Employer healthcare plans should be abolished. Privatize it all the way.

[Wyatt earp]

Why is it wrong to charge an unhealthy person 12 or even 20 times as much for healthcare as a healthy person if he is 12 or 20 times the risk? It is based on risk and potential expenses.

Because insurance doesn't work on a case to case bases. It works on averages. Your 20 year old will be 55 year old eventually and would want and need insurance at that time.

why would he?

oh yea liberals are always fucking sick in the body and sick in the head

Is that all you have? This OP is trying to make insurance something that would not be affordable for most elderly. In exchange for making it cheap for the young. I think they made a movie about this kind of thinking. Check it out it's called Soylent Green, a classic.

I had two posts and obama care is not even insurance

 

[Cecilie1200]

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people.

If you can get a cheaper, un-pooled rate, by getting a plan outside your employer, go for it.

I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance

No one is stopping you. Go price some policies and post your findings.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

I am on the fence with privatization of police, fire department, and ambulance service. If they know for a fact that you are not up to date on your bill, should they be allowed to let your house burn down, refuse to send a police car when intruders enter your home and are brutalizing your family, or refuse to send an ambulance and let you bleed to death if you get cut? That one is tough because you could make a case either way.

On one hand you could argue that it encourages slackers to let others pay and skate by without paying their fair share.

On the other hand, if they prevent your house from burning down, it prevents de-escalation of home values in the area even if you didn't pay for the service. If they send a police car even though you are not paid up, they can take criminals off the street and help others. Sending an ambulance if you cut yourself, however, I'm still thinking of the benefit of letting people abuse that and encouraging slackers.

Why should employers be barred from offering any damned benefit to entice employees that they choose to? What possible business is it of yours, or the government's, what sort of work/compensation agreement my employer and I enter into?

It is socialism for a company to spend its profits on anything other than salaries of employees, investment back into the business for maximizing future profits, and stockpiling capital. Companies should not be allowed to engage in "social" spending. It rots the fabric of society and breeds a weak nation.

Look up "socialism", because it does not mean what you think it means.

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Our law enforcement, fire departments, and ambulance services are socialism. However, I am still on the fence about whether or not to privatize them. I don't see how any free market capitalist can not at least struggle with that question.

The usual mistake made by people with small amounts of information and virtually no deep thought about them.

No, law enforcement et cetera are not "socialism". And non-government entities like most employers DEFINITELY aren't.

Now that you've looked it up, contemplate it for a while, and do not waste space trying to tell us that any and all governent entities are "socialism" just by virtue of the fact of being government.

 

[forkup]

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

I am on the fence with privatization of police, fire department, and ambulance service. If they know for a fact that you are not up to date on your bill, should they be allowed to let your house burn down, refuse to send a police car when intruders enter your home and are brutalizing your family, or refuse to send an ambulance and let you bleed to death if you get cut? That one is tough because you could make a case either way.

On one hand you could argue that it encourages slackers to let others pay and skate by without paying their fair share.

On the other hand, if they prevent your house from burning down, it prevents de-escalation of home values in the area even if you didn't pay for the service. If they send a police car even though you are not paid up, they can take criminals off the street and help others. Sending an ambulance if you cut yourself, however, I'm still thinking of the benefit of letting people abuse that and encouraging slackers.

Why should employers be barred from offering any damned benefit to entice employees that they choose to? What possible business is it of yours, or the government's, what sort of work/compensation agreement my employer and I enter into?

It is socialism for a company to spend its profits on anything other than salaries of employees, investment back into the business for maximizing future profits, and stockpiling capital. Companies should not be allowed to engage in "social" spending. It rots the fabric of society and breeds a weak nation.

Look up "socialism", because it does not mean what you think it means.

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Our law enforcement, fire departments, and ambulance services are socialism. However, I am still on the fence about whether or not to privatize them. I don't see how any free market capitalist can not at least struggle with that question.

The usual mistake made by people with small amounts of information and virtually no deep thought about them.

No, law enforcement et cetera are not "socialism". And non-government entities like most employers DEFINITELY aren't.

Now that you've looked it up, contemplate it for a while, and do not waste space trying to tell us that any and all governent entities are "socialism" just by virtue of the fact of being government.

