Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
obamacare dictates to the insurers what they must cover so try again.
It doesn't "cover" anything.
It specifies the coverage that makes it adequately likely that your health costs will be covered by you, and not be defaulted to the rest of us. It holds you responsible for your own costs.
Why does that make you squirm?
Because 'adequate' is decided by regulators and their buddies in the insurance industry, and not by the people being forced to buy the shit.
It doesn't "cover" anything.
It specifies the coverage that makes it adequately likely that your health costs will be covered by you, and not be defaulted to the rest of us. It holds you responsible for your own costs.
Why does that make you squirm?
Because 'adequate' is decided by regulators and their buddies in the insurance industry, and not by the people being forced to buy the shit.
Unfortunately, there are irresponsible and/or misinformed people in any population. There are a huge number of examples of where responsible and informed people have to help them avoid the consequences of that to themselves (medical bankruptcy) and others (medical bankruptcy or inability to pay medical bills).
If you have a plan to eliminate these irresponsible and/or misinformed people from consideration, let's have it.
Some day, it's possible, that you'll think for yourself. Then you'll know the difference.
I think we've reached the point in our medical technology that they can help you extract your head from your ass. With some fresh air and a view other than what you can see through your belly button....I believe you'll get a better perspective of just what a chump you are.
You wish for a world in which you are not a run of the mill Fox sucker. I don't blame you. But, what are you going to do? You are who you are.
You have a choice.
It doesn't "cover" anything.
It specifies the coverage that makes it adequately likely that your health costs will be covered by you, and not be defaulted to the rest of us. It holds you responsible for your own costs.
Why does that make you squirm?
Because 'adequate' is decided by regulators and their buddies in the insurance industry, and not by the people being forced to buy the shit.
Unfortunately, there are irresponsible and/or misinformed people in any population. There are a huge number of examples of where responsible and informed people have to help them avoid the consequences of that to themselves (medical bankruptcy) and others (medical bankruptcy or inability to pay medical bills).
If you have a plan to eliminate these irresponsible and/or misinformed people from consideration, let's have it.
Because 'adequate' is decided by regulators and their buddies in the insurance industry, and not by the people being forced to buy the shit.
Unfortunately, there are irresponsible and/or misinformed people in any population. There are a huge number of examples of where responsible and informed people have to help them avoid the consequences of that to themselves (medical bankruptcy) and others (medical bankruptcy or inability to pay medical bills).
If you have a plan to eliminate these irresponsible and/or misinformed people from consideration, let's have it.
Blow me. You don't want alternatives. You've ignored all that have been offered. You want the state up everyone's ass.
Because 'adequate' is decided by regulators and their buddies in the insurance industry, and not by the people being forced to buy the shit.
Unfortunately, there are irresponsible and/or misinformed people in any population. There are a huge number of examples of where responsible and informed people have to help them avoid the consequences of that to themselves (medical bankruptcy) and others (medical bankruptcy or inability to pay medical bills).
If you have a plan to eliminate these irresponsible and/or misinformed people from consideration, let's have it.
Go play jacks on the interstate at rush hour. That should get rid of one of them.
CARSON: A better alternative to Obamacare
By Ben S. Carson Tuesday, October 22, 2013
When I was an intern at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the 1970s, I was very impressed by the caliber of patients on the wards. There would be presidents and CEOs of large corporations, as well as queens and crown princes of various countries, many of whom were dying of horrible diseases and all of whom would be quite willing to give all their wealth and titles for a clean bill of health.
It was easy to understand that there is not much in life that is worthwhile without your health. It is by far our most important possession, which we should jealously protect. For this reason, I heartily agree that we as a nation need to focus significant emphasis and resources on providing good health care for all of our citizens. My question is this: Can we provide this without turning over control of our most important possession to the government?
Some will say we have already relinquished it, so why talk about it any further? Others say only the poor are affected by Obamacare, and everything remains the same for all the others. Of course, this is not true, since the many regulations associated with the health care law affect everyone. Also, the economic impact does not occur in isolation.
Rather than complain about Obamacare, it might be useful to begin to discuss some enhancements or future alterations that can make it work effectively or provide an alternative if it fails. The first question is, what do you need for good health care in America?
