...but wait! I thought if I liked my plan I could keep my plan?!

[kaz]

The system was completely fucked before Obamacare, But it was because of governmnet and their stupid rules.

The best run insurance companies before Obamacare made a 4-5% profit on revenue. That's actually pretty low. Now it's lower. What should they have made? How much more could they have possibly paid for in benefits without jacking up prices like they are going up now?

The Big Pharma and insurance companies are richer than ever... They are the ones behind the lies about Obamacare and people believe it..They need their annual marks ups to pay for their yaughts.

We need a complete overhaul to end the corruption, but that will never happen.

Obamacare may not be perfect , but it is a start to help the people.

Well, there is a wealth in health, the 18 Richest People In Medicine
18 Richest Health Care Billionaires In America: Medical moguls 2014 » CEOWORLD Magazine
.

There is no "complete overhaul" that is going to change this outcome.

Regulations inherently, by their very nature, benefit the rich. Doesn't matter what regulations you put in place, the rich will benefit from them.

If the administration put in place a regulation that actually harmed the rich, the rich would close down their companies, and leave. If that happened, and millions of people were left without insurance, because all the insurance companies closed, that would both be terrible for everyone, cause havoc in the economy, but it would also destroy the politicians who pushed the regulation.

So they will never do that.

Thus any regulation passed, no matter what that regulation is, or who came up with it, or for what purpose.... it will never harm the super rich. It won't ever happen.

However, they will pass regulations that cost companies tons of money to meet. That action inherently benefits the rich, no matter what the intention is.

Here's how. Me and you, run insurance companies. You have a small started up company, with a few hundred clients, and you pull down $150,000 a year. I have a major insurance company covering a hundred cities, with a million clients, and I make a billion dollars a year.

The government passes a new massive regulation, that will cost us both a million dollars to implement, and get approval.

Which of us is able to spend the money needed to meet those regulations? I can easily. Billion dollars a year, I can implement those regulations no problem. You on the other hand, that may bankrupt your little company. Instead you are likely to show up at my front door, and ask if I'd like to buy you out. Which of course I do. Now even with the expensive regulations, because I have more customers and less competition, I make hundreds of billions more money.

This is the flaw in your thinking, that I've seen hundreds of times.

You, or those like you, push for massive regulations over whatever. Then after those massive regulations are passed, you see that the big wealthy companies are making massive more profits. Thus you assume that since the regulations didn't prevent the profits, that there must be some sort of corruption involved.

In realty, there is rarely corruption, but rather it is simply the normal result of government legislation.

Why do you think McDonald's CEO said he supported a $15/hour minimum wage? Do you really think such a regulation would harm McDonald's that the CEO would support it?

It's because McDonald's executives know that they have the money and capital, to replace workers with Kiosks and automation.

You know who can't replace their employees with kiosks? All of their competition. The small mom&pop shops. The tiny store chains.

So those people will go out of business, and McDonald's will gain an ever increasing share of the market, making hundreds of billions more, than they are now.

Regulations by their very nature...... inherently benefit the rich.

Funny thing is, that is not their replacements. It is kinda like letting the customers run the cash register. They will now have the customers working for NOTHING. Maybe lower prices but that is doubtful.

The restaurant business is hyper competitive (again I owned a restaurant). Yeah it will lower prices

Are you sure? Because by what I read in your one post the margin is pretty low. Are you sure this won't just increase their margin? I suppose that competion might force a lowering of prices, as it always does.

Well, if one restaurant does it, it will increase their margin. But as they all do, competition will drive down prices

 

[Centinel]

Okay, how will they have access to plentiful, affordable, and competitive health care?

Go ahead and get specific, I know the industry pretty well, both insurance and provider sides.

It is government restrictions that make healthcare unaffordable.

Socialism never yields better results than capitalism.

Specifically, we could have more doctors, nurses and techs; more hospitals; more medicines, less expensive than they are now.

 

[Arianrhod]

Whom would you define as "indigent" and not covered by Medicaid?

