Insurance for Free..

[Lumpy 1]

If Obamacare offered insurance to you at zero cost, would you accept it knowing that a hard working person in the middle-class ends up paying for it?

Ethically, I believe it would be wrong...

Dude, its called Medicaid.

Maybe the better question is, how much more can the Democratic Party load onto the working middle-class before there is no middle-class. Government involvement always ends up with fraud, corruption, political football threats and a far higher cost.. ahh yes fun times ahead, a one country political system that "Adolf" would love.

 

[auditor0007]

Wouldn't free market healthcare be cheaper than public healthcare? If insurers and hospitals could compete with other insurers and hospitals, would that not drive down costs below the level of public healthcare costs without middle-class paying for it?

And with free market I do not mean how it is now. Without government helping their insurance friends and help keeping monopolies, but instead real free market with much more competition.

If all medical care was cheap enough for average Americans to pay on their own, this would work, but that is not the case. As an example, Lasik eye surgery has become quite cheap because of direct competition, but even at an average of $2000 per eye, not everyone can afford it. The thing is that Lasik is not a necessary surgery, so direct competition makes the most sense. This is also why health insurance plans do not cover Lasik.

Now compare that to getting kidney stones. Going to the hospital for kidney stones can cost you up to $20,000. Open heart surgery after a heart attack or to prevent a heart attack can cost upwards of $100,000. Most people just cannot afford that. Most people can't afford to pay half of that. That is why we have insurance. Not every one will need open heart surgery, so money is pooled so that when disaster strikes, you are covered. The more that pay into that pool, the cheaper it becomes.

 

[dblack]

Wouldn't free market healthcare be cheaper than public healthcare? If insurers and hospitals could compete with other insurers and hospitals, would that not drive down costs below the level of public healthcare costs without middle-class paying for it?

And with free market I do not mean how it is now. Without government helping their insurance friends and help keeping monopolies, but instead real free market with much more competition.

If all medical care was cheap enough for average Americans to pay on their own, this would work, but that is not the case.

The thing is, I don't think we've really thought this idea of "affordable health care" through. The question of what constitutes affordable health care is always a matter of answering a related question - how much health care? Ultimately no one can afford the health care they "need" to stay alive.

 

[Antares]

Reality beats the hell out your racist hater dupe ugly American bizarro planet of ignorance, chumps of the greedy idiot rich lol...

Franco needs new writers

REALITY AND TRUTH ARE VERY REPETITIVE, UNLIKE YOUR 24/7 INFOTAINMENT/PROPAGANDA...

Reality Truth are two concepts you've never been introduced to tough guy.

 

[Freewill]

A single person making less than 12500 would get no subsidy.

Unless they asked for it under some vague hardship standard, I'm pretty sure.

Nope.

I have to tell more than 1 person that they "did not make enough money to get Gov help".

What does that actually mean? If a person makes 12000 there is absolutely no help for them in regards to health care? Really, that doesn't make sense to me.

 

[dblack]

Here's the thing. I really am amused when wingnuts scream about socialism when talking about health care.

But no matter where you get your health care from, it's all "Socialist".

Nah...

First of all, it sounds like you're equating, once again, health insurance with health care. They're not the same thing. And there's nothing innately socialist about either.

Second, when people complain about socialism, they're talking about compulsive, state socialism. Voluntary schemes such as private insurance plans are not 'socialism'.

 

[JoeB131]

Here's the thing. I really am amused when wingnuts scream about socialism when talking about health care.

But no matter where you get your health care from, it's all "Socialist".

Nah...

First of all, it sounds like you're equating, once again, health insurance with health care. They're not the same thing. And there's nothing innately socialist about either.

Second, when people complain about socialism, they're talking about compulsive, state socialism. Voluntary schemes such as private insurance plans are not 'socialism'.

Insurance plans are inherently socialistic. You are pooling your resources and paying them out on the basis of need. Just like a government program.

Usually, when people complain about "state" anything, it's usually because they want the benefits of living in a civilized society with none of the obligations.

Which is why you don't see Libertarians moving en masse to Somalia... and more than you see progressives moving to North Korea.

So the discussion should be, between those two extremes, where in the middle is the sweet spot.

My own experiences with private insurance (when the first time I had a serious issue, the insurance company and employer did their level best to deny me coverage and then fired me) is that we'd probably be better off if the government ran things.

 

[dblack]

Here's the thing. I really am amused when wingnuts scream about socialism when talking about health care.

