and practicality. Since we value low taxes, a universal healthcare system is impossible unless there is some way to make it so efficient that it wouldn't be so costly. Personally though while I do support a market-based approach (NOT the one with insurance), I think another idea is to let the state decide their own healthcare policy, similar to what Massachusetts did.

Typical american all for me. No wonder you have fallen, if you care but no one but yourself you society is doomed to fail... tis a shame so much wasted.

Americans lack empathy.

#36 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13595 posts) -

The rich in this country have been screwed over with high taxes over and over again.

Omni-Wrath

And the working class has been screwed over with real wages that are HALF of what they were in the 1950's, even though the average worker is now far more productive.

You can only tax wealth, not people. Take a look at this:

121rddz.jpg

Let's take the bottom 40% and the next level, the middle 20%. That's 60% of the population, but only 4.2% of the wealth in the US. You can tax those 60% of people 100% of their income and it wouldn't do much good as far as the coffers go.

Of course the top 10% pays 3/4 of the taxes: they own 3/4 of the wealth!

It amazes me how bad people are at math.

#37 Posted by Omni-Wrath (1970 posts) -

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Oh dear god, americans are monsters. Healthcare should be for everyone, you people are damaged.

leviathan91

I agree. So should cars, phones, robot slaves, food, houses (the fancy big houses), planes, trains, and... maybe some dogs. Yep that should be for everyone and it should be free.

It can be argued whether healthcare should be a privilege or a right but it should be a matter of efficiency and practicality. Since we value low taxes, a universal healthcare system is impossible unless there is some way to make it so efficient that it wouldn't be so costly. Personally though while I do support a market-based approach (NOT the one with insurance), I think another idea is to let the state decide their own healthcare policy, similar to what Massachusetts did.

lol at property being a "right", but not health. lols.

#39 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13595 posts) -

Since we value low taxes, a universal healthcare system is impossible unless there is some way to make it so efficient that it wouldn't be so costly.

leviathan91

I pay more in premiums (not even counting deductibles) for health care in the US than I paid into the health care system through taxes in Canada. Far more. Also, the most I can currently purchase for health insurance is up to $100,000 a year in coverage. Any bills that exceede that sum and I'm on my own.

It's not hard to break $100,000 in medical bills, espeically if some drunk with no insurance plows into you.

#40 Posted by Aljosa23 (26232 posts) -

I should have clarified. Look at the response above. Also government has been involved in our healthcare since the 1940s. Look up McCarran-Ferguson Act, and we spend more on healthcare than any other country in the world thanks to this broken system so I highly doubt the 2010 healthcare reform bill will fix everything in the long run.

But this recent news, it could work but I'm not holding my breath.

leviathan91

The thing is, this WILL lower the price of healthcare and make more efficient. It takes out the middleman (private insurers) so you go straight through to the Government to get your healthcare. It's a good thing.

#41 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

Oh dear god, americans are monsters. Healthcare should be for everyone, you people are damaged.

Omni-Wrath

I agree. So should cars, phones, robot slaves, food, houses (the fancy big houses), planes, trains, and... maybe some dogs. Yep that should be for everyone and it should be free.

It can be argued whether healthcare should be a privilege or a right but it should be a matter of efficiency and practicality. Since we value low taxes, a universal healthcare system is impossible unless there is some way to make it so efficient that it wouldn't be so costly. Personally though while I do support a market-based approach (NOT the one with insurance), I think another idea is to let the state decide their own healthcare policy, similar to what Massachusetts did.

lol at property being a "right", but not health. lols.

Again whether it should be a right or priviledge, it's irrelevant. What should matter is efficiency and practicality. You can make it a right and have universal healthcare but if it's going to be sh*tty healthcare that doesn't do squat then we're out of luck. But hey, free healthcare right?

Even if the system turns out well, it needs to be funded and it needs to adapt to changing times. In other words, either taxes need to be increased or decreased without taxpayers complaining that they want lower taxes.

#42 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

It's the same. I'm not arguing to keep the current system. Healthcare insurance is a fraud and a scam since it raises prices. The market-based approach I'm talking about is a system that doesn't involve insurance. Basically the person pays the bill without the insurance company. Ideally that would lower costs since doctors and hospitals would need to stay competitive against other doctors and hospitals.

leviathan91

Lol that is the dumbest system for trying to reduce costs that i have heard.

Lets get rid of distributing costs!

It would make it more competitve since doctors and hospitals wouldn't have to deal with insurance companies. They'll have to compete and lower costs to stay in business in order to get more patients and help them. Also, patients can negotiate prices with their doctors.

While insurance companies foot the bill, those same services tend to cost more than they should be, driving up healthcare costs.

I mean, if we shouldn't try that system, why don't we also have food insurance? Food is essential yet there's no insurance for it, yet food is cheap. Very cheap.