Illegals and Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid but still don't have individual coverage. There's plenty of them.
.

Isn't the Official RW stance that "all illegals have Obamacare"? And who would be below the poverty line and not eligible for Medicaid?

Love to see some actual statistics for all of that, but I suspect it's just the Usual Talking Points.

Ask a right winger about their take on health care. I'm not sure what it is, outside of "every man for himself".

So, opinion in the absence of facts. That's honest.

It wouldn't be difficult for you to make some estimates on the amount of people (legal or illegal) who don't have coverage, if you're actually curious.
.

I'm actually curious how you can make the claim without supporting it. Curious, but not surprised.

Why so pissy?

Asking someone to support their assertions with facts is "pissy"? Not in English.

 

[Mac1958]

Okay, how will they have access to plentiful, affordable, and competitive health care?

Go ahead and get specific, I know the industry pretty well, both insurance and provider sides.

It is government restrictions that make healthcare unaffordable.

Socialism never yields better results than capitalism.

Specifically, we could have more doctors, nurses and techs; more hospitals; more medicines, less expensive than they are now.

How?
.

 

[kaz]

I worked in Europe most of the last year. The Netherlands. Kiosks are already widespread in McDonalds and similar places. It's clearly coming here. They are widely used. They usually still have one or two people taking orders, they have 4 or so kiosks. Most people use the kiosks. You order, pay and just go over and pick up your order. That's where we're headed, and the left is moving us there faster

Oh yeah. It's all over the place. It's moving slowly, but as the minimum wage goes up, the pace will go faster. My last job was for a company that made kiosks and printers specifically designed for kiosks.

One of the kiosk buyers was for the Indiana state fair. They decided to replace all their ticket sellers, with kiosks. Saves money to not have to pay some high schooler an hourly wage.

Then we look at France, with their 10.5% unemployment rate, and youth unemployment rate of 25% for nearly 5 years straight. Gee, wonder why?

Yep, and as people keep getting more and more used to them, more and more companies will turn to them. As I pointed out in Europe, you can cut back to 1-2 order takers. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Huge savings though. I used to own a restaurant, staff is so expensive and low end workers generally suck and have to be managed which increases management costs too

All true. I remember last year they completely remodeled the "Get-N-Go" station around where I worked. There was a small grill inside the store. They fired half the staff, and replaced them with Kiosks. You had to punch in your order, and 2 minutes later they would dump a bag on the counter with a number on it. If you wait long enough, someone would yell out "43 up". That was as much interaction as you got with the 2 remaining people that operated the grill.

Not much for social interaction, but it was cheaper for the owners I'm sure. Not so much better for the two employees now without a job... but the left-wing cares for the minimum wage employees. That's all that matter. Not whether they have a job.

The hardest part about staffing a restaurant is that you're only busy for a few hours a day. But no one wants to work 4 hours a day. So you have to pay staff to work when it's slow. It's also not practical to keep opening and closing and customers have to know you're reliably open. That's the by far biggest savings. Not paying people when they're not even working. I think it's going to make the whole restaurant gig a lot more viable.

I sold my restaurant because it was tired operating on such tiny margins in a business that has to be micromanaged because the staff are such low skill and the margins are way too small to pay to hire higher skilled workers because everyone else does it the same. The restaurant I owned was across the street from UNC, a great place for customers. But severe competition and constant price pressure

Yeah that's what sucks for me, is that I'm no good at anything that makes money, so I end up in low-skilled jobs. The irony is, compared to the people around me, I'm like a super-star employee.

I had several managers, ask me, nearly beg me to move up to management. But management at that levels sucks so terribly bad. When an employee doesn't show up for work, or walks in drunk, or worse high as a kite, then guess who gets to swing the shift in their place? I'm sure you've had to deal with that.

I have never done an illegal drug. I don't drink alcohol, and I don't smoke. I show up on time, and work the entire shift. And on top of that, I never complain about how much I make. I resigned myself to poverty a long time ago. If anyone is to blame, it's me for sucking so bad.