You need a patient, a health care provider and a mechanism of payment. Along came a middleman namely, the government and the insurance companies to facilitate the relationship. Now the middleman has become the primary entity, with the health care provider and the patient at its beck and call. The whole enterprise has been turned upside down.
In order to right the ship, we need to return the responsibility for good health care to the patient and the health care provider. One of the best ways to do this is through health savings accounts, which patients can control. Even if the federal government provided such an account for every American citizen that was increased by $2,000 each year, it would cost less than $700 billion a year and everyone would be covered.
Keep in mind the fact that more than 150 million Americans are employed and their $2,000 per year in most cases would be happily supplied by the employer if that was their only health care obligation. This would make employers much more likely to want to expand their businesses and hire more people, and it would decrease the governments entitlement obligations by hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
At least a quarter of the $2,000 per year would be devoted to bridge insurance or catastrophic insurance, and all citizens would have the right to contribute to their health savings accounts from other sources without limit. It would also be possible for people to transfer funds between accounts within a family.
For example, if a husband needed care and was a thousand dollars short, his wife, son, daughter and father could make contributions from their accounts to cover the expense. This would essentially turn each family into its own private insurance company with no middleman.
It should also be possible for everyone to donate up to 5 percent of the value of their health savings accounts to anyone of their choosing in any given year. For example, if there was someone in their church or an associate at work in need and for some reason didnt have adequate resources in his account, his fellow members and associates could band together and donate a portion of their accounts to cover the expense.
This would create a strong sense of community, which is a very good thing. Since one could pass his savings on to a family member or anyone of his choosing at the time of death, there would be no incentive to spend everything in the account before dying.
Over the course of a lifetime, it is likely that most people would have accumulated quite a significant amount in their health savings accounts, and it should be possible after reaching a certain dollar amount for people to withdraw a percentage of their savings for their personal use in any way they deem fit. For some elderly people, this could serve as a very nice retirement supplement.
As time passed, individuals and families would accumulate extremely large amounts of money, and the government obligation would become smaller. Instead of the government becoming a bigger part of each persons life, it would diminish, reducing the need for ever-increasing revenue streams.
This is just the basic framework of an alternative system to Obamacare that involves thinking outside of the box. With additions from positive and creative individuals, it could provide universal coverage that is simple to understand and truly affordable.
Ben S. Carson is professor emeritus of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University.
Dr. Ben Carson's Alternative to Obamacare
CARSON: A better alternative to Obamacare
By Ben S. Carson Tuesday, October 22, 2013
When I was an intern at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the 1970s, I was very impressed by the caliber of patients on the wards. There would be presidents and CEOs of large corporations, as well as queens and crown princes of various countries, many of whom were dying of horrible diseases and all of whom would be quite willing to give all their wealth and titles for a clean bill of health.
It was easy to understand that there is not much in life that is worthwhile without your health. It is by far our most important possession, which we should jealously protect. For this reason, I heartily agree that we as a nation need to focus significant emphasis and resources on providing good health care for all of our citizens. My question is this: Can we provide this without turning over control of our most important possession to the government?
Some will say we have already relinquished it, so why talk about it any further? Others say only the poor are affected by Obamacare, and everything remains the same for all the others. Of course, this is not true, since the many regulations associated with the health care law affect everyone. Also, the economic impact does not occur in isolation.
Rather than complain about Obamacare, it might be useful to begin to discuss some enhancements or future alterations that can make it work effectively or provide an alternative if it fails. The first question is, what do you need for good health care in America?
You need a patient, a health care provider and a mechanism of payment. Along came a middleman namely, the government and the insurance companies to facilitate the relationship. Now the middleman has become the primary entity, with the health care provider and the patient at its beck and call. The whole enterprise has been turned upside down.
In order to right the ship, we need to return the responsibility for good health care to the patient and the health care provider. One of the best ways to do this is through health savings accounts, which patients can control. Even if the federal government provided such an account for every American citizen that was increased by $2,000 each year, it would cost less than $700 billion a year and everyone would be covered.
