Here's An Idea

[g5000]

Man, look at the willful hostages in this topic!

They want the government to force them to accept the insurance the government decides they should have. They want their employers to decide what insurance they should have. They don't want free choice!

That is so sad.

No. You are the one who wanted this handled just like auto insurance. Auto insurance is mandated by the government. I don't think there is a single state that let's you drive without it.

The only choice you get in auto insurance is how much more coverage you want to buy above the minimum.

You can call any auto insurance company in the country you wish. Progressive, GEICO, Allstate, etc.

You see ads for them on TV all the time. That's because it is a thriving market.

Get it now?

You can also pick the amount of your deductible and any special options you wish above the mandated minimum.

 

[nodoginnafight]

In the past there have been a number of companies that will give you your premium equivalent if you decide not to take their coverage plan, so you could choose your own. And there have been large companies that gives you a choice of plans and benefits.

The other half of the equation is still missing. I cannot call up any health insurance company in the country I wish and buy health insurance from them.

Why not?

You don't HAVE to accept your company's plan.

There's nothing wrong with employers offering health care benefits to really good employees that they want to hang onto.

There's nothing wrong with YOU saying "no thanks" and hitting the bricks to buy your own plan.

I fail to see where the big problem is.

 

[Siete]

auto insurance has legal minimums for coverage

so if they could establish those for health insurance, I don't see why not

to me though the trouble is the cost of the care itself is fucking insane

I've been self insured for almost 2 decades. I watched my policy almost triple after the turn of 2000 ... as of right now, my health insurance is saving me $$ VS what I was paying ... I don't find that insane in the least.

 

[g5000]

auto insurance has legal minimums for coverage

so if they could establish those for health insurance, I don't see why not

to me though the trouble is the cost of the care itself is fucking insane

The cost of care is a direct effect of the current scheme. Which is precisely why the current scheme needs to go, with a vengeance.

 

[G.T.]

auto insurance has legal minimums for coverage

so if they could establish those for health insurance, I don't see why not

to me though the trouble is the cost of the care itself is fucking insane

I've been self insured for almost 2 decades. I watched my policy almost triple after the turn of 2000 ... as of right now, my health insurance is saving me $$ VS what I was paying ... I don't find that insane in the least.

I don't think you read my post correctly

I didn't even comment on the cost of insurance.

At all.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If there is a profit motive when it comes to health care.....the free market will work.....and those who cannot afford it will not get the care they need.

 

[g5000]

260 million people buying their own health insurance. The competition for their business would be fierce.

 

[G.T.]

auto insurance has legal minimums for coverage

so if they could establish those for health insurance, I don't see why not

to me though the trouble is the cost of the care itself is fucking insane

The cost of care is a direct effect of the current scheme. Which is precisely why the current scheme needs to go, with a vengeance.

I agree.

$41 for my friends dad on his eob for "smoking consultation"

doc asked: you smoke?
his dad: yes
Doc asked: want to quit
friend's dad: no.


$41. for that exact conversation. yummy.

 

[LoneLaugher]

260 million people buying their own health insurance. The competition for their business would be fierce.

Will everyone be mandated to purchase?

 

[g5000]

260 million people buying their own health insurance. The competition for their business would be fierce.

Will everyone be mandated to purchase?

No.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

I have this really insane idea.

Let's say you have a job. And let's say all your employer does every couple of weeks or so is give you...a paycheck!

Your employer does not give you health insurance. Instead, you call up any insurance company in the country and...get this...YOU decide what you need!

Do you need birth control coverage? You got it! No problem!

Do you need coverage if you get a broken leg? You got it! No problem!

Do you NOT need birth control coverage? No problem! You don't have to pay for that.


Just like the way you buy your auto insurance. You decide how big a deductible you can handle, and how much coverage you want.

And since you can buy your insurance from any company anywhere, they are all competing like crazy for your business. You have bargaining power.

This is where it all starts to break down. There is collusion amongst thieves and the thieves are the insurance companies.

Skip health insurance, for instance, and go straight to property insurance. Start with Hurricane Sandy homeowners up here. Begin....(20 months go by)...DING! Homeowners have been royally screwed up here. Shitty settlements that would barely replace a 10 year old used car.

Nope, sorry, you lost me.

 

[g5000]

If I own a house, I take a risk if I don't buy fire insurance. If I have a mortgage, the bank can decide it is not worth the risk and thereby make me buy fire insurance as a condition for giving me the loan. Nothing wrong with that at all. Banks making you buy insurance as long as you owe them money is universal.

But if I own my house free and clear, no one other than me stands to lose anything if my house burns down.

Same thing with health insurance. No one other than me would stand to lose anything if my health turns bad. I'd have some hellacious medical bills if I break a leg and don't have insurance. It would be my decision whether or not to take that risk.

There may be occupations which would require me to buy insurance as a condition of employment. Again, nothing wrong with that.

Autos are different. If I crash my car into someone else, they clearly stand to be harmed by that, and so we have auto insurance as a condition of being allowed to drive around.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No one is forcing you to accept your employer's healthcare plan.
You can reject it and buy your own if you chose.