Give me the reasoning between differentiating between the government providing healthcare and the government providing fire services or law enforcement out of the taxpayer's money?

 

[tycho1572]

Let's say one person is 40 years old and has a perfect driving record and pays 100 a month in car insurance. Another person is 23 years old, has been convicted of 6 DWIs and had 12 accidents in the last 5 years. He might pay 1200 a month even if he is the same age and drives the same model of car. I believe this is fair.

Let's say one person is 20 years old, single and in perfect health. He might pay 500 dollars a month with a non-regulated private insurer. Another person is 55 years old, morbidly obese, is married with 15 kids, and has a very expensive pre-existing condition. He goes to a non-regulated private insurer and they say they want 6,000 a month to insure him. How is this unfair?

Let's put them on the same plan and charge them both 3,250 a month. Heck, even 3,150 a month. How is this fair?

What grade are you in?

 

[RandomPoster]

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

I am on the fence with privatization of police, fire department, and ambulance service. If they know for a fact that you are not up to date on your bill, should they be allowed to let your house burn down, refuse to send a police car when intruders enter your home and are brutalizing your family, or refuse to send an ambulance and let you bleed to death if you get cut? That one is tough because you could make a case either way.

On one hand you could argue that it encourages slackers to let others pay and skate by without paying their fair share.

On the other hand, if they prevent your house from burning down, it prevents de-escalation of home values in the area even if you didn't pay for the service. If they send a police car even though you are not paid up, they can take criminals off the street and help others. Sending an ambulance if you cut yourself, however, I'm still thinking of the benefit of letting people abuse that and encouraging slackers.

Why should employers be barred from offering any damned benefit to entice employees that they choose to? What possible business is it of yours, or the government's, what sort of work/compensation agreement my employer and I enter into?

It is socialism for a company to spend its profits on anything other than salaries of employees, investment back into the business for maximizing future profits, and stockpiling capital. Companies should not be allowed to engage in "social" spending. It rots the fabric of society and breeds a weak nation.

Look up "socialism", because it does not mean what you think it means.

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Our law enforcement, fire departments, and ambulance services are socialism. However, I am still on the fence about whether or not to privatize them. I don't see how any free market capitalist can not at least struggle with that question.

The usual mistake made by people with small amounts of information and virtually no deep thought about them.

No, law enforcement et cetera are not "socialism". And non-government entities like most employers DEFINITELY aren't.

Now that you've looked it up, contemplate it for a while, and do not waste space trying to tell us that any and all governent entities are "socialism" just by virtue of the fact of being government.

It is socialism to use taxpayer money to provide what should be a marketable commodity, such as the fire department saving your house from burning down, police officers protecting you from criminals, and ambulance drivers giving you a ride to the hospital.

 

[forkup]

Why should employers be barred from offering any damned benefit to entice employees that they choose to? What possible business is it of yours, or the government's, what sort of work/compensation agreement my employer and I enter into?

It is socialism for a company to spend its profits on anything other than salaries of employees, investment back into the business for maximizing future profits, and stockpiling capital. Companies should not be allowed to engage in "social" spending. It rots the fabric of society and breeds a weak nation.

Look up "socialism", because it does not mean what you think it means.

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Our law enforcement, fire departments, and ambulance services are socialism. However, I am still on the fence about whether or not to privatize them. I don't see how any free market capitalist can not at least struggle with that question.

The usual mistake made by people with small amounts of information and virtually no deep thought about them.

No, law enforcement et cetera are not "socialism". And non-government entities like most employers DEFINITELY aren't.

Now that you've looked it up, contemplate it for a while, and do not waste space trying to tell us that any and all governent entities are "socialism" just by virtue of the fact of being government.

It is socialism to use taxpayer money to provide what should be a marketable commodity, such as the fire department saving your house from burning down, police officers protecting you from criminals, and ambulance drivers giving you a ride to the hospital.

Why should they be marketable commodities? A nation were law enforcement is only provided to those who pay will soon have no law at all. A nation were fire services are only provided to those who pay will have more houses and communities burned, fires do spread after all. A nation were health care is only provided to those who pay will have more people die because of it. How does that in any way be a better society?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why should employers be barred from offering any damned benefit to entice employees that they choose to? What possible business is it of yours, or the government's, what sort of work/compensation agreement my employer and I enter into?