So the managers think I'm an angel or something, and try and promote me. But if I was management, I'd have to do all that crap you talk about. Who wants that? Who wants to deal with late employees, who barely do any work, and you have to hold their hand through doing the most menial of tasks, and then constantly complain about not being paid enough. On top of that, out pure ignorance, they assume you make millions of dollars, and sleep on gold coins at night, and think "well you could just pay me more if you wanted to!"... yeah. If I could I wouldn't, but I can't anyway.

The reality in the restaurant business is that if you're management, you get to deal with everyone who doesn't show up and do their job and close if no one else can do it, and you don't even make that much more

 

[Andylusion]

Ask a right winger about their take on health care. I'm not sure what it is, outside of "every man for himself, good luck".
.

I'm not a right winger, but I would advocate:

1) Elimination of government control of doctors/hospitals/medical schools/medicine production. Stay out of ALL medical business.

2) Elimination of government control of all health insurance.

3) Oh, and eliminate all government subsidies for health care/health insurance, such as medicaid and medicare.

And what of the millions of people who won't have access to major health care, preventive care, diagnostic care? What about the elderly, the massive Baby Boomer population?
.

Health are would be cheaper, if the government wasn't involved. Moreover, all those people would have more money themselves, to afford care, if it wasn't taxed away to pay for government programs.

I personally have gone to the doctors when I had no insurance. I got a bill. I paid the bill. It was a big bill. But they did a great job, and fixed me right up. So I was happy to pay the bill.

I sent $50 to $200 a month, as I had money available, and paid it off over a year.

The idea, that if you don't have health insurance, means you are just dumped on the street to die... is ridiculous. I know several people that had zero insurance, and zero money, and were able to get diagnostic care, and surgery, and chemo for cancer. You people just make up crap.

 

[Mac1958]

Illegals and Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid but still don't have individual coverage. There's plenty of them.
.

Isn't the Official RW stance that "all illegals have Obamacare"? And who would be below the poverty line and not eligible for Medicaid?

Love to see some actual statistics for all of that, but I suspect it's just the Usual Talking Points.

Ask a right winger about their take on health care. I'm not sure what it is, outside of "every man for himself".

So, opinion in the absence of facts. That's honest.

It wouldn't be difficult for you to make some estimates on the amount of people (legal or illegal) who don't have coverage, if you're actually curious.
.

I'm actually curious how you can make the claim without supporting it. Curious, but not surprised.

Why so pissy?

Asking someone to support their assertions with facts is "pissy"? Not in English.

Obviously you're not going to respond to my post. You accidentally left quite a bit out when you "quoted" me.

As I predicted.

I'm used to it here.
.

 

[Centinel]

How?

How could we have more doctors, nurses, and techs without the government forbidding them?
How could we have more hospitals without the government forbidding them?
How could we have more medicines without the government forbidding them?

Are you serious?

Because the government isn't preventing them, there will be more of them.

 

[Mac1958]

Ask a right winger about their take on health care. I'm not sure what it is, outside of "every man for himself, good luck".
.

I'm not a right winger, but I would advocate:

1) Elimination of government control of doctors/hospitals/medical schools/medicine production. Stay out of ALL medical business.

2) Elimination of government control of all health insurance.

3) Oh, and eliminate all government subsidies for health care/health insurance, such as medicaid and medicare.

And what of the millions of people who won't have access to major health care, preventive care, diagnostic care? What about the elderly, the massive Baby Boomer population?
.

Health are would be cheaper, if the government wasn't involved. Moreover, all those people would have more money themselves, to afford care, if it wasn't taxed away to pay for government programs.

I personally have gone to the doctors when I had no insurance. I got a bill. I paid the bill. It was a big bill. But they did a great job, and fixed me right up. So I was happy to pay the bill.

I sent $50 to $200 a month, as I had money available, and paid it off over a year.

The idea, that if you don't have health insurance, means you are just dumped on the street to die... is ridiculous. I know several people that had zero insurance, and zero money, and were able to get diagnostic care, and surgery, and chemo for cancer. You people just make up crap.