Yes people are going to go to different doctors to see who the most competitive while they are sick/injured..... Lol negotiating prices. Excuse me doctor i know that without this procedure i'm gonna die so ummmm i'll give you 10$ to do it. (many cases are life or death no one is going to negotiate because not getting something done = death.) Surprisingly enough large pools of people are better able to negotiate for prices then single people.... And what about all the poor people that can't afford anything really. let them die?
#43 Posted by Aljosa23 (26232 posts) -

Oh and this is just another option. If you want to keep using your overpriced insurers and services you're more than welcome to. the beauty of choice

#44 Posted by Omni-Wrath (1970 posts) -

[QUOTE="Omni-Wrath"]

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

I agree. So should cars, phones, robot slaves, food, houses (the fancy big houses), planes, trains, and... maybe some dogs. Yep that should be for everyone and it should be free.

It can be argued whether healthcare should be a privilege or a right but it should be a matter of efficiency and practicality. Since we value low taxes, a universal healthcare system is impossible unless there is some way to make it so efficient that it wouldn't be so costly. Personally though while I do support a market-based approach (NOT the one with insurance), I think another idea is to let the state decide their own healthcare policy, similar to what Massachusetts did.

leviathan91

lol at property being a "right", but not health. lols.

Again whether it should be a right or priviledge, it's irrelevant. What should matter is efficiency and practicality. You can make it a right and have universal healthcare but if it's going to be sh*tty healthcare that doesn't do squat then we're out of luck. But hey, free healthcare right?

Even if the system turns out well, it needs to be funded and it needs to adapt to changing times. In other words, either taxes need to be increased or decreased without taxpayers complaining that they want lower taxes.

First, Americans pay more for health insurance than any other first world country--our system is already inefficient. Second, taxes aren't going to go up to 90 god damn percent with this. With employers not having to cover insurance, wages will be raised and it will slightly make up for higher taxes. Also, is it morally right for for-profit companies to have power over your life?

The American culture is so greedy and selfish it's inconceivable. People rather have their neiboors die or get fvcked over by debt than pay higher taxes.

#45 Posted by Abbeten (3132 posts) -

[QUOTE="Omni-Wrath"]

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

I agree. So should cars, phones, robot slaves, food, houses (the fancy big houses), planes, trains, and... maybe some dogs. Yep that should be for everyone and it should be free.

It can be argued whether healthcare should be a privilege or a right but it should be a matter of efficiency and practicality. Since we value low taxes, a universal healthcare system is impossible unless there is some way to make it so efficient that it wouldn't be so costly. Personally though while I do support a market-based approach (NOT the one with insurance), I think another idea is to let the state decide their own healthcare policy, similar to what Massachusetts did.

leviathan91

lol at property being a "right", but not health. lols.

Again whether it should be a right or priviledge, it's irrelevant. What should matter is efficiency and practicality. You can make it a right and have universal healthcare but if it's going to be sh*tty healthcare that doesn't do squat then we're out of luck. But hey, free healthcare right?

Even if the system turns out well, it needs to be funded and it needs to adapt to changing times. In other words, either taxes need to be increased or decreased without taxpayers complaining that they want lower taxes.

One could argue that negotiation would be more effective in a single-payer system because of the pooled bargaining power.
#46 Posted by leviathan91 (7763 posts) -

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

[QUOTE="Omni-Wrath"]

lol at property being a "right", but not health. lols.

Omni-Wrath

Again whether it should be a right or priviledge, it's irrelevant. What should matter is efficiency and practicality. You can make it a right and have universal healthcare but if it's going to be sh*tty healthcare that doesn't do squat then we're out of luck. But hey, free healthcare right?

Even if the system turns out well, it needs to be funded and it needs to adapt to changing times. In other words, either taxes need to be increased or decreased without taxpayers complaining that they want lower taxes.

First, Americans pay more for health insurance than any other first world country--our system is already inefficient. Second, taxes aren't going to go up to 90 god damn percent with this. With employers not having to cover insurance, wages will be raised and it will slightly make up for higher taxes. Also, is it morally right for for-profit companies to have power over your life?

The American culture is so greedy and selfish it's inconceivable. People rather have their neiboors die or get fvcked over by debt than pay higher taxes.

Corporations have power over our lives? :? Since when? Since when does a certain corporation force people to purchase their products at gunpoint?

First off, we spend more on healthcare (taxpayer money btw) than any other country in the world yet our system is still inefficient. I'm not arguing that healthcare insurance is a good thing, it's a scam. Second, why should we force employers to cover insurance? If they wish to cover insurance for their own employees, let them but if they don't, that's their business. Some businesses can't afford to do such thing since it's impractical. Third, if we're going to argue about morals, I would make the argument that leaving such a valuable service in the hands of the government (which is essentially a monopoly) is immoral where as leaving it in a marketplace where people can decide their own healthcare plan, their own doctors, and their own prices.

Also increasing wages? Everyone wants higher wages but if pay is increased it could lead to higher unemployment. You have a very pessimistic view on American culture, don't you? :? All people, regardless of their country, are selfish and greedy in their own way. It's natural.

