I’m pretty sure no one wants “free” healthcare…
… I’m pretty sure we all want healthcare paid for by our taxes, which covers everyone, and ensures that everyone can get treatment when they’re sick.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
The reality is that no wants to deal rationally with health insurance. They accept that mandatory auto insurance, and essentially mandatory property insurance, is a way of a) spreading the costs over the largest number of people to reduce the costs to any individual and b) assuring that society -- the rest of us -- are protected from those who attempt to skate through life without taking any responsibility for their own actions. You must have car insurance in case you hit me, so it doesn't drive up my costs. But you can go without health insurance, not seek care because you can't afford it, and spread the disease to me because to do otherwise would be socialism.
They balk at government being in control of health care while, at the same time, yelling "keep government's hand off my Medicare" as if Medicare isn't totally a government system. They balk at single payer systems because they want choice. The Conservative Heritage Foundation came up with the framework of what became the Affordable Care Act, and they have fumed at Obamacare ever since. They want the ability to shop around for the cheapest plan, then complain the cheapest plan doesn't cover anything after the pre-existing conditions, the approval processes, the co-pays, and out of pocket expenses and all they paid for was to be ripped off. But any standardization of minimal benefits is government intrusion and anathema.
And most of all, they don't want to pay taxes for others to receive "free health care". There is no "free health care". The days of altruistic doctors working for free, and nurses being nuns doing it as their religious service, are long gone. And if people can't afford to be seen for regular, low cost, preventive health care services, they are going to walk around getting sicker, infecting others, until they are so sick they go to the public hospital where the "free" care is paid for by --- drum roll, please -- property taxes.
They balk at government being in control of health care while, at the same time, yelling "keep government's hand off my Medicare" as if Medicare isn't totally a government system. They balk at single payer systems because they want choice. The Conservative Heritage Foundation came up with the framework of what became the Affordable Care Act, and they have fumed at Obamacare ever since. They want the ability to shop around for the cheapest plan, then complain the cheapest plan doesn't cover anything after the pre-existing conditions, the approval processes, the co-pays, and out of pocket expenses and all they paid for was to be ripped off. But any standardization of minimal benefits is government intrusion and anathema.
And most of all, they don't want to pay taxes for others to receive "free health care". There is no "free health care". The days of altruistic doctors working for free, and nurses being nuns doing it as their religious service, are long gone. And if people can't afford to be seen for regular, low cost, preventive health care services, they are going to walk around getting sicker, infecting others, until they are so sick they go to the public hospital where the "free" care is paid for by --- drum roll, please -- property taxes.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@dancingtongue LOL, allow health care companies to sell insurance across state lines and, like auto insurance, problem solved
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 So why didn't tRump "solve" the problem and repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act during his first term??
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues LOL, you will have to ask the demonocrats who are getting billions from the legalized extortion cartels commonly known as "insurance companies".
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 Show us the votes where dems refused to overturn McCarran-Ferguson. Oh wait, you can't because it only happened in your dreams.
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@sunsporter1649 And what major health insurers are not available in major markets across the country? Last time I looked, all the major, reputable ones were. The ones who can't are those cheap rip-off operations that essentially cover nothing operating out of those states with basically no oversight, no restrictions and are banned in states where you have to meet basic requirements.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues So you have access to the committee meetings where legislation is negotiated, eh?
Top Democrat Member Recipients of Money from Insurance, 1990-2024
Biden, Joe (D) $8,236,278
Harris, Kamala (D) $6,742,939
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $5,544,472
Obama, Barack (D) $5,525,204
Neal, Richard E (D-MA) $3,637,976
Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $2,998,119
Dodd, Chris (D-CT) $2,658,254
Larson, John (D-CT) $2,565,589
Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND) $2,178,445
Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) $2,138,289
Attal buy a lot ov sympathy, eh
Top Democrat Member Recipients of Money from Insurance, 1990-2024
Biden, Joe (D) $8,236,278
Harris, Kamala (D) $6,742,939
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) $5,544,472
Obama, Barack (D) $5,525,204
Neal, Richard E (D-MA) $3,637,976
Schumer, Charles E (D-NY) $2,998,119
Dodd, Chris (D-CT) $2,658,254
Larson, John (D-CT) $2,565,589
Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND) $2,178,445
Sanders, Bernie (I-VT) $2,138,289
Attal buy a lot ov sympathy, eh
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@dancingtongue Last time I looked, an individual in Minnesota can not purchase a policy written in New Mexico, instead is forced, by law, to purchase a policy written in Minnesota. You could look it up....
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@sunsporter1649 And the reason is that that policy written out of state doesn't cover anything, is a rip off, which is not allowed in Minnesota but they let them get away with in New Mexico. Or whatever two state example you want to through out. Meanwhile, you can find Blue Cross & Blue Shield in nearly if not all states, just as you can with practically all of the major health insurers, because they meet the standards required in those states and keep the con men out. But then I was only in the health care industry for 40 years, and only helped my nonprofit prepaid direct service health care system expand into half a dozen states so what do I know.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@dancingtongue You trying to tell me that the instate insurers are such sweet folks, never even contemplating the abuse of their exalted positions? And it seems the richest persons in any state seem to be insurance executives, and the richest corporations seem to be insurance companies. I held a 2-15 Health & Life (Including Annuities & Variable Contracts) Agent license, but what do I know
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@sunsporter1649 Not saying in-state insurers are much better. The whole for-profit health insurance system is suspect, and those which are only insurers particularly so. The financial incentives are to maximize profits for their shareholders, and their only ability to do that is to deny access to care or deny claims and the only way for the fee-for-service based for profit health care providers to survive is to over-prescribe, over-treat, and increase mark-ups on every band-aid. Add in increasingly expensive technology which can do wonderful things when used selectively and appropriately, but needs to be used continually to pay its cost, and you have a perfect storm for skyrocketing health care cost inflation.