Keep in mind the fact that more than 150 million Americans are employed and their $2,000 per year in most cases would be happily supplied by the employer if that was their only health care obligation. This would make employers much more likely to want to expand their businesses and hire more people, and it would decrease the governments entitlement obligations by hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
At least a quarter of the $2,000 per year would be devoted to bridge insurance or catastrophic insurance, and all citizens would have the right to contribute to their health savings accounts from other sources without limit. It would also be possible for people to transfer funds between accounts within a family.
For example, if a husband needed care and was a thousand dollars short, his wife, son, daughter and father could make contributions from their accounts to cover the expense. This would essentially turn each family into its own private insurance company with no middleman.
It should also be possible for everyone to donate up to 5 percent of the value of their health savings accounts to anyone of their choosing in any given year. For example, if there was someone in their church or an associate at work in need and for some reason didnt have adequate resources in his account, his fellow members and associates could band together and donate a portion of their accounts to cover the expense.
This would create a strong sense of community, which is a very good thing. Since one could pass his savings on to a family member or anyone of his choosing at the time of death, there would be no incentive to spend everything in the account before dying.
Over the course of a lifetime, it is likely that most people would have accumulated quite a significant amount in their health savings accounts, and it should be possible after reaching a certain dollar amount for people to withdraw a percentage of their savings for their personal use in any way they deem fit. For some elderly people, this could serve as a very nice retirement supplement.
As time passed, individuals and families would accumulate extremely large amounts of money, and the government obligation would become smaller. Instead of the government becoming a bigger part of each persons life, it would diminish, reducing the need for ever-increasing revenue streams.
This is just the basic framework of an alternative system to Obamacare that involves thinking outside of the box. With additions from positive and creative individuals, it could provide universal coverage that is simple to understand and truly affordable.
Ben S. Carson is professor emeritus of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University.
CARSON: A better alternative to Obamacare - Washington Times
Dr. Ben Carson's Alternative to Obamacare
CARSON: A better alternative to Obamacare
By Ben S. Carson Tuesday, October 22, 2013
When I was an intern at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the 1970s, I was very impressed by the caliber of patients on the wards. There would be presidents and CEOs of large corporations, as well as queens and crown princes of various countries, many of whom were dying of horrible diseases and all of whom would be quite willing to give all their wealth and titles for a clean bill of health.
It was easy to understand that there is not much in life that is worthwhile without your health. It is by far our most important possession, which we should jealously protect. For this reason, I heartily agree that we as a nation need to focus significant emphasis and resources on providing good health care for all of our citizens. My question is this: Can we provide this without turning over control of our most important possession to the government?
Some will say we have already relinquished it, so why talk about it any further? Others say only the poor are affected by Obamacare, and everything remains the same for all the others. Of course, this is not true, since the many regulations associated with the health care law affect everyone. Also, the economic impact does not occur in isolation.
Rather than complain about Obamacare, it might be useful to begin to discuss some enhancements or future alterations that can make it work effectively or provide an alternative if it fails. The first question is, what do you need for good health care in America?
You need a patient, a health care provider and a mechanism of payment. Along came a middleman namely, the government and the insurance companies to facilitate the relationship. Now the middleman has become the primary entity, with the health care provider and the patient at its beck and call. The whole enterprise has been turned upside down.
In order to right the ship, we need to return the responsibility for good health care to the patient and the health care provider. One of the best ways to do this is through health savings accounts, which patients can control. Even if the federal government provided such an account for every American citizen that was increased by $2,000 each year, it would cost less than $700 billion a year and everyone would be covered.
Keep in mind the fact that more than 150 million Americans are employed and their $2,000 per year in most cases would be happily supplied by the employer if that was their only health care obligation. This would make employers much more likely to want to expand their businesses and hire more people, and it would decrease the governments entitlement obligations by hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
At least a quarter of the $2,000 per year would be devoted to bridge insurance or catastrophic insurance, and all citizens would have the right to contribute to their health savings accounts from other sources without limit. It would also be possible for people to transfer funds between accounts within a family.