#47 Posted by Planeforger (16392 posts) -
Welcome to the first world! Or is that a bit premature, since this is more of a baby step towards proper health care?
#48 Posted by br0kenrabbit (13595 posts) -

Also increasing wages? Everyone wants higher wages but if pay is increased it could lead to higher unemployment. You have a very pessimistic view on American culture, don't you? :? All people, regardless of their country, are selfish and greedy in their own way. It's natural.

leviathan91

Or, you know, those execs making scores of millions a year plus tens of millions in bonuses can make a little less so the workers actually making the products that write their checks don't have to choose between medicine for Timmy and dinner.

#49 Posted by Omni-Wrath (1970 posts) -

[QUOTE="Omni-Wrath"]

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

Again whether it should be a right or priviledge, it's irrelevant. What should matter is efficiency and practicality. You can make it a right and have universal healthcare but if it's going to be sh*tty healthcare that doesn't do squat then we're out of luck. But hey, free healthcare right?

Even if the system turns out well, it needs to be funded and it needs to adapt to changing times. In other words, either taxes need to be increased or decreased without taxpayers complaining that they want lower taxes.

leviathan91

First, Americans pay more for health insurance than any other first world country--our system is already inefficient. Second, taxes aren't going to go up to 90 god damn percent with this. With employers not having to cover insurance, wages will be raised and it will slightly make up for higher taxes. Also, is it morally right for for-profit companies to have power over your life?

The American culture is so greedy and selfish it's inconceivable. People rather have their neiboors die or get fvcked over by debt than pay higher taxes.

Corporations have power over our lives? :? Since when? Since when does a certain corporation force people to purchase their products at gunpoint?

First off, we spend more on healthcare (taxpayer money btw) than any other country in the world yet our system is still inefficient. I'm not arguing that healthcare insurance is a good thing, it's a scam. Second, why should we force employers to cover insurance? If they wish to cover insurance for their own employees, let them but if they don't, that's their business. Some businesses can't afford to do such thing since it's impractical. Third, if we're going to argue about morals, I would make the argument that leaving such a valuable service in the hands of the government (which is essentially a monopoly) is immoral where as leaving it in a marketplace where people can decide their own healthcare plan, their own doctors, and their own prices.

Also increasing wages? Everyone wants higher wages but if pay is increased it could lead to higher unemployment. You have a very pessimistic view on American culture, don't you? :? All people, regardless of their country, are selfish and greedy in their own way. It's natural.

How exactly is insurance going to be on the "free market" without insurance companies? How will small insurance companies even compare to the big ones? Eventually, the big companies will have the greatest share and force the smaller health provider companies into the ground--eventually bringing up prices.

Corporations do have power over your lives when you have to pay for the medical bills, buddy. They don't need gunpoint. You either get no care or end up in debt.

You would argue that leaving health care in the hands of goverment is immoral? Really? It's moral to leave it in the hands of a for-profit group. Personally, I think there could be law enforcement insurance companies where you could buy insurance that would cover the enforcement of law on your behalf. So if your car gets stolen this private insurance company of your choice would hire a private law enforcement agency of your choice to track down the thiefs, retrieve your car and bring the thiefs before a court of law. Of course, if your insurance did not cover stolen vehicles the law would not be enforced for you. But at least you would have had the choice to choose what insurance company would enforce the law for you, wouldn't you? You would enjoy freedom to its fullest extent. After all, letting the free market decide is much better.

#50 Posted by Former_Slacker (2618 posts) -

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="leviathan91"]

It's the same. I'm not arguing to keep the current system. Healthcare insurance is a fraud and a scam since it raises prices. The market-based approach I'm talking about is a system that doesn't involve insurance. Basically the person pays the bill without the insurance company. Ideally that would lower costs since doctors and hospitals would need to stay competitive against other doctors and hospitals.

leviathan91

Lol that is the dumbest system for trying to reduce costs that i have heard.

Lets get rid of distributing costs!

It would make it more competitve since doctors and hospitals wouldn't have to deal with insurance companies. They'll have to compete and lower costs to stay in business in order to get more patients and help them. Also, patients can negotiate prices with their doctors.

While insurance companies foot the bill, those same services tend to cost more than they should be, driving up healthcare costs.

I mean, if we shouldn't try that system, why don't we also have food insurance? Food is essential yet there's no insurance for it, yet food is cheap. Very cheap.

Dear god, you must be a teenager. I'll be blunt, everything you stated is dead wrong. Providers don't have much ability in lowering the cost of treatment and those that operate on a for-profit basis usually make next to nothing because they can't, to any meaningful degree, control the cost of treatment or what diseases/disorders they have to treat. Our current system, with the exception of medicare/medicaid and the VA, is entirely market based. HMOs, PPOs and everything in-between exists because there is no way in hell people could ever afford to carry the total cost of services. In a private market, these organizations are the most efficient way to spreadand controlcosts. How effective will 1 patient be in negotiating their bill vs a conglomerate of 5,000,000 patients? When health insurance companies foot the bill, those services cost significantly less as they have the market power to bring down costs. We don't have food insurance because food doesn't change and become indigestible every few seconds to every few years. Food and food digestion techniques don't cost 800 million dollars to develop and bring to market, on an individual basis, and it isn't a multi-trillion dollar industry and an industry which isn't very profitable at that.