I keep hearing this, but I'm not getting any specifics.

Exactly how do we make it so that we don't have the seven different "systems" operating at the same time?
.

 

[Freewill]

Illegals and Americans who don't qualify for Medicaid but still don't have individual coverage. There's plenty of them.
.

Isn't the Official RW stance that "all illegals have Obamacare"? And who would be below the poverty line and not eligible for Medicaid?

Love to see some actual statistics for all of that, but I suspect it's just the Usual Talking Points.

Ask a right winger about their take on health care. I'm not sure what it is, outside of "every man for himself".

So, opinion in the absence of facts. That's honest.

It wouldn't be difficult for you to make some estimates on the amount of people (legal or illegal) who don't have coverage, if you're actually curious.
.

I'm actually curious how you can make the claim without supporting it. Curious, but not surprised.

Why so pissy? I realize you're ideologically obligated to defend the ACA (I know how partisans are), but gee whiz.

I provided a link above with an estimate. But something tells me that won't be "good enough". Right? Here: 33 Million Americans Still Don’t Have Health Insurance

And let's play your dishonest game: Let's say there is no demand for indigent care, which is absurd. Does this mean you're happy with the other six?

Since you're clearly a partisan ideologue (in your case, left wing), I'm not expecting straightforward, honest answers.
.

And lookie, here's more! From the article I linked:

3.8 million in the Medicaid gap

Set aside the 7 million noncitizen immigrants, most of whom were never meant to be covered by the ACA, and 26 million uninsured remain. Of those, nearly 4 million were meant to qualify for insurance under the federal law but were later blocked from coverage. They fell into what’s known as the “Medicaid gap,” with incomes that were too high for Medicaid eligibility and too low to receive subsidies on the new health care exchanges.4

When the Affordable Care Act was written, it expanded the existing Medicaid program to cover everyone living below the poverty line, including childless adults who had previously been mostly excluded from the program. It also offered subsidies to people earning 100 percent to 400 percent of the poverty line (but not less) to buy private insurance on the exchanges. A Supreme Court decision left Medicaid expansion up to individual states, and about half chose not to expand the program. That left millions of low-income people ineligible for Medicaid but, counterintuitively, unable to qualify for subsidies on the insurance marketplaces because they earned too little.

This 3.8 million was a very poor group overall, but nearly half, 1.7 million people, lived in families whose incomes were less than 50 percent of the poverty line. Because Medicaid historically tended to cover just families with children, the bulk of those falling into the gap were working-age adults without children; nonetheless, about 800,000 parents with children living at home fell into the gap.


Spin away!

.

My daughter fell into that gap. She paid the 325 dollar tax. Which makes no sense to me.

 

[Mac1958]

How?

How could we have more doctors, nurses, and techs without the government forbidding them?
How could we have more hospitals without the government forbidding them?
How could we have more medicines without the government forbidding them?

Are you serious?

Because the government isn't preventing them, there will be more of them.

How?
.

 

[Centinel]

How?

Because we would have more doctors, nurses, techs, medicines, and hospitals. As anyone who understands economics knows, as supply rises, price falls.

 

[Mac1958]

How?

Because we would have more doctors, nurses, techs, medicines, and hospitals.

I don't think you have any kind of plan, but I do realize that no one on the Right does.

I know this stuff well. If you want to lay out a specific health care plan, I'll read it. It will have to actually be a plan, though, not vague platitudes.

I don't go to the Automotive Forum and debate with people on how to rebuild a transmission, because I don't have the first clue about how to rebuild a transmission.
.

 

[Centinel]

How?

Because we would have more doctors, nurses, techs, medicines, and hospitals.

I don't think you have any kind of plan, but I do realize that no one on the Right does.

I just told you my plan: remove all restrictions on health care practitioners, all health care schools,, all health care insurers, and all medicine manufacturers. That's my plan, so please stop saying I don't have a plan, because that's a lie.

