Making Health Insurance Companies Illegal Will Solve Everything?

[Arianrhod]

This is a statement made by a poster in this forum, who believes that private health insurance needs to be abolished by law and, apparently, nothing put in its place.

Clearly this would involve the government taking action to disband all insurance corporations nationwide (IIRC, something similar happened overseas in 1917) and then somehow, according to this poster, the costs of medical care would be drastically reduced.

As the poster who made this claim was unable to provide any details of his Master Plan, I’m putting this to the entire forum:

• Is this something you’d like to see?
• If so, can you provide specifics as to how it would work?
• Or do you think it’s completely daft?

Any and all thoughts welcome.

 

[Conservative65]

This is a statement made by a poster in this forum, who believes that private health insurance needs to be abolished by law and, apparently, nothing put in its place.

Clearly this would involve the government taking action to disband all insurance corporations nationwide (IIRC, something similar happened overseas in 1917) and then somehow, according to this poster, the costs of medical care would be drastically reduced.

As the poster who made this claim was unable to provide any details of his Master Plan, I’m putting this to the entire forum:

• Is this something you’d like to see?
• If so, can you provide specifics as to how it would work?
• Or do you think it’s completely daft?

Any and all thoughts welcome.

The government needs to get out of the healthcare industry altogether. If you think someone without coverage should have it, buy it for them. However, the government shouldn't mandate one person funding it for another.

 

[threegoofs]

This is a statement made by a poster in this forum, who believes that private health insurance needs to be abolished by law and, apparently, nothing put in its place.

Clearly this would involve the government taking action to disband all insurance corporations nationwide (IIRC, something similar happened overseas in 1917) and then somehow, according to this poster, the costs of medical care would be drastically reduced.

As the poster who made this claim was unable to provide any details of his Master Plan, I’m putting this to the entire forum:

• Is this something you’d like to see?
• If so, can you provide specifics as to how it would work?
• Or do you think it’s completely daft?

Any and all thoughts welcome.

The government needs to get out of the healthcare industry altogether. If you think someone without coverage should have it, buy it for them. However, the government shouldn't mandate one person funding it for another.

So Medicare and Medicaid need to be abolished? Good luck with that.

Or do you mean there should be no regulation of the healthcare industry? Anything goes? Eliminate the FDA and hope for the best?

 

[Arianrhod]

The government needs to get out of the healthcare industry altogether.

Irrelevant to the OP:

(A) the PPACA is not healthcare. If you don't understand that, none of your posts on the topic will make sense
(B) You still haven't explained how outlawing private insurance companies will solve anything

Obviously you can't answer (B). It's a child's response. But it would be encouraging if you could show us that you understand (A).

 

[Conservative65]

The government needs to get out of the healthcare industry altogether.

Irrelevant to the OP:

(A) the PPACA is not healthcare. If you don't understand that, none of your posts on the topic will make sense
(B) You still haven't explained how outlawing private insurance companies will solve anything

Obviously you can't answer (B). It's a child's response. But it would be encouraging if you could show us that you understand (A).

I'm fully aware of what Obamacare is. It's not the process of providing healthcare. It's just another leech based program where one group of people is forced to subsidize yet another handout for people who should be providing something for themselves.

 

[Conservative65]

This is a statement made by a poster in this forum, who believes that private health insurance needs to be abolished by law and, apparently, nothing put in its place.

Clearly this would involve the government taking action to disband all insurance corporations nationwide (IIRC, something similar happened overseas in 1917) and then somehow, according to this poster, the costs of medical care would be drastically reduced.

As the poster who made this claim was unable to provide any details of his Master Plan, I’m putting this to the entire forum:

• Is this something you’d like to see?
• If so, can you provide specifics as to how it would work?
• Or do you think it’s completely daft?

Any and all thoughts welcome.

The government needs to get out of the healthcare industry altogether. If you think someone without coverage should have it, buy it for them. However, the government shouldn't mandate one person funding it for another.

So Medicare and Medicaid need to be abolished? Good luck with that.

Or do you mean there should be no regulation of the healthcare industry? Anything goes? Eliminate the FDA and hope for the best?

There is a difference between regulation for safety and forcing one group to fund healthcare for another group.