For example, if a husband needed care and was a thousand dollars short, his wife, son, daughter and father could make contributions from their accounts to cover the expense. This would essentially turn each family into its own private insurance company with no middleman.
It should also be possible for everyone to donate up to 5 percent of the value of their health savings accounts to anyone of their choosing in any given year. For example, if there was someone in their church or an associate at work in need and for some reason didnt have adequate resources in his account, his fellow members and associates could band together and donate a portion of their accounts to cover the expense.
This would create a strong sense of community, which is a very good thing. Since one could pass his savings on to a family member or anyone of his choosing at the time of death, there would be no incentive to spend everything in the account before dying.
Over the course of a lifetime, it is likely that most people would have accumulated quite a significant amount in their health savings accounts, and it should be possible after reaching a certain dollar amount for people to withdraw a percentage of their savings for their personal use in any way they deem fit. For some elderly people, this could serve as a very nice retirement supplement.
As time passed, individuals and families would accumulate extremely large amounts of money, and the government obligation would become smaller. Instead of the government becoming a bigger part of each persons life, it would diminish, reducing the need for ever-increasing revenue streams.
This is just the basic framework of an alternative system to Obamacare that involves thinking outside of the box. With additions from positive and creative individuals, it could provide universal coverage that is simple to understand and truly affordable.
Ben S. Carson is professor emeritus of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University.
CARSON: A better alternative to Obamacare - Washington Times
Dr. Ben Carson's Alternative to Obamacare
CARSON: A better alternative to Obamacare
By Ben S. Carson Tuesday, October 22, 2013
When I was an intern at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the 1970s, I was very impressed by the caliber of patients on the wards. There would be presidents and CEOs of large corporations, as well as queens and crown princes of various countries, many of whom were dying of horrible diseases and all of whom would be quite willing to give all their wealth and titles for a clean bill of health.
It was easy to understand that there is not much in life that is worthwhile without your health. It is by far our most important possession, which we should jealously protect. For this reason, I heartily agree that we as a nation need to focus significant emphasis and resources on providing good health care for all of our citizens. My question is this: Can we provide this without turning over control of our most important possession to the government?
Some will say we have already relinquished it, so why talk about it any further? Others say only the poor are affected by Obamacare, and everything remains the same for all the others. Of course, this is not true, since the many regulations associated with the health care law affect everyone. Also, the economic impact does not occur in isolation.
Rather than complain about Obamacare, it might be useful to begin to discuss some enhancements or future alterations that can make it work effectively or provide an alternative if it fails. The first question is, what do you need for good health care in America?
You need a patient, a health care provider and a mechanism of payment. Along came a middleman namely, the government and the insurance companies to facilitate the relationship. Now the middleman has become the primary entity, with the health care provider and the patient at its beck and call. The whole enterprise has been turned upside down.
In order to right the ship, we need to return the responsibility for good health care to the patient and the health care provider. One of the best ways to do this is through health savings accounts, which patients can control. Even if the federal government provided such an account for every American citizen that was increased by $2,000 each year, it would cost less than $700 billion a year and everyone would be covered.
Keep in mind the fact that more than 150 million Americans are employed and their $2,000 per year in most cases would be happily supplied by the employer if that was their only health care obligation. This would make employers much more likely to want to expand their businesses and hire more people, and it would decrease the governments entitlement obligations by hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
At least a quarter of the $2,000 per year would be devoted to bridge insurance or catastrophic insurance, and all citizens would have the right to contribute to their health savings accounts from other sources without limit. It would also be possible for people to transfer funds between accounts within a family.
For example, if a husband needed care and was a thousand dollars short, his wife, son, daughter and father could make contributions from their accounts to cover the expense. This would essentially turn each family into its own private insurance company with no middleman.
It should also be possible for everyone to donate up to 5 percent of the value of their health savings accounts to anyone of their choosing in any given year. For example, if there was someone in their church or an associate at work in need and for some reason didnt have adequate resources in his account, his fellow members and associates could band together and donate a portion of their accounts to cover the expense.
This would create a strong sense of community, which is a very good thing. Since one could pass his savings on to a family member or anyone of his choosing at the time of death, there would be no incentive to spend everything in the account before dying.
