If the US were a first world country, then shouldn't its citizens be able to afford health care with income earned from their jobs rather than relying on state subsidies? Some first world country, right?
You win. I lose. Fat smokers are significantly cheaper over a lifetime and per year. I just checked it out.
Single payer for everyone, supplemental insurance for those willing to pay extra for an up-level experience (private rooms, shorter wait times, better food, prettier nurses.......whatever). Everybody gets coverage, so people who can't afford insurance are covered and happy. Rich people can pay extra, so they don't have to rub elbows with the unwashed masses and are happy. Medical insurance doesn't completely go away--it just shifts focus--so insurers are happy. There will still be a supply and demand component to the medical industry to drive innovation so capitalists are happy. Everybody gets healthcare, so socialists are happy. Everybody gets preventive healthcare instead of waiting until ER time, so healthcare professionals are happy. Democrats get single payer, so their constituents are happy. Republicans look like they didn't totally capitulate, so their constituents aren't too pissed off. Except the really crazy ones.
I haven't really had the chance to read through this thread and will comment on the main point of it later. Pointing out a tangential issue though. If the MSM was really so rigged as Trump and his supporters claim it wouldn't be reporting this news so close to the election. If the Admin, Democratic party and media were really in collusion then they would've just waited until after the election to announce this news.
Could you imagine how bad it would have looked if the Obama administration tried to suppress this information and it got out (wikileaks or whatever). The information was available, there is no way Clinton is better off if the Democratic machine tried and failed to keep it under wraps.
That's the thing, it's just routine management. The quote was "routine visits are not expensive" but the fact is if you don't get insurance negotiated discounts, medical care is very expensive. Almost any 'treatment' and certainly any surgical procedure will have lasting impacts on working peoples livelihood, endangering their financial health so much that Health Insurance isn't an expense families can avoid. Even private insurance is shared risk, why is it we build in a profit into what should be a non-profit industry? Why do we give CEO's $10 million dollar bonuses on what should be like a utility? ///single payer
What people don't say is that Obamacare is still cheaper than employer-based plans despite the increases, and that the increases only are bringing the cost of the plans in line with congressional forecasts for 2017. Many insurers underpriced plans to get people on them and are now increasing those underpriced plans. I don't like Obamacare, but I also like facts http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/25/opinions/affordable-health-care-exchange-premiums-jost/ Also, as much as I complain about it - it actually isn't that expensive since I can deduct my premiums from my federal taxes which cuts my premium from $400 to $280 / mo. Still not horrendous.
Anybody who has friends or relatives that were denied healthcare because of pre-existing conditions would never ever consider going back to the way it was. As many flaws as Obamacare has, it's still better than denying people access to the healthcare system. Unless you can come up with something better, you're wasting time telling others that it should be repealed. Obamacare saved my brother's life.
Yes, my insurance is over 20k if you add what my employer and I paid for the coverage, who can afford that.
The information couldn't have been kept under wraps forever but this is a matter of timing and with just two weeks to go before the election it probably could've been delayed. Anyway the reasoning above just shows that how logically twisting trying to prove the media is rigging the election. When the media reports bad news for Trump the argument is that they are favoring Clinton. When bad news for Clinton / Democrats are reported it's stated that they aren't trying to make it so obvious they are rigging.
easiest way to drive down cost is to remove artificial, government imposed barriers to choice and competition 1. allow purchasing of plans across state lines - the left likes blanket (federal) policy because you can't escape/exit to an alternative. Each state has different degree/types of coverage mandates, and people should be free to purchase from any of them (of course, insurance companies would likely migrate to the state with the fewest coverage mandates, because mandates are dumb). 2. decouple insurance from employment - the federal government and FDR, in their infinite stupidity, instituted wage controls during WWII. The unintended consequence was employers started offering benefits (since they were forbidden from increasing salary). Then the feds made those benefits tax free, compounding the incentive to get it from your employer. This not only limits your choices in coverage (whatever plans the employer offers), it limits your ability to change jobs, for fear of losing coverage. Both of these things increase choice and competition (which inevitably lowers cost), and could be done with the stroke of a pen, with no additional taxpayer cost.