That said, you are best off with (1) non-profits, (2) networks where insurers are working together with providers, rather than in competition with each other, to promote preventive health care services and efficiency, (3) ideally, where provider reimbursement is based on treatment modalities rather than fee-for-service piecework, where the incentive is to keep adding on needless tests and treatments, and (4) a rational marketplace with some standardization of benefit packages including minimal levels emphasizing health prevention/promotion, as well as provider data on quality and service, so consumers can make a rational choice instead of going for the cheapest plan only to find out they have bought nothing when it comes time to have to use it.
The Affordable Care Act was an attempt to address all those issues, including original provisions to shift, over time, payment of providers to treatment modalities rather than fee-for-service. And it emphasized primary care preventive and health promotion services to keep people healthy as long as possible, which is the only way to bring down health care costs while improving morbidity and mortality rates. (It is no accident that most of the industrialized world has far better morbidity and mortality rates at lower costs than the U.S. with some form of government-run universal health coverage.) It was a tremendous, challenging endeavor of the Affordable Care Act, never expected to be a finished product, but a work-in-progress to shift the entire paradigm of how health care is delivered in this country, to be continually tweaked and improved. Instead, the opponents have wasted nearly two decades trying to tear it apart without offering any alternatives.
That all said -- and all the opponents have stopped reading, I'm sure -- the worst culprits are those cheap for-profit insurance plans that essentially cover nothing when you go to file a claim. There is a reason why they only exist in states with minimal to non-existent regulatory oversight, and can't find a way to expand out-of-state. Their only advantage is a "cheap" monthly price so the owner can say they have health insurance, until they go to file a claim and find they have nothing. It only serves the insurer, the individual trying to avoid any universal coverage mandate, and the agents who sell them on commission. But then you already knew that, didn't you?
That said, you are best off with (1) non-profits, (2) networks where insurers are working together with providers, rather than in competition with each other, to promote preventive health care services and efficiency, (3) ideally, where provider reimbursement is based on treatment modalities rather than fee-for-service piecework, where the incentive is to keep adding on needless tests and treatments, and (4) a rational marketplace with some standardization of benefit packages including minimal levels emphasizing health prevention/promotion, as well as provider data on quality and service, so consumers can make a rational choice instead of going for the cheapest plan only to find out they have bought nothing when it comes time to have to use it.
The Affordable Care Act was an attempt to address all those issues, including original provisions to shift, over time, payment of providers to treatment modalities rather than fee-for-service. And it emphasized primary care preventive and health promotion services to keep people healthy as long as possible, which is the only way to bring down health care costs while improving morbidity and mortality rates. (It is no accident that most of the industrialized world has far better morbidity and mortality rates at lower costs than the U.S. with some form of government-run universal health coverage.) It was a tremendous, challenging endeavor of the Affordable Care Act, never expected to be a finished product, but a work-in-progress to shift the entire paradigm of how health care is delivered in this country, to be continually tweaked and improved. Instead, the opponents have wasted nearly two decades trying to tear it apart without offering any alternatives.
That all said -- and all the opponents have stopped reading, I'm sure -- the worst culprits are those cheap for-profit insurance plans that essentially cover nothing when you go to file a claim. There is a reason why they only exist in states with minimal to non-existent regulatory oversight, and can't find a way to expand out-of-state. Their only advantage is a "cheap" monthly price so the owner can say they have health insurance, until they go to file a claim and find they have nothing. It only serves the insurer, the individual trying to avoid any universal coverage mandate, and the agents who sell them on commission. But then you already knew that, didn't you?
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@dancingtongue So insurance companies are required to operate at a loss, right?
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 You sir, are very skilled at posting ijit misunderstandings. You don't really want to learn anything, you just want to play the ijit. And you're SO SO good at it!!
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues So insurance companies are required to operate at a loss, right?
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@sunsporter1649 Never said that. But their financial incentives have to include more than just profits for their shareholders, and their agents getting commissions for pushing paper. Non-profits have to generate revenue as well, but it is plowed back into the endeavor for maintenance, keeping up with growth and technology, as well as a certain level of community service to justify their tax-exempt status if they are 501(c)3.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@dancingtongue Gee, sounds just like capitalism, eh?
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 Regulated capitalism, just like your electric company.
P.S. we're still waiting for you to 'splain why tRump didn't "solve" the problem and sign an exectutive order repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act during his first term.
P.S. we're still waiting for you to 'splain why tRump didn't "solve" the problem and sign an exectutive order repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act during his first term.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues LOL, so you are advocating the takeover of private enterprise by government, eh?
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 You play the ijit so well!! The federal government has been regulating all kinds of businesses for over a century.
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
@ElwoodBlues LOL, so the electric company is an independant corporation and is merely regulated by the gubberment, eh?
ElwoodBlues · M
@sunsporter1649 Mine is. Do you live in a commie place where the state owns the means of producing electricity??
There are approximately 3,000 electric utility companies in the U.S.. These utilities include investor-owned companies, public utility districts, and member-owned cooperatives.
Investor-owned utilities served 72% of U.S. electricity