poubelle wrote: Medicare for all. And if that is too scary to start with, lets lower the age to 50 and see what happens. Have any of you naysayers ever considered how a universal, single-payer health system (with a supplemental insurance model for those who desire extra coverage) would impact so many other aspects of our lives? From employer-mandated worker's comp to auto insurance to medical costs related to tort cases, etc. Think beyond your narrow-minded selfishness and consider how out-of-control medical/insurance costs are driving so much of our economy into the crapper. Think...
I agree, mostly, we should have a choice. If I want Medicare the way it is now ( what I paid for) then I should get the insurance. If it costs more and is losing money then let me choose to pay a higher % of my wages, if not go with the Ryan type plan. If you make the wrong choice it comes out of your estate or you are unable to BK out. I would have paid a larger contribution if given the choice over less benefit. Single payer makes sense.
I think the original narrow minded comment was narrow minded. LOL
So, the righties and lefties both hate Obamacare. The lefties want single-payer. I find that to be a cop-out statement to end discussions on HC.. I would like to see a new topic, Single-payer in detail. And I want to see you lefties spell out the details. How you would transition to it. How you would fund it and set prices. How you would set premiums. I have never heard any details and numbers, other than the endless drone of single payer, single payer, single payer.
And if that is the best economic model, why not single payer, non-profit for everything else in the economy? Food, housing, clothes, education, cars, etc.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
towermonkey wrote: I agree that HC should not be tied to employers. It's a carryover from a day when employers actually had to lure prospective employees in by giving them good benefits.
It is really only tied to employers in a de-facto sort of way. Anyone (healthy- edit) can purchase individual insurance and decline the coverage at work. The tax incentives and employer subsidies make it effectively "tied to employers".
I have had an individual plan for 10 years now, and I keep it and decline coverage during the times I work at temp jobs that sometimes offer short term coverage. I get screwed on taxes, but its better for me to keep a continuous plan. The Government thinks they know better, and they don't allow me the same tax treatment, or a health savings account as work plans do.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
towermonkey wrote: I agree that HC should not be tied to employers. It's a carryover from a day when employers actually had to lure prospective employees in by giving them good benefits.
It is really only tied to employers in a de-facto sort of way. Anyone can purchase individual insurance and decline the coverage at work. The tax incentives and employer subsidies make it effectively "tied to employers".
I have had an individual plan for 10 years now, and I keep it and decline coverage during the times I work at temp jobs that sometimes offer short term coverage. I get screwed on taxes, but its better for me to keep a continuous plan. The Government thinks they know better, and they don't allow me the same tax treatment, or a health savings account as work plans do.
Some of us regardless of our willingness and ability to pay were refused private insurance. At any cost. Consider yourself lucky and quit thinking "the market" will handle it. Sometimes it just does not work. If "anybody " could buy insurance half the problem would be gone.
High risk pools are and have always been available and could be improved.
Pre-existing conditions problems could be reduced through better regulations by state insurance commissions. For example, they should only be able to look back maybe 1year, and only exclude current conditions, not past or new future conditions. I agree the insurance companies reject too many people, according to the reports anyway.
Sometimes I resent being called lucky, I prefer to think of it as being responsible having bought insurance on and off since I was in my 20's and probably spent >30-40K easily, and collected zip in bennys. But on the other hand I know several people who simply chose not to buy insurance when they were healthy and could afford it too.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
High risk pools are and have always been available and could be improved.
Pre-existing conditions problems could be reduced through regulations by state insurance commissions. I agree the insurance companies reject too many people according to the reports anyway.
Sometimes I resent being called lucky, I prefer to think of it as being responsible having bought insurance on and off since I was in my 20's and probably spent 30-40K easily, and collected zip. But on the other hand I know several people who simply chose not to buy insurance when they could afford it too.
I had and paid for private insurance for 35 years , I retired early and did not think there would be a problem. They refused to even research my condition or consider a rider. I was willing to exempt my "pre existing" condition. They said they had no way to do either and it was just a $ decision to say no.
The system does not work for many of us. I have never asked or expected a free ride. But at no price was I even given your idiotic "free market" solution. Sorry Joe , you are lucky. Count your blessings.
Did you try "cover colorado" for pre-existing conditions insurance? I heard it was expensive, but they do not reject you. Again, I suggested it could be improved, but it can't be a free-for all for anyone who waits until they need it and buy it on the way into the hospital.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Joe wrote: Did you try "cover colorado" for pre-existing conditions insurance? I heard it was expensive, but they do not reject you. Again, I suggested it could be improved, but it can't be a free-for all for anyone who waits until they need it and buy it on the way into the hospital.
Yes, last resort, if Colorado did not have the option , I would have had to move. Very expensive, and they make money on me which is fine.
LOL
