How to Provide Universal Health Care Using this One Easy Trick

This_person

Well-Known Member

The first sentence of Congress’ Obamacare repeal should read: “There shall be a free market in health insurance.”

Right there, I’ve solved the health insurance crisis for 90 percent of Americans. Unfortunately, no one can imagine what a free market in health care looks like because we haven’t had one for nearly a century.

...

It turns out that, outside of a communist dictatorship, all sorts of products are affordable AND widely available! We don’t need Congress to “provide” us with health care any more than we need them to “provide” us with bread. What we need is for health insurance to be available on the free market.

With lots of companies competing for your business, basic health insurance would cost about $50 a month. We know the cost because Christian groups got a waiver from Obamacare, and that’s how much their insurance costs right now. (Under the law, it can’t be called “insurance,” but that’s what it is.)

Even young, healthy people would buy insurance at that price, expanding the “risk-sharing pools” and probably bringing the cost down to $20 or $30 a month.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member

The first sentence of Congress’ Obamacare repeal should read: “There shall be a free market in health insurance.”

Right there, I’ve solved the health insurance crisis for 90 percent of Americans. Unfortunately, no one can imagine what a free market in health care looks like because we haven’t had one for nearly a century.

...

It turns out that, outside of a communist dictatorship, all sorts of products are affordable AND widely available! We don’t need Congress to “provide” us with health care any more than we need them to “provide” us with bread. What we need is for health insurance to be available on the free market.

With lots of companies competing for your business, basic health insurance would cost about $50 a month. We know the cost because Christian groups got a waiver from Obamacare, and that’s how much their insurance costs right now. (Under the law, it can’t be called “insurance,” but that’s what it is.)

Even young, healthy people would buy insurance at that price, expanding the “risk-sharing pools” and probably bringing the cost down to $20 or $30 a month.

Be nice to try it. Isn't there an insurance Lobby that puts money in the pockets of Congresscritters that is against this?
 

tommyjo

New Member
Stupid article.

1. Define " basic health insurance would cost about $50 a month".

2. We currently have a system of catastrophic to Cadillac plans.

3. the idiotic car insurance comparison...car insurance IS A MANDATED COVERAGE (morons). There is a MANDATED MINIMUM...get hit by a driver with the minimum coverage...worse get injured...see how wonderful that minimal insurance works!

The "free market" can't solve every problem just like the government can't solve every problem.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Stupid article.

1. Define " basic health insurance would cost about $50 a month". Read the article.

2. We currently have a system of catastrophic to Cadillac plans. Generally speaking, it gets dark at night and much lighter during the day. Is there a point to what you said?

3. the idiotic car insurance comparison...car insurance IS A MANDATED COVERAGE (morons). There is a MANDATED MINIMUM...get hit by a driver with the minimum coverage...worse get injured...see how wonderful that minimal insurance works! Car insurance is only mandated if you drive, and the coverage you are mandated to have is to protect OTHER people, not you, and you can buy it across state lines. Hmmm, sounds like a totally different capability, doesn't it?

The "free market" can't solve every problem just like the government can't solve every problem.

It's true the free market can't solve every problem. I don't recall the article suggesting it can, but rather addressing one problem that exists. This is not a problem for government to solve, but rather to stop making more difficult.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
It's true the free market can't solve every problem. I don't recall the article suggesting it can, but rather addressing one problem that exists. This is not a problem for government to solve, but rather to stop making more difficult.

This is from memory but didn't Ann say, if you want to stay in Obamacare, you can? So it doesn't eliminate Obamacare, it just makes options available.
Kind of makes sense now.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
This is from memory but didn't Ann say, if you want to stay in Obamacare, you can? So it doesn't eliminate Obamacare, it just makes options available.
Kind of makes sense now.

Personally, I've always been fine with groups - even if those groups are just individuals who gather together in a government website. We all know insurance is cheaper when spread around. We also know more than 80% of the people were happy with how things were before the ACA. That means about 20% of the people needed something different.

- Offer them a group, but don't mandate it. Those who really want it but have problems will have a better chance at affording it. Those that don't want it don't have to.
- Take down state barriers - this will make it more competitive, thus lowering costs.
- Offer all the same tax benefits that companies get for insurance purchase - you will leave the employer-provided world and have most people purchasing what they want from whom they want.
- Vastly increase the Health Savings benefits - people will buy catastrophic insurance and pay for the cheap #### out of pocket, because it is worth it.



This does not seem to be rocket surgery, you know?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
That means about 20% of the people needed something different.

I thought the PURPOSE of Obamacare was to ensure the 20% (or less) HAD healthcare.
Since it was implemented, the overwhelming majority of new healthcare recipients are people on Medicaid.

But to do it, they had to screw with the entire system to get a result they could have gotten if they just expanded Medicaid,
because we still have millions without healthcare and many who opted to just pay the fine.

They had to futz with a system that people already liked - and many who LOST their healthcare - just to add the people they wanted.

-------------------
Actually Ann touches upon something in the article I've always hated - the idea that healthcare is expensive because state and federal requirements for people
to be able to receive care they will never need or require but increased costs on the things they are likely to need.
From what I understood as it came out, that was the big problem with selling across state lines - this or that state would have different requirements - maybe one
state would completely cover psychiatric treatment or baldness treatment - and another would not.
To me, that seems like the kind of thing where if you could CHOOSE a plan that covered it, you could.
I have a daughter with severe hearing loss - some plans cover it well, some don't.
That is kind of the way I think it SHOULD work.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
I thought the PURPOSE of Obamacare was to ensure the 20% (or less) HAD healthcare.
Since it was implemented, the overwhelming majority of new healthcare recipients are people on Medicaid.

But to do it, they had to screw with the entire system to get a result they could have gotten if they just expanded Medicaid,
because we still have millions without healthcare and many who opted to just pay the fine.

They had to futz with a system that people already liked - and many who LOST their healthcare - just to add the people they wanted.

-------------------
Actually Ann touches upon something in the article I've always hated - the idea that healthcare is expensive because state and federal requirements for people
to be able to receive care they will never need or require but increased costs on the things they are likely to need.
From what I understood as it came out, that was the big problem with selling across state lines - this or that state would have different requirements - maybe one
state would completely cover psychiatric treatment or baldness treatment - and another would not.
To me, that seems like the kind of thing where if you could CHOOSE a plan that covered it, you could.
I have a daughter with severe hearing loss - some plans cover it well, some don't.
That is kind of the way I think it SHOULD work.

Agreed!
 
Top