 

[Freewill]

If the popular public option had been passed, this wouldn't be a problem.

I guess you have only the democrats to blame for that, right? Or maybe when the SCOTUS was rewriting Obamacare to make it constitutional they should have just added that option.

English please.

I don't think I can dumb it down any further but let me try.

Obamacare was passed by all Democrats in the still of the night.

You are bitching about something that should have been in Obamacare.

Thus, you are bitching about something that the democrats should have done.

I typed slowly, I hope that helped.

Democrats don't vote as a block any more than Republicans do.

The public option had overwhelming support from the public and its omission accounts in large part for the weakness in public support for the final bill.

You have to be kidding. ACA passed the house with ONLY democrat votes. I have never in my lifetime seen a more partisan vote on such an important issue. At least there were some democrats in the House that didn't take the "cornhusker kickbacks" and voted no. But in the senate, it was a solid block for the democrats. Or else it would not have passed.

As for you majority in favor, that is just plain wrong. And if I were that wrong about something you would be calling me a liar. But I don't do that with liberals. I know you believe it because that is what you have been told to believe.

Really, in the Internet age you and Mrs. Tuzla Clinton need to be careful what you say.

Obamacare "has never been favored by a majority of Americans," Gingrich says

Obamacare

 

[Mac1958]

How?

Because we would have more doctors, nurses, techs, medicines, and hospitals.

I don't think you have any kind of plan, but I do realize that no one on the Right does.

I just told you my plan: remove all restrictions on health care practitioners, all health care schools,, all health care insurers, and all medicine manufacturers. That's my plan, so please stop saying I don't have a plan, because that's a lie.

That's not nearly enough detail for someone who understands the health care/health insurance system, not even close.
.

 

[Centinel]

How?

Because we would have more doctors, nurses, techs, medicines, and hospitals.

I don't think you have any kind of plan, but I do realize that no one on the Right does.

I just told you my plan: remove all restrictions on health care practitioners, all health care schools,, all health care insurers, and all medicine manufacturers. That's my plan, so please stop saying I don't have a plan, because that's a lie.

That's not nearly enough detail for someone who understands the health care/health insurance system, not even close.

I have given you all the details you need to implement it. Repeal all restrictions on health care practitioners, all health care schools,, all health care insurers, and all medicine manufacturers. What details don't you understand?

Oh, and like I said before, eliminate all government involvement in medical payments, like medicare and medicaid.

Do you not understand how to implement what I said?

 

[Mac1958]

How?

Because we would have more doctors, nurses, techs, medicines, and hospitals.

I don't think you have any kind of plan, but I do realize that no one on the Right does.

I just told you my plan: remove all restrictions on health care practitioners, all health care schools,, all health care insurers, and all medicine manufacturers. That's my plan, so please stop saying I don't have a plan, because that's a lie.

That's not nearly enough detail for someone who understands the health care/health insurance system, not even close.

I have given you all the details you need to implement it. Repeal all restrictions on health care practitioners, all health care schools,, all health care insurers, and all medicine manufacturers. What details don't you understand?

Oh, and like I said before, eliminate all government involvement in medical payments.

Do you not understand how to implement what I said?

Sure. Just get rid of everything. But I see no indication that you have given thought to a wide variety of critical issues.

Tell you what. I know you won't like this plan, but this is what I'm talking about when I say "specifics". This is the level of detail I would need to consider any plan. Just tell me how your plan addresses the same isssues:

Ol' Mac's Health Care Act of 2016

Based on what I think would be obvious:

• It is insane to have seven (7) different health care delivery/payment systems, none of which talk to each other. Talk about inefficient.
• Early and regular preventive/diagnostic/drug coverage before conditions get worse saves significant health care dollars
  
• A healthier populace is good, smart economics.
• Allowing insurance companies to compete for business by creating and offering attractive upgrades is good, smart economics.
• Freeing employers from costs and regulations of providing health coverage is good, smart economics.
• Opening the door to the industry that specializes in preventive/diagnostic services, motivating these clinics to pop up faster than Starbucks™, is good, smart economics.