If your employer values you enough to offer a plan and you accept it - then good for you.

I think you are manufacturing a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[G.T.]

If I own a house, I take a risk if I don't buy fire insurance. If I have a mortgage, the bank can decide it is not worth the risk and thereby make me buy fire insurance as a condition for giving me the loan. Nothing wrong with that at all. Banks making you buy insurance as long as you owe them money is universal.

But if I own my house free and clear, no one other than me stands to lose anything if my house burns down.

Same thing with health insurance. No one other than me would stand to lose anything if my health turns bad. I'd have some hellacious medical bills if I break a leg and don't have insurance. It would be my decision whether or not to take that risk.

There may be occupations which would require me to buy insurance as a condition of employment. Again, nothing wrong with that, at all.

Autos are different. If I crash my car into someone else, they clearly stand to be harmed by that, and so we have auto insurance as a condition of being allowed to drive around.

You're missing a part of the equation which is people that do not and can not pay out of pocket for a medical service they received and also opted not to get insurance -


something is going to have to eat that cost for the hospitals/doc offices, etc.

 

[Ravi]

If I own a house, I take a risk if I don't buy fire insurance. If I have a mortgage, the bank can decide it is not worth the risk and thereby make me buy fire insurance as a condition for giving me the loan. Nothing wrong with that at all. Banks making you buy insurance as long as you owe them money is universal.

But if I own my house free and clear, no one other than me stands to lose anything if my house burns down.

Same thing with health insurance. No one other than me would stand to lose anything if my health turns bad. I'd have some hellacious medical bills if I break a leg and don't have insurance. It would be my decision whether or not to take that risk.

There may be occupations which would require me to buy insurance as a condition of employment. Again, nothing wrong with that.

Autos are different. If I crash my car into someone else, they clearly stand to be harmed by that, and so we have auto insurance as a condition of being allowed to drive around.

You're broken leg will get fixed. At taxpayer's expense.

If your house burns down, you get a huge write off of your income taxes.

Next.

 

[g5000]

No one is forcing you to accept your employer's healthcare plan.
You can reject it and buy your own if you chose.

The government has placed you at an extreme disadvantage if you choose this route.

First, your employer-sponsored health insurance is tax exempt. That's a giant government boondoggle right there all by itself.

If you buy your own health insurance, you are already at a multi-thousand tax dollar disadvantage before you even pick up the phone.

Second, very few employers compensate you for not using their insurance. You don't get an increase in pay, even though you are saving them about $10,000 in cost share.

Third, the government has tied the hands of its health insurance competitors. You cannot pick up the phone and call any health insurance company in the country. You are as much a hostage to insurance companies as you are to cable/internet provider companies.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Employers don't give health insurance to their workers. They pay their workers in money and benefits, one of which is health insurance.

What the SCOTUS and the RW wants is for the worker to go on paying for their own health insurance, just as they are now, but not actually get what they're paying for.

That's what the SCOTUS said in their ruling - women are paying for something they no longer get.

Ask if HL is paying those women in money what they used to pay in health care insurance. The answer is no.

 

[Siete]

auto insurance has legal minimums for coverage

so if they could establish those for health insurance, I don't see why not

to me though the trouble is the cost of the care itself is fucking insane

I've been self insured for almost 2 decades. I watched my policy almost triple after the turn of 2000 ... as of right now, my health insurance is saving me $$ VS what I was paying ... I don't find that insane in the least.

I don't think you read my post correctly

I didn't even comment on the cost of insurance.

At all.

to me though the trouble is the cost of the care itself is fucking insane.... you didn't type that?

my bad.

 

[G.T.]

I've been self insured for almost 2 decades. I watched my policy almost triple after the turn of 2000 ... as of right now, my health insurance is saving me $$ VS what I was paying ... I don't find that insane in the least.

I don't think you read my post correctly

I didn't even comment on the cost of insurance.

At all.

to me though the trouble is the cost of the care itself is fucking insane.... you didn't type that?

my bad.

the care itself



is not the insurance cost


its the cost of the care




surely, you can understand there is a difference?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

If I own a house, I take a risk if I don't buy fire insurance. If I have a mortgage, the bank can decide it is not worth the risk and thereby make me buy fire insurance as a condition for giving me the loan. Nothing wrong with that at all. Banks making you buy insurance as long as you owe them money is universal.

But if I own my house free and clear, no one other than me stands to lose anything if my house burns down.

Same thing with health insurance. No one other than me would stand to lose anything if my health turns bad. I'd have some hellacious medical bills if I break a leg and don't have insurance. It would be my decision whether or not to take that risk.

There may be occupations which would require me to buy insurance as a condition of employment. Again, nothing wrong with that.

Autos are different. If I crash my car into someone else, they clearly stand to be harmed by that, and so we have auto insurance as a condition of being allowed to drive around.

What if you're lucky enough to go through life with only a broken leg? Do you know how much it costs these days to survive cancer for 5 years? Only Warren Buffett or Bill Gates could manage that, and the other folks on the Forbes 400. It literally runs into about $2,500,000.00+. Can you write a check for that?