 

[Arianrhod]

I'm fully aware of what Obamacare is. It's not the process of providing healthcare.

Excellent. So now we can return to the OP.

You want the government to make insurance companies illegal.

But you also state that the government has no business being involved in any aspect of healthcare provision.

Apparently you're saying "I want the government to outlaw insurance and then go away."

What happens next in your scenario?

 

[Conservative65]

I'm fully aware of what Obamacare is. It's not the process of providing healthcare.

Excellent. So now we can return to the OP.

You want the government to make insurance companies illegal.

But you also state that the government has no business being involved in any aspect of healthcare provision.

Apparently you're saying "I want the government to outlaw insurance and then go away."

What happens next in your scenario?

I want the government to stay out of the healthcare business. If you think someone that doesn't have coverage should have it, pay their premiums out of your own pocket. What I want the government to do is stop forcing one group the bleeding hearts think has too much to continue to give to those the bleeding hearts think have too little. I don't owe anyone healthcare coverage. If you think it's owed to someone else, pay for it yourself.

 

[threegoofs]

This is a statement made by a poster in this forum, who believes that private health insurance needs to be abolished by law and, apparently, nothing put in its place.

Clearly this would involve the government taking action to disband all insurance corporations nationwide (IIRC, something similar happened overseas in 1917) and then somehow, according to this poster, the costs of medical care would be drastically reduced.

As the poster who made this claim was unable to provide any details of his Master Plan, I’m putting this to the entire forum:

• Is this something you’d like to see?
• If so, can you provide specifics as to how it would work?
• Or do you think it’s completely daft?

Any and all thoughts welcome.

The government needs to get out of the healthcare industry altogether. If you think someone without coverage should have it, buy it for them. However, the government shouldn't mandate one person funding it for another.

So Medicare and Medicaid need to be abolished? Good luck with that.

Or do you mean there should be no regulation of the healthcare industry? Anything goes? Eliminate the FDA and hope for the best?

There is a difference between regulation for safety and forcing one group to fund healthcare for another group.

Well, the statement 'keep the government out of healthcare' is pretty broad. And would, for example, patent protection on drugs be in your now narrower definition?

I assume Medicare is. How would you propose the elderly get health insurance, given the fact that almost by definition, the only people who can fund insurance for the elderly (which consumes a massive amount of health care) is almost by definition 'another group'?

Or didnt you think that far?

 

[Arianrhod]

I want the government to stay out of the healthcare business.

So that would be after it does your bidding and destroys all private insurance companies.

 

[Pop23]

Yeah, can't possibly work.

Direct Primary Care - Cash Only Doctors Say No to Your Health Insuranc... - AARP


Pay Flat Fees to Doctors With Direct Primary Care

 

[Conservative65]

I want the government to stay out of the healthcare business.

So that would be after it does your bidding and destroys all private insurance companies.

Private insurance is the way it should be done. If you can't afford it, you can either get some bleeding heart who says you deserve it to fund it or fucking do without it. Either way, as long as I'm not forced by the government to fund it, I'm OK.

 

[Conservative65]

This is a statement made by a poster in this forum, who believes that private health insurance needs to be abolished by law and, apparently, nothing put in its place.

Clearly this would involve the government taking action to disband all insurance corporations nationwide (IIRC, something similar happened overseas in 1917) and then somehow, according to this poster, the costs of medical care would be drastically reduced.

As the poster who made this claim was unable to provide any details of his Master Plan, I’m putting this to the entire forum:

• Is this something you’d like to see?
• If so, can you provide specifics as to how it would work?
• Or do you think it’s completely daft?

Any and all thoughts welcome.

The government needs to get out of the healthcare industry altogether. If you think someone without coverage should have it, buy it for them. However, the government shouldn't mandate one person funding it for another.

So Medicare and Medicaid need to be abolished? Good luck with that.

Or do you mean there should be no regulation of the healthcare industry? Anything goes? Eliminate the FDA and hope for the best?

There is a difference between regulation for safety and forcing one group to fund healthcare for another group.

Well, the statement 'keep the government out of healthcare' is pretty broad. And would, for example, patent protection on drugs be in your now narrower definition?

