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

[Ambivalent1]

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.

That ship has sailed and it's never coming back.

 

[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?

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.

We would...but the politicians and insurance companies have set up monopolies in states....more competition would mean cheaper and better healthcare, and more innovation with medicine......but that cuts the democrats out of the loop and they won't stand for that.

the only way to open all states to all companies is for all states to have the exact same standards and requirements. the only way to do that is for the Fed Govt to force them to comply. Only a statist would argue for such things

And that is Trumps grand plan. I keep laughing at the "across state lines" canard.

 

[2aguy]

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.

We would...but the politicians and insurance companies have set up monopolies in states....more competition would mean cheaper and better healthcare, and more innovation with medicine......but that cuts the democrats out of the loop and they won't stand for that.

the only way to open all states to all companies is for all states to have the exact same standards and requirements. the only way to do that is for the Fed Govt to force them to comply. Only a statist would argue for such things

No.....you simply allow the insurance companies to offer whatever plans they feel will make them money...the competition for customer dollars will do the rest....including lowering cost, increasing quality...just like your cell phone and flat screen television...

 

[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?

no employer forces you to use their healthcare plan. You can choose not to and get your own

The problem there is that IF you have a Group plan available you will not get any assistance/subsidy and not many can afford it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

We would...but the politicians and insurance companies have set up monopolies in states....more competition would mean cheaper and better healthcare, and more innovation with medicine......but that cuts the democrats out of the loop and they won't stand for that.

the only way to open all states to all companies is for all states to have the exact same standards and requirements. the only way to do that is for the Fed Govt to force them to comply. Only a statist would argue for such things

And that is Trumps grand plan. I keep laughing at the "across state lines" canard.

it is indeed a canard

 

[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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Markets don’t work with healthcare.

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

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

We would...but the politicians and insurance companies have set up monopolies in states....more competition would mean cheaper and better healthcare, and more innovation with medicine......but that cuts the democrats out of the loop and they won't stand for that.

the only way to open all states to all companies is for all states to have the exact same standards and requirements. the only way to do that is for the Fed Govt to force them to comply. Only a statist would argue for such things

No.....you simply allow the insurance companies to offer whatever plans they feel will make them money...the competition for customer dollars will do the rest....including lowering cost, increasing quality...just like your cell phone and flat screen television...

Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state.

Also, a few states did this already, they opened up to any and all insurance companies and nothing changed. There is still the small issue of getting doctors and providers and hospitals into their "network"

 

[Ambivalent1]

Markets don’t work with healthcare.

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

.

Not since 2012.

 

[RandomPoster]

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.

We would...but the politicians and insurance companies have set up monopolies in states....more competition would mean cheaper and better healthcare, and more innovation with medicine......but that cuts the democrats out of the loop and they won't stand for that.

the only way to open all states to all companies is for all states to have the exact same standards and requirements. the only way to do that is for the Fed Govt to force them to comply. Only a statist would argue for such things

No.....you simply allow the insurance companies to offer whatever plans they feel will make them money...the competition for customer dollars will do the rest....including lowering cost, increasing quality...just like your cell phone and flat screen television...

Exactly, stop over-regulating it. The government messes up far more than they help.

 

[RandomPoster]

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.

We would...but the politicians and insurance companies have set up monopolies in states....more competition would mean cheaper and better healthcare, and more innovation with medicine......but that cuts the democrats out of the loop and they won't stand for that.

the only way to open all states to all companies is for all states to have the exact same standards and requirements. the only way to do that is for the Fed Govt to force them to comply. Only a statist would argue for such things

No.....you simply allow the insurance companies to offer whatever plans they feel will make them money...the competition for customer dollars will do the rest....including lowering cost, increasing quality...just like your cell phone and flat screen television...

Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state.

Also, a few states did this already, they opened up to any and all insurance companies and nothing changed. There is still the small issue of getting doctors and providers and hospitals into their "network"

The first sentence is the problem:

"Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state."

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

We would...but the politicians and insurance companies have set up monopolies in states....more competition would mean cheaper and better healthcare, and more innovation with medicine......but that cuts the democrats out of the loop and they won't stand for that.

the only way to open all states to all companies is for all states to have the exact same standards and requirements. the only way to do that is for the Fed Govt to force them to comply. Only a statist would argue for such things

No.....you simply allow the insurance companies to offer whatever plans they feel will make them money...the competition for customer dollars will do the rest....including lowering cost, increasing quality...just like your cell phone and flat screen television...

Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state.

Also, a few states did this already, they opened up to any and all insurance companies and nothing changed. There is still the small issue of getting doctors and providers and hospitals into their "network"

The first sentence is the problem:

"Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state."

and how do you propose to fix that?

Should the Fed Govt override the rights of the state?

 

[RandomPoster]

We would...but the politicians and insurance companies have set up monopolies in states....more competition would mean cheaper and better healthcare, and more innovation with medicine......but that cuts the democrats out of the loop and they won't stand for that.

the only way to open all states to all companies is for all states to have the exact same standards and requirements. the only way to do that is for the Fed Govt to force them to comply. Only a statist would argue for such things

No.....you simply allow the insurance companies to offer whatever plans they feel will make them money...the competition for customer dollars will do the rest....including lowering cost, increasing quality...just like your cell phone and flat screen television...

Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state.

Also, a few states did this already, they opened up to any and all insurance companies and nothing changed. There is still the small issue of getting doctors and providers and hospitals into their "network"

The first sentence is the problem:

"Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state."

and how do you propose to fix that?

Should the Fed Govt override the rights of the state?

No one should regulate it. Let the free market take care of it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

the only way to open all states to all companies is for all states to have the exact same standards and requirements. the only way to do that is for the Fed Govt to force them to comply. Only a statist would argue for such things

No.....you simply allow the insurance companies to offer whatever plans they feel will make them money...the competition for customer dollars will do the rest....including lowering cost, increasing quality...just like your cell phone and flat screen television...

Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state.

Also, a few states did this already, they opened up to any and all insurance companies and nothing changed. There is still the small issue of getting doctors and providers and hospitals into their "network"

The first sentence is the problem:

"Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state."

and how do you propose to fix that?

Should the Fed Govt override the rights of the state?

No one should regulate it. Let the free market take care of it.

So, there should be no rules or regulations at all? I assume you carry that over to everything else as well? You think there should be no regulations at all?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

If you're buying insurance, you're going to be pooled with a variety of people - all the other people who bought that particular coverage - no matter what you might prefer. It's the pooling that is supposed to bring the price down.

 

[BlindBoo]

I want a discount, cash/no paperwork option from my doctor. I'm willing to sigh a waiver promising not to sue him for malpractice if my cough turns out to be lung cancer.

"No paperwork" in what sense, exactly? Which paperwork are you objecting to?

Insurance reimbursement forms.

 

[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.

If you're buying insurance, you're going to be pooled with a variety of people - all the other people who bought that particular coverage - no matter what you might prefer. It's the pooling that is supposed to bring the price down.

When you buy car insurance, you are not pooled with people with 6 DWIs and 12 accidents on their record in you have a clean record. They assign brackets based on risk, not name of employer.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

We would...but the politicians and insurance companies have set up monopolies in states....more competition would mean cheaper and better healthcare, and more innovation with medicine......but that cuts the democrats out of the loop and they won't stand for that.

Yes, I know. That's why I specified a system where we purchase healthcare and insurance the way we do other things: because we so obviously don't have one now.

Leftists hate the idea of other people running their own lives, because they're sure THEY are geniuses who know best for everyone, and they're also sure that everyone else is a helpless idiot who can't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time without their assistance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

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?

 

[RandomPoster]

No.....you simply allow the insurance companies to offer whatever plans they feel will make them money...the competition for customer dollars will do the rest....including lowering cost, increasing quality...just like your cell phone and flat screen television...

Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state.

Also, a few states did this already, they opened up to any and all insurance companies and nothing changed. There is still the small issue of getting doctors and providers and hospitals into their "network"

The first sentence is the problem:

"Every state has requirements that must be met to operate in that state."

and how do you propose to fix that?

Should the Fed Govt override the rights of the state?

No one should regulate it. Let the free market take care of it.

So, there should be no rules or regulations at all? I assume you carry that over to everything else as well? You think there should be no regulations at all?

I already gave you an example, 911 service, that I might consider socialization to be a good idea on and explained my reasoning.

"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 deterioration 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 and are skating by without paying, however, I'm still thinking of the benefit of letting people abuse that and encouraging slackers."