So:

...Scrap this insane, archaic seven-piece system (Individual, Group, VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Worker's Comp indigent) for one two-tier plan for all
...Tort reform that addresses not only the cost of malpractice insurance, but the even higher cost of preventive medicine
...A two-tier, portable, individual health care system based on the current Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage chassis:
...Strong preventive/diagnostic/drug coverage for all to detect problems earlier and keep them from appearing in the first place
...Adoption of Value-Based Insurance Design, VBID, look it up
...Basic medical/hospital coverage at 80% of system rates as a foundation for everyone
...Open up a massive, 330 million person customer base to insurance companies via Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage plans
...Take a huge administrative monkey off the backs of private insurance companies by eliminating most basic care coverage
...Allow insurance companies to choose between national coverage or state-by-state
...Allow insurance companies to negotiate provider contracts to keep reimbursement acceptable for doctors and hospitals
...Maintain a significant and critical free market competition environment through the supplemental plans
...Watch preventive/diagnostic clinics spring up faster than Starbucks, decreasing the load on doctors and ER's
...Assistance on supplemental plans for low income, assuring even more business to competition-based private insurance companies
...Calculate net costs and add to current Medicare Tax - while freeing businesses and employees from the massive costs & regulations of group plans

Run it for two years and look for tweaks.

 

[Centinel]

Because we would have more doctors, nurses, techs, medicines, and hospitals.

I don't think you have any kind of plan, but I do realize that no one on the Right does.

I just told you my plan: remove all restrictions on health care practitioners, all health care schools,, all health care insurers, and all medicine manufacturers. That's my plan, so please stop saying I don't have a plan, because that's a lie.

That's not nearly enough detail for someone who understands the health care/health insurance system, not even close.

I have given you all the details you need to implement it. Repeal all restrictions on health care practitioners, all health care schools,, all health care insurers, and all medicine manufacturers. What details don't you understand?

Oh, and like I said before, eliminate all government involvement in medical payments.

Do you not understand how to implement what I said?

Sure. Just get rid of everything. But I see no indication that you have given thought to a wide variety of critical issues.

Tell you what. I know you won't like this plan, but this is what I'm talking about when I say "specifics". This is the level of detail I would need to consider any plan. Just tell me how your plan addresses the same isssues:

Ol' Mac's Health Care Act of 2016

Based on what I think would be obvious:

• It is insane to have seven (7) different health care delivery/payment systems, none of which talk to each other. Talk about inefficient.
• Early and regular preventive/diagnostic/drug coverage before conditions get worse saves significant health care dollars
  
• A healthier populace is good, smart economics.
• Allowing insurance companies to compete for business by creating and offering attractive upgrades is good, smart economics.
• Freeing employers from costs and regulations of providing health coverage is good, smart economics.
• Opening the door to the industry that specializes in preventive/diagnostic services, motivating these clinics to pop up faster than Starbucks™, is good, smart economics.

So:

...Scrap this insane, archaic seven-piece system (Individual, Group, VA, Medicare, Medicaid, Worker's Comp indigent) for one two-tier plan for all
...Tort reform that addresses not only the cost of malpractice insurance, but the even higher cost of preventive medicine
...A two-tier, portable, individual health care system based on the current Medicare/Medicare Supplement/Medicare Advantage chassis:
...Strong preventive/diagnostic/drug coverage for all to detect problems earlier and keep them from appearing in the first place
...Adoption of Value-Based Insurance Design, VBID, look it up
...Basic medical/hospital coverage at 80% of system rates as a foundation for everyone
...Open up a massive, 330 million person customer base to insurance companies via Medicare Supplements and Medicare Advantage plans
...Take a huge administrative monkey off the backs of private insurance companies by eliminating most basic care coverage
...Allow insurance companies to choose between national coverage or state-by-state
...Allow insurance companies to negotiate provider contracts to keep reimbursement acceptable for doctors and hospitals
...Maintain a significant and critical free market competition environment through the supplemental plans
...Watch preventive/diagnostic clinics spring up faster than Starbucks, decreasing the load on doctors and ER's
...Assistance on supplemental plans for low income, assuring even more business to competition-based private insurance companies
...Calculate net costs and add to current Medicare Tax - while freeing businesses and employees from the massive costs & regulations of group plans

Run it for two years and look for tweaks.