It is socialism for a company to spend its profits on anything other than salaries of employees, investment back into the business for maximizing future profits, and stockpiling capital. Companies should not be allowed to engage in "social" spending. It rots the fabric of society and breeds a weak nation.

Look up "socialism", because it does not mean what you think it means.

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Our law enforcement, fire departments, and ambulance services are socialism. However, I am still on the fence about whether or not to privatize them. I don't see how any free market capitalist can not at least struggle with that question.

The usual mistake made by people with small amounts of information and virtually no deep thought about them.

No, law enforcement et cetera are not "socialism". And non-government entities like most employers DEFINITELY aren't.

Now that you've looked it up, contemplate it for a while, and do not waste space trying to tell us that any and all governent entities are "socialism" just by virtue of the fact of being government.

It is socialism to use taxpayer money to provide what should be a marketable commodity, such as the fire department saving your house from burning down, police officers protecting you from criminals, and ambulance drivers giving you a ride to the hospital.

It is NOT socialism to provide a public service through the government. That's what the government, at its most basic, is for. And why you think putting out fires is a "marketable commodity" - let alone arresting criminals - is just beyond me.

Most ambulance services anywhere I've lived already are privately-owned.

 

[RandomPoster]

It is socialism for a company to spend its profits on anything other than salaries of employees, investment back into the business for maximizing future profits, and stockpiling capital. Companies should not be allowed to engage in "social" spending. It rots the fabric of society and breeds a weak nation.

Look up "socialism", because it does not mean what you think it means.

"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."

Our law enforcement, fire departments, and ambulance services are socialism. However, I am still on the fence about whether or not to privatize them. I don't see how any free market capitalist can not at least struggle with that question.

The usual mistake made by people with small amounts of information and virtually no deep thought about them.

No, law enforcement et cetera are not "socialism". And non-government entities like most employers DEFINITELY aren't.

Now that you've looked it up, contemplate it for a while, and do not waste space trying to tell us that any and all governent entities are "socialism" just by virtue of the fact of being government.

It is socialism to use taxpayer money to provide what should be a marketable commodity, such as the fire department saving your house from burning down, police officers protecting you from criminals, and ambulance drivers giving you a ride to the hospital.

It is NOT socialism to provide a public service through the government. That's what the government, at its most basic, is for. And why you think putting out fires is a "marketable commodity" - let alone arresting criminals - is just beyond me.

Most ambulance services anywhere I've lived already are privately-owned.

Are those ambulance services forced to provide service regardless of payment? Someone is bleeding to death and needs a ride to the hospital and medical care on the way. A private company provides it for a fee. However, you can pay a monthly 911 Insurance bill and be covered in case of emergency. The question then remains on the cost/benefit factor of an ambulance providing that service to someone who has not purchased a plan and can not pay for a one-time service fee. We are stuck asking ourselves if he should be given assistance or not.

 

[dblack]

Let's say one person is 40 years old and has a perfect driving record and pays 100 a month in car insurance. Another person is 23 years old, has been convicted of 6 DWIs and had 12 accidents in the last 5 years. He might pay 1200 a month even if he is the same age and drives the same model of car. I believe this is fair.

Let's say one person is 20 years old, single and in perfect health. He might pay 500 dollars a month with a non-regulated private insurer. Another person is 55 years old, morbidly obese, is married with 15 kids, and has a very expensive pre-existing condition. He goes to a non-regulated private insurer and they say they want 6,000 a month to insure him. How is this unfair?

Let's put them on the same plan and charge them both 3,250 a month. Heck, even 3,150 a month. How is this fair?

You do know that the law says that you can only charge 3 times the amount you charge the youngster right?

Yes. The law is the problem.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Let's say one person is 40 years old and has a perfect driving record and pays 100 a month in car insurance. Another person is 23 years old, has been convicted of 6 DWIs and had 12 accidents in the last 5 years. He might pay 1200 a month even if he is the same age and drives the same model of car. I believe this is fair.

Let's say one person is 20 years old, single and in perfect health. He might pay 500 dollars a month with a non-regulated private insurer. Another person is 55 years old, morbidly obese, is married with 15 kids, and has a very expensive pre-existing condition. He goes to a non-regulated private insurer and they say they want 6,000 a month to insure him. How is this unfair?

