I and others have asked this more than a few times, but what the heck, here is another try... what is this more sustainable model? And how does it cover pre-existing conditions?
When it comes to pre-existing conditions, you have 2 options. 1. Make EVERYONE'S insurance more expensive to cover the losses that companies will take due to having to cover them 2. Don't cover them and have some people's insurance be very expensive. Those are literally the only 2 options. Which of those 2 do you think is the most fair? Even if you go to a single payer system, those will still be your only 2 options unless you consider bankrupting the country a viable alternative. There isn't a solution that will be great for everyone, there will be people who fall between the cracks, but I prefer options that are fiscally responsible and aren't creating a new massive entitlement program. Find me a program that can do that and it'll have my support.
and before you say anything, the default position should be inaction. If you can come up with a system that works and is fiscally responsible, great. If not, you do nothing and leave it to the free market.
Then, ACA is the best approach. And energies should be focused on fixing the current system until an alternative that covers people with pre-existing conditions can be determined. If no plan involving private insurance companies can be determined, then universal health coverage would appear to be the best next step.
The whole reason people buy insurance is because catastrophic illness is unpredictable. It's a shared risk pool. So, the only choice is where do you draw the line for 'in the pool' and 'out of the pool' . If you your insurance is profit based you try to draw the line exclusively and if your goal is to help the most you draw the line inclusively. I would suggest that the fairest and logical line would be the national boundary. We are a nation, are we not? The risks of the effects of illness are of the same order as the effects of warfare, tens of thousands of mortalities. No one seems to balk at the shared responsibility for the military, why would healthcare be different?
That wasn't my point. My point was that as technology changes, we need to change with it. The life expectancy for pretty such the entire human history has been low.... What was your point again.....? So it seems again you were trying to make a point that you weren't sufficiently intelligent enough to make. Oh, what's the system you are arguing for? It seems inaction will certainly bankrupt the nation. Putting a toe in the water? Sweetheart..... That was a very stupid thing to say. It seems you aren't adequately informed enough. No, I have suggested many times to reform the entitlements. You just pick and choose what you respond to based on your intelligence level so you miss a lot..... This is your position: Despite the abrupt demographic change where we will be having tens of millions of people winding down what they pay income taxes and cashing in medicare and SSN checks. Brilliant Bobby..... Just Brilliant.....
Apparently Bobby is running for school council or dog catcher..... He is trying to get his politicking down......
The ACA has done nothing to make people healthier and has done nothing positive when it comes to the cost of healthcare. Actually the rate of increase in healthcare costs compared to the rate of inflation is now worse than it was before the ACA. Given that, I don't see how any logical person would say that was the best approach. It does nothing positive AND it costs a lot. I believe that government ethics should be similar to medical ethics in that an important principle should be "First, do no harm". Another way this is often phrases is "given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good", following that line of logic, you don't pass legislation creating massive debt to the nation by way of yet another giant entitlement program just to pass something. Everyone agrees that there are problems with healthcare, but it's better to do nothing than it is to pass something harmful. That's why the default position should be to do nothing. In fact, that's how the government is set up to work. Deadlock is supposed to happen when people can't agree. When it comes to Obamacare, it has done more harm than good and it shouldn't have been passed in the first place. It's time to go back to the drawing board (nothing) and think of something that can actually help the problem.
People can purchase their own health insurance, or even pay their healthcare costs out of pocket. Can everyone hire their own private army to repel invaders? That's why it is different. There are some tasks for which the government is uniquely suitable to handle, like national defense and law enforcement. Those are the tasks government should handle. Other things can be done without government involvement, like insuring your health, property, etc. When the government steps in, it creates distortions. Consider flood insurance. The government subsidizes rebuilding structures in areas prone to flooding, and the structures get destroyed over and over and rebuilt over and over. A private insurer would either not insure such a building, or charge high enough premiums that the owner would realize it is not worth it to rebuild in the same place. If we get rid of government flood insurance, people will either move out of flood prone properties, or build so that flood damage is far less likely. That is what should happen. Instead we have the government paying to rebuild properties over and over again. The National Flood Insurance Program, as a result, is about $24 billion in debt.
Untrue and unrealistic. Some people, my daughter among them, are deemed un-insurable. Only the 1% could afford to pay for any serious healthcare out of pocket.
I have clearly benefited from ACA. And there are millions with pre-existing conditions who also benefit. Wrong, but thank you for restating the republican lines of blank paper, deadlock and do-nothing. If everyone agrees there is a problem, than come up with solutions. Folks talked about rising heathcare costs and insurances for many years before ACA was passed. And republicans have had majority control of both House and Senate for the past six years. Yet nothing was done, and nothing has been done. Refusing to cover, or forcing people to purchase obscenely expensive pool insurances is NOT a solution. Come up with one that covers pre-existing conditions and then you can take away ACA since it does cover pre-existing conditions. Otherwise work on fixing ACA.
Good, all insurance companies must die, we need single player, and Universal Healthcare. The lobbyists for insurance and drug companies are some of the worst deals for this country. DD
A major illness will bankrupt most Americans if they did not have insurance and can still bankrupt them even with insurance. The system is one of the biggest crisis we face. The only solution that has worked for countries is a single payer system which controls costs and ensures coverage. Ultimately we don't have a choice. As much as people hate Obamacare, things would be even worse without it. Obamacare is not the solution. It's not the problem either.
It is untrue that people are allowed to purchase health insurance or pay out of pocket? That's weird, because I have done both of those things. I think what you meant to say is that there are some people that an insurance company would be stupid to insure and there are some illnesses that are prohibitively expensive, and as a result, you think other people should pay for the health care of people like your daughter.
Sorry for double post, meant to edit into last post. That is why I advocate for a system that has a component that is government funded. If you can't afford insurance or treatment, you go to one of the government network of free clinics. There you receive some mandated level of care. It may not be the most cutting edge experimental stuff, but some standard of care. If you want to pony up for insurance, you can get whatever private care that your policy covers. The insurance company, meanwhile, is free to choose their customers and provide what policies they like. If you want to pay out of pocket, you can get whatever care is available to you. There is no reason to have a one size fits all system. Have a system that provides options that are appropriate for people differently situated.
Oh how very clear you have made it. You are on the luxury Titanic and still refuse to get off the sinking ship.
Sorry, while not directed to me, I also have a daughter with a pre-existing condition. And trust me... *if* something would go wrong, there is no way I'd be able to pay out of pocket. And honestly, it would be very difficult to pay the $500 or more now for a high risk pool separate policy for her basic health insurance coverage. It has nothing to do with insurance companies being "stupid" to cover people with high risks. That is what insurance is... covering a wide population of people with a range of risk. Insurance companies make more money on people with perfect health who never need insurance to cover costs. And they lose money if someone has poor health and uses lots of insurance. They analyze and look at the total population and price accordingly. Same as with car insurance. I have never had an accident in over 40 years of driving. Never filed a claim. Do I pay zero or almost zero for car insurance? No, as the car insurance company sets pricing based on prediction models on a larger population than just me.
Luxury titanic? Cute metaphor. Cute, but not accurate. But if you want to play that game... we can either look for fixes... and there are fixes. Or we can go to a fully universal healthcare system much like virtually every other country. With all the people, including you, arguing ACA cannot be fixed, I am starting to lean more towards universal coverage.