Yes, get rid of all government medical payment plans, all restrictions on medical providers, all restrictions on medicine producers, and all restrictions on medical education institutions.

If you don't understand what any of those recommendations means, please let me know, and I'll try to explain using small words.

 

[Andylusion]

Ask a right winger about their take on health care. I'm not sure what it is, outside of "every man for himself, good luck".
.

I'm not a right winger, but I would advocate:

1) Elimination of government control of doctors/hospitals/medical schools/medicine production. Stay out of ALL medical business.

2) Elimination of government control of all health insurance.

3) Oh, and eliminate all government subsidies for health care/health insurance, such as medicaid and medicare.

And what of the millions of people who won't have access to major health care, preventive care, diagnostic care? What about the elderly, the massive Baby Boomer population?
.

Health are would be cheaper, if the government wasn't involved. Moreover, all those people would have more money themselves, to afford care, if it wasn't taxed away to pay for government programs.

I personally have gone to the doctors when I had no insurance. I got a bill. I paid the bill. It was a big bill. But they did a great job, and fixed me right up. So I was happy to pay the bill.

I sent $50 to $200 a month, as I had money available, and paid it off over a year.

The idea, that if you don't have health insurance, means you are just dumped on the street to die... is ridiculous. I know several people that had zero insurance, and zero money, and were able to get diagnostic care, and surgery, and chemo for cancer. You people just make up crap.

I keep hearing this, but I'm not getting any specifics.

Exactly how do we make it so that we don't have the seven different "systems" operating at the same time?
.

Well I'm not the same guy, as the one above that you are responding to. However, I do have my own personal solution, that absolutely everyone will hate, and will never happen, because we are doomed to a socialist hell hole of poverty and decline as a country.

With that cheery outlook, here is my solution...

Medisave. Medisave, is a program operating out of Singapore. The system is simple. A flat tax of 6.5% of your income, is placed into a savings account, that is OWNED by the account holder. It doesn't go to government, or politicians, or special interest groups. Nor can it be frittered away in poor government budgeting.

The flat tax of 6.5% slides up to 9%, by age. So the older you get, the higher the tax rate goes. (obviously because you are more likely to need it as you grow older).

The Medisave accounts nationwide, are invested, usually in bonds, or conservative investments, resulting in a year-over-year interest growth of about 2% or 3%. I think the government guarantees 2%.

What this does, is cause patients to be economical. They force health care providers to compete with each other on price. Patients may get life saving treatment, but forgo reconstruction to save on cost. Equally health providers have incentive to lowers costs, to attract customers.

All of this allows people to be frugal with their medisave accounts, to make the money last.

Additionally, they can supplement their Medisave account with assets. For example, the government can pay for health care, even after savings has run out, in exchange for a Lien on their home. As a result, the citizen is provided the needed health care, and keeps the home until they move out, or die. Then the government recoups some or all of the costs, in the sale of the home.

Equally, I would replace the failing VA system, with a flat voucher. Government run hospitals should be reserved for current military members, and those working for the government. Veterans would get a yearly flat voucher, which they would use to shop around for the best deal on health care service. Encouraging competition on price by health providers, and frugality by the patients to make the money last.

Or... if the prior Medisave system was put in place, have a yearly amount deposited directly into the Veterans medisave account, as a benefit.

All other systems should be completely done away with. No workers comp, no Medicare, no nothing except for Medicaid. Medicaid should only kick in, when the person has zero assets, zero equity in their home, and owns nothing, and all of their savings has been used and gone.

Medicaid too should be a voucher. The only exception to this, should be if the person is declared indigent. In which case there should be some support, but given to the family, who is obligated to take care of their relatives.