Let's put them on the same plan and charge them both 3,250 a month. Heck, even 3,150 a month. How is this fair?

You do know that the law says that you can only charge 3 times the amount you charge the youngster right?

Yes. The law is the problem.

Thank Barry.

 

[dblack]

Markets don’t work with healthcare.

When is the last time Markets have been allowed to work for healthcare?

Not since the 19th century. The AMA was started to put the squeeze on doctors immigrating from other countries. Maybe they should have just built a wall.

 

[dblack]

Let's say one person is 40 years old and has a perfect driving record and pays 100 a month in car insurance. Another person is 23 years old, has been convicted of 6 DWIs and had 12 accidents in the last 5 years. He might pay 1200 a month even if he is the same age and drives the same model of car. I believe this is fair.

Let's say one person is 20 years old, single and in perfect health. He might pay 500 dollars a month with a non-regulated private insurer. Another person is 55 years old, morbidly obese, is married with 15 kids, and has a very expensive pre-existing condition. He goes to a non-regulated private insurer and they say they want 6,000 a month to insure him. How is this unfair?

Let's put them on the same plan and charge them both 3,250 a month. Heck, even 3,150 a month. How is this fair?

You do know that the law says that you can only charge 3 times the amount you charge the youngster right?

Yes. The law is the problem.

Thank Barry.

Uh.. no. The laws establishing a medical cartel were created long before Obama was even born.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is it wrong to charge an unhealthy person 12 or even 20 times as much for healthcare as a healthy person if he is 12 or 20 times the risk? It is based on risk and potential expenses.

If you're an unhealthy person and you want to pay more for an individual plan than your employer
will charge you, you should definitely do that.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people. If you are unhealthy, that is not my fault. I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance and you should have to do the same or not get health insurance. If your premiums are 6,000 a month in a beautiful, free, unregulated market, why is that my problem? It's as bad as Obamacare.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people.

If you can get a cheaper, un-pooled rate, by getting a plan outside your employer, go for it.

I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance

No one is stopping you. Go price some policies and post your findings.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

I am on the fence with privatization of police, fire department, and ambulance service. If they know for a fact that you are not up to date on your bill, should they be allowed to let your house burn down, refuse to send a police car when intruders enter your home and are brutalizing your family, or refuse to send an ambulance and let you bleed to death if you get cut? That one is tough because you could make a case either way.

On one hand you could argue that it encourages slackers to let others pay and skate by without paying their fair share.

On the other hand, if they prevent your house from burning down, it prevents de-escalation of home values in the area even if you didn't pay for the service. If they send a police car even though you are not paid up, they can take criminals off the street and help others. Sending an ambulance if you cut yourself, however, I'm still thinking of the benefit of letting people abuse that and encouraging slackers.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Duh!

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

Yeah, sure thing.

Now go price some policies and post your findings.

 

[Dragonlady]

Let's say one person is 40 years old and has a perfect driving record and pays 100 a month in car insurance. Another person is 23 years old, has been convicted of 6 DWIs and had 12 accidents in the last 5 years. He might pay 1200 a month even if he is the same age and drives the same model of car. I believe this is fair.

Let's say one person is 20 years old, single and in perfect health. He might pay 500 dollars a month with a non-regulated private insurer. Another person is 55 years old, morbidly obese, is married with 15 kids, and has a very expensive pre-existing condition. He goes to a non-regulated private insurer and they say they want 6,000 a month to insure him. How is this unfair?

Let's put them on the same plan and charge them both 3,250 a month. Heck, even 3,150 a month. How is this fair?

You do know that the law says that you can only charge 3 times the amount you charge the youngster right?

Pretty sure what he's complaining about is that as things stand now, if they work for the same employer, they probably have the same health plan and the same premium because the kid doesn't have a choice. It's the employer who decides what the plan will be, not the person being insured.

I can think of a few things I would like about a system where we purchase our healthcare and our health insurance the way we shop for and purchase other things. I would like insurance companies and health providers to have to compete for the business of the actual patients. I think we would be seeing an explosion of innovative new options, pricing, payment plans, etc. in no time.

