(08-26-2016 01:47 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: (08-26-2016 01:20 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: (08-26-2016 09:38 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote: (08-25-2016 06:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (08-20-2016 08:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: The solution is obvious. Get the insurance companies Gub'ment and employers out of the system and put everyone on Medicare treat everyone equally. Insurance companies Gub'ment policymakers and politicians provide no value to anyone except themselves.
FIFY
Without insurance companies there would be no Medicare.
It is pretty clear that a combination of single payer and market driven insurance is going to be necessary to achieve some level of sanity. There does however not seem to be any candidate putting forth such plans. They either want to continue the ACA disaster or repeal it and go back to what we had before. Neither is the answer.
I had lousy insurance before and now have high cost lousy insurance.
I'd be all for that solution as long as those who opt for a market-based solution were free to choose nothing and self-insure if they wished (or were allowed to only get an inexpensive catastrophic policy for worst case scenarios, which is what insurance really is, or should be, imo), and their taxes did not ever pool into paying one penny for the single-payer people's plans (government would ONLY use the dollars directly received from single payer people, and could not borrow or attach any other money to pay for it), and finally people could freely have the choice of what was and was not in every plan, with no government coverage mandates and competition across state lines, plus Health Savings Accounts would be fully restored to at least what they were before ACA, if not better, with full tax benefits restored. In other words, only the single-payer people should pay for a single payer scenario and leave everyone else alone. If people wanted to switch between the two, they should then freely be able to do so at any time, as many times as they wished, whenever they wished.
The single payer people would then bear the full cost of their stupid utopian fallacy themselves. If someone wants to pay $10,000 or more per year for $200 worth of "coverage" who am I to stop them? I don't and do not because it is a rip-off. Let them be stupid without affecting anyone else.
There are plenty of scenarios I suppose. I'm not sure if we will ever get rid of the mandate now.
I have no problem with a national insurance plan for everyone that provides "basic" benefits and preventive care. That is actually what single payer does a good job of. After that? You are own your own if you don't qualify for Medicaid. Let the market provide catastrophic plans tailored to one's situation and budget. They could range from low to high deductibles and varying cost depending upon the risk you can take and your age and health.
I'd sign up for something if I could get an HSA like before the ACA, and also not have any requirements on what the plans covered, like contraceptives and pregnancy, etc... It's the social agenda that screws things up more than everything. Right now the only rational action is to not be covered and pay the tax if you can't find away to avoid it. Either way, you'll be hit with a big medical bill if you get something bad, but at least you haven't been handing over money to the gub'ment that you'll need to help yourself pay for that scenario if/when it happens.
Look, I get that some people want single-payer. More do not. Why not let the minority of folks who want govt single payer have it and pay for it out of their own pockets, forbid the government from using or borrowing any additional money for it beyond what those people themselves paid in, and let everyone else have their freedom from this BS?
Yes, the premiums in that scenario would be even higher for those people. Govt subsidies would be prohibited, so they'd just have to suck it up themselves if that's what they wanted. It's fool's gold because in the end, governments don't create anything, private companies do...
Vermont admitted earlier this year than a government single payer system was realistic under any scenario. If some dense people want to go through the exercise to prove an obvious point to themselves because they refuse to believe it, I say let those people, and those people only, have at it. Just leave the rest of us alone to live in the real world, and don't make us or our segment of the government pay for it.
Honestly, I'd rather a section of states in the US just go ahead and secede and let the liberal utopians implode on their own without taking the rest of us with them. I could give a rat's a$$ about California and the left coast anyway--it's a cesspool and we'd all be better off without it.
Hell... I thought you were being sarcastic.