Over the course of a lifetime, it is likely that most people would have accumulated quite a significant amount in their health savings accounts, and it should be possible after reaching a certain dollar amount for people to withdraw a percentage of their savings for their personal use in any way they deem fit. For some elderly people, this could serve as a very nice retirement supplement.
As time passed, individuals and families would accumulate extremely large amounts of money, and the government obligation would become smaller. Instead of the government becoming a bigger part of each persons life, it would diminish, reducing the need for ever-increasing revenue streams.
This is just the basic framework of an alternative system to Obamacare that involves thinking outside of the box. With additions from positive and creative individuals, it could provide universal coverage that is simple to understand and truly affordable.
Ben S. Carson is professor emeritus of neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University.
CARSON: A better alternative to Obamacare - Washington Times
Health Savings Accounts have been around since 2003.
Republican plan: Don't have the money = die!
Just wanted to remind everyone that just like I said at the beginning of this absurd thread WE DONT NEED TO SUPPLY AN ALTERNATIVE. A few minor tweaks to the old system would more than suffice.
Just wanted to remind everyone that just like I said at the beginning of this absurd thread WE DONT NEED TO SUPPLY AN ALTERNATIVE. A few minor tweaks to the old system would more than suffice.
That would have been sufficient for half the country. Thats where all of the crocodile tears are coming from. People afraid that there entitlements from wealth might be compromised by the middle class.
Health care from a business perspective is like high unemployment. It can be used to increase the fear of employees leaving their job. It's economic intimidation.
Just wanted to remind everyone that just like I said at the beginning of this absurd thread WE DONT NEED TO SUPPLY AN ALTERNATIVE. A few minor tweaks to the old system would more than suffice.
That would have been sufficient for half the country. Thats where all of the crocodile tears are coming from. People afraid that there entitlements from wealth might be compromised by the middle class.
Health care from a business perspective is like high unemployment. It can be used to increase the fear of employees leaving their job. It's economic intimidation.
I just don't understand how Obamacare will "drive down costs".
Old System: People shop for insurance on private market, poor people get Medicaid
New System: People are forced to shop for insurance on private market, poor people get Medicaid. Insurers must pick up pre-existing conditions.
I don't understand what fundamentally has changed that will drive down costs. The pre-existing condition clause certainly won't be helping the matter!
Obamacare expands Medicaid to people not now covered. Many people now without insurance are forced to take advantage of Reagan's free emergency room treatment which is the most expensive, least effective care possible. Many people without health care options are sick more often and for longer because they can't afford treatment. That has an impact on business and education.
With Obamacare, most everyone has insurance with adequate coverage so medical bankruptcies will be reduced.
So you're assuming the health insurance companies will not hire anymore people if they're tasked to take on additional work?Also more clients for private health insurance companies will spread their appallingly high administrative costs over a larger base.
The Obamacare website will empower consumers to become informed. That rewards the most cost effective insurance companies and motivates the least effective to higher performance.
Obamacare expands Medicaid to people not now covered. Many people now without insurance are forced to take advantage of Reagan's free emergency room treatment which is the most expensive, least effective care possible. Many people without health care options are sick more often and for longer because they can't afford treatment. That has an impact on business and education.
Why not then just expand Medicaid? Why do you have to also make the price of my plan go up?
With Obamacare, most everyone has insurance with adequate coverage so medical bankruptcies will be reduced.
I have insurance, have had insurance for a long time, and the only "change" I see is that it's going up drastically. Where do I fit into the equation?
So you're assuming the health insurance companies will not hire anymore people if they're tasked to take on additional work?Also more clients for private health insurance companies will spread their appallingly high administrative costs over a larger base.
The Obamacare website will empower consumers to become informed. That rewards the most cost effective insurance companies and motivates the least effective to higher performance.
Informed about what? Insurance costs?
The only way you're going to get consumers informed about healthcare costs is to reduce this idea that everything "must be covered on insurance" and force them to pay out of pocket for non-catastrophic expensive.
If the consumer aint price shopping doctors, the doctors have no incentive to charge less; does that make sense?