People do not and have never haggled over medical expenses. The medical industrial complex just charges whatever the traffic will bear.

 

[RandomPoster]

Why is it wrong to charge an unhealthy person 12 or even 20 times as much for healthcare as a healthy person if he is 12 or 20 times the risk? It is based on risk and potential expenses.

If you're an unhealthy person and you want to pay more for an individual plan than your employer
will charge you, you should definitely do that.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people. If you are unhealthy, that is not my fault. I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance and you should have to do the same or not get health insurance. If your premiums are 6,000 a month in a beautiful, free, unregulated market, why is that my problem? It's as bad as Obamacare.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people.

If you can get a cheaper, un-pooled rate, by getting a plan outside your employer, go for it.

I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance

No one is stopping you. Go price some policies and post your findings.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

I am on the fence with privatization of police, fire department, and ambulance service. If they know for a fact that you are not up to date on your bill, should they be allowed to let your house burn down, refuse to send a police car when intruders enter your home and are brutalizing your family, or refuse to send an ambulance and let you bleed to death if you get cut? That one is tough because you could make a case either way.

On one hand you could argue that it encourages slackers to let others pay and skate by without paying their fair share.

On the other hand, if they prevent your house from burning down, it prevents de-escalation of home values in the area even if you didn't pay for the service. If they send a police car even though you are not paid up, they can take criminals off the street and help others. Sending an ambulance if you cut yourself, however, I'm still thinking of the benefit of letting people abuse that and encouraging slackers.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Duh!

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

Yeah, sure thing.

Now go price some policies and post your findings.

I would have more of my money if my employer spent zero on social spending. Additionally, stop the oppressive government interference with the free market insurance companies, who are desperately trying to provide a valuable service to paying customers. The government forces insurers to cover a ridiculous array of health ailments in order to drive up the price on any plan so everyone is paying more of the same. Let me purchase bare bones insurance and if you need some unusual coverage, you pay for it.

 

[dblack]

Let's say one person is 40 years old and has a perfect driving record and pays 100 a month in car insurance. Another person is 23 years old, has been convicted of 6 DWIs and had 12 accidents in the last 5 years. He might pay 1200 a month even if he is the same age and drives the same model of car. I believe this is fair.

Let's say one person is 20 years old, single and in perfect health. He might pay 500 dollars a month with a non-regulated private insurer. Another person is 55 years old, morbidly obese, is married with 15 kids, and has a very expensive pre-existing condition. He goes to a non-regulated private insurer and they say they want 6,000 a month to insure him. How is this unfair?

Let's put them on the same plan and charge them both 3,250 a month. Heck, even 3,150 a month. How is this fair?

You do know that the law says that you can only charge 3 times the amount you charge the youngster right?

Pretty sure what he's complaining about is that as things stand now, if they work for the same employer, they probably have the same health plan and the same premium because the kid doesn't have a choice. It's the employer who decides what the plan will be, not the person being insured.

I can think of a few things I would like about a system where we purchase our healthcare and our health insurance the way we shop for and purchase other things. I would like insurance companies and health providers to have to compete for the business of the actual patients. I think we would be seeing an explosion of innovative new options, pricing, payment plans, etc. in no time.

People do not and have never haggled over medical expenses. The medical industrial complex just charges whatever the traffic will bear.

Of course, because no one is paying for their own health care. We've created a system where the whole game is getting someone else to pay the bills. What could go wrong?

 

[RandomPoster]

Why is it wrong to charge an unhealthy person 12 or even 20 times as much for healthcare as a healthy person if he is 12 or 20 times the risk? It is based on risk and potential expenses.

If you're an unhealthy person and you want to pay more for an individual plan than your employer
will charge you, you should definitely do that.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people. If you are unhealthy, that is not my fault. I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance and you should have to do the same or not get health insurance. If your premiums are 6,000 a month in a beautiful, free, unregulated market, why is that my problem? It's as bad as Obamacare.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people.

If you can get a cheaper, un-pooled rate, by getting a plan outside your employer, go for it.

I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance

No one is stopping you. Go price some policies and post your findings.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

I am on the fence with privatization of police, fire department, and ambulance service. If they know for a fact that you are not up to date on your bill, should they be allowed to let your house burn down, refuse to send a police car when intruders enter your home and are brutalizing your family, or refuse to send an ambulance and let you bleed to death if you get cut? That one is tough because you could make a case either way.