But no matter where you get your health care from, it's all "Socialist".

Nah...

First of all, it sounds like you're equating, once again, health insurance with health care. They're not the same thing. And there's nothing innately socialist about either.

Second, when people complain about socialism, they're talking about compulsive, state socialism. Voluntary schemes such as private insurance plans are not 'socialism'.

Insurance plans are inherently socialistic. You are pooling your resources and paying them out on the basis of need. Just like a government program.

No... that's not 'just like' a government program. The glaring difference is that government programs are mandatory - compulsive. Private insurance is voluntary. It's shocking often this distinction has to be spelled out to statists.

 

[JoeB131]

Wouldn't free market healthcare be cheaper than public healthcare? If insurers and hospitals could compete with other insurers and hospitals, would that not drive down costs below the level of public healthcare costs without middle-class paying for it?

And with free market I do not mean how it is now. Without government helping their insurance friends and help keeping monopolies, but instead real free market with much more competition.

The problem with this argument is that the usual rules of supply and demand don't really apply to health care.

You aren't going to treat your child's cancer treatment the way you are going to treat your purchase of a car. You are going to want the Cadillac Treatment, not the FOrd Focus treatment.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Insurance plans are inherently socialistic. You are pooling your resources and paying them out on the basis of need. Just like a government program.

No... that's not 'just like' a government program. The glaring difference is that government programs are mandatory - compulsive. Private insurance is voluntary. It's shocking often this distinction has to be spelled out to statists.

i guess I don't feel "oppressed" because the government provides me services I want or need.

I also think when you blurt out words like "Statists", you really don't deserve to be taken seriously.

As opposed to what, Anarachists?

Point is, private insurance couldn't exist without the state.

 

[dblack]

[

Insurance plans are inherently socialistic. You are pooling your resources and paying them out on the basis of need. Just like a government program.

No... that's not 'just like' a government program. The glaring difference is that government programs are mandatory - compulsive. Private insurance is voluntary. It's shocking often this distinction has to be spelled out to statists.

i guess I don't feel "oppressed" because the government provides me services I want or need.

Huh. I didn't say anything about oppression. Just pointing out that neither health insurance nor health care are inherently socialistic. Are you suggesting "socialistic" and "oppressive" are equivalent?

I also think when you blurt out words like "Statists", you really don't deserve to be taken seriously.

Then by all means, don't take me seriously. I call 'em as I see 'em, and will continue to do so.

 

[auditor0007]

Wouldn't free market healthcare be cheaper than public healthcare? If insurers and hospitals could compete with other insurers and hospitals, would that not drive down costs below the level of public healthcare costs without middle-class paying for it?

And with free market I do not mean how it is now. Without government helping their insurance friends and help keeping monopolies, but instead real free market with much more competition.

If all medical care was cheap enough for average Americans to pay on their own, this would work, but that is not the case.

The thing is, I don't think we've really thought this idea of "affordable health care" through. The question of what constitutes affordable health care is always a matter of answering a related question - how much health care? Ultimately no one can afford the health care they "need" to stay alive.

There are two points here. One is that some people need more healthcare then others. Some go through their entire lives with minimal need for healthcare services other than regular preventative care. This is why we have insurance. If we look at one payer systems, they are just one big insurance pool rather than multiple smaller ones. The biggest issue when it comes to affordable heathcare is just the total cost. Why do things cost so much more here in the US than other parts of the world. Why can a person get a hip replacement in Belgium that is of the same quality as a hip replacement in the US with a cost of around $14,000 compared to a cost in the US of $100,000? Things like this should have us scratching our heads asking why?

 

[Crystalclear]

If all medical care was cheap enough for average Americans to pay on their own, this would work, but that is not the case.

The thing is, I don't think we've really thought this idea of "affordable health care" through. The question of what constitutes affordable health care is always a matter of answering a related question - how much health care? Ultimately no one can afford the health care they "need" to stay alive.

There are two points here. One is that some people need more healthcare then others. Some go through their entire lives with minimal need for healthcare services other than regular preventative care. This is why we have insurance. If we look at one payer systems, they are just one big insurance pool rather than multiple smaller ones. The biggest issue when it comes to affordable heathcare is just the total cost. Why do things cost so much more here in the US than other parts of the world. Why can a person get a hip replacement in Belgium that is of the same quality as a hip replacement in the US with a cost of around $14,000 compared to a cost in the US of $100,000? Things like this should have us scratching our heads asking why?

And this could be solved by creatinf more competition.