I assume Medicare is. How would you propose the elderly get health insurance, given the fact that almost by definition, the only people who can fund insurance for the elderly (which consumes a massive amount of health care) is almost by definition 'another group'?

Or didnt you think that far?

Since I understand the difference between regulation for safety and mandating funding by one group for another, I saw no need to make that distinction. Perhaps I should have for those unable to make the distinction.

I propose anyone that needs insurance and can't afford it find someone to provide it for them. If my parents, both of whom are near 80, need something, it's provided by the family. That's how it was done until the government decided to get it on it. It worked far longer to do it that way than the government has been involved. It also worked better.

 

[Arianrhod]

Private insurance is the way it should be done.

So you've flip-flopped. You no longer want the government to "make insurance illegal." Okay.

Yeah, can't possibly work.

Direct Primary Care - Cash Only Doctors Say No to Your Health Insuranc... - AARP


Pay Flat Fees to Doctors With Direct Primary Care

I didn't realize this forum was populated by millionaires:

Annual Costs of Cancer Care | Cancer Prevalence and Cost of Care Projections

 

[Conservative65]

Private insurance is the way it should be done.

So you've flip-flopped. You no longer want the government to "make insurance illegal." Okay.

Yeah, can't possibly work.

Direct Primary Care - Cash Only Doctors Say No to Your Health Insuranc... - AARP


Pay Flat Fees to Doctors With Direct Primary Care

I didn't realize this forum was populated by millionaires:

Annual Costs of Cancer Care | Cancer Prevalence and Cost of Care Projections

I never said make insurance illegal. I said keep the government out of mandating it and forcing one group to fund it for another. Private insurance is what I've supported. Your claims otherwise are incorrect.

 

[Pop23]

Private insurance is the way it should be done.

So you've flip-flopped. You no longer want the government to "make insurance illegal." Okay.

Yeah, can't possibly work.

Direct Primary Care - Cash Only Doctors Say No to Your Health Insuranc... - AARP


Pay Flat Fees to Doctors With Direct Primary Care

I didn't realize this forum was populated by millionaires:

Annual Costs of Cancer Care | Cancer Prevalence and Cost of Care Projections

The question isn't, nor should be what the cost is, but why.

I've posted a model used to reduce the cost of health care, and your response seems to be, there can't possibly be a reasonable way to reduce health care expense because it's expensive now.

With that mindset, you might as well just bend over and take it, right?

 

[Conservative65]

Private insurance is the way it should be done.

So you've flip-flopped. You no longer want the government to "make insurance illegal." Okay.

Yeah, can't possibly work.

Direct Primary Care - Cash Only Doctors Say No to Your Health Insuranc... - AARP


Pay Flat Fees to Doctors With Direct Primary Care

I didn't realize this forum was populated by millionaires:

Annual Costs of Cancer Care | Cancer Prevalence and Cost of Care Projections

The question isn't, nor should be what the cost is, but why.

I've posted a model used to reduce the cost of health care, and your response seems to be, there can't possibly be a reasonable way to reduce health care expense because it's expensive now.

With that mindset, you might as well just bend over and take it, right?

All Arianrhod knows is government, government, government.

 

[threegoofs]

This is a statement made by a poster in this forum, who believes that private health insurance needs to be abolished by law and, apparently, nothing put in its place.

Clearly this would involve the government taking action to disband all insurance corporations nationwide (IIRC, something similar happened overseas in 1917) and then somehow, according to this poster, the costs of medical care would be drastically reduced.

As the poster who made this claim was unable to provide any details of his Master Plan, I’m putting this to the entire forum:

• Is this something you’d like to see?
• If so, can you provide specifics as to how it would work?
• Or do you think it’s completely daft?

Any and all thoughts welcome.

The government needs to get out of the healthcare industry altogether. If you think someone without coverage should have it, buy it for them. However, the government shouldn't mandate one person funding it for another.

So Medicare and Medicaid need to be abolished? Good luck with that.

Or do you mean there should be no regulation of the healthcare industry? Anything goes? Eliminate the FDA and hope for the best?

There is a difference between regulation for safety and forcing one group to fund healthcare for another group.