On one hand you could argue that it encourages slackers to let others pay and skate by without paying their fair share.

On the other hand, if they prevent your house from burning down, it prevents de-escalation of home values in the area even if you didn't pay for the service. If they send a police car even though you are not paid up, they can take criminals off the street and help others. Sending an ambulance if you cut yourself, however, I'm still thinking of the benefit of letting people abuse that and encouraging slackers.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Duh!

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

Yeah, sure thing.

Now go price some policies and post your findings.

Do you have no problem with paying extra for 911 service to cover some freeloader who pays nothing? He pays nothing except gets the same ambulance service as you. If you want to give him a ride to the hospital, go ahead, except don't ask me to pay more taxes to cover it.

 

[Care4all]

Why is it wrong to charge an unhealthy person 12 or even 20 times as much for healthcare as a healthy person if he is 12 or 20 times the risk? It is based on risk and potential expenses.

If you're an unhealthy person and you want to pay more for an individual plan than your employer
will charge you, you should definitely do that.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people. If you are unhealthy, that is not my fault. I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance and you should have to do the same or not get health insurance. If your premiums are 6,000 a month in a beautiful, free, unregulated market, why is that my problem? It's as bad as Obamacare.

But if you are so darn sure you are HEALTHY, then why would you buy any health insurance? You are healthy, you don't need it.... right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you're an unhealthy person and you want to pay more for an individual plan than your employer
will charge you, you should definitely do that.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people. If you are unhealthy, that is not my fault. I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance and you should have to do the same or not get health insurance. If your premiums are 6,000 a month in a beautiful, free, unregulated market, why is that my problem? It's as bad as Obamacare.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people.

If you can get a cheaper, un-pooled rate, by getting a plan outside your employer, go for it.

I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance

No one is stopping you. Go price some policies and post your findings.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

I am on the fence with privatization of police, fire department, and ambulance service. If they know for a fact that you are not up to date on your bill, should they be allowed to let your house burn down, refuse to send a police car when intruders enter your home and are brutalizing your family, or refuse to send an ambulance and let you bleed to death if you get cut? That one is tough because you could make a case either way.

On one hand you could argue that it encourages slackers to let others pay and skate by without paying their fair share.

On the other hand, if they prevent your house from burning down, it prevents de-escalation of home values in the area even if you didn't pay for the service. If they send a police car even though you are not paid up, they can take criminals off the street and help others. Sending an ambulance if you cut yourself, however, I'm still thinking of the benefit of letting people abuse that and encouraging slackers.

You are still paying because the employer is making a contribution to the plan and that reflects on wages.

Duh!

Also, employers should be legally barred from getting involved in your healthcare, daycare, and should be legally barred from offering maternity leave as well.

Yeah, sure thing.

Now go price some policies and post your findings.

I would have more of my money if my employer spent zero on social spending. Additionally, stop the oppressive government interference with the free market insurance companies, who are desperately trying to provide a valuable service to paying customers. The government forces insurers to cover a ridiculous array of health ailments in order to drive up the price on any plan so everyone is paying more of the same. Let me purchase bare bones insurance and if you need some unusual coverage, you pay for it.

I would have more of my money if my employer spent zero on social spending.

Great. Work at a company that offers no benefits.

You price those policies yet?

 

[RandomPoster]

Why is it wrong to charge an unhealthy person 12 or even 20 times as much for healthcare as a healthy person if he is 12 or 20 times the risk? It is based on risk and potential expenses.

If you're an unhealthy person and you want to pay more for an individual plan than your employer
will charge you, you should definitely do that.

Healthy people should not have to pool their healthcare premiums with unhealthy people. If you are unhealthy, that is not my fault. I should be able to go out and buy cheap, unregulated health insurance and you should have to do the same or not get health insurance. If your premiums are 6,000 a month in a beautiful, free, unregulated market, why is that my problem? It's as bad as Obamacare.

But if you are so darn sure you are HEALTHY, then why would you buy any health insurance? You are healthy, you don't need it.... right?

Anyone can get in a car accident or whatnot. It's a risk based assessment and I am low risk, so I should pay less.