Obamacare expands Medicaid to people not now covered. Many people now without insurance are forced to take advantage of Reagan's free emergency room treatment which is the most expensive, least effective care possible. Many people without health care options are sick more often and for longer because they can't afford treatment. That has an impact on business and education.
Why not then just expand Medicaid? Why do you have to also make the price of my plan go up?
With Obamacare, most everyone has insurance with adequate coverage so medical bankruptcies will be reduced.
I have insurance, have had insurance for a long time, and the only "change" I see is that it's going up drastically. Where do I fit into the equation?
So you're assuming the health insurance companies will not hire anymore people if they're tasked to take on additional work?Also more clients for private health insurance companies will spread their appallingly high administrative costs over a larger base.
The Obamacare website will empower consumers to become informed. That rewards the most cost effective insurance companies and motivates the least effective to higher performance.
Informed about what? Insurance costs?
The only way you're going to get consumers informed about healthcare costs is to reduce this idea that everything "must be covered on insurance" and force them to pay out of pocket for non-catastrophic expensive.
If the consumer aint price shopping doctors, the doctors have no incentive to charge less; does that make sense?
Obamacare expands Medicaid to people not now covered. Many people now without insurance are forced to take advantage of Reagan's free emergency room treatment which is the most expensive, least effective care possible. Many people without health care options are sick more often and for longer because they can't afford treatment. That has an impact on business and education.
Why not then just expand Medicaid? Why do you have to also make the price of my plan go up?
I have insurance, have had insurance for a long time, and the only "change" I see is that it's going up drastically. Where do I fit into the equation?
So you're assuming the health insurance companies will not hire anymore people if they're tasked to take on additional work?
The Obamacare website will empower consumers to become informed. That rewards the most cost effective insurance companies and motivates the least effective to higher performance.
Informed about what? Insurance costs?
The only way you're going to get consumers informed about healthcare costs is to reduce this idea that everything "must be covered on insurance" and force them to pay out of pocket for non-catastrophic expensive.
If the consumer aint price shopping doctors, the doctors have no incentive to charge less; does that make sense?
There has been no change in "this idea that everything "must be covered on insurance" and force them to pay out of pocket for non-catastrophic expensive."
There are numerous plans that share risk between anyone's savings account and insurance.
Because there are so many alternatives, it's easy for people unfamiliar with the insurance game to make mistakes in balancing cost and benefit. Especially when they may have been used to employers making those decisions for them.
Having used Medicare . gov to sort through all of the Medicare supplemental options, I know how helpful Healthcare. gov will be, and, in fact, is being, now.
Why not then just expand Medicaid? Why do you have to also make the price of my plan go up?
I have insurance, have had insurance for a long time, and the only "change" I see is that it's going up drastically. Where do I fit into the equation?
So you're assuming the health insurance companies will not hire anymore people if they're tasked to take on additional work?
Informed about what? Insurance costs?
The only way you're going to get consumers informed about healthcare costs is to reduce this idea that everything "must be covered on insurance" and force them to pay out of pocket for non-catastrophic expensive.
If the consumer aint price shopping doctors, the doctors have no incentive to charge less; does that make sense?
There has been no change in "this idea that everything "must be covered on insurance" and force them to pay out of pocket for non-catastrophic expensive."
There are numerous plans that share risk between anyone's savings account and insurance.
Because there are so many alternatives, it's easy for people unfamiliar with the insurance game to make mistakes in balancing cost and benefit. Especially when they may have been used to employers making those decisions for them.
Having used Medicare . gov to sort through all of the Medicare supplemental options, I know how helpful Healthcare. gov will be, and, in fact, is being, now.
But the question I keep asking - what about folks like myself who are seeing higher premiums + less coverage?! There are millions and millions and millions of us!
I'm middle class, already pay taxes and help the poor via medicaid. Now my premium skyrocketed and I'll be forced to pay a much larger percentage per month 2014 and beyond. If it's called the "affordable care act", then why am I and millions of other people paying MORE money for healthcare after it went into effect?
I'm paying MORE for healthcare, lol, and getting a worse plan. See why I'm upset?