Well, the statement 'keep the government out of healthcare' is pretty broad. And would, for example, patent protection on drugs be in your now narrower definition?

I assume Medicare is. How would you propose the elderly get health insurance, given the fact that almost by definition, the only people who can fund insurance for the elderly (which consumes a massive amount of health care) is almost by definition 'another group'?

Or didnt you think that far?

Since I understand the difference between regulation for safety and mandating funding by one group for another, I saw no need to make that distinction. Perhaps I should have for those unable to make the distinction.

I propose anyone that needs insurance and can't afford it find someone to provide it for them. If my parents, both of whom are near 80, need something, it's provided by the family. That's how it was done until the government decided to get it on it. It worked far longer to do it that way than the government has been involved. It also worked better.

So you post some general statement and think that you dont need to describe it, even though its pretty damn clear you are backtracking on it with every post.

Well,what would happen if you werent around? Are your parents going to just be taken care of by charity? Because that system didnt work real well at the turn of the last century, and in fact the elderly healthcare system, especially for the poor, worked SO badly that by the time modern medicine, with its expensive tests and treatments came around in the 60s, Medicare was necessary to pass.

So if (actually, when, really) you're parents get hospitalized with their final illness, and the medical bills turn out to be a half million each (not an unreasonable charge for a course of cancer treatment, or an extensive ICU stay), when will you cut them off? The first 100k? The first 500k?

Given the fact that most elderly people will not be able to pay for their health care since they tend not to be well off, you need to have some type of system unless you're OK with most elderly dying off in their 70s, after they have impoverished their children.

 

[Conservative65]

The government needs to get out of the healthcare industry altogether. If you think someone without coverage should have it, buy it for them. However, the government shouldn't mandate one person funding it for another.

So Medicare and Medicaid need to be abolished? Good luck with that.

Or do you mean there should be no regulation of the healthcare industry? Anything goes? Eliminate the FDA and hope for the best?

There is a difference between regulation for safety and forcing one group to fund healthcare for another group.

Well, the statement 'keep the government out of healthcare' is pretty broad. And would, for example, patent protection on drugs be in your now narrower definition?

I assume Medicare is. How would you propose the elderly get health insurance, given the fact that almost by definition, the only people who can fund insurance for the elderly (which consumes a massive amount of health care) is almost by definition 'another group'?

Or didnt you think that far?

Since I understand the difference between regulation for safety and mandating funding by one group for another, I saw no need to make that distinction. Perhaps I should have for those unable to make the distinction.

I propose anyone that needs insurance and can't afford it find someone to provide it for them. If my parents, both of whom are near 80, need something, it's provided by the family. That's how it was done until the government decided to get it on it. It worked far longer to do it that way than the government has been involved. It also worked better.

So you post some general statement and think that you dont need to describe it, even though its pretty damn clear you are backtracking on it with every post.

Well,what would happen if you werent around? Are your parents going to just be taken care of by charity? Because that system didnt work real well at the turn of the last century, and in fact the elderly healthcare system, especially for the poor, worked SO badly that by the time modern medicine, with its expensive tests and treatments came around in the 60s, Medicare was necessary to pass.

So if (actually, when, really) you're parents get hospitalized with their final illness, and the medical bills turn out to be a half million each (not an unreasonable charge for a course of cancer treatment, or an extensive ICU stay), when will you cut them off? The first 100k? The first 500k?

Given the fact that most elderly people will not be able to pay for their health care since they tend not to be well off, you need to have some type of system unless you're OK with most elderly dying off in their 70s, after they have impoverished their children.

I know the difference between regulation and financial mandates.

Typical what if argument. How about dealing in reality rather than hypotheticals.

I'll take care of mine and you can take care of yours. If you can't, it's not my place to be forced to do it for you or anyone else.

 

[Arianrhod]

I've posted a model used to reduce the cost of health care, and your response seems to be, there can't possibly be a reasonable way to reduce health care expense because it's expensive now.

So either you can afford 21K a year to pay for cancer treatment, or you don't understand the process of cancer treatment and what costs it entails. Or possibly both.

Here's another:

MS: The Basics : Rocky Mountain MS Center

So how wealthy are you?